Mark Pryor

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, unfortunately, I was absent for vote No. 98, a motion to instruct the Sergeant at Arms to request the attendance of absent Senators. Had I been present for the vote, I would have cast a vote in favor of the motion.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I want to briefly comment on yesterday's cloture vote on the motion to proceed to S.1038, the extension of the amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Unfortunately, yesterday I was attending the funeral of a very close family friend who passed away on Friday. However, I wish to express my support for the motion to proceed and the extensions themselves. I believe these extensions, section 6001 (a) of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, and sections 206 and 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act, continue to provide the right balance between safety and individual rights. I understand those with concerns about the breadth and scope of this law and believe it is important to continue to ask these questions and examine the limits and extent of these amendments as well as other aspects of the law. In the wake of bin Laden's recent killing, the importance and significance of our intelligence resources are without question. Our intelligence community must have the necessary tools at its disposal to protect us from the threat of terrorism. This legislation helps clarify what is legal and proper, and I believe strikes a balance between prioritizing our safety without trampling individual rights.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. I rise to speak for 10 minutes on an issue that is very important to not just my State but really important to the country. We know flooding is going on around the country. This is a picture from Arkansas, and clearly there are people all over the country or all over the South along the Mississippi River who are underwater. You can see the very end here; this little end is a lawn mower that is sticking up out of the water. The water is coming up to the bottom of the windowsill in this home over in east Arkansas. So we certainly send our prayers and any sort of assistance we can to people in my State, in Louisiana, Mississippi, other places, Missouri--obviously in Missouri they have had a lot of water up there--and Tennessee and other places that are really underwater right now. What I want to talk about today, though, is not this flooding the country is experiencing right now but a flood in my State that happened 3 years ago. We had a situation 3 years ago where we had some flooding on the White River near a town called Mountain View, and FEMA paid out some money to flood victims there. It turns out some of that money was paid out wrongly. I want to talk about that in just a minute, but let me start with June 1, 1865. In President Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, he described our government as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. I like President Lincoln's description of our government, and I firmly believe our government was created by our citizens to protect our citizens. It is there for the benefit of our citizens. That is what I want to talk about today. Many of you have heard me talk about FEMA's disaster assistance recoupment process, which, by the way, I am 100 percent for recoupment. Our Federal agencies make mistakes, and they send out things in error. There is some double-dipping. There is some lack of oversight. There are poor systems in place from time to time. There is some fraud, some dishonesty out there. I think the Federal Government owes it to the taxpayers to go out and recoup as much of that money as possible. I want to focus on one sliver of that, and even within that sliver, a very small piece of that small sliver; that is, FEMA's disaster assistance recoupment process. I have a bill on this subject, and since the last time I have spoken about this on the floor, we have taken our bill, we have been in the Homeland Security Committee, and it has been reworked and modified. Our staff and many other staffs on the committee worked on this late last week and over the weekend and early this week, and I think they spent over an hour with FEMA on the telephone to make sure they understand all of FEMA's processes and how this really works. But the bottom line is, yesterday in Homeland Security, I was able to offer my new substitute bill, which was adopted in the committee, the substitute was adopted--the amendments were adopted to the bill. So we now have a new bill in terms of the text of the bill. The changes were negotiated. Again, we spent a lot of time talking to staff and Members from both sides of the aisle, both sides of the committee. Basically what it does is very simple, and it is much simpler than what we were doing a week ago. It is very simple. What our bill does is it gives the FEMA Administrator the authority to waive disaster assistance recoupment efforts if three conditions are met. You have to meet all three conditions. First, the disaster assistance must have been distributed based solely on a FEMA error. So there can be no fault on the part of the person but solely on a FEMA error. Second, there cannot be any fraud or any misrepresentation on the part of the debtor. Third, the collection of the debt would be against equity and good conscience. And the reason we chose that phrase, ``equity and good conscience,'' is not because we made it up but because that is the standard that is in current law. The Department of Defense uses that language when they talk about recoupment, the Social Security Administration uses that language, but also OPM has that language in their law as well. So this is not setting a precedent; this is basically applying other standards, recognized standards in the Federal Government, to FEMA. The reason this is important is FEMA technically has discretion right now. FEMA can't tell us the statistics because they don't keep the statistics, but basically what we hear over and over from FEMA and other folks who are familiar with this process is that they cannot--or they are very reluctant to waive these debts. They feel they have a mandate to go recoup this money and collect this money, and that is what they do. Quite frankly, in some circumstances what they will do is they will force someone to go through this appeal process, they will make a determination that maybe that person may have $100 a month in disposable income, and they will basically take that $100 a month from that person every month for, say, 5 years. In the case in Arkansas I want to talk about here in just a moment, the people supposedly owe back, according to FEMA, $27,000. So if they did that and they took all of their disposable income--let's just say it is $100, and we don't know what it is because we do not know all of the facts. They are in the process of going through the process, but we don't know all of the facts. I am not trying to get in their personal financial information. But the bottom line is, let's say it is $100 a month, the disposable income. These folks are on Social Security, so you know it is not going to be a whole lot more than that, if that. But for 5 years, FEMA taxes all of their disposable income. At the end of 5 years, FEMA has collected $6,000 on a $27,000 debt. I mean, are we really getting what we want out of this? Are we trying to squeeze blood out of a turnip? I have been working on this legislation for 2 months. All we are trying to do is give FEMA clearly in the statute some discretion to let them make decisions, again, when equity and good conscience would dictate that there ought to be a waiver. And it is not that hard. I know that right now in the Congress--and this is a good thing-- people are very money-conscious. That is good. We are pinching pennies. That is good. We are trying to recover every Federal dollar we can. That is good. I know the Presiding Officer right now has been leading the charge on that, and that is good, and we applaud her. We are cheering for her to continue to do that. We want her to do that. We want that for the government. But one of the things our government should do in dealing with its citizens is consider the equity and consider doing things in good conscience. I want to talk about the situation here in Arkansas. I want to talk about one family who has received one of these letters from FEMA. There are not very many. We don't know the exact number, but we know there are not very many who will fall under this statute we are trying to address. But in this one family, they are in their seventies. They are on Social Security. They bought or built this home--I am not sure which-- years and years ago on the White River near Mountain View. When they purchased the home, they bought flood insurance. They knew they were on a river. They knew it might flood. It is a river, for crying out loud. It is in Arkansas. It rains a lot from time to time. They knew it might flood, so they bought flood insurance. Well, after so many years, the flood insurance company said: We are not going to do any more flood insurance. We are not even offering that line anymore. They went to Lloyd's of London and they bought flood insurance. They went overseas to buy flood insurance so they would have protection. They carried that for a number of years. Finally, Lloyd's of London said: We are not doing flood insurance anymore. So then they tried to buy flood insurance through the National Flood Insurance Program. They could not do that because the county where they reside had not passed an ordinance that FEMA had approved. Now, I don't know why they had not, haven't gotten into the merits of that, but the bottom line is that FEMA knew this county did not pass this ordinance. They knew it. They had to know it because FEMA keeps it all by ZIP Code. They keep it all by county. They keep it all by flood zone maps. They knew this. Nonetheless, they show up at her house a day or two after the disaster, they take photos, they give her the paperwork, and they assure this couple--they assure them--that they are entitled to this money, and they walk them through the process. The people did it. They got $27,000 from FEMA in this individual assistance money. Those people took every dime of it and put it back in their home--every dime, put it back in their home. They played