S338 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 13, 2009 

S. Res. 13. A resolution congratulating the 

University of Florida football team for winning the 2008 Bowl Championship Series 

(BCS) national championship; to the Committee on the Judiciary. 

f 

ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS 

S. 64

At the request of Mr. INHOFE, the 

names of the Senator from Kansas (Mr. 

BROWNBACK) and the Senator from 

Oklahoma (Mr. COBURN) were added as 

cosponsors of S. 64, a bill to amend the 

Emergency Economic Stabilization Act 

to require approval by the Congress for 

certain expenditures for the Troubled 

Asset Relief Program. 

S. 85

At the request of Mr. VITTER, the 

name of the Senator from Mississippi 

(Mr. WICKER) was added as a cosponsor 

of S. 85, a bill to amend title X of the 

Public Health Service Act to prohibit 

family planning grants from being 

awarded to any entity that performs 

abortions. 

S. 96

At the request of Mr. VITTER, the 

name of the Senator from Mississippi 

(Mr. WICKER) was added as a cosponsor 

of S. 96, a bill to prohibit certain abortion-related discrimination in governmental activities. 

S. 174

At the request of Mr. INOUYE, the 

name of the Senator from Rhode Island 

(Mr. REED) was added as a cosponsor of 

S. 174, a bill to establish a coordinated 

and comprehensive Federal ocean and 

coastal mapping program. 

S. 211

At the request of Mrs. CLINTON, the 

name of the Senator from Connecticut 

(Mr. LIEBERMAN) was added as a cosponsor of S. 211, a bill to facilitate nationwide availability of 2-1-1 telephone 

service for information and referral on 

human services and volunteer services, 

and for other purposes. 

f 

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED 

BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS 

By Mr. NELSON, of Florida: 

S. 221. A bill to amend the Commodity Exchange Act to require energy 

commodities to be traded only on regulated markets, and for other purposes; 

to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. 

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, over the past half year, as the 

price of a barrel of oil has rocketed 

into the sky—all the way to $147 a barrel and in 1 day the price escalating 

$25—there have been a number of Senators on this floor and in committee 

meetings and in private discussions 

saying: Why won’t people wake up and 

realize it is not the economic marketplace of supply and demand that is determining the price of oil? Who wants 

us to believe that? The oil companies, 

of course. In fact, the price of oil has 

escalated not because there is a tightness on the world marketplace of demand for oil. Indeed, at the very time 

of a 6-month period from the last quarter of last year until the first quarter 

of 2008—that 6-month period when the 

demand for oil was going down and the 

supply was going up, which would indicate the price should be going down if 

supply is greater than demand—exactly 

the reverse was true. The price kept 

rocketing to the Moon. 

It defied the laws of supply and demand. Yet we had everybody running 

out saying, ‘‘Oh, it is the tight world 

marketplace,’’ and it was difficult to 

get people to listen to a group of Senators who said it was because the commodities futures exchanges had been 

deregulated and, therefore, unregulated 

oil futures contracts speculation was 

running wild. 

Then, once it got up to $147 a barrel, 

what happened? The liquidity crisis 

hit, the economic crisis of confidence 

hit—not only in America but across 

the world. A lot of this was precipitated by the faulty mortgages, the 

subprime mortgages we are now not 

paying off in the revenue stream because people weren’t paying their 

mortgages. Those mortgages had been 

bundled into securities and then 

bought and sold, and a lot of financial 

institutions, hedge funds, mutual funds 

and, indeed, big investments for pension funds started dumping those because they needed cash, and they started dumping their positions on oil futures commodities that they had purchased in this speculative frenzy that 

ran the price up to $147 a barrel. What 

happened? The exact reverse. The price 

of oil starts coming down. So what 

should we do about this? Well, we 

ought to do what a number of us have 

been saying: We ought to go back and 

reregulate what we have jurisdiction 

over, which is the Commodities Futures Trading Commission. 

Now, why was it deregulated? It was 

deregulated in the dead of night before 

Christmas in the year 2000, and it was 

deregulated at the behest of the Enron 

Corporation. And once they deregulated that commodities futures trading 

market on energy, it allowed them to 

go out and speculate on energy contracts. What was the first result? In 

the early part of this decade we saw it 

happen in California. We saw the electricity contracts start a runup in speculative bidding, to which it went up— 

the cost of electricity—by as high as 

300 percent in California. Once that 

started to unravel, then we know what 

happened: Enron started to unravel 

with all the shenanigans that had gone 

on there. 

But here we are 7 and 8 years later, 

after the law was changed, and we 

haven’t been able to get it changed 

back because people come out here and 

say: Oh, it is supply and demand in the 

world market for oil, and they come up 

with a simple slogan, as if that was 

going to handle the price of oil when it 

was hitting $147 and translated into 

about $4-gallon-gasoline. Their simple 

little slogan was ‘‘drill baby, drill,’’ as 

if that were going to solve the problem 

of the price of gasoline and the price of 

oil. 

But now we hear—and people are 

starting to pay attention—we ought to 

reregulate this futures commodities 

trading. Now, what do we mean by regulate? I am talking about simple little 

things, such as you would have to use 

the oil that you are bidding on, such as 

an airline does. It locks in a future 

price for fuel by bidding on these future oil contracts. An airline, in fact, 

does use oil. By taking away the regulation, they have removed that ability. 

Or to give another example of regulation: A Commodities Futures Trading 

Commission could say you have to put 

a certain amount of money down if you 

are going to buy a future oil contract. 

Instead of getting it with nothing 

down, you have to put some skin in the 

game. But if you completely deregulate 

it, what you leave it to is the speculator to go in and bid that price up and 

up and up. 

Now, this is what we have been saying on the floor of this Senate for the 

last 6 or 8 months, a number of us— 

Senator DORGAN, Senator CANTWELL, 

this Senator, and several other Senators—but it has been hard to get an 

audience that would listen. Well, no 

less a respected institution than CBS 

News ‘‘60 Minutes’’ last Sunday night 

broke it open and put it about as clearly as I have ever heard in posing this 

question: Did speculation fuel oil price 

swings? 

And what they concluded was that 6 

months ago, when oil hit its alltime 

high of $147, and gas was up around $4 

a gallon, it created a frenzy that fed 

into irrational and false claims that 

the problem was just supply and demand and that the solution was to drill 

for more oil. 

Well, it looks a lot different now. 

That frenzy that got mixed up in Presidential politics as well, with those simplified mantras of ‘‘drill baby, drill,’’ 

fueled by a slick public relations campaign, that was funded by deep-pocket 

oil companies. Yet those same oil companies testified in the spring of 2008 

that if supply and demand were the 

sole driver of oil prices, that oil should 

cost no more than $55 a barrel. We had 

executives of two of the big major oil 

companies say the normal laws of supply and demand would say that oil 

ought to be in the range of $55 to $65 a 

barrel, and they testified, this Senator 

thinks, correctly. 

So ask yourself: Could supply and demand justify the wild swings in prices? 

And in that one instance where oil 

jumped $25 in 1 day for a barrel of oil, 

ask yourself: Could the new oil demands by China and India, that have 

needs for new oil products, could that 

have suddenly caused that price to 

jump so much in a single day? And the 

answer, clearly, is: No. It was speculation that caused that bubble to grow. 

Wall Street investors shifted billions of 

dollars out of the stock market and 

into the commodities futures market 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with SENATE
January 13, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S339 

and ultimately into oil, and that is 

what was the biggest driver of running 

up the price of oil and gasoline. 

What is even more powerful in demonstrating the influence of speculators 

on oil prices is examining what happened to those prices after we in the 

Senate, and down at the other end of 

the Capitol in the House, started 

threatening regulation again. Well, 

guess what happened. The prices went 

down. When Wall Street experienced a 

financial meltdown with the collapse of 

Lehman Brothers and the near collapse 

of AIG, prices fell even more as the 

Wall Street speculators got out of the 

oil futures markets to the tune of $70 

billion. The speculative bubble in commodities, which was not only energy 

but agricultural commodities, all of a 

sudden bubble popped. 

Demand for oil in the United States 

is down by 5 percent, but the price of 

oil is down 75 percent. So we shouldn’t 

be fooled by the drop in prices. Some 

financial analysts, fortunately, are not 

fooled by the drop in prices. They are 

advising investors that low oil prices 

are a temporary phenomenon and that 

oil prices will average above $75 a barrel over the next 5 years. 

Well, a number of us, months ago, 

filed a bill to stop the trading of oil 

and other energy commodities on the 

unregulated exchanges, and what the 

bill does is it turns the clock back to a 

change in law that was pushed by the 

Enron Corporation, known as the 

Enron loophole, which opened the way 

for a flood of speculative money in 

these commodity markets. I am introducing that bill again today, and I seek 

our colleagues’ support. 

We must be vigilant to ensure that 

Wall Street investors do not take advantage of the lax regulation to reap 

profits by driving up the price of oil 

and making driving a lot more expensive for the rest of us. Let us remember 

that we saw what happened with another form of unregulated financial instruments. That was those insurance 

policies that had a fancy name, called 

credit default swaps. They were unregulated. Look what happened: The 

collapse of AIG that had to come in to 

the tune of upward of a $100 billion rescue from the Federal Government. I 

don’t believe it is simple coincidence 

that the same legislation that let those 

credit default swaps escape regulation 

also allowed energy traders to conduct 

their business in the shadows. We need 

to bring that industry out of the darkness and into the full light of day. 

Mr. President, I wish to quote a couple lines from this Sunday’s interview 

on CBS News ‘‘60 Minutes.’’ A representative of the Petroleum Marketers Association is interviewed, a Mr. 

Gilligan, and he says: 

Approximately 60 to 70 percent of the oil 

contracts in the futures markets are now 

held by speculative entities, not by the companies that need oil, not by the airlines, not 

by the oil companies, but by investors that 

are looking to make money from their speculative positions. 

Now, that is a representative of the 

oil companies that said that. Furthermore, the investigative reporter, Steve 

Kroft, quotes a fellow named Michael 

Masters, and he states: 

In a five-year period, Masters said the 

amount of money institutional investors, 

hedge funds and the big Wall Street banks 

had placed in the commodities markets went 

from $13 billion to $300 billion. Last year, 27 

barrels of crude were being traded every day 

on the New York Mercantile Exchange for 

every 1 barrel of oil that was actually being 

consumed in the United States. 

That is Mr. Kroft’s analysis on ‘‘60 

Minutes,’’ and he was referring to a 

former Wall Street trader named Michael Masters. 

I wish to end by further quoting Mr. 

Kroft from 60 Minutes: 

A recent report out of MIT analyzing world 

oil production and consumption also concluded that the basic fundamentals of supply 

and demand could not have been responsible 

for last year’s runup in oil prices. 

Another quote from an interviewee: 

‘‘From quarter four of ’07 until the second quarter of ’08’’—that is a 6-month 

period—‘‘the Energy Information Administration said that supply went up, 

worldwide supply went up, and worldwide demand went down . . . This was 

the period of the spike’’ in oil prices 

‘‘so you had the largest price increase 

in history during a time when actual 

demand was going down and actual 

supply was going up during that same 

period. The only thing that makes 

sense that lifted the price was investor 

demand’’—in other words, the speculators making an artificial demand. 

