[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 109 (Thursday, July 19, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5169-S5202]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 BRING JOBS HOME ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 442.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to S. 3364, a bill to provide an 
     incentive for businesses to bring jobs back to America.


                                Schedule

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the first hour today will be equally divided 
and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. The 
Republicans will control the first half and the majority the final 
half. At 2:15 p.m. there will be a cloture vote on the motion to 
proceed to the Bring Jobs Home Act I just moved to.


                Measure Placed on the Calendar--S. 3401

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am fairly confident that S. 3401 is at the 
desk and due for a second reading.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the bill by 
title for the second time.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 3401) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     to temporarily extend tax

[[Page S5170]]

     relief provisions enacted in 2001 and 2003, to provide for 
     temporary alternative minimum tax relief, to extend increased 
     expensing limitations, and to provide instructions for tax 
     reform.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I object to any further proceedings with 
regard to this bill.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard. The bill will 
be placed on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, over the last decade, American companies 
outsourced about 2\1/2\ million jobs, often to countries where they can 
hire workers for half the price. And 21 million Americans, including 
nearly 7 million manufacturing workers, live with the fear their jobs 
could be shipped overseas tomorrow. More than 130,000 of those at-risk 
workers live in Nevada. In the Presiding Officer's home State of New 
Mexico, more than 100,000 jobs in manufacturing, sales, management, the 
financial sector, and other industries are in jeopardy. And more than 
300,000 jobs in the State of Kentucky, the State of my Republican 
counterpart, are also at risk. So I was surprised yesterday when the 
minority leader dismissed efforts to end taxpayer incentives for 
companies that outsource jobs overseas. To quote the minority leader, 
he said:

       Why aren't we doing anything? It's time to bring up serious 
     legislation that affects the future of the country.

  At a time when millions of Americans are looking for work, I am not 
sure what could be more serious than protecting good-paying, middle-
class jobs. The Bring Jobs Home Act, the measure before this body, 
would end tax incentives for corporations that ship jobs overseas. 
Every time an American company closes a factory or a call center in 
America and moves operations to another country, taxpayers pick up part 
of that moving bill. Hard to comprehend, but it is true. The 
legislation before this body would end that senseless series of tax 
breaks for outsourcers. It would offer a 20-percent tax credit to help 
with the cost of moving production back to the United States.
  In the last few years, major manufacturers such as Caterpillar have 
brought jobs back to the United States from Japan, Mexico, and China. 
Smaller manufacturers such as Master Lock have moved facilities home as 
well. Congress must do everything in its power to encourage this trend.
  But let me remind the entire Senate that we must break a Republican 
filibuster--a record-breaking filibuster--before we can even begin 
debating the Bring Jobs Home Act. This obstruction is unfortunate, but 
it is not surprising. After all, the Republicans' nominee for President 
made a fortune working for a company that shipped jobs overseas.
  Yesterday, my friend Senator McConnell said he wants to debate 
serious legislation. If that is the case, he should urge his Republican 
colleagues to drop their filibuster. The Bring Jobs Home Act is a 
commonsense strategy to protect American workers. To 21 million 
Americans whose jobs could be the next sent to China or India, it is a 
very serious proposal. To the 2\1/2\ million Americans whose jobs have 
already been shipped offshore, it doesn't get any more serious than 
that. The only ones who aren't taking this measure seriously are the 
Republicans in Congress.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader is 
recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, could I ask the majority leader one 
question related to the vote we are going to have later today?
  A number of my Members are asking, in connection with voting to 
proceed to the bill, whether the bill will be open for amendments.
  Mr. REID. The only amendments I have seen are three in number that 
the Republicans have suggested--to do away with the Affordable Care 
Act, to reestablish the Bush tax cuts, and then the Hatch tax measure. 
As has been the tradition with Republicans, those have absolutely 
nothing to do with outsourcing. So unless the Republicans get serious 
about legislating on the legislation we have, the answer would be: Very 
doubtful.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Well, I would say to my Republican colleagues, 
apparently the bill will not be open for amendment, and we will take 
that into consideration in deciding whether to support cloture on the 
motion to proceed.


                              Fiscal Cliff

  Mr. President, earlier this week, Senate Democratic leaders made 
clear to the American people where their priorities lie. In case you 
are wondering, the middle class came in pretty low on the list.
  At a moment when more Americans are signing up for disability than 
finding jobs--listen to that, Mr. President, because this is where the 
American economy stands today. More Americans are signing up for 
disability than are finding jobs--Democrats said they think it is a 
good idea to drive the country off what economists are calling 
America's fiscal cliff this coming January. You might call it Thelma 
and Louise economics--right off the cliff.
  But whatever one calls it, Democrats are evidently so determined to 
raise taxes on America's job creators that if we don't let them do it--
if we don't let them do it--they would actually welcome an economic 
calamity that would rock not only the American economy but the global 
economy as well. They want to drive us right off the cliff. They would 
threaten our own economy and the global economy as well.
  Needless to say, this isn't a program for jobs or economic growth. It 
is an ideological crusade--an ideological crusade. Following the 
President's lead, Democrats are declaring ideological warfare, and the 
banner they are marching under is emblazoned with a single word: 
Fairness. Fairness.
  Here is the problem: Fairness turns out to be a lot like hope and 
change. Fairness turns out to be a lot like hope and change. We don't 
know what it means until it is put into practice. But one thing 
history, common sense, and basic economics tell us is that it doesn't 
mean what the Democrats say it does. Because when they say tax the 
rich, we can be sure the middle class isn't far behind.
  Just ask yourself: When was the last time a government program stuck 
to its original mission? When was the last time?
  Federal income taxes initially were only supposed to apply to those 
with taxable incomes above $500,000 a year, equal to about $11.3 
million in today's dollars. And even then the top rate was only 7 
percent. Today the Federal income tax starts to pinch as soon as you 
earn a dollar more than $9,750.
  The Social Security tax started out at 2 percent. What is more, 
Americans were told it would never rise above 6 percent. Yet today the 
Social Security tax stands at 12.4 percent. And all other things being 
equal, it will likely have to rise above 20 percent to keep the program 
solvent. That is the condition of Social Security today.
  The alternative minimum tax was designed to hit 155 households back 
in 1969--155 households. Today it threatens to hit nearly 30 million 
households at the end of this year.
  ObamaCare was supposed to tax the rich. Yet now it turns out the very 
core of the bill includes a tax on the middle class. In my view, that 
particular deception turned out to be the difference between the law 
passing and not passing. They said: Oh, it is not a tax. The Supreme 
Court says it is a tax, with 77 percent of it hitting people making 
$120,000 a year and less. And it passed by just a single vote--just one 
vote. Every single Democrat who supported it is responsible for the law 
itself and the middle-class tax at the heart of it.
  But the bottom line here is that a law we were told didn't hit the 
middle class, does--big time. And the same goes for the President's 
latest proposal to raise taxes on those earning more than $200,000 a 
year. It may be aimed at the top 2 percent now, but like every other 
program that is supposedly aimed at a few, very quickly this tax will 
increase to apply to many.
  Even the senior senator from New York has said this tax hike will hit 
a lot of people who aren't rich. I agree with the senior Senator from 
New York. After all, the revenue from the Democrats' tax increase will 
only cover 6 percent of next year's projected budget deficit. So who is 
expected to cover the rest? The middle class, of course.
  That is the fine print under every Democratic proposal. They say they 
are coming after the rich, but the middle class is always next. And 
America's small businesses are already on the

[[Page S5171]]

line. That is one reason Republicans are so adamantly opposed to these 
proposals.
  Yes, it is a terrible idea to raise taxes in the middle of an 
economic downturn. Yes, government is already way too big. Yes, 
Democrats have absolutely no more intention of using this new revenue 
for deficit reduction than they have had in the past. Yes, the 
President's latest proposal wouldn't even raise enough money to fund 
the government for a week. And yes, we have no reason whatsoever to 
believe the President wouldn't continue his crony capitalist ways, 
spending that money on the pet projects of his political allies.
  But the larger point is this: Not only is all this terrible 
economics, it is completely and totally unfair. The American people 
shouldn't be on the defense when it comes to keeping what they have 
earned.
  The President may think those who have succeeded in life haven't done 
so on their own, but anybody who has ever turned a dream into reality 
knows he is totally wrong about that. They know the sacrifices they 
have made for their success: the hours of work they have put in, the 
time away from family, the constant worry about whether they will 
succeed.
  Those who have made it know that what is unfair is being told--being 
told--they have to now hand over even more than they already are to a 
President who has done nothing to show he knows how to spend it.
  Democrats may think it is good politics to play Russian roulette with 
the economy. They may think it helps their radical, ideological goals 
for the country to go off the fiscal cliff at the end of the year. They 
may look down on any enterprise that isn't controlled by the 
government. But nobody--nobody--should ever attempt to pretend it is a 
good idea for the economy or for jobs or for middle-class Americans, 
because it isn't. That is why Republicans think we should solve these 
problems now.
  That is what I have been calling for all week. It is what I and my 
colleagues will continue to call for until Senate Democrats realize we 
weren't sent to play politics--we were sent to serve the American 
people.


                       Honoring Our Armed Forces

                     Specialist Nathaniel D. Garvin

  Mr. President, it is with great sadness that I rise to commemorate an 
honored Kentuckian who has fallen in service to his country.
  SPC Nathaniel D. Garvin of Radcliff, KY, died on July 12, 2010, in 
Kandahar, Afghanistan, while in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. 
He was 20 years old.
  For his service in uniform, Specialist Garvin received several 
awards, medals, and decorations, including the Army Commendation Medal, 
the Army Good Conduct Medal, the National Defense Service Medal, the 
Afghanistan Campaign Medal with Bronze Service Star, the Global War on 
Terrorism Service Medal, the Army Service Ribbon, the Overseas Service 
Ribbon, the NATO Medal, the Basic Aviation Badge, and the Overseas 
Service Bar.
  Specialist Garvin had the nickname ``Tater,'' given to him by his 
father Cliff. That is because when he was born on July 4, 1989, he 
weighed a little more than 5 pounds. ``Wow,'' said Cliff to his wife, 
Nate's mother Melanie, ``He is not much bigger than a sack of taters.'' 
The nickname stuck.
  Nate may have been on the small side, but he did not shy away from 
risk. ``He was the daredevil of the family,'' Melanie remembers.

       As soon as he was old enough to walk, he had no fears. As 
     he grew, he would climb trees to the tiptop to get on top of 
     roofs--scaring his mother, of course.

  One story goes to show just how tough Nate was. When he was still 
just in grade school, Nate's shoulder blade got dislocated, and the 
school nurse called his parents to come and pick up Nate and take him 
to the doctor. They did, but somehow in the short time between picking 
up Nate from school and driving to the doctor's office, Nate managed to 
pop his own shoulder back into place. ``[He did it] showing no pain at 
all,'' says Melanie. ``The doctor was shocked, along with his dad and 
I.''
  Nate's toughness included sticking up for his family. He grew up with 
three older brothers and a little sister. They may have at times picked 
on each other, but if someone outside the family ever picked on his 
brothers or sister, ``Nate would say, `I am not afraid, let me handle 
it,' '' said Melanie. ``He didn't care how big the other person was; he 
would not back down.''
  Nate was smart, funny, loving, and loyal. ``He could say something 
that . . . in an instant would either make you laugh or have you 
laughing so hard you would be crying,'' Melanie remembers. Nate liked 
to fish and he enjoyed playing video games. He was so good at them, 
other people didn't want to play against him. He also could take apart 
and put back together the video game machines or almost anything else 
electronic.
  After Nate met and married his wife Brittany, both he and one of his 
older brothers decided to use the buddy system and join the military at 
the same time, following in the footsteps of another Garvin brother. 
Nate felt it would be a good way to provide for not only his wife but 
also his then-unborn child.
  Nate entered the Army in July 2008. He scored highly enough on his 
entrance exams to have his pick of any field he wanted. Nate chose 
avionics. He did his training at Fort Jackson, SC, and Fort Eustis, VA, 
and was assigned to B Company, 96th Aviation Support Battalion, 101st 
Airborne Division, based in Fort Campbell, KY.
  Nate was able to come home from the Army for Christmas in 2008, and 
his timing was good. On December 26, 2008, his daughter Kayleigh was 
born. ``[That was] the happiest day in his short life. He loved her 
with all he had,'' said Melanie.
  In the short time they had together, Kayleigh became her daddy's 
little girl. Her grandmother Melanie says:

       She looks so much like him at that age we say she is Tater 
     made over, just in a dress. She has his smile and her eyes 
     light up just like his did. She also has her daddy's stubborn 
     streak and smartness.

  Nate would play video games and Kayleigh would sit beside him with an 
old game controller Nate gave her, pretending she was also playing the 
game. When Nate bobbed and weaved, she did too.
  Nate was deployed to Afghanistan for Operation Enduring Freedom in 
March 2010. As Melanie put it:

       Tater was due to come home for his R&R in August 2010, but 
     unfortunately didn't make it. He lost his life one day before 
     his mother's birthday and two days before his 21st. He never 
     got to meet his son, who was born April 9, 2010.

  We are thinking of SPC Nate Garvin's loved ones as I recount his 
story for my colleagues. That would include his wife Brittany; his 
parents Melanie and Cliff; his daughter Kayleigh Jo; his son Wyatt 
Boone; his brothers, TJ, Alex, and Jeremy; his sister Whitney; and many 
other beloved family members and friends. The Garvin family is also 
thankful for the assistance given them by CPT Erik Heely during the 
difficult events of 2 years ago.
  The loss of SPC Nathaniel D. Garvin is tragic, and it is only 
appropriate that this Senate pause to honor his service and recognize 
his sacrifice.
  I hope his family, particularly his two young children, can take some 
comfort from the fact that both the Commonwealth of Kentucky and this 
country are grateful for and honored by the heroism and courage Nate 
showed, both in and out of uniform. The example he set for his loved 
ones and his country will not be forgotten.
  I yield the floor.


                       Reservation of Leader Time

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
leadership time is reserved.


                           Order of Business

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
following hour will be equally divided and controlled between the two 
leaders or their designees, with the Republicans controlling the first 
half and the majority controlling the final half.
  The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
  Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to enter into a 
colloquy with my colleagues.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I rise to talk about an issue that is of 
deep concern to our country, one of the greatest national security 
threats facing our country right now; that is, what is called 
sequestration.

[[Page S5172]]

  To bring that down to plain terms for the American people, our 
Department of Defense is facing an additional $500 billion across-the-
board meat ax in cuts in addition to the already planned $487 billion 
in reduction over the next 10 years if we do not act as a Senate, as a 
Congress, and if the Commander in Chief does not act to come up with 
more responsible ways to cut spending.
  We all know we have a nearly $16 trillion debt. We all know debt 
threatens our country not only as a national security threat but also 
as a threat to the quality of life of my children--I am the mother of a 
7-year-old and a 4-year-old--and future generations in this country. 
However, what we did last August was a kick-the-can exercise, where we 
left it to a supercommittee to come up with $1.2 trillion in savings, 
rather than sitting down and coming up with the savings we should have 
at the time.
  So where we are left is with a meat-ax, across-the-board approach, 
instead of prioritizing our spending, and we are putting at risk the 
most fundamental constitutional responsibility we have to the American 
people; that is, to keep them safe.
  Daniel Webster, who was born in New Hampshire, served as a Senator 
from Massachusetts, was a great statesman, said in 1834: ``God grants 
liberty only to those who love it and are always ready to guard and 
defend it.''
  We know from our men and women in uniform that they have been there 
for us to guard and defend this great Nation--not only the current men 
and women who serve but generations of brave men and women have served 
our country. Where we are right now, we do a disservice to them not to 
resolve this sequestration, these across-the-board cuts, by coming up 
with alternative spending reductions, which we can do.
  To put it in perspective, 1 year of sequestration is about $109 
billion, and that also covers nondefense. If we could live within our 
means for 1 month with this government, we could come up with the 
spending reductions. We need to do that on behalf of our Department of 
Defense and for the American people.
  Some of the things that have been said about the impact of these 
across-the-board cuts:
  Our Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has said we will face the 
potential for increased conflict. He also said: ``We are living in the 
most dangerous times in my lifetime, right now''--meaning, right now. 
``I think sequestration would be completely oblivious to that, and 
counterproductive.''
  We also know every leader of our military from every branch has 
spoken to both the House Armed Services Committee and the Senate Armed 
Services Committee. What they have said is shocking and should be a 
wakeup call to Members of both sides of the aisle, that we owe it to 
our military and to the American people to address it.
  Just some of the things that have been said about sequestration:
  The Chief of Naval Operations has said: We will do ``irreversible 
damage'' to our Navy. ``It will hollow out the military, and we will be 
out of balance in manpower, both military and civilian, procurement and 
modernization.''
  The Chief of Staff of the Army has said: It ``would be catastrophic 
to the military . . . '' and we will ``reduce our capability and 
capacity to assure our partners abroad, respond to crises, and deter 
our potential adversaries,'' while threatening our readiness.
  The Air Force Chief of Staff has said:

       We will be left with a military with aging equipment, 
     extremely stressed human resources with less than adequate 
     training and ultimately declining readiness and 
     effectiveness.

  As I said yesterday on this floor, the Assistant Commandant of the 
Marine Corps has said that the Marine Corps will be unable to respond 
to one major conflict on behalf of this country.
  There are many things we can predict. One of the things we know we 
can predict is what is going to happen with sequestration. We know that 
if we do not address our debt now, we will be facing the fate of 
Europe. But one thing we have been very bad at predicting is where the 
next conflict will come from for our country, where the next threat our 
country will face will come from. If our Marine Corps is unprepared to 
respond to one major contingency, our country is at risk. That is why 
we need to address this.
  It is not only the impact on our men and women in uniform--from the 
Chief of Staff, from the Commandant of the Marine Corps, of all the 
branches that have spoken--but I had the chance to participate in a 
panel yesterday, to hear the concerns of our enlisted about this. I 
heard from the former head, the top enlisted person in the Marine 
Corps, Sergeant Major Kent. He expressed deep concern that we would be 
breaking faith with our troops. Our military leaders have expressed 
real concerns that we will not only undermine our national security, 
but we will fail to keep faith with those who have sacrificed so much 
for our country and to whom we owe everything.
  In addition to the dire national security impacts of allowing this 
irresponsible across-the-board approach to occur in January, we also 
know there are nearly 1 million jobs at issue. In fact, yesterday, 
before the House Armed Services Committee, the CEOs of some of our 
major defense employers testified. In fact, the CEO of Lockheed Martin 
Bob Stevens said:

       I have spent decades of my professional working life in the 
     national security arena and I have never been as concerned 
     over the risk to the health of our industry and our 
     Government [as now].

  He said:

       The effects of sequestration are being felt, right now, 
     throughout our industry. Every month that goes by without a 
     solution is a month of additional uncertainty, deferred 
     investment, lost talent and ultimately increased cost.

  You see, it is not just our service men and women who keep our 
country safe, it is those who work to make sure we have the right 
equipment, that we have the best technology, that we have the best 
capability of gathering intelligence to prevent future attacks against 
our country.
  Our defense industrial base is incredibly important--not to mention 1 
million jobs at issue.
  Yesterday, Dave Hess, president of Pratt & Whitney and chairman of 
the Aerospace Industries Association, said:

       As an industry, we are already seeing the impact of 
     potential sequestration budget cuts today. Companies are 
     limiting hiring and halting investments--largely due to the 
     uncertainty about how sequestration cuts would be applied.

  A small business owner, Della Williams--it is not just our large 
employers, a lot of small businesses make parts for our weapons 
systems, for our equipment for our military. They cannot take this 
uncertainty we have created for them in Congress, and these cuts, and 
many of them will be forced to go out of business.
  Della Williams said:

       What is being billed as a stop-gap budget fix will have 
     lasting effects on our defense capabilities for years to 
     come. The switch will not just get flipped back on to reverse 
     that trend.
       Moreover, the deep personnel and program cuts will threaten 
     our national security. Indeed, the United States could lose 
     our technological and strategic advantage and never get it 
     back.

  This is why this is so important.
  By the way, yesterday the CEO of Lockheed Martin had to issue--
believed he had to issue a memo to his employees. In that memo his 
employees will receive, he said:

       We believe sequestration is the single greatest challenge 
     facing our company and our industry. Defense Secretary Leon 
     Panetta has said sequestration will have catastrophic 
     consequences for our nation's defense. . . . With little 
     guidance from the government on the specifics of 
     sequestration, it is difficult to determine the impact . . . 
     on our employees.

  He said: We do know that we have a responsibility to tell you that 
you could potentially be laid off and that we have a duty to issue what 
are called Warn Act notices now.
  Under Federal law, these defense employers are going to have to, 60 
days before January 1, issue potential layoff notices to their 
employees. Of course, that will also create lots of uncertainty and 
consternation in many American families, which is unnecessary if we 
would come to the table right now and address this issue.
  We can find spending reductions that do not threaten our national 
security. Just to put a couple of numbers in perspective, some States 
just had in job losses on this: Virginia, according to AIA--there was a 
new report issued this week done by George Mason University--Virginia: 
136,000 defense industrial base jobs; Florida, 41,000; Pennsylvania, 
39,000; my home State of New Hampshire, just on the defense end, 3,600 
jobs.

[[Page S5173]]

  We owe it to the American people to act now. This is too important to 
be used as a bargaining chip in December because people want to use it 
to put our national security at risk because of other issues they want 
addressed. We have always treated national security as a bipartisan 
issue in this Chamber. I hope we will not use our Department of Defense 
and put our men and women in uniform in this uncertain position. We 
need to let them know we have their back. As Members of Congress, we 
should be together right now, sitting at the table, resolving this, 
coming up with alternative spending reductions.
  I also call on the President as Commander in Chief of this country to 
lead that effort, to stop sitting on the sidelines. This is too 
important to the security of the United States of America.
  I see my colleague from South Dakota here today, John Thune, who is a 
leader in our conference, someone who I know has been very focused on 
this issue.
  I ask Senator Thune, yesterday the House was focusing on this issue. 
We know there were hearings before the House Armed Services Committee. 
In fact, we should point out that the House, through reconciliation, 
has already passed a bill to address sequestration, to make sure our 
national security is protected. They have done that. It has not been 
taken up in the Senate yet, unfortunately. I call on the majority 
leader of the Senate to act now because the House has passed something.
  Yesterday, they also held a hearing. The House passed another measure 
by 414 to 2 that is called the Sequestration Transparency Act. It is a 
companion bill to one Senator Thune introduced in this Chamber. I know 
how focused he has been on this issue. The Senate passed a similar 
amendment to the farm bill.
  One of the issues we saw from the CEOs who testified yesterday, from 
our defense industrial bases, the Department of Defense, OMB--they have 
gotten no guidance on where these cuts will be implemented. Therefore, 
I know that yesterday the House actually passed this act to address 
that piece of it.
  I ask, does the Senator from South Dakota agree that the Senate 
should immediately pass the legislation he introduced, this bipartisan 
House bill that is coming over, a version, so that we, the American 
people, can know right away--have the agencies tell them specifically 
what the impacts of sequestration are? Of course, most important, we 
need to address this before the elections because we should not play 
political football with this.
  With that, I ask the Senator from South Dakota what he thinks we 
should do here in the Senate right now.
  Mr. THUNE. I thank the Senator from New Hampshire for yielding on 
that point--more important, for the great work she is doing as a member 
of the Armed Services Committee. She has been a very active member of 
that committee and a strong and clear voice for New Hampshire and for 
America's national security interests.
  I might also add that we serve together on the Budget Committee, 
where really this should have originated. Unfortunately, since we did 
not pass a budget, it is very hard to have a plan for how to proceed 
with spending the taxpayers' money, and this is what you end up with.
  Because we have this process put in place where, if action is not 
taken to avoid it, we have an across-the-board sequester that would 
occur at the first of next year--half of which would come out of the 
defense budget--we need to be able to find out exactly how these cuts 
would be implemented.
  The thing we do not know is how the administration plans to implement 
this. I think that is what the transparency act that passed in the 
House of Representatives is designed to get at. By the way, it was an 
overwhelming vote, 414 to 2. The House of Representatives, in an 
overwhelmingly bipartisan way, weighed in on the issue about whether 
the administration ought to spell out in clear detail to the Congress 
and the American people how it intends to implement its sequestration 
plan.
  I might say, it is going to be very difficult for us as Members of 
the Congress to come up with an alternative replacement plan if we do 
not know what their plan is for implementation. We know half the 
reductions are going to come out of defense--at least that is the 
plan--the other half out of nondiscretionary spending. It is clear this 
would have a profound impact on the defense budget on top of the $\1/2\ 
trillion in cuts as part of the Budget Control Act last summer.
  I say to my colleague from New Hampshire, she has very clearly and 
well laid out the impacts--as have been delineated and described by 
many of our service chiefs, by many of our military leaders in this 
country--what those impacts would be on our national security, on our 
readiness. Also, I think she has elaborated extremely well about the 
economic impact, what it is going to mean in terms of jobs in our 
economy.
  For a moment, I want to come back to this fundamental point because I 
believe it is one that should not be missed by people who are following 
this debate; that is, if the Budget Committee and the Senate had done 
their work in the first place and passed a budget, we would not be 
where we are today--if we had actually passed a budget.
  The Senator from New Hampshire--I think this is her second year on 
the Budget Committee. Even before she got here, we had not passed a 
budget. I got on the Budget Committee in this last session of Congress, 
so it has been 2 years since I have been on the committee, but it is a 
committee without a purpose, without a mission. If you are not going to 
pass a budget, I am not sure why you want to have a budget committee.
  The other thing that is interesting about this is that we are not 
going to pass any appropriations bills. Not only not a budget, but in 
the Appropriations Committee here in the Senate are usually 12 bills 
that come across the floor. The majority leader said he is not going to 
bring appropriations bills to the floor.
  I think the House of Representatives passed nine appropriations 
bills. They passed a budget. The Appropriations Committee here in the 
Senate has been moving and passing appropriations bills out of 
committee, but the leader of the Senate has said we are not going to 
move appropriations bills this year.
  We did not move a budget. We are not moving appropriation bills. So 
what you end up with is a budget control act like what we passed last 
summer that takes these Draconian whacks out of the defense budget and 
puts America's national security interests at risk and in great peril.
  I ask my colleague from New Hampshire, who, as I said, is a member, 
along with me, of the Senate Budget Committee, might this situation 
have been avoided had the Senate done its work as it is supposed to do 
in an orderly way, followed the law, actually passed a budget, actually 
worked on getting appropriations bills on the floor of the Senate? 
Might we have avoided what is before us; that is, these devastating, 
disastrous, and what some have described as catastrophic cuts in our 
defense budget? It seems to me at least that is where you end up when 
you do not do your work in the first place.
  To my colleague from New Hampshire, I simply ask her, as a member of 
the Budget Committee, might we not be in a different situation if we 
had passed a budget now for 3 years?
  Ms. AYOTTE. I would say my colleague from South Dakota is absolutely 
right. If we had done a budget for this country and the Senate Budget 
Committee functioned in the way it was intended to function, then we 
would not be in this situation in the first place. If we did regular 
budgeting and if we did the responsible thing for our country--as every 
business does, as every family does; on an annual basis we are supposed 
to do it as opposed to it being over 3 years since we have had a 
budget--then we would not be in this situation right now where our 
Department of Defense is at risk. I know the Senator from South Dakota 
voted for a budget the House passed, and I did as well. Had that budget 
passed, then the House did its job. Had we done that, we wouldn't be 
here with sequestration today. We are doing what we owe to the American 
people. If we can't do a budget for this country, how are we going to 
get the trillion dollar deficit in check?
  Unfortunately, we know why we don't have a budget. The majority 
leader of the Senate has not shown the

