[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 153 (Wednesday, October 30, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7647-S7663]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NOMINATION OF KATHERINE ARCHULETA TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF
PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the nomination.
The bill clerk read the nomination of Katherine Archuleta, of
Colorado, to be Director of the Office of Personnel Management.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to the provisions of S. Res. 15 of
the 113th Congress, there will now be up to 8 hours of postcloture
consideration of the nomination equally divided in the usual form.
The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise to speak on this nomination and to
oppose it because of the recent actions of the Office of Personnel
Management with regard to the Washington exemption from ObamaCare. I
voted just now against cloture on the nomination, and I will vote
against the nomination itself later today because of these very serious
matters.
OPM, the office to which this nominee is nominated and which she
would head, has issued an illegal rule that is very offensive and flies
in the face of the ObamaCare statute language itself, and this nominee
has pledged to continue to enforce that illegal rule and illegal
policy.
Furthermore, OPM has completely stonewalled Members, including
myself, my colleague Senator Heller, and others regarding how they came
to that decision and, importantly, whom they talked with, whom they e-
mailed with, and whom they met with in coming to the decision to create
this illegal Washington exemption.
Let me back up a little bit and explain exactly what we are talking
about. Really, this story started several years ago in the ObamaCare
debate. During the original debate on the ObamaCare statute, several
conservatives, including myself, pushed an amendment that said every
Member of Congress and all of our official congressional staff have to
use the same fallback plan as is there for all other Americans--
originally, it was called the public option, and then it became known
as the exchanges--no special rules, no special treatment, no special
subsidy. In fact, that is one of the very few battles in that debate we
won because that provision was adopted during the consideration of the
ObamaCare statute. It was adopted right here in the Senate.
So in the statutory language as it finally passed into law is that
section, and that section says very clearly that every Member of
Congress and all of our official congressional staff have to go to the
ObamaCare exchanges for our health care--the same fallback plan as is
there for all other Americans--no special rules or privileges or
subsidies or exemptions. We go there. Well, I guess this became an
example of what Nancy Pelosi was talking about when she famously said:
Well, we have to pass the law in order to figure out what is in it--
because the law did pass. It had that specific statutory provision.
Then people on Capitol Hill started reading it, and they came to that
section and a lot of them said: Oh, you know what. We can't live with
this. We can't have this. We can't be pushed to the same fallback plan
as all other Americans. We can't stand for this.
From that moment on, a furious lobbying campaign and scheming behind
the scenes started to avoid that provision fully going into effect, to
avoid the pain of that provision, the pain of ObamaCare that millions
of other Americans are facing as we speak. Meetings happened,
leadership meetings happened, Member meetings happened, furious
scheming behind the scenes, and a lot of lobbying. Ultimately, that
lobbying of the Obama administration paid off because in early August
of this year, right after Congress got out of town for the August
recess, conveniently right after Congress left the scene of the crime,
the Obama administration issued a special rule with no basis in the
law, in my opinion, no basis in the ObamaCare statute. This special
rule was a special exemption for Congress, a carve-out to take all of
the financial sting out of that ObamaCare section.
What this special OPM rule is--and, again, OPM, the Office of
Personnel Management, was the agency that came up with this illegal
rule after this furious lobbying, after President Obama became
personally involved, literally personally participated in the
discussions leading to this rule. What this illegal rule does is
essentially two things. First of all, the rule says: Well, ``official
congressional staff''--we do not know who that is. We cannot possibly
determine who official congressional staff are, so we are going to
leave it up to each individual Member of Congress to figure out who is
their official staff.
Well, I would submit that is just ludicrous on its face.
Congressional staff is congressional staff. Official staff is anyone
who works for us through the institution of Congress versus outside
entities and institutions, such as our campaign staff. So leaving it up
to each individual Member of Congress is contrary to the statute on its
face. It is outrageous on its face. But under this OPM rule, that is
exactly what they do. So an individual Member of Congress can say:
Well, these 10 people are not official staff. They are on my staff, but
for some magical reason they are not official for purposes of this
mandate. In fact, under this rule a Member can say: Nobody on my
congressional staff is official staff for purposes of this mandate. And
we see Members doing that as we speak. We see examples of that being
reported in the press as we speak--Members deciding, ``Well, nobody is
official staff. I do not have official staff'' because it will mean
they will have to go to the ObamaCare exchange and live by the same
rules through the same experience as other Americans. That is flatout
ridiculous.
But that is not the only thing the OPM rule did. It did a second
thing that is perhaps even more outrageous. It said Members of Congress
and staff who do go to the exchange--they get to take along with them a
huge taxpayer-funded subsidy that no other American at similar income
levels has, enjoys, going to the ObamaCare exchanges. This is a huge
subsidy worth at least $5,000 for individuals and $10,000 or $11,000
for families. Again, no other American at similar income levels is
privy to that sort of subsidy.
Again, I believe this part of the OPM rule is flatout illegal. It is
not in the ObamaCare statute. There was discussion of it. There were
drafts that allowed that to happen, but the language that was put in
the law did not include that subsidy. It was specifically left out.
And, in fact, magically transforming what was, under previous law, a
Federal employees health benefits plan subsidy, magically transforming
[[Page S7648]]
that into some ObamaCare exchange subsidy--that is contrary to law, and
that is beyond OPM and the administration's legal authority, but they
just did it because they could to bail out Washington, to bail out
Congress. Well, this is outrageous and it is illegal.
As soon as I heard of this proposed rule in early August, I joined
with many colleagues, House and Senate, and I appreciate all of their
leadership. I am joined by many colleagues in the Senate whom I
specifically want to acknowledge, who are fighting for this change:
Senators Enzi, Heller, Lee, Johnson, Inhofe, Cruz, and Graham. We are
also joined by House Members, led by Representative Ron DeSantis of
Florida. All of us quickly got together and said: This is illegal, this
is wrong, and we have to stop it.
So we came up with language to do just that, to reverse this illegal
OPM rule and to make sure that every Member of Congress and all of our
congressional staff go to the ObamaCare exchanges and that we go there
just like other Americans go there--no special exemption or special
subsidy or special treatment. Our fix also expands that to the
President, the Vice President, their White House staff, and all of
their political appointees because that is appropriate as well. So our
language says to all those folks--Congress and the administration--you
have to get your health care the same way other Americans are in the
backup plan, in the fallback plan, in the so-called exchanges. You go
to the exchanges, and you get no special treatment, no special
exemption, no special subsidy.
This is very important for two reasons. First of all, basic fairness.
It should be the first rule of American democracy that what Washington
passes on America, it lives with itself. Washington should have to eat
its own cooking. It is like going to a restaurant and hearing that the
chef in the kitchen never eats there. Something is wrong with that
restaurant. Something is wrong with that picture. And something is
wrong with Washington when Washington exempts itself over and over from
eating its own cooking.
The second reason this is important is a very practical one because
the sooner we demand that Washington live by exactly the same rules it
imposes on America, the sooner Washington will start getting things
right on ObamaCare, on taxes, on regulation across the board. So for
that very practical reason, we need to make sure the same rules apply
to Washington the same way they apply to the rest of America.
Let me come back to OPM because what we are debating is the nominee
to head the Office of Personnel Management, OPM, the bureaucracy that
came up with this illegal rule. That nominee has pledged to continue to
enforce that illegal rule, to continue to defend that illegal rule.
Also, OPM, to date, has been completely unresponsive--
``stonewalling'' is the more appropriate term--to all of my and other
Members' inquiries about the process they used to come up with this
illegal rule. I have written OPM several times. I wrote them
immediately after their draft rule was issued. I wrote them very soon
after their final rule was issued. I specifically wrote them demanding
all emails and other correspondence and other documentation and
information they had from Members of Congress, from leadership, from
the administration with regard to the work and discussion that went
into their rule.
Other colleagues of ours here in the Senate and also in the House
have done the same. My distinguished colleague from Nevada Dean Heller
talked to the then-OPM Director face to face. He asked the OPM
Director: Did you speak with, were you lobbied by Members of Congress
or the administration about this rule? That Director said: No,
absolutely not. It now turns out that apparently is a lie. According to
other sources, there absolutely were discussions, communications,
emails, and the like between congressional leadership and the
administration and OPM. So Dean Heller was lied to face to face about
this by OPM.
I have asked for all of the emails, all of the correspondence, all of
the discussions that happened leading up to this rule involving Members
of Congress, leadership, and also the President and the Vice President
and members of their administration. That request for information has
been completely stonewalled.