I think it is clear. That is why I am 

introducing this legislation. I look forward with great optimism to the passage of this kind of legislation. 

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a ‘‘60 

Minutes’’ transcript be printed in the 

RECORD. 

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the 

RECORD, as follows: 

S. 221 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in 

Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. REGULATION OF ENERGY COMMODITIES. 

(a) DEFINITIONS.—Section 1a of the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 1a) is amended— 

(1) by redesignating paragraphs (13) 

through (34) as paragraphs (14) through (35), 

respectively; 

(2) by inserting after paragraph (12) the following: 

‘‘(13) ENERGY COMMODITY.—The term ‘energy commodity’ includes— 

‘‘(A) crude oil; 

‘‘(B) natural gas; 

‘‘(C) heating oil; 

‘‘(D) gasoline; 

‘‘(E) metals; 

‘‘(F) construction materials; 

‘‘(G) propane; and 

‘‘(H) other fuel oils.’’; and 

(3) by striking paragraph (15) (as redesignated by paragraph (1)) and inserting the following: 

‘‘(15) EXEMPT COMMODITY.—The term ‘exempt commodity’ means a commodity that 

is not— 

‘‘(A) an agricultural commodity; 

‘‘(B) an energy commodity; or 

‘‘(C) an excluded commodity.’’. 

(b) CURRENT AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES.— 

Section 5(e)(1) of the Commodity Exchange 

Act (7 U.S.C. 7(e)(1)) is amended by striking 

‘‘agricultural commodity enumerated in section 1a(4)’’ and inserting ‘‘agricultural commodity or an energy commodity’’. 

(c) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— 

(1) Section 2(c)(2)(B)(i)(II)(cc) of the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 

2(c)(2)(B)(i)(II)(cc)) is amended— 

(A) in subitem (AA), by striking ‘‘section 

1a(20)’’ and inserting ‘‘section 1a(21)’’; and 

(B) in subitem (BB), by striking ‘‘section 

1a(20)’’ and inserting ‘‘section 1a(21)’’. 

(2) Section 13106(b)(1) of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 is amended 

by striking ‘‘section 1a(32)’’ and inserting 

‘‘section 1a’’. 

(3) Section 402 of the Legal Certainty for 

Bank Products Act of 2000 (7 U.S.C. 27) is 

amended— 

(A) in subsection (a)(7), by striking ‘‘section 1a(20)’’ and inserting ‘‘section 1a’’; and 

(B) in subsection (d)— 

(i) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ‘‘section 

1a(33)’’ and inserting ‘‘section 1a’’; and 

(ii) in paragraph (2)(D), by striking ‘‘section 1a(13)’’ and inserting ‘‘section 1a’’. 

THE PRICE OF OIL—HISTORIC OIL PRICES WERE

RESULT OF FINANCIAL SPECULATION FROM

WALL STREET AND NOT SUPPLY AND DEMAND

Steve Kroft: About the only economic 

break most Americans have gotten in the 

last six months has been the drastic drop in 

the price of oil, which has fallen even more 

precipitously than it rose. In a year’s time, 

a commodity that was theoretically priced 

according to supply and demand, doubled 

from $69 a barrel to nearly $150. And then, in 

a period of just three months, crashed along 

with the stock market. So what happened? 

It’s a complicated question, and there are 

lots of theories. But many people believe it 

was a speculative bubble, not unlike the one 

that caused the housing crisis, and that it 

had more to do with traders and speculators 

on Wall Street than with oil company executives or sheiks in Saudi Arabia. 

(Oil refinery; workers at refinery; stock 

market traders on floor; New York Mercantile Exchange; trading screen; farmer 

working field; corn; airplane; trading screen; 

oil refinery) 

(Voiceover) To understand what happened 

to the price of oil, you first have to understand the way it’s traded. For years it’s been 

bought and sold on something called the 

commodities futures market. Here at the 

New York Mercantile Exchange, it’s traded 

alongside cotton and coffee, copper and steel 

by brokers who buy and sell contracts to deliver those goods at a certain price at some 

date in the future. It was created so that 

farmers could gauge what their unharvested 

crops would be worth months in advance so 

that factories could lock in the best price for 

raw materials, and airlines could manage 

their fuel costs. But more than a year ago, 

that market started to behave erratically. 

And when oil doubled to more than $147 a 

barrel, no one was more suspicious than Dan 

Gilligan. 

Mr. Dan Gilligan: We have to make sure 

that the futures market is an honest market. 

(Dan Gilligan speaking; men listening to 

Gilligan; oil tanker; Gilligan; crowd talking 

to Gilligan; stock market traders) 

Kroft: (Voiceover) As the president of the 

Petroleum Marketers Association, he represents more than 8,000 retail and wholesale 

suppliers, everyone from home heating oil 

companies to gas station owners. When we 

talked to him last summer, his members 

were getting blamed for gouging the public, 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with SENATE
S340 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 13, 2009 

even though their costs had also gone 

through the roof. He told us the problem was 

in the commodities markets, which had been 

invaded by a new breed of investor. 

Mr. Gillian: Approximately 60 to 70 percent 

of the oil contracts in the futures markets 

are now held by speculative entities, not by 

companies that need oil, not by the airlines, 

not by the oil companies, but by investors 

that are looking to make money from the 

speculative positions. 

Kroft: They don’t actually take delivery of 

the oil? 

Mr. Gilligan: No, no. 

Kroft: All they do is—— 

Mr. Gilligan: All they do is buy the paper 

and hope that they can sell it for more than 

they paid for it before they have to take delivery. 

Kroft: They’re trying to make money on 

the market for oil? 

Mr. Gilligan: Absolutely, on the volatility 

that exists in the market. They make it 

going up and down. 

(Sean Cota unhooking hose from truck; 

Cota filling tank; calculator) 

Kroft: (Voiceover) He says his members in 

the home heating oil business, like Sean 

Cota of Bellows Falls, Vermont, were the 

first to notice the effects a few years ago, 

when prices seemed to disconnect from the 

basic fundamentals of supply and demand. 

Cota says there was plenty of product at the 

supply terminals, but the prices kept going 

up and up. 

Mr. Sean Cota: We’ve had three price 

changes during the day where we pick up 

products, actually don’t know what we paid 

for, and we’ll go out and we’ll sell that to the 

retail customer, guessing at what the price 

was. The volatility is being driven by the 

huge amounts of money and the huge 

amounts of leverage that is going into these 

markets. 

(Michael Masters at desk; computer 

screen) 

Kroft: (Voiceover) About the same time 

hedge fund manager Michael Masters 

reached the same conclusion. Masters’ expertise is in tracking the flow of investments 

into and out of financial markets, and he noticed huge amounts of money leaving stocks 

for commodities and oil futures, most of it 

going into index funds, betting that the price 

of oil was going to go up. 

Who was buying this paper oil, pension 

fund? 

Mr. Michael Masters: California pension 

fund, Harvard endowment, lots of large institutional investors. And by the way, other investors, hedge funds, Wall Street trading 

desk, were following right behind them putting money, sovereign wealth funds were 

putting money in the futures markets, as 

well. So you had all these investors putting 

money in the futures markets, and that was 

driving the price up. 

(New York Stock Exchange; stock traders; 

oil refinery) 

Kroft: (Voiceover) In a five-year period, 

Masters said the amount of money institutional, investors, hedge funds and the big 

Wall Street banks had placed in the commodities markets went from $13 billion to 300 

billion. Last year, 27 barrels of crude were 

being traded every day on the New York 

Mercantile Exchange for every one barrel of 

oil that was actually being consumed in the 

United States. 

Mr. Masters: We talked to the largest 

physical trader of crude oil, and they told us 

that, compared to the size of the investment 

inflows—and remember, this is the largest 

physical crude oil trader in the United 

States—they said that, ‘‘We are basically a 

flea on an elephant,’’ that that’s how big 

these flows were. 

(Senate hearings; Lawrence Eagles) 

Kroft: (Voiceover) Yet when Congress 

began holding hearings last summer and 

asked Wall Street banker Lawrence Eagles 

of JPMorgan what role excessive speculation 

played in rising oil prices, the answer was 

little to none. 

Mr. Lawrence Eagles: We believe that high 

energy prices are fundamentally a result of 

supply and demand. 

(JPMorgan building; e-mail; oil refinery; 

oil tank; oil register) 

Kroft: (Voiceover) As it turns out, not even 

JPMorgan’s chief global investment officer 

agreed with him. The same day that Eagles 

testified, this e-mail went out to clients, 

saying ‘‘an enormous amount of speculation’’ ran up the price, and ‘‘$140 in July was 

ridiculous.’’ If anyone had any doubts, they 

were dispelled a few days after that hearing, 

when the price of oil jumped $25 in a single 

day. 

September 22nd. 

Mr. Michael Greenberger: September 22nd. 

(Michael Greenberger; CFTC building; oil 

pipelines) 

Kroft: (Voiceover) Michael Greenberger, a 

former director of trading for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the 

federal agency that oversees oil futures, says 

there were no supply disruptions that could 

have justified such a big increase. 

Mr. Greenberger: Did China and India suddenly have gigantic needs for new oil products in a single day? No. Everybody agrees 

supply-demand could not drive the price up 

$25, which was a record increase in the price 

of oil. The price of oil went from somewhere 

in the 60s to $147 in a—less than a year. And 

we were being told on that runup, it’s supply-demand, supply-demand, supply-demand. 

(Oil refinery; Masters; woman talking; 

Masters) 

Kroft: (Voiceover) A recent report out of 

MIT analyzing world oil production and consumption also concluded that the basic fundamentals of supply and demand could not 

have been responsible for last year’s runup in 

oil prices. And Michael Masters says the US 

Department of Energy’s own statistics 

showed that if the markets had been working 

properly the price of oil should have been 

going down, not up. 

Mr. Masters: From quarter four of ’07 until 

the second quarter of ’08, the EIA, the Energy Information Administration said that 

supply went up, worldwide supply went up, 

and worldwide demand went down. So you 

have supply going up and demand going 

down, which generally means that price is 

going down. 

Kroft: And this was the period of the spike? 

Mr. Masters: This was the period of the 

spike. So you had the largest price increase 

in history during a time when actual demand 

was going down and actual supply was going 

up during the same period. However, the 

only thing that makes sense that lifted the 

price was investor demand. 

(Oil refinery; buildings) 

Kroft: (Voiceover) Masters believes the investor demand for commodities and oil futures in particular, was created on Wall 

Street by hedge funds and the big Wall 

Street investment banks like Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, Barclays and 

JPMorgan, who made billions investing hundreds of billions of dollars of their clients’ 

money. 

Mr. Masters: The investment banks facilitated it. You know, they found folks to write 

papers espousing the benefits of investing in 

commodities. And then they promoted commodities as a, quote-unquote, ‘‘asset class.’’ 

Like, you could invest in commodities just 

like you could in stocks or bonds or anything else, like they were suitable for longterm investment. 

(Gilligan) 

Kroft: (Voiceover) Dan Gilligan of the Petroleum Marketers Association agreed. 

Are you saying that companies like Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley and Barclays 

have as much to do with the price of oil 

going up as Exxon or Shell? 

Mr. Gilligan: Oh, absolutely. Yes. I tease 

people sometimes that, you know, people 

say, ‘‘Well, who’s the largest oil company in 

American?’’ And they’ll always say ‘‘Well, 

ExxonMobil or Chevron or BP.’’ But I’ll say, 

‘‘no, Morgan Stanley.’’ 