by the rules from the very beginning to the very end. Then, 3 years later--3 years later--FEMA writes them a letter and says: Oh, by the way, we made a mistake. We should have never given you that money in the first place because your county had not passed this ordinance. So you owe us $27,000. You have 30 days to pay it back or you are going to face penalties and interest. Well, again, this couple is in their seventies. They are on Social Security. They don't have much else. They have their home. That is about it. This could ruin them financially--probably will ruin them financially. I do not know how in the world they would ever pay this, anywhere close to the $27,000. But nonetheless FEMA says: Look, our hands are tied. We have to pursue this. We have to squeeze everything we can get out of these folks. My view is that this was completely FEMA's mistake. That is why I opened with the quote that we are supposed to be a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. This doesn't sound as if FEMA is acting like that type of government right now. FEMA has caused these people harm. Our government should never harm its own people-- should never harm its own people--but that is exactly what they have done here. Because of FEMA's incompetence back 3 years ago, they are harming these people. These people, 3 years ago, had they known they were not eligible, had they known they shouldn't apply for this, had they known FEMA shouldn't have given them this money, would have taken a different course. They would have made decisions based on the circumstances they had at the time. Who knows if they can ever pay this money back. Who knows if they can ever borrow any money. Who knows how this is going to work out. I feel as if, if we gave FEMA the discretion in this particular case, you would see a different result; you would see FEMA say: OK, we will waive this entirely, and we are just not going to pursue you because it was all our fault. I think FEMA clearly needs to have discretion in the statute. Again, if you look at their regs, look at some of their law, look at their practices, they do technically on paper have this discretion, but apparently they are very reluctant to use it, and their inspector general is really pressuring them to collect every dime they can. So FEMA feels as if their hands are tied. Let me say a couple more words about this. I have asked the Homeland Security Committee to allow us to reconsider this in the committee. There was a little bit of an odd circumstance in the committee yesterday. We had the votes, but some of the Senators who were there and for this either had to leave or were on the way when we voted, and we ended up not having enough to pass it. If everyone was there, we would have passed this. Now we are asking them to reconsider, that we be allowed to bring this back up on the next markup, which I think is going to be next week. We would like to do that. We think it is a matter of fairness. The reason I am asking this and I am so insistent on this is because this is not limited to my State. I am not just trying to help a few people in the State of Arkansas. I think there are very few in number here in my State. But what is happening around the country is--I saw it today. There were two stories; I believe one was from Tennessee, one was from Mississippi. The same thing is happening in those States. People are starting to get these letters from FEMA. What is going to happen is all of my colleagues are going to start coming to the Homeland Security Committee, and they are going to say: Do something about this. We have these hardship cases in our State that need to be addressed. Trust me on this, this is going to happen for most people in this Chamber in their home States because FEMA has a backlog of 165,000 of these cases. They have only gone through a little over 5,000 of them to send these back--process these and send these letters out. They have 165,000. They have done about 5,000, and they have 160,000 to go. You can bet your bottom dollar most Senators in this Chamber will have people in their home States who need a little equity, a little grace, and need to have their government stop beating up on them. Again, I feel very strongly that, in this particular case, FEMA has done these people harm. They have put them in a very dangerous position financially. They gave them some money, and now they are trying to jerk the rug out from under them and take it back. I think that is unfair. I think that once these cases--and there will not be many of them; there may be a couple hundred around the country--but once people get into these cases, they are going to want FEMA to clearly have this discretion. The first numbers we ran--it was only about three-tenths of 1 percent, but now probably it may be a little higher, but we don't know because FEMA doesn't keep accurate statistics. One last thing on FEMA. I feel like FEMA has fixed this for the present time and going forward. When Director Fugate came in, this is one of the many cleanups he had to do from the previous FEMA administration. I think they have done that, and they have better systems in place. I think their competence level has gone up in the last couple years. I don't agree with him on everything, but I think he has done a pretty good job. We have asked questions of him before the committee. He took over an agency that was in distress, and he is trying. Generally, he has done a great job, and he thinks he has fixed this. As far as I know, he has. I think they have their act together much more than they did back then. My point is, hopefully, we will not see these kinds of cases come from the flooding we are seeing right now. These are legacy cases from the previous FEMA administration. I thank my colleagues for being aware of this. I ask my colleagues on the Homeland Security Committee to allow us to bring this back up, put this back on the markup, and let's get it out of the committee. One of the great things about Homeland Security is that very seldom do we have party-line votes in that committee. That committee is very nonpartisan. The chairman and the ranking member insist on that. When we sit in that committee, we actually sit around the table, Democrat, Republican, Democrat, Republican. It is a great committee to serve on. I love being on that committee. I hope my colleagues on the committee and also in the Chamber will encourage us to move this through the committee next week and try to get this done to help a lot of people around the country. With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, are we in morning business?

Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCASKILL.) Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, I will speak in morning business for 10 minutes or less. Let me talk about a couple things this morning. First, I wish to talk about something my State has been going through since mid-March and has continued to the present day. We have been battered by tornadoes and high winds and now flooding. We see this in a photo that was taken a few days ago, late last week, of one of the areas in our State underwater. We have had many towns that have been evacuated, many counties have been declared disaster areas. In fact, the Corps of Engineers showed me a map on Friday when I met with them. They have a map that is a large overview that starts down near Dallas, TX, pretty much through all the State of Arkansas, then a little bit of Missouri and Tennessee and Illinois and even, I think, a little bit into Kentucky. The folks in those areas in that oval have received six times the normal rainfall. When we have six times the normal rainfall, this is what we get. This is a photo where we can see the water is in the house and up on the front porch. These folks are underwater, similar to a lot of people in our State. I will say this. The Governor of our State is doing all any Governor can do. He is doing a great job. Even though we have Interstate 40 underwater right now in one area where the White River goes under Interstate 40, they are trying very hard to get that open, maybe even today if the water will cooperate. We are seeing a lot of emergency response in our State, seeing neighbor helping neighbor, churches are rolling out, we have seen folks doing everything they can to make this work. Also, I thank the Corps of Engineers. It is easy for us to beat up on the Corps of Engineers sometimes, but the truth is probably 95 or more percent of the time they do things right. They do things the right way. If it weren't for the Corps of Engineers, a lot of east Arkansas would be underwater and maybe a lot more. The system they designed and built has worked. Even though this is a 100-year flood or even worse, it is working and it is saving billions of dollars in damages and hardship. I thank the Corps and I also thank FEMA. FEMA has been on the ground in Arkansas for 3 or 4 weeks now, probably, with different teams going around the State helping in different ways and they have been very helpful. I wish to go to my second topic, and I wish to emphasize what we are seeing happening in the State right now is not impacted by what I am about to talk about. But I think this FEMA administration is still cleaning up some of the mess from the previous FEMA administration. A few years ago, we had another series of floods in our State. Now we are seeing FEMA trying to recoup that money against people in our State. Let me give a little background. Three years ago, in an area around Mountain View, AR, the White River flooded. FEMA came and they actually went to a woman's house--I wish to talk about her and her husband. They went to this couple's house. They are on Social Security. They retired. FEMA assured them they would be eligible for assistance. FEMA took pictures. They verified the damage. They gave them the paperwork--even kind of coaxed them through some of the paperwork. They assured them repeatedly that they would qualify for some assistance from FEMA. They did end up getting $27,000 for home repairs and that is exactly what they spent it for. They played by the rules. They filled out all the paperwork. FEMA was physically on their premises. They got the check, plowed it right back into the house, exactly like they said they would, and it helped them stay in their house. Fast forward 3 years. We see FEMA writes them a letter, what I would call a demand