So, first, OPM caves to intense lobbying from Washington insiders.
Second, it caves and issues an illegal rule contrary to the statutory
language of ObamaCare. Third, it stonewalls regarding the process and
the conversations and the emails that led to that illegal rule.
We cannot stand for that. That is precisely why I am opposing this
OPM nomination and why I voted no on cloture and why I will vote no on
the nomination. We need answers. We need to reverse this illegal rule.
Yes, we need a vote on the Vitter amendment the distinguished majority
leader and others have blocked for months now. We need that vote. We
need that vote that has been actively blocked by the majority leader
for months.
Let's do things right. Let's get that information from OPM. Let's
reverse this illegal rule. Let's vote on this important matter.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin.) The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Farm Bill
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, this afternoon the 2013 farm bill
conference committee will finally convene for the first time, bringing
us one step closer to finishing the farm bill. I know the Presiding
Officer, being from Wisconsin, understands how important this is to our
country's future, and certainly the farmers, businesses, and families
in Minnesota understand how important this bill is. We have waited a
long time to go to this conference committee. The Senate has passed two
farm bills now that continue the strong policies of the last farm bill
but in fact reduce the debt by $24 billion over the farm bill that is
currently in place. I am part of the group that negotiated the details
of the bill to help finish the process which started over 2 years ago.
Before I go on about the details of the Senate bill, I thank Chairman
Stabenow for her incredible leadership and perseverance in getting us
to this point that has been so long awaited. Under Chairman Stabenow's
leadership, the Senate Agriculture Committee put together a farm bill
that strengthens the safety net for our Nation's farmers and ranchers,
reforms and streamlines our agriculture, conservation, and nutrition
programs while still keeping them strong, and, as I mentioned, reduces
$24 billion from the Nation's debt.
Throughout the process we faced unprecedented challenges and delay.
We had the lack of a dance partner over in the House, but then of
course we had the traditional issues--regional disputes about how
certain crops and commodities should be handled, a few partisan issues
here and there, but somehow we were able to come together to the point
where the Senate bill was supported by 68 Senators, including 18
Republicans. I believe this is a testament to the open process we had,
the endless amendments we voted on on the floor, as well as the strong
committee that was brought together to work on this bill.
No matter where I go in my State--and I am sure the Presiding Officer
has seen this in Wisconsin--I am always reminded of the critical role
agriculture plays in our economy. Minnesota is No. 1 in turkeys--
something we think of a lot as we head into the Thanksgiving season. We
are No. 1 in sweet corn, green peas, and oats, and No. 2 in hogs. I
don't think people would think about that with our State, but we have
surpassed some other States. But we are No. 2 in hogs and spring wheat,
and No. 3 in soybeans, and No. 4 in corn.
But we don't just grow the crops and raise the livestock. We are also
home to a number of major agricultural companies which have kept our
economy strong, and is one of the reasons our unemployment rate is down
to 5.1 percent in Minnesota. These companies include Hormel, Cargill,
General Mills, coops such as CHS, and Land o' Lakes. That is why one of
the first things I did when I came to the Senate was ask to be on the
Agriculture Committee. I am honored to serve on this conference
committee and to team up with my friend and House colleague,
Representative Collin Peterson, who will be
[[Page S7649]]
leading the Democratic side in the House, as well as Congressman Tim
Wells who represents the southern part of our State.
The expiration of the current farm bill on September 30 is hurting
our agricultural economy and is creating a huge amount of uncertainty
for our farmers and for our consumers. Last week I visited with
Minnesotans from across the State who want Congress to pass a farm
bill. I was in Kiester, MN, where I got to ride in a combine and see
the good work of our farmers as they harvested the corn. I have to say
that sitting in the combine after the 3 weeks of the shutdown was
actually quite rewarding, as I saw firsthand you could actually get
results very quickly in a combine, which I hope will happen in Congress
as we move ahead.
From farmers in Redwood County to the Red River Valley to volunteers
at a food bank in Minneapolis, where we also had a joint event with
hunger groups, conservation groups, including Pheasants Forever, which
is based in Minnesota, and the Farm Bureau and the Farmers Union, we
all came together to say we had to get this done.
I journeyed up to the Moorhead area and joined Senator Hoeven in
Fargo. We like to call it Moorhead-Fargo in Minnesota instead of Fargo-
Moorhead--two towns divided by a river but joined by many common
interests. We met there with farmers about the importance of sugar
beets and about the importance of a strong farm bill for that region of
the country.
Through my week I quickly heard--as I am sure the Presiding Officer
did in Wisconsin--that the people of this country are sick and tired of
gridlock politics, they are sick and tired of people standing in
opposite corners of the boxing ring and throwing punches. They are sick
and tired of the red-light, green-light game that has been played with
policy. It is time to come together and get this done.
I am convinced if there is any silver lining or hope that came out of
the chaos of last month, it is that the American people saw firsthand
why we need change and why we need to work together. That is why in
fact Senator Hoeven and I came together across the river, to make a
very strong statement that we thought we had to get this bill done.
As a member of the conference committee, I know that if we don't pass
a new farm bill, farmers will not be able to sign up for crop
insurance, something that is so central to this new bill and is part of
the $24 billion in debt reduction. They won't be able to sign up for a
conservation program at a time when we need more conservation, when we
see a decline in our pheasant population, where we have seen the signs
that we need to have strong conservation programs. We would also see a
skyrocketing of dairy prices as we would be going back to the farm bill
that was passed in 1949. As I like to say at home, we don't want to
party like it is 1949, and we certainly don't want to farm like it is
1949.
The failure to come together and resolve the differences between the
two bills now would likely result in either 1949 prices or some kind of
extension. And guess what. Ask the farmers and ranchers about that in
South Dakota who just saw a decimation of their cattle because of the
sudden cold weather and blizzard they experienced in South Dakota. This
current bill that is in place does nothing to provide a safety net for
them that used to be in place but isn't in place because of the fact we
haven't passed a permanent farm bill.
It does nothing, if we simply extended it, about energy programs or
about changes we need to see in the milk program or about reforms or
the streamlining of our conservation programs. We simply cannot afford
to do that again.
Finally, it does nothing to reduce the debt if we simply extend the
current program.
Farmers and ranchers do not want another extension like the one we
saw last year that left out the programs I just mentioned, the
livestock disaster program, any significant deficit reduction. I
believe the Senate bill lays a strong foundation for a conference
agreement that can be supported on a bipartisan basis and signed into
law by the President. To put it more directly, over the weekend I got a
call from Greg Schwarz, who works with the Minnesota corn growers. He
was hard at work, bringing in the harvest. He actually was calling me
while driving his combine. His words offer some perspective, as they
were passed on to me, about where we have been and where we need to go.
He said:
We have been working on this farm bill for over 2 years
now, and we just want to get it done. Farmers are working
around the clock on this year's harvest, and if you don't
hear from us, it is not because we don't care, it's because
we have work to do.
Greg is right. Members of the farm bill conference committee have
work to do as well. I believe that Washington should strive to be more
like the farmers and ranchers that we represent who work and hope they
get the job done. They can't leave a bunch of corn or soybeans in the
field just because they get sick of it or they don't like their
neighbor. They have to finish the job. If it starts getting cold or if
it is raining, they have to bring that harvest in before there is a
blizzard. That is what they do, and that is what we need to do. We have
a time deadline here, an important reason we need to get moving on this
bill.
I would like to highlight some areas of the Senate bill that I
believe need to be preserved as part of the final agreement as near as
possible to the way they are right now. I recognize there will be some
compromise, but I think whatever compromise needs to be worked out
should be closer to the bipartisan Senate bill that, as we know, had
the support of 18 Senate Republicans, including Senators in my part of
the country such as Senator Grassley and Senator Hoeven.
I know that important differences need to be worked out, especially
in the areas of nutrition. I think we can do that. But, again, given
what we are seeing in terms of the cuts over on the House side, we have
to get them much closer to where we are in the Senate bill, which is
something that will keep a safety net not just for our farmers, not
just for our conservation and our pheasants and our wildlife, but also
for the people of this country.
I believe the people who grow our food deserve to know that their
livelihoods cannot be swept away in the blink of an eye, either by
market failures or by natural disasters. That is why in the Senate farm
bill the foundation of the safety net is a strengthened crop insurance
program. We made the program work better for underserved commodities
and specialty crops.
