Continuing Resolution

Floor Speech

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I want to make a few observations about the continuing resolution and the appropriations process this year.

First, I want to commend Chairman Inouye for his leadership and efforts to accommodate the views and input of all senators in crafting the omnibus appropriations bill. He went a long way to meet the demands of the minority leader and other senators to include a $29 billion cut from the budget level requested by the President. Indeed, I was deeply disappointed that the proposed omnibus would have eliminated the Leveraging Educational Assistance Program, LEAP. For more than a decade, I worked with states, educators, and others to reauthorize and fund this program, which uses Federal resources to leverage additional state aid to help low income students attend college. As much as I was dissatisfied by this outcome, I was prepared to vote for this bill because it is far superior to the inefficiencies and consequences of a continuing resolution. I am disappointed that such a significant compromise was blocked by the other side of the aisle.

Instead, we are being forced to adopt a short-term continuing resolution, CR, through March 4, 2011. With few exceptions, the CR provides no direction from Congress on how funds can be used, while at the same time failing to make critical adjustments and investments for certain programs and agencies. Critics of the omnibus appropriations bill should understand that unlike the thoughtful, lengthy, and open appropriations process that produced the omnibus, this CR was put together quickly without the input of most senators. As a result, it is hardly a thoughtful instrument for funding the government.

I am particularly concerned about the impact the CR will have on the capabilities of the Securities and Exchange Commission to provide robust oversight of financial markets.

Fair and orderly markets are critical to restoring confidence in the American economy. Despite considerable increases in the number of firms it is required to oversee and tremendous growth in the size and complexity of the securities markets and products it regulates, the SEC's workforce and technology investments are only now returning to the levels of five years ago.

Under the CR, the SEC will be funded at the fiscal year 2010 rate, which is nearly $200 million less than what was included during bipartisan negotiations on the omnibus. Without the omnibus's funding level, the SEC will have to halt several technology projects and forgo replacement of departing staff. Shortchanging the SEC will also make it extraordinarily difficult to fulfill new statutory requirements under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The SEC has been tasked with helping establish an effective regulatory system for the previously unseen and largely unregulated over-the-counter derivatives market and the hedge fund markets. It has new responsibilities over credit rating agencies, including annual exams.

We should not make the past mistake of underfunding the SEC. This agency is critical to restoring the confidence of retirees and investors in the United States capital markets, so that they will again invest in American companies, helping inject new life into our economy. We should not be penny-wise and pound-foolish. Continuing to starve the SEC of the funds it needs to police markets will ultimately make it more likely to see a major fraud. Any incremental savings will be cold comfort for the losses incurred by taxpayers and investors.

Likewise, I believe we need to fully fund the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. At a hearing that Senator Levin and I held on December 8, 2010, Chairman Gensler informed us that his agency is going to be woefully short of resources. The continuing resolution for the CFTC will leave them about $116 million short of the funding level included in the omnibus.

I hope that we will have chance to address these critical shortfalls in the next funding vehicle to come before the Senate.

While it is true that overall the 36-page CR did not provide sufficient direction and oversight, it is important to acknowledge that the CR does make a few adjustments--some that are essential and others which I believe deserved greater consideration.

I want to applaud the addition of language in the CR that requires the Department of Health and Human Services to obligate the same amount of funding for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program as it did during the same period last year. This will make a total of $3.95 billion available to low-income families and individuals during the cold winter months. I hope that in the final appropriations bill we will meet the bipartisan request of 44 Senators to fully fund this program at the $5.1 billion level for the entirety of fiscal year 2011.

I am also pleased that the CR addresses funding for the Pell grant. According to recent estimates from the Office of Management and Budget, students would have faced a reduction of as much as $1,840 from the maximum grant. The CR will address the shortfall and ensure that we can maintain the Pell grant maximum at $5,550. Despite the economic hardships families are facing, they continue to prioritize education. They know that it is the foundation for our economic recovery and future prosperity. We must keep our end of the bargain by maintaining our commitment to the Pell grant.

I am, however, concerned that the CR includes a provision to codify a misguided Bush-era regulation that undermines our central goal of ensuring that students in high poverty schools are taught by highly qualified teachers and that parents know the qualifications of their children's teachers. Under the No Child Left Behind Act, enacted in 2002, a highly qualified teacher must have obtained full state certification, which may include certification obtained through alternative routes. The Bush administration published regulations allowing that a teacher who is merely enrolled in or making progress toward state certification to be deemed highly qualified. Parents in California have challenged the regulation in the courts and have won a favorable decision on appeal. Quite simply, they want to know whether their children's teachers are fully certified or just in the process of becoming certified. This provision prevents them from knowing that.

I am also deeply disappointed that this CR does not contain important language that would have allowed the Department of Defense to reprogram funds for new starts, increases in production, or other realignments. This provision would have given the Department further flexibility to ensure critical defense programs stay on schedule and on cost. This is especially important for the Navy's ship construction programs--programs that the Navy supports, were authorized by the Defense Authorization Act, and employ thousands of Rhode Islanders.

Without this provision, the Navy, and all of the services, will be further limited and constrained to execute programs within the funding levels set last year.

I have described some of the pitfalls with this CR. It is a crude instrument that has many shortcomings. Regrettably, the decision by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to walk away from the omnibus placed the continued operation of government agencies from the Pentagon to the FBI to the FDA to the Treasury at risk. Adopting the CR, notwithstanding its significant flaws, is the only responsible option available. In the coming months, it is my hope that we can craft a full year funding measure that corrects the serious issues the CR has created and failed to address.

Source