Floor Statements

Thank you, Mr. President.

While I will be speaking on the subject of Senator Byrd, I, too, want to join my colleague from Illinois in commending our Senator from Alaska on this issue and so many others. The Senator's staff does not have to worry. He speaks fluidly, eloquently, and without flaw. But, second, I think his courage on this issue has helped inspire our caucus to move forward.

We come from different States. For some States it is easier; for some States it is harder to take on this issue. Probably for Alaska it is one of the two or three hardest States to do it, and the Senator has done it with courage, with intelligence, with drive, and I think ultimately with success.

So I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, it is with deep sadness that I rise to honor my colleague and friend, Senator Robert C. Byrd. I look at the simple eloquence of the roses and the black felt on his desk, and, sort of, he rises above that and hovers above us in just about everything we do.

The admiration that all of us in this body have for Senator Byrd is genuine and palpable. We miss him dearly, and I know I speak for the entire Senate when I say our thoughts and prayers are with Senator Byrd's family as they mourn his passing.

Mr. President, no one loved the Senate more than Robert Byrd. He devoted his life to this august institution and, in doing so, became an institution himself. He is a legend--a man who embodied the best ideals of this body. It is fitting that on this day we remember Senator Byrd the Senate is undertaking one of its most important constitutionally mandated responsibilities: the confirmation hearings for a Supreme Court Associate Justice.

Senator Byrd would remind us that we are in a process where the first branch of government is giving its advice and consent to a selection from the second branch of government in choosing someone to sit on the highest part of the third branch of government.

He loved the Constitution, he loved the Senate, he loved America, and he came from the bosom of America.

I am struck by the history of this moment. We read about the great Senators who served in this body--the Websters and the Clays, the LaFollettes and the Wagners. Well, I cannot help but feel privileged to have served, in my brief time--certainly compared to the Senators here--with a legend, with a man whose name will go down in history beside those men as

one of the great men in this body and one of the great men in history.

On Thursday, Mr. President, Senator Byrd will make one final visit to this Senate Chamber that he so loved. There could be no more appropriate way for us to say good-bye to him and honor him than to yield the Senate floor to him for one last time.

People asked, why not the Rotunda? It was not that he did not deserve tribute in the Rotunda, and, for sure, tens of thousands would have lined up. But this is the body he loved, and this is the body where his final day here should be.

I would like to share a few brief thoughts and reflect on Senator Byrd's service to the people of West Virginia and the Nation.

The most important thing we should all remember about Robert Byrd is his life story, for it embodies America, the best of America. It embodies the American dream. Because of his intelligence, his indefatigable energy, and up-by-the-bootstraps determination, he rose from a childhood marred by abject poverty to being three heartbeats away from the Presidency.

He made mistakes in his earlier career, which he freely admitted later. Who has not? But he just grew and grew and grew. That is what great men do: they grow larger and stronger and better as they go through life. That could certainly be said of Senator Byrd.

Unlike many of the great men who preceded him, Senator Byrd did not grow up as a member of a privileged class. He was an orphan, raised in the Appalachian coal towns of West Virginia. He graduated from high school at 16 as the valedictorian, but like so many Americans of his day, he was too poor and could not afford college.

So as a young Member of Congress, he worked his way through law school, and, at age 46, he earned the diploma--with honors--that had eluded him in his youth.

I remember his love of West Virginia. When I was new in this body, just learning it--and part of the way I learned it was by going to Senator Byrd's class on the rules of the Senate; legendary to each freshman class of his time--but one day I was just seated at my desk, and Senator Byrd rose to speak. It was a Friday afternoon. I believe it was in the springtime. Business was finished and everyone was rushing home. As you know, Mr. President, I usually rush home. I love to be in New York. But as I was getting ready to leave, Senator Byrd rose, and his speech captivated me.

For 45 minutes he gave a speech on the beauty of West Virginia in the springtime. The theme of the speech was to urge visitors from other States to come experience it. It was an amazing speech. It was almost like poetry. I am sure Senator Byrd probably did not have to sit and spend days preparing it. It just flowed off his lips, his love of West Virginia, combined with his eloquence. It is one of the speeches I will always remember in the Senate, and I am just lucky and glad I was here for that moment.

Then, speaking of my State of New York, Senator Byrd did not just touch West Virginia, he touched every State. Because he was here for so long, of course, he had such power but cared about each of the Members and their States.

The most striking moment I had with Senator Byrd occurred in the wake of 9/11. It was the day after that Senator Clinton and I went up to New York, and we saw the devastation. We could smell death in the air, see the anguished looks of people holding signs: Have you seen my husband? Have you seen my wife? The towers were gone, but people did not know who had survived and who had not. Most did not, of course.

Then the next call we got, as we came back, was from Senator Byrd. Senator Byrd said: Please come to my office. We went to his office on the first floor of the Capitol. He came to Senator Clinton and I and said: Chuck, Hillary, I want you to consider me the third Senator from the great State of New York.

We knew we needed help, and we needed it fast. Even before we went to visit President Bush and asked him for the help that New York needed, Senator Byrd, on his own, invited us over and pledged his help. Like always, he lived up to his word, not just in the next days or weeks or months but years. I would go to him 3, 4 years later and say there is still this part of the promise made to New York that hasn't been fulfilled. There he was, and he did it. Without a doubt, the dear city I love, New York City, would not have been able to recover as quickly or as well without that man from the coal fields of West Virginia, Senator Robert C. Byrd, helping us. He showed a level of selflessness that is rarely seen, and I think I can speak on behalf of Secretary Clinton and the people of New York in telling Senator Byrd how grateful we are to him.

We all have so many memories of Senator Byrd, so many things. We only served together a little less than 12 years, 11\1/2\ years, but he was like a jewel. He had so many different facets that every one of us was touched by him in many ways.

So I relate my last strong memory of Senator Byrd. The Presiding Officer remembers as well because it was at a hearing of the Rules Committee where we are now having a series of hearings under the suggestion of the Presiding Officer and leadership to decide whether we should reform the filibuster rule and what we should do about it. Senator Byrd, frail at that point, about a month ago, came to our hearing room. He sat next to me and then gave one of the best orations I have heard in a committee. He was 92. He turned the pages of his speech himself. That wasn't so easy for him. It was clearly--knowing the way he thought and his way of speaking--written completely by him. It was an amazing statement. It was impassioned, erudite, balanced, and, as the Presiding Officer remembers, it electrified the room. It was an amazing tour de force. The man cared so much about the Senate. Despite the fact he was ailing, there he was because he loved the Senate. His remarks, if my colleagues read them, were balanced. He understood the problems, but he understood the traditions, and he tried, as usual, to weave the two together.

There are few Senators who could do that, in the more than 200-year history of this body, the way he could. There are also few Senators in this body who fought as hard for their States as Senator Byrd did. I certainly admire the people who are here who become national leaders but never forget where they came from. There is a tendency among some who come to Washington to sort of forget where they came from. Not Senator Byrd. All across West Virginia, men and women are able to realize the American dream because he fought for them. He was unrelenting and unapologetic in his desire to improve the lives of West Virginians by making generous investments in infrastructure and research. He brought that State into the future and afforded generations of West Virginians good-paying jobs, allowing them to provide for their families and have the dignity all Americans deserve.

Some of the more elite parts of the media would make fun of what he did, but I thought our colleague, Senator Rockefeller, said it best. I am paraphrasing; I read this in the newspaper. He said Senator Byrd realized that until you get a road and a water system to these isolated towns, you couldn't open the door of the future for them, and he knew that. Senator Byrd relentlessly, in town after town after town, did that. He fought to increase access to health care and ensure the people had the right to vote, and he made sure every child in West Virginia had the right to live up to his God-given potential through a quality education.

Every one of us could go on and on about Senator Byrd's accomplishments, but I think what is even more important than accomplishments is who he was as a person. He was someone who knew where he stood but showed a profound willingness to evolve, and that is a sign of extraordinary character. It is all too easy for an elected official to plug his ears and say: Sorry, that is my position; that is the way it has always been, and that is the way it will always be. Not Senator Byrd. He was unafraid to take new arguments into consideration and expand his world view accordingly.

What also struck me about him was his fundamental humility, the best example of which is probably his relationship with my dear friend and mentor, Ted Kennedy, another legend in

this body who is so sorely missed. Ted somewhat unexpectedly ran against Senator Byrd to be the Democratic whip in 1969. Senator Kennedy won. Two years later there was a rematch and Senator Byrd became the whip. One would think after this kind of animus that the two of them would never come together, but in their lives in the Senate they established a deep meaningful bond, a tribute to both of them.

Senator Kennedy would tell me stories about Senator Byrd and some of the things he had done, serious and humorous. To me it is so profound that within a year we have lost the two giants among whom I was proud and lucky to serve.