[[Page S5174]]

leadership he should because he said it would be foolish for us to pass 
a budget and has not allowed the Senate Budget Committee--the Senator 
is right, I am not sure why we have that committee. I have been on 
there for a year and half. We have not marked up a budget. We have not 
done it, and that is because the majority leader of the Senate has said 
it would be foolish for us to do a budget. Why? Because when we do a 
budget, we do have to make choices, as families and businesses do, and 
prioritize where we are going to spend the money and the taxpayer 
dollars that are sent to Washington by our constituents, the American 
people. Where we are today is unfortunate. Had we done that, then I 
don't think we would be in the position we are with sequestration.
  Mr. THUNE. I think the Budget Control Act, which passed last summer, 
created this process, and led us to sequestration, which is where we 
are today. This is a function and a clear outcome of having not passed 
a budget. It is ironic in many respects because, as the Senator from 
New Hampshire has pointed out, the first fundamental responsibility we 
have as Members of Congress is to tell the American people--the 
taxpayers who pay the bills for this government--how we are going to 
spend their money. This is now the third year in a row that the Senate 
has failed to do that.
  Again, I might simply add that the House of Representatives did do a 
budget, has been passing appropriation bills, has been following the 
law in accordance with what has been the practice around here up until 
the last 3 years of actually working on a budget. When we are borrowing 
40 cents out of every dollar we spend, it would strike me that it would 
be important we go through an exercise and figure out how we are going 
to start whittling away at the deficit and get the debt at a more 
manageable level and how we are going to spend the American taxpayers' 
dollars.
  As the Senator from New Hampshire pointed out--again, I don't think 
we can emphasize this enough. Last summer we already called for $1/2 
trillion in defense cuts, and that was half of the amount of reductions 
that were made last summer. It was about $1 trillion, a little over 
that, overall in spending cuts last summer. Those were immediate 
spending cuts, half of which came out of defense; $487 billion was 
already taken out of the defense budget.
  So what we are talking about now is another $1/2 trillion over the 
next 10 years on top of that $1/2 trillion. In other words, $1/2 
trillion out of the national security budget. The President's own 
Secretary of Defense has said it would lead to the smallest ground 
force since 1940, since before World War II, and the smallest fleet of 
ships since 1915, almost a century, and the smallest tactical Air Force 
we have had literally in the history of the Air Force. That is what we 
are talking about. That is the dimension of the problem we are 
referring to. It completely impairs our ability to project power in 
many of these critical areas of the world.
  The world is a dangerous place, and it is not getting any less 
dangerous. It is getting literally more dangerous, according to the 
headlines, every single day. Our ability to project power in the Middle 
East, Asia, and all the areas of the world we need to keep an eye on 
will be in serious jeopardy.
  I want to make a serious observation about that, and it is important 
to me. My State of South Dakota is home to a bomber base. One of the 
key ways our Nation projects power is through the use of the bomber 
fleet. Our bomber fleet is aging. Nearly half of the fleet was built 
before the Cuban missile crisis of 1962, if you can imagine that. So it 
is highly important we modernize our bomber fleet and Secretary Panetta 
has stated that the development of the next-generation bomber would be 
delayed by sequestration until well toward the middle of this century. 
So we are talking about dramatic reductions in our ground forces, Navy, 
and Air Force. All the assets we use to protect this country and defend 
America's interests around the world would be at great risk if this 
sequestration goes into effect.
  As the Senator from New Hampshire has appropriately pointed out, the 
No. 1 priority we have is to defend this country. If we don't get 
national security right, the rest of this conversation, including all 
the other things we talked about, is secondary to defending and 
protecting America and the American people.
  This is a very serious debate, and I would come back to the question 
the Senator from New Hampshire posed in the first place, and that is 
yesterday the House of Representatives passed by a 414-to-2 vote a 
piece of legislation that would require the administration to tell us 
how they intend to implement these cuts by program, project, and 
activity level. That way we know with some detailed specificity how 
these proposed cuts are going to take effect, and that would allow us 
to come up with an alternative plan and perhaps be able to replace and 
substitute other cuts elsewhere in the budget for what are going to be 
disastrous cuts in the defense budget.
  I introduced companion legislation here in the Senate very similar to 
what the House passed yesterday. I hope the Senate will pick up the 
House bill and move it and pass it so we can get the administration and 
the President to engage in this discussion about what they intend to do 
in terms of implementing sequestration. Then perhaps they can work with 
us to avoid the catastrophe we are referring to and talking about. This 
has been documented and validated by all of our military leadership and 
would be a very serious and dangerous reduction in America's national 
security resources and in our ability to keep our country ready and 
able to defend America and America's interests around the world.
  I appreciate so much the leadership of the Senator from New Hampshire 
on this issue. I know the Senator has been very active in trying to get 
the administration to provide more information with regard to what the 
impact should be on the defense budget as a member of the Armed 
Services Committee.
  I also think they ought to furnish all the information on these cuts 
not only on the defense part but the nonnational security part of the 
budget. Defense represents 20 percent of all Federal spending, but we 
are going to get half of the cuts. The proportionality of this is a 
real issue, in my view. That happened last summer. Half of the cuts 
made last summer came out of defense even though it is only 20 percent 
of Federal spending. Half of the cuts in this sequestration would come 
out of the defense budget, even though it represents 20 percent of all 
Federal spending.
  I would hope, as my colleagues here in the Senate continue to hear 
from people around the country who are impacted by this--not only our 
military leadership but also those whose jobs are going to be impacted 
by this--that there will be a new sense of urgency, a new intensity to 
try to resolve this issue, and that is to get the administration to 
show how they intend to implement sequestration.
  I look forward to working with my colleague from New Hampshire to 
make that happen. I hope our colleagues on the other side, the 
Democratic leadership, will agree to moving that legislation.
  Ms. AYOTTE. I thank my colleague from South Dakota for his leadership 
on this issue, and I too hope we will get that passed immediately in 
the Senate, and that we have clarity from our Department of Defense as 
well as the nondefense agencies so the American people can know what 
the real impact is; also, so we can act immediately. I can't emphasize 
enough that this needs to be done before the elections. We need to do 
it before the elections because we have already--I talked about some of 
the testimony from the CEOs from our defense industrial base, and there 
will be, unfortunately, layoff notices which will have to be issued 
because of responsibilities they have under Federal law. Let's face it, 
we should not have this cloud of uncertainty for our men and women in 
uniform, many of whom have served multiple tours for us and defended 
our country so admirably and so courageously. That is why I think this 
is an issue that deserves action now and should not be used as a 
bargaining chip for other issues. This is an area we have always, on a 
bipartisan basis, been able to do. For example, I serve on the Senate 
Armed Services Committee. We voted out the Defense authorization bill 
unanimously. Well, this is an issue I hope we would be unanimous on and 
that we are not

[[Page S5175]]

going to break faith with our men and women in uniform, we are not 
going to put our country in jeopardy, and I am hopeful we will also see 
leadership.
  I call upon the President again to be a leader here, to be the 
Commander in Chief of this country and to call us to action to resolve 
this before the election.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan is 
recognized.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I want to speak as the chair of the 
Agriculture Committee about what is happening on the droughts across 
the country.
  First, I want to take a moment as the author of the Bring Jobs Home 
Act to say that this afternoon we are going to have an opportunity to 
come together--as we did on the farm bill when we came together on a 
bipartisan basis--to focus on growing things in America and the need to 
strengthen our economy, provide economic certainty around agriculture 
and the food industry in America. It was a wonderful opportunity for us 
to get something done.
  This afternoon, we are going to have the same kind of opportunity to 
come together and recommit ourselves to making things in America. The 
Bring Jobs Home Act is a very simple, straightforward way to eliminate 
a subsidy that should have been gone a long time ago, and that is the 
tax writeoff for shipping jobs overseas.
  When someone is losing their job because a plant is closing to go 
overseas, to add insult to injury, as a taxpayer, they get to pay the 
cost of the moving. It is outrageous. What we want to do is stop that. 
That is what the bill does. It gives a business tax deduction for the 
cost of bringing jobs home and then adds another 20-percent tax 
deduction on top of it to encourage businesses to do that. We will be 
talking more about that later, but it is very important and I hope my 
colleagues will come together and send a very strong message about 
American jobs. Let's bring those jobs home.


                           Drought Conditions

  Mr. President, I also want to talk today about the terrible weather 
conditions across the country. It started with an early spring and then 
a returning frost and snow in Michigan. Areas around the country have 
orchards and fruit crops that have gone from frost to an extension of a 
drought situation that is absolutely terrible. It is a very serious 
crisis around the country.
  Not since the days of the Dust Bowl have we seen this lethal 
combination of scorching heat and bone-dry weather in the production 
regions across our country. As I speak, 80 percent of the country is 
suffering from abnormal dry or drought conditions; 64 percent is 
suffering from moderate or severe drought. That is the highest 
percentage in 56 years.
  As we can see on the map, any area that is in color here has had some 
kind of a drought. The black areas are the worst. Either it is from 
abnormally dry, moderate, severe, or exceptional drought in almost 
every area of the country. This is extremely severe, and we need to 
take action to support our growers and ranchers.
  We have almost 1,300 counties across the country rated as drought 
disaster areas, and that is one-third of all the counties in the United 
States. Every day it seems the Secretary of Agriculture is adding more 
to the list. More than 75 percent of the Nation's corn and soybean 
crops are in drought-affected areas and more than one-third of those 
crops are now rated poor to very poor. This is devastating our crops 
and our livestock producers.
  Only one-third of our soybean crop is considered good to excellent 
right now, which is down by about 30 percent from last year.
  According to the Department of Agriculture's weekly progress report, 
less than one-third of the Nation's corn crop is in good or excellent 
condition. Nearly 40 percent is rated poor or very poor. So we are 
talking about a massive effect on farmers, on livestock producers, and 
ultimately on consumers in America.
  Facing higher food and feed costs and pastures that are withering due 
to the heat, our ranchers and livestock producers could see significant 
losses. I had an opportunity a number of months ago with Senator 
Roberts to be in Kansas and to see what was happening then, even before 
all of this. I understand how very serious this is for our livestock 
producers. The livestock sector could face significant declines in 
margins, and we could see a sharp increase in consumer prices for meat 
and eggs and dairy.
  At a time when middle-class families are still trying to recover from 
the great recession, paying more at the grocery store is not going to 
help. In fact, it is going to hurt a lot.
  The USDA has opened their Conservation Reserve Program so that land 
will be there for grazing, but we know it is not going to be enough for 
producers. There is no crop insurance equivalent for livestock. More 
producers may lose their ranches because of this drought. Livestock 
disaster assistance expired last year. We need the farm bill to become 
law so we can make this help available again because in the farm bill 
we extend the livestock disaster assistance program permanently, and we 
make it available for this year.
  This drought is a serious problem, devastating all of our farmers, 
and will come home to families here and around the world, 
unfortunately, all too soon. We can't control the weather. We know 
that. In fact, farming and ranching are the riskiest businesses in the 
world. I should say even though they are the riskiest businesses, we 
have the safest, most affordable food supply in the world, and it is 
part of our national security. We can't control the weather and the 
risks the farmers face, but this drought underscores the need for 
improved risk management tools and better crop insurance. It 
underscores the need for a farm bill.
  We need to get a farm bill done now more than ever. We have 16 
million people who work in this country because of the agriculture and 
food industries--almost one out of four in Michigan. We came together--
and it was a lot of work, a lot of bipartisan effort, and I am very 
proud of what we did together in the Senate a couple of weeks ago--to 
pass a farm bill.
  We now have the House having acted in committee and passed a strong 
bipartisan farm bill. It is different. There are some things, 
certainly, we need to work out in our conference committee. Our bill 
has more reforms in it, and we certainly are concerned about the 
nutrition cuts. But I will say this: We need the House to pass their 
farm bill so we can come together in conference committee and find the 
right balance that is good for families, consumers, farmers, ranchers, 
and businesspeople across the country. I am very confident we can do 
that, but we need the House to act to be able to make that happen. 
Weather disasters are getting worse every day, which makes it even more 
important that we have our legislation and, frankly, that we work 
together to add some pieces to it in a conference committee so we can 
address what is happening.
  In our bill that passed, as I said, we extended a livestock disaster 
assistance program and made it retroactive to this year. We also 
included a provision for fruit commodities that don't currently have 
crop insurance to allow them to be able to buy into a program that is 
in law. We actually strengthened it, made it better. For those who 
don't have crop insurance, we also said they could get help this year. 
So we do have some things in the bill we passed, and we can work 
together to strengthen that even more.
  Senator Baucus, the chairman of the Finance Committee, is working, 
and we are working closely with him, on something that would be a more 
comprehensive disaster assistance program. In order to be able to do 
that, we have to have a farm bill.
  This is not, as we know, a partisan issue. We came together across 
the aisle. Consumers, Democrats, Republicans, Independents, people who 
vote, and who don't vote--people across this country--care about a 
safe, reliable, and affordable food system, and that certainly goes for 
our farmers and ranchers and their families in communities all across 
America who were hit so hard by the drought.
  This drought is evidence that we need to come together and act. When 
we look at this kind of weather map and what is happening and the fact 
that the majority of communities in our country are facing disaster as 
a result of the droughts and other things that happened relating to the 
weather,

[[Page S5176]]

we need to act. We need to act in a responsible bipartisan manner. We 
can do that. We did that in the Senate. The House committee did it, and 
I commend them for that. We need the support and help of the leadership 
in the House to be able to get this to the floor and get it passed so 
we can get it done.
  Thank you very much, Mr. President.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Let me compliment Senator Stabenow for her leadership as 
chair of the Agriculture Committee. I want the Senator to know I was on 
the phone yesterday with our soil conservation district managers 
talking about the provisions that are in the Senate bill, and I wish to 
personally thank the Senator from Michigan for reaching out to all of 
us. Our negotiations were tough, but they were fair, and I believe the 
reforms the Senator has in the bill will help our region and all the 
regions of our country deal with the underlying problems of agriculture 
in America.
  So I particularly wish to thank her for that. The process she 
followed is how the legislative process should work: a very open 
process, a very bipartisan process. We have a good product, and I hope 
the House will bring forward a bill and get it to conference so we can 
continue the dialogue. It is important to give the predictability to 
farmers that this 5-year reauthorization provides. So I thank the 
Senator from Michigan for her extraordinary leadership in this area on 
behalf of the agricultural community of my State of Maryland.
  I really came to the floor to talk about another one of the efforts 
of the Senator from Michigan today; that is, the Bring Jobs Home Act. I 
thank Senator Stabenow for her leadership on this bill as well.
  Senator Stabenow understands that outsourcing is devastating to our 
country. Americans understand that. Marylanders understand that. When 
we are outsourcing, we are losing jobs. Families are devastated by 
outsourcing. What is most shocking is that our laws encourage companies 
to take jobs out of America. Our Tax Code should encourage companies to 
keep their workers in the United States. We need to make it in America.
  I think we were all shocked to hear about the U.S. Olympic team and 
the fact that they are going to be outfitted by clothing manufactured 
in China. That is outrageous. It never should have happened. We can 
make it in America.
  I must tell my colleagues, I hear from people in Maryland all the 
time--and I am sure the Presiding Officer hears the same thing in New 
Mexico, as does my colleague from Colorado as well. When we get a call 
from a call center, we think the person is in our neighborhood talking 
to us about a local issue. Then we discover that person is halfway 
around the world pretending to be our neighbor and friend or 
representing a local business, when in reality we have outsourced that 
service--not we, the company has outsourced it--and the worst thing is 
they don't tell us about it. They are misleading the consumers, and I 
know we have some legislation to correct that.
  That is outsourcing. That is costing America jobs, and it is wrong. 
We can compete. Americans can compete with any other workforce in any 
other country, as long as we have a level playing field. So we want to 
make it in America. Yes, we can.
  First, let me talk about some success stories. Not too long ago I 
visited Marlin Steel in Baltimore City. This is a steel wire 
manufacturer that uses raw material from America and manufactures its 
product in America, in Baltimore City, a high-quality wire steel 
product. They sell their product in America, export their product to 
other countries, and create more jobs in America. That is a success 
story.
  A lot of people have given up on steel. We can't give up on steel. We 
need to make it in America.
  Let me tell my colleagues about another success story. Tomorrow I 
will be at English American Tailoring, which is located in Westminster, 
right near Baltimore, in Maryland. They manufacture suits in America. 
They make it in America. We are able to do it. All they ask for is a 
level playing field.
  We took some steps in the Senate Finance Committee yesterday to 
provide that level playing field by what we call the wool trust fund, 
which deals with inverted tariffs. We must make sure our laws are fair. 
The shocking thing about clothing is it actually has higher tariffs on 
the raw material--making it impossible to manufacture in America--than 
the finished product coming into America. We correct that with the wool 
trust fund. We need to make sure we have a level playing field.
  Let me tell my colleagues another success story, about Pacific Trade 
International. This is a success story. This company was located in 
Asia, an American company located in Asia, making candles known as the 
Chesapeake Bay Candles--being made in Asia. Well, this is a success 
story. They are back in Maryland. They are located in Glen Burnie, MD, 
in the United States of America, making those candles, selling them to 
Kohl's and Target and other retailers, creating 100 jobs that are now 
in my State of Maryland as a result of this company bringing jobs back 
to America.
  In the last 28 months alone, we have seen 500,000 new manufacturing 
jobs in America. We have talked about the U.S. auto manufacturing 
industry and how we have seen that industry take off because we can 
make it in America.
  That brings me to the efforts of Senator Stabenow and others on the 
Bring Jobs Home Act. It is shocking--and I think the people in Maryland 
and around the Nation are shocked--to understand that our Tax Code 
actually encourages companies to take jobs overseas. American taxpayers 
are actually footing the bill because, under current law, if an 
American company decides to take its jobs and export them overseas, the 
moving costs are deductible per our Tax Code.
  Why do we allow that? Why do we ask the taxpayers to subsidize moving 
jobs overseas? Well, the Bring Jobs Home Act says: Let's get rid of 
that tax deduction. Instead, let's make sure if companies bring jobs 
back to America, yes, we will consider those necessary expenses. We 
don't consider it necessary business expenses to export jobs. And we 
will give them some additional help with a 20-percent credit.
  This is what we should be doing: creating policies that encourage 
keeping jobs in America. Make it in America. Yes, we can.
  We are going to have a chance to bring this bill forward, and I hope 
my colleagues will support it. Then let's try to move this bill 
quickly.
  This is a pretty simple bill which does three things: It eliminates 
the deduction for moving jobs overseas, it makes sure we have that 
deduction if companies bring jobs back home, and we provide a credit as 
part of the cost to bring the jobs back home. It is very simple. Why 
don't we keep it that way. Why don't we just pass this bill by itself 
and do something about creating jobs in America.
  I say to my colleagues, this shouldn't be a partisan issue. We all 
know we have to keep jobs in America. This is a simple bill. Let's get 
it done. Let's not confuse it or mix it with other issues. Let's show 
the American people we can act in the best interests of our country.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Colorado.


                         Production Tax Credit

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I wish to commend my colleague 
from Maryland for his singleminded and crucial focus on jobs in 
America. I rise to speak about another opportunity to produce in 
America, and that has to do with harvesting of wind that we can do and 
keep jobs in America.
  I have been rising every day the Senate has been in session to talk 
about the necessity of extending the production tax credit for wind 
power. And every day I come to the floor of the Senate to talk about a 
different State and how important wind energy is to supporting economic 
growth and job creation in those individual States.
  Today marks the 11th time I have come to the floor to urge all of 
us--all of my colleagues--to act by extending the PTC for wind. Today I 
am going to talk about my 9th State out of 50, and I just want to say, 
in case anybody's wondering, I am not tired yet. I am committed to 
coming to the floor until Congress does what our constituents expect us 
to do; that is, to extend the production tax credit. It is simply that 
important.
  If we fail to extend the PTC, our economy will suffer, jobs will be 
lost,

[[Page S5177]]

and our clean energy leadership will truly be in jeopardy when we look 
across the world.
  So where are we going to travel to today? We are going to the great 
State of Georgia. The wind industry in Georgia has quickly multiplied 
over the last few years. Nearly 1,000 wind energy jobs have been 
created. Equally important, there is real potential for significant 
continued growth.
  I want to focus on ZF Wind, which invested nearly $100 million in a 
manufacturing plant in the city of Gainesville, GA, which is located 
northeast of Atlanta. This new plant will manufacture gearboxes for 
wind turbines, and that will bring several hundred good-paying jobs to 
Georgia. ZF Wind is a German-based manufacturer. They made the decision 
to invest in Georgia and in America. So I just have to ask my 
colleagues, if a foreign company can see the potential for wind energy 
in America, why can't we in the Senate? Do we really want to turn these 
jobs away? If Congress does not decide to invest in America by 
extending the production tax credit, I have no doubt these jobs will be 
shipped back overseas.
  If we continue to support the wind energy industry, ZF's gearboxes 
will be shipped all over our country. In fact, in the interest of full 
disclosure, I would say ZF is a major supplier of gearboxes for Vestas, 
which has a large manufacturing presence in my home State of Colorado. 
The point I want to make is this is one small example of the wind 
energy supply chain that is being built all over our country and 
extends in every direction.
  Let me share another example of what is happening in Georgia. There 
is the small town of Tybee Island, which is located on the northeastern 
coast of Georgia. If I have my geography right, that would be up in 
this area, as shown on this map I have in the Chamber. They have taken 
a stand to show how important wind energy is to their future.
  In February, their city council passed a resolution recognizing the 
importance of Georgia's onshore and offshore wind resources. Tybee 
Island is saying: Look, let's encourage the development of wind energy 
projects near our community and all over Georgia. They see that Georgia 
has enough offshore wind potential to power over 1 million homes. One 
million homes could be powered solely from Georgia's offshore wind 
potential. That is significant.
  We need--all of us all across our country; all of us elected 
officials--to stand for the future of American manufacturing in energy. 
It is an economic and environmental imperative, and the choice, 
frankly, is stark. If we do not act, if we do not act to extend the 
production tax credit, and it expires, 37,000 jobs may be lost around 
our country. However, if we extend the PTC, conservative estimates 
suggest 54,000 jobs would be created. That is the choice: job loss or 
job creation. I can tell you what I know the answer will be in 
Colorado: Extend the PTC.
  Without the PTC, foreign countries will extend their energy advantage 
over the United States. Manufacturing jobs that could be created here, 
that should be created here, will go instead to China and other foreign 
competitors. There is simply no reason to do that. Instead, we need to 
extend the PTC.
  The PTC equals jobs. We ought to pass it as soon as possible.
  I want to end on this note. This is not a partisan issue. The 
production tax credit has long been a bipartisan idea. Senator Grassley 
from Iowa, our colleague who has served for many years in the Senate 
with great distinction, supports this idea and brought the idea forth 
almost 20 years ago, along with others.
  Now more than ever the American people are asking us to take action 
and invest in clean, renewable made-in-America energy. Let's not let 
the production tax credit be a casualty of election-year gridlock. Now 
is the time for us to do the right thing: Extend the PTC.
  I am going to keep coming back until we do so. I am enjoying the tour 
of our great country, the United States of America. Every State has a 
wind energy stake in the future. Let's extend the wind PTC as soon as 
possible to protect American jobs before it is too late.
  I thank the Acting President pro tempore and yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown of Ohio.) Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            Koch Industries

  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, Koch Industries is a company which is 
headquartered in Wichita, KS, and is an American job creator that 
employs 2,600 citizens of my State. The corporation, a longstanding 
U.S. manufacturing company, employs around 50,000 people with good-
paying jobs across the country, including around 15,000 employees who 
are represented by unions.
  Depending on the year, Koch Industries is either the first or second 
largest privately held company in America, with about $100 billion in 
revenues. I am pleased by its presence in our State, where the company 
and its owners are respected corporate citizens.
  The Koch family, the owners of Koch Industries, has made a statewide 
impact through foundations and charitable work which has given millions 
of dollars to help education of the poor, at-risk youth, the arts, and 
environmental causes.
  The investments they make primarily go to Kansas and to Kansas 
citizens. I am grateful this company has chosen to invest in our 
State's economy and its people. I am pleased they are a corporate 
citizen of Kansas.
  During the debate this week of the DISCLOSE Act, Koch Industries and 
its owners were mentioned numerous times. While I could come to the 
floor and complain about the lack of balance, if we are having a debate 
about the desirability of disclosing contributions to political causes, 
certainly the debate I heard on the Senate floor, the rhetoric, was 
about those who contribute to what are described as conservative 
causes, free-market causes. I could come to the floor and complain 
about the lack of balance in that discussion. But in my view, if we are 
going to have a discussion about the DISCLOSE Act, what we ought to all 
stand for is the opportunity for free speech, the opportunity for those 
of a variety of political points of view to be able to express those 
views in the political process.
  Those positions, the ability to do that--perhaps not the positions, 
but the ability to promote your position ought to be something defended 
by all. We need more participation in American democracy, not less. In 
my view, the discussion we had this week was a distraction from the 
real issues our country faces, mostly related to the economy and job 
creation. So rather than spending our time on the Senate floor 
discussing the DISCLOSE Act, in my view we should be on the Senate 
floor creating policies that put in place those that Koch Industries 
has shown in my State to create jobs rather than arguing about 
political contributions of those job creators.
  I come to the floor today to suggest that, one, Koch Industries is a 
great corporate citizen of the State of Kansas, contributing in many 
ways to the economy and to the well-being of our citizens; to suggest 
that if we are going to have a debate about the DISCLOSE Act there be 
some balance, and that those who believe in free speech and 
participation in democracy ought to always rise to the occasion to 
defend those who engage in the political process; and finally to 
suggest that rather than having a debate about the DISCLOSE Act, what 
we should be doing is finding ways to replicate what the Founders and 
shareholders of Koch Industries have done in Kansas, the United States, 
and around the globe: create jobs for Americans in our country's 
economy.
  We are off track here. It is time for us to get back on track and to 
focus on what matters, a growing economy, so we can help families 
across America put food on their family's table, save for their kids' 
education, save for their own retirement, and promote a free-

[[Page S5178]]

market enterprise system that does just that.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                               Bus Safety

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, because the Senator from Ohio is in 
the chair, I wish to say that I am very pleased we have been able to 
pass a bus safety bill that was in response to two tragic bus 
accidents, one in Ohio and one in Texas, and the many other bus 
accidents that have happened, because the buses that often transport 
people in our country are not safe.
  I think we have strengthened those safety regulations, working 
together, and I appreciate very much the effort the Senator from Ohio 
made.