In recognition of the importance of crop insurance, we extended
conservation compliance rules to this program to ensure that all
producers benefiting from this safety net play by the same set of rules
and keep our water clean and soil productive for future generations.
This agreement has the support of agriculture, environmental wildlife
leaders, including the National Farmers Union and the National Corn
Growers Association, as well as the Environmental Defense Fund and
Ducks Unlimited. That is quite a crew.
In our charge to do more with fewer resources, the Senate bill pulls
back on crop insurance subsidies for the wealthiest farmers, while
ensuring that everyone can still participate in the program, keeping
the risk pool strong. We also eliminated direct payments and further
focused commodity title programs on our family farmers by strengthening
payment limits on rules that ensure that farmers and not urban
millionaires are eligible for farm payments.
We continued the successful sugar program, funded the livestock
disaster programs, which I mentioned earlier, and put in place a new
safety net for dairy producers to address the wild volatility in that
market. No one knows that better than those in the State of Wisconsin,
the home of a lot of cheese, the home of a lot of cows and a lot of
dairy.
We streamlined conservation programs from 23 to 13. Specifically, I
worked with Collin Peterson to ensure that local communities such as
those in the Red River Valley have tools they need to address
conservation challenges like flooding. The bill funds energy title
programs to extend homegrown renewable energy production.
When you look at our reduction in dependence on foreign oil, from 60
to 40 percent in just the last few years--yes, you look at the
increased domestic drilling and natural gas; yes, you look at the facts
that we finally increased
[[Page S7650]]
gas mileage standards that made a big difference in this country, but
you also look at biofuels which are now 10 percent of our Nation's fuel
supply.
These bills ensure that we are working to support our farmers and
workers in the Midwest and not the oil cartels in the Middle East. That
is why I strongly support mandatory funding for the energy titles to
help provide incentives for homegrown energy production from the next
generation of biofuels to blender pumps. This is a vital industry in
States such as mine, supporting thousands of jobs and millions of
dollars in economic growth. I appreciate the support of my colleague
Senator Franken for this important industry. As many of us understand,
we want an ``all of the above'' energy approach that includes oil,
includes natural gas, but also includes biofuels.
The Senate bill ensures that our energy innovators have the certainty
and stability they need to develop the next generation of American
energy.
The Senate bill also includes a number of initiatives for beginning
farmers and ranchers, including two of my provisions. The first
provision I produced with Senator Baucus, which would reduce crop
insurance costs for beginning farmers by 10 percent. The second
provision that I have introduced with Senators Johanns, Baucus, and
Hoeven would allow beginning producers to use conservation reserve
program acres for grazing without a penalty. I believe that both of
these provisions will go a long way in building the next generation of
farmers who will grow our food supply. Both of these provisions should
be included in the final bill.
I believe that if we want to recruit a new generation of farmers and
ranchers we must take further action to improve the quality of life in
our small towns and our rural areas. That is why I worked with Senators
Hoeven and Heitkamp, and I led the amendment to provide additional
resources for critical priorities in the farm bill, including
research--something the Presiding Officer knows something about from
the University of Wisconsin--as well as rural development,
conservation, and energy.
Our provision funds the new nonprofit foundation, the Foundation for
Food and Agricultural Research, to leverage private funding with a
Federal match to support agricultural research. It provides additional
funds to address the $3.2 billion backlog of water and wastewater
projects in rural America. You literally cannot go to a region of any
State in rural America without hearing about this backlog of rural
wastewater and water projects. This amendment that we passed helps with
that.
It also increases funding for a regional approach to conservation to
address a variety of challenges, including the flooding that we saw in
the Red River Valley. The provision also added an additional $100
million to the energy title to help farmers, ranchers, and rural
businesses produce homegrown energy. I was pleased to get the strong
support of our committee for that amendment, and I am pleased it is
included in the final Senate bill.
In the Senate we also preserve the essential nutrition programs that
millions of families and children rely on every day. In recent years,
programs such as the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program, also
known as SNAP, became especially important as hard-working families and
seniors were suddenly cashed-strapped but still in need of groceries.
One of my predecessors--in fact I have his desk--Vice President Hubert
H. Humphrey, was an early champion of the food stamp program now known
as SNAP. As one of the founders--Humphrey was one of the founders of
the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party in Minnesota--he understood the
importance of a stable government policy for both agricultural
producers as well as families struggling to put food on the table.
That is why we have always seen this combination of these programs.
It makes sense--food comes from farms. Food is a safety net for the
people of this country, as are the farm provisions, which are actually
a minority of the provisions in this bill. The farm provisions provide
a safety net for those who provide food. What we have done with this
bill, of course, is reduce some costs and made it more efficient but
still kept a strong safety net.
For more than 40 years we have linked together food and farm policy
in 5-year farm bills. Nearly 72 percent of the SNAP participants are
families with children, and more than one quarter of participants are
in households with seniors or people with disabilities. This is not the
time to make the deep cuts, as proposed in the House bill, to programs
that provide important nutritional support for working families, low-
income seniors, and people with disabilities with fixed incomes.
Yet what we have seen is that those cuts--which we will be
discussing--on the House side include 170,000 veterans who would be cut
off from food assistance if the House bill were to pass. The Senate
bill, on the other hand, makes reforms that were necessary, that bring
the debt down by $4 billion, reforms that were necessary. So it is not
like there were no reforms to this program in the Senate bill. As I
noted, 68 Senators voted for this bipartisan bill, including 18
Republicans.
The cuts proposed by the House are in addition to the $11 billion
cuts to the program that will go into place this Friday, when the
American Reinvestment and Recovery Act supplemental nutrition payments
expire.
This program is already moving in the right direction. As the economy
has improved, nutrition assistance has been further focused on families
in areas with the greatest need. In fact, the CBO projects that without
any changes to the program, the number of people eligible for nutrition
assistance and the cost of nutrition programs will continue to fall as
the economy improves. In this way, nutrition programs operate a lot
like the farm safety net for agricultural producers. Just as
agriculture payments spiked during the 2012 drought, which was the
worst since the 1950s, the need for nutrition assistance, for example,
similarly increased when our economy was struck with the worst
recession since the 1930s.
When farmers are blessed with a strong harvest or when workers bring
home a paycheck from a new job, we have designed agriculture and
nutrition programs to adjust accordingly and be reduced.
I believe that instead of trying to find ways to make people
ineligible for nutrition assistance, we need to focus on real solutions
that put people back to work. This farm bill is an opportunity to do
that, as are a number of these efforts--Innovate America, workforce
training--and bringing in other things we should be focused on,
bringing the tax reform in, bringing the corporate tax rate down and
paid for. But if we continue to engage in the brinkmanship as we did in
the last month we will never get to the core issue. I believe our
country is on the cusp of economic expansion. I believe we have so many
opportunities out there when you look at how we are situated with the
increase in manufacturing and exports. We need to do work with the
immigration bill to help the economy move forward, instead of what we
went through last month.
I think this farm bill is the first chance to show that, out of this
chaos, came something positive. It is a 5-year farm bill. It worked in
the past. It brings the debt down by $24 billion. It is a bipartisan
bill. Let's show the people of America that we mean business about
working across the aisle.
I see my colleagues here from Tennessee. I have just about 3 minutes
more on a very different topic, and that is the nomination of Patty
Millett to the DC Circuit Court.
In the past few weeks, as I mentioned, we have made some efforts to
come together and get work done on behalf of the American people. There
are many of us who work together in relationships of trust, and I hope
that continues with regard to nominations.
Patty Millett would make an excellent addition to the court on the DC
Circuit, and I urge my colleagues to vote for cloture and to confirm
her without delay.
Patty Millett has extensive Federal appellate and Supreme Court
experience. She previously served 15 years as an attorney on the
appellate staff of the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, and
then as an assistant to the Solicitor General. She has argued 32 cases
in the Supreme Court--32--in addition to dozens of cases in other
appellate courts across the country. In addition to her work for the
Justice Department and in private practice, she has also devoted
substantial time
[[Page S7651]]
to pro bono work. Ms. Millett clearly has an impressive professional
background, but even outside the legal world she volunteers as a
literacy tutor and for the homeless in the DC area.
She was given the Attorney General's Distinguished Service Award for
representing the interests of the United States before the Supreme
Court and the National Association of Attorneys General award for
assistance to the States in preparation for their appearances before
the Supreme Court. Ms. Millett is the kind of woman we should have on
the bench. It should be no surprise that the nonpartisan American Bar
Association committee that reviews every Federal judicial nominee
unanimously gave her its highest rating, and over 100 leading lawyers
and law professors wrote a letter in support of her nomination. This
letter included 7 former Solicitors General who served under Democratic
and Republican Presidents alike.