I will never forget when Senator Byrd, sick as he was, was outside the steps of the Capitol to salute Ted Kennedy after he passed earlier this year. It was Senator Byrd who provided the crucial vote to fulfill Ted Kennedy's lifelong passion: Comprehensive health care reform. As every Senator sat at their desk for the final passage vote, the clerk called the roll. When Senator Byrd's name was called, he raised his voice as loud as he could and declared: ``Madam President, this is for my friend Ted Kennedy. Aye!''

Those two friends, those two legends today are together again in heaven, and I would love to be able to hear the conversations and reminiscences between them.

Robert Byrd will be remembered forever. He will be remembered as a man who loved this institution and guarded its history. He will be remembered as a man who always stood up for his State. He is a man who will be remembered as someone who lived the American dream and fought to make that dream a reality for countless others. Perhaps most of all, he will be remembered as a loving father, grandfather, and husband.

Today the Senate mourns, the people of West Virginia mourn, the Nation mourns.

I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the conference report for the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act.

First, I would like to commend Senator Dodd for putting forth a comprehensive plan to arm the administration with the tools they need to put a stop to Iran's rogue nuclear program.

I believe when it comes to Iran, we should never take the military option off the table. But I have long argued that economic sanctions are the preferred and probably the most effective way to choke Iran's nuclear ambitions.

The Obama administration initiated direct diplomatic negotiations with Iran, but that government, led by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, stubbornly refused to suspend their nuclear program despite President Obama's genuine attempts at diplomacy.

Iran's nuclear weapons program represents a severe threat to American national interests because their acquisition of nuclear weapons could lead to the proliferation of nuclear weapons throughout the Middle East and beyond, ending any hopes for a nuclear weapons-free world.

Make no mistake, a nuclear Iran would be destabilizing to its neighbors, encourage terrorism against the United States and Israel, and the risk of both conventional and nuclear war in the Middle East would rise considerably.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has already threatened to ``wipe Israel off the map,'' so we know for a fact that a nuclear Iran would pose a potential threat to our closest ally in the region, the State of Israel.

These tough new sanctions have such overwhelming support because Members of the House and Senate, Democrat and Republican, are united in doing what is necessary to stop Iran's drive to obtain a nuclear weapons capability.

It will also impose sanctions on financial institutions doing business with Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps or with certain Iranian banks blacklisted by the Department of Treasury.

The bill sanctions companies that export gasoline to Iran. This is one of the few pressure points where we can act unilaterally and have a real effect. The world knows Iran does not currently have the refining capacity to meet its domestic gasoline needs and is dependent on imported gasoline. So now is the time to reduce Iran's energy supply if it fails to suspend its nuclear enrichment program.

I am also glad we will be strengthening export controls to stop the illegal export of sensitive technology to Iran. During the recent Iranian elections, we witnessed the Iranian regime go so far as to block the Internet and mobile phone communications of their own citizens.

That is why Senator Lindsey Graham and I introduced the Reduce Iranian Cyber Suppression Act, or RICA, a bipartisan bill that would bar companies that export sensitive communications technology to Iran from applying for or renewing procurement contracts with the U.S. Government. I am pleased these provisions have been preserved in the conference.

I also applaud the conferees for not carving out companies from countries that are U.S. allies. There must be one standard when it comes to punishing companies that continue to invest in Iran.

So, in conclusion, Chairman Dodd has done an excellent job crafting a comprehensive plan to arm the administration with the tools it needs to put a stop to Iran's rogue nuclear program. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this plan, and I look forward to the President signing this important legislation. It is a tremendous accomplishment for Congress, and it is going to go a long way to address the real security threat that Iran poses to the United States and our world.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I compliment my friend and colleague, Senator Stabenow from Michigan, not only for putting this together but for being a clarion voice to the American people. She is one of those-- and it is sometimes all too rare here--who talks through all the miasma and the fog, and all the barriers, directly to the average American. That is a rare talent and one that she shows repeatedly. I thank her for that.

I want to follow up on something my colleague from Rhode Island just mentioned, Senator Reed, which is this idea that people don't want to work, and if we extend their unemployment benefits, we are going to develop a lazy class of people.

Let me tell you my experience. It is not that the rate of unemployment is the highest it has been since World War II, although it is far too high. That dubious honor goes to 1982, when it was 10.8 percent in that recession. The difference with this recession is that people are employed for a much longer period of time and, second, it goes way up into the middle class and upper middle class--people who have worked hard their whole lives.

When I go around my State, I often meet with the unemployed. I make a special effort to sit down and talk to them. I want to share a story or two, in case anybody is unconvinced of the anguish they go through and their desire to find work.

I met a woman upstate named Dorothy, from the Rochester area. She was about 50, not married and spent her whole life in her company. It was her life. She had risen to be the third highest person in the human resources department at Xerox, which had a big plant over in Webster. She lost her job in May of 2008. My guess is--she never said how much she made--it was probably between $80,000 and $100,000 a year--a nice salary. She told me that every day--I met her January 2010, or approximately then--she went online to look for another job--day after day after day. She still had not gotten a job. It was very poignant when she told me, with tears in her eyes, almost dripping down her cheeks--she said that the first thing she did when she woke up Christmas morning was not go to church or to visit her family but, rather, she went online for 2 hours, in the hope that there might be a job that had been posted the night before, Christmas Eve, and no one else would be going online and looking for the job then and she could get first dibs. Is this a lady who is in the habit of laziness, of wishing to get $350 or $400 a week in unemployment benefits? Absolutely not. She is looking every day.

I met a man named Clay. Unlike Dorothy, he was a blue collar worker. He had six children. His wife didn't work. He is the only breadwinner in the family. The children were ages 2 to 14. He had ridden to the top of his trade in the machine tools area. He lost his job in the summer of 2008. He said that here is what he does every week: Sunday night, he gets in his car and drives to Virginia, looks for a job in Virginia on Monday. Tuesday, he goes to the Washington area. Wednesday, he goes to Baltimore. Thursday, he goes to Philadelphia. Friday, he goes to New York City. And late Friday night, he drives home. Then he starts the process again on Sunday night. He still cannot find work. He is desperate for work. He told me that now his children keep asking about the family's livelihood, because he is the breadwinner.

Are we going to cut Clay and his family off? Are we going to tell those children to go on welfare? This is a proud man and a proud family. To cut off benefits will affect 67,000 people in New York State; 60,000 will lose their benefits and another 6,000 to 7,000 will be prevented from moving to tiers. It is wrong. It doesn't look at the problem as is and is virtually inhumane and not part of the great tradition we have established in this country. I hope we will be able to pass this bill. I hope people such as Dorothy and Clay will not be cut off as they desperately look for work.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Rules and Administration will meet on Wednesday, June 23, 2010, at 10 a.m., to hear testimony on ``Examining the Filibuster: Silent Filibusters, Holds and the Senate Confirmation Process.''

For further information regarding this meeting, please contact Lynden Armstrong at the Rules and Administration Committee.

Madam President, my esteemed colleague from New York, I first thank our Chair, the Senator from California, who does a great job on all of these issues. I thank the Senator from Rhode Island for his, as usual, excellent and prescient words.

I join my colleagues in strong opposition to S.J. Res. 26. This is a joint resolution disapproving of the rules submitted by EPA which finds that greenhouse gases threaten the public health and our environment. This resolution, if enacted, would turn back the clock on years of scientific research that tells us greenhouse gases are damaging to our environment and our public health.

This resolution could not be coming at a more meaningful moment in our Nation's history. As we speak, thousands and thousands of barrels of oil continue to pour into the gulf, disrupting lives, posing enormous risk to our shorelines, and costing our economy billions of dollars. Now is certainly not the time to tie the Federal Government's hands when it comes to weaning our Nation off unclean fuels. Now would be the last time to allow business as usual for the oil companies who always, as the BP incident shows, prioritize profits over clean energy production and safety and pollution reduction.

The most enthusiastic supporters of this resolution we are debating today are BP, its fellow oil companies, and their lobbyists in Washington. Why should we let BP and their lobbyists take the driver's seat? Why should we allow them to tell us how to achieve energy independence, how to keep American people safe from greenhouse gases? They are certainly not good about telling us how to keep safe from oilspills.

We are witnessing firsthand what happens when industry is allowed to do what is best for industry. There are 37 million reasons why we cannot let this resolution pass today: 37 million barrels today have bled into the gulf on the industry's watch.

I urge my colleagues to put aside their ideological positions on government regulation and instead work together to rewrite energy policy in this country. We need to focus all of our efforts on a comprehensive solution to a complicated problem and pass legislation to jump-start clean energy, cap greenhouse gases, and improve our energy security. It is critical that we join together in a national commitment to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.

We have come too far to reverse the tide on investment in American technology to reduce pollution and to produce cleaner energy. And we still have miles to go.