                          Looming Fiscal Cliff

  Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the looming tax cliff that 
will affect every American who pays taxes at the end of this year. The 
Senate must be clear with the American people about what our priorities 
are and where ownership of the money made by hard-working Americans 
belongs. Does the money belong to the government to decide what will be 
done with it--except for our responsibility to add to the things the 
Federal Government should do--or should that money belong to the people 
who earned it? I think that is one of the key issues we are facing 
right now in this Congress, and most certainly in the campaign.
  The American dream is that anyone--anyone--who is willing to work 
hard in this country can start from nothing and, through hard work and 
sacrifice, become a success. It is the defining characteristic of our 
country and it is what has made us a shining example for people all 
over the world. But that dream is under threat if, at the end of this 
year, all of a sudden, because we don't address the major tax hikes 
that will affect all Americans, that hard work and sacrifice will 
simply result in giving a larger portion of people's paychecks to the 
government. If we do not enact relief, every single person who pays 
taxes will face an increase on January 1--every single person. Every 
person will move into a higher bracket and face a higher rate of 
taxation.
  If we do not enact relief, small businesses will be hit with higher 
taxes, entrepreneurship will be discouraged, owners will not invest in 
growing their businesses, and hiring will remain in a deep freeze. And 
there can be no argument in this country that hiring is in a deep 
freeze. We have had unemployment rates above 8 percent over the last 
3\1/2\ years. That is on the path to stagnation.
  If we do not enact relief, marriage will be penalized at a greater 
rate than it is today. The marriage penalty, which is an issue that I 
have championed since I was elected to the Senate, pushes people who 
are working and single and get married into a higher bracket. If two 
single people pay taxes on their own earnings, it is at a lower rate 
than when they get married. One of the highest priorities I have had in 
the Senate has been to relieve Americans from this punitive burden. 
After years of fighting for fairness, the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts 
included my bill as an amendment. It made great strides toward 
eliminating the marriage penalty by lowering the tax rates, doubling 
the standard deduction--which had not been the case before--and 
simplifying other elements of the Tax Code. Prior to this tax relief, 
an estimated 25 million couples paid a penalty for being married--let's 
use 1999--of approximately $1,400.
  Along with doubling the standard deduction, we have been able to give 
relief since 2001. But if we don't do something before the end of this 
year, the marriage penalty will return, and we will not have doubling 
of the standard deduction.
  Let's say a Houston policeman with a taxable income of $50,000 and a 
San Antonio schoolteacher with a taxable income of $30,000 are getting 
married this year. How would their taxes compare if they were filing 
jointly as a married couple or as two single taxpayers? For this year, 
filing jointly as a married couple, they would save approximately $500 
because we have marriage penalty relief. However, when the relief 
expires at the end of this year, they would pay approximately $800 next 
year, not save $500, because they are filing jointly as a married 
couple. This is the time when they need the money the most--they are 
starting a family, they would like to buy a house--yet we would 
penalize them for entering the institution of marriage. In this 
economy, every dollar matters, and many households do rely on two 
incomes. So how is it that Congress has decided that we should penalize 
people who are working extra hours, extra hard, to begin their lives as 
a family?
  My bill, S. 11, provides permanent relief by raising the standard 
deduction for married couples, doubling it--when two single people get 
married, the standard deduction should double--increasing the 15-
percent tax bracket for married joint filers to twice that of single 
filers. That is very key because starting next year the 15-percent 
bracket is the people making the lowest amount who are paying taxes. So 
if we double it before they have to go into the next bracket, that is 
going to give them significant relief. We also extend the earned-income 
tax credit marriage penalty relief.
  I offered my bill as an amendment last week, but we were not able to 
vote on amendments. So I am going to continue to offer this as an 
amendment as we consider a myriad of options for tax relief for our 
countrymen because if we don't do something by the end of the year, not 
only are these taxes going to go into effect but many others. I urge my 
colleagues to work with me on extending this relief.
  We have an outsourcing bill that is going to be coming to the floor 
for a vote today. We must create a job creators bill, which is what 
this bill purports to do. It is very important, though, that we look at 
some of the major issues facing corporations and small businesses, 
which are our job creators in many instances, and see what they really 
need for relief.
  Today we have the dubious honor in America of having the highest 
corporate tax rate in the world. We used to be second, but just 
recently Japan changed their corporate tax rate and lowered it so that 
they would not have the confiscatory taxes that would discourage 
Japanese companies from investing in Japan. So now America has the 
highest corporate tax rate in the world--at 35 percent. So on top of 
punishing businesses with that high tax rate, our homefront looks even 
less business-friendly when you consider the mountain of regulations, 
the burdens of the President's new health care mandate, and the lack of 
a long-term, comprehensive tax plan.
  The bill the Senate is now considering would be another punitive 
attack on companies and will hamper business growth. Instead, with 
unemployment rates above 8 percent for 41 straight months, we should be 
doing everything in our power to spur hiring in the private sector.
  We need the President of the United States, the leader of the 
greatest Nation on Earth, to recognize, respect, and encourage the job 
creators who are investing in our country, which helps everyone get a 
shot at success. Unfortunately, last Friday the President shocked many 
Americans with his comment, ``If you've got a business--you didn't 
build that. Somebody else made that happen.'' This highlighted the 
fundamental difference in the way the President and many in Congress 
view the hard work Americans put into achieving the American dream. The 
American dream is that somebody can come to this country, they can 
start with nothing, and they can build and work and sacrifice and give 
their kids a better chance than they had. That is why people have been 
coming to this country.
  My office received calls and letters from all over Texas when they 
heard the President's comment last week. I am going to give some 
excerpts from one small business owner in Beaumont, TX.

       I have to say that I am appalled by President Obama's 
     recent statement about small businesses not being responsible 
     for their own success. I am a small-business owner, and I can 
     assure you that I built the business from nothing. I sure 
     didn't get any government help. I gave my all to grow this 
     business. I was not given the idea or the plans for

[[Page S5179]]

     building a successful business. An idea, a dream, and a 
     risk--that's what mine and all of America's small businesses 
     have been built on.

  He goes on to say:

       I put everything on the line, including my wife's wedding 
     ring. With over 20 years of hard work, my wife and I have 
     grown the company from four employees to over 40. When we 
     first began our venture, she worked a full-time job that 
     supplemented our income, while I ran the operation, and 
     together raised our children. Nobody did that for us, we 
     worked hard. We take pride in customer service and the 
     quality of our work as well as giving back to our community. 
     This has created customer loyalty and allowed us to expand, 
     not a government handout.

  Our goal should be to spur growth, encourage hiring, and support the 
millions of small businesses that serve as the backbone of our economy, 
not to extinguish the entrepreneurial spirit and innovation that built 
this country. It just doesn't seem as though our President relates. 
What built this country is innovation, taking risk, and 
entrepreneurship. We have established an education system, and at least 
we used to have a regulatory system that encouraged business, that 
encouraged the private sector.
  A few weeks before the President said that these small businesspeople 
didn't do it on their own, he said, and I am paraphrasing here, ``You 
know, the private sector isn't in trouble. It is the government sector 
that is in trouble.'' Oh my gosh. You just think, ``Who is he talking 
to? Who is he relating to?'' because it is small businesspeople and big 
businesspeople and all businesspeople who are creating the jobs that 
create more jobs that make a vibrant economy. It isn't government. 
Government sometimes gets in the way and sometimes worse--it takes away 
from the vibrance of our economy.
  So it is time for the leaders of our country--in Congress and in the 
White House--to get a perspective on who can create a vibrant economy. 
My definition of ``who'' is not the government; it is the business 
sector and especially the small business sector because they are 
growing, and if they grow, they create jobs for more people.
  I hope that this Congress at some point will start working on tax 
reform and relief from regulations and the oppressive health care 
system that is going to also have a major effect at the beginning of 
next year and say: What can we do together to spur private sector 
growth that will create jobs in the private sector, that contributes to 
the economy, not withdraws from it?
  I only hope we can all pursue the American dream and be the leaders 
who can make it happen for everyone.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
the letter from which I read.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  Earth Analytical


                                                Service, Inc.,

                                      Beaumont, TX, July 17, 2012.
     Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison,
     U.S. Senator, Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hutchison, I have to say that I am appalled by 
     President Obama's recent statement about small businesses not 
     being responsible for their own success. I am a small 
     business owner, and I can assure you that I built the 
     business from nothing. I sure didn't get any government help. 
     I gave my all to grow this business. I was not given the idea 
     or the plans for building a successful business. An idea, a 
     dream, and a risk, that's what mine and all of America's 
     small businesses have been built on.
       I put everything on the line, including my wife's wedding 
     ring. With over 20 years of hard work, my wife and I have 
     grown the company from 4 employees to over 40. When we first 
     began our venture, she worked a full-time job that 
     supplemented our income, while I ran the operation and 
     together raised our children. Nobody did that for us, we 
     worked hard! We take pride in customer service and the 
     quality of our work as well as giving back to our community. 
     This has created customer loyalty and allowed us to expand, 
     not a government hand out.
       For someone who has never had to make a payroll or pay his 
     own way to tell me I didn't build my business is insulting. 
     He clearly lacks understanding of opportunity and business, 
     and he is not the person that can lead our country into 
     economic recovery.
           Sincerely,
                                               William H. Robbins,
                                                        President.

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            The DISCLOSE Act

  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to address 
several issues. First, I would like to talk a little bit about the 
DISCLOSE Act.
  Earlier this week we had two votes on whether to end debate on 
whether to debate the DISCLOSE Act. The DISCLOSE Act is a very simple 
concept, and it is that folks who make very large donations to the 
political system disclose who they are so the citizens of America can 
know where that money is coming from. Is it coming from this particular 
sector or that particular sector? Is the group that is posing as Blue 
Skies for a Healthier America actually working to create dirty skies 
for a less healthy America? Is the group that says it is for clean 
streams actually a group that is trying to weaken the pollution control 
standards and put more pollution into the streams?
  Citizens have a right to know where the money is coming from in a 
public discourse, especially very large contributions, because right 
now what we have are folks who are putting in millions of dollars. I 
ask you, how many Americans can put $1 million into a campaign? In the 
world I live in, $100 is a lot of money. People can't connect that 
there are folks out there who are saying they are going to put in $1 
million, and they certainly can't connect with the folks out there who 
are saying: I am going to put $100 million in.
  I think the Koch brothers have been bragging across this country 
about how they are going to buy the elections so they can control where 
this country heads. That is perhaps the most ill-conceived notion there 
is, but at least they are willing to stand in public and say what their 
plan is. At least they are willing to say: We are not going to hide and 
do it secretly. They are going to tell us they are putting in their 
money. Now, where they put their money and whom that money is used to 
attack we may not know, so even in their case we need the DISCLOSE Act.
  It is confounding that so many Members of this body argued for the 
fact that disclosure is the disinfectant, so many Members of this body 
argued that citizens have a right to know, so many Members of this body 
said this is fundamental to fair debate in a democracy, and then when 
the time came to decide whether this would happen, they said: Oops. I 
am benefiting from this a lot. I guess I will set that principle aside 
and not argue for disclosure after all.
  So we had two votes this week in which the outcome did not reach a 
supermajority because we had individuals in this body who objected to a 
simple majority vote to get to the bill. So we had to have a 
supermajority under the arcane rules of this body, and we didn't get 
that supermajority because we didn't have bipartisan support for 
debating this issue.
  I must say to my colleagues who voted against it, if they believe in 
the debate in this society, they should at least say, yes, let's debate 
the bill. Maybe they do not like the bill at the end, maybe they want 
to filibuster the bill at the end, but at least we should be discussing 
it. It is such a huge factor in this Nation.
  There was a time not so long ago when we had the muckraker era, and 
there were a series of articles that were written about how Senators in 
this body--I believe it was 20 articles over 20 months--were owned by 
different companies around this land. Those articles helped the 
American public understand what was going on in this body, in this very 
Chamber. The result was a constitutional amendment, a constitutional 
amendment that shifted from indirect election of Senators to direct 
election, to try to free the system in favor of ``We the people.''
  When we came to this country, when our ancestors came to this country 
from overseas, they came from a system where wealth and power made all 
the decisions. They did not have a voice. They came to America, and 
they said we want to do it differently. We want to have a voice. The 
first three words of the Constitution captured that, ``We the 
people''--not we the rich and powerful who write the rules but ``We the 
people'' will decide how we are governed.

[[Page S5180]]

  The Citizens United decision of the Supreme Court, which allows 
unlimited secret oceans of money being spent with no identification, 
goes completely against ``We the people.'' It is going to be up to this 
Chamber to wrestle with this idea. That is why we should be on the 
DISCLOSE Act right now. We should be debating the impact. We should be 
debating the history of Montana.
  One hundred years ago, folks in Montana said our State is ruled by 
the copper kings and we are tired of we the rich and powerful setting 
rules and we are going to take it back because we believe in ``We the 
people,'' we believe in our Constitution. So they changed the rules in 
their State and our supreme court just a couple weeks ago gave them a 
100th anniversary present, which was to strike down ``We the people'' 
in Montana, with no debate. The supreme court, five justices, said we 
don't want to have any information about how Montana politics were 
corrupted by vast pools of money. We don't want to know that history. 
We do not want to know how the people of that State, exercising their 
power as a State, reclaimed their democracy for the ordinary person. 
They put their hands over their eyes, they put their hands over their 
ears, and they said: We summarily decide against this case, against 
Montana, taking no evidence.
  That is a dark moment for our supreme court. It follows on from the 
dramatically terrible decision of Citizens United. We must debate those 
issues on the floor of this Senate.
  There are folks here who like to say in the tradition that the Senate 
is the world's greatest deliberative body. Then let's deliberate. Let's 
not vote against even having a conversation about some of the most 
monumental issues of our age.
  This is a conversation that must continue. We must wrestle with how 
to honor the very premise at the heart of our Constitution, at the 
heart of our Republic, and not have ``We the people'' crossed off, out 
of the Constitution.
  I turn to another issue; that is, the bill that is on the floor right 
now, the Bring Jobs Home Act. We have a manufacturing sector in crisis 
in America. Since the year 2000, America has lost about 5 million 
manufacturing jobs, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and 
more than 42,000 factories. Today, America has only about the same 
number of workers employed in manufacturing as we did in 1941, more 
than 70 years ago. My home State of Oregon has been hit particularly 
hard. This trend, the loss of manufacturing jobs, strikes at the heart 
of the middle class because these are often living-wage jobs. These are 
full-time jobs. These are jobs with benefits. They provide a foundation 
for our families to succeed, a foundation for families to raise their 
children so the children will have opportunity and promise.
  Put simply, if we do not make products in America, we will not have 
the middle class in America. We can see the middle class shrinking year 
by year, right now, as we lose our manufacturing base. These jobs are 
not disappearing into thin air. Yes, some factories shut down because 
of the consolidation and some jobs are limited due to automation 
streamlining. But in most cases, those jobs are still there; they are 
just not in America, not in Oregon. Indeed, those jobs have gone 
overseas.
  China has a four-tier industrial policy that says we are going to put 
people to work here even if we violate the WTO agreement we have with 
the United States of America. That is a huge problem that we should, in 
a bipartisan effort, fully address.
  Today, I would like share a couple letters from people who are in the 
frontline of the disappearance of manufacturing jobs. Virginia, from 
the city of Hillsboro in my State, wrote:

       In February 2010, my department at my company was advised 
     we would be laid off after transitioning our job duties to a 
     replacement staff in India.
       It felt like quite a blow. I had been there the shortest 
     time at 10 years, the longest person there was 35 years. Half 
     of our department was laid off within a few months, the rest 
     of us sweated every Friday wondering when we would receive 
     our lay off dates. We were finally all let go on March 11th, 
     2011.
       Four months after my layoff, my husband was advised the 
     rest of his department is being laid off after their job 
     duties were transitioned to an off-shore site. My daughter, 
     myself, and my husband are all looking for work.
       We have four generations living in our home--I have no idea 
     what will happen to all of us if none of us can find work. My 
     husband served his time in the Army and he and I have always 
     worked full-time, steady jobs, it feels like we're being 
     punished for spending our lives working to take care of our 
     family and keep a roof over our heads.
       Americans need jobs! We want to work and need to work! We 
     are not lazy, instead we are innovators and always have been! 
     We need to regain our pride in our country, help each other 
     and quit focusing on greed.
       My mother reminded me that just 25 short years ago, it 
     would have been considered un-American to take a job from an 
     American and send it to a person in another country. People 
     would stop doing business with any company who did choose to 
     do so. I'm mentioning this to state there's been a definite 
     change of the way businesses are run, which isn't all bad. 
     Technology and business processes change. The problem is, the 
     bottom line has become more important than the health of 
     America and its citizens and that, I believe, is the cause of 
     our current woes.
       I love my country and want it back!!! I'll admit I'm tired 
     of giving our money, resources, and jobs to other countries 
     while American's lose their jobs, their homes, and their 
     security. Please help.

  Duwayne writes from St. Helens:

       I worked at an Oregon high-tech company for 15 years, until 
     I was laid off during the middle of the Bush depression. When 
     I joined, the company had over 18,000 employees--most of them 
     in Oregon. These were high-paid professionals and assembly 
     workers with family-wage jobs.
       When I was laid off the company employed only about 4,500 
     people--still mostly in the US, and mostly in Oregon. But 
     today the company has moved virtually all its manufacturing 
     to China, and their software engineering to India. Even 
     though the company payroll is growing, the number of 
     employees in the US continues to shrink. Almost all the new 
     jobs are in foreign countries.
       You want to know where all the jobs went? I'll tell you. 
     They went to Mexico and China. That's because our government 
     policies are aimed at helping corporations, and have little 
     to no regard for American workers.
       Companies like these need to be harshly penalized for 
     moving their jobs overseas--but instead they are rewarded, 
     and American workers pay the price.

  The policies we are talking about on the floor are all about the 
issues Virginia and Duwayne are talking about. The bill ends rewards 
for outsourcing jobs overseas. Currently, a company can deduct the 
moving expenses of offshoring and actually save money on their tax that 
way. That would end. If a company wants to move a factory overseas, we 
cannot stop them, but we should not give them tax breaks to do so. I 
would love to be in a forum of hundreds of people and I would ask this 
question: Do any of you love the idea that under the Bush 
administration, we started subsidizing the shipment of jobs overseas?
  I can tell you virtually no one would say they love that policy 
because the jobs in America mean so much to our families.
  The second thing this bill does is it creates new tax credits to 
reward businesses that bring jobs home. If a company wants to take a 
production line from overseas and move it back to the United States, 
let's help them pay for the moving expenses.
  This spring I went on a tour called ``Made In Oregon,'' a tour of 
manufacturing in my home State. It was spectacular to see how many cool 
things were being made. In Bend, OR, AE Solar Energy is building 
inverters for solar energy on roofs and putting that power into the 
electric grid. Bike Friday in Eugene is doing specialty, made-to-order, 
the best folding bikes. Ordering over the Internet, they are shipping 
their best folding bikes all over our globe. Kinro West RV Windows in 
Pendleton and Pendleton Woolen Mills had two very different types of 
manufacturing: Woolen mills, they go back a century, and then an RV 
window manufacturer that is playing a key role in our recreational 
business and providing these windows to manufacturers throughout the RV 
world, the recreational vehicle world.
  Then there is Oregon Iron Works. Oregon Iron Works is building 
trolley cars. We are building streetcars in America again so cities 
putting in streetcars can buy an American-made product. They are 
building a prototype of a wave buoy that will generate energy as it 
bobs up and down in the waves off the Oregon coast. That is going to go 
down the river and be installed later this year, and perhaps it will 
lead the way for a new source of clean, renewable energy.
  Vigor Industrial is building barges. Greenbrier is building railroad 
cars.

[[Page S5181]]

These are the jobs, the companies that are the heart of living-wage 
jobs and making products in America. We must do all we can to support 
them.
  Let's end the subsidies for shipping jobs overseas. Let's instead 
provide incentives and support for moving jobs back to the United 
States, to the benefit of our economy and the benefit of our families. 
I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill and help bring jobs 
back to Oregon and back to America.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). The Senator from Utah.


                      Tribute to Stephen R. Covey

  Mr. LEE. Madam President, I rise today to honor an extraordinary 
American from the great State of Utah--the world-renowned author and 
speaker Stephen R. Covey, who passed away on Monday, July 16, 2012. He 
was regarded as a legendary thought-leader throughout the global 
business community yet showed over the course of his 79 years that the 
true measure of life is not in making a dollar, but in making a 
difference.
  Stephen leaves behind a legacy filled with meaningful words and 
memorable deeds. His prolific and powerful writing contained the kind 
of personal insight and inspiration that transformed the hearts, minds 
and lives of countless individuals. He is best remembered for his 1989 
New York Times best seller, The Seven Habits of Highly Effective 
People. The book sold more than 20 million copies worldwide and has 
been translated into 38 different languages. Seven Habits served to 
prove Stephen's passionate belief that talking about principles changes 
behavior better than talking about behavior changes behavior.
  Ever the teacher and ever the student of strategies for achieving 
personal and professional excellence, Stephen followed his pursuit of 
these life-changing principles in subsequent books including First 
Things First, The 8th Habit, and The Leader in Me. Covey's words, 
ideas, principles and practices have been used in a variety of 
educational settings, from college management classes to corporate 
business seminars. In 2011, Time magazine listed Seven Habits as one of 
the 25 most influential business management books of all time.
  While Covey's words propelled him to become a global titan of bold 
business strategies and tactics, it was his deeds, often in family 
settings, which provided the notably personal touch found in his 
teaching and training. His poignant examples and anecdotes from his 
personal life illuminated how to actually live the principles he 
taught. Covey often shared a humorous experience he had with one of his 
sons when taking a business call at home. His son felt that Stephen had 
been on the phone for far too long, so he took out a jar of peanut 
butter and began spreading it on Covey's balding head. Covey pretended 
to ignore it, so the son added a layer of jam and eventually a piece of 
bread. Stephen used this experience to teach the principles of proper 
priorities, life balance, and building relationships. He demonstrated 
it was possible to complete an important phone call, indulge his son's 
mischievous antics, and create a meaningful memory.
  One of his best known principles, Sharpen the Saw, focused on the 
need for rest and renewal. Covey stressed the important impact of 
family dinners, family vacations, family service in the community, and 
families working together at home. He recalled ``work parties'' in 
which his whole family would tackle a project. Instead of just laboring 
for hours, they would laugh and talk and eat snacks while they worked 
and then go to a movie once they finished. Stephen continually showed 
that when you put your family first you can create a legacy that will 
truly last. His deeds as a father, husband, neighbor, and friend are 
the kind that communities, States, and nations would do well to promote 
and emulate.
  Covey's contributions to the leadership community extend far beyond 
his literary works. He revolutionized the field of leadership and 
management development with the creation of the Covey Leadership Center 
in Utah. The Covey Leadership Center eventually merged with Franklin 
Quest to form FranklinCovey, a worldwide management firm specializing 
in training and consulting services for individuals, teams and 
businesses. His extensive client list includes a vast majority of the 
Fortune 500 companies, world leaders, celebrities, national 
governments, and numerous charitable organizations. In 1996, Time 
magazine named him one of the 25 most influential Americans, and in 
2011 Thinkers50 named him one of the top 50 business leaders in the 
world.
  He was an inspiration to millions, a revolutionary problem solver, 
and an icon for business managers everywhere. It is impossible to 
calculate the immense amount of good that Stephen Covey did for so many 
people. His insight helped to shape the future of an untold number of 
businesses, resulting in better jobs and indeed better lives for people 
around the world. Stephen Covey's life mission is reflected in the 
mission of FranklinCovey: ``We Enable greatness in people and 
organizations everywhere.'' Stephen Covey's words and deeds helped 
people discover and deploy the principles that would ultimately enable 
them to achieve greatness in life and in business.
  My wife Sharon and I extend our thoughts and prayers to the family 
and friends of Stephen Covey. His wife Sandra, his 9 children, 52 
grandchildren and 6 great-grandchildren have a tremendous legacy to 
cherish and follow. Stephen taught his family and indeed the world that 
``to live, to love, to learn and to leave a legacy'' is what life is 
all about. We honor his memory, celebrate his service and recognize 
that while his presence will be missed, his principles and practices 
will live on for generations to come.
  No words of tribute to Stephen Covey could be complete without a 
challenge to do something, to produce personal deeds that match the 
words and the principles he loved and lived. So I conclude this tribute 
with a challenge for each of us to remember: We honor best those who 
have gone before by living our lives with excellence today.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent following 
my remarks that the Senator from Nevada be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam President, I rise because too many elected 
officials, too many pundits, editorial writers, elite economists, and 
leaders of big corporations have simply gotten too comfortable and too 
used to sending American jobs overseas. We have seen outsourcing time 
and again from the U.S. Olympic Committee's decision to crown our 
Nation's top athletes with a ``Made in China'' beret to leaders of 
American companies far too eager to cash in and shutter U.S. 
manufacturing plants and open doors to cheaper labor in foreign 
countries. They don't just have a cheap labor advantage, they also have 
weak environmental rules, nonexistent or nonenforced labor laws, 
subsidies for currency, energy, land, and for capital.
  In other words, in some sense, in this whole Olympic debacle, with 
hundreds of American athletes at the opening ceremonies in London, the 
U.S. Olympic Committee has simply said: We will give the gold medal to 
China for cheating.
  In far too many cases, U.S. investors and executives have gotten 
richer at the largest companies while U.S. workers in places such as 
Hamilton, Youngstown, Lorain, Lima, and Solon, OH, struggle to make 
ends meet. That is why I am here with a simple message: Let's replace 
outsourcing with insourcing. Let's see the ``Made in America'' label 
sewn into the blazers that Members of Congress wear and on football 
helmets worn by our student athletes.
  I am wearing a suit made by union labor in Cleveland, OH, today. 
Let's see the letters ``U.S.A.'' stamped in every steel beam used in 
our country and the armored steel purchased by our U.S. Armed Forces. 
We must encourage companies to return to the United States and 
discourage them from ever leaving.
  Right now we have it backward. Our Tax Code is upside down. As it 
stands, businesses can classify moving personnel and company components 
to a foreign country as a business expense and therefore deduct the 
cost of offshoring from their taxes. So when a plant moves from 
Youngstown to Beijing, when a plant moves from