letter, where they are requesting that they repay all this money, that they have 30 days to repay the balance of the debt they owe FEMA. This, of course, is a big shock to them because they were assured, repeatedly, that they had a legitimate claim. FEMA encouraged them to file this claim, they got the money, and they thought everything was great. What has happened is, this couple, similar to many others in our State, built their home down on the river. They knew it could possibly flood one day. When they built it, they bought flood insurance. After years of paying the flood insurance, it never flooded. But after years of paying the flood insurance, the flood insurance company said they would not cover flood insurance anymore. They actually went to Lloyd's of London and paid for that for a number of years. Eventually, Lloyd's of London said: We are not doing flood insurance anymore. They desperately tried to find flood insurance and could never find it. FEMA has a rule that in order for anyone to get flood insurance through the National Flood Insurance Program, the county or the city has to pass an ordinance. That is necessary in order for them, the people in the community, to get flood insurance. FEMA knew this particular county, Stone County, had not passed this ordnance. Nonetheless, they assured this couple, repeatedly, they were entitled to this money. So in a very real sense, these people and many others in our State are twice the victim. They are the victim of the storm and the flood, but then they are a victim of their government because their own government has injured them by the way they have handled all this-- giving out the money and then demanding recoupment for the money 3 years after the fact, when they get the notice of debt. FEMA, by the way, did not just send it out to this one couple; they sent it out to 35 families around the State. Three years later, when they get this notice of debt, they have no means to pay it back. These folks are on Social Security. In fact, they would not have qualified for the payment had they had substantial resources. So one of the ironies is, what we are doing is we are telling the poorer people they need to pay FEMA back. The poorer folks owe FEMA the most money. That is the way the program works. I think if we had Director Fugate, who again I think is doing a good job running FEMA--if we had him here today, I don't know exactly what he would say about the situation, but I think he would say the statute ties his hands, and he doesn't have much flexibility under the statute. Whether he agrees with the hardship of the situation or the equity of the situation, he doesn't have a lot of leeway in trying to deal with this. I am offering a solution. I am offering it in the Homeland Security Committee this week. I hope Members of the Senate will look at my legislation. It is only four pages long. We are asking Congress to give FEMA some flexibility when it comes to the recoupment process and to allow leniency for some individuals under certain circumstances. I think our couple in Arkansas fits those circumstances exactly. Basically, they have played by the rules, they have done all they can do and they continue to play by the rules and do all they can do. I filed a bill that is going to be in the Homeland Security Committee this week. I would love to have my colleagues look at it and support it, if they see fit. It does three things. No. 1, it says FEMA may waive a debt owed to the United States in cases where funds were distributed purely by FEMA error, which is the case here, because FEMA knew this particular county had not passed this ordinance. FEMA knew no one in this county was entitled to any assistance under this particular provision of the disaster relief law because the county had not passed the ordinance. FEMA knew that for the entire county. In fact, they have a list of every county--every ZIP Code in the country where people do not qualify. This woman of the couple from Arkansas was very clear about her location as she went through this process. FEMA, whether they admit it--we can produce the documentation--FEMA was clearly in error in giving out this check, in assuring her she was entitled to it, and assisting her through this process. They were clearly in error. I think it is a case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing. Again, I think this FEMA administration has cleaned up this problem. My guess is we will not see this type of problem in the future, especially not out of this FEMA administration. The second thing it does is it says they have to waive a debt owed to the United States in cases where the rationale for recoupment was failure to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program. Again, what this will do is acknowledge that FEMA made some mistakes 3 years ago. It is kind of competence 101 that they would know which counties and which residents would be entitled to this particular relief, but somehow, some way, they dropped the ball. This would make it very clear, from 2005 to 2010--again, this is the limited duration of this bill, this is a relief bill to help a specific group of people--that because of FEMA's mistake and because the folks here could not participate in the flood insurance program, no matter how much they wanted to--and this particular couple did want to participate in the FEMA flood insurance program, they could not do it--this would basically say we cannot now punish them and come back on them for that money. The third thing it does, it makes clear that Congress is not giving any waivers in cases of fraud or misrepresentation or false claims or anything of that nature. This is purely for mistakes and errors made by the Federal Government when the Federal Government is trying to come back in and recoup moneys they wrongly paid. Let me run through a couple other things, and I will be glad to yield the floor in just a few minutes. These communities that have not passed this ordinance and, therefore, are not entitled to participate in the flood insurance program, they are called sanctioned communities. That is what FEMA calls them. They are called sanctioned communities. There was a lawsuit a few years ago that basically challenged FEMA's ability to do certain things. It is too long and involved to talk about, but the court found there are 168,000 cases. Mostly these go back to the hurricanes of Katrina, Rita, et cetera--the biggest bulk of them. Of the 168,000 cases that FEMA has to revisit and maybe recoup some money from people, so far they have only done 5,000 of these cases. Out of the 5,000 cases they have reviewed, only 18 cases, 18 total out of 5,000--out of 5,500 cases--would be impacted by my bill. So we are talking a very small percentage. We are talking three- tenths of 1 percent is what we are talking about here. This is a very tiny, very narrow exception. I am for recoupment as much as anybody. I think it is very important that the government do it right and do it right the first time. If there is some sort of fraud or some sort of misrepresentation, then the government absolutely should go after that money and try to recoup as much of that as possible. What we are talking about here is in 99.7 percent of the cases they can pursue recoupment. But based on the numbers we have today, it is three-tenths of 1 percent of the time where the mistake is completely on FEMA's side of the equation, and we would say no, as a matter of fairness and as a matter of equity, then they cannot seek recoupment in these cases. To me this is a matter of equity. This is a situation where this particular couple in Arkansas--and we have other couples, we have other families too--we know of a total of four in our State who fall into this category. So we only have four out of how ever many thousands have received FEMA payments over the years. But nonetheless, this is a matter of equity because if you look at this couple I am talking about here in Arkansas near Mountain View, they basically would never have done this. They would have made other arrangements 3 years ago. I do not know if they would have gone to the bank. I do not know if they would have gotten a second mortgage. I do not know if they would have sold the property and moved out. I do not know. They do not want to think about it. Because this FEMA check actually allowed them to stay in their house. Now they are coming back in a worse condition than they were before because FEMA says, you have 30 days to pay this back. The fact they have not paid it back yet and that they filed an appeal with FEMA to try to work this process to get some relief, which FEMA, apparently, very seldom if ever grants--the fact that they filed this paperwork means that they have a little extension on the principle load. But it is very clear from the correspondence from FEMA that now interest is accruing. So interest is accruing on these folks. Again, I think they are in a worse situation today than they would been had FEMA said no 3 years ago as they should have done. To me this is a matter of equity. I think if we were in a court, you might use the word estoppel. I think the Federal Government should be estopped in this situation from pursuing this money, because there was detrimental reliance on the part of the family. They did not ask for this. FEMA showed up at their house. FEMA took pictures. FEMA helped them fill out the paperwork. FEMA walked them through the process. They do exactly what they are supposed to do. They put it in the house. It saves their house and gives them the ability to stay there. And now 3 years later, they get a letter basically saying, notice of debt, you owe FEMA $27,000. Well, you can imagine, this is devastating for a family on Social Security who has very few other means. Again, if they qualified for this in the first place, you know they are not high-income folks. And $27,000 at this stage of life for them is a lot of money. It is a mountain that is too tall to climb. What I would love for my colleagues to do is look at what we are going to offer in the committee. I hope you can support it. We will be glad to answer any questions if any of my colleagues want to talk about it today or in the hallways here in the Senate over the next couple of days as we are working through this. I certainly want to thank Senator Lieberman for allowing us to put it on the markup. I think folks around here rightly are in a recoupment mode. They want to recoup money that has been wrongly paid out. And, again, I am for that 100 percent. In fact, we had a hearing in one of the Homeland Security subcommittees the other day about recoupment. We have talked about this. This is very important that we stop the bleeding and the government not pay out more money than they should. But in this particular case, I think the principle of equity and fairness is certainly on the side of these folks who again, as I said, are twice the victims. They were first victimized by the storm, and second they are victimized by their own government. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I want to talk just for a few minutes about an incident that is unfolding in Arkansas, and that I am sure is unfolding in other States as well. Less than 2 weeks ago, a 73-year-old woman and her husband received a letter from FEMA, where FEMA demanded that this couple pay back $27,000 in FEMA assistance they had received 3 years earlier, and that they do so within 30 days or face penalties, interest, et cetera. Well, this was devastating news for her. These are Social Security recipients. They lost everything in a flood. But let me back up and tell the full story, and then tell the rest of the story. Three years ago, Arkansas had some floods on the White River, and the folks in the Mountain View area, some of them, experienced very severe flooding. FEMA actually came to this couple's house, walked around, and told them on the spot they were eligible to receive FEMA assistance for the flooding. The maximum you can receive is $30,000. So they filled out the paperwork. In fact, FEMA helped them do some of that, like I said, on the spot, while FEMA was visiting their home and looking at their property. FEMA assured her they would qualify for this assistance. So they filled out the paperwork and they went through the process. Apparently, at some point, there was even an appeal or some sort of clarification. So it went through the proper channels at FEMA. Remember, FEMA was there, they took pictures, and the whole deal. They verified the damage. So this couple received $27,000 in FEMA assistance. They put every dime back into their home. This is a couple who basically lost almost all their worldly possessions in this flood. I talked to her a week or so ago, and she told me they were able to save a few items of glassware and a few keepsakes from the family, but basically everything was either washed away in the water or so caked with mud it was ruined during the flood. The $27,000 helped repair their home and make it habitable, but it didn't restore their home anywhere close to the condition it was before the flood. This was their dream home--their retirement home. They live right there on the White River. It is a beautiful part of the State. So they got this letter a couple of weeks ago. Now, bear in mind this flood happened 3 years ago--the flood happened 3 years ago--and they are now required, under the rules and regs and the law that FEMA works with, to pay all this money back. As I said before, this is a terrible hardship. As it turns out, what happened is these folks, although they were assured by FEMA they were eligible, they were actually never qualified to receive this money. They didn't know that. They had FEMA in their living room telling them they were qualified and they should receive the money; that they met all the tests and standards and that is what this program was for, to help people like them. However, there was one technicality, and that was that the county in which they lived had not passed an ordinance to go into the FEMA flood insurance program. Here, again, FEMA should have known this. FEMA apparently went to some of the county meetings where it was discussed and voted down. But, nonetheless, FEMA assured these people they would be covered under this program. The irony of all this is that the couple, when they bought their home on the White River, one of the preconditions or requirements they set for themselves was they would purchase flood insurance. They had it for a number of years. They paid premiums for a number of years. They never experienced a flood, but they paid premiums for a number of years. Finally, the insurance company that offered the flood insurance got out of the business, and so they even went to the extent of going through Lloyds of London to get flood insurance. They paid a lot of money for a premium, but they, nonetheless, carried that as long as it was offered. Finally, it wasn't offered any longer, and the only thing left was the FEMA National Flood Insurance Program. But because the county had not done what they were supposed to do, this couple, therefore, was not eligible to receive the FEMA flood money--again, no fault of their own. They had done everything anybody could do. They had paid their premiums out of their pockets as long as they could, as long as they could find insurance, and as that was canceled over the years, the county hadn't come through. But, apparently, FEMA was actually there at the county meetings and knew, or should have known, this couple wasn't eligible. Yet they gave her this money, and now they want it all back with penalties and interest, et cetera. So I have filed the Disaster Assistance Recoupment Fairness Act, and we actually have it in two forms. We have it as a stand-alone measure, and we also have it as an amendment to the bill that is pending on the floor right now. The important point of this story is that all of the mistakes that were made were on FEMA's side of the equation. The couple in Arkansas made no mistakes. They followed the rules, went through the process, went through the hearings. There is no allegation of fraud or that the couple in any way misled anyone. They gave them the documents and did everything they were supposed to do. It was textbook. They did everything they were supposed to do, but FEMA is now coming back and asking for recoupment. So our bill will not give a blanket exception, but what it will do is give the FEMA Administrator the authority, under circumstances he deems fit, to waive the debt that is owed to the United States in cases where funds were distributed by a FEMA error, as in this case. Also, it gives them the discretion that they do not have under current Federal law. I met with Director Fugate on this a week or two ago, and actually we had a very constructive meeting. I think probably on a personal level he understands this. He feels bad about this. But he believes his hands are tied under the statute. I am not 100 percent sure they are but he says they are. He tried to be very helpful, very accommodating. I think he does want to work with all the parties involved to try to clean this up. But he says he does not have the authority. That is where this bill comes in. We wish to give the FEMA Director the authority to have some discretion on some of these hardship type cases, especially where the person who received the benefit did it purely by a FEMA error. Again, in their case, they put every dime of their recovery back into their home to have it livable. Otherwise they probably would have had to abandon their home or sell the property or whatever the case may have been. That is what we are asking of the Senate, if they would consider this at the proper time. I ask my colleagues to take a look at it. My guess is, since we have 35 households in our State that are receiving these types of letters from FEMA, these demand letters where they are giving a notice of debt to folks who have received money, my guess is if we have 35 in our State there are hundreds and maybe thousands around the country in a similar situation. Again, our bill is just for FEMA's mistakes. This is probably an example of the cleanup from the previous FEMA administration. I think Director Fugate had nothing to do with this. It took them 3 years because there was a lawsuit in the meantime. What this is doing is creating a hardship for folks who had been playing by the rules. It gives FEMA the flexibility to do some of the cleanup in a way that doesn't harm ordinary citizens here in the United States. I ask my colleagues to take a look at it. I would be pleased to answer any questions. If anyone has those, they can always contact me in my office. What I wish to do is not call it up at this point or anything like that but maybe be in the queue and be available at sometime in the future.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I want to talk just for a few minutes about an incident that is unfolding in Arkansas, and that I am sure is unfolding in other States as well. Less than 2 weeks ago, a 73-year-old woman and her husband received a letter from FEMA, where FEMA demanded that this couple pay back $27,000 in FEMA assistance they had received 3 years earlier, and that they do so within 30 days or face penalties, interest, et cetera. Well, this was devastating news for her. These are Social Security recipients. They lost everything in a flood. But let me back up and tell the full story, and then tell the rest of the story. Three years ago, Arkansas had some floods on the White River, and the folks in the Mountain View area, some of them, experienced very severe flooding. FEMA actually came to this couple's house, walked around, and told them on the spot they were eligible to receive FEMA assistance for the flooding. The maximum you can receive is $30,000. So they filled out the paperwork. In fact, FEMA helped them do some of that, like I said, on the spot, while FEMA was visiting their home and looking at their property. FEMA assured her they would qualify for this assistance. So they filled out the paperwork and they went through the process. Apparently, at some point, there was even an appeal or some sort of clarification. So it went through the proper channels at FEMA. Remember, FEMA was there, they took pictures, and the whole deal. They verified the damage. So this couple received $27,000 in FEMA assistance. They put every dime back into their home. This is a couple who basically lost almost all their worldly possessions in this flood. I talked to her a week or so ago, and she told me they were able to save a few items of glassware and a few keepsakes from the family, but basically everything was either washed away in the water or so caked with mud it was ruined during the flood. The $27,000 helped repair