(Morgan Stanley building; flow chart of 

Morgan Stanley ownerships) 

Kroft: (Voiceover) Morgan Stanley isn’t an 

oil company in the traditional sense of the 

word. It doesn’t own or control oil wells or 

refineries or gas stations. But according to 

documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Morgan Stanley is a significant player in the wholesale market 

through various entities controlled by the 

corporation. 

It not only buys and sells the physical 

product through subsidiaries and companies 

that it controls, Morgan Stanley has the capacity to store and hold 20 million barrels. 

These storage tanks behind me in New 

Haven, Connecticut, hold Morgan Stanley 

heating oil bound for homes in New England, 

where it controls nearly 15 percent of the 

market. 

(Building; oil refinery; pipeline; storage 

terminals; men walking; buildings; barge; oil 

storage tank) 

Kroft: (Voiceover) The Wall Street bank 

Goldman Sachs also has huge stakes in companies that own a refinery in Coffeyville, 

Kansas, and control 43,000 miles of pipeline 

and more than 150 storage terminals. And 

analysts at both investment banks contributed to the oil frenzy that drove prices to 

record highs. Goldman’s top oil analyst predicted last March that the price of a barrel 

was going to $200. Morgan Stanley predicted 

$150 a barrel. Both companies declined our 

requests for an interview, but maintain that 

their oil businesses are completely separate 

from their trading activities, and that neither influence the independent opinions of 

their analysts. There is no evidence that either company has done anything illegal. 

Is there price manipulation going on? 

Mr. Gilligan: I can’t say. And the reason I 

can’t say is because nobody knows. Our federal regulators don’t have access to the data. 

They don’t know who holds what positions. 

Kroft: Why don’t they know? 

Mr. Gilligan: Why don’t they know? 

Kroft: Yeah. 

Mr. Gilligan: Because federal law doesn’t 

give them the jurisdiction to find out. 

(Oil storage; oil refinery; pipeline; Wall 

Street sign; American flags; Capitol building; stock exchange) 

Kroft: (Voiceover) It’s impossible to tell 

exactly who is buying and selling all those 

oil contracts because most of the trading is 

now conducted in secret, with no public scrutiny or government oversight. Over time, the 

big Wall Street banks were allowed to buy 

and sell as many oil contracts as they wanted for their clients, circumventing regulations intended to limit speculation. And in 

2000, Congress effectively deregulated the futures market, granting exemptions for complicated derivative investments called oil 

swaps, as well as electronic trading on private exchanges. 

Who is responsible for deregulating the oil 

future market? 

Mr. Greenberger: You’d have to say Enron. 

This was something they desperately wanted 

and they got. 

(Greenberger; CFTC building; Enron; people at desks) 

Kroft: (Voiceover) Michael Greenberger, 

who wanted more regulation while he was at 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with SENATE
January 13, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S341 

the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, not less, says it all happened when 

Enron was the seventh largest corporation in 

the United States. 

Mr. Greenberger: (Voiceover) This was 

when Enron was riding high, and what Enron 

wanted, Enron got. 

Kroft: Why did they want a deregulated 

market in oil futures? 

(Traders at desks; spreadsheet; man at 

computer) 

Mr. Greenberger: Because they wanted to 

establish their own little energy futures exchange through computerized trading. 

(Voiceover) They knew that if they could 

get this trading engine established without 

the controls that had been placed on speculators, they would have the ability to drive 

the price of energy products in any way they 

wanted to take it. 

When Enron failed, we learned that Enron 

and its conspirators who used their trading 

engine were able to drive the price of electricity up, some say by as much as 300 percent, on the West Coast. 

Kroft: Is the same thing going on right now 

in the oil business? 

Mr. Greenberger: Every Enron trader who 

knew how to do these manipulations became 

the most valuable employee on Wall Street. 

(Oil rig; stock market ticker; oil rig in 

ocean) 

Kroft: (Voiceover) But some of them may 

now be looking for work. The oil bubble 

began to deflate early last fall when Congress threatened new regulations and federal 

agencies announced they were beginning 

major investigations. It finally popped with 

the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers and the 

near collapse of AIG, who were both heavily 

invested in the oil markets. With hedge 

funds and investment houses facing margin 

calls, the speculators headed for the exits. 

Mr. MASTERS: From July 15th until the 

end of November, roughly $70 billion came 

out of commodities futures from these index 

funds. In fact, gasoline demand went down 

by roughly 5 percent over that same period 

of time. Yet the price of crude oil dropped 

more than $100 a barrel. It dropped 75 percent. 

Kroft: How do you explain it? 

Mr. Masters: By looking at investors. 

That’s the only way you can explain it. 

Kroft: The regulatory lapses in the commodities market that many believe fomented the rapid speculation in oil have still 

not been addressed, although the incoming 

Obama administration has promised to do so. 

By Mr. FEINGOLD: 

S. 222. A bill to amend the Internal 

Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the 

national limitation on qualified energy 

conservation bonds and to clarify that 

certain programs constitute a qualified 

conservation purpose, and for other 

purposes; to the Committee on Finance. 

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, over 

the past few days I have introduced a 

series of bills that are part of my E4 

Initiative, dubbed E4 because of its 

focus on economy, employment, education, and energy. Today I am introducing two bills that are part of this 

effort: the Community Revitalization 

Energy Conservation, CREC, Act of 

2009 and the Energy and Technology 

Advancement, ETA, Act of 2009. 

The newest among my E4 bills is the 

Community Revitalization Energy 

Conservation, CREC, Act of 2009. This 

bill will increase the amount of funding available to State and local governments for the rehabilitation and revitalization of the fledgling green economy, and also expand the types of eligible projects to cover energy efficiency 

improvements to privately owned 

buildings. While our country is facing 

its greatest economic challenge since 

the Great Depression, we have a tremendous opportunity to create jobs 

critical to addressing the energy challenges we face. The CREC Act amends 

the recently authorized Qualified Energy Conservation Bond, QECB, program to increase funding for important 

public-private partnerships to significantly invest in energy efficiency and 

conservation, a key national priority. 

It also offers States and local governments the opportunity to create jobs 

and stimulate their local economies. 

First, my bill will more than quadruple the amount of bonds that can be 

issued under the Qualified Energy Conservation Bond program—increasing 

the program from $800 million to $3.6 

billion. This will provide the opportunity for private investors to partner 

with State and local governments to 

fund energy investments through State 

and locally issued tax credit bonds. As 

we give private investors the opportunity to participate in the green economy through Qualified Energy Conservation Bonds, we signal to the market that the Federal Government will 

continue to affirm the importance of 

investment in energy efficiency and 

conservation, as well as the development of new energy technologies. Helping these new energy technologies 

thrive is not only a promising way to 

develop the next generation of energy 

technology to reduce our energy consumption, it will also help to spur job 

creation as State and local governments embark on capital improvements. 

Increasing the size of the program 

will support funding for eligible 

projects including energy efficiency 

improvements of publicly owned buildings; rural development of electricity 

from renewable sources; research facilities or grants for renewable technologies such as advanced automobile 

battery technology and nonfossil fuels; 

mass commuting facilities that reduce 

energy consumption; or financing 

qualified energy production projects 

such as wind, biomass, geothermal, 

landfill gas, and solar. 

Secondly, my bill expands the types 

of eligible programs to ones that reduce energy consumption in privately 

owned buildings. It would allow States 

and local governments to help homeowners and businesses make improvements such as heating-fuel saving 

measures; electricity-saving measures; 

on-site renewable energy generating 

devices; or water-saving measures that 

reduce the energy use of the owner, 

renter or water provider. Gains in efficiency savings between 20–30 percent 

are easily achievable through improving lighting, insulation, HVAC equipment and controls for these items. 

These measures are often one-time and 

low maintenance or maintenance free 

once they have been installed. In terms 

of costs, implementing efficiency measures only costs about 3 cents per kWh 

of energy saved while implementing 

wind and solar projects can cost at 

least two to three times more. 

Importantly, my bill will increase 

the success of these energy efficiency 

and conservation programs by ensuring 

the Qualified Energy Conservation 

Bond program can be used to promote 

novel payment structures in order to 

reduce the prohibitive upfront costs 

that homeowners and businesses must 

pay for energy efficiency and conservation upgrades. By eliminating expensive up-front costs for homeowners and 

businesses, we can eliminate one of the 

main obstacles to making significant 

energy efficiency gains. Furthermore, 

we can virtually eliminate what homeowners and businesses have to pay for 

the efficiency and conservation upgrades by not increasing their out-ofpocket expenses. For example, States 

and local governments can work with 

electric and water utilities to bill individuals or businesses monthly for the 

cost of the efficiency improvements 

based on the savings they receive. The 

payment for the efficiency improvements each month will be no more 

than the monthly energy-savings realized by the improvements, thereby 

keeping their monthly payments the 

same as before the energy improvements. 

The Center on Wisconsin Strategy 

states that buildings account for 40 

percent of total U.S. energy consumption, 70 percent of U.S. electricity consumption, and 43 percent of U.S. carbon 

emissions, a larger share than either 

transportation or industry. It is possible that the U.S. could realize more 

than $200 billion in annual savings 

from improved building efficiency 

alone. However, one of the challenges 

associated with implementing building 

efficiency measures is its prohibitive 

cost. Unfortunately, poor households 

devote a disproportionate share of income to home energy costs, often upwards of 10 percent, because they have 

less income and tend to live in less efficient buildings and use less efficient 

appliances. Through building retrofits 

we have the potential to generate 

about 10 person years of employment in 

direct installation of efficiency measures and another 3–4 person years in 

the production of relevant materials 

for every $1 million spent on retrofits 

Large cities and counties with populations over 100,000 would be eligible 

for Wisconsin’s share, $65.7 million, 

that my bill would allow for. Eligible 

local governments in Wisconsin include: Milwaukee, Madison, Green Bay, 

and the counties of Milwaukee, Dane, 

Waukesha, Brown, Racine, Outagamie, 

Kenosha, Winnebago, Rock, Marathon, 

Washington, Sheboygan, La Crosse, 

and Walworth. 

I commend the city of Milwaukee and 

the Center on Wisconsin Strategy— 

they have already begun to develop a 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with SENATE
S342 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 13, 2009 

program to address retrofitting residential buildings with energy efficiency measures through Me2—Milwaukee Energy Efficiency. COWS’ initial estimates suggest if you could retrofit nearly all of the existing housing 

stock in Milwaukee, an initial investment of just under $250 million could 

result in annual energy savings of over 

$80 million. Examples of other cities 

that are tackling the issue of energy 

efficiency in residential buildings include Berkeley, CA; Babylon, NY; and 

Brookhaven, NY. 

All of these efforts to conserve energy require investments in time and 

money. By combining efforts on two of 

the challenges that we currently face— 

energy and employment—we can create 

great opportunities. Energy efficiency 

and conservation are in our national 

interest for our long term economic 

well-being, for the health and safety of 

our citizens and the world as we mitigate the effects of climate change, and 

for our independence and security. 

I have urged the Treasury Department to quickly issue regulations for 

the Qualified Energy Conservation 

Bonds so the initial program can get up 

and running. Once regulations are finalized, States and local governments 

can begin applying to receive an allotment of the bonds to pursue projects 

that may have been shelved in our 

struggling economy. 