[[Page S5182]]

Freemont to Shihan, when a plant moves from Toledo to Wuhan, that 
company can deduct those moving expenses on its taxes and get a tax 
break for moving overseas. Combined with our outdated trade policy, 
with PNTR with China and no real reporting requirements and even fewer 
enforcement rules and mechanisms, the current American tax law 
encourages companies to move jobs offshore, where labor is cheap and 
environmental and health standards are weak.
  We saw a decade of manufacturing job loss. From 2000 to 2010, we lost 
more than 5 million manufacturing jobs in our country. One-third of our 
manufacturing jobs disappeared from 2000 to 2010. Fortunately, in part, 
because of the auto rescue which was such a resounding success in Ohio, 
for instance, we have seen a 500,000 manufacturing job increase in the 
last 2 years. We know what happens with manufacturing job loss. It can 
destroy a family which had a decent wage and then can't find a job with 
any kind of decent wage. It weakens communities and undermines the tax 
base. It means police, firefighters, librarians, mental health 
counselors, and teachers get laid off.
  But now the manufacturing sector is turning around. As I said, over 
the last 2 years, our country, led by the revitalization of the auto 
industry, is beginning to manufacture jobs. It is clear why our country 
and why my State of Ohio are good places to do business. We have a 
first-class workforce, a strong network of colleges and universities, 
and manufacturing know-how that is second to none.
  Not only that, companies are returning to the United States because 
of higher costs associated with doing business abroad, whether that be 
transportation costs, higher wages in places such as China, and the 
legal difficulties of doing business overseas. We are seeing some 
return, but unfortunately it is more anecdotal and not extensive 
enough. We obviously have to keep looking ahead and make more of it 
happen. That is the good news.
  In Ohio, we see more and more evidence that demonstrates how 
companies are beginning to move operations back to the United States. 
For instance, Apex Sports, based in Zanesville in eastern Ohio, 
produces softballs with an engineered foam core. They were once made in 
China. Apex Sports now makes its softballs in the United States. They 
got their start at the Muskingum County Business Incubator, which I 
visited not too long ago.
  Roesweld Equipment is a small exporter in Columbus that now makes its 
products in Ohio rather than China. Columbus-based Priority Designs 
manufactures dsolv, a compostable netting bagging system for yard 
waste. Its product is now made in the United States but was previously 
produced in Asia. We can do more to get Americans back to work. It 
makes plain sense to put U.S. tax dollars back into the U.S. economy. 
The U.S. tax dollars pay for some products such as American flags that 
fly over our post offices, outfits for a Federal agency, any kind of 
products bought by taxpayers and by the government. It makes sense on 
every level that those products be made in the United States.
  Let me tell you about a 22-year-old family-owned company in Akron 
called American Made Bags. They are making bags for Olympians and the 
Army National Guard. They are making them here in America. Why 
shouldn't our national policies support American companies and support 
American workers? The Bring Jobs Home Act, sponsored by Senator 
Stabenow and many others, makes two commonsense changes in our tax 
laws. It is a carrot-and-stick approach. It gives a tax credit that any 
business can use against their overall tax liability for costs 
associated with moving a production line, such as a trade or business 
located outside the country, back into the United States. That is the 
opposite of what we do now.
  By providing this tax credit, we give incentives to companies to 
reshore and bring back jobs that might have been moved abroad earlier 
to places such as China, Mexico or India. In 2006 alone, U.S. 
manufacturers claimed $45 billion in foreign tax credit--a huge 
financial advantage to companies that have sent jobs to China, Mexico, 
and India.
  Instead of promoting job growth, U.S. tax policy rewards those 
companies for outsourcing. That is why we need to end the backward 
practices that allow businesses to deduct from their taxes the cost of 
shipping jobs overseas. We need to turn our Tax Code right side up when 
it comes to U.S. jobs by promoting their creation and discouraging 
their elimination. That is what the business bill does, and it is about 
time.
  One of the things that happened out of the auto rescue is a bit of an 
untold story. It has to do with an assembly plant in Toledo, OH, where 
the Wrangler and Liberty are put together. Prior to the auto rescue, 
only 50 percent of the components at the Chrysler Jeep plant were made 
in the United States. Today, 75 percent of those components are made in 
the United States. The glass comes out of Crestline and the seats come 
from Northwood. Much of the rest of the Jeep Wrangler comes from 
suppliers in Ohio and Michigan. Those are American jobs, and it is a 
huge increase in American jobs when we consider three-fourths of those 
components are made in the United States, when only 3 years ago it was 
half those components.
  Those Jeeps are selling, as is the Chevy Cruze that is made in 
Youngstown, OH. The components come from Ohio, Michigan and others 
States and manufacturing plants. It makes a huge difference in building 
a middle-class society.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. HELLER. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Senator Heller pertaining to the introduction of S. 
3405 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. HELLER. Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor. I suggest 
the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, today the Senate is considering 
legislation to end tax breaks included in our own Internal Revenue Code 
that actually help companies that want to ship American jobs overseas. 
The Bring Jobs Home Act provides not only a tax credit to encourage 
companies to move jobs back to the United States, but it would end 
those tax breaks that help companies ship jobs overseas.
  Offshoring of American jobs has hurt the middle class and it 
continues to be a real problem. There is no good reason we should 
continue giving companies an incentive to offshore good American jobs.
  We can address high unemployment by encouraging companies to bring 
jobs back to the United States, and the tax credits in this bill will 
help to reverse the trend and put Americans back to work. In fact, this 
incentive could help bring 2 million to 3 million jobs back to the 
United States, according to some economic estimates. So I hope all of 
our colleagues will support this bill.
  I also wish to take a few minutes to talk about another way that I 
think we in the Senate and in Congress could work together in a 
bipartisan way to create jobs and help the economy. Today I filed an 
amendment, along with Senator Portman from Ohio, that provides us with 
a great opportunity to create jobs in America. This amendment is the 
text of S. 1000. It is the Energy Savings and Industrial 
Competitiveness Act, which is a bipartisan bill sponsored by Senator 
Portman and myself that will create a national energy efficiency 
strategy for the United States.
  Energy efficiency is the cheapest and fastest way to improve our 
Nation's energy infrastructure and our economy's energy independence. 
It is also something we can all agree on. Whether we are from the 
Northeast, as I am in New Hampshire, from the South, from the West--all 
of us can benefit from energy efficiency.
  What our bill would do, which is the amendment we filed today, is 
create jobs for our workers, lower energy costs for consumers, and make 
businesses more competitive. In fact, a recent study by the American 
Council for

[[Page S5183]]

an Energy Efficient Economy concluded that our bill would create almost 
80,000 jobs and save consumers $4 billion by 2020.
  Also, S. 1000 has broad support on both sides of the aisle. It passed 
out of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee with an 18-to-
3 vote. In addition, there is a large and diverse group of industry, 
energy efficiency, and environmental stakeholders who have endorsed the 
bill. That list includes the Chamber of Commerce, the National 
Association of Manufacturers, the Alliance to Save Energy, the National 
Resources Defense Council, Best Buy, and the Environmental Defense Fund 
just to name a few of the organizations on the list.
  Anytime we can get organizations as diverse as the ones I just listed 
to endorse one piece of legislation, it is clear there is broad 
bipartisan support for the effort. This legislation contains a broad 
package of low-cost and effective tools to reduce barriers for 
businesses, homeowners, and consumers who want to adopt off-the-shelf 
technologies, so we don't have to wait for something to happen in order 
for the bill to make a difference. These are all efforts that will help 
consumers, businesses, and homeowners save money.
  This is an easy first step to make our economy more competitive and 
our Nation more secure while still meeting pent-up demand for these 
energy-saving technologies from individuals and business alike.
  The American public is desperately looking for Congress to work in a 
bipartisan way on policies to spur growth and create jobs. Energy 
efficiency legislation represents our best chance to achieve both of 
those goals this year.
  We need to get some energy legislation to the floor. I have had the 
great opportunity to work for the last 4 years with Senator Jeff 
Bingaman and Senator Lisa Murkowski, the chair and ranking members of 
the Energy Committee. We have done some great work in our committee. We 
passed significant pieces of bipartisan legislation out of the 
committee. In fact, there are 15 pieces of legislation that have been 
passed and all but one of those with strong bipartisan votes. Those 
pieces of legislation are just sitting in committee because we have not 
been able to get an agreement to bring them to the floor.
  We can get an energy efficiency policy in place. We can pass this 
legislation. That kind of an energy efficiency policy would be one that 
enhances our national security, addresses our energy needs, and puts 
Americans back to work. We can do it in this Congress if we can bring 
the Shaheen-Portman energy bill to the Senate floor for a vote. That is 
what this amendment would do. I hope we have that opportunity.
  Thank you very much, Madam President. I yield the floor and note the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, today we are debating a bill called the 
Bring Jobs Home Act. We live in serious times. We have a debt fast 
approaching $16 trillion, millions remain out of work, and economic and 
job growth has slowed to a crawl. Times such as these demand serious 
economic answers. So it is important that we all understand the utter 
lack of seriousness of this proposal. The only things serious about the 
Bring Jobs Home Act are its flaws.
  The Bring Jobs Home Act would deny the deduction for ordinary and 
necessary business expenses to the extent that such expenses were 
incurred for outsourcing; that is, to the extent an employer incurred 
costs in relocating a business unit from the United States to outside 
the United States, the employer would be disallowed a deduction for any 
of the business expenses associated with such outsourcing.
  The Bring Jobs Home Act would also create a new tax credit for 
insourcing; that is, if a company relocated a business unit from 
outside the United States to inside the United States, the business 
would be allowed a tax credit equal to 20 percent of the costs 
associated with such insourcing.
  On the surface, this proposal might sound reasonable. As sound bites 
go, the President's reelection campaign and the Senate Democratic 
leadership have apparently decided they can make some political hay 
with this proposal, but as substantive tax policy goes, this proposal 
is a joke.
  First of all, the amount of money involved is trifling. According to 
the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, this bill's deduction 
disallowance provision will only raise about $14 million per year. That 
is $14 million, not billion with a ``b,'' it is million with an ``m.'' 
Let's put that in perspective. This bill is supposedly a critical tax 
incentive to create jobs here in the United States. Yet, according to 
the Joint Committee on Taxation, a nonpartisan committee, it will only 
raise about $14 million per year in this multitrillion-dollar economy. 
Meanwhile, President Obama's campaign has now spent $24 million on ads 
attacking his opponent and attacking what he considers to be 
outsourcing, which his opponent has not done.
  The American people want us to address our fiscal situation and to 
create the conditions for robust economic and job growth. And how are 
the President and Senate Democrats spending their time? Advancing a 
proposal that raises less money in 1 year than the amount the 
President's campaign has spent attacking Republicans on this topic on 
television. If Democrats meant this as a serious revenue raiser for the 
government, we would all be better off if the Obama campaign had simply 
sent its $24 million to the Treasury Department for disbursement to 
insourcers rather than spend it on ads attacking American global 
businesses. And I think the President might get more credit for that.
  Simply put, this bill is misleading. Its supporters would have you 
believe that under current law there is some special deduction that 
exists for moving jobs outside of the United States of America. That is 
simply false. Rather, there has always been a deduction allowed for a 
business's ordinary and necessary expenses, and expenses associated 
with moving have always been regarded as deductible business expenses. 
So allowing a deduction for these expenses is not a special thing, it 
is the rule. Disallowing this deduction would be the exception, an 
extraordinary deviation from current tax policy.
  Yesterday I heard my friends from the other side say we need to end a 
tax deduction for jobs that a business sends overseas.
  I have a letter from the Joint Committee on Taxation, addressed to 
the bill's authors, that includes an analysis of their bill and a 
score. I ask unanimous consent to have a copy of the letter printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                    Congress of the United States,


                                  Joint Committee on Taxation,

                                                   Washington, DC.
     Hon. Debbie Stabenow,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Bill Pascrell,
     House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Stabenow and Mr. Pascrell: This letter is in 
     response to your request of June 5, 2012, for an estimate of 
     the revenue impacts of the ``Bring Jobs Home Act'' (S. 2884/
     H.R. 5542). This bill provides a 20-percent tax credit for 
     eligible expenses associated with relocating business units 
     from overseas and disallows a deduction for business expenses 
     associated with relocating business units to foreign 
     countries.
       Under present law, there are no specific tax credits or 
     disallowances of deductions solely for locating jobs in the 
     United States or overseas. Deductions generally are allowed 
     for all ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred by 
     the taxpayer during the taxable year in carrying on any trade 
     or business, which includes the relocation of business units.
       Under the proposal, corporations would be granted a credit 
     equal to 20 percent of the expenses associated with the 
     relocation of business units from a foreign country to within 
     the United States. In order to qualify for the credit, the 
     firm must increase its domestic employment when compared to 
     the year prior to the first taxable year in which eligible 
     insourcing expenses were paid or incurred. Corporations also 
     would be disallowed from taking a deduction for expenses 
     associated with the relocation of business units from within 
     the United States to a foreign country.
       In estimating this proposal, we assume that there will be a 
     behavioral response in how firms classify their 
     reorganization expenses in order to maximize their expenses

[[Page S5184]]

     eligible for the insourcing credit and to minimize their 
     disallowed deductions associated with the outsourcing credit.
       The following estimate provides the effect of this proposal 
     on Federal fiscal year budget receipts. This estimate assumes 
     a date of enactment of July 1, 2012, and that the proposal is 
     effective for all expenses paid or incurred after the date of 
     enactment.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Fiscal years, in millions of dollars
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Item                       2012    2013    2014    2015    2016    2017    2018    2019    2020    2021    2022   2012-17   2012-22
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Provide a 20 percent credit for expenses          -3     -21     -21     -22     -23     -24     -26     -27     -28     -29     -31      -115      -255
 associated with insourcing jobs............
Disallow deduction for expenses associated         2      14      14      14      15      16      17      18      18      19      20        76       168
 with outsourcing jobs......................
    Total...................................      -1      -7      -7      -8      -8      -8      -9      -9     -10     -10     -10       -39      -87
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: Details may not add to totals due to rounding.

       I hope this information is helpful to you. If we can be of 
     further assistance in this matter, please let me know.
           Sincerely,
                                               Thomas A. Barthold.

  Mr. HATCH. Paragraph two of the letter says, and I quote:

       Under present law, there are no specific tax credits or 
     disallowances of deductions solely for locating jobs in the 
     United States or overseas. Deductions generally are allowed 
     for all ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred by 
     the taxpayer during the taxable year in carrying on any trade 
     or business, which includes the relocation of business units.

  Now, perhaps my friends on the other side take issue with a 
description of tax policy from Congress's nonpartisan official 
scorekeeper. Well, if they do, I invite them--or the President, for 
that matter--to show me the provision of the Internal Revenue Code that 
contains a special deduction for shipping jobs overseas.
  Let me just mention that this is the Internal Revenue Code I have in 
my hand. It is getting so big you can hardly handle it. Maybe Joint Tax 
and I are wrong, so I will keep the Tax Code right at my desk, and if 
one of my friends wants to leaf through the Code and show me the 
section that provides a special deduction for shipping jobs overseas, I 
will stand corrected.
  They cannot. It is not in here, this huge conglomerated mess that we 
would like to reform, which will not be reformed until there is a 
change in administration.
  This administration is in the habit of pointing fingers every which 
way, blaming everyone but themselves for our weak economy and pathetic 
job growth. Just the other day the Treasury Secretary blamed Europe and 
rising oil prices for our economic slowdown. Yet he did not discuss the 
pall of uncertainty that Democratic politicians, including his boss, 
are putting over the economy with their refusal to extend the 2001 and 
2003 tax relief unless they get their way on tax increases for small 
businesses.
  According to an analysis by the American Action Forum, the fiscal 
cliff facing American taxpayers is now twice the size of total GDP 
growth this year. If we drive over this fiscal cliff, as the President 
and Senate Democratic leadership are now threatening, the likelihood 
that small businesses will hire will decrease by 18 percent, and the 
effective marginal tax rate for many workers and small businesses will 
go over 50 percent.
  At least in part, and I would say in significant part, is the 
complete failure to provide certainty and progrowth tax policies to 
America's families and businesses that is dragging our economy down. 
Proposals such as the one before the Senate today are not helping 
either. They increase uncertainty for the businesses that will grow our 
economy and hire new workers.
  It is another example of the Obama administration's ``Washington-
knows-best philosophy.'' Disallowing the business expense deduction 
means income will now be measured less accurately. Gross receipts minus 
business expenses equals income. That is what both accountants and 
economists tell us. But even through economists, accountants and 
businesses all measure income one way, Washington will now measure it 
another way. Not only is this bad for business, but by disallowing 
deductions for certain business expenses, this proposal would measure 
income less accurately.
  When the government's main source of revenue is income tax, it is 
rather important to measure income accurately. Ultimately, we know this 
bill is devoid of serious content because it is the product of 
political, not economic necessity. This bill is a sound bite, not sound 
tax policy. There really are not a lot of dots to connect.
  Really, the genesis of this bill's prioritization can be traced in a 
straight line from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to the President's 
reelection headquarters in Chicago. This bill is called the Bring Jobs 
Home Act, but its Democratic proponents have not presented any evidence 
of the number of jobs, if any, that will return to America if the 
proposal becomes law.
  During comments in support of the bill, the sponsor referred to a 
chart that said, ``[i]n the last decade, 2.4 million jobs were shipped 
overseas.'' But the sponsor tellingly did not say the bill will bring 
2.4 million jobs back to America. The proponents of this bill have not 
even told us that jobs will return to America if this bill becomes law, 
much less how many jobs. The answer is probably none.
  That is exactly the sort of question we would have explored had this 
bill been produced by the Senate Finance Committee rather than by some 
campaign consultant in Chicago. The Senate Finance Committee would have 
held hearings, we would have talked to the experts, and we would have 
looked at comments on both sides of the issue. Then we would probably 
have had a markup. It could have been brought to the floor with full 
Finance Committee support--except we would never pass a bill such as 
this in the Finance Committee, in my eyes. Well, not with any real good 
intent.
  It is disappointing that even though the sponsor of this bill is a 
member of the Senate Finance Committee, the bill's sponsor chose to 
bypass that committee. This bill has come straight to the Senate floor 
without being vetted by the committee. Her colleagues on the committee 
would likely have had some valuable feedback for her. Both staffs on 
the committee would likely have had valuable expertise they could have 
brought to bear on this proposal. That is why I anticipate moving to 
commit this bill to the Senate Finance Committee.
  How does this bill fit with tax reform? Many on the other side say 
they want tax reform. I think it is fair to say there is a consensus 
that tax reform means getting rid of tax expenditures so as to decrease 
tax rates. The mantra is broaden the base and lower the rates, but this 
proposal would create new tax expenditures. It would narrow the base.
  Another major goal of tax reform is simplification, but this proposal 
would make the tax laws even more complicated. This proposal is the 
antithesis of true tax reform. Rather than coming up with more sticks 
to punish American businesses that compete globally, as this proposal 
does, we should be coming up with more carrots to encourage American 
businesses as well as foreign businesses to make America a more 
attractive place to expand, hire, and invest. Of course, the best way 
to do that, consistent with free-market principles, would be to lower 
the corporate tax rate.
  By creating new tax expenditures, as this act would do, it becomes 
all the more difficult to lower the corporate tax rate. If we want 
businesses to locate and hire in the United States, then we need to do 
what we can to make sure they are glad they are incorporated in the 
United States and that their headquarters is in the United States.
  As it stands right now, because of our worldwide tax regime, many 
global corporations have their parent company in the United States as a 
matter of historical accident. If they had to do it all over again, 
they very well might decide to incorporate elsewhere in the world. The 
way to address that, the way to make sure the United States is the 
place that global businesses want to incorporate is to transition our 
current worldwide system of taxation to a territorial tax system.

[[Page S5185]]

  A territorial tax system would only tax businesses on the profits 
they make in the United States. This way businesses would not be 
discouraged from incorporating in the United States. If a business 
incorporates in the United States, all of its worldwide profits are 
subject to U.S. tax. It is certainly true that a territorial tax regime 
must be done right and that the devil is in the details, but it is also 
clear that territorial tax regime proposals could lead to greater 
investment in the United States and more headquarters jobs in the 
United States.
  A territorial tax regime would put American businesses at a more 
competitive position when competing internationally. A territorial tax 
system would make us more consistent with major developed countries. So 
it is amazing that President Obama has decided to demagogue this issue 
as well, undermining the future jobs prospects of millions of Americans 
for years to come in order to secure his own job for another 4 years.
  Not content to grossly misrepresent the issue of outsourcing, he is 
now doing the same with territorial taxation; that is, in spite of the 
fact that his own agencies have been for it.
  And it's really quite strange. President Obama's Export Council, his 
Council on Jobs Competitiveness, his National commission on Fiscal 
Responsibility and Reform, and his Steering Committee on Advanced 
Manufacturing have all recommended that make the U.S. more competitive 
it shift to taking income on a territorial basis. For a person who 
claimed last week that he just cares so darn much about policy, he has 
an odd way of showing it when he campaigns.
  In the 2008 election, he fundamentally misled the American people 
about key aspects of the health care proposal put forward by my friend 
and colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain. In doing so, he kicked the 
legs out from a reasonable and growing consensus about how best to 
reform the Nation's health care system, and he did so only for his own 
political gain.
  His selfish acts on a territorial tax system have a similar flavor, 
and they promise to make tax reform much more difficult in the future. 
It is hard to see how this President could lead the country on tax 
reform. He attacks territorial tax regimes with a $4.5 trillion tax 
increase looming at the end of the year, essentially freezing job 
creation and economic growth. His allies in the Senate are debating 
this effectively useless bill on outsourcing.
  His administration called for the so-called Buffett tax, essentially 
creating a new alternative minimum tax that would provide trivial 
revenues and tax capital gains at higher rates than even President 
Carter wanted. Some say it would have given us maybe 8 days' of 
spending in Washington.
  After waiting years for a corporate tax reform proposal, this past 
February President Obama's administration put out a series of bullet 
points, the so-called framework for corporate tax reform--all fluff and 
no details.
  Tax reform is critical if we want our economy to grow and if we are 
going to get out of our current jobs deficit. But given this mediocre 
track record, I do not think the President can be relied upon to lead 
this Nation on this issue--not in 2012 and not in a second term either.
  To the extent the President's tax agenda is not attributable to 
politics, it can be blamed on his odd view of our economy and the 
businesses that grow it. I think it is fair to say the President's 
world view is fundamentally out of step with that of ordinary American 
taxpayers. Just the other day, while campaigning in Virginia, the 
President laid out his economic vision, channeling the economic know-
how of Harvard Law's faculty lounge. He told the crowd, ``If you've got 
a business--you didn't build that, somebody else made that happen.'' As 
Charles Krauthammer put it, spoken by a man who never created or ran so 
much as a candy store.
  I do not want to demean candy stores, but that is a fact. The 
President made clear for all to see just what he thinks of all the 
hard-working, risk-taking entrepreneurs who sacrifice daily to build 
their businesses. His perception is that the hard work and sacrifice of 
those business owners and their families has nothing to do with their 
success. Any success they have is owing to good luck and big 
government, the fact that we have built some roads and so forth.
  My guess is that not only American business owners, but most 
Americans disagree fundamentally with this assessment. The President 
clearly does not understand or deliberately ignores economic incentives 
and the way they lead to business growth and job creation. This is 
certainly on display in the policy that will forever define this 
President, ObamaCare. Good intentions are not enough, and ObamaCare's 
small business tax credit is a case in point.
  This credit was designed to encourage small employers to offer health 
insurance. The promise was that over 4 million employers would claim $2 
tax in credits to help pay for health insurance. In reality, only 
309,000 taxpayers claimed the credit for a total of less than $466 
million.
  Why was the credit such a failure at achieving its well-intentioned 
goal? Well, a picture is worth 1,000 words. So please look at this 
chart.
  Can you imagine what a business owner must think when they encounter 
an administrative nightmare like all of this? The ObamaCare tax credit 
for small businesses gives redtape a bad name. Talk about a 
bureaucratic straightjacket. No wonder the business community has 
failed to embrace ObamaCare.
  This issue of ObamaCare's manipulation of the Tax Code and its 
historic tax increases are deserving of extended remarks. For now, let 
me just say we should be pursuing laws that will help not harm 
businesses and middle-class taxpayers. The bill we are discussing on 
the floor today, like ObamaCare, is not going to help.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, 1 week ago yesterday was a fairly typical 
day in the Senate. The Congressional Record shows Senators used the 
word ``jobs'' more than 150 times. The following day, a week ago today, 
the word ``jobs'' appears in the Record 131 times. Just this Monday, a 
few days ago when the Senate came in at 2 o'clock, ``jobs'' appears in 
the Record 36 times.
  So we are talking--and talking a lot--about jobs. Today, Senator 
Stabenow's bill offers a chance to do more than talk; we can act.
  The legislation addresses a fundamental flaw in our tax law. At a 
time when Americans desperately want us to defend American jobs and to 
give employers the incentives and support they need to hire new 
workers, our tax law perversely rewards employers for moving jobs to 
other countries. Today, an American corporation can decide to close a 
factory in this country, build a new one in another country, claim a 
tax break for the expense of moving those jobs out of our country, and 
pay no U.S. taxes on the income that foreign factory earns as long as 
they leave that income overseas.
  Our Tax Code, in effect, tells employers: Here is a tax deduction to 
help you cut your American workforce and move those jobs offshore. That 
is the effect of our Tax Code. American employers have responded, 
unhappily. Statistics released in April by the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics show that since 1999, U.S.-based multinational corporations 
have reduced employment in the United States by about 1 million workers 
but they have added more than 3 million workers overseas.
  A recent Gallup Poll found that only 13 percent of Americans believe 
this trend of shipping jobs overseas is good for our economy. Almost 8 
of every 10 Americans believe it does harm. In a poll for the Alliance 
for American Manufacturing, 83 percent of respondents said they 
disapprove of companies that move jobs to countries such as China.
  The people in Michigan and every other State can no longer afford to 
watch their tax dollars subsidize shipping their jobs overseas.
  Earlier this spring, along with Senator Conrad, I introduced the Cut 
Unjustified Tax Loopholes Act or the CUT Loopholes Act. Our legislation 
would cut several loopholes that enable tax avoidance, which adds to 
the deficit