their home and make it habitable, but it didn't restore their home anywhere close to the condition it was before the flood. This was their dream home--their retirement home. They live right there on the White River. It is a beautiful part of the State. So they got this letter a couple of weeks ago. Now, bear in mind this flood happened 3 years ago--the flood happened 3 years ago--and they are now required, under the rules and regs and the law that FEMA works with, to pay all this money back. As I said before, this is a terrible hardship. As it turns out, what happened is these folks, although they were assured by FEMA they were eligible, they were actually never qualified to receive this money. They didn't know that. They had FEMA in their living room telling them they were qualified and they should receive the money; that they met all the tests and standards and that is what this program was for, to help people like them. However, there was one technicality, and that was that the county in which they lived had not passed an ordinance to go into the FEMA flood insurance program. Here, again, FEMA should have known this. FEMA apparently went to some of the county meetings where it was discussed and voted down. But, nonetheless, FEMA assured these people they would be covered under this program. The irony of all this is that the couple, when they bought their home on the White River, one of the preconditions or requirements they set for themselves was they would purchase flood insurance. They had it for a number of years. They paid premiums for a number of years. They never experienced a flood, but they paid premiums for a number of years. Finally, the insurance company that offered the flood insurance got out of the business, and so they even went to the extent of going through Lloyds of London to get flood insurance. They paid a lot of money for a premium, but they, nonetheless, carried that as long as it was offered. Finally, it wasn't offered any longer, and the only thing left was the FEMA National Flood Insurance Program. But because the county had not done what they were supposed to do, this couple, therefore, was not eligible to receive the FEMA flood money--again, no fault of their own. They had done everything anybody could do. They had paid their premiums out of their pockets as long as they could, as long as they could find insurance, and as that was canceled over the years, the county hadn't come through. But, apparently, FEMA was actually there at the county meetings and knew, or should have known, this couple wasn't eligible. Yet they gave her this money, and now they want it all back with penalties and interest, et cetera. So I have filed the Disaster Assistance Recoupment Fairness Act, and we actually have it in two forms. We have it as a stand-alone measure, and we also have it as an amendment to the bill that is pending on the floor right now. The important point of this story is that all of the mistakes that were made were on FEMA's side of the equation. The couple in Arkansas made no mistakes. They followed the rules, went through the process, went through the hearings. There is no allegation of fraud or that the couple in any way misled anyone. They gave them the documents and did everything they were supposed to do. It was textbook. They did everything they were supposed to do, but FEMA is now coming back and asking for recoupment. So our bill will not give a blanket exception, but what it will do is give the FEMA Administrator the authority, under circumstances he deems fit, to waive the debt that is owed to the United States in cases where funds were distributed by a FEMA error, as in this case. Also, it gives them the discretion that they do not have under current Federal law. I met with Director Fugate on this a week or two ago, and actually we had a very constructive meeting. I think probably on a personal level he understands this. He feels bad about this. But he believes his hands are tied under the statute. I am not 100 percent sure they are but he says they are. He tried to be very helpful, very accommodating. I think he does want to work with all the parties involved to try to clean this up. But he says he does not have the authority. That is where this bill comes in. We wish to give the FEMA Director the authority to have some discretion on some of these hardship type cases, especially where the person who received the benefit did it purely by a FEMA error. Again, in their case, they put every dime of their recovery back into their home to have it livable. Otherwise they probably would have had to abandon their home or sell the property or whatever the case may have been. That is what we are asking of the Senate, if they would consider this at the proper time. I ask my colleagues to take a look at it. My guess is, since we have 35 households in our State that are receiving these types of letters from FEMA, these demand letters where they are giving a notice of debt to folks who have received money, my guess is if we have 35 in our State there are hundreds and maybe thousands around the country in a similar situation. Again, our bill is just for FEMA's mistakes. This is probably an example of the cleanup from the previous FEMA administration. I think Director Fugate had nothing to do with this. It took them 3 years because there was a lawsuit in the meantime. What this is doing is creating a hardship for folks who had been playing by the rules. It gives FEMA the flexibility to do some of the cleanup in a way that doesn't harm ordinary citizens here in the United States. I ask my colleagues to take a look at it. I would be pleased to answer any questions. If anyone has those, they can always contact me in my office. What I wish to do is not call it up at this point or anything like that but maybe be in the queue and be available at sometime in the future.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. I thank the Chair.

Mr. PRYOR. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Pryor pertaining to the introduction of S. 792 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

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

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, while we are awaiting other Senators, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PRYOR. My understanding is we have other Senators who may be on the way to speak, so I ask unanimous consent the period for morning business, for debate only, be extended until 9 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each, with the majority leader to be recognized at 9 p.m.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, one thing I would like to say is that I don't want a shutdown, and I don't like where we are tonight--the fact that we are here and our backs are against the wall on a shutdown. I think we, collectively, have done a great disservice to the American people. I think they deserve better than what they are getting right now from Congress. I know the people I represent are hardworking. They are very sensible, kind of like the hard-working folks from the State of the Presiding Officer. But they are also very patriotic and they believe in this country. They believe in the values and the things that make this country great. They understand, the people of Arkansas, that right now we have 90,000 troops in Afghanistan and we have more than 45,000 in Iraq. They are there to serve this country and to serve the interests of this country. I can take something local such as the Little Rock Air Force Base, and I can say we have more than 5,600 airmen and about 640 civilian employees who could be affected in one way or another by this shutdown. About 2,000 employees of the Arkansas National Guard will be affected. There are 956 guardsmen on Active Duty who would continue to work without pay; 233 Arkansas Army Reservists are deployed overseas, including 23 who are designated for Libya. The people in my State do not want to see the military affected in any way by the partisan gamesmanship that you see in Washington. In fact, I would add a note to that. It is unconscionable that we should add stress to our military families right now, especially for those who are deployed. It is just unconscionable that we would do that under the circumstances we find ourselves in tonight. Let me talk about two leaders who stepped up to try to solve this problem and tried to cut through all the mess that we see in Washington, tried to cut through the politics as usual. That would be Senator Hutchison from Texas and Senator Casey from Pennsylvania. As my colleague from Montana said a moment ago, both of them worked in a very bipartisan way to craft legislation that would make sure, one way or the other, our troops get paid on time without any disruptions. We have all heard the phrase ``hard-earned pay.'' How does it get any harder earned than by serving in combat for your country? Again, it is hard for me to understand how we are here talking about this tonight, that we have not already addressed it. I hope whatever bill is offered is a bipartisan bill. I am not quite sure at the moment who is going to be the lead sponsor. As I said, I looked at the legislation offered by the two Senators I mentioned before. In the Senate things can change for various reasons, but however it comes down I hope we will not only consider but that we will pass legislation that will protect our Active-Duty men and women and our Reserve Component and the Coast Guard. We cannot forget the Coast Guard. A lot of times they are an afterthought, but certainly they do great things and they serve our country just like everybody else and they deserve to be included in this. Also, we need to give the Secretary of Defense the discretion so he can run his department in a way that will not weaken us. He needs that discretion, whatever that may mean. Again, we may have some differences on the details. One Senator may think one thing and another think another, but on the bottom line we need to give him enough discretion to make sure nothing in that shutdown ends up weakening our ability to perform the missions we need performed or puts our troops in any additional danger. In conclusion, let me offer an observation. In the last few weeks, on more occasions than I can count, I have witnessed Senators and Congressmen, even those in the blogosphere--the commentators, the talking heads, the