Clearly there can be no question she has the experience and ability
to sit on the Federal bench. She also has the support of the Fraternal
Order of Police, the Police Executive Research Forum, the National
Women's Law Center, the Women's Bar Association, and the National
Congress of American Indians.
Ms. Millett is well qualified, and we should confirm her now.
One justification--and there is only one that I have heard and I
don't think it is a good one, and I am about to debunk it. The only
justification I have heard is not about her at all, it is about the DC
Circuit. Some of my colleagues think they should remain with three
openings on the bench. I don't think this argument squares with the
facts. Currently, 3 of the 11 seats on the DC Circuit are empty.
According to the Administrative Office of the Courts, senior judges--
judges who are partially retired--are now involved in over 40 percent
of the cases that are decided on the merits.
Before he was our Supreme Court Justice, John Roberts was confirmed
to sit on the DC Circuit. Ten years ago when Chief Justice Roberts was
confirmed to sit on that circuit, the average judge on that court had
only 125 pending cases. Today, with 3 vacancies on the court, that
number is 185 cases. Those are the complex cases that are pending. Even
if we fill all the empty slots, the judges on the DC Circuit will still
have more pending cases on average than John Roberts did when we
confirmed him to sit on the DC Circuit back in 2003.
There are no excuses. We have a finely qualified nominee, with 32
Supreme Court arguments, support of the nonpartisan group that looks at
these nominees, someone whose spouse served in the military for 22
years, someone who raised her kids while he was over in Kuwait, and we
are going to turn her down? That makes no sense to me at all, and I
urge my colleagues to help Patty Millett get into this job to do what
she says is the highest honor you can have; that is, public service.
She should be confirmed without delay. The Senate should have
confirmed her this week. We heard from the American people--we all
heard this when we were home--how they are sick and tired of this kind
of delay and partisanship. She is a fine, highly qualified nominee. She
should get an up-or-down vote.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Donnelly). The Senator from South Dakota.
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise to speak on behalf of Congressman
Mel Watt to serve as director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency.
It has been over 5 years since the FHFA's inception, and it still has
never had a confirmed Director. First, Senate Republicans blocked
President Obama's original nominee for the post, Joe Smith, who was a
technocrat. Today they are trying to block Congressman Watt because
they say he is a politician and not a technocrat.
But they forget that Congressman Watt has over 40 years of experience
in housing, real estate, and other financial services issues. Before
coming to Congress, he practiced business and economic development law
and personally walked hundreds of families through real estate
closings.
In Congress, he has served on the House Financial Services Committee
for the past 21 years. In that capacity, he was one of the first
Members to recognize the need for action on predatory lending. With
great foresight, he introduced the Prohibit Predatory Lending Act in
2004 and introduced it every Congress until it became the foundation
for the qualified mortgage provision of the Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act of 2010. If we had all listened to Congressman
Watt before the housing crisis, then thousands of consumers might have
avoided being scammed into unsafe mortgages that ultimately led to
foreclosure.
Congressman Watt has also shown a commitment to housing finance
reform. In 2007, he partnered with Congressman Frank and introduced a
bill to reform Freddie and Fannie. This bill eventually led to the
Housing and Economic Recovery Act, which established the FHFA.
Industry groups, consumer advocates, and fellow Members of Congress
have recognized Congressman Watt's impressive track record and support
him for this position.
One of his home State Senators, and the Republican Senator who
probably knows him best, has supported his nomination from the
beginning. Shortly after Congressman Watt's nomination was announced,
Senator Burr stated:
Having served with Mel, I know of his commitment to
sustainable federal housing programs and am confident he will
work hard to protect taxpayers from future exposure to Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac. I look forward to working with
Representative Watt in his new role to find new ways to
facilitate more private sector involvement in the housing and
mortgage markets.
Recently, the National Association of Home Builders sent a letter in
support of Congressman Watt's nomination, stating:
During Representative Watt's tenure on the House Financial
Services Committee, he has proven to be a thoughtful leader
on housing policy. The FHFA needs a permanent director with
his leadership capabilities.
The National Association of Realtors has also sent a letter of
support praising Congressman Watt by stating:
The Director of the FHFA must weigh the costs of action and
inaction with the benefits of protecting the taxpayer, and
ensuring that the housing sector can stabilize and grow. Mr.
Watt has the experience and skill necessary to ensure that
both are handled in a manner that will benefit our nation.
It is time we finally confirm a Director for the FHFA, to ensure
stability and confidence in the housing market. Congressman Watt has
the experience, intellect, and temperament to succeed as Director, and
there is no legitimate reason why Congressman Watt should not be
confirmed. At a minimum, as a sitting Member of Congress, he deserves
the courtesy of an up-or-down vote. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on
the motion to invoke cloture so we can proceed to an up-or-down vote on
Congressman Watt's nomination.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, the majority leader says it is time to
cut off debate and vote on the President's nominees to fill three
vacancies on the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. I will not vote
to end debate now because I think such a vote would be premature.
Before the Senate has an up-or-down vote on the three judges, there
is something else we ought to do first. We should first consider the
bipartisan proposal that was made 10 years ago to have the right number
of judges on this Federal appellate court. For more than a decade,
Senators of both parties have argued that this court has more judges
than it needs and that other Federal appellate courts have too few. In
2003, 2005, and 2007, with a Republican President in the White House,
Republican Senators Sessions and Grassley introduced legislation to
reduce the number of seats on the DC Circuit.
In 2006, they were joined by a distinguished group of eight Judiciary
Committee Democrats who made the same argument. These included the
chairman, Senator Leahy, Senator Schumer, Senator Feingold, Senator
Kennedy, Senator Feinstein, Senator Durbin, Senator Kohl, and Senator
Biden. When President Bush nominated Peter Keisler to the DC Circuit,
the Democrats wrote Senator Specter, the committee chairman, a strong
letter.
The letter says:
We believe that Mr. Keisler should under no circumstances
be considered--much less
[[Page S7652]]
confirmed--by this Committee before we first address the very
need for that judgeship . . . and deal with the genuine
judicial emergencies identified by the Judicial Conference.
The Democratic Senators argued, first, the committee should--before
turning to the nomination itself--hold a hearing on the necessity of
filling the 11th seat on the DC Circuit, to which Mr. Keisler has been
nominated. They cited a number of objections by Senators to the need
for more judges on that circuit.
They then argued 6 years ago:
[That] since these emphatic objections were raised in 1997,
by every relevant benchmark, the caseload for that circuit
has dropped further.
Only after we reassess the need to fill this seat and tend
to judicial emergencies should we hold a hearing on Mr.
Keisler's nomination.
That was the Democratic Senators' position in 2007. These
distinguished Democratic Senators were not only forceful in 2006 and
2007, they were persuasive. They worked with President Bush and
Congress agreed to reduce the DC Circuit by one seat and add it to the
Ninth Circuit, where the caseload was 526 filings per judge--well above
the caseload average for all the judicial circuits.
In 2007, Senator Feinstein, a Democrat, and Senator Kyl, a Republican
wrote:
It makes sense to take a judgeship from where it is needed
the least and transfer it to where it is needed the most.
Mr. Keisler, by the way, was never confirmed. For 2\1/2\ years his
nomination was held in the Judiciary Committee, from June 2006 until
January 2009. The same arguments made in 2006 and 2007 should be
persuasive today.
Today, the average caseload for the DC Circuit--even if it were
reduced by three judgeships to the eight seats currently occupied--
would be less than one-half the national average for circuit courts.
The national average is 344 cases filed per judge this year in Federal
appellate courts. The DC Circuit average, if it were reduced to the 8
current judges, would be 149 per year. The national average is 344
cases per year. The DC Circuit average--even if it is reduced to 8--
would be 149 per year, less than half.
Since 2005, there has been a decrease of 27 percent in the number of
written decisions by an active judge on the DC Circuit. Since 2005, the
number of appeals filed in the DC Circuit has fallen by 17\1/2\
percent.
Before it considers any of the President's nominees for the DC
Circuit, the Senate should do in 2013, today, what Republican President
Bush and the Democratic Senate did in 2007; first, consider the
appropriate number of judges for the DC Circuit, and then, as Senator
Kyl and Senator Feinstein wrote, ``take a judgeship from where it is
needed least and transfer it to where it is needed most.''