Even my colleagues who argue about the science of global warming agree that energy independence is also a national security issue. We send $1 billion a day overseas to buy foreign oil in large part from unstable and dangerous companies such as Iran, and unfriendly countries such as Venezuela. Our brave men and women fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan suffer significant casualties during the transportation of fuel and fuel-related supplies which are prime targets for our enemies.

Because we have failed to break this dangerous cycle of dependence, we are more reliant on foreign oil today than in the days after 9/11. We certainly can do better. This resolution is a step back.

We also all agree that America should have the cleanest air and the cleanest water of any place on Earth. We all know a cleaner America is a stronger America. Placing a cap on carbon emissions is the simplest way to achieve this collective goal while creating more U.S. jobs and reducing our dependence on foreign oil. And, it works.

Two decades ago, President Bush implemented an air pollution cap as a way to address the problem of airborne sulfur dioxide, known as acid rain, greatly affecting my State. The Bush plan worked. Today it is considered one of the most effective environmental initiatives in U.S. history. Lakes in upstate New York, in the Adirondacks and elsewhere, that once were dead are now coming alive.

We are at a crossroads right now, and the decisions we make will have great impacts on our economy, our air quality, and our Nation's energy security. We can choose to deny the science and continue to pollute the air, fall behind in the energy race, and let big oil run roughshod over our economy and environment or we can say no.

Or we can learn the lessons from our past, carefully weigh the facts and forge a new clean energy future to put America back on the road to prosperity.

We need to put ideology aside and pass comprehensive energy reform this year. Majority Leader Reid has indicated that we will make an energy bill a top priority this summer. I look forward to working with my colleagues to do just that.

Once again, I want to voice my opposition to S.J. Res. 26 and urge my colleagues to vote against this attempt to undermine America's nearly 40-year effort to cut dangerous pollution, protect our air quality, and spur innovation.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise in opposition to the three amendments that have been spoken about--the McCain amendment, the Cornyn amendment, and the McCain-Kyl amendment. I will get into some detail in a few minutes about the opposition, but it relates to three points.

First, President Obama has a tough, smart, targeted $500 million package that will greatly increase resources at the border, and we need it. Crime has increased, as my friend from Arizona has said. We need it. So, No. 1, there is a very good plan in place.

No. 2, this is a huge amount of money--$2.5 billion--that my colleagues, who talk about fiscal moderation, are requesting, and much of it will not go to securing the border. It is sort of throwing an enormous amount of money at the problem that is not as carefully thought out, not as targeted, and not as effective, quite frankly, as President Obama's program.

No. 3, it takes the money out of the stimulus bill. Well, there is a border problem in Texas and Arizona that affects all of us, and we want to solve it. The President and we are working to do that. But we have a jobs problem in this country, too, and this is the worst kind of robbing Peter to pay Paul. The stimulus money will go to creating jobs. If we ask the people in, say, Michigan or Ohio or Rhode Island or New York what is the No. 1 issue? Jobs. This money is being taken away from job creation and used, as I say, in a not effective, overmagnified way. It is too much money to stop what is going on at the border.

So let me elaborate. First, as I mentioned, President Obama is sending a package to the Congress next week. It includes 1,200 National Guard, funding programs for DEA, ATF, FBI, and ICE that are proven to work. The three amendments offered by the Senators from Texas and Arizona are a grab bag of enormous spending. If all of the $2.5 billion they are proposing just to go to the border would double the amount, it wouldn't be well spent. The President's money is thoughtful and targeted and has been in the works for a while. Let me give some examples.

The amendment calls for $300 million for funding for any State or local enforcement agency so long as it is within 100 miles of the U.S.- Mexican border. Almost none of this money will be used for border enforcement. Border enforcement is needed at the actual border.

Second, the Cornyn amendment also calls for $100 million for construction of new land ports of entry. But the problem at our ports of entry is not lack of funding from the taxpayers, it is that we need an adequate fee system to make sure the users of those ports of entry pay for things rather than taking the money away from job creation in our States.

Third, the amendment Senator Kyl has offered as a second-degree amendment would spend about $200 million on a program known as Operation Streamline. In reality, this program requires taxpayers to foot the bill at the cost of more than $120 per day, per inmate, to house border crossers and give them three free meals a day, free health care, medicines, and surgeries for all manner of illnesses, et cetera.

Couldn't we better spend this $200 million and pass a comprehensive immigration reform program which is so much needed? By the way, it is my view that while we have to tighten up the border, people are coming for jobs. The only way we will stop the flow of illegal immigration into this country is to tell those who hire them they no longer can. The only way to do that is our Secure Social Security Card that Senator Graham and I have put forward so that papers can't be forged and illegal immigrants can't be hired. Comprehensive reform does that; these measures don't.

We have heard talk about needing to bolster the border for years. It clearly hasn't stopped the problem, as the Senator from Arizona admits. We need a comprehensive approach that will include border security but is not only border security. If my colleagues would join us in that approach, we could have a tough, fair-minded proposal that would do the job.

Let me make some other points against the amendments while I have more time. The McCain amendment seeks $250 million for 6,000 National Guard to be sent to the border. They can't use that number of National Guard so quickly. The 1,200 that President Obama has requested is right.

When President Bush sent 6,000 National Guard to the border in 2006, there were 10,000 Border Patrol agents in the entire force. That means a total of 16,000 after the Guard was deployed. Now, we already have more than 20,000 Border Patrol agents--double the number of Border Patrol agents. Those and the 1,200 National Guard will do the job. We cannot just throw money at this problem and take it away from job creation. We have to be focused and smart. The President does that.

I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment and join us in supporting a smart program that will do the job and, furthermore, join us in supporting comprehensive immigration reform, which is the only real way to stop the flow of illegal immigration across the border.

Madam President, I make a point of order that the pending amendment violates section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Madam President, I rise against the second-degree amendment by Senator Kyl. It would actually take $200 million that is not going to secure the border any. It will incarcerate illegal immigrants. It will pay for their food, their health care, their recreation time, their reading material, for long periods of time.

If we want to secure the border, which we do, we have to be smart about this. We cannot just keep doing the same thing again and again. Furthermore, it takes the money out of the stimulus, which is jobs. So we are doing something that is ineffective, we are doing something that has not worked in the past, and now we are taking away jobs from the other 48 States.

That does not make any sense. So I would urge that this amendment be defeated. I would urge we start doing what is needed and what is smart to stop the flow of illegal immigration. We all know what we have to do, and that is a comprehensive proposal. This will not work and takes money way from jobs in the other 48 States. I urge its defeat.

I raise a point of order on the pending amendment pursuant to section 403 of S. Con. Res. 13, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2010.

Madam President, I rise to oppose this $2.2 billion spending amendment. It puts money in just about every program, needed or not. Then it takes that money out of the stimulus, the Recovery Act, taking it away from jobs. We must secure the border, absolutely. The President's plan is smart and focused. But for all of the voices on both sides of the aisle who have talked about jobs and all of the voices who have talked about fiscal moderation, to throw caution to the wind, to put $2.2 billion into programs whether they are needed or not makes no sense at all.

We must stop illegal immigration as it comes across the border. This will not do it. My colleagues know it, and I know it. This is what is called a symbolic amendment to show where one stands in many ways. It is $2.2 billion. We can find amendments that will do the job, that cost a lot less, and that will not take away the jobs we want to create and preserve.

This amendment, in my judgment, is the least responsible of the three to, again, take every program and say: More money, more money, more money, without a plan on how to spend it. It makes no sense. I urge its defeat.

Madam President, I raise a point of order against this amendment pursuant to section 403 of S. Con. Res. 13, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2010.

Mr. President, since becoming chairman of the Committee on Rules and Administration with jurisdiction over Federal elections, I have come to have a better appreciation for and deeper understanding of the obstacles and barriers that our military men and women serving abroad and at home and U.S. citizens living in foreign lands encounter when they try to vote.

As I explained at a Rules Committee hearing held in May of 2009, every couple of years around election time, there is a great push to improve military and overseas voting. But as soon as the election is over, Congress all too often forgets the plight of these voters.

But last year, Congress delivered. Our motive was simple--we wanted to break down the barriers to voting for our soldiers, sailors, and citizens living overseas. On a bipartisan basis, we agreed that it was unacceptable that in the age of global communications, many active military, their families, and thousands of other Americans living, working, and volunteering in foreign countries cannot cast a ballot at home while they are serving or living overseas. For our military, what especially moved us to act was the fact that they can fight and put their life on the line for their country, but they can't choose their next commander-in-chief. This shouldn't happen--not in the United States of America where elections are the bedrock of our democracy.

With the 2010 elections less than 7 months away, a new law is on the books. The provisions of the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act, MOVE Act, of 2009 were incorporated in Public Law 111-84, the National Defense Authorization Act of 2010. This law will make it easier for members of our Armed Forces and citizens living abroad to receive accurate, timely election information and the resources and logistical support to register and vote and have that vote count.

