Senator Roland W. Burris

523 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg.

Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Burris,

I writing to urge you to join in sponsoring, or at least committing to support, S. 1524, the Foreign Assistance Revitalization and Accountability Act of 2009. This legislation, which was initiated and shaped by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has been cosponsored by 23 Senators, both Democrats and Republicans, including Senator Durbin. It was favorably reported out of the Foreign Relations Committee on February 2, 2010, by a vote of 15 to 3.

S. 1524 strengthens U.S. foreign assistance efforts in three areas: rebuilding policy and strategic planning capacity at the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID); increasing accountability and transparency of U.S. foreign assistance programs across all government departments and agencies; and strengthening personnel and human resources at USAID.

The Foreign Relations Committee believes it is important to begin creating a legislative framework for foreign aid reform, that would divide into two parts: 1) more immediate, shorter-term reforms designed to address existing deficiencies, and 2) broader, structural reforms intended to bring about more fundamental change to U.S. foreign assistance and development programs.

S. 1524 is the culmination of the first effort and represents a bipartisan attempt to construct and pass legislation to respond to core deficiencies in our approach and programs.

Development is a third pillar of U.S. national security, but in resources and stature, our assistance programs are poor cousins to diplomacy and defense. Senior U.S. policymakers, including the President, have not had direct access to an international development voice with a long-term perspective when considering foreign policy issues. At Cabinet meetings, at senior OMB budget meetings, at senior National Security Council meetings, the development focus has been missing.

The USAID mission director should be the senior officer in the field overseeing all U.S. development and humanitarian efforts and that modifying this role is leading to confusion and potentially undermining U.S. development and foreign assistance objectives. To clarify this situation, S. 1524 includes a provision that mandates the USAID mission director as responsible for coordinating all U.S. development and humanitarian assistance efforts in a given country, under the guidance of the Chief of Mission.

S. 1524 establishes an independent Council on Research and Evaluation (CORE). The evaluation council is based in the executive branch, but it operates independently under the auspices of an interagency board. Its mandate is to objectively evaluate the impact of U.S. foreign assistance programs and their contribution to policies, strategies, projects, program goals, and priorities undertaken by the United States in support of foreign policy objectives.

This Act directs USAID to allow personnel to undertake interagency and international rotations to bring a cross-disciplinary focus to USAID. The bill emphasizes the importance of language training and seeks to ensure that all foreign service officers assigned to overseas posts, especially to critical posts in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, receive appropriate language training equivalent to that received by counterpart foreign service officers at the State Department.

It should be noted that nothing in this bill is intended to affect the independence of the Peace Corps. To fulfill its responsibilities successfully and to retain its unique people-to-people character, the Peace Corps must remain substantially separate from the day-to-day conduct and concerns of our foreign policy. The Peace Corps’ role and its need for separation from the day-to-day activities of the mission are not comparable to those of other U.S. Government agencies with foreign assistance programs.

S. 1524 also establishes important transparency standards, including establishing recommendations for a uniform set of reporting standards and guidelines to be followed by all Federal departments and agencies so that taxpayers have a clearer understanding of what programs and activities are being funded and what outcomes are resulting.

Again, I ask you to cosponsor S. 1524, or at minimum to commit to vote for it when it is considered on the floor of the Senate. I look forward to your reply.

Sincerely,

Senator Richard J. Durbin

309 Hart Senate Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Durbin,

I am writing to urge your support for the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act, S. 1733, which seeks to reduce America’s Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions as part of the international efforts to curb climate change. This bill recently passed to the Senate floor from the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. However, I want express my concerns regarding areas that need improvement via floor amendments, and others where the Senate should avoid weakening amendments.

S. 1733 sets a cap on U.S. greenhouse gas emissions of 20 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, and 83 percent below 2005 levels by 2050. These reductions are part of stabilizing CO2 at 450 ppm by mid century. Many believe that the international community should seek to stabilize CO2 at 350 ppm, to minimize the risks of climate change, in which case U.S. greenhouse gas emissions need to be reduced by 95 percent below 2005 levels by 2050.

The House passed H.R. 2454 would strip the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases under Clean Air Act provisions that include New Source Performance Standards and New Source Review. Taking a major step in the right direction, S. 1733 largely maintains EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas pollution through the Clean Air Act. This is a marked improvement that needs to be defended against weakening amendments on the Senate floor and in future Congressional negotiations. However, S. 1733 does strip EPA of its authority to set performance standards for specific uncapped stationary sources such as coal mines, landfills, and certain agricultural operations. Minimum national performance standards should be required of all large sources of emissions, whether in a capped sector or not.

S. 1733 currently does not contain specifics regarding the regulation of carbon markets. In order to protect the environment and financial integrity of a trading system, robust and detailed legislative guidance for market regulations should be enumerated. Carbon markets should be designed to be small, simple, transparent, and easy to regulate. Carbon markets should be subject to regulation beyond basic market regulation. These should include requiring all carbon derivatives to be standardized, cleared and exchange traded; and ban "naked shorting" of carbon (when a trader sells carbon before borrowing it or gaining permission to borrow it, which can artificially drive down the price of the commodity). Carbon markets should limit market participation primarily to carbon emitters (rather than financial speculators). Certain types of offset credits, such as international offsets, are particularly risky and should be prohibited or greatly restricted.

