Reduce Unnecessary Spending Act of 2010

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Corker and myself, I rise to introduce the Tennessee Wilderness Act of 2010. The legislation will implement an important next step in conservation for some of the wildest, most beautiful and pristine areas in east Tennessee near where I live. To say that these are among the wildest, most pristine and beautiful areas sets a very high bar since the region is home to the Appalachian Mountains, and our Nation's most visited national park, a World Heritage site--in fact, one of the most visited sites in the world--the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, much of which is managed as if it were a wilderness area.

From growing up in these mountains and my many years of hiking the quiet trails of the Cherokee National Forest, I can attest that the wilderness areas we protected there are something very special. Congress began protecting wilderness areas in the Cherokee National Forest in 1975, with additional wilderness areas being established by the Tennessee Wilderness Act of 1984 and the Tennessee Wilderness Act of 1986. I was Governor of Tennessee during that time. I remember testifying on behalf of and strongly supporting our congressional delegation as we did that. I know sometimes our western friends are surprised to see Tennessee Republicans advocating wilderness, bragging about the fact that the Great Smoky Mountains National Park is managed in large extent as if it were a wilderness area and adding certain sections of the Cherokee National Forest to wilderness.

The Federal Government doesn't own very much of our land, but we have lots of visitors. Two or three times as many people visited the Great Smokies as visit Yellowstone. We have lots of visitors but very little Federal land. We like to protect it. We like to have clean air. We like to enjoy it ourselves.

We like the Cherokee National Forest because it gives us an opportunity to do some things we can't do in the national park. We can hunt, fish, ride horses, camp, do things in a great many ways. I believe this legislation, the Tennessee Wilderness Act of 2010, will create for Tennessee families and especially Tennessee youngsters, who need to be outdoors and away from the computer screens and television screens, an even more attractive opportunity to enjoy this beautiful part of our natural heritage.

I emphasize that the lands that will be designated as wilderness by this legislation are already Federal lands. They are part of the Cherokee National Forest. The areas covered were recommended for wilderness by the U.S. Forest Service in the development of its comprehensive 2004 forest plan which included extensive opportunities for public comment. Those areas have been managed as if they were wilderness areas since that time.

This new bill will officially designate as wilderness nearly 20,000 acres as recommended by the Forest Service. The bill establishes one new wilderness area, the 9,038 acre Upper Bald River Wilderness in Monroe County. This new area complements the existing Bald River Gorge Wilderness. It lies just south of that existing area, separated only by the Bald River Road, which will, of course, remain an open public road.

By protecting the Upper Bald River Wilderness as well as the existing wilderness area, we will be protecting most of the Bald River watershed. Excellent trails traverse the Upper Bald River area, including the Benton MacKaye Trail, offering excellent hiking, backpacking, and horseback riding, as well as access for hunters and fishermen.

The rest of the lands designated as wilderness in this legislation are relatively small but important additions to some of the areas Congress established in 1975, 1984 and 1986. They have the effect of better protecting not only ecosystems and watersheds but also the diverse recreational value of these areas.

At the southern end of the Cherokee National Forest is one of the largest national forest wilderness complexes in the Southeastern United States. It comprises the Cohutta Wilderness, most of which lies in Georgia, and the Big Frog Wilderness in Polk County, TN. The new legislation makes a small but important addition of 348 acres to the Big Frog Wilderness. The Big Frog-Cohutta combination, with adjacent primitive areas, creates the largest track of wilderness on national forest lands in the Eastern United States.

In the same way, the new legislation makes two small but important additions to the Little Frog Mountain Wilderness, also in Polk County. These additions, totaling 966 acres, were recommended by the Forest Service to give more logical boundaries to the Little Frog Mountain Wilderness and protect the corridor for the Benton MacKaye Trail.

In upper east Tennessee, in Unicoi and Washington Counties, this new legislation would add 2,922 acres to the Sampson Mountain Wilderness. This is at the heart of a marvelous scenic region of our State. Along these scenic trails, visitors can see flame azalea, mountain laurel, rhododendron, trailing arbutus, crested dwarf iris, mayapple, bloodroot, toothwort, magnolia, dogwood, redbud, and many other flowering plants, shrubs, and trees. The last 2 or 3 months have been the time of year to visit that area with its many species of shrubs and trees.

The 1986 Tennessee Wilderness Act established the Big Laurel Branch Wilderness in Carter and Johnson Counties at the furthest upper east Tennessee end of our State. The new legislation proposes to add 4,446 acres, including some 4.5 miles of the Appalachian National Scenic Trail. The addition lies along the slopes of Iron Mountain just north of Watauga Lake, one of the cleanest lakes in America.