Mr. President, a legislative history of the MOVE Act is as follows:

Background and Purpose of the MOVE Act

American citizens believe voting is one of the most

treasured of our liberties and a right to be defended at any

cost. It is therefore unacceptable that our military men and

women serving abroad and at home, who put their lives on the

line every day to defend this right, often face obstacles in

exercising their right to vote.

Empirical evidence confirms that members of the military

and citizens living overseas who have attempted to vote

through the absentee balloting procedures that has been in

place for the last 30 years were often unable to do so. The

reasons were many, including insufficient information about

military and overseas voting procedures, failure by States to

send absentee ballots in time for military and overseas

voters to cast them, and endemic bureaucratic obstacles that

prevent these voters from having their votes counted. While

the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act,

UOCAVA, enacted in 1986, created a Federal framework for both

military and overseas citizens to vote it was clear that, in

order to break down these barriers to voting, UOCAVA was in

need of an overhaul.

A history of congressional efforts to aid military and

overseas voters highlights the obstacles faced by these

voters. In 1942, the first Federal law was enacted to help

military members vote in Federal elections. The Soldier

Voting Act of 1942 was the first law to guarantee Federal

voting rights for servicemembers during wartime. It allowed

servicemembers to vote in elections for Federal office

without having to register and instituted the first iteration

of the Federal Post Card Application for servicemembers to

request an absentee ballot. Though this was a commendable

first effort by Congress, the 1942 law's provisions only

applied during a time of war, and barriers to voting

remained. In 1951, President Truman commissioned a study from

the American Political Science Association on the problem of

military voting. Recognizing the difficulties faced by

military members serving overseas during World War II and the

Korean War in trying to vote, President Truman wrote a letter

to Congress that called on our legislators to fix the

problem. In response, Congress passed the Federal Voting

Assistance Act, FVAA, in 1955 which recommended--but did not

guarantee--absentee registration and voting for military

members, Federal employees serving abroad, and members of

service organizations affiliated with the military. In 1968,

FVAA was amended to cover U.S. citizens temporarily living

outside of the United States, thus increasing the number and

scope of U.S. citizens that fell within the law's purview. In

1975, the Overseas Citizens

Voting Rights Act at last guaranteed military and overseas

voters the right to register and vote by absentee procedures.

In 1986, Congress enacted UOCAVA as the primary military and

overseas voting law, incorporating the expansion of rights

granted under prior Federal legislation and making several

significant advances to improve military and overseas voting.

UOCAVA has been the operational voting framework provided to

military and overseas voters.

UOCAVA's main provisions placed several mandates on States.

First, States must allow members of the uniformed services,

their families, and citizens residing overseas to register

and vote by absentee procedures for all elections for Federal

office including all general, primary, special and runoff

elections. Second, States are required under UOCAVA to accept

and process all valid voter registration applications

submitted by military and overseas voters--as long as the

application is received no less than 30 days prior to an

election. Third, UOCAVA created the Federal write-in absentee

ballot, FWAB, a failsafe backup ballot for Federal general

elections.

Congress has amended UOCAVA several times over the last 24

years. The 1998 amendments included certain reporting

requirements on States to provide information on military and

overseas voting participation; and the 2001 amendments

required States to accept the Federal Post Card Application,

FPCA, as a combined voter registration and absentee ballot

request form, and gave voters the opportunity to request that

the FPCA be a standing absentee ballot request for each

subsequent Federal election in the voter's State that year.

In 2002, the Help America Vote Act, HAVA, modified this

provision to allow voters to automatically request an

absentee ballot through the FPCA for the two subsequent

regularly scheduled Federal election cycles after the

election for which the FPCA was originally submitted. HAVA

also added a number of substantive provisions to UOCAVA,

including a provision to give voting assistance officers the

time and resources to provide voting guidance and information

to active duty military personnel, a mandate that the

Secretary of each branch of the Armed Forces provide

information to service personnel regarding the last date that

an absentee ballot can reasonably be expected to arrive on

time, and a requirement that States identify a single office

for communication with UOCAVA voters. Finally, Congress

amended UOCAVA in 2004 to allow military personnel to use the

Federal write-in absentee ballot, or FWAB, from within the

territorial United States.

Despite these improvements over the years, evidence

revealed that significant barriers to voting continued for

military and overseas citizens. Registration among military

voters has been shown to be substantially lower than among

other voting-eligible U.S. citizens. According to testimony

submitted by hearing witnesses, in 2006, the registration

rate among military personnel was 64.86 percent compared to a

registration rate of 83.8 percent for the general voting age

population. According to one survey of military and overseas

voters conducted after the 2008 election, of those overseas

voters who wanted to vote but were unable to do so, over one-

third--34 percent--could not vote because of problems in the

registration process. The same survey found that even among

experienced overseas voters, nearly one-quarter--23.7

percent--experienced problems during the registration

process. Military and overseas voters have had to deal with a

lack of information about registration procedures and a slow,

cumbersome registration process that often turns into the

first roadblock to voting.

Military and overseas voters also have trouble even when

they have been able to properly register. The Congressional

Research Service, CRS, found that during the 2008 election

military personnel and overseas citizens hailing from the

seven States with the highest number of deployed soldiers

requested 441,000 absentee ballots. Of these, 98,633 were

never received by local election officials. Further, survey

data shows that two out of every five military and overseas

voters, 39 percent--who requested an absentee ballot in 2008

received it from local election officials in the second half

of October or later--much too late for a ballot to be voted

and mailed back in time to be counted on election day.

Sending absentee ballots too late to have the opportunity to

actually vote is an unacceptable situation for military and

overseas Americans.

Finally, some States reject ballots from military and

overseas voters for reasons unrelated to voter eligibility,

including unnecessary notarization requirements and criteria

such as the paper weight of the ballot or ballot envelope. As

many as 13,500 ballots were rejected from military and

overseas voters from the seven States with the greatest

number of troops deployed overseas.

These numbers are totally unacceptable. These barriers

effectuate rampant disenfranchisement among our military and

overseas voters. Congress has a compelling interest to

protect the voting rights of American citizens, and it is

especially incumbent upon Congress to act when those very

individuals who are sworn to defend that freedom are unable

to exercise their right to vote.

The need for sweeping improvement was clear. The Military

and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act is a complete renovation

of UOCAVA that brings it into the twenty-first century and

streamlines the process of absentee voting for military and

overseas voters through a series of common sense,

straightforward fixes.

First, it allows military and overseas voters to request,

and when so requested, requires States to send, registration

materials, absentee ballot request forms, and blank absentee

ballots electronically. It ensures that military and overseas

voters have at least 45 days to receive and complete their

absentee ballots and return them to election officials. The

legislation also requires that absentee ballots from overseas

military personnel be sent through expedited mail procedures,

making it faster and easier to send voted ballots back to

local election officials. In addition, it prevents election

officials from rejecting overseas absentee ballots for

reasons not related to voter eligibility, like paper weight

and notarization requirements.

Second, the MOVE Act expands accessibility and availability

of voting resources for military and overseas voters. It

shores up the Federal Voting Assistance Program, or FVAP, an

organization within the Department of Defense, DOD. Under the

provisions of MOVE, FVAP will make a number of improvements

to its voter education efforts for our military and other

Americans living and working abroad and serve as the central

administrative office for carrying out the Federal

responsibilities under UOCAVA and MOVE. It also increases the

usability and accessibility of the FWAB. This failsafe ballot

allows military and overseas voters to vote even when they

face a situation where they don't receive a State-issued

ballot in time. In addition to all these improvements, the

legislation advances voter registration for our military by

directing each of the Secretaries of the military departments

to designate offices in military installations where soldiers

and their families can register to vote, update their

registration information, and request an absentee ballot.

The MOVE Act also aims to secure future voting rights for

military and overseas voters. It increases accountability for

future elections by directing the Department of Defense to

regularly report to Congress on their activities for

implementing the programs and requirements under MOVE,

including information on ballot delivery success rates. It

also authorizes the Defense Department to create a pilot

program testing new technologies for the future benefit of

military and overseas voters.

The enactment of the provisions of the MOVE Act brings to

an end a system that could ever allow a quarter of ballots

requested by U.S. troops to go missing. It instead aims to

ensure that every single military and overseas vote be

counted.

Committee Hearing and Consideration at Markup

The Committee on Rules and Administration held a hearing on

May 13, 2009, which I chaired entitled ``Hearing on Problems

for Military and Overseas Voters: Why Many Soldiers and Their

Families Can't Vote.'' The first panel consisted of one

witness, Gail McGinn, Acting Under Secretary for Personnel

and Readiness for the Department of Defense. Testifying on

the second panel were Patricia Hollarn, board member of the

Overseas Vote Foundation and former supervisor of elections

in Okaloosa County, FL; Donald Palmer, director of the

Division of Elections at the Florida Department of State; LTC

Joseph DeCaro, active duty member of the U.S. Air Force, on

his own behalf; Eric Eversole, former attorney at the

Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, Voting Rights

Section, adviser to the McCain-Palin campaign, and former

member of the Navy's Judge Advocate General Corps from 1999-

2001; and Robert Carey, executive director of the National

Defense Committee.