The second energy bill I am introducing as part of my E4 Initiative is 

the Energy and Technology Advancement Act. This bill will increase partnerships between the Federal Government and businesses to help spur the 

commercialization of energy, forestry, 

and other technologies—in other 

words, to increase the ETA, or estimated time of arrival, for bringing new 

technologies to market. 

Particularly in the area of energy, we 

must do more to make new energy solutions, like next generation biofuels, a 

reality. My bill will help make the 

Federal Government a better business 

partner for the many businesses that 

are researching and developing innovative technology solutions our country 

needs. We are squandering the Federal 

investment of billions into research 

and development by not doing enough 

to prevent new technologies from sitting on the shelf or being shipped to 

another country. Helping these new energy technologies get off the ground is 

not only a promising way to develop 

the next generation of energy technology that will help break our addition to oil, it will also help to spur job 

creation and enhance rural development. 

One obstacle identified by the Forest 

Service’s Wisconsin-based Forest Products Lab which conducts forestry and 

energy technology research with businesses and others, is lack of Federal 

support for moving technologies from 

the research and development phase to 

commercialization. My bill will bridge 

this gap by authorizing the U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA, which 

includes the Forest Service, to work 

with businesses and provide access to 

resources to assist with getting technologies to market. 

By encouraging the USDA to act as a 

‘‘business incubator,’’ we can increase 

the rate of success and reduce the 

length of time for bringing technologies to the market. By providing a 

bridge to move new technologies beyond the research and development 

phase to commercialization, the Federal Government will accelerate the 

development of new technologies and 

create increased opportunities for 

small businesses, local and State government, and others. 

All energy, forestry, and other technologies will benefit from my ETA Act 

because it will help new technologies 

come to the market. It does so by promoting the Federal Government as a 

better business incubator, encouraging 

the USDA to provide business support 

services, and authorizing USDA employees and private-sector employees 

to work together in Federal or private 

experimental or product facilities. My 

bill will also increase cooperation between the Federal Government and innovative businesses by encouraging the 

USDA to allow rental of Federal equipment and property for the development 

of new technology. 

Lastly, a specific partnership encouraged by my Energy and Technology 

Advancement Act will spur the commercialization of biofuels. My bill requires the USDA to pursue a biorefinery pilot plant that will allow 

businesses to partner with the Federal 

Government to test various biofuels 

technologies derived from a variety of 

feedstocks, including woody and agriculture waste. 

Certainly one of today’s greatest 

challenges—energy—is also one of tomorrow’s greatest opportunities. 

Today, the transportation sector accounts for 70% of our oil consumption. 

However, there are promising efforts to 

significantly lessen our dependence on 

oil by reducing fuel consumption 

through increased efficiency and by aggressively pursuing renewable fuels, or 

biofuels. The commercialization of 

biofuels will also create job opportunities, support rural development and industries such as forestry, and develop 

the next generation of fuels that are 

sustainable and from diverse sources. 

Given our current dire fiscal situation, it is more important then ever 

that we are careful stewards of taxpayer dollars. Not only are both of 

these new bills fully offset, so as not to 

worsen our current Federal deficit; 

they actually provide over a billion 

dollars in deficit reduction. That’s yet 

another reason to pass them, and I 

look forward to working with my colleagues to do just that. 

By Mr TESTER (for himself and 

Mr. BAUCUS): 

S. 226. A bill to designate the Department of Veterans Affairs outpatient 

clinic in Havre, Montana, as the Merrill Lundman Department of Veterans 

Affairs Outpatient Clinic; to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs. 

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I rise 

today with my colleague Senator BAUCUS to introduce legislation honoring a 

Montana veteran named Merrill 

Lundman. 

Merrill was not a general officer. He 

did not become famous in battle, or 

wealthy in his civilian life. After serving in the Army, he came home to 

north-central Montana to work on the 

family farm and, later, for 20 years for 

the BNSF railroad. Some people might 

say he was just an ordinary man who 

served his country in the Army for 

three years, and then came home to 

work to live most of his days on the HiLine, a strip of U.S. Highway 2 in Montana that cuts across the prairie near 

the northern border. 

But because of Merrill Lundman, 

thousands of veterans in and around 

Havre, Montana, can expect to get 

their VA medical care a little bit closer to home. You see, for the last several years of his life, Merrill devoted 

his time and his energy to pushing the 

VA to open a new community based 

outpatient clinic in Havre. And today, 

his dream has become a reality. 

I am sorry that Merrill Lundman is 

not with us today to celebrate this day. 

He died just over one year ago, on December 22, 2007. Less than a month 

later, the VA announced its intention 

to establish a clinic in Havre. 

The data says that veterans who live 

in rural areas don’t live as long—or as 

well—as their urban peers. That’s because it’s harder to get to the VA facility that may be hundreds of miles 

away—especially this time of year 

when snow and ice can make travel in 

Montana treacherous. I don’t know if 

Merrill knew this, but he sensed that 

his fellow veterans were getting a raw 

deal, and he didn’t hesitate to tell the 

VA and his congressional delegation. 

The story of this clinic is a grassroots effort led by one man who stood 

up for his fellow band of brothers to 

make sure that they can get the care 

that they have earned. And to honor 

that effort, Senator BAUCUS and I are 

proud to introduce this legislation, and 

I look forward to working with Chairman AKAKA to move this bill quickly 

through the Veterans’ Affairs Committee. 

By Mr. CARDIN (for himself, Mrs. 

CLINTON, Ms. MIKULSKI, and Mr. 

SCHUMER): 

S. 227. A bill to establish the Harriet 

Tubman National Historical Park in 

Auburn, New York, and the Harriet 

Tubman Underground Railroad National Historical Park in Caroline, Dorchester, and Talbot Counties, Maryland, and for other purposes; to the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. 

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I 

am proud to introduce The Harriet 

Tubman National Historical Park and 

The Harriet Tubman Underground 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with SENATE
January 13, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S343 

Railroad National Historical Park Act. 

I am joined by Mrs. CLINTON, Ms. MIKULSKI, and Mr. SCHUMER as original 

co-sponsors. We originally introduced 

nearly identical legislation last summer, but the press of legislative business did not allow for consideration of 

this important legislation. This year 

we will work for its prompt consideration and enactment. 

The woman, who is known to us as 

Harriet Tubman, was born Araminta 

‘‘Minty’’ Ross approximately 1822 in 

Dorchester County, Maryland. She 

spent nearly 30 years of her life as a 

slave on Maryland’s Eastern Shore. As 

an adult she took the first name Harriet, and when she was 25 she married 

John Tubman. 

Harriet Tubman escaped from slavery 

in 1849. She did so in the dead of night, 

navigating the maze of tidal streams 

and wetlands that are a hallmark of 

Maryland’s Eastern Shore. She did so 

alone, demonstrating courage, strength 

and fortitude that became her hallmarks. Not satisfied with attaining her 

own freedom, she returned repeatedly 

for more than 10 years to the places of 

her enslavement in Dorchester and 

Caroline counties where, under the 

most adverse conditions, she led away 

many family members and other slaves 

to their freedom. Tubman became 

known as ‘‘Moses’’ by African-Americans and white abolitionists. She was 

perhaps the most famous and most important conductor in the network of resistance known as the Underground 

Railroad. 

During the Civil War, Tubman served 

the Union forces as a spy, a scout and 

a nurse. She served in Virginia, Florida, and South Carolina. She is credited with leading hundreds of slaves 

from those slave States to freedom during those years. 

Following the Civil War, Tubman settled in Auburn, NY. There she was active in the women’s suffrage movement, and she also established the one 

of the first incorporated homes for 

aged African-Americans. In 1903 she bequeathed the home to the African 

Methodist Episcopal Zion Church in 

Auburn. Harriet Tubman died in Auburn in 1913 and she is buried there in 

the Fort Hill Cemetery. 

Slaves were forced to live in primitive buildings even though many were 

skilled tradesmen who constructed the 

substantial homes of their owners. Not 

surprisingly, few of the structures associated with the early years of Tubman’s life still stand. The landscapes of 

the Eastern Shore of Maryland, however, remain evocative of the time that 

Tubman lived there. Farm fields and 

forests dot the landscape, which is also 

notable for its extensive network of 

tidal rivers and wetlands. In particular, 

a number of properties including the 

homestead of Ben Ross, her father, 

Stewart’s Canal, where he worked, the 

Brodess Farm, where she worked as a 

slave, and others are within the boundaries of the Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge. 

Similarly, Poplar Neck, the plantation from which she escaped to freedom, is still largely intact in Caroline 

County. The properties in Talbot County, immediately across the Choptank 

River from the plantation, are today 

protected by various conservation easements. Were she alive today, Tubman 

would recognize much of the landscape 

that she knew intimately as she secretly led black men, women and children to their freedom. 

In New York, on the other hand, 

many of the buildings associated with 

Tubman’s life remain intact. Her personal home, as well as the Tubman 

Home for the Aged, the church and rectory of the Thompson Memorial AME 

Zion Episcopal Church, and the Fort 

Hill Cemetery are all extant. 

In 1999, the Congress approved legislation authorizing a Special Resource 

Study to determine the appropriateness of establishing a unit of the National Park Service to honor Harriet 

Tubman. The Study has taken an exceptionally long time to complete, in 

part because of the lack of remaining 

structures on Maryland’s Eastern 

Shore. There has never been any doubt 

that Tubman led an extraordinary life. 

Her contributions to American history 

are surpassed by few. Determining the 

most appropriate way to recognize that 

life and her contributions, however, as 

been more difficult. Eventually, the 

Park Service came to realize that determined that a Park that would include two geographically separate 

units would be appropriate. The New 

York unit would include the tightly 

clustered Tubman buildings in Auburn. 

The Maryland portion would include 

large sections of landscapes that are 

evocative of Tubman’s time and are 

historically relevant. The Harriet Tubman National Historical Park and The 

Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad 

National Historical Park Act, S. 3383, 

was first introduced on July 31, 2008. 

The Special Resource Study will be finalized and released in the near future. 

The legislation I am introducing 

today establishes two parks. The Harriet Tubman National Historical Park 

includes important historical structures in Auburn, New York. They include Tubman’s home, the Home for 

the Aged that she established, the African Methodist Episcopal AME Zion 

Church, and the Fort Hill Cemetery 

where she is buried. 

The Harriet Tubman Underground 

Railroad National Historical Park includes historically important landscapes in Dorchester, Caroline, and 

Talbot counties, Maryland, that are 

evocative of the life of Harriet Tubman. The Maryland properties include 

about 2,200 acres in Caroline County 

that comprise the Poplar Neck plantation that Tubman escaped from in 1849. 

The 725 acres of viewshed across the 

Choptank River in Talbot County 

would also be included in the Park. In 

Dorchester County, the parcels would 

not be contiguous, but would include 

about 2,775 acres. All of them are included within the Blackwater National 

Wildlife Refuge boundaries or abut that 

resource land. The National Park Service would not own any of these lands. 

The bill authorizes $11 million in 

grants for the New York properties for 

their preservation, rehabilitation, and 

restoration of those resources. 