The final element of the new legislation is an important addition to the Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock Wilderness. Here visitors will find perhaps the most impressive stands of virgin eastern forest in the United States. The 1,836-acre addition includes remnant old-growth forest. The Benton MacKaye Trail passes through this area, making it a

popular destination for horseback riders and hikers.

This is a simple bill, but it will make a significant contribution for these wild and pristine areas of the Cherokee National Forest.

I thank and salute the Cherokee National Forest staff and the many citizens of Tennessee who worked to define these proposals and to build grassroots support. These proposals have broad support from outdoors clubs, trail maintenance groups, local businesses, and conservation organizations.

I specifically want to thank Will Skelton, a Knoxville lawyer who has been instrumental in conservation for decades in Tennessee. No one has done more to help more families appreciate, enjoy, and hike in the Cherokee National Forest than has Will Skelton. I thank the Tennessee Wild group for their role in this proposal.

Getting out in the woods and mountains of east Tennessee is an ever more popular activity. People go to the wilderness to experience nature most wild, walking a trail to some resting place where the noises are trees creaking, the smells are of wet moss and leaves, the colors are pure, and the world is at peace. That is why these protected wilderness areas have such immense value for our people, and it is why the value will multiply many times as our world grows more crowded.

The foundational statute under which we protect the wilderness areas is the 1964 Wilderness Act. The Congress of that time showed extraordinary prescience about the threats that destroy wilderness:

In order to assure that an increasing population,

accompanied by expanding settlement and growing

mechanization, does not occupy and modify all areas of the

United States and its possessions, leaving no lands

designated for preservation and protection in their natural

condition, it is hereby declared to be the policy of the

Congress to secure for the American people of present and

future generations the benefits of an enduring resource of

wilderness.

We need more opportunities for young Americans to get away from the computer screens and into the American outdoors. Eastern Tennessee provides a beautiful place to do that, and this act will provide more opportunities for that as well.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and support material be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Carper, and the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, and others in introducing the Reduce Unnecessary Spending Act of 2010, a bill which effectively gives the President a line item veto to cancel wasteful spending.

Based on President Obama's proposal, our measure would permit the President to get expedited consideration in both the House and Senate of a package of proposed spending cuts within larger spending bills Congress sends to the President. The President would have 45 days from when the initial spending measure was enacted to submit his proposed cuts, and once that package of cuts is sent to the Hill, Congress would have less than a month to act on them. Any savings produced if Congress enacts these spending cut packages would go directly to reduce the deficit.

Just a few weeks ago, I chaired a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee's Constitution Subcommittee at which this proposal and similar proposals were reviewed, and I am pleased to say that the consensus of that hearing is that the bill we are introducing today is clearly constitutional.

When he took office, President Obama was handed perhaps the worst economic and fiscal mess facing any administration since Franklin Roosevelt took office in 1933. The legacy President Obama inherited poses a gigantic challenge.

There is no magic bullet that will solve all our budget problems. Congress has to make some tough decisions, and there will be no avoiding them if we are to get our fiscal house in order. But we can take some steps that will help Congress make the right decisions, and that can sustain the progress we make.

A line-item veto, properly structured and respectful of the constitutionally central role Congress plays, as this legislation is, can help us get back on track.

As I noted before, Mr. President, I am joined in this effort by a number of colleagues, but most notably by Senator Carper and Senator McCain. I have been privileged to work on a number of critical budget reforms with Senator Carper. He has long been an advocate of this kind of expedited rescission or line item veto authority, and was the lead author of a similarly structured measure when he served in the other body.

I have also been pleased to work with Senator McCain on budget matters. He and I have worked together for the past two decades to oppose wasteful earmark spending, and more recently I have been pleased to work with him on line item veto proposals, including this one.

I also thank my colleague from Wisconsin, Congressman Paul Ryan, for working with me on this issue for several years now. He and I belong to different political parties, and differ on many issues. But we do share at least two things in common--our hometown of Janesville, Wisconsin, and an abiding respect for Wisconsin's tradition of fiscal responsibility. Earlier this year, Congressman Ryan raised this issue with President Obama at a meeting in Baltimore, and I thank him for his efforts to advance this issue.

The bill we introduce today is a significant step forward in our joint efforts to provide the President with the kind of authority needed to cut wasteful spending. As I noted earlier, this legislation is essentially the bill President Obama proposed just a few weeks ago. It provides the President the ability to get quick and definitive congressional action on cuts to individual programs in large spending bills.