The hearing focused on the reasons why so many military and

overseas voters find it difficult or impossible to

effectively cast their ballots, with special attention paid

to recommendations from the witnesses who possess extensive

experience with the military and overseas absentee voting

process. The hearing opened with a discussion of the

preliminary results from a study of military and overseas

voting in 2008 conducted by the Congressional Research

Service. The findings showed that in several of the largest

military voting States, up to 27 percent of the ballots

requested by military and overseas voters were not counted

for one reason or another.

Letters from soldiers serving abroad who wanted to cast

ballots in 2008 but were unable to do so were shared. One

letter from a soldier in Alaska concisely summarized the

problem underscored by the hearing: ``I hate that because of

my military service overseas, I was precluded from voting.''

Gail McGinn, Acting Under Secretary for Personnel and

Readiness at the Department of Defense, testified in detail

about the logistical and administrative challenges facing

military and overseas voters. Ms. McGinn identified time,

distance, and mobility as the chief logistical barriers to

these voters. She said, ``Our legislative initiatives for

states and territories to improve ballot transit time are,

first, provide at least 45 days between the ballot mailing

date and the date that ballots are due; give state chief

election officials the authority to alter elections

procedures in emergency situations; provide a state write-in

absentee ballot to be sent out 90 to 180 days before all

elections; and expand the use of electronic transmission

alternatives for voting material.'' Ms. McGinn further

pointed out that 23 States do not provide the minimum of a

45-day round trip for military and overseas absentee ballots.

Patricia Hollarn, board member of the Overseas Vote

Foundation and

former supervisor of elections in Okaloosa County, FL,

testified about her personal experience with local election

officials who, she said, had a lot of confusion about the

proper absentee balloting procedures they needed to provide

for overseas citizens and military personnel. She echoed Ms.

McGinn in recommending that States and local jurisdictions

provide a minimum of 45 days for absentee ballots to be

delivered to overseas voters, completed, and returned before

the state's deadline. She also emphasized the logistical

challenge facing the U.S. Postal Service and military mail

service with respect to the speedy delivery of overseas

ballots.

Donald Palmer, director of the Division of Elections for

the Florida Department of State, testified about Florida's

experience serving its military and overseas voters. Mr.

Palmer said that providing 45 days for ballot transmission

and delivery, as Florida does, is ``prudent'' and

``absolutely necessary, when relying solely on the mail

service.'' Mr. Palmer also discussed Florida's experience

using technology, including e-mail, fax, and the Internet, to

communicate with military and overseas voters and transmit

balloting materials to and from Americans abroad. Mr. Palmer

testified about an invitation from the Department of Defense

for Secretaries of State to travel to the Middle East and see

firsthand how soldiers receive their absentee ballots.

Florida Secretary of State Kurt Browning relayed to Mr.

Palmer that soldiers abroad many times do not have access to

fax machines and often use e-mail as a primary source of

communication and expressed their desire to be able to use

email or the internet to transmit balloting materials to

local election officials. Mr. Palmer also detailed pilot

programs in Florida which have used new technologies to

facilitate ballot transmission from abroad. He also described

Florida's efforts to work with the U.S. Postal Service to

reduce error rates in ballot delivery and to use intelligent

code technology to track absentee ballots while in the

Continental United States.

United States Air Force LTC Joseph DeCaro, testifying on

his own behalf, described his personal experiences with

absentee voting while serving abroad in 2004. His experience

illustrates the burdens facing uniformed servicemembers

overseas who want to vote:

Every moment I spent researching and coordinating with

state-side resources to be able to cast my ballot was against

any personal time off. The mission is and always must be the

main focus. Being deployed is difficult enough as it is . . .

I think every American should do what they can to cast their

ballot and make their voice heard. As with many other

citizens, I will continue to do this, but there should be a

better way in which [service personnel can] cast their ballot

while deployed.

Lieutenant Colonel DeCaro also lamented that he had no way

of knowing whether the ballot he mailed to his local election

office would ever reach its destination.

Eric Eversole, former attorney at the Department of Justice

Civil Rights Division, Voting Rights Section, began his

testimony by arguing that ``when it comes to the military

members' right to vote, we seem to forget their sacrifices

and we deny them the very voting rights that we ask them to

defend.'' He cited statistics which showed that only 26

percent of Florida's deployed servicemembers were able to

successfully request an absentee ballot in 2008. He also

echoed prior testimony that States should mail out absentee

ballots to military and overseas voters at least 45 days

before the local deadline to have the ballot count. Mr.

Eversole testified about the need for improvements in the

Federal Voting Assistance Program. Mr. Eversole strongly

advocated for military personnel to receive appropriate

voting information and voter registration materials when they

move or deploy to a new installation or port. In response to

a question I asked, Mr. Eversole also testified that certain

offices at the Department of Defense should be designed as

voter registration agencies under the National Voter

Registration Act.

Robert Carey, executive director of the National Defense

Committee, testified about his own experience taking a leave

of absence from his duty as a member of the U.S. Navy

Reserves and flying back to New York City at his own expense

in order to vote in the 2004 election. He cited research

showing that only 26 percent of the ballots requested by

overseas soldiers in 2006 were successfully cast. Mr. Carey

emphasized that insufficient time was the chief reason for

these statistics, arguing that States too often send out

ballots too late for military voters to complete and return

them in time to be counted. He pointed to a study conducted

by the Pew Center on the States, Pew, which found that 23

States do not provide enough time for military and overseas

voters to successfully cast their ballots. Mr. Carey also

recommended that ballots be sent out at least 60 days before

they were due.

Several organizations submitted statements for the hearing

record. Pew submitted a copy of its 2009 study of military

and overseas voting, No Time to Vote, for the committee

record. In its accompanying letter, Pew highlighted several

recommendations for reform from the study, including

``sending out overseas absentee ballots sooner, eliminating

notary and witness requirements and harnessing technology to

allow for the electronic transmission of ballots and election

materials to voters overseas.''

The Overseas Vote Foundation, OVF, submitted a copy of its

2008 post-election survey for the record. The survey included

data obtained from over 24,000 overseas voters and over 1,000

local election officials. Among OVF's key findings was that

more than half, 52 percent, of those overseas military voters

who tried but could not vote were unable to because their

ballots were late or did not arrive. OVF also found that

despite concerted efforts, less than half of UOCAVA voters

were aware of the Federal write-in absentee ballot.

Democrats Abroad submitted a statement for the record

emphasizing the difficulties for military and overseas voters

stemming from the patchwork of varied State and local

regulations, a lack of awareness of the Federal write-in

absentee ballot, and general inability to effectively

communicate with local election officials from abroad.

Tom Tarantino, legislative associate with Iraq and

Afghanistan Veterans of America, submitted a statement for

the record including testimony about his own experience as a

voting assistance officer, citing the lack of sufficient

training about how to effectively educate soldiers about

absentee balloting procedures. Mr. Tarantino recommended

improving the voting assistance officer program and suggested

that the Department of Defense be required to ensure safe and

timely passage of military ballots to their home districts.

The Federation of American Women's Clubs Overseas submitted

a statement for the record in which it recommended that

States send overseas absentee ballots at least 45 days before

the deadline and that voter materials, including ballots, not

be rejected for reasons unrelated to voter eligibility.

Everyone Counts submitted a ``white paper'' for the record

comparing the effectiveness of various voting technologies

for military and overseas voters.

Alex Yasinac, dean of the School of Information and

Computer Sciences at the University of South Alabama,

submitted a statement for the record analyzing various

technological solutions to improve overseas absentee voting.

Dr. Yasinac suggested the creation of a technological pilot

program for overseas voters, including the use of virtual

private networks, cryptographic voting systems, and document

delivery upload systems to ensure secure electronic

transmission of balloting materials.

Introduction of the Bill

I introduced S. 1415, the MOVE Act of 2009, on July 8,

2009, and was joined by Senators Saxby Chambliss and Ben

Nelson as original cosponsors. After the bill's introduction,

56 additional Senators joined as cosponsors. The bill was

referred to the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration.

Committee Consideration at Markup

S. 1415 was considered by the Senate Rules Committee at a

markup held on July 15, 2009. The committee adopted three

amendments which I submitted on behalf of Senator John

Cornyn, who had introduced separate legislation on improving

military voting that was pending at the time in the Rules

Committee. Senator Cornyn joined in this endeavor by

contributing his knowledge and expertise on military voting

to the MOVE Act. Senator Robert Bennett, ranking member of

the Rules Committee, introduced an amendment with several

provisions intent on improving the effectiveness of the MOVE

Act.