I heard the argument that the cases in the DC Circuit are more
complex than in another circuit, and therefore the caseload ought to be
lighter. With eight judges, it will be a lot lighter--half the national
average for circuit courts. That ought to allow plenty of time to write
decisions in complex cases.
Other circuits have complex cases as well. For example, the Second
Circuit, including New York, regularly handles many of the most complex
cases that come to the Federal courts. Finally, there are a number of
senior judges who are active in the DC Circuit--that is true in almost
all the circuits, and that is part of the way our system works today.
They can carry some of the workload when that becomes necessary.
I think it is striking that even if this court only has eight seats,
that the average caseload is less than half of the national average. So
why does it need three additional judges? That is the question
Democratic Senators asked in 2007, and that is what the Senate and
President Bush addressed. That is the question we should be asking
today before we fill any more seats for an underworked circuit court.
So I will not vote to end the debate on the President's nominees
until the Senate does in 2013 what Democratic Senators suggested and
what the Senate did in 2007: Assess the need for judges on the DC
Circuit and transfer judges from where they are needed least to where
they are needed most. That means that before we act on the President's
three nominees, the Judiciary Committee and the full Senate should
consider Senator Grassley's legislation that would transfer one judge
to each of the overworked Second and Eleventh Circuits and eliminate
one judge, leaving the DC Circuit with a caseload that still is less
than half the national average for the eight remaining judgeships.
Then, if there are still vacancies to be filled in the DC Circuit, the
Senate can consider them one by one.
The Senate has treated President Obama very well in considering his
nominations. According to the Congressional Research Service, as of
August of this year President Obama's Cabinet members were, on average,
54 days--moving from announcement to confirmation at about the same
pace as those of President Bush and President Clinton.
As far as President Obama's judicial nominees, President Obama has
had 38 article III judges confirmed at this point in his second term,
including 9 circuit judges, 25 district judges, and 4 judges to other
article III courts. By comparison to those 38, President George Bush
had 16 article III judges confirmed, 7 circuit judges, 7 district
judges, and 2 judges to other article III courts.
What about a waiting list of judges who are waiting to be confirmed
by the Senate? Is there a big backlog? The answer is no. As of today,
only two circuit judges have been reported by the committee and await
floor action. Remember, the committee is controlled by Democrats and
they can report whomever they want. Both of these are for the DC
Circuit and are not judicial emergencies. Only seven district court
nominations await floor action. None have been waiting long. Three were
reported in August, and four were reported in September.
So while there are always a few nominations that provoke controversy
and take a while to consider, one of the Senate's most important and
best known powers is the constitutional authority to advise and consent
on Presidential nominations. That is a part of the checks and balances
our Founders set up so we didn't have a king, we didn't have a tyranny.
We made it slower. We gave the President the right to nominate, but the
Senate has the right to advise and consent. Sometimes that takes a
while. Sometimes those nominees are rejected.
I believe and have argued consistently that with rare exceptions,
Presidential nominations deserve an up-or-down vote after an
appropriate time for consideration. President Obama's nominations have
been receiving timely up-or-down votes. But first, as Senators of both
political parties have argued for 10 years, we should make certain we
have the right number of judges on the court. We don't have money to
waste in this country with the debt we have today. We should transfer
judges from where they are needed the least to where they are needed
the most. That is the sensible thing to do. The President's nominees
for the DC Circuit will receive up-or-down votes insofar as I am
concerned unless there are exceptional circumstances.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter of
July 27, 2006, from eight Democratic Senators to Chairman Arlen Specter
suggesting that the hearing on Mr. Keisler be postponed until the
Senate had considered the number of judges on the DC Circuit. I ask
unanimous consent to have printed in the Record as well ``Additional
Views of Senators Feinstein and Kyl'' which were written at that time.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC, July 27, 2006.
Hon. Arlen Specter,
Chairman, Committee on Judiciary, Dirksen Senate Office
Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Specter: We write to request that you
postpone next week's proposed confirmation hearing for Peter
Keisler, only recently nominated to the D.C. Circuit Court of
Appeals. For the reasons set forth below, we believe that Mr.
Keisler should under no circumstances be considered--much
less confirmed--by this Committee before we first address the
very need for that judgeship, receive and review necessary
information about the nominee, and deal with the genuine
judicial emergencies identified by the Judicial Conference.
First, the Committee should, before turning to the
nomination itself, hold a hearing
[[Page S7653]]
on the necessity of filling the 11th seat on the D.C.
Circuit, to which Mr. Keisler has been nominated. There has
long been concern--much of it expressed by Republican
Members--that the D.C. Circuit's workload does not warrant
more than 10 active judges. As you may recall, in years past,
a number of Senators, including several who still sit on this
Committee, have vehemently opposed the filling of the 11th
and 12th seats on that court:
Senator Sessions: ``[The eleventh] judgeship, more than any
other judgeship in America, is not needed.'' (1997)
Senator Grassley: ``I can confidently conclude that the
D.C. Circuit does not need 12 judges or even 11 judges.''
(1997)
Senator Kyl: ``If . . . another vacancy occurs, thereby
opening up the 11th seat again, I plan to vote against
filling the seat--and, of course, the 12th seat--unless there
is a significant increase in the caseload or some other
extraordinary circumstance.'' (1997)
More recently, at a hearing on the D.C. Circuit, Senator
Sessions, citing the Chief Judge of the D.C. Circuit,
reaffirmed his view that there was no need to fill the 11th
seat: ``I thought ten was too many . . . I will oppose going
above ten unless the caseload is up.'' (2002)
In addition, these and other Senators expressed great
reluctance to spend the estimated $1 million per year in
taxpayer funds to finance a judgeship that could not be
justified based on the workload. Indeed, Senator Sessions
even suggested that filling the 11th seat would be ``an
unjust burden on the taxpayers of America.''
Since these emphatic objections were raised in 1997, by
every relevant benchmark, the caseload for that circuit has
only dropped further. According to the Administrative Office
of the United States Courts, the Circuit's caseload, as
measured by written decisions per active judge, has declined
17 percent since 1997; as measured by number of appeals
resolved on the merits per active judge, it declined by 21
percent; and as measured by total number of appeals filed, it
declined by 10 percent. Accordingly, before we rush to
consider Mr. Keisler's nomination, we should look closely--as
we did in 2002--at whether there is even a need for this seat
to be filled and at what expense to the taxpayer.
Second, given how quickly the Keisler hearing was scheduled
(he was nominated only 28 days ago), the American Bar
Association has not yet even completed its evaluation of this
nominee. We should not be scheduling hearings for nominees
before the Committee has received their ABA ratings.
Moreover, in connection with the most recent judicial
nominees who, like Mr. Keisler, served in past
administrations, Senators appropriately sought and received
publicly available documents relevant to their government
service. Everyone, we believe, benefited from the review of
that material, which assisted Senators in fulfilling their
responsibilities of advice and consent. Similarly, the
Committee should have the benefit of publicly available
information relevant to Mr. Keisler's tenure in the Reagan
Administration, some of which may take some time to procure
from, among other places, the Reagan Library. As Senator
Frist said in an interview on Tuesday, ``[Tlhe DC Circuit . .
. after the Supreme Court is the next court in terms of
hierarchy, in terms of responsibility, interpretation, and in
terms of prioritization.'' We should therefore perform our
due diligence before awarding a lifetime appointment to this
uniquely important court.
Finally, given the questionable need to fill the 11th seat,
we believe that Mr. Keisler should not jump ahead of those
who have been nominated for vacant seats identified as
judicial emergencies by the non-partisan Judicial Conference.
Indeed, every other Circuit Court nominee awaiting a hearing
in the Committee, save one, has been selected for a vacancy
that has been deemed a ``judicial emergency.'' We should turn
to those nominees first; emergency vacancies should clearly
take priority over a possibly superfluous one.
Given the singular importance of the D.C. Circuit, we
should not proceed hastily and without full information. Only
after we reassess the need to fill this seat, perform
reasonable due diligence on the nominee, and tend to actual
judicial emergencies, should we hold a hearing on Mr.
Keisler's nomination.
We thank you for your consideration of this unanimous
request of Democratic Senators.
Sincerely,
Patrick Leahy.
Chuck Schumer.
Nita Feingold.
Dianne Feinstein.
Herb Kohl.
Ted Kennedy.
Dick Durbin.
Joe Biden.