Currently, the President must choose between vetoing a bill in its entirety,

or signing it and possibly enacting billions of dollars of wasteful spending. With this bill, the President will have a third option-- signing a spending bill, but then submitting a package of proposed cuts from that spending bill to Congress for quick review. The package of cuts proposed by the President will get an up or down vote in the House and, if it passes there, an up or down vote in the Senate.

Our line item veto bill covers earmark discretionary spending as well as broader non-entitlement spending accounts. The measure excludes entitlement spending and tax expenditures from the expedited rescission approach. Spending done through entitlements and tax expenditures make up an enormous amount of the total spending done by the Federal Government. However, unlike the programmatic spending done in discretionary programs, where cuts can be made by zeroing out or reducing a number for a specific account, reducing spending in entitlements or tax expenditures often requires a change in the underlying policy. Indeed, Congress already has a fast-track procedure designed specifically for considering legislation that reduces spending done through entitlements and tax expenditures. It is called reconciliation, and it was used effectively in the 1990s to reduce the deficit.

As I mentioned, a key target of this new line item veto bill is the unauthorized earmark spending that too often finds its way into large appropriations bills. Earmark spending was what Congressman Ryan and I targeted in our line item veto proposal, and it is the example every line-item veto proponent cites when promoting their legislation.

When President Bush asked for this kind of authority, the examples he gave when citing wasteful spending he wanted to target were congressional earmarks. When Members of the House or Senate tout a new line-item veto authority to go after government waste, the examples they give are congressional earmarks. When editorial pages argue for a new line-item veto, they, too, cite congressional earmarks as the reason for granting the President this new authority.

Unauthorized congressional earmarks are a serious problem. We won't solve our budget problems just by addressing earmarks, but if we are to get our fiscal house in order, eliminating earmarks has to be part of the solution. For all the lip service Congress pays to this issue, there are still thousands of earmarked spending provisions enacted every year. Just last year, the Omnibus Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2009 passed in March of 2009 contained more than 8,000 earmarks costing $7 billion, and the Consolidated Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2010 passed in December of 2009 included nearly 5,000 earmarks, costing $3.7 billion.

There is no excuse for a system that allows that kind of wasteful spending year after year. And given the unwillingness of Congress to discipline itself in this regard, it is appropriate to provide the President some additional authority to seek an up or down vote in Congress on proposed cuts in this area of spending.

This is not a cure-all. We will not balance the budget just by passing a line item veto-like authority for the President. Nor will we balance the budget just by eliminating wasteful earmark spending. But we can make real progress in getting our fiscal house in order, and in changing the culture of Washington which over the last 2 decades has seen an explosion of spending done through unauthorized earmarks that circumvent regular congressional review and the scrutiny of the competitive grant process.

Like the measure Congressman Ryan and I introduced, under this proposal, wasteful spending doesn't have anywhere to hide. It's out in the open, so that both Congress and the President have a chance to get rid of wasteful projects before they begin. The taxpayers--who pay the price for these projects--deserve a process that shows some real fiscal discipline, and that is what this legislation promotes.

President Obama recognizes the pernicious effect earmarks have on the entire process. When he asked Congress to take the extraordinary step of sending him a massive economic recovery package, he knew such a large package of spending and tax cuts would naturally attract earmarks. He also recognized that were earmarks to be added to the bill, it would undermine his ability to get it enacted, so he rightly insisted it be free of earmarks.

I am delighted he has stepped forward to propose a new line item veto-like authority, and I am especially pleased to be introducing that proposal with my colleagues today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Carper, and the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, and others in introducing the Reduce Unnecessary Spending Act of 2010, a bill which effectively gives the President a line item veto to cancel wasteful spending.

Based on President Obama's proposal, our measure would permit the President to get expedited consideration in both the House and Senate of a package of proposed spending cuts within larger spending bills Congress sends to the President. The President would have 45 days from when the initial spending measure was enacted to submit his proposed cuts, and once that package of cuts is sent to the Hill, Congress would have less than a month to act on them. Any savings produced if Congress enacts these spending cut packages would go directly to reduce the deficit.

Just a few weeks ago, I chaired a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee's Constitution Subcommittee at which this proposal and similar proposals were reviewed, and I am pleased to say that the consensus of that hearing is that the bill we are introducing today is clearly constitutional.

When he took office, President Obama was handed perhaps the worst economic and fiscal mess facing any administration since Franklin Roosevelt took office in 1933. The legacy President Obama inherited poses a gigantic challenge.