The first amendment, which I submitted on behalf of Senator

Cornyn, strengthened the bill by ensuring that overseas

military personnel can mail their marked absentee ballots to

their local election offices with confidence that those

ballots will be received and counted by directing the

Presidential designee to work with the U.S. Postal Service to

provide expedited delivery services for ballots that are

collected before a prescribed deadline. The provision

provides ample discretion for the Presidential designee to

extend that deadline for collection of ballots, allowing the

Presidential designee to permit a longer transit time for

completed ballots to be delivered to local election

officials. To ensure Department of Defense accountability

under this section, the amendment directed the Presidential

designee to submit reports to the relevant congressional

committees to explain the procedures implemented to provide

the expedited mail delivery and inform the committees of the

number of military overseas ballots successfully and

unsuccessfully delivered to local election offices in time.

Finally, the amendment included language requiring the

Presidential designee to ensure, to the greatest extent

allowable, that the privacy of military servicemembers and

security of their ballots are protected during the delivery

process.

The second amendment, which Senator Cornyn and I worked on

together, fortified the bill by expanding voter registration

opportunities, services, and information for military and

overseas voters. It also required the Department of Defense

to provide voting information and an opportunity for

servicemembers to register and update voting information

during certain points in service and provided the Secretary

of Defense flexibility to designate certain pay, personnel,

and identification offices as voter registration agencies. In

addition to voter registration, the amendment required

written information to be provided to servicemembers on

absentee ballot procedures. Finally, the amendment contained

reporting requirements for the Department of Defense to

evaluate its voter support services and send Congress its

recommendations for improving those programs.

The third amendment was technical in nature and altered no

substantive provisions of the bill.

Ranking Member Bennett offered a package of amendments

modifying several provisions of the bill. First, the

amendment clarified that States may delegate the obligations

under the MOVE Act to local jurisdictions. Some local and

State election administrators contacted the Rules Committee

to express concern because they thought that the MOVE Act

could be interpreted to require States, instead of

localities, to take administrative responsibility for running

elections for UOCAVA voters. Though there was no intent to

shift routine administrative responsibility of elections to

States, for the sake of clarity in the bill, I supported this

amendment. While clarifying that the MOVE Act can be

administered and implemented at the local level, the

amendment did not modify or otherwise alter the ultimate

responsibility of MOVE Act compliance, which remains with the

State. Accordingly, States retain the responsibility to

ensure local jurisdictions' compliance with UOCAVA and MOVE

and thus the State will continue to be the focus of any

potential enforcement actions that need to be taken by the

Attorney General.

Senator Bennett's amendments also modified provisions of

the MOVE Act which had originally required States to transmit

balloting materials ``by mail, electronically, or by

facsimile.'' The text of the amendment instead read to

require transmission of balloting materials ``by mail and

electronically.'' This change clarified the requirement on

State and local election administrators that, in addition to

mail, they must provide at least one method of fast and

effective electronic means of transmitting balloting

materials to U.S. citizens overseas and uniformed

servicemembers. It is important to note that Bob Carey during

his testimony before the Rules Committee on May 13, 2009,

testified that ``[R]ecent research by the National Defense

Committee indicates that fax transmission is not an effective

option for military personnel, especially those suffering the

greatest disenfranchisement in this process.'' However, at

the same time, the amendment's language clarified that

election administrators may provide multiple means of

electronic communication in order to ensure speedy

transmission of information, registration and balloting

materials.

Senator Bennett's amendments also reinforced the privacy

and security provisions of the original legislation by

directing States to protect, to the extent practicable, the

integrity of the voter registration and absentee ballot

process through procedures that shield identity and personal

data.

The amendments also simplified the timing provisions of the

original legislation by mandating that whenever a State

receives an absentee ballot request at least 45 days before a

Federal election it must send out an absentee ballot not

later than 45 days before the election. With respect to valid

ballot applications received after 45 days prior to such an

election, States are required to transmit a validly requested

absentee ballot in accordance with State law and as

expeditiously as possible. However, the amendment did not

impact the 30-day requirement under UOCAVA. At the same time,

the amendment removed language from the original version of

the bill which would have required States to accept and count

absentee ballots received up to 55 days after the date on

which an absentee ballot was transmitted or the date on which

the State certified an election, whichever was later. The

negotiated modification placed a 45-day mandate on States to

promptly respond to military and overseas absentee ballot

requests.

The amendments also strengthened Department of Justice

oversight of absentee voting by uniformed services and

overseas voters by requiring the Presidential designee to

consult with the Attorney General before approving any

hardship exemptions from States unable to comply with the

bill's timing provisions. This will help ensure a unified

governmental response to State compliance with the MOVE Act.

Finally, the amendments repealed subsections (a) through

(d) of Sec. 104 of the Uniformed and Overseas Absentee Voting

Act, which allowed military and overseas absentee ballot

applicants to indicate on their Federal Postcard Application

form that their application should be considered a continuing

application for an absentee ballot through the next two

regularly scheduled general elections. Given the highly

mobile nature of military and overseas voters, there was a

concern among States that this provision of UOCAVA required a

large number of ballots to be sent to old and outdated

addresses. Election officials reported receiving a large

number of these continuing absentee ballots as ``returned

undeliverable,'' thus artificially inflating the number of

failed ballots, and potentially wasting State resources.

Repealing these sections addressed those concerns. This

amended section does not prohibit States from providing

continuing applications for absentee ballots, or accepting

ballots received under such continuing applications. This

amended section also does not prohibit States from

considering a Federal Postcard Application submitted for a

primary election to carry over to the general election in

that same election cycle.

The committee agreed to all of the proposed amendments and

adopted them by voice vote. The committee then voted to

report S. 1415, the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment

Act, as amended. The committee proceeded by voice vote, and

all members present became cosponsors of the legislation. S.

1415, as amended, was ordered reported to the Senate.

Passage by the Senate of the MOVE Act provisions in the DOD

authorization bill

On July 22, 2009, I offered Senate amendment No. 1764 to S.

1390, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year

2010, on the Senate Floor.

Senator Cornyn spoke in support of this amendment that day:

Our military servicemembers put their lives on the line to

protect our rights and our freedoms. Yet many of them still

face substantial roadblocks when it comes to something as

simple as casting their ballots and participating in our

national elections . . . This important amendment contains

many other commonsense reforms suggested by other Senators

and will help end the effective disenfranchisement of our

troops and their families. Our goal has been to balance

responsibilities between elections officials and the

Department of Defense, and I believe this amendment

accomplishes that goal.

On July 23, 2009, I urged my colleagues to support the MOVE

Act amendment to the DOD authorization legislation:

Now, if [our soldiers] can risk their lives for us we can

at least allow them to vote. They take orders from the

commander-in-chief. They are the first people who ought to be

allowed to elect and vote for a commander-in-chief. And if we

can deploy tanks and high-tech equipment and food to the

front lines, we can figure out a way to deliver ballots to

our troops so they can be returned and counted. And that, Mr.

President, is what the MOVE Act does.

Senator Bennett spoke in support of the amendment:

Now, then the legislation was introduced in its original

form, I raised concerns with Senator Schumer about some of

its provisions. He worked with me and my staff to address

these concerns and the amendment that we have before us today

effectively does so. That's why I'm pleased to now be a

cosponsor of the bill. The difficulties our service personnel

face in voting and the Senator from New York has described

them, and I believe this amendment deals with them in a

proper fashion.

Senator Chambliss also spoke in support of the amendment:

[N]ot since the passage of the Uniform and Overseas Voting

Act in 1986 have we proposed such significant legislation

designed to help the men and women of the military who time

and time again are called upon to defend the rights and

freedoms that we Americans hold so sacred. Unfortunately, our

military's one of the most disenfranchised voting blocs we

have and today we have the opportunity to correct this.

Senator Nelson also added comments in support:

We owe it to our men and women in uniform to protect their

right to vote. And for military and overseas votes, that

right is only as good as their ability to cast a ballot and

have it counted. For years, we have known of the obstacles

these brave Americans face in exercising their right to vote,

often when far from home and in harm's way. I firmly believe

this legislation will make a huge impact in empowering our

military and overseas voters to have their votes counted no

matter where they find themselves on election day.

Senate amendment No. 1764 to S. 1390 was agreed to by voice

vote on July 23, 2009. The Senate took up H.R. 2647 on July

23, approved an amendment that substituted the text of S.

1390, then passed the bill by unanimous consent and requested

a conference with the House. A Senate-House conference was

held, and the House passed the conference report to H.R.

2647, H. Rept. 111-288, on October 8, 2009, and the Senate

passed it on October 22, 2009. H.R. 2647 was signed by the

President on October 28, 2009, and became Public Law 111-84.

The MOVE Act Today

The Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act of 2009 is

a response to an unacceptable situation--the

disenfranchisement of Americans serving and living abroad who

are unable to vote because of logistical and geographic

barriers.