The bill authorizes an additional $11 

million in grants for the Maryland section. Funds can be used for the construction of the State Harriet Tubman 

Park Visitors Center and/or for easements or acquisition of properties inside or adjacent to the Historical Park 

boundaries. 

Finally, the bill also authorizes a 

new grants program. Under the program, the National Park Service would 

award competitive grants to historically Black colleges and universities, 

predominately Black institutions, and 

minority serving institutions for research into the life of Harriet Tubman 

and the African-American experience 

during the years that coincide with the 

life of Harriet Tubman. The legislation 

authorizes $200,000 annually for this 

scholarship program. 

Harriet Tubman was a true American 

patriot. She was someone for whom liberty and freedom were not just concepts. She lived those principles and 

shared that freedom with hundreds of 

others. In doing so, she has earned a 

nation’s respect and honor. That is why 

I am so proud to introduce this legislation, establishing the Harriet Tubman 

National Historical Park and the Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad National Historical Park. 

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

in the RECORD. 

There being no objection, the text of 

the bill was ordered to be printed in 

the RECORD, as follows: 

S. 227 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in 

Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Harriet Tubman National Historical Park and Harriet 

Tubman Underground Railroad National Historical Park Act’’. 

SEC. 2. FINDINGS; PURPOSES. 

(a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds that— 

(1) Harriet Tubman (born Araminta 

‘‘Minty’’ Ross)— 

(A) was born into slavery in Maryland 

around 1822; 

(B) married John Tubman at age 25; 

(C) endured through her youth and young 

adulthood the hardships of enslaved AfricanAmericans; and 

(D) boldly emancipated herself from bondage in 1849; 

(2) not satisfied with attaining her own 

freedom, Harriet Tubman— 

(A) returned repeatedly for more than 10 

years to the places of her enslavement in 

Dorchester and Caroline Counties, Maryland; 

and 

(B) under the most adverse circumstances 

led away many family members and acquaintances to freedom in the northern region of the United States and Canada; 

(3) Harriet Tubman was— 

(A) called ‘‘Moses’’ by African-Americans 

and white abolitionists; and 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with SENATE
S344 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 13, 2009 

(B) acknowledged as 1 of the most prominent ‘‘conductors’’ of the resistance that 

came to be known as the ‘‘Underground Railroad’’; 

(4) in 1868, Frederick Douglass wrote that, 

with the exception of John Brown, Douglass 

knew of ‘‘no one who has willingly encountered more perils and hardships to serve our 

enslaved people’’ than Harriet Tubman; 

(5) during the Civil War, Harriet Tubman— 

(A) was recruited to assist Union troops as 

a nurse, a scout, and a spy; and 

(B) served in Virginia, Florida, and South 

Carolina, where she is credited with facilitating the rescue of hundreds of enslaved 

people; 

(6) Harriet Tubman established in Auburn, 

New York, 1 of the first incorporated homes 

for aged African-Americans in the United 

States, which, 10 years before her death, she 

bequeathed to the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church; 

(7) there are nationally significant resources comprised of relatively unchanged 

landscapes associated with the early life of 

Harriet Tubman in Caroline, Dorchester, and 

Talbot Counties, Maryland; 

(8) there are nationally significant resources relating to Harriet Tubman in Auburn, New York, including— 

(A) the residence of Harriet Tubman; 

(B) the Tubman Home for the Aged; 

(C) the Thompson Memorial AME Zion 

Church; and 

(D) the final resting place of Harriet Tubman in Fort Hill Cemetery; 

(9) in developing interpretive programs, 

the National Park Service would benefit 

from increased scholarship of the AfricanAmerican experience during the decades preceding the Civil War and throughout the remainder of the 19th century; 

(10) it is fitting and proper that the nationally significant resources relating to Harriet 

Tubman be preserved for future generations 

as units of the National Park System so that 

people may understand and appreciate the 

contributions of Harriet Tubman to the history and culture of the United States; and 

(11) in addition to the properties and resources within the boundary of the Harriet 

Tubman Underground Railroad National Historical Park, other associated land within 

the Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge and 

proposed additions to the Refuge are— 

(A) components of the nationally significant Harriet Tubman landscape; and 

(B) essential to the visual, historical, and 

cultural experiences of the Historical Park. 

(b) PURPOSES.—The purposes of this Act 

are— 

(1) to preserve and promote stewardship of 

the resources in Auburn, New York, and 

Caroline, Dorchester, and Talbot Counties, 

Maryland, relating to the life and contributions of Harriet Tubman; 

(2) to provide for partnerships with the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church, the 

States of New York and Maryland, political 

subdivisions of the States, the Federal Government, local governments, nonprofit organizations, and private property owners for 

resource protection, research, interpretation, education, and public understanding 

and appreciation of the life and contributions of Harriet Tubman; 

(3) to sustain agricultural and forestry 

land uses in Caroline, Dorchester, and Talbot 

Counties, Maryland, that remain evocative 

of the landscape during the life of Harriet 

Tubman; and 

(4) to establish a competitive grants program for scholars of African-American history relating to Harriet Tubman, the Harriet 

Tubman historic landscape, and the Underground Railroad. 

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS. 

In this Act: 

(1) CHURCH.—The term ‘‘Church’’ means 

the Harriet Tubman Home, Inc., of the AME 

Zion Church located in Auburn, New York, 

which owns and manages— 

(A) the Thompson Memorial AME Zion 

Church; 

(B) the Harriet Tubman home; 

(C) the Tubman Home for the Aged; and 

(D) the land on which those facilities are 

located. 

(2) HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY.—The term ‘‘historically Black college or university’’ has the meaning given 

the term ‘‘part B institution’’ in section 322 

of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 

1061)). 

(3) PREDOMINANTLY BLACK INSTITUTION.— 

The term ‘‘Predominantly Black Institution’’ has the meaning given the term in section 499A(c) of the Higher Education Act of 

1965 (20 U.S.C. 1099e(c)). 

(4) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ 

means the Secretary of the Interior. 

(5) VISITOR CENTER.—The term ‘‘Visitor 

Center’’ means the Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad State Park Visitor Center 

to be constructed under section 5(d). 

SEC. 4. ESTABLISHMENT OF HARRIET TUBMAN 

NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK. 

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—On the execution of 

easements with the Church, the Secretary 

shall— 

(1) establish the Harriet Tubman National 

Historical Park (referred to in this section as 

the ‘‘Historical Park’’) in the City of Auburn, New York, as a unit of the National 

Park System; and 

(2) publish notice of the establishment of 

the Historical Park in the Federal Register. 

(b) BOUNDARY.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Historical Park shall 

be comprised of structures and properties associated with the Harriet Tubman home, the 

Tubman Home for the Aged, the Church, and 

the Rectory, as generally depicted on the 

map entitled ‘‘Harriet Tubman National Historical Park—Proposed Boundary’’, numbered øllll¿, and dated ølll¿. 

(2) AVAILABILITY OF MAP.—The map described in paragraph (1) shall be available for 

public inspection in the appropriate offices 

of the National Park Service. 

(c) ACQUISITION OF LAND.—The Secretary 

may acquire from willing sellers, by donation, purchase with donated or appropriated 

funds, or exchange, land or interests in land 

within the boundary of the Historical Park. 

(d) FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS.—The Secretary may provide grants to, and enter into cooperative 

agreements with— 

(1) the Church for— 

(A) historic preservation of, rehabilitation 

of, research on, and maintenance of properties within the boundary of the Historical 

Park; and 

(B) interpretation of the Historical Park; 

(2) the Fort Hill Cemetery Association for 

maintenance and interpretation of the 

gravesite of Harriet Tubman; and 

(3) the State of New York, any political 

subdivisions of the State, the City of Auburn, the Church, colleges and universities, 

and nonprofit organizations for— 

(A) preservation and interpretation of resources relating to Harriet Tubman in the 

City of Auburn, New York; 

(B) conducting research, including archaeological research; and 

(C) providing for stewardship programs, 

education, public access, signage, and other 

interpretive devices at the Historical Park 

for interpretive purposes. 

(e) INTERPRETATION.—The Secretary may 

provide interpretive tours to sites located 

outside the boundaries of the Historical Park 

in Auburn, New York, that include resources 

relating to Harriet Tubman. 

(f) GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 3 years 

after the date on which funds are made available to carry out this subsection, the Secretary, in cooperation with the Church, shall 

complete a general management plan for the 

Historical Park in accordance with section 

12(b) of Public Law 91–383 (16 U.S.C. 1a–7(b)). 

(2) COORDINATION.—The Secretary shall coordinate the preparation and implementation of the general management plan for the 

Harriet Tubman National Historical Park 

with— 

(A) the Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad National Historical Park in Maryland; 

and 

(B) the National Underground Railroad: 

Network to Freedom. 

SEC. 5. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE HARRIET TUBMAN UNDERGROUND RAILROAD NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK. 

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—There is established 

as a unit of the National Park System the 

Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad National Historical Park (referred to in this 

section as the ‘‘Historical Park’’) in Caroline, Dorchester, and Talbot Counties, Maryland. 

(b) BOUNDARY.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The boundary of the Historical Park shall consist of certain landscapes and associated resources relating to 

the early life and enslavement of Harriet 

Tubman and the Underground Railroad, as 

generally depicted on the map entitled ‘‘Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad National 

Historical Park—Proposed Boundary’’, numbered øllll¿, and dated ølllll¿. 

(2) ADDITIONAL SITES.—The Secretary, after 

consultation with landowners, the State of 

Maryland, and units of local government, 

may modify the boundary of the Historical 

Park to include additional resources relating 

to Harriet Tubman that— 

(A) are located within the vicinity of the 

Historical Park; and 

(B) are identified in the general management plan prepared under subsection (g) as 

appropriate for interpreting the life of Harriet Tubman. 

(3) AVAILABILITY OF MAP.—On modification 

of the boundary of the Historical Park under 

paragraph (2), the Secretary shall make 

available for public inspection in the appropriate offices of the National Park Service a 

revised map of the Historical Park. 

(c) ACQUISITION OF LAND.—The Secretary 

may acquire from willing sellers, by donation, purchase with donated or appropriated 

funds, or exchange, land or an interest in 

land within the boundaries of the Historical 

Park. 

(d) GRANTS.—In accordance with section 

7(b)(2), the Secretary may provide grants— 

(1) to the State of Maryland, political subdivisions of the State, and nonprofit organizations for the acquisition of less than fee 

title (including easements) or fee title to 

land in Caroline, Dorchester, and Talbot 

Counties, Maryland, within the boundary of 

the Historical Park; and 

(2) on execution of a memorandum of understanding between the State of Maryland 

and the Director of the National Park Service, to the State of Maryland for the construction of the Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad State Park Visitor Center 

on land owned by the State of Maryland in 

Dorchester County, Maryland, subject to the 

condition that the State of Maryland provide 

the Director of the National Park Service, at 

no additional cost, sufficient office space and 

exhibition areas in the Visitor Center to 

carry out the purposes of the Historical 

Park. 

(e) FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE AND COOPERATIVE

AGREEMENTS.—The Secretary may provide 

grants to, and enter into cooperative agreements with, the State of Maryland, political 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with SENATE
January 13, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S345 

subdivisions of the State, nonprofit organizations, colleges and universities, and private 

property owners for— 

(1) the restoration or rehabilitation, public 

use, and interpretation of sites and resources 

relating to Harriet Tubman; 

(2) the conduct of research, including archaeological research; 

(3) providing stewardship programs, education, signage, and other interpretive devices at the sites and resources for interpretive purposes; and 

(4)(A) the design and construction of the 

Visitor Center; and 

(B) the operation and maintenance of the 

Visitor Center. 