There is no magic bullet that will solve all our budget problems. Congress has to make some tough decisions, and there will be no avoiding them if we are to get our fiscal house in order. But we can take some steps that will help Congress make the right decisions, and that can sustain the progress we make.

A line-item veto, properly structured and respectful of the constitutionally central role Congress plays, as this legislation is, can help us get back on track.

As I noted before, Mr. President, I am joined in this effort by a number of colleagues, but most notably by Senator Carper and Senator McCain. I have been privileged to work on a number of critical budget reforms with Senator Carper. He has long been an advocate of this kind of expedited rescission or line item veto authority, and was the lead author of a similarly structured measure when he served in the other body.

I have also been pleased to work with Senator McCain on budget matters. He and I have worked together for the past two decades to oppose wasteful earmark spending, and more recently I have been pleased to work with him on line item veto proposals, including this one.

I also thank my colleague from Wisconsin, Congressman Paul Ryan, for working with me on this issue for several years now. He and I belong to different political parties, and differ on many issues. But we do share at least two things in common--our hometown of Janesville, Wisconsin, and an abiding respect for Wisconsin's tradition of fiscal responsibility. Earlier this year, Congressman Ryan raised this issue with President Obama at a meeting in Baltimore, and I thank him for his efforts to advance this issue.

The bill we introduce today is a significant step forward in our joint efforts to provide the President with the kind of authority needed to cut wasteful spending. As I noted earlier, this legislation is essentially the bill President Obama proposed just a few weeks ago. It provides the President the ability to get quick and definitive congressional action on cuts to individual programs in large spending bills.

Currently, the President must choose between vetoing a bill in its entirety,

or signing it and possibly enacting billions of dollars of wasteful spending. With this bill, the President will have a third option-- signing a spending bill, but then submitting a package of proposed cuts from that spending bill to Congress for quick review. The package of cuts proposed by the President will get an up or down vote in the House and, if it passes there, an up or down vote in the Senate.

Our line item veto bill covers earmark discretionary spending as well as broader non-entitlement spending accounts. The measure excludes entitlement spending and tax expenditures from the expedited rescission approach. Spending done through entitlements and tax expenditures make up an enormous amount of the total spending done by the Federal Government. However, unlike the programmatic spending done in discretionary programs, where cuts can be made by zeroing out or reducing a number for a specific account, reducing spending in entitlements or tax expenditures often requires a change in the underlying policy. Indeed, Congress already has a fast-track procedure designed specifically for considering legislation that reduces spending done through entitlements and tax expenditures. It is called reconciliation, and it was used effectively in the 1990s to reduce the deficit.

As I mentioned, a key target of this new line item veto bill is the unauthorized earmark spending that too often finds its way into large appropriations bills. Earmark spending was what Congressman Ryan and I targeted in our line item veto proposal, and it is the example every line-item veto proponent cites when promoting their legislation.

When President Bush asked for this kind of authority, the examples he gave when citing wasteful spending he wanted to target were congressional earmarks. When Members of the House or Senate tout a new line-item veto authority to go after government waste, the examples they give are congressional earmarks. When editorial pages argue for a new line-item veto, they, too, cite congressional earmarks as the reason for granting the President this new authority.

Unauthorized congressional earmarks are a serious problem. We won't solve our budget problems just by addressing earmarks, but if we are to get our fiscal house in order, eliminating earmarks has to be part of the solution. For all the lip service Congress pays to this issue, there are still thousands of earmarked spending provisions enacted every year. Just last year, the Omnibus Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2009 passed in March of 2009 contained more than 8,000 earmarks costing $7 billion, and the Consolidated Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2010 passed in December of 2009 included nearly 5,000 earmarks, costing $3.7 billion.

There is no excuse for a system that allows that kind of wasteful spending year after year. And given the unwillingness of Congress to discipline itself in this regard, it is appropriate to provide the President some additional authority to seek an up or down vote in Congress on proposed cuts in this area of spending.

This is not a cure-all. We will not balance the budget just by passing a line item veto-like authority for the President. Nor will we balance the budget just by eliminating wasteful earmark spending. But we can make real progress in getting our fiscal house in order, and in changing the culture of Washington which over the last 2 decades has seen an explosion of spending done through unauthorized earmarks that circumvent regular congressional review and the scrutiny of the competitive grant process.

Like the measure Congressman Ryan and I introduced, under this proposal, wasteful spending doesn't have anywhere to hide. It's out in the open, so that both Congress and the President have a chance to get rid of wasteful projects before they begin. The taxpayers--who pay the price for these projects--deserve a process that shows some real fiscal discipline, and that is what this legislation promotes.