[[Page S5186]]

and to the tax burden of those who pay the taxes they owe. Our bill 
would cut offshore tax loopholes that allow corporations and 
individuals to avoid paying taxes by concealing their income and assets 
in offshore tax havens. One provision of the CUT Loopholes Act would 
ensure that companies aren't taking a tax deduction for the expense of 
moving jobs overseas. Under our bill, companies couldn't take a 
deduction for the expense, for instance, of moving a U.S. factory to 
another country until that company pays U.S. taxes on the income 
generated by that foreign factory.
  Senator Stabenow's Bring Jobs Home Act takes a similar approach, 
ending the taxpayer subsidy that helps firms to move American jobs 
overseas. In addition, it would offer a 20-percent tax credit to 
companies that move production back to the United States.
  Surely it makes sense for us to offer employers a tax cut if they 
bring jobs back to the United States. Surely it makes sense to reform a 
law that adds insult to injury, that forces our taxpayers to watch 
companies move their jobs abroad with the assistance of our taxpayer 
dollars.
  We have already seen the enormous benefits to our economy and our 
workers when American companies make the decision to return jobs to our 
shores. Ford Motor Company is returning thousands of offshore jobs to 
Michigan and other States. Companies such as Whirlpool are making the 
decision to hire American workers for work they once did abroad. 
American manufacturing has built great momentum in the last 3 years, 
adding thousands of jobs. We should add to that momentum and adopt the 
Bring Jobs Home Act. We should end existing tax incentives to export 
American jobs, and we should provide a tax break for companies that 
bring jobs back to American workers.
  Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. PAUL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            Aid to Pakistan

  Mr. PAUL. Madam President, there is a doctor in Pakistan by the name 
of Shakil Afridi. He has been identified as a doctor who helped us with 
information in order to get bin Laden. The Pakistan Government has now 
put him in prison for 33 years. I think this is an abomination. While 
we can't tell countries what they must do with their internal affairs, 
we certainly don't have to reward them with taxpayer money when they 
put someone in prison for attempting to help America.
  My point and my message to Pakistan is that if they want to be an 
ally, they should act like it. Putting this man in prison for 33 years 
for helping America get bin Laden, which Pakistan was ostensibly 
supposed to be doing, is a real travesty of justice. Bin Laden lived 
for nearly a decade in Pakistan, in a city, living comfortably a mile 
or two from one of their military academies. We finally got him, but it 
doesn't appear as if we got him with much help from the Pakistani 
Government.
  Now this doctor is in prison for 33 years. And how does President 
Obama respond? President Obama, this week, gave them $1 billion--an 
additional $1 billion. We are rewarding bad behavior with more of our 
money--money we don't even have. We have a $1 trillion deficit and we 
are giving them an extra $1 billion.
  Yesterday he was supposed to have an appeal. Dr. Afridi, the doctor 
who helped us, was supposed to get a chance to help prove his 
innocence. His trial has been indefinitely delayed. We have requested 
from the Pakistani Embassy whether there is going to be a trial. We 
want to know the date, and has the date been set for his appeal. We 
have gotten no answer. We have requested this information from 
President Obama's administration, from his State Department. Will Dr. 
Afridi get a trial? When will his trial be? We have gotten no answer.
  If we can't get an answer--if they are going to continue to hold this 
man--I see no reason to send taxpayer money to Pakistan. I have the 
votes and the ability to force a vote on this issue. My plan is to 
force a vote on this issue next week. The vote will be on ending all 
aid to Pakistan, ending the aid until this doctor is freed.
  This is not something I take lightly. This doctor's life is now being 
threatened. The information minister from that particular province in 
Pakistan says they want him transferred because they receive death 
threats on a daily basis toward him. They are worried about other 
prisoners killing him. I would hate for the Obama administration to 
have on their conscience the fact that this doctor, who helped us get 
bin Laden, is killed in prison. I would hate to have on my conscience 
the death of an innocent man, if he were to be killed in prison, whose 
only crime was helping America. At the very least, the Pakistani 
Government ought to immediately get him into a safe prison in one of 
the larger cities outside the tribal regions.
  We are concerned about Dr. Afridi's safety, we are concerned about 
imprisoning him for life for helping America, and we are also concerned 
about American taxpayers' money being taken from hard-working Americans 
and sent to a country that seems to disrespect us. I am all for 
cooperating with Pakistan. I hope they will continue to work with us. 
But we shouldn't have to buy our friends. We gave them an extra $1 
billion. Yet they continue to disrespect us by holding this man in 
prison.
  I am very concerned about Dr. Afridi's safety. I am concerned his 
appeal was not heard today and his trial was canceled. So next week, if 
we don't have answers on his trial, we will be here on the floor until 
I get a vote on whether we should continue sending money to Pakistan 
while they hold him. This is a very important issue for Americans, and 
I hope all across America people are going to call their Senators and 
say: You know what. I am not so sure we should send our hard-earned 
dollars to Pakistan when they treat us this way.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.


                    Water Infrastructure Investment

  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I have taken to the floor of the Senate 
on previous occasions to talk about our aging water infrastructure and 
the need for financing. I have talked about the State revolving funds, 
which are the principal funding sources for our local governments' 
ability to upgrade their water infrastructure. I have talked about the 
need for safe drinking water and how that is being compromised. I have 
also talked about the way we treat our wastewater and the health risks 
involved in an aging infrastructure. And when I have taken to the floor 
on different occasions to talk about the consequences of our failure to 
act, I have made it clear if we move forward with water infrastructure 
projects it will not only provide the type of infrastructure we need 
for public health but it will also create jobs and opportunities in our 
communities.
  I have the honor of representing the State of Maryland in the Senate, 
and we have some very aged communities in Maryland. One of those, of 
course, is my home city of Baltimore, where the water infrastructure is 
as historic as some of its buildings--well over 100 years old. And 
although I have talked about this issue before, I want to bring to the 
Senate's attention that this past Monday, in Baltimore, a 120-year-old 
water main broke, creating a massive crater in downtown Baltimore on 
one of the busiest streets in our city. I have been told it will take a 
couple of weeks before that can be fixed. I have also been told that, 
as a result, downtown Baltimore was flooded, sending thousands of 
workers home and costing businesses countless loss of revenue.
  One might say: Well, these things happen. But in Baltimore we have a 
water main break at the rate of about two or three a day, costing a 
great deal of money because our city workers have to go out, dig it up, 
and cut off water service to homes and businesses, which are 
inconvenienced by not having the ability to get water. And we 
experience this expense again and again.
  What we need to do is upgrade our water infrastructure. We all 
understand that. We need to make that investment. These major water 
main breaks are becoming more and more a reality. In 2008, we saw River 
Road in Bethesda turn literally into a river. We

[[Page S5187]]

had to use helicopters to rescue people because of a water main break. 
In October 2009, we had a major break in Dundalk, MD, outside 
Baltimore, which flooded thousands of homes, causing incredible 
inconvenience to that community. One year ago, not far from where we 
are right here, we saw a major water main break in Prince George's 
County, closing the Washington beltway and causing a lot of homeowners 
to be without water for an extended period of time.
  The water infrastructure in this country is in desperate need of new 
attention and greater investment. That is true in our wastewater 
treatment facility plants and it is true in the way we transport our 
clean water. Wastewater treatment plants are critically important in 
preventing billions of tons of pollutants each year from reaching 
America's rivers, lakes, and coastlines. These facilities prevent 
waterborne disease and make our water safe for fishing and swimming.
  Similarly, some 54,000 community drinking water systems provide 
drinking water to more than 250 million Americans, keeping water 
supplies free of contaminants that cause disease. The ongoing 
degradation of these systems puts our human health directly at risk.
  Many of our water and wastewater systems are outdated, with some 
components across the country over a century old. This aging 
infrastructure contributes to the 75,000 sanitary sewer overflows that 
occur in the United States per year--75,000 sewage overflows a year in 
the United States. It causes an estimated 5,500 annual illnesses due to 
these contaminations which occur on our beaches and in our streams and 
lakes where American families vacation.
  The Environmental Protection Agency has estimated that more than $630 
billion will be needed over the next 20 years to meet the Nation's 
drinking water and wastewater infrastructure needs.
  As chair of the Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife, I held a hearing 
where we brought in some of our local officials to talk about some of 
these needs. They told us they can't possibly do this with the 
resources they currently have available, that they need a Federal 
partner--they need a stronger Federal partner--and they need a Federal 
Government that will give them new innovative tools in order to deal 
with these critical needs.
  Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake of Baltimore testified she would like 
to see some form of trust fund established so we can leverage money and 
make these types of investments. She pointed out--which we already 
know--that for the money we spend on water infrastructure we will cause 
a multiplier effect. By a ratio of 3-to-1, it actually creates more 
money in our economy. If we put $1 billion in water infrastructure 
improvement, it creates $3 billion of economic activity in our 
communities, allowing us to create more jobs at the same time we 
improve our water infrastructure for public health and for economic 
development.
  This makes sense. We need to do this. I don't know how many more 
times I will have to come to the floor of the Senate and point out 
these horrible water main breaks that are occurring all over. What is 
happening in Baltimore--what is happening in Maryland--is happening in 
every one of our States. This is not a one-State problem. This is a 
national problem. People are outraged by these situations, and they are 
going to be more outraged when they realize their public health is at 
risk and the availability of safe drinking water is at risk, as well as 
the inconvenience that is caused when their basements are flooded or 
they can't get to their businesses or have to leave their businesses 
early or pay additional local taxes in order to repair the damage done 
as a result of the failure to replace aged infrastructure.
  I urge my colleagues to work together on this issue. Let's make sure 
we have a budget that makes sense for this country but that allows us 
to invest in the types of investments that are important for America's 
future. We have talked about that with transportation infrastructure, 
we have talked about that with energy infrastructure, but the same 
thing is true with water infrastructure. So I look forward to working 
with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to provide the tools and 
resources that will allow our economy to grow and our local governments 
to upgrade their water infrastructure systems.
  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      OSCE's Magnitsky Resolution

  Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I come to the floor today to call 
Members' attention to recent action taken at the Parliamentary Assembly 
meeting of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, 
which convened in Monaco earlier this month.
  The OSCE considered and passed with overwhelming support a resolution 
on the rule of law in Russia and the case of Sergei Magnitsky. This is 
a resounding and much welcomed rebuke of Russia's deplorable human 
rights record and systemic corruption.
  With the Magnitsky resolution, the OSCE--made up of 56 participating 
states spanning Europe, Central Asia, and North America--reaffirms the 
widespread call for justice and rule of law. The international group 
has sent a clear signal to human rights violators that they will be 
held accountable.
  The OSCE resolution supports government efforts to ban visas, freeze 
assets, and employ other financial sanctions against those connected to 
the illegal detention and tragic death of Sergei Magnitsky. The young 
lawyer was beaten and denied medical care in a Russian prison after 
uncovering a vast conspiracy by Russian officials involving $230 
million in tax fraud. Sergei Magnitsky died as a result of his 
treatment, and no one has ever been held responsible for his death.
  I have been a member of the Helsinki Commission for the last several 
years, and I have seen firsthand the contributions the OSCE has made to 
advance democratic, economic, security, and human rights issues. I was 
unable to attend the Parliamentary Assembly meeting, but I am grateful 
our colleague Senator John McCain was able to be there to highlight the 
importance of this particular issue.
  The Magnitsky case is just one example of the gross human rights 
abuses and official impunity in Russia. But as Senator McCain noted in 
his statement before the OSCE meeting in Monaco, ``The demand for 
justice for Sergei is what has mobilized the world in his memory.''
  Senator McCain is right to point out that the OSCE resolution--as 
well as national initiatives to punish those implicated in Sergei 
Magnitsky's death--is not anti-Russia. Indeed, a return to the rule of 
law would be of great benefit to the Russian people. To quote my 
colleague Senator McCain:

       Defending the innocent and punishing the guilty is pro-
     Russia. . . . The virtues that Sergei Magnitsky embodied--
     integrity, fair-dealing, fidelity to truth and justice, and 
     the deepest love of country, which does not turn a blind eye 
     to the failings of one's government, but seeks to remedy them 
     by insisting on the highest standards--this too is pro-
     Russia, and I would submit that it represents the future that 
     most Russians want for themselves and their country.

  Senator McCain then goes on to encourage the assembly to align ``with 
the highest aspirations of the Russian people--Sergei's aspirations--
for justice, for equal dignity under the law, and for the indomitable 
spirit of human freedom.''
  Like the OSCE, Members of this Senate will also have an opportunity 
to lend our voices to the call for justice and accountability. The 
Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act would impose travel and 
financial sanctions on those associated with human rights crimes.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill and to uphold this 
country's commitment to the protection of human rights. I salute the 
leadership of my colleague and friend Senator Ben Cardin of Maryland 
for his leadership in this regard, and I am pleased to note that the 
Magnitsky Act was included during consideration of extending normal 
trade relations to Russia in yesterday's Senate Finance Committee 
markup. We are making great progress on this issue, and I look forward 
to a vote on the Senate floor.
  In conclusion, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record

[[Page S5188]]

Senator McCain's full remarks at the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 Statement by Senator John McCain at the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly--
                          Sunday, July 8, 2012

       Thank you for the opportunity to join you this afternoon.
       Let me recognize my fellow members of Congress, Dennis 
     Cardoza and Robert Aderholt, who are doing great work on 
     behalf of the American delegation. I am pleased that Robert 
     is standing for vice president of this assembly, and I want 
     to voice my full support for his candidacy.
       It is also my pleasure to support this resolution on rule 
     of law in Russia and the case of Sergei [SERgay] Magnitsky. 
     What happened to Sergei was a horrific crime. But it is also 
     an example--an extreme example, to be sure, but an example 
     nonetheless--of the pervasive and systemic corruption in the 
     Russian government. To this day, no one--not one person--has 
     ever been held responsible for Sergei's death. This, despite 
     the fact that the Russian Human Rights Council, established 
     by the Russian President, found that Sergei's arrest was 
     illegal, that he was denied access to justice, and that his 
     treatment amounted to torture. This resolution correctly 
     notes these disturbing facts.
       The demand for justice for Sergei is what has mobilized the 
     world in his memory. In the United States, Senator Ben Cardin 
     and I introduced legislation that would impose an array of 
     penalties on those believed to be responsible for Sergei's 
     death, but also on other human rights abusers in Russia and 
     beyond. The Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act 
     has been passed by our Foreign Relations Committee, and no 
     matter what you hear, make no mistake: It will become law. 
     And it will contain the full array of essential measures--
     visa bans, asset freezes, and financial sanctions. I assure 
     you of it.
       The Congress now has a path to pass this legislation. I and 
     others have made clear that doing so is the condition for 
     repeal of the Jackson-Vanik amendment and extension of 
     Permanent Normal Trade Relations to Russia, which I have also 
     sponsored legislation to enact.
       Other European legislatures, as well as the European 
     Parliament, have condemned Sergei's murder and may take 
     legislative action as well. Now, this resolution offers an 
     opportunity for all of us, legislators from more than 50 
     nations, to speak with one voice in favor of the justice that 
     Sergei and his family deserve. It is essential that we do so.
       I know that some will try to paint this resolution as anti-
     Russia. I could not disagree more. Indeed, I believe it is 
     pro-Russia, as are the pieces of national legislation that 
     would punish those guilty of Sergei's death. I believe that 
     supporting the rule of law is pro-Russia. I believe that 
     defending the innocent and punishing the guilty is pro-
     Russia. And ultimately, I believe the virtues that Sergei 
     Magnitsky embodied--integrity, fair-dealing, fidelity to 
     truth and justice, and the deepest love of country, which 
     does not turn a blind eye to the failings of one's 
     government, but seeks to remedy them by insisting on the 
     highest standards--this too is pro-Russia, and I would submit 
     that it represents the future that most Russians want for 
     themselves and their country.
       The example that Sergei set during his brief life is now 
     inspiring more and more Russian citizens. They are standing 
     up and speaking up in favor of freedom, democracy, and the 
     rule of law. They, like us, do not want Russia to be weak and 
     unstable. They want it to be a successful and just and lawful 
     country, as we do. Most of these Russian human rights and 
     rule of law advocates support our efforts to continue 
     Sergei's struggle for what's right, just as they are now 
     doing.
       Let us now add our voices to theirs by passing this 
     important resolution today. And in doing so, let us align 
     this Assembly with the highest aspirations of the Russian 
     people--Sergei's aspirations--for justice, for equal dignity 
     under the law, and for the indomitable spirit of human 
     freedom.

  Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, in just a couple minutes we are going to 
be voting on a very important policy, a very important bill I am proud 
to sponsor with a number of cosponsors, a number of colleagues, called 
the Bring Jobs Home Act. It goes to the heart of what has been 
happening in a global economy when we have not been paying attention to 
our Tax Code or other things that we ought to be doing to be able to 
bring jobs home and other countries are aggressively working to take 
our manufacturing base, to take our middle class. They know when they 
look at our country we have a middle class because we make products and 
grow products, so they are rushing to be able to make products and to 
innovate and so on and to create incentives for our jobs to be shipped 
overseas.
  We know we are in a global economy. We know our companies are 
competing with countries. We have a whole range of things we have been 
working to do to be able to support and incentivize and help 
manufacturers and other businesses here to innovate, expand advanced 
manufacturing, IT services, among others. But what we have not been 
paying attention to is how our own Tax Code actually is incentivizing 
or supporting--at the very least supporting and helping companies ship 
jobs overseas.
  There is a very important, very basic policy we will be voting on 
today. If a company decides to pack up and move overseas, should they 
be able to write that off their taxes and you and I--all of us as 
American taxpayers--pay for it? I do not think there are too many 
people in the country who would say yes to that. In fact, I can't 
imagine why anybody would say yes to that. The reality is, if somebody 
loses their job at a plant and then they find out they get the 
privilege, as an American taxpayer, to help pay for the move, folks 
say: Are you kidding me or they say a whole lot of other things.
  This bill, the Bring Jobs Home Act, is very straightforward. It 
simply says we are not going to pay for that anymore. That loophole 
will be gone. However, if they want to bring jobs back, we will be 
happy to let them deduct those costs as a business expense, for 
bringing a job home. In fact, we will give them another 20-percent tax 
credit for 20 percent of their costs on top of it. So we are happy to 
incentivize coming home and to support their efforts to come home, but 
we are not paying for them to leave. That is basically what this is 
about.
  We are going to have a vote on whether to proceed to this bill. As we 
know around here, unfortunately, we have seen the process that used to 
be used rarely now used on every bill, to where we cannot even get to 
the bill to vote on that with a majority vote without going through a 
supermajority to be able to stop a filibuster, which is right now what 
basically has been happening. There is an objection. We have to get 60 
votes to overcome it; otherwise, the filibuster continues.
  We will need to do that today. We need bipartisan support to do that. 
I hope we will have that. A couple weeks ago we came together in strong 
bipartisan support. We worked together very hard, long hours, to pass a 
farm bill. That is about growing products in America. Now we have an 
opportunity to work together, come together in a bipartisan basis to 
support making products in America.
  We do not have a middle class unless we make products and grow 
products. It is not going to make any sense if we continue to have a 
tax policy that actually encourages or helps you to leave America.
  What we have seen now is that we are actually losing jobs. We know in 
the last decade 2.4 million jobs were shipped overseas. Those are just 
the ones they are able to count at this point. So 2.4 million jobs have 
been shipped overseas, at a minimum, and we help to pay for it. The 
good news is we have a lot of companies now, for a lot of reasons--the 
fact that we have the most productive, the smartest, most talented 
workforce in the world, we have high productivity in our country--we 
have companies now bringing jobs back and we want to accelerate that, 
to support that effort.
  I am proud that in our automobile industry we are seeing jobs come 
back with support and help from policies that allowed loans to retool 
older plants. Ford Motor Company has taken their largest plant in 
Wayne, MI, and retooled it, along within investment in advanced 
batteries. Jobs are coming back from Mexico. Some are coming from other 
countries as well. GM is doing the same kind of thing, Chrysler--I am 
sure other companies as well. We know many companies, large and small, 
are looking at this.
  Yesterday, I had the opportunity to have in a businessman from 
Michigan who is the CEO of a company called GalaxE.Solutions. He 
actually lives in New Jersey but is now having a major

[[Page S5189]]

presence in Michigan, in Detroit, hiring 500 people in IT, information 
technology. Those are jobs coming back from India, Brazil, China.
  One of the things I heard, as he was talking yesterday, is when we 
look at the bottom line, costs matter. If we have a Tax Code that helps 
him bring jobs back rather than supporting him to take jobs away, to 
ship them overseas, it makes a difference. It matters. It matters not 
only for the cost but for the signal it sends about how serious we are 
in creating jobs in America.
  I cannot imagine anybody who doesn't want to see ``Made in America'' 
again on everything. We are not going to get there if we do not start 
with the basics. That is what this is. I know you have talked about 
this so many times as well. This is about the basic premise of saying 
we are going to stop loopholes in the Tax Code that reward companies 
that are shipping jobs overseas and we are instead going to support and 
incentivize jobs coming back.
  We know there are many other things, in addition to this, that we 
need to do. We need comprehensive tax reform in a global economy. There 
is no question about that. That is something I am confident we will be 
doing in the months ahead and into the next year. We need to do that. 
We need to do it on a bipartisan basis. But that is not a reason not to 
close this loophole, to stop this policy that makes no sense.
  We have a lot more to do. We know that. We need to come together 
around policies that focus on innovation and education and rebuilding 
America and supporting the great entrepreneurs of the country--small 
businesses, large businesses. We know that. There is much to do. But 
today we have a chance to do something. We have a chance to do 
something. This is very straightforward. We have a chance to simply say 
the Tax Code in America is not going to reward or pay for the costs of 
American jobs being shipped overseas. It is as basic as that. No other 
country in the world would do this. They think we are crazy to have 
this kind of policy in place. So today is a chance to say: No, we are 
not crazy. We get it.
  We know there is a lot to do, but let's come together on this issue 
and then we can come together on the next and the next and continue to 
build and rebuild our economy for the future.
  But today is very simple. Today is the day to say no to American 
taxpayers helping to pay the costs for American jobs being shipped 
overseas. It is a day to say yes to supporting, through tax deductions, 
jobs coming back and additional incentives on top of that. I hope my 
colleagues will come together and very strongly vote yes on this 
measure so we can proceed to debate and to pass something that I know 
is strongly supported across our country.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, pursuant to rule 
XXII, the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     proceed to calendar No. 442, S. 3364, a bill to provide an 
     incentive for businesses to bring jobs back to America.
         Harry Reid, Debbie Stabenow, Sheldon Whitehouse, Al 
           Franken, Richard J. Durbin, Sherrod Brown, Richard 
           Blumenthal, Jeff Merkley, Christopher A. Coons, Robert 
           P. Casey, Jr., Benjamin L. Cardin, Jeanne Shaheen, 
           Kirsten E. Gillibrand, Charles E. Schumer, Jack Reed, 
           Barbara A. Mikulksi, John D. Rockefeller IV.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
motion to proceed to S. 3364, a bill to provide an incentive for 
businesses to bring jobs back to America, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Kohl) is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 56, nays 42, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 181 Leg.]

                                YEAS--56

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heller
     Inouye
     Johnson (SD)
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--42

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kyl
     Lee
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Kirk
     Kohl
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 56, the nays are 
42. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am not in a position now to announce no 
more votes today. I hope we can be there in just a little bit, but we 
are trying to work through some procedural matters now, and hopefully 
we can do that within the next half hour or so.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Thank you, Mr. President. I wish to take a moment to 
speak about what just happened and my deep concern about what just 
happened with this vote.
  On the one hand, we have 56 Members, a majority--a substantial 
majority of Members who voted yes, that they want to bring jobs home, 
that they want to stop paying for jobs that have been shipped overseas, 
and that we want to support and provide assistance through the Tax Code 
to bring jobs home. Fifty-six Members--that is a majority. What we 
didn't have is a supermajority to stop a filibuster.
  So this is basically what has been happening here. We have a 
situation where, despite the will of the majority of the people here, 
the majority of Senators who want to move forward to this legislation 
and pass it, because we have 56 votes to pass it, we don't have a 
supermajority. This is what has been happening over and over in the 
Senate despite the fact that people want us to work together and get 
things done.
  What we are trying to do--and we are going to continue to push 
forward--is to say very clearly to businesses that if they are going to 
close shop and ship jobs overseas, it is on their dime, not the 
American taxpayers' dime. We are not going to help pay for it. If they 
want to bring jobs back, we are happy to have our Tax Code allow 
businesses to write off those costs. In fact, we will give businesses 
an extra 20 percent toward those costs.
  This is deeply concerning to me today. I think those watching around 
the country are probably scratching their heads or saying things that 
we probably can't say on the Senate floor about what in the world is 
going on when we can't come together on the simple premise that 
Americans should not be paying for jobs shipped overseas.
  So we are going to keep at it until we get it done. What we ought to 
be unified around is having the words ``Made in America'' on everything 
again in this country. We are going to keep fighting until we can get 
that done.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, while the distinguished Senator from 
Michigan is still on the floor--and she has done such commendable work 
here, as somebody who brought together the Senate Agriculture Committee 
on a very complex farm bill, and in a record amount of time got it 
passed with a heavy bipartisan majority--I think she would

[[Page S5190]]

agree with me that is the way we used to and should do legislation.
  For the life of me, I cannot understand why any Senator would not be 
supporting the Senator from Michigan on the bill. We want jobs here in 
the United States. Everybody will say: We want jobs in the United 
States. Everybody says they want to have tax laws that actually help 
this country. So what do they do? By refusing to allow us to go 
forward, they vote to allow jobs to go overseas. But worse than that, 
it gives special tax breaks. It is almost like saying: Hey, this 
company of yours, these jobs you have, come on, I know a great place 
for you to go overseas. By the way, here is the airplane ticket. Here 
is the special deal. We are not going to give that to a small business 
owner in Vermont or Michigan, but we will give that to you to ship your 
jobs overseas.
  Come on, let's get real. If you took a poll of the American people on 
this: Do you want to close loopholes for shipping jobs overseas or do 
you want to give encouragement to have jobs here in the United States? 
I guarantee you, it would be overwhelmingly passed. The U.S. Senate 
better wake up and say: We will pass it too.
  So I thank the Senator from Michigan.