so-called experts--doing exactly what, in my view, is wrong with Washington; that is, they are playing the blame game. They are holding a press conference and pointing fingers at everybody but themselves. It is going on all over the place. I am not singling out one person or one party, but we have seen that way too much. The truth is, the folks it is hurting are the American people. Our democracy is designed in such a way and has a track record where we all know it will work, and it will work great, and it will get the job done. We represent people and we can get in here and debate hard and fight hard and have our differences, but at the end of the process we have votes, we make decisions, and then we move on. Right now, for whatever reason, this is a problem in both Chambers. It is not just in the Senate. Not just one party is at fault. But for whatever reason we are seeing a breakdown in the system. That is not good for the country. Tonight we are talking about our troops, and certainly it is not good for them. I could easily spend the next 10 minutes at my desk blaming the Republicans for where we are tonight. I know they have said we had not passed anything. That is not true. We passed extensions six times to keep the government running. But I don't want to get into all that because I could spend 10 minutes talking about how awful and terrible the Republicans are, and then I could turn right back around and spend the next 10 minutes talking about how terrible the Democrats are. If we would be honest with the American people, both are to blame. I cannot stand here in good conscience and blame just one person or one party. The fault lies with all of us. Right now, because of the partisan bickering, because of the breakdown, we are using our military as a pawn in this budget fight. That is something we should never do. We are not helping anyone. This is not good government. We are not doing our citizens and our people any favors by doing this. I hope tonight, before we go out of here, we would pass something-- again, whatever bill it is. I am not hung up on who has to be the lead sponsor or what the number of that bill has to be. I hope we will pass something that will make sure our troops get paid on time and that takes care of our Active Duty, the Reserve and the Coast Guard, and it also gives the Secretary of Defense enough discretion to run his department as it needs to be run. Under the circumstances, I think that is not even close to too much to ask. I think that is perfectly within the bounds of reason. I hope and pray tonight before we leave we could all agree to do that. By the way, if we did put that on the Senate floor and didn't load it up with lots of agenda items, if we put that on the Senate floor in a clean fashion, I think it would sail out of here probably unanimously. I cannot speak for the House, but my guess is we would see the same result down there.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, we find ourselves in dangerous territory. While Republicans and Democrats continue to point fingers and hold fiery press conferences, a government shutdown is quickly approaching. The blame game is like quicksand: it has the ability to drag down not only the Senate and the House but the entire economy and our country. No matter how one looks at it, a shutdown would be reckless and irresponsible. We can get this short-term budget problem resolved if all parties would turn off the rhetoric and stop the campaigning. A few extreme partisans stand in the way of progress, blocking a good-faith effort of many others seeking common ground. I ask them to take to heart what it says in the book of Isaiah: Come now, let us reason together. We need to overcome this budget impasse and live up to the oath we took and to the people we represent. Larger challenges await our attention. It is not in our best interest to see the government shut down. I don't think it is in the best interest of the Nation to continue on this deficit-spending cycle we have been on. We owe it to the American people and the world that is watching us to show American leadership on both our short-term and long-term fiscal challenges. I would like to see us turn our effort to the blueprint provided by the debt commission. I commend the bipartisan group of Senators who have begun to turn part of this plan into legislation. We must find ways to reduce spending, address entitlement programs, and reform the Tax Code. Now, with all the momentum and opportunity built up over the last few months, is the time to lead. We must make the serious decisions to get our Nation out of the red so we can be competitive in the future. Again, I say let's turn off the rhetoric and be part of the solution, not part of the problem. In Washington, the blame game has become par for the course. It has become politics as usual. In fact, it is one thing that people in my State are sick and tired of and one of the reasons why they have lost confidence in the Congress and in our government. Besides that, how in the world does holding press conferences and pointing fingers at others help resolve anything? Besides that, it is not true because the truth is that we are in this fiscal situation we are in today because of decisions all of us have made over the last decades. In fact, I saw yesterday in the paper where Speaker Boehner was talking to some of his caucus about getting ready for the shutdown, and there were ovations over there. There are no ovations over here for a government shutdown. We do not want to see it. I am not only talking about Democrats. I don't know of any Republicans in the Senate who want to see a shutdown. In fact, from my standpoint, one of the tests I use when I look at politicians is, the louder they are and the more often they have press conferences to blame other people, that probably means the more they are to blame for the problems we have today. I certainly hope that as the elections roll around next year, the American people will remember many of the politicians' attempts in Washington to avoid responsibility for this terrible fiscal crisis. One thing we need to keep in mind is that what we are talking about this week in terms of shutting down the government--and I hope that doesn't happen--is really only important for the next 6 months. We are only talking about for the rest of this fiscal year. The real battle, the more meaningful discussion and debate and fight, even, that we need to have is over long-term fiscal policies. The next 6 months--I don't want to say that is not important, because it is--is a time for us to demonstrate to the American people, to the markets, and to the world that we can come up with political solutions to the very challenging problems we face. I am also concerned in this fragile economy that if we do shut down the government, that might be something that would shake this economy and actually, possibly, stop it in its tracks. I hope it will not reverse it, but I do have a concern about an abrupt cutoff of government spending, what that might do to the economy. Our fiscal challenges that the debt commission focused on and many of us have focused on are beyond politics. They are bigger than politics. They are more important than the next election. In fact, they are more important than our own personal political fortunes. This fiscal situation we are in is not about the next election; it is about the next generation. If we look back at the time that we call the Battle of Britain, one of the things Winston Churchill said that always stuck with me is, ``Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.'' He was talking about those brave men who flew the airplanes over Great Britain to protect the skies and the British people and to win the war, to stop Nazi Germany from invading and defeating the British Empire. The ``so few'' we have today are Tom Coburn, Dick Durbin, Mark Warner, Saxby Chambliss, Mike Crapo, and Kent Conrad. Those few have been meeting for weeks, even months, to try to come up with a comprehensive budget agreement based on the blueprint of the debt commission. These six Senators are not politicians; they are statesmen. They are trying to do what is right for the country. They are trying to do what is in the country's best interest, not their own. I guarantee my colleagues, each one of the six will face tremendous criticism from their own parties and from other quarters about what they are trying to accomplish. To me, that is courage, leadership; that is what being a Senator is all about. I know right now there are six of them meeting. I know that at some point, once they come out and once they are ready to announce what they want to do, many others will join that effort. But we need to cheer them on and encourage them to finish the hard task they have begun. I am reminded, when I think about those six sitting in the Capitol and in various rooms around the Capitol, of that phrase in the Declaration of Independence right before our Founding Fathers signed that great document where they say: ``We mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.'' This is our time to put it all on the line. We need to put our political lives on the line, our political fortunes on the line, and our honor. We need to honor the commitment we have made to this country when all 100 of us stood up--in fact, when all 535 of us stood up--and took the oath of office that we were going to do what was right for the country. I mentioned the Book of Isaiah a few moments ago. I am reminded that many times in the Old Testament, whether in the prophets or Proverbs, we are always encouraged to do right, to do justice, to show mercy. We want to really be upright and true. That is what they call us to do and what they want us to do. I am also reminded that in the New Testament, when Jesus is talking to the political and religious leadership of his day, he says: Are you so blind? Are we so blind that we cannot see the forest for the trees, that we can't understand how important it is for this country to get our debt and deficit where it needs to be? Are we so blind that we are not able to see that we need to put everything on the table, that this is a time for great leadership and shared sacrifice, and we all have to give up something to get this done? It is our time to lead. This may be the greatest challenge of our generation, of any of us who are serving either in the House or Senate right now. This may be our one moment in history for greatness. I sincerely hope we rise to the challenge because I believe the future of the Republic depends on it. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. PRYOR. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 10 minutes.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to introduce legislation with Senator Alexander of Tennessee that I believe will have a dramatic impact on the safety of our Nation's highways and interstates, called the Commercial Driver Compliance Improvement Act. This bill will require the Department of Transportation's Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration FMCSA, to implement regulations requiring the use of electronic on-board recording devices, EOBRs, for motor carriers in order to improve compliance with Hours-of-Service, HOS, regulations. Requiring the use of these technologies in motor carriers will not only improve compliance with HOS regulations, but it will also reduce the number of fatigued commercial motor vehicle drivers on the road. This will have a profound impact on highway safety and reduce accidents and fatalities on our highways and interstates. Hours-of-Service regulations place limits on when and how long commercial motor vehicle drivers may drive. These regulations are based on an exhaustive scientific review and are designed to ensure truck drivers get the necessary rest to drive safely. In developing HOS rules, the FMCSA reviewed existing fatigue research and worked with nongovernmental organizations like the Transportation Research Board of the National Academies and the National Institute for Occupational Safety. HOS regulations are designed to continue the downward trend in truck driving fatalities and maintain motor carrier operational efficiencies. Unfortunately, compliance with HOS regulations is often spotty due to inaccurate reporting by drivers as they are only required to fill out a paper log, a tracking method that dates back to the 1930s. Inaccurate reporting may result from an honest mistake or an intentional error by a driver seeking to extend his work day. These inaccuracies can lead to too much time on the road, leaving the driver fatigued and placing other drivers at risk. After listening to the many interest groups and experts on this issue in meetings and Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee hearings, I have come to learn that there is an available and affordable twenty-first-century technology that can ensure accurate logs, enhance compliance, and reduce the number of fatigued drivers on the road. They are being used today, and they are producing results. I believe that widespread utilization of these devices as soon as possible will significantly reduce further loss of life resulting from driver fatigue. Our legislation will require motor carriers to install in their trucks an electronic device that performs multiple tasks to ensure compliance with HOS regulations. These devices must be engaged to the truck engine control module and capable of identifying the driver operating the truck, recording a driver's duty status, and monitoring the location and movement of the vehicle. Requiring electronic log books that are integrally connected to the vehicle engine as this bill requires will dramatically increase the accuracy of information submitted for hours of service compliance. Our bill will also require these recording devices to be tamper resistant and fully accessible by law enforcement personnel and Federal safety regulators only for purposes of enforcement and compliance reviews. While I understand that some drivers may be reluctant to transition to electronic logging devices, I strongly believe that the safety benefits of the use of these devices far outweigh the costs. I don't want to see more lives lost due to driver fatigue resulting from log book manipulation. I also believe that with the rapid development of electronic technology, especially in the wireless telecommunications area, we will see strong competition among EOBR manufacturers and reduced costs for these technologies. In addition, the price of these products should go down as the demand increases through regulatory requirement to utilize this equipment. Senator Alexander and I are not alone in calling for this technology to be more widely used by commercial vehicles. There are a number of Senators, including Senator Lautenberg, who have long been strong proponents of implementing the use of this technology. In addition, multiple Federal agencies and nongovernmental organizations have recognized the benefits of this technology and called for its widespread use. For example, Mr. Francis France of the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance stated at the April 28, 2010, Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation hearing on Oversight of Motor Carrier Safety Efforts that, All motor vehicles should be equipped with EOBRs to better comply with Hours of Service laws . . . CVSA has been working with a broad partnership to help provide guidance to achieve uniform performance standards for EOBRs. Similarly, the Chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board, the Honorable Deborah Hersman, stated at the same hearing that, For the past 30 years, the NTSB has advocated the use of onboard data recorders to increase Hours of Service compliance . . . the NTSB recommended that they be required on all commercial vehicles. During the same hearing, Ms. Jacqueline S. Gillan, with the Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, stated that, We regard the mandatory, universal installation and use of EOBRs as crucial to stopping the epidemic of hours of service violations that produce fatigued, sleep-deprived commercial drivers . . . at very high risk of serious injury and fatal crashes. I have also heard from Administrator Ferro of the FMCSA on her thoughts of how EOBRs would enhance compliance and improve highway safety. The FMCSA recently implemented a rule to require that these devices be mandated for truck drivers and trucking companies that have been found to be noncompliant with FMCSA rules. These rules will be effective in June 2012. It is my understanding that the FMCSA is looking to expand these requirements to include more motor carriers, and I support those efforts as they reflect the qualities and intent of this legislation. Finally, in addition to the support from safety advocates and federal transportation safety officials, I have also heard from a number of Arkansas trucking companies currently utilizing this technology. These companies have experienced reductions in driver fatigue, increases in compliance, and reductions in insurance premiums. The executives of these companies, which include J.B. Hunt and Maverick U.S.A. among others, support the expanded use of these devices to increase compliance, improve highway safety, and level the playing field among the industry. I agree with their views on the importance of widespread utilization of this safety and compliance device. The Commercial Driver Compliance Improvement Act, if enacted, will require the Department of Transportation to issue regulations within eighteen months from enactment to require commercial motor vehicles used in interstate commerce to be equipped with electronic onboard recorders for purposes of improving compliance with hours of service regulations. The regulation will apply to commercial motor carriers, commercial motor vehicles, and vehicle operators subject to both hours of service and record of duty status requirements three years after the date of enactment of this Act. This population represents a vast majority of drivers and carriers who operate trucks weighing 10,001 pounds or more involved in interstate commerce. It will cover one hundred percent of over-the-road, long-haul truck drivers. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to recognize the importance of this technology in saving lives on our nation's highways and interstates. I also ask for their support for this legislation and help in moving it to the President as quickly as possible. It is my hope that we move this legislation through the Senate no later than the Surface Transportation Reauthorization legislation that the Senate will take up in the near future.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to introduce legislation with Senator Alexander of Tennessee that I believe will have a dramatic impact on the safety of our Nation's highways and interstates, called the Commercial Driver Compliance Improvement Act. This bill will require the Department of Transportation's Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration FMCSA, to implement regulations requiring the use of electronic on-board recording devices, EOBRs, for motor carriers in order to improve compliance with Hours-of-Service, HOS, regulations. Requiring the use of these technologies in motor carriers will not only improve compliance with HOS regulations, but it will also reduce the number of fatigued commercial motor vehicle drivers on the road. This will have a profound impact on highway safety and reduce accidents and fatalities on our highways and interstates. Hours-of-Service regulations place limits on when and how long commercial motor vehicle drivers may drive. These regulations are based on an exhaustive scientific review and are designed to ensure truck drivers get the necessary rest to drive safely. In developing HOS rules, the FMCSA reviewed existing fatigue research and worked with nongovernmental organizations like the Transportation Research Board of the National Academies and the National Institute for Occupational Safety. HOS regulations are designed to continue the downward trend in truck driving fatalities and maintain motor carrier operational efficiencies. Unfortunately, compliance with HOS regulations is often spotty due to inaccurate reporting by drivers as they are only required to fill out a paper log, a tracking method that dates back to the 1930s. Inaccurate reporting may result from an honest mistake or an intentional error by a driver seeking to extend his work day. These inaccuracies can lead to too much time on the road, leaving the driver fatigued and placing other drivers at risk. After listening to the many interest groups and experts on this issue in meetings and Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee hearings, I have come to learn that there is an available and affordable twenty-first-century technology that can ensure accurate logs, enhance compliance, and reduce the number of fatigued drivers on the road. They are being used today, and they are producing results. I believe that widespread utilization of these devices as soon as possible will significantly reduce further loss of life resulting from driver fatigue. Our legislation will require motor carriers to install in their trucks an electronic device that performs multiple tasks to ensure compliance with HOS regulations. These devices must be engaged to the truck engine control module and capable of identifying the driver operating the truck, recording a driver's duty status, and monitoring the location and movement of the vehicle. Requiring electronic log books that are integrally connected to the vehicle engine as this bill requires will dramatically increase the accuracy of information submitted for hours of service compliance. Our bill will also require these recording devices to be tamper resistant and fully accessible by law enforcement personnel and Federal safety regulators only for purposes of enforcement and compliance reviews. While I understand that some drivers may be reluctant to transition to electronic logging devices, I strongly believe that the safety benefits of the use of these devices far outweigh the costs. I don't want to see more lives lost due to driver fatigue resulting from log book manipulation. I also believe that with the rapid development of electronic technology, especially in the wireless telecommunications area, we will see strong competition among EOBR manufacturers and reduced costs for these technologies. In addition, the price of these products should go down as the demand increases through regulatory requirement to utilize this equipment. Senator Alexander and I are not alone in calling for this technology to be more widely used by commercial vehicles. There are a number of Senators, including Senator Lautenberg, who have long been strong proponents of implementing the use of this technology. In addition, multiple Federal agencies and nongovernmental organizations have recognized the benefits of this technology and called for its widespread use. For example, Mr. Francis France of the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance stated at the April 28, 2010, Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation hearing on Oversight of Motor Carrier Safety Efforts that, All motor vehicles should be equipped with EOBRs to better comply with Hours of Service laws . . . CVSA has been working with a broad partnership to help provide guidance to achieve uniform performance standards for EOBRs. Similarly, the Chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board, the Honorable Deborah Hersman, stated at the same hearing that, For the past 30 years, the NTSB has advocated the use of onboard data recorders to increase Hours of Service compliance . . . the NTSB recommended that they be required on all commercial vehicles. During the same hearing, Ms. Jacqueline S. Gillan, with the Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, stated that, We regard the mandatory, universal installation and use of EOBRs as crucial to stopping the epidemic of hours of service violations that produce fatigued, sleep-deprived commercial drivers . . . at very high risk of serious injury and fatal crashes. I have also heard from Administrator Ferro of the FMCSA on her thoughts of how EOBRs would enhance compliance and improve highway safety. The FMCSA recently implemented a rule to require that these devices be mandated for truck drivers and trucking companies that have been found to be noncompliant with FMCSA rules. These rules will be effective in June 2012. It is my understanding that the FMCSA is looking to expand these requirements to include more motor carriers, and I support those efforts as they reflect the qualities and intent of this legislation. Finally, in addition to the support from safety advocates and federal transportation safety officials, I have also heard from a number of Arkansas trucking companies currently utilizing this technology. These companies have experienced reductions in driver fatigue, increases in compliance, and reductions in insurance premiums. The executives of these companies, which include J.B. Hunt and Maverick U.S.A. among others, support the expanded use of these devices to increase compliance, improve highway safety, and level the playing field among the industry. I agree with their views on the importance of widespread utilization of this safety and compliance device. The Commercial Driver Compliance Improvement Act, if enacted, will require the Department of Transportation to issue regulations within eighteen months from enactment to require commercial motor vehicles used in interstate commerce to be equipped with electronic onboard recorders for purposes of improving compliance with hours of service regulations. The regulation will apply to commercial motor carriers, commercial motor vehicles, and vehicle operators subject to both hours of service and record of duty status requirements three years after the date of enactment of this Act. This population represents a vast majority of drivers and carriers who operate trucks weighing 10,001 pounds or more involved in interstate commerce. It will cover one hundred percent of over-the-road, long-haul truck drivers. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to recognize the importance of this technology in saving lives on our nation's highways and interstates. I also ask for their support for this legislation and help in moving it to the President as quickly as possible. It is my hope that we move this legislation through the Senate no later than the Surface Transportation Reauthorization legislation that the Senate will take up in the near future.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, I am sorry for the delay, but we wanted to make sure we had our i's dotted and our t's crossed. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to call up and make pending the Pryor amendment numbered 229, the Patriot Express loan program.

Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, I wish to thank Senator Landrieu and Senator Snowe for their efforts to get this bill to the floor, to handle these amendments, and to show the leadership we need to try to really focus on and emphasize small business. I am convinced that if we are going to get the full economic recovery we all want to see, the private sector--and especially small business-- is going to have to drive that recovery. That brings me to the amendment that I have filed today and that I have called up. In 2007, there were roughly 25,000 veteran-owned small businesses in my State. So you can do the math on that. There are probably 2 million around the country or more--maybe 3 million veteran-owned small businesses around the country. In 2007, the SBA created the Patriot Express Pilot Loan Initiative for members of the military community. That is part of the 7(a) program. My amendment would move that Patriot Express loan program from a pilot program to a fully authorized one, and this would ensure that veterans and members of the military community continue to have the ability to access capital when starting a new business or even when operating an existing one. The Patriot Express pilot program has been a very successful program, issuing close to 7,000 loans valued at $560 million and increasing veteran participation in the SBA programs. The amendment would make the Patriot Express loan program available to all members of the military community, including Active and non-Active members, veterans, spouses and children, widows and widowers of servicemembers. It would increase the maximum loan amount from $500,000 to $1 million. It would guarantee rates would be 85 percent for loans of $500,000 or less and 80 percent for loans over $500,000 up to $1 million. It would also reduce the fees imposed by the SBA for all veterans to 75 percent of the fees otherwise applicable under the 7(a) and express programs. This is a way we can really help our men and women in uniform. And one of the reasons I think this particular pilot program has been a success is because obviously these folks are hard-working, they are disciplined, they are well trained, and they are serious because of what they have been through for our country. But also one of the reasons I think this is compelling is that they have given years of their lives to military service. If they are in the Reserve or National Guard, these can be very disruptive years. It is hard for them to get anything going and in some cases hard to maintain a job over a period of years because they are being deployed, they are back and forth doing the training and fulfilling the requirements the country has required of them. So it is a very disruptive time during what otherwise would be potentially strong earning years where they could be really building their businesses. So this pilot program has been very effective and successful in providing access to capital, speeding the process along for our men and women in uniform, and we want to encourage small business ownership, we want to encourage that innovation, and I think this is a great way to do it. Again, this is a program that has been on the books, has proven to be successful, and we certainly hope we can move it from a pilot program to a fully authorized program. With that, Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Am I correct then that the Schumer-Kyl program is simply trying to address the problem of business method patents of dubious validity that are commonly associated with the Federal Circuit's 1998 decision in State Street Bank v. Signature?

Mr. PRYOR. Would the Senator agree that in a case in which the validity of the patent has been upheld by a district court but the case remains on appeal, that this amendment would likely not affect the pending appeal?

Mr. PRYOR. Is it correct then that the Schumer proceeding would only have an effect if the PTO determines it is more likely than not that a claim of the patent is invalid and, even then, the proceeding would have no effect on a patent unless the petitioner can demonstrate that under current law the patent is not valid?