President Obama recognizes the pernicious effect earmarks have on the entire process. When he asked Congress to take the extraordinary step of sending him a massive economic recovery package, he knew such a large package of spending and tax cuts would naturally attract earmarks. He also recognized that were earmarks to be added to the bill, it would undermine his ability to get it enacted, so he rightly insisted it be free of earmarks.

I am delighted he has stepped forward to propose a new line item veto-like authority, and I am especially pleased to be introducing that proposal with my colleagues today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today, I introduce the Environmental Crimes Enforcement Act, ECEA, common sense legislation that will ensure that those who destroy the lives and livelihoods of Americans through environmental crime are held accountable.

It has been 50 days since the collapse of British Petroleum's Deepwater Horizon Oil Rig, which killed 11 men. Oil continues to gush into the Gulf of Mexico, and deadly contaminants are washing up on the shores and wetlands of Gulf Coast States. This catastrophe threatens the livelihood of many thousands of people throughout the region, as well as precious natural resources and habitats. The people responsible for this catastrophe must be held accountable; they, not the American taxpayers, should pay for the damage and the recovery. The bill I introduce today aims to deter environmental crime, protect and compensate its victims, and encourage accountability among corporate actors.

First, ECEA will deter schemes by Big Oil and other corporations and industries that damage our environment and hurt hardworking Americans by increasing sentences for environmental crimes. All too often, corporations treat fines and monetary penalties as merely a cost of doing business to be factored against profits. To deter criminal behavior by corporations, it is important to have laws resulting in prison time. In that light, this bill directs the United States Sentencing Commission to amend the sentencing guidelines for environmental crimes to reflect the seriousness of these crimes.

Criminal penalties for Clean Water Act violations are not as severe as for other white-collar crimes, despite the widespread harm such crimes can cause. As the current crisis makes clear, Clean Water Act offenses can have serious consequences on people's lives and livelihoods, which should be reflected in the sentences given to the criminals who commit them. This bill takes a reasonable approach, asking the Sentencing Commission to study the issue and raise sentencing guidelines appropriately, and it will have a real deterrent effect.

This bill also aims to help victims of environmental crime--the people who lose their livelihoods, their communities, and even their loved ones--reclaim their natural and economic resources. To do that, ECEA makes restitution mandatory for criminal Clean Water Act violations.

Currently, restitution in environmental crimes--even crimes that result in death--is discretionary, and only available under limited circumstances. Under this bill, those who commit Clean Water Act offenses would have to compensate the victims of these offense for their losses. That restitution will help the people of the Gulf Coast rebuild their coastline and wetlands, their fisheries, and their livelihoods should criminal liability be found.

Importantly, this bill will allow the families of those killed to be compensated for criminal wrongdoing. As we have seen in the BP case, arbitrary laws prevent those killed in tragedies like this one from bringing civil lawsuits for compensation. This bill would ensure that, when a crime is committed, the criminal justice system can provide for restitution to victims, providing some small measure of security for the families of those killed.

This bill takes two common sense steps--well-reasoned increases in sentences and mandatory restitution for environmental crime. These measures are tough, but fair. They are important steps toward deterring criminal conduct that can cause environmental and economic disaster and toward helping those who have suffered so much from the wrongdoing of Big Oil and other large corporations. I hope all Senators will join me in supporting this important reform.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am proud to introduce legislation to designate the United States Postal Service in Sharon, Massachusetts, as the Michael C. Rothberg Post Office.

Michael Craig Rothberg was born and raised in Sharon. Upon graduation from Sharon High School, Michael earned both undergraduate and master's degree in math and computer science from McGill University in Montreal. Unfortunately, Michael Rothberg's life was tragically cut short on the morning of September 11, 2001, at age 39, while working in his Cantor Fitzgerald office on the 104th floor of the World Trade Center.

During his lifetime, Michael Rothberg created much more than a successful professional life. He used his resources generously contributing not only financial support, but also his time and energy for causes he believed in. He worked hard for causes such as the Dana Farber Cancer Institute's Jimmy Fund, the Multiple Sclerosis Foundation, and Mutual Funds against Cancer. His spirit is remembered through many contributions to the Town of Sharon through the Michael C. Rothberg Memorial Scholarship and other notable charitable contributions to students, athletes and the community of Sharon, Massachusetts.

The people of Sharon, Massachusetts are very proud of Michael and the example he set. It is fitting then that when people go to or pass by the post office in Sharon, they will be reminded of a local man who understood how important it is to give back to causes that touch your heart.