____
The Court Security Act of 2007
March 29, 2007--Ordered to be printed
Mr. Leahy, Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary,
submits the following report together with additional views
VI. ADDITIONAL VIEWS
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATORS FEINSTEIN AND KYL
Section 506 of this bill transfers a judgeship from the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Once this
provision is enacted into law, the Ninth Circuit will have 29
judgeships and the D.C. Circuit will have 11.
Section 506 will help to ease the backlog of pending cases
in the Ninth Circuit, where more judgeships are sorely
needed. At the same time, it will eliminate a judgeship on
the D.C. Circuit that many Senators--including both Democrats
and Republicans on this committee--have indicated that they
believe to be unnecessary.
The numbers tell a striking story. According to the
Administrative Office of the United States Courts, 107
appeals per judge were filed in the D.C. Circuit in 2006. By
contrast, in the Ninth Circuit, the filings were nearly five
times higher--a total of 523 filings per judge in 2006.
Filings per judge in the Ninth Circuit are also substantially
higher than the national average of 399 filings per judge.
The D.C. Circuit's rate of filings, by contrast, falls far
below the national average.
The merits of transferring a judgeship from the D.C.
Circuit to the Ninth Circuit are also brought into relief by
considering the total number of appeals left pending in each
circuit at the end of the 2006 reporting cycle. In the Ninth
Circuit, 1,853 appeals were pending at the end of this
period. This was the highest total for any circuit in the
nation. By contrast, in the D.C. Circuit, only 387 appeals
were pending at the end of the 2006 period. This was the
lowest total for any circuit in the nation.
The backlog of cases in the Ninth Circuit is not merely a
problem for lawyers and judges. It injures ordinary people
who have to wait longer to have their cases resolved.
Plaintiffs who have been injured, criminal defendants seeking
review of their convictions, and victims waiting for
justice--for all of these people, justice delayed is justice
denied.
It just makes sense to take a judgeship from where it is
needed least, and to transfer it to where it is needed most.
California is hit hardest by the inadequate number of
judgeships on the Ninth Circuit. In 2005, 10,000 federal
appeals--70% of the circuit's total docket--were filed in
California. On February 14, during his testimony before this
Committee, even U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy
commented on the overloaded docket of the Central District of
California. Yet of the Ninth Circuit's 28 judgeships, only 14
are assigned to California.
California needs more judges. Transferring a judgeship from
the D.C. Circuit to the Ninth Circuit in California would be
a first step toward correcting this deficiency.
The D.C. Circuit, by contrast, has seen its caseload
decline in recent years. In fact, filings in that circuit
dropped by 7.1% in 2006 alone. Removal of the 12th judgeship
would only modestly increase filings per judge in that
circuit to 115--a figure still well below half the national
average for U.S. courts of appeals. And in any event, the
burden on that court of removing a seat is largely
hypothetical. The 12th seat on the D.C. Circuit was created
in 1984 and has remained vacant for most of the intervening
years, including all of the last decade. On the other hand,
adding one seat to the Ninth Circuit would reduce filings per
judge on that court to 503--still a heavy burden on the
justice system of the Western States.
Section 506 is a reasonable step toward the solution of a
pressing problem in the administration of United States
courts. We are pleased to see it made part of this bill.
Dianne Feinstein.
Jon Kyl.
National Day of Remembrance
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to give
thanks and show respect to World War II and Cold War heroes who served
in our Nation's nuclear weapons programs on this fifth National Day of
Remembrance. They weren't serving in the heat of battle but in the
laboratory, handling materials on a daily basis that ranged from benign
to toxic and highly radioactive. These materials posed risks that many
scientists did not understand at the time.
Today in Oak Ridge, TN, the American Museum of Science and Energy,
and Cold War Patriots are gathering to celebrate former workers and
view a quilt that honors nuclear workers for their contribution to
America's safety. This one-of-a-kind remembrance quilt has 1,250
commemorative handwritten quilt squares that form an American flag that
measures 17 feet by 11 feet.
I want to specifically remember Bill Wilcox for his service to our
country and passion for preserving Oak Ridge history. Bill passed this
September. Bill was a former manager of the K-25 operations, a
Manhattan Project veteran, and the official historian for the city of
Oak Ridge.
In 1943, Bill was hired by Tennessee Eastman on a ``Secret, secret,
secret!'' project in an unknown location. When he started at Eastman he
was told:
As chemists you'll have to know that you'll be working [on]
this project with a substance called uranium. That is the
last time that you will hear that word or you will speak it
until after the war. And if you are
[[Page S7654]]
ever heard speaking the word you will be subject to discharge
from our employment immediately, and very likely prosecuted
by the United States government, and may end up in jail. Is
that clear?
In Oak Ridge ground was broken for the Y-12 plant in February of
1943, and by the end of the summer they started installing complex
physics machines, called calutrons. About 1,000 calutrons were
installed at Y-12.
How were these calutrons operated? Tennessee Eastman said that the
calutrons couldn't be run as an experiment but should be run like an
industrial plant. Rather than manuals, there should be a simple red
line on meter A. The operator would turn knob A until the needle is on
the red line on meter A.
However, General Leslie Groves, head of the Manhattan Project, along
with physicists disagreed. So they took five calutrons and ran them for
a week with the best physicists and then another week with girls right
out of high school that kept the needle on the red line of the meters.
``After a week the girls had won hands down in terms of productivity.''
These women were called the ``calutron girls.'' One calutron girl
first learned of the war effort in Oak Ridge when she was at a cafe in
Sweetwater, TN. She was working in a hardware store at the time. The
store had a big window where people from the surrounding counties put
photos of their sons who went away to war. She had the job of
straightening up the photos when the heat from the window caused the
cardboard frames to buckle. With great dignity, the families would take
down the pictures of their fallen soldiers.
Wanting to help the war effort, she went to Oak Ridge, where there
was ``mud everywhere, and green Army trucks, and vehicles, and
soldiers, and that was just inside the gate.'' As a calutron girl, she
wore a blue uniform. The chemical workers wore white. She said:
You weren't allowed to go in the other room . . . you'd
stick out like a sore thumb, a blue something in a white-
uniformed place . . . But they let us go over--towards the
end . . . they told us to take all the bobby pins out of your
hair before you go out there because it would yank your bobby
pins out.
She remembers:
You couldn't talk. You couldn't say anything to anybody
about where you worked, what building, when you left the
plant. In fact, there were huge banners up all over the
plant: `When you leave here what you see here stays here.'
And you weren't allowed to tell even . . . somebody [that]
worked on the same thing you did.
There were signs everywhere: ``Keep your mouth shut!'' ``Loose lips
sink ships!'' ``See no evil; hear no evil; speak no evil'' with posted
fines of $10,000 and warnings of jail time.
One of the things that was curious about Oak Ridge was that these
rail cars came in every week, but nobody ever saw any product going
out. The reason was that the product went out in a standard-sized
briefcase every week chained to the wrist of a military officer, in
plainclothes. He would get on the train and go to Chicago to exchange
the briefcase.
During 1945, a different process at the K-25 building was
surprisingly successful and cost less than 10 percent of the cost of
the Y-12 process. The K-25 building was a mile-long U-shape--once the
world's largest buildings under one roof. The operators had to use
bicycles just to get around their building.
The successful K-25 process ran full blast for another 20 years,
while the Y-12 plant received a new mission.
These efforts along with others by our nuclear weapons workers across
the country won World War II and the cold war. At the peak of the Cold
War, nearly 600,000 workers across the country were involved in the
research and production of nuclear weapons.
Today, many former nuclear weapons workers are retired. Many of them
are sick. Some are dying. The government is helping these sick nuclear
workers through the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation
Program created by Congress in 2001.
This program provides compensation to those who were exposed to
radiation and toxic materials while building our nuclear weapons,
especially those that were instrumental in our winning the cold war.
This program receives claims from all 50 States nearly 100,000
individual workers.
This program is especially important to Tennessee. Tennessee has the
highest number of claims than any other State--over 14,000 workers.
Tennesseans, mostly former workers at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Y-
12 and K-25, have received over $1.7 billion in compensation and paid
medical bills, according to the Department of Labor.
Today, the nuclear workers across the country continue this heroic
legacy to advance nuclear power, nuclear medicine and other technology
that continues to make our lives better and keep our country safe.