(f) INTERPRETATION.—The Secretary may 

provide interpretive tours to sites and resources located outside the boundary of the 

Historical Park in Caroline, Dorchester, and 

Talbot Counties, Maryland, relating to the 

life of Harriet Tubman and the Underground 

Railroad. 

(g) GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 3 years 

after the date on which funds are made available to carry out this subsection, the Secretary, in coordination with the State of 

Maryland, political subdivisions of the 

State, and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, shall complete a general management plan for the Historical Park in accordance with section 12(b) of Public Law 91– 

383 (16 U.S.C. 1a–7(b)). 

(2) COORDINATION.—The Secretary shall coordinate the preparation and implementation of the general management plan for the 

Historical Park with— 

(A) the Harriet Tubman National Historical Park in Auburn, New York; 

(B) the National Underground Railroad: 

Network to Freedom; 

(C) the Maryland Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad State Park; and 

(D) the Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad Byway in Dorchester and Caroline 

Counties, Maryland. 

(3) PRIORITY TREATMENT.—The general 

management plan for the Historical Park 

shall give priority to, with the concurrence 

of the owner of the property, the adequate 

protection of, interpretation of, public appreciation for, archaeological investigation 

of, and research on Stewart’s Canal, the 

Jacob Jackson home site, the Brodess Farm, 

the Ben Ross and Anthony Thompson properties on Harrisville Road, and the James 

Cook site, all of which are privately owned 

and located in the area identified as the 

‘‘Harriet Tubman Historic Area’’ on the map 

described in subsection (b)(1). 

(h) BLACKWATER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE.— 

(1) INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT.—The Secretary shall ensure that, not later than 1 

year after the date of enactment of this Act, 

the National Park Service and the United 

States Fish and Wildlife Service enter into 

an interagency agreement that— 

(A) promotes and mutually supports the 

compatible stewardship and interpretation of 

Harriet Tubman resources at the Blackwater 

National Wildlife Refuge; and 

(B) provides for the maximum level of cooperation between those Federal agencies to 

further the purposes of this Act. 

(2) EFFECT OF ACT.—Nothing in this Act 

modifies, alters, or amends the authorities of 

the United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

in the administration and management of 

the Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge. 

(i) DUTIES OF OTHER FEDERAL ENTITIES.— 

Any Federal entity conducting, supporting, 

permitting, or licensing activities directly 

affecting nationally significant land within 

the area identified as the ‘‘Harriet Tubman 

Historic Area’’ on the map described in subsection (b)(1) shall— 

(1) consult and cooperate with the Secretary with respect to the activities; 

(2) identify any alternatives with regard to 

the proposed activity affecting the Harriet 

Tubman Historic Area; and 

(3) to the maximum extent practicable, 

conduct, support, permit, or license the activities in a manner that the Secretary determines would not have an adverse effect on 

the Harriet Tubman Historic Area. 

SEC. 6. ADMINISTRATION. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall administer the Harriet Tubman National Historical Park and the Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad National Historical Park in 

accordance with this Act and the laws generally applicable to units of the National 

Park System including— 

(1) the National Park Service Organic Act 

(16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.); and 

(2) the Act of August 21, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 461 

et seq.). 

(b) PARK REGULATIONS.—Notwithstanding 

subsection (a), regulations and policies applicable to units of the National Park System 

shall apply only to Federal land administered by the National Park Service that is 

located within the boundary of the Harriet 

Tubman Underground Railroad National Historical Park. 

SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—There are authorized to 

be appropriated such sums as are necessary 

to carry out this Act (other than subsection 

(b)), including the provision of National Park 

Service personnel and National Park Service 

management funds for the Harriet Tubman 

National Historical Park and the Harriet 

Tubman Underground Railroad National Historical Park. 

(b) GRANTS.—There are authorized to be 

appropriated not more than— 

(1) $11,000,000 to provide grants to the 

Church for— 

(A) historic preservation, rehabilitation, 

and restoration of resources within the 

boundary of the Harriet Tubman National 

Historical Park; and 

(B) the costs of design, construction, installation, and maintenance of exhibits and 

other interpretive devices authorized under 

section 4(d)(1)(B); 

(2) $11,000,000 for grants to the State of 

Maryland, political subdivisions of the State 

of Maryland, and nonprofit organizations for 

activities authorized under subsections (d)(1) 

and (e)(4)(A) of section 5; and 

(3) $200,000 for fiscal year 2010 and each fiscal year thereafter for competitive grants to 

historically Black colleges and universities, 

Predominately Black Institutions, and minority serving institutions for research into 

the life of Harriet Tubman and the AfricanAmerican experience during the years that 

coincide with the life of Harriet Tubman. 

(c) COST-SHARING REQUIREMENT.— 

(1) CHURCH AND VISITOR CENTER GRANTS.— 

The Federal share of the cost of activities 

provided grants under paragraph (1) or (2) of 

subsection (b) and any maintenance, construction, or utility costs incurred pursuant 

to a cooperative agreement entered into 

under section 4(d)(1)(A) or section 5(e) shall 

not be more than 50 percent. 

(2) HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES.—The Federal share of the cost of 

activities provided assistance under subsection (b)(3) shall be not more than 75 percent. 

(3) FORM OF NON-FEDERAL SHARE.—The nonFederal share required under this subsection 

may be in the form of in-kind contributions 

of goods or services fairly valued. 

By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself 

and Mr. AKAKA): 

S. 228. A bill to amend title XIX of 

the Social Security Act to permit 

States, at their option, to require certain individuals to present satisfactory 

documentary evidence of proof of citizenship or nationality for purposes of 

eligibility for Medicaid, and for other 

purposes; to the Committee on Finance. 

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President I rise 

today with my colleague Senator 

AKAKA to introduce legislation today 

designed to make several very important changes to current law to ensure 

that U.S. citizens receive the Medicaid 

to which they are entitled. 

Since July 1, 2006, most U.S. citizens 

and nationals applying for or renewing 

their Medicaid coverage face a new 

Federal requirement to provide documentation of their citizenship status. 

Recent reports indicate that tens-ofthousands of U.S. citizens, and in particular children, inappropriately are 

being denied Medicaid benefits simply 

because they don’t have access to 

newly required documentation. The articles below and report by the Center 

on Budget and Policy Priorities highlight this very serious problem. Hospitals, physicians, and pharmacies may 

not be willing to treat these individuals until they have a source of payment, but they cannot qualify for Medicaid until they produce a birth certificate and ID. 

This new Federal requirement was 

added to Medicaid by the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, DRA, enacted February 8, 2006. The Tax Relief and 

Health Care Act of 2006, TRHCA, signed 

into law December 20, 2006, included 

some amendments to the DRA citizenship documentation requirement, primarily to exempt certain groups. Prior 

to enactment of the DRA, states were 

permitted to use their discretion in requiring such citizenship documentation. 

Under Section 6036 of the DRA, citizens applying for or renewing their 

Medicaid coverage must provide ‘‘satisfactory documentary evidence of citizenship or nationality.’’ The DRA 

specifies documents that are acceptable for this purpose and authorizes the 

HHS Secretary to designate additional 

acceptable documents. No Federal 

matching funds are available for services provided to individuals who declare they are citizens or nationals unless the state obtains satisfactory evidence of their citizenship or determines that they are subject to a statutory exemption. 

According to a CRS Report for Congress updated April 15, 2008, ‘‘Based on 

a recent survey by the Government Accountability Office, GAO, 22 of 44 states 

report declines in enrollment due to 

the new citizenship documentation requirement. Based on another survey by 

the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid 

and the Uninsured, 13 states report a 

significant negative impact on enrollment and another 24 states report a 

modest impact. Among seven states detailed in an earlier report from the 

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 

only Wisconsin has a data system that 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with SENATE
S346 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 13, 2009 

can identify denials and terminations 

due to a lack of citizenship documentation, and it reports that about 19,000 

people had their Medicaid eligibility 

denied or terminated for this reason 

between July 31, 2006, and March 1, 

2007.’’ 

A second wave study conducted from 

September 2007–March 2008 by the Department of Health Policy at the 

George Washington University School 

of Public Health published October 

2008, ‘‘Another distressing finding is 

the impact the citizenship documentation requirements appear to be having 

on SCHIP. Many states, for important 

reasons, use joint applications for both 

Medicaid and separate SCHIP programs. The effect, however, is to apply 

the citizenship documentation requirements to both programs, thereby delaying coverage for both groups of children.’’ 

‘‘Even if most or all of the reported 

Medicaid enrollment declines are due 

to the citizenship documentation requirement, a key question is whether 

the people who are being denied, terminated, or deterred from applying are 

U.S. citizens, rather than unauthorized 

aliens or other ineligible noncitizens. 

Of the 22 states reporting enrollment 

declines to GAO, a majority (16 states) 

attribute them to Medicaid coverage 

delays or losses for people who appear 

to be U.S. citizens.’’ 

It is important to note that citizenship documentation requirements do 

not affect Medicaid rules relating to 

immigrants—they apply to individuals 

claiming to be citizens. Most new legal 

immigrants are excluded from Medicaid during their first five years in the 

U.S. and undocumented immigrants remain eligible for Medicaid emergency 

services only. 

The legislation I am introducing 

would make several very important 

changes to current law to ensure that 

U.S. citizens receive the Medicaid to 

which they are entitled. 

First, the legislation would restore 

citizenship verification to a state option. Specifically, states would be permitted to determine when and to what 

extent citizenship verification is required of U.S. Citizens. States would 

also be permitted to utilize the standards most appropriate to the their population as long as such standards were 

no more stringent than those currently 

used by the Social Security Administration and includes native American 

tribal documents when appropriate. 

Second, the legislation would ensure 

that individuals are afforded a reasonable time period to provide citizenship 

documentation utilizing the same reasonable time period standard that is 

available to legal immigrants to provide satisfactory evidence of their immigration status. 

Third, the legislation protects children who are U.S. citizens by virtue of 

being born in the United States from 

being denied coverage after birth because of citizenship verification requirements. 

Fourth, the legislation also clarifies 

ambiguities in Federal law to ensure 

that these citizen children, regardless 

of the immigration status of their parents, are treated like all other low-income children born in the United 

States and are deemed eligible to receive Medicaid services for one year. 

Finally, the legislation also ensures 

that the thousands of citizen children 

and adults, who were erroneously denied Medicaid coverage, may receive 

retroactive Medicaid eligibility for 

coverage they were inappropriately denied because of citizenship verification 

requirements. 

I urge my colleagues in the Senate to 

support this critical legislation, which 

protects low-income U.S. citizens from 

being inappropriately denied Medicaid 

coverage because of lack of documentation. 

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

RECORD. 