S. 1733 contains important climate finance components, including authorizing programs on international clean energy and adaptation, and a section on forest protection. The bill also establishes a board to oversee these programs. The bill allocates a total of approximately 2 percent of the emission allowances to international adaptation and clean technology from 2012 to 2021. Analysis indicates these allowances are worth an estimated $1.5 billion, less than half of the $3.5 billion that is needed from the U.S. for international adaptation and clean technology assistance during the next decade. This suggests allocating 4.7 percent (instead of 2 percent) of the emission allowances to international adaptation and clean technology.

S. 1733 specifically exempts emissions from renewable biomass-derived energy from the cap (Sec. 722). The bill also has no emission accounting for deforestation. Therefore, if deforestation occurs as a result of increased bioenergy production, and greenhouse gases are also released from the burning of biomass, the greenhouse gas impacts of bioenergy will be ignored. There are only a few types of bioenergy that are environmentally sustainable. No climate or energy policy should create incentives for biofuels that compete with critical land uses, such as food production, wildlife habitat, or natural carbon sequestration. Any incentives for bioenergy require standards that avoid detrimental effects to these land uses.

There are several other important differences with the House’s American Clean Energy and Security Act, H.R. 2454, for which the best outcome should come from the conference committee.

Please take these concerns into account when developing or supporting friendly amendments to S. 1733, in opposing weakening amendments to it, and in subsequent negotiations with the House. I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Representative

House Office Bldg.

Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Representative

I am writing to urge you to join in co-sponsoring, or at least supporting, the Community Reinvestment Modernization Act, H.R 1479. By requiring banks to lend, invest and provide services in communities where they take deposits, the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) has, since 1977, helped infuse more than $4.5 trillion in loans and investments into minority and lower income neighborhoods. CRA will help us recover from the current foreclosure crisis since this law requires banks to meet the needs of all communities consistent with safety and soundness.

The CRA could be an even more effective way to mitigate current foreclosures and prevent a future crisis by strengthening the law and expanding it in scope. Despite recent criticism of the CRA, the vast majority of risky, high-cost subprime loans were originated by independent mortgage and finance companies – lending not currently covered by CRA. In fact, because CRA requires that banks lend consistent with principles of safety and soundness, CRA-covered institutions are less likely to make risky loans, thus decreasing the chances of default and foreclosure.

Consequently, I urge you to co-sponsor, or at least support, the CRA Modernization Act, H.R. 1479, which expands CRA to cover all institutions making mortgages, including bank affiliates and independent mortgage companies, and all areas in which an institution operates (not just where they are physically located). The bill also expands the types of activities that are examined to include lending and services to minority communities and would penalize companies during evaluations for predatory lending and other credit practices that have a negative impact on a community. Finally, the bill increases the accountability of covered institutions through improved data disclosure and provides additional opportunities for public comment on an institutions performance and on possible mergers.

I look forward to hear you position with regard to the CRA Modernization Act, H.R. 1479.

Sincerely,

Senator Roland W. Burris

523 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg.

Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Burris,

I am writing to urge you to join in co-sponsoring H.R. 1106, the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009. That Act passed the House on March 5 and is currently in the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs. H.R. 1106 contains the long sought reform of bankruptcy law that would allow bankruptcy judges to modify the terms of a first mortgage in the case of a Chapter 13 bankruptcy.

Under current law, judges cannot modify the terms of the primary mortgage on a borrower’s principal home in bankruptcy, but can modify mortgages on investment properties and vacation properties, a circumstance that many consider fundamentally unfair. In addition, lenders have had little motivation to modify mortgages for troubled homeowners before the borrower goes into bankruptcy. The threat of a modification in bankruptcy will induce more lenders to modify troubled loans earlier in the process. Financial services company Credit Suisse estimated that allowing bankruptcy judges to modify the terms of a principle mortgage on a primary residence could reduce foreclosures by 20%.

Borrowers who receive a modification of the principal amount of their loan must agree to return to the lender a share of any increase in value of their home if the home is sold within the first four years after the bankruptcy.

H.R. 1106 also contains provisions to make permanent the FDIC deposit insurance limit of $250,000, to protect servicers that modify mortgages from liability from violations of the servicing contract, and to provide more flexibility for the Hope for Homeowners program, in order to encourage more households to participate. This Act also establishes and gives direction to a Nationwide Mortgage Fraud Task Force in the Dept. of Justice.

The Senate could alternately consider a companion bill, S. 61, the Helping Families Save Their Homes in Bankruptcy Act of 2009. As introduced, S. 61 would allow a judge in bankruptcy to modify a mortgage on a borrower’s primary residence, but it does not contain many of the other provisions that are in H.R. 1106.

I look forward to hearing from you and hope that you will choose to co-sponsor H.R. 1106, now that it is pending in the Senate.

Sincerely,