The MOVE Act brings to an end a system that in the past

allowed a quarter of the ballots requested by U.S. troops to

go unreturned. It does so by insisting that every military

and overseas vote be counted. Congress recognized that those

who fight to defend America's freedom often face the greatest

obstacles in exercising their right to vote. Congress acted

to break down the challenges and barriers to voting faced by

these citizens with passage of the provisions of the Military

and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act.

Most of the MOVE Act provisions will be in place for the

November 2010 general elections. States started implementing

measures and procedures to comply with the MOVE Act almost

immediately after passage of Public Law 111-84. At the

Federal level, the Department of Defense has been in

consultation with the Attorney General to develop and

promulgate regulations to administer the waiver process. As

the 2010 Federal election approaches, the States and the

Department of Defense are making every effort to

ensure that military and overseas voters have every

opportunity to register, vote, and have their vote counted.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section of the MOVE Act provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2010 be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Rules and Administration will meet on Tuesday, May 25, 2010, at 10 a.m. to hear testimony on the nomination of William J. Boarman, of Maryland, to be the Public Printer.

For further information regarding this hearing, please contact Lynden Armstrong at the Rules and Administration Committee on (202) 224-6325.

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.

Madam President, I rise in strong support of the Franken amendment.

First, I wish to praise my colleague from Minnesota for the great job he has done on this amendment. This is going to make a huge difference. It strengthens the section that is already in Senator Dodd's fine bill, on which Senator Jack Reed did great work, and now it goes a little further.

In particular, I thank my colleague from Minnesota for really getting at the heart of the conflicts of interest. We can vote around the conflict of interest, we can shine a mirror of light on the conflict of interest, but unless we get to the heart of it, we are not going to undo the problem. The Senator from Minnesota does that, and I praise him for his fine work. I think that if this amendment passes, it is going to be one of the lasting contributions and one of the most significant contributions to prevent a future crisis from happening.

Nobel economist Joseph Stiglitz said:

I view the rating agencies as one of the key culprits . . .

They were the party that performed the alchemy that converted

the securities from F-rated to A-rated. The banks could not

have done what they did without the complicity of the rating

agencies.

Credit rating agencies played an important role--an unfortunate and important role--in what led up to the financial crisis. They adopted questionable practices intended to win over clients and capture greater market share, ignoring the true credit quality of the complex securities at the heart of the market meltdown. They neglected their own internal controls and developed a coziness with clients. And because rating the complicated structured finance products brought in more money to these agencies, they raced each other to the bottom, competing for clients by inflating ratings. Because the clients had an incentive to sell products with the highest ratings to investors, the rating agencies would give them advice on how to structure their products to score AAA. This race to the bottom is the easiest, quickest, and least disputatious. Giving an AAA rating is one of the major culprits of the financial crisis we are seeing.

The conflict of interest-ridden industry helped bring our economy to its knees. To provide one example, 93 percent of AAA-rated subprime mortgage-backed securities issued in 2006 have been downgraded to junk status. Is that incredible? Ninety-three percent went from AAA to junk status. That is not an accident and, frankly, that doesn't just happen because people make mistakes. There was something more pernicious at work, which was conflict of interest. That is the fundamental problem. Again, 93 percent of the securities the rating agencies concluded were of the highest quality, least risky investments, in just 2 years they became worthless. Many people lost money. Some were big investors, some were small investors, some were large banks and institutions, and some were pension funds that had the savings of millions of hard-working Americans. Everyone suffered because of what the credit rating agencies did. This bill we are debating this week makes important strides in holding the rating agencies accountable to their credit quality assessments.

Once again, I commend Senator Dodd, our able chairman, and Senator Jack Reed, our able chairman of the securities subcommittee, for the immense work they did in this area. Requiring the creation of a new Office of Credit Rating Agencies at the SEC; disclosures of rating methodologies; prohibiting compliance officers from working on ratings methodologies or sales; a new liability provision; and requiring rating analysts to pass qualifying exams all helps.

As I said, the provision Senator Franken is offering and I am proud to cosponsor goes to the heart of the conflict of interest. It doesn't go around the edges of the conflict of interest but is a dagger at the heart. This amendment breaks that inherent conflict by having a third party, a neutral third party, step in-between. Issuers will no longer be able to choose a rating agency and directly influence what kind of ratings they get.

The amendment establishes a board of highly knowledgeable and experienced people, a majority of whom will be from the investor industry, including pension funds, municipalities, and retail investors who got clobbered in this financial crisis because the rating agencies were getting paid by the issuer and had an incentive to issue the best rating possible.

How the heck--this is a little digression--how the heck no-doc loans got AAA ratings over and over, packages of no-doc loans--what does that mean to the average person? It means they never asked you if you could afford to pay the mortgage, and they got AAA credit ratings. What was going on, and why didn't anyone catch it? Well, the Dodd part and the Reed part of the amendment will catch it, but the Franken part of the amendment will prevent it by having a noninterested party make a rating.

The Franken amendment establishes a board of highly knowledgeable and experienced people, as I said. They have to submit their products to be rated to the board and, like a wheel, the board will choose a rating agency for each product. When I say a wheel, it is like a wheel; it comes up randomly. Where did Senator Franken--and I have spoken with him about this, so I know--where did he come up with this idea? This is how we prevent forum shopping, bias of judges. When you go to the Southern District of New York and you have a case, it is a wheel and you get a judge randomly. In the past, we have found there were even conflicts of interest in the judiciary because you got to choose your own judge, just as the issuer now gets to choose its own credit rating agency. The wheel makes it random. You don't choose it. That is a big, huge step forward.

The board will also monitor the performance of these ratings and ensure the rating agencies are qualified to rate the products. This model will motivate rating agencies to develop and gain the right expertise and methodologies so they can become eligible to rate different classes of structured finance products, and the smaller rating agencies and investor-paid agencies will have a level playing field to compete against the big three.

This proposal has a broad range of bipartisan support. I greatly appreciate not only Senator Franken's outstanding work on this issue but the cosponsorship of Senators Nelson, Whitehouse, Brown, Murray,

Merkley, Bingaman, Lautenberg, Shaheen, Casey, Sanders, Johnson, Kaufman, Durbin, Harkin, and--thank you to our Republican friends-- Senators Wicker and Grassley.

So I hope we will get unanimous support for this amendment. I hope we won't leave out any major provisions. I hope we won't modify it or weaken it. Let's stick to this amendment. It is modest and thoughtful and goes to the heart of what helped cause the financial crisis--the inherent conflict of interest in the way credit rating agencies worked.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 3295, the DISCLOSE Act. I am happy to be joined by several of my colleagues, all of whom were essential in putting this bill together: Senators Feingold, Wyden, Bayh, Franken, and Bennet. We come to the floor today with a clear and powerful statement: the DISCLOSE Act will provide much-needed transparency to our political process in light of Citizens United, and will allow the public to know who really is behind the political messages they see on TV or hear on the radio. The DISCLOSE Act will follow the Supreme Court's advice and make disclosure and disclaimers the cornerstone of our reform efforts and will apply equally to all corporations, unions, trade associations, social welfare organizations and section 527 groups. It is intended to encourage political participation by creating an educated electorate. Further, the DISCLOSE Act will not chill speech or political participation, it will enrich it.

On April 30, 2010, 37 colleagues and I introduced the DISCLOSE Act, Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections, S. 3295, to respond to the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC. The purpose of this legislation is to provide the American public with information on who is speaking when political advertisements and expenditures are made and to prevent them from being misled by organizations attempting to disguise their identities through the use of shadow groups. I want to reiterate that this act is in no way meant to deter political speech or spending, only to provide information so that the public is empowered to make informed decisions. Additionally, the disclosure and disclaimer provisions in the act apply equally to corporations, unions, and groups organized under sections 501(c)(4), (c)(5), (c)(6), and 527 of the Tax Code. We play no favorites.

In writing the majority opinion for the Court in its January decision, Justice Kennedy was very clear in articulating the Court's support for disclosure. He said, ``[t]he First Amendment protects political speech; and disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way. This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages.'' Kennedy also stated that ``disclaimers avoid confusion by making it clear that the ads are not funded by a candidate or political party.'' In fact, eight of the nine Justices agreed that disclosure and disclaimer provisions were necessary, and in the public's interest, to provide this information. The Court's decision opened the door to allow certain corporate spending in elections that was previously disallowed. In line with the Court's support for disclosure and disclaimer provisions, we have introduced the DISCLOSE Act and designed it to strengthen the Court's stated protections so that the public knows who is speaking and sponsoring these newly permitted messages.

This legislation would provide the following increased protections for the American people. It will ensure that they have full and timely disclosure of campaign-related expenditures by corporations, labor unions, social welfare organizations, trade associations and 527 groups. It requires these covered organizations to report expenditures to the Federal Election Commission within 24 hours if the expenditure is $1,000 or greater within 20 days of an election and $10,000 or greater before that date. It will then require the organization to post this information on its own Web site 24 hours after reporting and to send the information to its shareholders or members in any periodic or annual reports. This Internet publication requirement and more rapid reporting helps implement the Court's opinion that ``prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions and supporters.''