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the 

RECORD, as follows: 

S. 228 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in 

Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. STATE OPTION TO REQUIRE CERTAIN 

INDIVIDUALS TO PRESENT SATISFACTORY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE 

OF PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP OR NATIONALITY FOR PURPOSES OF ELIGIBILITY FOR MEDICAID. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1902(a)(46) of the 

Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(46)) is 

amended— 

(1) by inserting ‘‘(A)’’ after ‘‘(46)’’; 

(2) by adding ‘‘and’’ after the semicolon; 

and 

(3) by adding at the end the following new 

subparagraph: 

‘‘(B) at the option of the State and subject 

to section 1903(x), require that, with respect 

to an individual (other than an individual described in section 1903(x)(1)) who declares to 

be a citizen or national of the United States 

for purposes of establishing initial eligibility 

for medical assistance under this title (or, at 

State option, for purposes of renewing or redetermining such eligibility to the extent 

that such satisfactory documentary evidence 

of citizenship or nationality has not yet been 

presented), there is presented satisfactory 

documentary evidence of citizenship or nationality of the individual (using criteria determined by the State, which shall be no 

more restrictive than the criteria used by 

the Social Security Administration to determine citizenship, and which shall accept as 

such evidence a document issued by a federally-recognized Indian tribe evidencing membership or enrollment in, or affiliation with, 

such tribe (such as a tribal enrollment card 

or certificate of degree of Indian blood, and, 

with respect to those federally-recognized 

Indian tribes located within States having 

an international border whose membership 

includes individuals who are not citizens of 

the United States, such other forms of documentation (including tribal documentation, 

if appropriate) that the Secretary, after consulting with such tribes, determines to be 

satisfactory documentary evidence of citizenship or nationality for purposes of satisfying the requirement of this subparagraph));’’. 

(b) LIMITATION ON WAIVER AUTHORITY.— 

Notwithstanding any provision of section 

1115 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

1315), or any other provision of law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services may 

not waive the requirements of section 

1902(a)(46)(B) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 

1396a(a)(46)(B)) with respect to a State. 

(c) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Section 

1903 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1396b) is amended— 

(1) in subsection (i)— 

(A) in paragraph (20), by adding ‘‘or’’ after 

the semicolon; 

(B) in paragraph (21), by striking ‘‘; or’’ and 

inserting a period; and 

(C) by striking paragraph (22); and 

(2) in subsection (x)— 

(A) by striking paragraphs (1) and (3); 

(B) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (1); 

(C) in paragraph (1), as so redesignated, by 

striking ‘‘paragraph (1)’’ and inserting ‘‘section 1902(a)(46)(B)’’; and 

(D) by adding at the end the following new 

paragraph: 

‘‘(2) In the case of an individual declaring 

to be a citizen or national of the United 

States with respect to whom a State requires 

the presentation of satisfactory documentary evidence of citizenship or nationality 

under section 1902(a)(46)(B), the individual 

shall be provided at least the reasonable opportunity to present satisfactory documentary evidence of citizenship or nationality 

under this subsection as is provided under 

clauses (i) and (ii) of section 1137(d)(4)(A) to 

an individual for the submittal to the State 

of evidence indicating a satisfactory immigration status.’’. 

SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF RULES FOR CHILDREN BORN IN THE UNITED STATES 

TO MOTHERS ELIGIBLE FOR MEDICAID. 

Section 1903(x) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 

1396b(x)), as amended by section 1(c)(2), is 

amended— 

(1) in paragraph (1)— 

(A) in subparagraph (C), by striking ‘‘or’’ 

at the end; 

(B) by redesignating subparagraph (D) as 

subparagraph (E); and 

(C) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the 

following new subparagraph: 

‘‘(D) pursuant to the application of section 

1902(e)(4) (and, in the case of an individual 

who is eligible for medical assistance on 

such basis, the individual shall be deemed to 

have provided satisfactory documentary evidence of citizenship or nationality and shall 

not be required to provide further documentary evidence on any date that occurs during 

or after the period in which the individual is 

eligible for medical assistance on such 

basis); or’’; and 

(2) by adding at the end the following new 

paragraph: 

‘‘(3) Nothing in subparagraph (A) or (B) of 

section 1902(a)(46), the preceding paragraphs 

of this subsection, or the Deficit Reduction 

Act of 2005, including section 6036 of such 

Act, shall be construed as changing the requirement of section 1902(e)(4) that a child 

born in the United States to an alien mother 

for whom medical assistance for the delivery 

of such child is available as treatment of an 

emergency medical condition pursuant to 

subsection (v) shall be deemed eligible for 

medical assistance during the first year of 

such child’s life.’’. 

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

(a) RETROACTIVE APPLICATION.—The 

amendments made by this Act shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the 

Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (Public Law 

109–171; 120 Stat. 4). 

(b) RESTORATION OF ELIGIBILITY.—In the 

case of an individual who, during the period 

that began on July 1, 2006, and ends on the 

date of enactment of this Act, was determined to be ineligible for medical assistance 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with SENATE
January 13, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S347 

under a State Medicaid program solely as a 

result of the application of subsections (i)(22) 

and (x) of section 1903 of the Social Security 

Act (as in effect during such period), but who 

would have been determined eligible for such 

assistance if such subsections, as amended 

by sections 1 and 2, had applied to the individual, a State may deem the individual to 

be eligible for such assistance as of the date 

that the individual was determined to be ineligible for such medical assistance on such 

basis. 

[From the New York Times, June 5, 2006] 

MEDICAID RULES TOUGHENED ON PROOF OF

CITIZENSHIP

(By Robert Pear) 

WASHINGTON, June 4.—The Bush administration plans this week to issue strict standards requiring more than 50 million low-income people on Medicaid to prove they are 

United States citizens by showing passports 

or birth certificates and a limited number of 

other documents. 

The new standards follow a tussle with 

Congress. Federal health officials had considered giving states broad discretion to accept affidavits in place of official documents. 

But House Republicans complained, and the 

administration backed off, allowing affidavits ‘‘only in rare circumstances.’’ 

The requirements, which take effect July 

1, carry out a law signed by President Bush 

on Feb. 8. 

They vividly illustrate how concern about 

illegal immigration is affecting domestic social welfare policy. The purpose of the law 

was to conserve federal money for citizens, 

reducing the need for states to cut Medicaid 

benefits or limit eligibility. 

Gov. Rick Perry of Texas won enthusiastic 

applause at a state Republican convention 

on Friday when he vowed to increase border 

security and said, ‘‘Texas will start requiring 

every Medicaid applicant to verify that they 

are in the country legally in order to receive 

benefits.’’ 

But officials in some other states and advocates for the poor said the new requirements could cause hardship for children, 

older Americans and poor people born at 

home in rural areas who never received birth 

certificates. Children account for about half 

of Medicaid recipients. People 65 and older 

account for about 10 percent. 

Jennifer M. Ng’andu, a health policy specialist at the National Council of La Raza, a 

Hispanic rights group, said, ‘‘The documentation requirements will cause confusion 

about eligibility and will put up barriers to 

enrollment.’’ 

In general, Medicaid is available only to 

United States citizens and to certain ‘‘qualified aliens.’’ Before the new standards, in 

many states, people who declared they were 

citizens did not have to support the claim. 

But in a letter being sent this week to 

state officials, the Bush administration says, 

‘‘Self-attestation of citizenship and identity 

is no longer an acceptable practice.’’ 

In the law, Congress listed examples of 

documents that could be used to show citizenship, and it said the secretary of health 

and human services could ‘‘by regulation’’ 

specify other acceptable documents. 

The main proponents of the new requirements were two Republican House members 

from Georgia, Representatives Charlie Norwood and Nathan Deal. 

John E. Stone, a spokesman for Mr. Norwood, said Sunday: ‘‘Charlie provided feedback to the administration in the last two 

weeks to make sure the regulations would 

not undermine the intent of the law. Obviously you need some flexibility so that a 92– 

year-old woman with Alzheimer’s does not 

get kicked off Medicaid. What’s unacceptable 

is for people to claim benefits or sign affidavits swearing they are citizens without any 

verification.’’ 

In an interview Sunday, Dr. Mark B. 

McClellan, administrator of the Centers for 

Medicare and Medicaid Services, said, ‘‘We 

want to provide an effective way to document citizenship without placing excessive 

burdens on states or beneficiaries.’’ 

In the letter to state Medicaid directors, 

the administration says, ‘‘An applicant or 

recipient who fails to cooperate with the 

state in presenting documentary evidence of 

citizenship may be denied or terminated’’ 

from the program. 

The requirements will be enforced when a 

person applies for Medicaid or when eligibility is first recertified on or after July 1. In 

general, applicants and recipients will have 

45 days to provide documents. People with 

disabilities will have 90 days. 

States typically redetermine eligibility 

every 3 to 12 months. ‘‘Once citizenship has 

been proved, it need not be documented 

again’’ because it does not normally change, 

the administration said. 

But the guidelines include a significant 

ambiguity: ‘‘An individual who is already enrolled in Medicaid will remain eligible if he 

or she showed a good-faith effort to present 

satisfactory evidence of citizenship and identity, even if this effort takes longer than 45 

days.’’ The administration says that ‘‘beneficiaries will not lose benefits as long as they 

are undertaking a good-faith effort to provide documentation.’’ 

States have a strong incentive to enforce 

the requirements. If they fail to do so, they 

can lose federal Medicaid money. 

The guidelines say states should help people document citizenship, especially if they 

are homeless, mentally impaired or physically incapacitated and have no one to act 

on their behalf. 

The guidelines list four categories of documents that can be used as evidence of citizenship, from the most reliable to the least 

trustworthy. The best evidence, they say, is 

a United States passport or a certificate of 

naturalization. The next category includes 

state and local birth certificates and State 

Department documents issued to children 

born abroad to United States citizens. 

The third category consists of nongovernment documents showing place of birth. 

These include medical records from doctors, 

hospitals and clinics; nursing home admission papers; and records from life and health 

insurance companies. 

The fourth category includes affidavits, 

which can be used ‘‘only in rare circumstances when the state is unable to secure evidence of citizenship’’ from other 

sources. 

‘‘An affidavit must be supplied by at least 

two individuals, one of whom is not related 

to the applicant or recipient,’’ the guidelines 

say. ‘‘Each must attest to having personal 

knowledge of the events establishing the applicant’s or recipient’s claim of citizenship. 

The individuals making the affidavit must 

be able to provide proof of their own citizenship and identity.’’ 

People signing affidavits may also be 

asked ‘‘why documentary evidence of citizenship does not exist or cannot be readily 

obtained.’’ 

[From the Birmingham News, Dec. 4, 2006] 

MEDICAID RULES PUT PINCH ON POOR, LACK

OF PROOF NEEDED FOR PLAN KEEPS MANY

FROM HELP

(By Kim Chandler) 

The four children in her office needed immunizations. But because their mother did 

not have their original birth certificates, and 

couldn’t buy a copy, the family could not enroll in Medicaid, Dr. Marsha Raulerson said. 

The children did not get their shots. 

During September and October, 1,600 lowincome people, many of them children, were 

rejected by Alabama’s Medicaid program because of tougher federal rules. They require 

applicants to show an original birth certificate or a copy purchased from the state 

Health Department with a raised seal, plus a 

driver’s license or other proof of citizenship 

and identity when signing up for Medicaid 

benefits. 

Many more people eventually could lose 

benefits if they can’t produce the necessary 

documents. 

The new rules took effect July 1 and are 

part of the 2005 Deficit Reduction Act. Congress approved the law because of concern 

that illegal immigrants were signing up for 

Medicaid en masse. Instead of curbing widespread fraud, advocates argue, the new rules 

deter poor U.S. citizens from getting health 

coverage. 