So I am privileged to work with Senator Mark Udall in honoring these
patriots who worked countless hours with little-understood hazardous
materials to build our country's nuclear deterrent.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to enter into a
colloquy with my colleagues from Delaware and Ohio for up to 30
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Manufacturing in America
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, this is one of those all-too-rare occasions
anymore where we all agree, and it is about making things. We will be
talking for the next few minutes about what happens in our country and
what needs to happen so we can not just make things again--because we
still make lots of things, and we make them very well--but what we need
to do to be able to make more things. What do we need to do to be sure
we are at the competitive front of the line as we work to make things.
All of us are working on things together. Senator Brown and I have
been working on advanced manufacturing--something that he has spoken
about and we have spoken about together and that he has been a leader
on for a long time--and all of our States benefit.
Missouri and Ohio have certainly been among the significant
manufacturing States. In Missouri we have more than $32 billion a year
in manufacturing. For about the last 4 years that has been the top
manufacturing employment, has been in the agricultural industry, in
food processing, as well as transportation equipment, fabricated
metals, machinery of all kinds, and automobiles have been in the top of
our manufacturing sectors.
I believe we are really at a point where so many things could easily
come together, and the Federal Government and the Congress can help
make those things come together by taking down barriers and by creating
easier ways to work together. In the case of advanced manufacturing, we
have talked about the centers of excellence and we have worked on that
together, and we have both seen some of these ideas work.
I wish to ask Senator Brown some of the things he has seen and the
things he thinks we can do better through the legislation we have been
talking about.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I appreciate Senator Blunt yielding. I
appreciate the opportunity to engage in this colloquy with the Senator
from Missouri as well as the Senator from Delaware, both of whom have
been leaders in manufacturing in Missouri and in Delaware.
It is pretty clear what these public-private hubs can do in terms of
a multiplier effect. When we look at manufacturing history in this
country--and of course I will use an illustration in my State, as I
understand my State better than I do any other--when Akron was the
leading tire manufacturer and was sort of the center for tire
manufacturing along the Ohio turnpike in northeast Ohio; to Toledo,
where glass manufacturing was prominent and prevalent for decades; to
autos in Cleveland; to steel; and then to rubber in Akron, we can see
that once we have an innovative focus, then other kinds of
manufacturing come out of that. As the tire industry declined over the
decades, Akron is now one of the leaders in polymer. Toledo, which was
a leader in glass manufacturing--plate glass for cars, bottles, and a
lot of other kinds of glassware--has become a solar center.
So the legislation Senator Blunt and I have come up with will help
American workers and American business have the drive and the creative
thinking and the determination to innovate ahead of the rest of the
world.
Before turning to Senator Coons, I wish to tell a quick story that
tells me
[[Page S7655]]
why it is so important that manufacturing take place here. We out-
innovate the rest of the world. We are still the most creative. We are
the best innovators. We lead in foundational research and in other
kinds of research. The problem is that as we invent things in this
country, if we then outsource the manufacturing, so much of the
creativity and innovation, both in process and in product, takes place
in that other country because it takes place in the shops.
I will give a quick example. The largest yogurt manufacturer in North
America is in western Ohio near the town where Neil Armstrong grew up,
western Ohio near Wapakoneta. That yogurt manufacturer--I was there one
day, and they used to bring in--the suppliers would send the plastic
cups to the shop floor, to the manufacturer, and they would fill them--
in these big silver vats--they would fill these plastic cups with
fermented milk, with yogurt, package it, and send it. A young
industrial engineer and a couple of people who worked on the line for
years said: We can do this a lot less expensively and save money for
the company and be more productive and efficient. So the three of them
developed something pretty simple to an engineer, not so simple,
perhaps, to me, but they simply fed a roll of plastic, a sheet of
plastic, it was slowly heated, and it was then extruded and then cooled
and filled with yogurt. The line was about 75 feet, and it made for a
much more efficient innovation. That innovation took place on the shop
floor of an American manufacturing plant, making the productivity of
that plant much greater.
That is really how we need to look at this. If we are going to do
this partnership with government and local manufacturers and local
labor unions and local businesses and local suppliers, we can do the
kind of work Senator Blunt mentioned with these manufacturing hubs,
this network of manufacturing innovation initiative we have had.
We introduced the bill this summer. We are working to build support.
We welcome the support of our colleagues. Senator Blunt has already
mentioned what it could mean in Missouri, and perhaps Senator Coons
could tell us what it would mean in Delaware and in this country and
what better manufacturing and more innovation means to our country.
I thank my two colleagues. I have a conference committee I need to
join, but I appreciate very much my colleagues opening this discussion.
Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Ohio for his
tireless and engaged leadership on manufacturing, on fighting for
access to foreign markets on fair terms, for fighting for skills and
increasing the skills of our manufacturing workforce, and in this
instance, in this strong bipartisan bill, for working with our
colleague from Missouri on a national network of manufacturing
innovation centers.
My own work of 8 years at a manufacturing company in Delaware in a
materials-based science company that makes things helped make it clear
to me how important research and development and continuous innovation
are for manufacturers at all levels. I have seen this across the State
of Delaware. Our Presiding Officer--long owner and leader of a
manufacturing business in his home State of Indiana--knows this better
than any of us: that if we don't innovate, if we don't invest in
research and development, in improving the skills in the workforce and
improving the productivity and the operating efficiency of any
manufacturing company, we can't survive in the tough headwinds of the
global marketplace today.
One of the programs I championed here in the Senate that has
bipartisan support is the Manufacturing Extension Partnership. It is a
long-established program that takes the latest cutting-edge research
and development work at universities and moves it to the shop floor. I
have visited companies up and down Delaware, from FMC in Newark to
Speakman in New Castle, where they have taken those innovations from
the university to the shop floor.
One of the things I am grateful to Senator Blunt for is his
leadership in taking that insight that in order to have the most
productive manufacturing workforce in the world, in order to continue
to compete globally, we have to find ways to continue to invest in
demonstrating the power of innovation and we have to find ways to do
that in a bipartisan way.
I thank the Senator for being willing to work with Senator Brown and
others here. This is exactly the sort of stuff I hear from Delawareans
they want us to be doing. There is lots that divides us. This is
something that unites us: working together to strengthen our
manufacturing sector, to make it more competitive, to bring jobs back
to the United States, and to grow this sector.
We have grown half a million jobs in the last 3 years in the
manufacturing sector. These are good jobs, at high wages, high
benefits, high skills. But we can and should do more, pulling together
to sort of lift further this ongoing manufacturing revival.
If Senator Blunt would share some more with us about this specific
bill and about his experience in what else we can and should be doing
together to strengthen manufacturing in Missouri, I would be grateful.
Mr. BLUNT. The Senator's point is well made. These manufacturing jobs
are goods jobs. The American workforce is competitive. As Senator Brown
said, we have always been on the cutting edge, the outside of
competition, making things in a better way than we did last year.
Everybody who is competing today is trying to figure out how they can
do whatever they did last year better. We see that and what we can add
to that, how we can make that process work better.
In our State, the average manufacturing job pays 21.5 percent more
than the average wage. Mr. President, $52,000 or so for the average
manufacturing job salary in Missouri is a significant improvement in
where you might otherwise be. In Missouri we have 6,500 manufacturing
firms. Almost a quarter of a million people work in manufacturing in
Missouri. We used to have more than that. We used to have more than
that, and I think we will have more than that again. The country used
to do more in terms of manufacturing than it does now. But we are going
to see that happen.
The Senator from Delaware just wrote an article in Congressional
Quarterly that talked about what needs to be done, the great
opportunities we have in energy. If we take advantage of those great
energy opportunities, suddenly the utility bill is more predictable,
the delivery system is more guaranteed.
I was talking to a manufacturer today in my office and this topic
came up. At some point now, as you get further and further into
innovation, people not only have to be better trained--the Senator
talked about that too: the importance of a skilled workforce--but how
the workforce competes with maybe a lower paid workforce in some other
country maybe is not nearly as important as how the utility bill
competes.
If you can run that facility--and I just gave him an example of
another manufacturing facility in my hometown of Springfield, MO, that
was making a significant expansion, I think about a $150 million
expansion. They did not expect to hire any more people, but they expect
to use that current workforce in a much more competitive way. Nobody
was losing a job because of advanced competition. They are just
expanding that workforce in a way that ensures they will keep their job
and be more competitive. Of course, somebody, by the way, is building
that expansion. There are jobs there as well. And those all matter.
We have all kinds of examples.