                   Release of Camp Lejeune Documents

  Mr. President, the distinguished Presiding Officer and I are both 
from Vermont, where we have open and available government. He did in 
his role as mayor of our largest city. He has encouraged it all the way 
through.
  We know that the ``right to know'' is a cornerstone of our democracy. 
During my three decades in the Senate, I have urged Democratic and 
Republican administrations alike to be open and transparent to the 
American people.
  That is why in March I joined a bipartisan group of Members of 
Congress--Senator Grassley, Senator Burr, Senator Hagan, Senator Bill 
Nelson, and Senator Rubio--in writing to Secretary of Defense Panetta 
to request the release of government records regarding the 
contamination of drinking water that occurred over several decades at 
Camp Lejeune Marine Base, in North Carolina.
  The drinking water contamination at Camp Lejeune was one of the worst 
environmental disasters in American history to occur at a domestic 
Department of Defense installation. Unfortunately, the Department of 
Defense initially refused to provide this important information to the 
Congress. But I am pleased to report that after I pursued it further 
with Secretary Panetta, the Department finally provided more than 8,500 
files about this issue to the Judiciary Committee on July 9.
  I commend Secretary Panetta for accommodating the committee's request 
for this information. But I believe that much more transparency is 
needed. I believe it as a U.S. Senator. I believe it as one who 
believes in transparency. I also believe it as a father of a Marine.
  Today, thousands of active and retired Marines who lived on or near 
Camp Lejeune prior to 1987, and their family members, are extremely 
interested in learning more about what occurred, and why.
  In my own State of Vermont, 402 Vermonters have signed in saying they 
are looking to their government to provide more information about this 
calamity.
  Open government is neither a Democratic issue nor a Republican issue. 
It is an American value. It is a virtue that we all have to uphold.
  It is in this bipartisan spirit that I announce I will make all the 
documents the Department of Defense has provided to the Judiciary 
Committee about what happened at Camp Lejeune available to the public. 
These documents can be seen on the Judiciary Committee's Web site. Go 
to www.judiciary.senate.gov. Find out what the documents say about what 
happened at Camp Lejeune.
  To protect the personal privacy of our servicemembers and other 
private information, information that would be subject to the Privacy 
Act, has been redacted from these files. But the Marines and any other 
Americans who have been touched by this environmental disaster deserve 
complete candor from their government. Our uniquely American tradition 
of a government that is open, accountable, and accessible to its people 
demands nothing less.
  Again, I thank Senator Grassley, the committee's distinguished 
ranking member, and Senators Burr, Hagan, Nelson, and Rubio for working 
closely with me on this important transparency issue.
  I say to those Marines, we will find out what happened.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have been able to work things out. We are 
not going to have to be in session--we thought we had it all worked out 
but now we do not.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Lieberman and I and Senator Graham--if he shows up--be allowed to 
engage in a colloquy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                 Syria

  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I join my friend Senator Lieberman again 
on the floor on the issue that has, in my view, transcendent 
consequences not just for the people being massacred in Libya, but also 
for a definition of what the United States of America is all about.
  Yesterday's attack in Syria killed some key leaders of the Assad 
regime, including one of its most notorious and brutal henchmen. It is 
a sign of victory and progress for the Syrian opposition and, 
hopefully, it could be a sign that Assad is losing his hold on power. 
But it is hardly time to celebrate or claim credit.
  I see in the various organs of the administration, such as the New 
York Times that, well, the administration's hands-off policy has been 
successful. Successful? Seventeen thousand Syrians have been massacred 
while this administration has done nothing, and the President has 
refused to even speak up. The President of the United States talks 
about Bain Capital all the time. Why doesn't he talk about the capital 
of Syria where thousands of innocent people have been tortured, raped, 
and murdered?
  So Assad will fall, as the Senator from Connecticut and I have said 
time and time again. But how many more will die before the United 
States of America, first, speaks up for them and, second, helps with 
other countries to provide them with arms and an ability to defend 
themselves and a sanctuary--a no-fly/no-drive sanctuary--and work with 
other countries in the region, accelerating the departure of Bashar 
Assad.
  I will make another point before I ask my friend from Connecticut to 
speak. It seems now that U.S. national security rests not with the 
decisions that should be made in the Halls of Congress and at the White 
House, but that the decisions concerning what actions the United States 
of America may take is now dictated by Russia and China in the United 
Nations. How many times have we heard the administration say: We would 
like to do more and have more happen, but Russia vetoes it in the U.N. 
Security Council?
  Does that mean when these people are being massacred and are crying 
out for our help and moral support, because Russia vetoes a 
resolution--as they did today again, supported by China--in the 
Security Council, therefore we can do nothing?
  Former President Clinton went to Kosovo without a United Nations 
Security Council resolution because he knew the Russians would veto any 
resolution concerning Kosovo. He went and we saved Muslims' lives. The 
administration continues to assume what they call a ``Yemen solution'' 
is possible in Syria. They believe that with Russia's backing, we can 
compel Assad and his top lieutenants to leave power

[[Page S5191]]

and the apparatus of the Syrian State will continue to function under 
new management.
  I wish this could be so. Let me also point this out: I ask my friend 
from Connecticut, isn't it true that the predictions that the longer 
this conflict lasts, the more likely it is that extremists will come in 
and take this revolution, which began peacefully?
  Isn't it true that our concern about weapons of mass destruction and 
the stockpile become more valid every day this goes on? Isn't it a 
valid assumption that Bashar Assad, in his desperation, may use these 
weapons against his own people, and the whole stockpile of those 
weapons becomes more and more tenuous by the day?
  Isn't it true that the likelihood of further chaos, further inability 
to put that country and its people back together after this conflict is 
over and, as we agree, Bashar Assad relieved--but isn't it true that 
every day that goes by and he remains in power the situation becomes 
worse in all respects as far as American national security interests 
are concerned, whether it be weapons of mass destruction, whether it be 
Islamic extremists taking over that country and, by the way, including 
the continued Iranian presence in Syria propping up Hezbollah in 
Lebanon and all of the ramifications of their continued presence there?
  I ask my friend, finally, doesn't this argue and cry out that rather 
than saying, well, what happened yesterday, that was good, and it shows 
Assad is on his way out--but doesn't this indicate it is now more in 
our interest to accelerate his departure, not with American boots on 
the ground but through moral, physical, and logistic support, working 
with our allies?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I say to my friend from Arizona, of 
course, I agree with him. The reality is that the premature judgment 
about the victory of the Syrian freedom fighters is exactly that--
premature. The assassination, elimination of these critical leaders of 
this dictatorial government yesterday by the Syrian opposition was a 
very significant development.
  Apparently, the fighting continues in Damascus in a way that may 
bring exactly what my friend from Arizona says--more chaos in Damascus. 
But this fight is not over. This regime has a devastating inventory of 
weapons, including weapons of mass destruction, and as the Senator from 
Arizona said, Bashar Assad's father used those weapons--in that case, 
chemical weapons--against his own people decades ago, killing thousands 
of them on a single day.
  No, this fight is not over. The danger is that, as he said, it gets 
worse the more it goes on without the involvement of the civilized 
nations of the world that have to be led by the United States of 
America.
  I want to put in juxtaposition two significant events of the last 24 
hours, which my friend has described. One is the suicide bombing, 
apparently, or the death of these leaders of the Assad government. 
Second is the vote in New York at the U.N. today. After months in which 
too much of the civilized world has been pleading with Russia and 
depending on Russia to change its mind and come in and get Bashar Assad 
out of there, this veto today shows they are not going to do it.
  I will yield in a moment because I see the presence of the majority 
leader. First, I will finish this thought.
  The reality is now that the figleaf has been taken off of the plan 
since it went into effect and allegedly brought a cease-fire in Syria, 
thousands more Syrians have been killed. The reality is that Russia 
will not join in trying to stop the slaughter in Syria, and the 
slaughter will only be stopped by facts on the ground, and those facts 
are military. It will not get better until the United States leads a 
coalition of the willing to support the opposition and bring about the 
early end of this horrific regime that now rules Syria.
  With that, I yield the floor to the majority leader.


                           Order of Business

  Mr. REID. Madam President, there will be no further rollcall votes 
today. The next vote will be Monday at 5:30 p.m. on the nomination of 
Michael A. Shipp to be a U.S. district judge for the District of New 
Jersey.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I thank the majority leader. I urge him, 
however possible, to bring up the Defense authorization bill, which I 
hope we can do sooner rather than later, as we have done for the last 
50 years. I thank the majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I had a long conversation yesterday with 
the chairman of the committee and with his ranking member, Senator 
McCain. I understand the importance of the legislation. I know Senator 
McCain is trying to work to narrow the focus of what we do when we get 
on that bill. We will get on that; it is only a question of when.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I want to mention to my friend from 
Connecticut, as we continue this colloquy, there is another aspect of 
this that I would appreciate his comments on.
  We all agree that Bashar Assad will go. We know that. Now, the 
question is how many will die, how many are wounded, how many are 
killed, and what happens to the weapons of mass destruction? I think we 
have established that the longer it goes on, the more those threats 
increase, and the more dangerous the situation becomes, the harder it 
will be to resolve once Bashar Assad does leave.
  I also ask my friend from Connecticut, how will the Syrian people 
feel about the United States of America if we continue to sit by and 
provide them not even moral assistance, much less the physical and 
logistical assistance the Senator and I discussed being necessary. 
Senator Lieberman and I have been to Libya on numerous occasions. I was 
there at an exhilarating moment--at the time of their elections.
  I can tell you firsthand from seeing a couple hundred thousand people 
celebrating that they are grateful to the United States of America for 
what we did. I wonder what the attitude of the people who will emerge 
as the new leaders of Syria--whoever they are--what their attitude will 
be toward the United States, I ask my colleague. Taking into 
consideration that the challenges that whoever takes over power in 
Libya will face are myriad, and there are incredible obstacles to a 
path to a free and democratic nation, that would cry out for American 
assistance, how willing and eager will they be for the United States to 
be engaged in any way in assisting them as they try to achieve the goal 
they have already sacrificed 17,000 lives for?
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Well, the Senator makes a very important point. Let me 
relate it back to one of the excuses that has been given for the United 
States not to have become more involved on the side of the opposition 
to Assad, which is the side of freedom, which is where our national 
values call us to be. One of the excuses for not getting involved is 
this argument: We don't know who is going to follow Assad. It could be 
Islamist extremists.
  Well, my reaction to that is that the longer we sit back, the more 
likely it will be people who are not friendly toward the United States 
because in their hour of need--unlike the situation in Libya that the 
Senator just described--we were not with them. The Senator and I have 
been to Turkey together, and I made a trip to Lebanon. In each case, we 
talked to the leaders. In one case, in Turkey, we spoke to the leaders 
of the Syrian opposition, the Syrian National Council, and we met with 
the heads of the Free Syrian Army and met with individual refugees.
  My own judgment is that these people are not extremists or radicals; 
they are patriots, nationalists, people who want a better life than 
they were living under Assad. Now, increasingly, they are people whose 
relatives or friends have been killed by Assad's military, and so they 
have a fury in them, an anger that they didn't have before because now 
they have been victims.
  Now, can I say that there are no Islamist extremists who are now 
fighting in Syria against Assad? I cannot say that. I think the longer 
we stand back and don't partner openly and strongly with the Syrian 
freedom fighters, the greater the danger is that, one, extremists will 
be what follows Assad and, two, even if we are lucky enough and it is 
not extremists, it will be a leadership group that will not feel any 
particular sense of gratitude toward the United States because we

[[Page S5192]]

were not with them when they needed us.
  Mr. McCAIN. First of all, I wish to point out that I understand--as I 
know my friend from Connecticut does--the focus of the American people 
is on our economy, on jobs, and the severe recession we are in. But I 
say to my friend from Connecticut, I just wish every American could 
have been with us or had seen on film a recording of our visit to the 
refugee camp on the Turkish-Syrian border, with 25,000 refugees--I 
understand now that is up to 35,000 or 40,000 refugees--from Syria. 
These are people who have been driven out of their homes, living not in 
squalid conditions but certainly very crowded and unpleasant 
conditions. They are certainly not the same conditions which they 
enjoyed in Syria. I wish the American people could have seen when we 
met those young children who have been displaced from their homes or 
when we met a group of men who told us about watching their children 
being murdered in front of their eyes and of the young women who had 
been gang raped and hear the defectors from the Syrian military who 
told us their instructions are--in order to try to subdue the people--
to torture, murder, and rape. We know from human rights organizations 
there are torture centers set up around Syria by the Assad military, 
where people are taken and, obviously, tortured.
  The American people are the most generous people in the world. The 
American people, where we can, try to stop these kinds of atrocities 
and offenses that are against everything we stand for and believe in. I 
wish more Americans would know how terrible and dire this situation is 
for the average citizen and not just for those who are demonstrating 
but anybody who happens to be in one of these areas where the tanks 
roll in and the artillery starts firing and the helicopter gunships 
start slaughtering people in the streets.
  I hope I am not saying this in a partisan fashion, but I wish the 
President of the United States would speak up for these people. That is 
the job of the President of the United States--to lead. I wish we in 
Congress would do more in order to help these people because that is a 
long American tradition. Yes, it may require some financial sacrifice 
and maybe materiel sacrifice on the part of the American people, but I 
think the cause is one of transcendent importance.
  I wish to thank my friend from Connecticut for his compassion, his 
concern, and his commitment to these people who live far away.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I thank Senator McCain for his 
leadership. This is one of those cases where we have the opportunity--
and it is painful that we have not taken it over these many months of 
the uprising in Syria--not only to do what is right but to do what is 
best for our country diplomatically. In other words, what is right is 
to be on the side of freedom, to be with the people fighting against a 
brutal dictator. That is the right thing to do. What is right is to 
enter this fight to stop the slaughter of innocent men, women and, 
literally, children. But there also happens to be a strategic 
opportunity.
  I ask my friend from Arizona about this. Does he agree Syria's Assad 
is not only the best friend but the only friend and ally Iran has in 
the Middle East? Iran is our No. 1 strategic threat in the world today; 
the No. 1 state sponsor of terrorism, in a headlong effort to build 
nuclear weapons that will totally change the peace of the world if they 
get them. So here we have an opportunity not only to do what is morally 
right but to help overthrow the best friend of our worst enemy--Iran.
  As the Senator remembers--we were there together--when GEN James 
Mattis, a great American military leader and head of Central Command 
overseeing the Middle East, said that if Assad is overthrown, it will 
be the worst setback Iran has suffered in more than a quarter of a 
century. That will, in turn, I think, open tremendous new possibilities 
in Lebanon, which has been under the Syrian-Iranian influence. Even in 
Iraq, where the new Iraqi Government has felt, I think, pressured on 
both sides from Iran and Iran's ally Syria on the other side, if Syria 
is not controlled by an Iranian puppet, I think we may see some more 
independence from Iraq that we would like to see.
  I ask the Senator from Arizona if he agrees there is not just a moral 
imperative but an extraordinary strategic opportunity here to get in 
and shape history.
  Mr. McCAIN. I would say my friend from Connecticut is exactly right. 
Both he and I visited Lebanon recently, and the fact is that Hezbollah 
basically controls the government with a Prime Minister who is not 
Hezbollah but who was put into power by Hezbollah, and their country is 
basically gridlocked as well. If Syria goes, Bashar Assad goes. That 
connection between Iran and Hezbollah will be severed and the people of 
Lebanon will have a great opportunity to have what once was a very 
thriving democracy restored.
  Finally, I would like to mention to my friend one of the things that 
surprises me from time to time as I have traveled to places such as 
Burma, whose people were recently freed. I met three men there who were 
in prison, one of whom had been there for 18 years and another for 22 
years. When I have traveled to Libya, as I was for the elections the 
other day, when I have been in Egypt and I have met some of the young 
people who were part of the revolution, and in Tunisia, where we met 
the young people there and the new government there, much to my 
surprise, to some degree, they pay attention to what we say. They pay 
attention.
  These three men who were imprisoned for over 20 years said: Thank you 
for what you said. We listened to you in prison. The people in Libya on 
election night, waving little Libyan flags, were saying thank you. 
Thank you, America. Thank you. Thank you, Senator McCain, for saying 
that. The people in Syria are listening and will find out what we are 
saying today on the floor of the Senate.
  Does it matter much? I don't know. But the people in Syria know there 
are some of us who are committed and will not rest until this massacre 
stops, until these terrible atrocities cease, and that we will continue 
to do everything we can to provide them with the kind of moral 
assistance, which is a vital ingredient in continuing their resistance, 
and the materiel assistance which provides them the wherewithal to gain 
their freedom.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Senator. I want to make clear, as we 
finish, what we are talking about.
  What are we asking our government to do? We are not asking our 
government to put American troops on the ground in Syria. They do not 
need American troops. They have fierce patriotic fighters. What they 
need first from us is an open declaration that we are on the side of 
the Syrian opposition.
  The second is, I believe they need us to organize a coalition of the 
willing, just as Senator McCain said President Clinton did in the case 
of Kosovo, without the United Nations supporting it. Again, it was a 
Russian veto that stood in the way.
  Mr. McCAIN. President Clinton said his greatest regret was that we 
did not intervene in Rwanda, where some 800,000 people were massacred.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Absolutely. So we have to learn from those lessons of 
history. There is a coalition of the willing waiting to be formed here, 
if only we in the United States will show leadership. Nobody is asking 
us and we are not asking for unilateral American action.
  There is no question we have allies in the Arab world who are already 
involved in supporting the opposition in Syria--namely Saudi Arabia and 
Qatar, which would join us. I believe there may be one or more European 
countries that would join us. There are other Arab countries that would 
join us.
  What are we asking? Let us increase the flow of weapons and training 
to the opposition. I think it is time for us to use American air power 
to at least impose a no-fly zone over Syria because the Syrians are now 
using gunships, and I fear they will begin to use fighters to attack 
their civilian population and create and spread the kind of fear they 
now depend upon.
  It is a coalition in support of the opposition, it is weapons and 
training, it is sanctuaries where they can be trained and equipped, and 
it is the use of air power against this regime which I think will not 
only deal a devastating blow to their regime but will make the 
remaining supporters it has in the

[[Page S5193]]

military and in the business community despair and see the end is near 
and abandon Assad.
  Have I stated correctly what the Senator from Arizona feels we want 
this government of ours to be doing now in regard to Syria?
  Mr. McCAIN. I think the Senator is exactly right and has described it 
well.
  There is an element also that adds more urgency, of which I know the 
Senator from Connecticut is very well aware; that is, that published 
media reports have talked about the fact that weapons of mass 
destruction--which, apparently, Bashar Assad has significant stocks 
of--have been moved around. For what purpose those weapons have been 
moved around is not known. But it is not an unbelievable scenario that, 
in final desperation, Bashar Assad would behave as his father did and 
use these chemical weapons and slaughter unknown numbers of people.
  Again, that information lends urgency to bringing him down, to having 
it happen as quickly as possible, and that, of course, means the kind 
of engagement the Senator from Connecticut just described.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank my friend. I feel disappointed we continue to 
have to return to the floor to make these pleas. I hope we come to a 
day soon when we come to the floor to celebrate the victory of freedom 
and the defeat of Assad the dictator. May it happen soon.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that for the 
next half hour, myself, Senator Mikulski, Senator Blumenthal, Senator 
Coons, and Senator Blunt, and also, should they come, Senator Graham 
and Senator Kyl be allowed to engage in a colloquy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Cyber and Critical Infrastructure

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Our topic is the urgency of the need to protect our 
privately held critical infrastructure--the power grid, the machines 
that process our financial transactions, and the communications 
networks that connect our BlackBerrys and our phones.
  In this area, no one is more expert than Senator Mikulski, who is a 
senior member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, helped draft the 
Senate intelligence report on cyber, and has the pen as the cardinal 
for the budgets of most of the agencies that are relevant to this 
discussion. So let me lead immediately to Senator Mikulski, who has 
been enormously helpful in this arrangement.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Senator from Rhode Island, a former member 
of the Intelligence Committee and an activist in this area.
  Madam President and colleagues, I am happy to be on the floor with a 
bipartisan group of people who are really worried about our country, 
and we are worried about its survivability in the event of a cyber 
attack.
  Cyber attacks are not the work of science fiction, though they were 
once written about. That which was once science fiction is now a hard 
reality that could cripple our country and bring it to the ground. We 
have to come up with the legislative framework to be able to protect 
dot.com and also be able to protect critical infrastructure. I am 
talking about something that could create catastrophic economic damage, 
severe degradation.
  Why am I obsessed about it? Let's take the grid. There are those who 
say America runs on oil. Barbara Mikulski says it runs on electricity. 
You cannot have a community without electricity. Look at what happened 
to us in this north capital region when, 2 weeks ago, we had this 
freaky storm. We nearly came to our knees. Metro couldn't function, 
stoplights were out, and communication went down. People didn't have 
access to many communications. Their homes were without electricity, 
food went bad, and tempers rose. We could not function as a community.
  The good news is that no matter how late the utilities were in coming 
in to respond, they could turn the lights back on, they could turn the 
electricity back on. But I will tell you, in a cyber attack, that 
international predator will fix it so that we won't be able to turn it 
back on or not turn it on for hours, days, or weeks. Do you know what 
that means? They want to humiliate us, they want to intimidate us, and 
they want to terrorize us.
  We have it within our hands to pass legislation that would bring the 
appropriate sources together for our privately owned critical 
infrastructure to be able to make the significant efforts, and I 
believe we need to incentivize them to be able to protect us. I don't 
want to wake up one day and find out America has been hit because of 
gridlock here. And I will tell you, if we are hit, we will overreact, 
we will overspend, we will overregulate, and we will go over the top.
  I want to listen to my other colleagues, but we have to get off of 
our pet peeves here and move America to a safe result.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I am very honored and proud to 
follow the Senator from Maryland, who has been such an extraordinary 
leader in so many areas and, most prominently and recently, this one 
that involves the future of our country. I thank the Senator from Rhode 
Island for his leadership and my colleague, Senator Coons of Delaware, 
because he has been at the forefront. This issue truly is bipartisan. 
Senator Blunt has played a leading role, as have Senator Graham and 
Senator Kyl and, of course, Senators Lieberman and Collins and Senator 
McCain, who was on the floor before, and Senator Chambliss. This kind 
of amassing senatorial consensus reflects the urgency and immediacy of 
this problem. Our Nation is under attack.
  I came today from a meeting with one of the major accounting and 
consulting companies in the United States, whose name would be 
immediately recognizable to you, and by happenstance, sheer 
coincidence, he said to me that his company is attacked literally 1,000 
times a day. His company has information that is intensely valuable and 
private and has taken steps to safeguard itself. But the magnitude of 
this attack on this single company and others like it that may have 
intellectual property lost to this country if it gets stolen by hackers 
and by other nations reflects the seriousness and importance of this 
issue.
  Time is not on our side. We must act immediately. The Senate must 
follow its duty and make sure we meet the challenge, No. 1, of bringing 
together all the stakeholders to enhance the resiliency of our critical 
infrastructure systems. Much of this infrastructure lies beyond the 
purview of the Federal Government. Cybersecurity is a major concern of 
both the government and the private sector. There must be a partnership 
between them; it is not for either to do alone.
  Today, the computers that control energy and manufacturing, water, 
and chemical facilities across the country are connected via the 
Internet. None of them is an island. No one is an island in the 
Internet age. We are all under attack when any one of us is under 
attack.
  I believe we have a path forward to strengthen protection of our 
Nation's network industrial control systems without heavyhanded 
regulation and in partnership with the businesses that own the systems. 
Many are already pursuing best practices. Many already are addressing 
this threat. And my hope is that the legislation coming forward as a 
result of the leadership by my colleagues here today will make sure 
these best practices become common practices and uniform to every 
industry so that access to controls and audits and monitoring is done 
systemically.
  Finally, let me emphasize--and I think this point is especially 
critical to many who are watching this process today--we can make 
progress in strengthening the privacy and civil liberties protection in 
cybersecurity while preserving its underlying goal of safeguarding the 
Nation.
  Americans have become aware of the need to protect online privacy. As 
I