‘‘Under the best of circumstances, many 

people would be surprised to have to produce 

documentation of their citizenship,’’ said 

Jim Carnes of Alabama Arise, an advocacy 

group for the poor. 

Alabama Medicaid Commissioner Carol 

Herrmann-Steckel said the state is working 

hard to keep people on the Medicaid rolls. 

Unlike some other states, Alabama is not 

kicking current Medicaid recipients off the 

program if they do not possess the necessary 

documents. Under a provision called ‘‘reasonable assurance,’’ current Medicaid recipients are allowed to temporarily re-enroll. 

Medicaid beneficiaries must re-enroll every 

year. 

‘‘We are doing everything we can to verify 

citizenship. We want to be fair to the Alabamians who are on Medicaid,’’ HerrmannSteckel said. However, federal government 

officials have not said how long the ‘‘reasonable assurance’’ period could last. The number of people who could lose Medicaid benefits would be ‘‘significant.’’ HerrmannSteckel said. 

Medicaid is a joint federal-state health 

care program for the poor and disabled, and 

it is a major provider of medical care in Alabama. Medicaid pays for the health care of 

nearly 1 million Alabamians, about 20 percent of the state’s population, HerrmannSteckel said. 

Advocates fear many poor people can no 

longer enroll in Medicaid because they cannot locate their birth certificate, or afford to 

buy a copy, and do not have the required 

proof of citizenship such as a photo ID. 

The cost of obtaining a birth certificate is 

a challenge for many low-income people, 

Carnes said, as is transportation to present 

the documents. The state Department of 

Public Health charges $12 to search for a 

birth certificate. 

There is currently no way to tell if the 

1,600 who were denied coverage were illegal 

immigrants or U.S. citizens without the 

proper documents. But anecdotal evidence 

from Medicaid workers suggests some were 

just poor American parents. Medicaid workers asked people who had been denied coverage why they didn’t have the proper paperwork. 

‘‘By and large the reason was, ‘I can’t afford to buy four birth certificates,’’’ said Lee 

Rawlinson, deputy Medicaid commissioner 

for beneficiary services. 

Herrmann-Steckel said the state is doing 

everything possible to help Medicaid-eligible 

people obtain the documents. 

The Department of Public Health has 

agreed to begin faxing Medicaid officials copies of birth certificates as a last resort for 

applicants who can’t obtain their own. The 

two agencies will split the cost. 

Transportation also is a problem for some 

families, Carnes said. While people previously could renew their Medicaid status by 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with SENATE
S348 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 13, 2009 

mail, the new rules require a trip to see a 

Medicaid eligibility worker in person. 

‘‘There are all sorts of barriers, particularly for people without transportation and 

who may not have had a documented birth to 

begin with,’’ Carnes said. 

Raulerson said she cares for a family in 

Monroe County that once had Medicaid benefits but, without a car, has not been able to 

renew their coverage. 

Medicaid officials say they don’t know how 

many Alabamians have lost their Medicaid 

benefits because they couldn’t, or didn’t, 

visit an eligibility worker. 

The Alabama Medicaid Agency is also 

working with other state agencies, such as 

the Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation, to see if they’ve already 

verified a person’s citizenship, she said. 

People who also receive Medicare, the 

health care program for seniors, or Supplemental Security Income for a disability were 

exempted from the requirements after state 

Medicaid officials from across the country 

complained that would be too burdensome. 

Other states are struggling to comply as 

well. 

California has yet to implement the new 

federal rules. Vermont and other states are 

phasing in the regulations. While the law 

was designed to cut down on Medicaid fraud 

by illegal immigrants, Herrmann-Steckel 

said she does not believe Alabama has a 

widespread problem of illegal aliens receiving Medicaid. 

NEW MEDICAID RULES COULD COST STATE

MILLIONS

(By John Hanna) 

The state could face millions of dollars in 

additional costs because of federal rules requiring Medicaid recipients to verify their 

citizenship, Gov. Kathleen Sebelius said 

Wednesday. 

Sebelius said she’s worried the state will 

have to pick up the full cost of caring for 

some poor, frail and elderly Kansans who are 

living in nursing homes, instead of sharing 

the cost with the federal government. Also, 

she said, she will propose adding state employees to verify the citizenship status of 

Medicaid recipients and applicants. 

The governor told reporters she hopes Congress reviews the issue and other attempts to 

prevent illegal immigrants from obtaining 

social services or using driver’s licenses as 

identification. 

‘‘There was no input from the states on 

how realistic these were or what the cost 

was,’’ Sebelius said during a brief news conference following an unrelated meeting. 

Under Medicaid requirements that took effect July 1, recipients must provide either a 

passport or two other documents, such as a 

birth certificate and a driver’s license, to 

verify citizenship. 

While the measure is targeted at illegal 

immigrants, some advocates for the needy 

have worried that citizens will either lose or 

be denied services because they have trouble 

finding the necessary documents. 

State officials say the number of Kansans 

covered by Medicaid dropped almost 7 percent since July 1, down to 253,000 from 

271,000. They believe much of the decline can 

be attributed to the new requirements. 

Typically, every $1 the state spends on 

Medicaid is matched by about $1.50 from the 

federal government. If someone loses their 

coverage, then the state faces paying the entire bill for their services, Sebelius said. 

‘‘You’re at 100 percent state dollars or push 

them out the door,’’ she said. 

Also, Sebelius said, the state needs to 

‘‘ramp up’’ its staffing to handle the additional verification work. The governor is 

working on the budget proposal she’ll submit 

to the 2007 Legislature, which convenes Jan. 

8. 

‘‘We’re certainly going to put some of 

them in place,’’ she said. ‘‘We’re trying to 

make a careful analysis of how many we 

need.’’ 

She said that if the state refuses to comply 

with the law, it could face the loss of all federal health care dollars. 

‘‘We don’t have a lot of latitude to say 

we’re not going to do this,’’ she said. ‘‘There 

are literally hundreds of millions of dollars 

at stake.’’ 

Meanwhile, Sebelius expressed concern 

about a federal law on driver’s licenses 

passed last year. 

Starting in 2008, federal agencies won’t 

treat a state’s licenses as valid ID unless a 

state requires license applicants to document that they’re living in the United States 

legally. Lack of ID could prevent someone 

from entering a federal building or boarding 

a plane. 

Sebelius said the law will require local 

driver’s licenses offices to certify that someone has the proper documentation and to 

store the information. 

‘‘Exactly how that’s going to happen, we’re 

not quite sure,’’ Sebelius said. ‘‘We don’t basically have any of the equipment that’s required to do that in any of the rural areas.’’ 

THOUSANDS IN KANSAS OFF MEDICAID

FOLLOWING CITIZENSHIP RULES

Thousands of low-income Kansans have 

lost or been denied state health care coverage because of new rules requiring them to 

prove they are American citizens, state officials say. 

Since the federally mandated rules took effect July 1, the number of Medicaid recipients in Kansas has decreased by about 18,000, 

to 253,000. While officials can’t determine exactly how much of the 7 percent drop can be 

attributed to the new rules, they believe 

much of it can. 

‘‘The impact to the consumer has been severe,’’ said John Anzivino, a vice president 

for MAXIMUS, a Reston, Va., company that 

helps administer the joint federal-state Medicaid program in Kansas. ‘‘From our perspective, this has possibly been the most dramatic change and challenge to the Medicaid 

program since its inception.’’ 

The new rules were included in last year’s 

federal deficit reduction law and were designed to prevent illegal immigrants from 

enrolling in the state programs providing 

health coverage. 

But consumer advocates said many vulnerable people who legitimately were eligible 

for assistance would lose coverage because 

they couldn’t produce the necessary documentation. 

‘‘We expect that many of these that have 

lost coverage will regain coverage once they 

have gathered and provided the necessary 

documentation,’’ Marcia Nielsen, executive 

director of the Kansas Health Policy Authority, told the Lawrence Journal-World. ‘‘They 

will, however, experience a gap in coverage 

that could prove to be significant for some.’’ 

Medicaid applicants can prove their citizenship by providing a passport. Or they can 

provide other documents that verify both 

their citizenship, such as a birth certificate, 

and their identities, such as a driver’s license. 

Anzivino said most people seeking benefits 

don’t have a passport and are left scrambling 

to find birth certificates and other documents: 

The number of calls each month to a Kansas Medicaid clearinghouse has more than 

doubled to 49,000 from 23,000, official said. 

Meanwhile, Rep. Dennis Moore, a Democrat whose district is centered on the state’s 

portion of the Kansas City area, said federal 

officials were aware of states’ problems with 

the new rules and probably would work on it 

when the new Congress takes office in January. 

f 

SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS 

SENATE RESOLUTION 13—CONGRATULATING THE UNIVERSITY 

OF FLORIDA FOOTBALL TEAM 

FOR WINNING THE 2008 BOWL 

CHAMPIONSHIP SERIES (BCS) NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP 

Mr. NELSON of Florida (for himself 

and Mr. MARTINEZ) submitted the following resolution; which was referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary: 

S. RES. 13 

Whereas on January 8, 2009, before a crowd 

of more than 78,000 fans in Miami, Florida, 

the University of Florida Gators won the 2008 

Bowl Championship Series (BCS) national 

title with a stunning 24–14 triumph over the 

University of Oklahoma Sooners; 

Whereas the University of Florida is one of 

the premier academic institutions in the 

State of Florida; 

Whereas the University of Florida Gators 

captured the Southeastern Conference championship title on December 6, 2008; 

Whereas University of Florida football 

Head Coach Urban Meyer has won 2 BCS national championship games in the past 3 

years; 

Whereas University of Florida quarterback 

Tim Tebow was named the Most Outstanding 

Player of the BCS national title; 

Whereas Tim Tebow won the Maxwell 

Award for the second time in 2 years; 

Whereas the University of Florida defense 

held the University of Oklahoma to only 363 

yards of offense in the BCS championship 

game; 

Whereas the Gators finished 2008 ranked 

first in the Associated Press Poll and first in 

the Coaches Poll; 

Whereas the Gators finished the 2008 season with a record of 13–1; 

Whereas the University of Florida student 

athletes are among the most talented in the 

Nation; 

Whereas University of Florida fans worldwide supported and encouraged the Gators 

throughout the football season; 

Whereas University of Florida President J. 

Bernard Machen and Athletic Director Jeremy N. Foley have shown great leadership in 

bringing success and glory to the University 

of Florida; and 

Whereas the University of Florida students, faculty, alumni, and all Gator fans are 

deeply committed to bringing pride to the 

University of Florida and the entire State of 

Florida: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the Senate— 

(1) congratulates the University of Florida 

Gators for winning the 2008 Bowl Championship Series (BCS) national championship; 

(2) recognizes the achievements of the 

players, coaches, students, and staff whose 

hard work and dedication helped the University of Florida Gators win the championship; 

and 

(3) respectfully requests the Secretary of 

the Senate to transmit an enrolled copy of 

this resolution to— 

(A) the University of Florida for appropriate display; 

(B) President of the University of Florida, 

J. Bernard Machen; 

(C) Athletic Director of the University of 

Florida, Jeremy N. Foley; and 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with SENATE