It will also require enhanced reporting to the FEC by those covered organizations, requiring those that spend more than $10,000 per year on campaign-related expenditures to either disclose all of their donors that have given over $1,000 or to create a campaign-related activity account for exclusive use in making these expenditures. If this account is created, the organization will only need to disclose those donors that have donated over $10,000 in unrestricted funds or over $1,000 in funds specifically designated for campaign-related expenditures.

This legislation will also require those organizations that make transfers to other organizations for the purpose of making campaign- related expenditures to report those transfers in order to drill down so that the public truly knows where the money being spent is coming from. It will also allow donors to covered organizations to designate that their donations will not be used for campaign-related activity. If a donor makes this designation, the organization must then certify to the FEC that it will not use the donation in this manner. These requirements force organizations making these expenditures to be aware of the persons whose money they are spending on campaigns.

Our intent is not to seek the names of dues-paying members. Nor do we want to dissuade prospective members or donors from supporting a particular cause or organization. First, as outlined above, we believe that setting up and utilizing a campaign-related activity account will shield any organization from having to disclose any donor that does not want to have his or her funds go to political purposes. Second, creating the option for a donor to affirmatively designate that the donation should not be used for political spending will provide a mechanism to keep this donation walled-off from disclosure or disclaimers. Third, even if a group decides to transfer money from its general treasury to the campaign-related activity account, thus triggering disclosure of its general treasury, we believe the $10,000 threshold will exclude dues-paying members or your average donor who would not want to be disclosed.

This legislation also institutes several enhanced disclaimer provisions for political ads to ensure that the public knows who is sponsoring them. Current regulations require candidates sponsoring ads to stand by their ads and notify the public that they approve the message. Our language extends this requirement to the newly empowered organizations to make the public aware that it is not a candidate or party speaking, in line with Justice Kennedy's language in the decision. Additionally, it requires the top funder of an advertisement to record a similar disclaimer, and a list of the top five donors to be visible on the screen.

Stand-by-your-ad requirements are constitutional and essential. Further, we believe that it would take 8 seconds to read the two disclaimers, and not half of an advertisement as some opponents misleadingly suggest. For those advertisements that are 15 seconds, the act provides for a hardship exemption.

We have instituted all of these additional requirements in order to bring more awareness to the public. I believe that it is completely in the American peoples interest to know who is speaking about candidates, and the Supreme

Court agrees. This is not about preventing speech or making speech more difficult, it is solely about making the public aware of who the speakers are. This is fully consistent with the Constitution. There is no reason that any group would decline to spend unless it was attempting to deceive the American public by speaking without identifying who it is. This bill drills down and follows the money so that any organizations attempting to disguise their activities through shadow groups are not allowed to mislead the public. It brings everyones political speech into the sunlight.

I now yield for Senator Feingold, a leader and true champion of reform and transparency.

First, Madam President, I wish to join my friend from Connecticut in praising Senator Bennet, who has had an amazing effect and a steady hand in bringing this bill to the floor. I also thank my colleague from Virginia, Senator Warner. The new Members have had a tremendous effect on this bill. This reflects the way the Senate works these days, and I think it is all for the better. Having their input and experience has been vital.

But, Mr. Chairman, I would also say that you are full of fresh ideas and vim and vigor. Just because you have been around here a long time does not mean that----

In fact, you have had the wisdom to encourage some of our new Members to actively participate, and confidence to do that as well.

I also do not want to fail to note my colleague from New York, Senator Gillibrand, the Presiding Officer, who has done a fabulous job, too, particularly on the agriculture portion of the bill on the committee on which she sits.

Amendment No. 3826

Madam President, I come to the floor today and rise against the consumer amendment posed by Senator Shelby that is before us. I come to the floor to speak about the need for a strong independent consumer watchdog. I am here to talk about the proposal put forward by some of my Republican colleagues to place a new consumer protection division within the FDIC and significantly reduce the ability of that division to carry out its mission.

The amendment before us greatly weakens the bill in terms of consumer protections. In fact, it is not just a step backward from the bill before us, it is a step backward from the status quo. If we were to pass the amendment on the floor, consumer protections, weak as they are today, would be even weaker. This amendment would leave the consumer naked and unprotected. This amendment strips the bill of some of its strongest protections. Not every financial institution preys on consumers, but those that do would be given too free a hand if this amendment were to pass. I urge strong opposition to it.

Let me explain. One of the roots of this financial crisis was, undoubtedly, that total failure of our consumer protection regime. Americans were sold products they did not understand and could not afford by mortgage originators eager for a fee and happy to sell those loans off into the great securitization machine which was given a virtual carte blanche by the credit rating agencies.

After the events of the last several years, no one can argue that fundamental reform of our consumer protection regime is not necessary. No one can argue the status quo is the way to go. The status quo simply will not do. There is no accountability in the current system. Consumer protection is split among seven different regulatory agencies. For that reason, I was an early supporter of efforts to create a truly independent consumer protection agency, and I am still working with many of my colleagues, including Senator Jack Reed and Senator Durbin, to strengthen the provisions of the bill proposed by Chairman Dodd.

One of the key authorities of any new consumer protection division or agency is that it must be able to adopt rules to protect consumers without being overruled by banking regulators who would rather allow banks to pad their bottom lines by fleecing consumers with hidden fees.

Some argue that you cannot split consumer protection from safety and soundness. But historically, in the present setup, every time there is a conflict, the consumer loses. Consumers deserve an accountable regulator with oversight of consumer financial products as its primary objective, not as an afterthought.

The Republican proposal being discussed is totally inadequate. It would allow the same bank regulators, who have stood in the way of meaningful consumer protections for years, to veto consumer protection rules proposed by the head of the new division.

For example, the Comptroller of the Currency, who publicly opposed the Fed's new credit card rules, would, under the Shelby amendment, get to vote on future credit card rules. So the regulators who do not really care--some of them--about consumer protection would be given veto power.

The division would have no examination or enforcement power over any bank of any size or any of its affiliates. Some of the worst actors in the subprime mess were bank affiliates or subsidiaries. Even worse, it could only do examinations of nonbank consumer finance companies if they ``demonstrate a pattern or practice of violations'' of consumer law--in other words, only after consumers have been harmed repeatedly. That is what one could call too little, too late. Even the Fed recently deleted this requirement from rules governing subprime mortgages because it hampered enforceability of those rules so severely.

Even the banks want the new consumer division to be able to enforce its rules at nonbanks. This is amazing. Some of the most rapacious institutions that prey on consumers are not banks. They operate outside the scope of the Federal regulatory authorities. They are often responsible for many of the most egregious abuses and predatory lending practices. Many of the products provided to consumers by these nonbanks played a direct role in the financial crisis. And many of these businesses--payday lenders, rent-to-own companies--currently operate below the radar screen to prey on vulnerable communities. How can we exempt some of these payday lenders and

rent-to-own companies? I have seen them prey on poor people in my State. How can we exempt them from regulation when they often are worse than many of the financial institutions?

The Republican amendment would also prohibit the consumer division from issuing any rules ``that affect any underwriting standards'' of deposit institutions and their affiliates. After the crisis we just went through, which was in large part created by bad mortgage underwriting standards, I cannot believe anyone can propose this with a straight face because--let me repeat what it does. The consumer division cannot issue rules ``that affect any underwriting standards'' of deposit institutions. It is saying: Let's repeat the mortgage crisis. It makes no sense.

If this consumer division were in place in 2008--the one proposed by my colleagues here--it would not have had the power to write the mortgage rules establishing the minimum ability to pay standards the Fed issued. As we know, the Fed was not an extreme watchdog in any

sense. I have worked long and hard in the area of consumer protection. I have worked with these regulators. I have seen how slowly they work. It took more than 10 years to get them to go along with the so-called Schumer box, where credit card interest rates were made clear and visible to prospective credit card purchasers. It worked. But why did it take so long? Then, when the banks came with new ways of getting around the rules, again, it took me forever to get the Fed to move because the Fed, frankly--and Chairman Bernanke to his credit admitted this--did not make consumer protection a high enough priority.

So we need, in my judgment, an independent agency. That would be the best solution. Second best would be an agency, even if it is within the Fed, that is largely independent in both the rules it can promulgate and its enforcement. We need strong, forward-looking financial reform. I have always said I want the reform to be constructive, not punitive. But if we go through all this and fail to leave consumers better protected than they were before this crisis, we will have totally failed in our mission to serve the American people.

I strongly urge that this amendment be rejected by a large and hopefully bipartisan majority.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 5160, which was received from the House and is at the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time.

The bill (H.R. 5160) was ordered to a third reading and was read the third time.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.