[[Page S5194]]

have seen personally in my contacts with the citizens of Connecticut, 
they are outraged and fearful about frequent reports of massive data 
breaches and the theft of personal information as a result of the very 
hacking that threatens private industry and the government. Hacking and 
spear phishing attacks that have become a daily occurrence in our lives 
threaten our privacy, our financial integrity, and our security.
  A recent United Technologies National Journal poll found that 62 
percent of respondents believe that government and businesses should 
not be allowed at all to share information because it would hurt 
privacy and civil liberties. That same poll found that 67 percent of 
those surveyed said they were either very or somewhat concerned about 
threats to our country's computer networks. The two anxieties go hand 
in hand, they fit together, and we must find a path forward on this 
legislation reconciling these views.
  I personally believe this cybersecurity is compatible with privacy 
protection and with the liberties--including the liberty to go to court 
and protect the individual rights--that are so integral and fundamental 
to our constitutional protections and American civil liberties. We can 
make sure adequate protections are in place.
  Again, this task is one we must address--and address it now.
  I again thank the Senator from Rhode Island, and I yield to him.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Let me welcome Senator Blunt to the discussion and 
invite him to chime in now. He has been a very important voice in the 
bipartisan discussions on how we can find a proper way to protect 
American privately owned critical infrastructure. He is a consummately 
experienced legislator from the House and has been a great addition to 
the Senate, and we welcome him to the discussion.
  Mr. BLUNT. I thank the Senator from Rhode Island for his kind 
comments.
  I wish to comment on a couple of things that have been said, and one 
by my friend from Connecticut that there are competing concerns here 
and they don't need to be mutually exclusive at all.
  When we talk about cybersecurity, we are not talking about the 
government somehow securing everything that happens in the cyber world; 
we are talking about, what are the things we can identify and agree on 
as critical infrastructure? There is a lot of security about what 
happens on the military cyberspace, dot-mil, and a lot of comfort about 
what happens in the government part, the dot-gov. What we are concerned 
about is what is outside those two networks that doesn't have the kind 
of protection those networks have, not about controlling everything--in 
fact, about defining specifically in the most limited way possible what 
is critical to the ongoing daily operation of the country. Senator 
Mikulski talked about that. She also said that if something happens, 
there is no telling what kind of legislation will pass. And I couldn't 
agree more with that comment in every way I can think of.
  We are going to pass a cybersecurity bill at some time, I believe, in 
the not too distant future, and it will either be in the kind of 
environment the four Senators along with me here on the floor have been 
working to create, where we do this in the most thoughtful way, we do 
this in a way that has taken time to bring people together and have a 
discussion, or in a post-cyber attack moment, like a post-9/11 moment, 
and who knows what we might do. I think Senator Mikulski said wisely 
and rightly that it will go further than it should go and it will cost 
more than it should cost because then we are reacting, and that is what 
we need to avoid.
  We can do this in the right way or the wrong way, and the wrong way 
would be waiting too long. The right way is to do this now. You don't 
have to be well read into the intelligence community. I have a chance 
to be on that committee with Senator Mikulski. I served on the House 
committee when Senator Whitehouse was on the Senate committee and know 
they have long been advocates of securing this part of our 
vulnerability. But you don't have to be on the Intelligence Committee 
or even have access to the information that all Senators have to know 
that this is believed to be our greatest area of vulnerability. And why 
is it? Because it involves everything. It involves how we communicate, 
it involves how we get gasoline, and it involves how we power 
everything from the drinking water system to the electricity at home.
  A windstorm created all kinds of problems. Two different 30-minute-
or-so stops on the Metro system in the Washington area because the 
screen went blank caused all kinds of problems. Imagine that multiplied 
by whatever multiple you want to use, and the country would quickly not 
be functioning in any way--traffic in Washington, traffic anywhere in 
the country, trying to get from one gas station to the other only to 
find out that, by the way, the gas pumps don't work because the 
electricity is out and your car doesn't have enough gas.
  This is a huge problem. How do we define that critical 
infrastructure, and how do we do that in a way that is the most 
responsible, as Senator Blumenthal said, protecting civil liberties at 
the same time that we are carefully carving out that spot where 
government does have some obligation to make that area secure, and if 
we can do that in a way that encourages people to get into that 
environment.
  One of the things Senator Coons has been talking about--a former 
local government executive who knows all of the impact of police and 
fire and the court system and everything else he had to be responsible 
for, as well as his private sector work--has brought real value to this 
discussion. Somebody told me the other day, if you are in almost any 
kind of business, you have either been attacked, are going to be 
attacked, or you are being attacked right now as people are trying to 
figure out--maybe for malicious purposes, maybe just to see if they can 
do it--how they can get into your system. And Senator Coons has been so 
helpful in these discussions. I would like to hear what his thinking 
today is on this and where you are, talking about this on the floor.
  Mr. COONS. I very much thank Senator Blunt. Thank you for helping to 
contribute to the bipartisan, positive tone of our deliberations. I 
thank my friend, the Senator from Rhode Island, for his leadership both 
in today's colloquy and in pulling together the language and partners, 
and Senator Mikulski, who started off our conversation today by 
reminding us as Senator Blunt has that it was a terrible storm in this 
area that knocked out power for a couple of days that gave a bracing 
reminder to the community around Washington, DC, just how much we rely 
in this modern economy of ours, on continuous, uninterrupted power.
  That storm was an act of God. That storm was a random meteorological 
event. But as all of us have spoken--Senator Blumenthal also commented 
on this--we know as Members of the Senate that there are daily efforts 
at attacks on the United States far more devastating, far more far-
reaching than that transitory storm. For us not to act, for us to fail 
to act in a bipartisan, thoughtful, and responsible way would be the 
worst sort of dereliction of duty.
  All of us have been in secure briefings with folks from four-star and 
three-letter agencies with the most central roles in our intelligence 
community, in our national security agencies. But this is not something 
that only those of us in the Congress know or only those in the higher 
reaches of executive branch leadership know. This is now broadly, 
publicly well known. The water is rising, the storms are coming, and we 
need to incentivize the private sector that is responsible for running 
most of our essential infrastructure to man the barricades, to fill the 
sandbags, and to take on the responsibility in a thoughtful, balanced, 
and responsible way of preparing for the wave of highly effective 
cyber-attacks that are currently underway and that will crescendo soon.
  We have heard public comments that are remarkable. The Chairman of 
the Joint Chiefs, General Dempsey, has said an effective cyber-attack 
could literally stop society in its tracks. As Senator Blunt mentioned, 
as a county executive I was responsible for emergency response, and all 
over this country cities, counties, and States are trying to understand 
how to prepare for the consequences of a cyber-attack.
  We are not talking about trying to craft legislation that would deal 
with

[[Page S5195]]

every possible cyber harm, every possible cyber crime. We are talking 
about those few incidents that would be likely driven by a nation state 
or by a terribly advanced and sophisticated terrorist group that would 
strike at the very heart of what makes our modern society vibrant and 
that would have mass casualty consequences, dramatic impact on our 
economy, or wipe out whole sectors for days or weeks, such as a failure 
of the power grid.
  This is not exotic. We just had another public hearing on the Energy 
and Natural Resources Committee and were warned yet again of what the 
Department of Homeland Security documented back in 2007 in their Aurora 
exercise, that our power grid, nationally interconnected, vital to the 
modern economy, is fragile, is vulnerable to cyber-attacks. We have 
seen this unfold overseas. The small Baltic nation of Estonia was the 
victim of a comprehensive cyber-attack. They saw also in 2007 banks, 
media outlets, government entities that collapsed, bank cards, mobile 
phones, government services over a 3-week period completely shut down.
  Is there a real threat? Absolutely. Are we doing enough to face it? I 
don't think so. I don't think we have yet done enough. There is 
legislation that has been brought forward by a whole group of Senators 
led by Senators Lieberman and Collins that I hope this body will turn 
to in the days ahead and find ways to balance. As Senator Blumenthal 
said previously, we live in a country where we must continue to respect 
the powerful, passionate commitment to individual privacy and civil 
liberties. But I think we can, with narrowly targeted, appropriately 
crafted legislation that incentivizes and encourages the private 
sector, take on the role, appropriately informed by those from 
throughout Federal Government, to strengthen their defenses against 
these coming attacks. I don't think we have to make a choice between 
privacy and security and I do think we can give the private sector the 
tools to make our country safe and strong.
  But those who view new cyber regulations as onerous, as burdensome, 
as overly expensive for the private sector, as threatening needlessly 
our privacy, have an obligation to come forward with a credible 
alternative before it is too late.
  Today we are, frankly, leaving our country wide open to attack. As we 
recently heard in floor speeches by both Senator Blumenthal and Senator 
Whitehouse, when private sector companies, even the most technically 
sophisticated, are contacted by our government and told they have been 
the victim of a successful intrusion and attack, in nearly 90 percent 
of the cases they were utterly unaware. We need to strengthen 
information sharing. We need to develop robust standards of defense. We 
need to help invest in building up the infrastructure protection of 
this country, and it is the most vital thing I can think of that this 
country could turn to.
  Let me close with this for my moment, if I could. I had a chance to 
have lunch last week with Senator Daniel Inouye. That was for me a 
great honor, a chance to sit with him and visit and ask his advice. He 
made one comment to me in closing. He is the only Member of this body 
who was at Pearl Harbor. He shared with me that in his view the next 
Pearl Harbor, the next unexpected massive attack that could hurt the 
United States, will come from cyber. It is our obligation to take that 
lesson seriously and to legislate in a bipartisan, thoughtful but swift 
and effective way.
  So, I say to Senator Whitehouse, I am grateful for his leadership of 
our efforts in this regard.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I agree with Senator Coons, and more important than 
me agreeing with him, the Secretary of Defense of the United States of 
America agrees with him. He has said, ``The next Pearl Harbor we 
confront could very well be a cyberattack,'' and that is an exact 
quote.
  I wish to turn back to Senator Mikulski for a moment, as the person 
who is in charge of the appropriations for these key agencies, because 
there is a sense in some quarters that if you leave the private sector 
on its own to do this, they will be fine. I think the evidence we have 
heard in a series of hearings that Senator Mikulski, Senator Blunt, 
myself, and Senator Kyl cochaired, bipartisan hearings--Senator Coons 
came to virtually all of them, and to their great credit Senator 
Lieberman and Senator Collins came to virtually all of them--the 
testimony we heard was that was not the case.
  Some of the public commentary, our Deputy Secretary of Defense Ashton 
Carter says:

       There is a market failure at work here . . . companies are 
     not willing to admit vulnerabilities to themselves, or 
     publicly to shareholders, in such a way as to support the 
     necessary investments or lead their peers down a certain path 
     of investment and all that would follow.

  That is a bipartisan sentiment. Mike Chertoff, who is the former head 
of DHS, said:

       The marketplace is likely to fail in allocating the correct 
     amount of investment to manage risk across the breadth of the 
     networks on which our society relies.

  Senator Coons pointed out 9 out of 10 of the companies contacted by 
the NCI JTF, when they became aware they were attacked, had no idea 
they had been attacked.
  I will turn to Senator Mikulski to make her comment on this. It is a 
public-private partnership here.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank Senator Whitehouse for what he said and the 
fact we really had a great study group, both sides of the aisle eager 
for information, eager to come up with the best policies.
  Much has been said about the private sector. I talk to the private 
sector a lot because of our work on the committees, and the private 
sector is looking for leadership. They are looking for a framework. 
They worry that overregulation could be both costly and strangulating; 
would we be so prescriptive that we mandate--first of all, that we 
mandate, and that we essentially mandate dated technology because this 
is a fast-moving, evolving field. They are looking for us to give a 
legislative framework where they could work with their government on 
what they want to bring to the table and feel free, because of certain 
proprietary concerns, to do it.
  I talked to people who have responsibility for delivering power in 
Maryland. They are working. Edison Institute, which represents 
essentially the electric companies and the grid, would like us to have 
a framework. They want to be at the table. They want to know who is in 
charge, who do you call, what do you do in the event of an attack.
  When you say to them how can we prevent the attack, they say that is 
where we need government, to tell us where you think we are heading, to 
bring the great Federal labs to bear with their ideas and how do you do 
this in a way that encourages not whatever government is going to do 
but voluntary efforts, but voluntary efforts with some teeth, some 
standards to be met--standards that are not prescriptive, that could be 
dated, but again the ever evolving of the state of science.
  I think we have the elements. Where the problem is, is not do we know 
what to do, but the problem is are we going to do it and can we put 
aside where we make the perfect the enemy of the good. Colin Powell had 
a great phrase: ``America always needs to seek the sensible center.'' 
That is what I am talking about here. I want to protect civil 
liberties. I certainly do want to protect civil liberties. But you know 
the first civil liberty is that you can turn your lights on, and when 
you go to bed you know your refrigerator is going to be working; the 
stoplights are going to be working when you wake up the next day; or if 
your child is at school or at camp, you are going to be able to get to 
that child, and that 911 is going to be working if you call 911. That 
is civil liberty. It means you can function in a free and democratic 
society but that you are not terrified that you are literally in the 
dark, you are literally in the cold, you have no power politically, you 
have no power with electricity. It is all because we failed that.
  I think we can do that. I think Senators Lieberman and Collins have 
given us a great only starting point. I think to use the language of 
our future Super Bowl champions, the Ravens, which will happen, we are 
beyond the 50-yard line. We can do this.
  I hope in the spirit we came here today, we need a sense of urgency, 
we need a bipartisan effort, and we need the will to serve America and 
put that interest first.

[[Page S5196]]

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Senator Blunt.
  Mr. BLUNT. I think Senator Mikulski made the case so well here, too. 
When we looked at this, when we have gone through exercises, the power 
grid is where you go first because it is the most dramatic, I suppose. 
But there are so many other places you could go--the description of the 
financial networks. Suddenly business stops. I was making a list here. 
We were talking of the kinds of things that could be at risk through 
some kind of cyber-attack--everything from electromagnetic pulse attack 
to literally a cyber-attack that comes into these various networks.
  There are 111 powerplants in Missouri. In our State alone, there are 
111 powerplants. They are all in some way or another hooked into the 
grid. They can be disabled in a significant way. I was talking to a 
friend of mine who, during the last few days, was in West Virginia with 
their family. Driving to West Virginia, the electricity was out and 
they began to see abandoned cars because nobody could get to a gas 
station, and if they could get to a gas station, it was closed. So 
there were cars all over the place. That is assuming you can even get 
out of the traffic mess you would be in in more urban areas. But where 
would you go? What would you do? The desperation we understand. It 
would be something that is preventable if we prevent it. It is 
something that is preventable in ways that--particularly Senator 
Whitehouse has been thoughtful in putting together ideas of how you 
encourage people to voluntarily want to get into this space, to where 
they have assistance that they would not otherwise have, where they 
have assurances that they have done everything they could do to prevent 
this from happening.
  Frankly, if we do everything we can do to prevent this from 
happening, there is a chance it will not happen. But if we do not, 
there is certainty it will happen. We know that. I am glad my 
colleagues are here. I hope the Senate turns to this issue and we have 
a full and free debate because if we are united on this in a bipartisan 
way, that finds that sensible answer Senator Mikulski was talking 
about.
  Senator Whitehouse.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I thank the Senator from Missouri. I will wrap up by 
making three points and I will make them briefly. I have given remarks 
at greater length in these areas before so I think my position on this 
is pretty clear.
  One is, protecting our critical infrastructure, the privately owned 
systems our way of life depends on, is the weak point we need to 
address. We do well with dot-mil, we do well with dot-gov. The 
government has the authority to provide all of its resources to protect 
those. We don't particularly care about ordinary Web sites, about chat 
rooms--we do not want to interfere with those anyway. It is just the 
critical infrastructure that is important, the privately held 
infrastructure. We really need to work on that. The warnings from our 
national security leaders are across the board: Secretary of Defense 
Panetta, NSA Cyber Command and Director Keith Alexander, Director of 
National Intelligence Clapper, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet 
Napolitano, Attorney General Holder, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 
of Staff Mark Dempsey have all clearly expressed the danger of this 
threat.
  The second point, it is bipartisan. The former Director of National 
Intelligence and NSA Director Mike McConnell has said:

       The United States is fighting a cyber-war today, and we are 
     losing. It's that simple. As the most wired nation on Earth, 
     we offer the most targets of significance, yet our cyber-
     defenses are woefully lacking. . . . [W]ith cybersecurity, 
     the time to start was yesterday.

  Former Assistant Secretary for Policy at the Department of Homeland 
Security Baker said:

       We must begin now to protect our critical infrastructure 
     from attack.

  A great number of national security officials, bipartisan, wrote a 
letter to us in the Senate and said:

       The threat is only going to get worse. Inaction is not an 
     acceptable option.
       Protection of our critical infrastructure is essential in 
     order to effectively protect our national and economic 
     security from the growing cyber threat.

  As I said earlier in introducing Senator Mikulski, there is indeed a 
market failure that has been identified in a bipartisan fashion. The 
facts prove it because so often when public or private sector folks 
respond to an intrusion, they find 90 percent of the time the company 
had no idea it was hacked.
  Even the Chamber of Commerce was hacked and had Chinese infiltrators 
with access to all of their computers for months. When the Aurora bug 
hit Google and others, only 3 out of 30 companies were aware of it. So 
the private sector does need a supportive government. We, in turn, from 
the government side have to make sure the burden is not unreasonable 
and make sure we are doing this in as light, as sensible, and voluntary 
as is possible and consistent with the mission of actually protecting 
our cybersecurity.
  In the Bush administration, the Assistant Attorney General was Jack 
Goldsmith, who is now at the Harvard Law School. He has written about 
this very issue. He wrote:

       [T]he government is the only institution with the resources 
     and the incentives to ensure that the [critical 
     infrastructure] on which we all depend is secure, and we must 
     find a way for it to meet its responsibilities.

  I thank Senator Mikulski, Senator Blunt, Senator Blumenthal, and 
Senator Coons for participating in this colloquy today. I thank our 
group and the group I just mentioned. In addition I would like to thank 
Senator Kyl, Senator Graham, and Senator Coats for the bipartisan work 
that has been done to try to find a way forward to protect critical 
infrastructure.
  Again, I thank Senator Blunt, Senator Kyl, and Senator Mikulski for 
the series of private briefs and classified briefings that have helped 
build the momentum toward this effort.
  I think we can get this done. It is essential we do. I appreciate the 
work of my colleagues in making this happen.
  I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Blumenthal). The Senator from Rhode 
Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Global Warming

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I come to the floor most every week to 
discuss the issue that I think is the one that Members of Congress in 
this era are most likely to be judged on in the future; that is, the 
relentless carbon pollution of our atmosphere that we are engaged in 
and the changes in our climate and in our oceans that are very visibly 
happening as a result.
  I know there are many interests in Washington that would prefer us to 
ignore this issue, but just because they ignore it and just because 
they want us to ignore it doesn't mean it is going anywhere. The 
country, as we have heard in the last few weeks, has baked in record 
heat. I think it was Bloomberg News that described the Midwest farmers 
as farming in hell. It has been scorched by drought, driven by 
unprecedented wildfires, and that has resulted in an increasing amount 
of chatter in the news and even some conversation on the Senate floor 
about climate change.
  Some have tried to say there is no relation, but I want to talk a 
little bit about the science of what we see happening around our 
country and around the world.
  There is an interesting report that I would mention. I am not going 
to put it in the Record because it is too large. It is called ``The 
State of the Climate in 2011,'' a special supplement to the bulletin of 
the American Meteorological Society.
  What we see is that 2012 is shaping up to look a lot like 2011, which 
Deputy NOAA Administrator Kathryn Sullivan called ``a year of extreme 
events, both in the United States and around the world.'' The report I 
just showed is a peer-reviewed report. It was compiled by 37 scientists 
from 48 countries.
  As explained by Dr. Sullivan, and I quote her:

       Every weather event that happens now takes place in the 
     context of a changing global environment. This annual report 
     provides scientists and citizens alike with an analysis of 
     what has happened so we can all prepare for what is to come.

  Here are some of the highlights from the American Meteorological 
Society report. The first generally is that

[[Page S5197]]

warm temperature trends are continuing. Four independent datasets show 
2011 was one of the 15 warmest years since recordkeeping began in the 
late 19th century, and yet one of the coolest since 2008. The average 
temperature for 2011 was higher than the 30-year annual average 
temperature. The Arctic continued to warm at about twice the rate 
compared with lower latitudes.
  On the opposite pole, the South Pole Station recorded its all-time 
highest temperature of 9.9 degrees Fahrenheit on December 25, Christmas 
Day, breaking the previous record for warm weather around the South 
Pole by more than 2 degrees.
  So the warm temperature trends continue. The other major finding of 
the report is that greenhouse gases continue to climb. Major greenhouse 
gas concentrations like carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide 
continued to rise. Carbon dioxide steadily increased in 2011, and the 
yearly global average exceeded 390 parts per million for the first time 
since instrumental records began. This represents an increase of 2.10 
parts per million over the previous year.
  I would note that the Arctic sampling stations have for the first 
time in history recorded concentrations over 400 parts per million. 
That is an ominous number because the Arctic tends to be the leading 
edge for these indicators. There is no evidence that natural emissions 
of methane in the Arctic have increased significantly during the last 
decade, so they have not yet contributed to this steady increase. But 
there could be significant increases of methane in the future as the 
tundra thaws and as methane captured under the permafrost is released.
  Arctic sea ice is decreasing. Arctic sea ice extent was below average 
for all of 2011 and has been since June of 2001. It is a span of 127 
consecutive months through December of 2011. Both the maximum ice 
extent, which was 5.67 million square miles on March 7, and the minimum 
extent, 1.67 square miles on September 9, were the second smallest 
measurements for maximum and for minimum of the satellite era.
  A fourth finding is that sea surface temperature and ocean heat 
content continue to rise. Even with La Nina conditions occurring during 
most of the year, the 2011 global sea surface temperature was among the 
12 highest years on record. Ocean heat content measured from the 
surface down to 2,300 feet deep continued to rise since records again 
being taken in 1993, and ocean heat content was at a record high.
  In addition to putting 2011 into the context of these longer trends 
and timelines, the researchers from NOAA and the U.K. Meteorological 
Office also examined the link between climate change and extreme 
weather events that occurred in 2011. Here is what they say:

       In the past it was often stated that it simply was not 
     possible to make an attribution statement about an individual 
     weather or climate event. However, scientific thinking on 
     this issue has moved on and now it is widely accepted--

  Widely accepted--

     that attribution statements about individual weather or 
     climate events are possible, provided proper account is taken 
     of the probabilistic nature of attribution.

  So let me be clear. It is still not correct to say that any weather 
event specifically is or is not directly caused by climate change. 
However, what these researchers have done is evaluate methods to see if 
the probability of this event occurring has changed by a particular 
percentage given the changing climate. Have we, in effect, loaded the 
dice in our atmosphere to make extreme weather events more likely? And 
not only have we loaded the dice, but how loaded are the dice? How are 
the odds changing?
  This paper evaluated six events from last year, and here are some of 
those findings:
  La Nina-related heat waves such as that experienced in Texas in 2011 
are now 20 times more likely to occur during La Nina today than during 
La Nina years 50 years ago. So we have loaded the dice for these events 
to happen during the La Nina years by a factor of 20. That is a pretty 
heavy increase.
  Researchers evaluated a very warm November that the United Kingdom 
experienced in 2011. They found that warm Novembers are now 62 times 
more likely for the region. Again, not only are the dice loaded for 
unusual weather events, they are loaded with big numbers.
  The next month, December 2011, was very cold. Researchers found that 
cold Decembers were 50 percent less likely to occur now versus 50 years 
ago.
  Moving on to 2012, I wish to mention another event that happened this 
week. On Monday, researchers at the University of Delaware and the 
Canadian Ice Service reported that a 46-square-mile chunk of ice broke 
off from the Petermann Glacier on the northwest coast of Greenland. 
This piece of ice is two times the size of Manhattan. In August 2010, a 
piece four times the size of Manhattan separated from the glacier. This 
most recent breakoff of the Petermann Glacier puts the glacier's end 
point where it has not been for 150 years.
  Andreas Muenchow, a researcher at the University of Delaware, said:

       The Greenland ice sheet as a whole is shrinking, melting 
     and reducing in size as a result of globally changing air and 
     ocean temperatures and associated changes in circulation 
     patterns in both the ocean and the atmosphere.

  When we change the temperature, we change the circulation patterns. 
Those go hand in hand.
  Relatedly, an article published in Science magazine examined data 
from not the Arctic areas but the tropic areas from coral reefs around 
the world. The researchers concluded that sea levels during the last 
warming period, which is most similar to today's climate, were roughly 
18 to 30 feet higher than today. That is about 6 to 10 feet higher than 
previous estimates had projected. The likely culprit: more melting of 
the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets than was previously assumed.
  All of this evidence, these changing trends and emerging science 
evaluating increased probability of extreme weather events, ought to be 
enough for us to consider limiting our greenhouse gas emissions. It 
ought to be enough of a warning for us to stop what is presently an 
uncontrolled experiment that we are conducting on our planet. We should 
do this while we still can.
  Yet, unfortunately, there are special interests in Washington who 
deny that carbon pollution causes global temperatures to rise; deny 
that melting icecaps destabilize our climate so that regions face 
extreme drought or outsized precipitation events; deny that they have 
any responsibility to do anything about this. These special interests 
have a strong grip on Washington and on Congress. They pretend to us 
and to the American public that the jury is actually still out on 
climate change caused by carbon pollution, that we should wait, we 
should let them continue with business as usual and wait for the 
verdict to come in. Well, they are wrong. The jury is not still out. 
The verdict is, indeed, in, and their claims to the contrary are, 
frankly, outright false.
  This is a pattern, actually, that has manifested itself with other 
industries in the past. The lead paint industry, the tobacco industry, 
and others have all had legions of scientists who have been willing to 
manufacture enough doubt about the danger of the product--tobacco is 
safe to smoke, lead paint won't hurt children, that sort of thing--so 
as to delay public safety action that would protect the public from 
their product. They obviously have a motive in doing that because they 
want to keep selling their product and keep making profits, but the 
cost has been terribly high to the public when we have listened to that 
kind of science. Unfortunately, we are listening to that now again. We 
should not be fooled. The vast overwhelming bulk of scientists agree 
that climate change is happening and that human activities are the 
driving cause of this change.
  When I give these talks, I often refer to a paragraph from a letter 
we received in Congress in October of 2009. The letter was very 
powerfully stated, particularly when we consider the cautious way in 
which scientists ordinarily couch their findings. Here is what the 
letter said:

       Observations throughout the world make it clear--

  Clear is the word they use--

     that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific 
     research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by 
     human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions 
     are based on multiple independent lines of evidence--


[[Page S5198]]


  And they close with this--

     and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective 
     assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science.

  In other words, if we look at the peer-reviewed science, the body of 
science, objectively, one cannot reach those conclusions. Those 
contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment. 
Clearly, subjective assessments are different, but subjective 
assessments we should discount because of the motives that lie behind 
them.
  The letter I just quoted was signed by an enormous number of very 
prestigious scientific organizations, from the American Association of 
the Advancement of Science, to the American Chemical Society, the 
Geophysical Union, Institute of Biological Science, Meteorological 
Society, Society of Agronomy, American Plant Biologists, the Ecological 
Society of America, the Organization of Biological Field Stations, Soil 
Science Society of America, and an immense group of very respectable 
organizations not gathered together for the purposes of argument about 
climate change but who have a responsibility to their scientific 
communities to be accurate. These are highly esteemed scientific 
organizations. They know the jury is not still out. They know that the 
verdict is, in fact, in and that it is time we did something about it. 
It is really irresponsible and nonsensical for us not to.
  The science on this goes back to the Civil War. It was a scientist 
named John Tyndall, an Irish scientist practicing in England, who 
determined that carbon dioxide and water, when they were trapped in the 
atmosphere, had a blanketing effect and would trap heat in the 
atmosphere--the basic principle of global warming.
  In 1955, the year I was born, a textbook called ``Our Astonishing 
Atmosphere'' said the following:

       Nearly a century ago, scientist John Tyndall suggested that 
     a fall in the atmospheric carbon dioxide could allow the 
     Earth to cool, whereas a rise in carbon dioxide would make it 
     warmer.

  If that was century-old information the year I was born, then I think 
it is entitled to some credence around here.
  Of course, we are observing these changes. Let me put one into 
context, and then I will yield the floor. That one is that 390-parts-
per-million figure I alluded to earlier. For the last 8,000 centuries--
800,000 years--we have been able to measure what the range was of 
carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere, and for all that period, 
800,000 years, it has been between 170 parts per million and 300 parts 
per million. So 170 to 300 is the range. So when we are out of that not 
by a little bit but by a lot--we are already to 390, and in the Arctic 
we have hit 400--this is measurement, by the way, not theory--that is 
something to be worried about because when we look back at history, 
before 800,000 years ago, back into previous geological events, we find 
that these high carbon concentrations are associated with really 
dramatic die-offs, very hostile environments for human occupation.
  Of course, we have never had that experience because we have really 
only been around on this planet for probably less than 200,000 years. 
We only started scratching the soil, planting things and developing 
agriculture, 10,000 years ago. So 800,000 years ago is a long time, and 
the safe bandwidths our species has developed within during that 
800,000 years is something that we should not be so frivolous about 
flying outside of to the tune of now hitting 390 parts per million. 
There will be consequences that will be grave.
  We are already seeing consequences that are grave. Our ocean is 
acidifying in unprecedented ways. If we are looking for a first 
catastrophe to ensue, it is as likely to be through the acidification 
of our oceans as it is through climate and through the damage that an 
acidic ocean can do to small creatures, particularly those at the very 
bottom of the food chain, the ones all the others eat. Let me put it 
this way: It is a hard thing for an animal to succeed and survive in a 
physical environment in which it is soluble.
  So I see a colleague on the floor, and I will yield to him. I 
appreciate the attention of the Senate to this issue, and I hope the 
day will come soon when we can wrench ourselves free of the grip of the 
special interests and do something serious about this looming threat.
  I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.


                          Progrowth Tax Reform

  Mr. HOEVEN. I rise today to discuss the need for progrowth tax 
reform. I came to the floor last week, I have been here this week on 
the subject, and I am here again today to talk about the need to get 
started and get going right now on the progrowth tax reform that will 
unleash private investment in this country and help us grow our economy 
and create jobs for the more than 13 million people we have unemployed 
today.
  The current Tax Code changes at the end of the year. If we fail to 
act, the current Tax Code changes. That is a fact. Simply put, tax 
rates go up. The income tax rates rise. Capital gains taxes go up. The 
death tax goes up.
  Today, we voted on a measure regarding outsourcing. Its goal was to 
encourage U.S. companies to invest and hire workers in the United 
States rather than overseas. But, at best--at best--that is a piecemeal 
approach. The reality is, the tax increases that will occur at the end 
of the year will do far more to drive investment and employment 
overseas than any measure like the one we considered today. Those 
increases to the tax rates on small businesses across this country will 
have a much bigger impact than any single measure like the one that was 
offered today.
  So think about it. By not extending the current tax rates, we will 
have a business climate that makes it harder to do business in this 
country. It seems to me that makes the solution pretty simple. Let's 
extend the current tax rates for 1 year, and let's set up a process to 
engage in progrowth tax reform that will empower small businesses--
millions of small businesses across this country--to do what they do 
best; that is, to invest and hire people, to put Americans back to 
work.
  The question is, Why aren't we doing it? By setting up a process to 
undertake comprehensive, progrowth tax reform over the next year, 
everyone has a chance to provide their input and to provide their 
ideas, to offer their legislation, Republicans and Democrats alike. In 
fact, formats have already been proposed, formats such as Simpson-
Bowles, Domenici-Rivlin, groups such as the Gang of 6 and others that 
have put forward different concepts. So there is absolutely no reason 
to wait.
  The question is not are we or are we not going to do it. The reality 
is, we have to do it. The reality is we have to do it to get our 
economy going. So let's get started. President Obama needs to join with 
us in this effort. Look at our economy. Look at the statistics since 
President Obama took office.
  Unemployment. We have 8.2 percent unemployment. Unemployment has been 
over 8 percent for 41 straight months. We have 13 million people in 
this country unemployed--13 million people in this country looking for 
work--and we have another 10 million who are underemployed; that is, 23 
million people either unemployed or underemployed.
  Middle class income. Middle class income has declined from 
approximately $55,000 annually to $50,000 since the current 
administration took office.
  Food stamps. Food stamp usage has increased dramatically, from 32 
million recipients to 46 million recipients.
  Home values. Home values have dropped. Home values have dropped, on 
average, from $169,000 to $148,000.
  Economic growth. GDP, gross domestic product, growth is the weakest 
for any recovery since World War II.
  Job creation last month. Mr. President, 80,000 jobs were created. But 
it takes 150,000 jobs each and every month just to keep up with 
population growth to actually reduce the unemployment rate.
  So these facts speak for themselves. These are the facts. The 
President's approach to our economy is making it worse, and his failure 
to join with us to extend the lower tax rates and engage in progrowth 
tax reform is sitting on our economy like a big wet blanket. But we can 
change that. We can change that right now. We can change that by 
extending the current tax rates and by together, on a bipartisan basis, 
with the administration, joining in a process to put in place progrowth 
tax reform and at the same time getting control of our spending.

[[Page S5199]]

  Business investment and economic activity would respond immediately. 
Look at the latest information from the Congressional Budget Office, 
the CBO. The CBO projects the economy will contract--will contract--by 
1.3 percent on an annualized rate for the first 6 months of next year, 
meeting the definition of ``recession'' if the fiscal cliff we now face 
is not addressed. Overall, the economy, based on the CBO projection for 
next year, would grow by only one-half of 1 percent for the entire 
year. That compares to a 4.4-percent growth rate for next year if the 
fiscal cliff is avoided.
  Granted, that fiscal cliff includes not only addressing the tax 
increases that would go into effect but also sequestration. But we have 
put forward ideas to address sequestration as well. Clearly, the tax 
piece is a huge part of what drives that difference in economic 
growth--the difference between one-half of 1 percent and over 4 percent 
economic growth next year.
  Think of what that means in terms of employment to the people who are 
looking for a job. Think of what that means in terms of growth in the 
economy and revenue growth to help address our deficit and our debt. 
All that stands to reason because business needs certainty. Business 
needs certainty to invest, to grow, to hire more people.
  With legal, tax, and regulatory certainty--not more government 
spending but with legal, tax, and regulatory certainty, businesses in 
this country will invest and grow and put people back to work. There is 
more cash, there is more private capital on the sidelines now than ever 
before in our history. With the uncertainty about what the Tax Code is 
going to be, that investment will continue to be sidelined rather than 
deployed in ventures that will create jobs.
  The longer we go, the more uncertainty. That means slow economic 
growth; that means higher unemployment; that means more people out of 
work rather than finding a job; and it means less revenue to help 
reduce our deficit and our debt. Clearly, that is not the way to go.
  President Obama, however, says: But wait a minute. Everyone needs to 
pay their fair share. So he is proposing tax increases on that basis. 
Of course, everyone needs to pay their fair share. But the way to 
ensure that gets accomplished is with progrowth tax reform and closing 
loopholes. That is exactly what we have proposed--not by raising taxes 
on more than 1 million small businesses across this country, which is 
what the President has proposed.
  Let's extend the current tax rates for 1 year. Let's set up a process 
to pass comprehensive, progrowth tax reform that lowers rates, closes 
loopholes, that is fairer, that is simpler and that will generate 
revenue to reduce our deficit and our debt through economic growth 
rather than through higher taxes. In reality, that is the only way we 
will get our economy going, and that along with controlling our 
spending will reduce our deficit and our debt and it will put Americans 
back to work.
  Leadership is all about finding common ground. President Obama needs 
to join with us to find common ground on this issue. We have offered 
it. We are offering it right now. I hope the President will join with 
us in this endeavor. It is simple. It is straightforward. It is what 
the American people want and what they need and we need to get started 
right now.
  With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Campus Debit Cards

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, there was a troubling report recently 
released by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group. It is entitled 
``The Campus Debit Card Trap.'' The report from PIRG documents how 
colleges and universities across the country have signed deals with 
financial service companies to provide campus debit cards and prepaid 
credit cards to students.
  Sometimes these debit cards are linked to a student checking account, 
and many times the school's name will appear on the card. In some 
cases, the student ID card is turned into a bank debit card. We are 
also seeing colleges and universities make deals in which banks issue 
prepaid debit cards to make financial aid disbursements to students.
  When they are managed appropriately, debit and prepaid cards can be a 
good thing for students. It can give them an effective way to conduct 
transactions and receive their student aid payments. But, 
unfortunately, as the PIRG research found, some of these campus debit 
card arrangements raise some serious questions.
  Why did the U.S. PIRG title its report, ``The Campus Debit Card 
Trap''? You guessed it. Many students are being charged unreasonable 
fees that are costing them millions of dollars. According to the U.S. 
PIRG report, 15 financial institutions have debit or prepaid card 
contracts with 878 campuses that serve more than 9 million students. It 
is a big business. Forty-two percent of all students nationwide go to 
school on these 878 campuses.
  It is a lucrative business for financial institutions. There is a lot 
of money to be paid from fees on college debit cards, especially when 
they start charging fees on the billions of dollars disbursed each year 
in Federal student aid. So the Federal money is passing through these 
cards to the students. The financial institutions are making money in 
the process.
  As the U.S. PIRG report shows, some of the fees being charged are 
clearly unreasonable. One of the most egregious fees is a per-
transaction fee on students for using a PIN number on debit purchases 
instead of a signature. One of the largest campus debit card companies, 
Higher One, currently charges students 50 cents every time the student 
enters his PIN number at a checkout. PIN-based transactions are 
supposed to be more secure than signature transactions. But this deal 
actually penalizes the students for using PIN numbers which are 
supposed to be more secure.
  Another unacceptable fee is the ATM balance inquiry fee that some 
banks charge. This penalizes students who check on their balances to 
make sure they do not overdraw their accounts or incur an overdraft 
fee. Why would you discourage a student from checking on their balance 
so they do not overdraw their account?
  Some banks charge inactivity fees, when a student is charged $10 a 
month if they are not using the account after 6 months. In other words, 
if the student is not using the card, racking up fees by making 
purchases, the financial institution still charges $10 each month. So 
it is going to get the money either way.
  Of course, there are mysterious fees such as Higher One's $50 lack of 
documentation fee. That is what they call it. They recently abandoned 
this. And not to mention the obscure and unreasonable overdraft fees 
that some institutions charge.
  Not only do those fees eat away at the limited money these students 
have for books, food, and living expenses, but these fees also cut into 
taxpayer-subsidized student aid dollars.
  Student aid should be used to aid students, period, not banks. We 
should not allow financial institutions to take a slice off a taxpayer-
subsidized student aid disbursement through unreasonable fees. We 
should not have debit card deals between financial institutions and 
colleges that leave students holding the bag.
  Colleges and universities should negotiate for the students, for the 
best deal for them; the lowest fees, the best consumer protection. We 
need these deals to be fully transparent. Students often think: Wait a 
minute. If the university is recommending this bank or this school ID 
or this debit card, then it must be approved by the school.
  The terms of the deal ought to be clear to the student so they can 
make the right choice. In addition, if the school receives incentives 
or kickbacks for providing exclusive access to the students, there is 
an inherent conflict of interest that at least ought to be disclosed.

[[Page S5200]]

  I wrote a letter, along with Senator Jack Reed and Congressman Peter 
Welch, calling on the 15 financial institutions mentioned in the PIRG 
report to immediately discontinue several of the worst fees that were 
highlighted and disclose their contracts with colleges and 
universities. I am pleased that some financial institutions are 
responding to this PIRG report, but more needs to be done.
  Fortunately, there are colleges and universities out there that are 
ready to step up. Soon after the PIRG report came out, I met the with 
the president of a university in Illinois that uses prepaid Visa debit 
cards to disburse title IV student aid. Students at this school were 
being charged some of the fees that were mentioned in the PIRG report, 
such as the inactivity fee and a fee for checking on the balance on 
their account.
  When I alerted the president of the university to these fees, he 
immediately responded and agreed that he thought that was unreasonable. 
He said he will work to promptly address this issue for the benefit of 
the students.
  I hope other leaders of colleges and universities who try to convince 
students and their families that they are truly their friends will be 
their friends when it comes to these debit cards. In the days to come, 
I am going to work with the regulators at the Department of Education 
and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and with the higher 
education and financial communities to take the tricks and traps out of 
the campus debit card programs.
  Let's give our college students who are already borrowing money, deep 
in debt, struggling to pay their bills a break. Let's not increase the 
debt they are going to carry out of school, trying to enter into the 
job market. I thank my colleagues who are already working with me on 
this. I urge others to join me.


                          VA Caregiver Program

  Mr. President, since last July, the Veterans' Administration's 
Caregivers Program has been providing the families of severely disabled 
Iraq and Afghanistan veterans with the support they deserve to care for 
their loved ones. I would like to mark the 1-year anniversary of this 
program by taking a few minutes to talk about its impact on families 
across America.
  The Caregivers Program was originally conceived by then-Senator 
Hillary Rodham Clinton. She came up with this notion to help those 
caregivers who were staying at home with disabled veterans, many of 
them parents and spouses, who make considerable sacrifices to make sure 
their disabled vet has the very best love and care in the place they 
want to be, right in their home.
  Sometimes it is a hardship, not just the medical requirements but 
sometimes the financial requirements. So we passed the Caregivers 
Program, originally conceived by Senator Clinton. With the assistance 
of Senator Akaka, it became the law of the land. Here is what it said: 
For the veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan who came home with a 
disability and needed a caregiver to make sure they could go about 
their daily routine, we would say first to the caregiver, we are going 
to provide you with the medical training you need so you can take care 
of this vet in terms of their personal needs.
  Secondly, we will provide you with a respite. If you need time off to 
go spend a few days somewhere to rest and relax and recharge your 
batteries, we will find a nurse or someone to come in and take care of 
that vet so you can have a little time to yourself.
  Third, if there is a final need, an economic hardship, we pay up to 
$3,000 a month--not a huge sum of money--but up to $3,000 a month to 
the caregivers who are willing to help. I just had a group of wounded 
warriors in my office the other day. They talked about what this meant 
to some of these families. It meant whether their homes would be 
foreclosed upon. So when you think about it, the alternative is 
institutional care for these veterans, not nearly the level we want, 
the kind of care we would want to have. Instead, they are home with 
someone they love at a fraction of the cost of institutional care. We 
are just giving a helping hand to the caregivers.
  So let me show a couple of photographs because these are some stories 
that I think are important for everyone to know about. This is a family 
I know pretty well. They are from North Carolina. Eric Edmundson served 
in the U.S. Army. Eric is shown with his wife Stephanie, his daughter 
Gracie, 7 years old, and his baby son Hunter, who is almost 2 years 
old. Eric served in the Army and was injured, and during the course of 
surgery, there were complications. He ended up a quadriplegic, unable 
to speak. They almost gave up on him. They talked to his father about 
sending him, at the age of about 24, into a nursing home. His dad blew 
his stack and said: You are not going to do that to my boy. He got on 
the Internet and started asking questions and ended up with Eric being 
admitted to the Rehab Institute in Chicago. That is where I met them, 
this North Carolina family. His dad said: My son will get the best care 
no matter what. Because he worked so hard and pushed so hard, Eric got 
the care he needed.
  I can remember visiting him in his hospital room and saying that I 
want to come back from time to time to see how he is doing in Chicago. 
I came back a few weeks later, and his mom said Eric had a gift for me.
  I said: For me, a gift? What is it?
  She said: I will show you.
  His mom and dad walked to the side of his wheelchair, lifted him up, 
and he took three steps. There wasn't a dry eye in that room. There 
were tears of joy all the way around. This man who had been given up on 
was taking steps. His mom and dad said: He is supposed to check out on 
Memorial Day, and he will walk out of the front door of this hospital 
in his full dress uniform. Can you be there?
  I said I wouldn't be anywhere else. So I came, as did the mayor of 
Chicago and a lot of press, and watched Eric walk out of that hospital. 
It was one of the happiest days I can ever remember. His wife Stephanie 
was waiting with his daughter Gracie, and they moved back to North 
Carolina. His mom and dad gave up their business and devoted their 
lives to him. They are living with this family to make sure Eric has a 
life. They have a brandnew baby boy.
  I have visited at their home. It is one of those stories where local 
vets and good people said: We will build you a home at no expense so 
you can get around in your wheelchair.
  It is a terrific, wonderful story of a brave family who worked hard 
to give Eric a life, and all the neighbors and friends have helped 
sustain him.
  I can tell you that Eric's story went a chapter further. His dad came 
to me and said: Have you ever heard of the caregivers bill Hillary 
Clinton had introduced?
  I said no.
  He said: She is leaving the Senate to be Secretary of State, so would 
you take a look at it?
  I said I would. As a result of that, I worked with Senators Akaka and 
Inouye and the President, who signed it into law. As a result, families 
just like the Edmundsons will get the helping hand they need, like Eric 
got the kind of care he needed. The Iraq war is over, but his struggle 
will continue. We want to make sure he has the loving care he needs 
throughout his life.
  Let me tell you about another family from Clinton, IL. I don't have a 
photo. It is Nathan Florey and his caregiver mother Deanna.
  Nathan was a military police officer in Iraq, and he suffered an 
aneurysm while on duty in 2008. His recovery took 15 months. At one 
point it was suggested that Nathan should go to a group home. His 
mother refused to allow that to happen and said: No, send him home with 
me. She has taken care of him ever since. They were told that Nathan 
might never wake up, regain consciousness, but he exceeded everyone's 
expectations. He has received an associate's degree and is working on a 
bachelor's degree. Deanna says the caregiver program gives her a 
support system so that she doesn't feel like she is caring for Nathan 
alone.
  This is a common refrain. Another caregiver named Beth, whom I spoke 
with this spring in downstate Illinois near Marion, pointed out that 
this support from the caregivers program gave her the flexibility to be 
able to care for her husband full time.
  These are the kinds of families we want to help with this program. 
When we started, we thought a few thousand Iraq and Afghanistan 
families might qualify. As it turns out, these signature wounds that 
lead to this type of

[[Page S5201]]

care are more prevalent than we thought and families' hearts are even 
bigger than we imagined. So far, 5,153 families have qualified for the 
caregivers program. Think about that. They have taken the training to 
provide quality care for their loved ones in the comfort of their own 
homes. This includes Deanna and Beth and 129 other families in my 
State, and I will bet there are some families in Minnesota.
  This is an interesting and amazing story as well. This is a family 
from Oak Lawn, IL. This is Yuriy and Aimee Zmysly in the center of the 
photo. I was connected with the Zmyslys several years ago after I read 
about them in a Chicago newspaper. They became strong advocates for the 
caregivers program, spreading the word about it in Illinois, including 
at this event in Chicago last fall.
  Yuriy was a marine serving in Afghanistan and Iraq. In 2006, he came 
back to the United States for surgery at the military hospital, where 
he suffered complications from a burst appendix and was left with a 
severe brain injury. When she got the news, Aimee drove to the hospital 
and put her whole heart and life into caring for Yuriy. At the time, 
they weren't married, but Aimee said she made her commitment to him 
before this. They got married after he suffered this grievous injury. 
The Zmyslys qualified for the caregiver program last summer. As Aimee 
told the Sun Times in an update to their story, ``It's good to be 
recognized for what I've been doing and other people have been doing 
for years.''
  Let me close with a brief update on Eric Edmundson, whom I started 
talking about. His father Ed tells me in a recent note that enrollment 
in the program went smoothly--the caregivers program. His wife Beth, 
who gave up her health insurance when she left her job to care for her 
son, now has her health insurance back thanks to the program. And Eric 
is doing great as well. He is back hunting and fishing. He can 
literally go hunting. He loves it so much. And he can also fish with 
his dad. He recently completed a multistate hunting trip sponsored by 
the Wounded Warrior Project. Eric also received the 2011 Pathfinder 
Award from Safari Club International in recognition of the way he has 
explored life undeterred by his injuries. As part of the award, he is 
going to head to South Africa in September to hunt big game. Who would 
have imagined that this young man, abandoned by our system, which said 
he would virtually spend the rest of his life alone in a nursing home, 
now has such a full life?
  His father said in his note to me, ``Eric works through his 
challenges. He will not be disabled by them--always a warrior.''
  I am pleased that the caregivers program has been able to help 
veterans in America--over 5,000 in Illinois, North Carolina, and 
everywhere. I encourage anybody who is following this statement on the 
floor of the Senate and knows of an Iraq or Afghanistan veteran who may 
qualify for the caregivers program to get more information at 
www.caregiver.va.gov.


 Crop Insurance

  Mr. President, last Sunday I went to Gardner Township outside of 
Springfield and met with a group of farmers to talk about the drought. 
We were across the street from a cornfield, and I have seen these since 
I was a little kid. If you looked at it driving by, you would think it 
was just another cornfield. The farmers took me into the cornfield, and 
we started looking at the corn and stalks. It is a disaster.
  The drought has really taken its toll. As of last week, my entire 
State is suffering through at least a moderate drought, and 33 counties 
have been declared to be in severe drought. They have joined 1,000 
other counties in 26 States that have already been declared disaster 
areas by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Some people think it is 
the worst drought we have had in 25 years. I am afraid they could be 
right. Nobody knows better than our farmers, which I learned when I 
made this visit. Some of this corn crop is going to be flatout lost. 
They chop it off at ground level and let it dry out and try to feed it 
to the livestock. But it will get worse if the drought continues. We 
need rain and need it desperately--not just a little rain but a level 
of consistent, meaningful accumulation.
  The primary tool available to producers to help them get through this 
is crop insurance. Taxpayers help the Crop Insurance Program by 
subsidizing about 62 percent of the premiums, but it is a better deal 
than disaster payments, which are unfortunately massive in amount and 
don't reward good conduct. The basic Crop Insurance Program rewards 
those producers who are trying to protect themselves from these 
outcomes.
  I talked to Secretary Vilsack with the Department of Agriculture last 
week. I know they are watching this disastrous situation across 
Illinois and the Nation as, unfortunately, it increases. The benefits 
that are available to local farmers are low-interest loans they can 
take out to get through this while waiting for the crop insurance 
payout. These farmers don't want a handout, but they have no choice. 
They have to get through this year so they can get into next year. The 
loans are not going to solve the problem, but they will help address 
them.
  There is a political thing we can do. I wish we would pass a bill to 
create rain, but we obviously can't. We did pass a farm bill. Sixty-
four Senators, Democrats and Republicans, voted for the farm bill. 
Senator Stabenow of Michigan and Senator Roberts of Kansas, a Democrat 
and a Republican, worked through a bipartisan bill when most people 
said they didn't have a chance. They did it and did a great job. They 
sent it to the House. The House, unfortunately, has not been able to 
move the farm bill.
  This is like the story we heard on the Transportation bill. Here is a 
bill that is critically important for farmers, many of whom are facing 
disasters like the drought now, and the House needs to get moving. I 
hate to put pressure on the House, but that is what Senators do to 
House Members, and they try to do the same to us. If they fail to pass 
a farm bill, it will reduce the opportunities to help our farmers 
through this drought.
  So I am encouraging all Members of the House of Representatives, 
Democrats and Republicans, to at least vote on the Senate bipartisan 
bill if you can't come up with a bill. It will give us a chance to help 
producers in rural America facing a natural disaster. As they face 
these natural disasters, we should not create political disasters to 
make it worse.
  I call on the House of Representatives, before you leave for the 
August recess, pass a farm bill, get to conference, and get the job 
done.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss 
the urgency that is growing with each passing day for the House to take 
up and pass the farm bill. Most Senators in this body have a 
constituency that is being impacted by the worsening drought 
conditions, which is currently affecting 61 percent of the landmass of 
the continental United States. I have seen a growing frustration among 
my colleagues, myself included, with the lack of action on the part of 
the House of Representatives.
  The Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act of 2012, which is the 
Senate's version of the farm bill, contains an extension of the 
critical livestock disaster assistance programs, and would ensure that 
this assistance would apply to losses experienced this year. The bill 
also contains a new commodity program which would serve to supplement 
crop insurance.
  Unfortunately, if we do not complete a full reauthorization by the 
end of September, producers are at risk of not having this assistance 
available to them. Our disaster assistance programs, which we 
authorized in the 2008 farm bill, expired on September 30, 2011, and so 
they will not be available unless the House leadership brings up the 
farm bill for immediate consideration. We need to move the process 
forward so that we can get to a conference committee and complete a 
full reauthorization by the end of September.
  Continued unwillingness of the House leadership to bring the farm 
bill up for consideration puts my producers at risk. The uncertainty of 
how the House will proceed led me to join last week with Senators 
Baucus, Tester, and Conrad in introducing standalone legislation to 
extend the Supplemental Revenue Assistance, SURE, program, the 
Livestock Indemnity Program, LIP, Livestock Forage Program, LFP, and 
the Emergency Livestock Assistance Program, ELAP, through the current 
crop year. While the farm bill that

[[Page S5202]]

we passed through the Senate last week includes the livestock disaster 
programs and a new commodity program to supplement crop insurance, the 
House has not given any indication that it will move the 
reauthorization process forward. As such, we introduced this standalone 
disaster assistance bill as another option for ensuring assistance is 
available for our producers.
  There are a lot of things in the House farm bill that I do not like, 
but that is why we have a process in place to work out differences 
between the House and Senate versions. Ideally, the House should just 
bring up and pass the Senate bill, which passed last month with wide 
bipartisan support, so we can give our producers some certainty and the 
assistance they need.

                          ____________________