Perryville, MO, is a town of less than 10,000 people. In that town,
they have become a hub--it is about 80 miles south of St. Louis--of
21st century manufacturing. A Japanese company is there, Toyoda Gosei,
that makes plastic components for automobiles. Sabreliner makes
aviation parts and is in the airplane industry. There is Gilster-Mary
Lee, a much more traditional employer. But here is a town that has a
significant number of manufacturing jobs.
The town of Cassville, near Springfield, for a number of years had
more manufacturing jobs than they had population. Now, of course, that
meant in the part of the country where I live lots of people may have
been driving a significant number of miles to get to those jobs. But
there are not very
[[Page S7656]]
many cities. This is a smaller community. It is the county seat of
Barry County. But they had more manufacturing jobs than the number of
people who lived in the community itself. It meant that is a
competitive community. That is a community that knows how to build
jobs.
Perryville is a community that has launched itself well into the 21st
century. And the skills the Senator was talking about--the skilled
workforce, the energy needs, the research component--one of the
components of these hubs of excellence that we have been looking at and
talking about, Senator Brown and I have been working on, is to create
ways to encourage that higher education be part of that research
component.
I think Americans are eager to produce. I bet the Senator and I both
hear the same thing over and over: How can we have a strong economy if
we do not produce? Well, you can have a strong economy in parts of the
economy that do not produce, but I think not only do you need to
produce, but there is something that defines who we are in a positive
way when people see American production that is not only heavily
competitive here but competitive all over the world.
I think that is what Senator Coons and I are talking about, the kind
of bipartisan effort we need to make. I do not know any Republicans or
any Democrats anywhere, or any Independents, who have said: Oh, we
don't need to worry about making things. We don't need to worry about a
competitive economy. Actually, private sector jobs should be the No. 1
domestic goal of the Federal Government today. And the jobs we are
talking about are a significant component because they lead to lots of
other jobs. All of the ripple effects of manufacturing jobs are great:
the other businesses that spring up, the suppliers that come.
Of course, the Senator and I have talked about his father was a
significant part of launching new things into the marketplace. I think
that is what the Senator and I want to see this Congress encourage, as
we can encourage things without law and look for legislative ways to
facilitate a growth back toward manufacturing.
Mr. COONS. I thank Senator Blunt for his work on this bill with
Senator Brown. There are other bills that I hope this body will take up
and discuss and debate where I hope we can find ideas that are out
there, with progress that is being made and policy innovation that is
being made, and that we can take them up, debate them, and find
bipartisan sponsors who will carry them forward.
I absolutely agree with the Senator's point that we are seeing in
manufacturing a revival in this country for a variety of reasons. One
of them is less expensive energy. The shale gas revolution is reducing
the feedstock costs for chemical manufacturing and reducing the energy
costs broadly for manufacturing of all kinds.
We are also seeing that lots of American companies fear the loss of
their inventions, their innovations, if they move offshore. So some of
the attractiveness of operating in other countries has dimmed a bit, as
they have recognized that the United States is one that has a rule of
law that protects their inventions and innovations.
There is also less of a wage gap, frankly, as wages have come up in
the developing world. In China, the wage gap is less. So that
combination gives us a window, gives us a moment of opportunity. We
lost millions of manufacturing jobs in the first years of this century,
but in the last three we have been growing them and growing them
steadily. If we can work in partnership across the aisle on
manufacturing skills, on access to credit, on innovation, on a
coordinated strategy, I cannot imagine a community in this country that
would not rather have high-quality manufacturing jobs.
As Senator Blunt was mentioning, for every manufacturing job that is
created, there is 1.6 new support jobs created. For every $1 spent in
manufacturing, there is $1.34 spent in the local economy that moves
around. It is the sector that has the most positive secondary impact in
our communities.
I do think there is broadly in our country a sense that we have sort
of lost our leading edge in manufacturing because of the large-scale
layoffs and the large plant closings. But in my State, and I presume in
the Senator's State and in the Presiding Officer's State of Indiana,
and others, there are dozens and dozens of small and medium-sized
manufacturers who have seized this moment, who are growing, and who
simply want us to help facilitate their access to the market, their
access to innovation and new research, their access to a skilled
workforce.
If we can pull together, I think we can do great things for the
United States going forward.
Also, before we close, I thank Senator Blunt for being a cosponsor
with me of the startup innovation tax credit--something Senator Enzi
and I and many others--Senator Rubio, Senator Schumer, Senator
Stabenow, as well as Senator Moran--have cosponsored and introduced and
discussed over time. It would help with access to capital for early
stage startup manufacturers.
There are lots of good ideas we can and should discuss on the floor,
in hearings, and going forward. But for today I am grateful to Senator
Blunt for his leadership with Senator Brown on this bill that would
help strengthen the National Network of Manufacturing Innovation
centers. The Senator is a strong leader for manufacturing in his home
State of Missouri, and I am grateful for a chance to spend some time
with him on the floor today discussing that good bill and his good
ideas.
Mr. BLUNT. Let me just talk a little bit about the startup act that
Senator Coons and I have worked on. The Senator mentioned, I think, all
the cosponsors of that: Senator Rubio, Senator Stabenow, Senator Moran,
Senator Kaine, Senator Schumer, and Senator Enzi.
What that does is try to extend the opportunity of research and
development to startup businesses. The way the tax credit works, you
can deduct those costs from the taxes you pay. Well, if you are a
startup business, you often do not have any profit to deduct from. That
is part of the courage, frankly, of starting a business. You are almost
insured, guaranteed, that for the first weeks, months, sometimes the
first years, depending on how big a venture this is, you are not making
money yet. So what the Senator and I and our friends have done in the
startup act is say--these people would have employees--so what we do is
allow the same tax credit for a big corporation or a big business or a
highly successful business with lots of profit to be applied against
what they pay as taxes for their employees--the Social Security tax,
the other taxes that are paid--and, again, trying to encourage
innovation.
We all know that small business is the engine that drives the
country. But also small business can be the engine that drives
manufacturing, if we figure out a way to let them have some of the same
benefits that existing businesses have that have already gotten
themselves in a profit-making situation. This just gives them a place
to go and utilize that credit.
That is the kind of thing we ought to be looking at. Startup
businesses are important, encouraging traditional businesses to figure
out how to upgrade their equipment, upgrade the way they do things so
they are more competitive in an international marketplace. I really do
firmly believe that for reasons the Senator mentioned--the wage gap is
not what it was, the transportation costs are more than they were to
get something made from somewhere else back to the greatest market in
world, the United States of America; and the more we know about the
utility bills--Senator Donnelly from Indiana, who is the Presiding
Officer, and I have been working on things that pay attention to the
utility bills. Again, that is a key component of future manufacturing.
The more competitive you are, the more innovative you are, the more you
are likely to be concerned about that part of your input costs. And
sometimes when you expand, the utility bill is a bigger than the
additional labor cost. But that may be exactly what ensures you can
keep the labor you have and grow that labor by being able to make a
commitment that you feel good about because you feel good about your
ability to run that facility once you build it. You feel good that not
only is it going to work this year, but, by the way, we are doing so
well and doing so many things that 10 years from now we feel whatever
the utility costs are going to be, they are
[[Page S7657]]
going to be within the range we can deal with and still produce right
in Missouri, right in Ohio, right in Delaware, or right in Indiana.
That is the kind of thing we ought to be focusing on. How do we make
things again? How do we create other kinds of private sector jobs, the
No. 1 domestic priority of the country today?
Every time the Senator and I talk about manufacturing, I really do
get excited about an America that is thinking about not are we going to
be able to continue to make what we have always made, but what can we
make better than anybody else that we are not making yet that is going
to allow us to be out there in a world marketplace? Trade has become a
much greater opportunity for the American workforce, as all of these
other factors we have been talking about on the floor have come
together to make our workforce what it is.
If Senator Coons has any final remarks, I would like him to finish
our time here on the floor.
Mr. COONS. I thank Senator Blunt. I thank the Senator for his
enthusiasm for manufacturing and for his enthusiasm for working
together with me on the startup innovation credit bill, as the Senator
referenced, and with Senator Brown on the national network of
manufacturing innovation centers as he spoke about.
Manufacturing is the center, the beating heart of the middle class of
America. Manufacturing jobs are good jobs. We do need to get back to
being a country where inventing, growing, and making things is an area
of bipartisan, sustained, purposeful focus. I know for the folks who
watch us at home and for the folks here in this Chamber, nothing could
meet the demands and the needs of our communities and our States more
than for us to come together in a bipartisan, balanced, and responsible
way to advocate for a stronger manufacturing sector in the United
States.
I thank Senator Blunt very much.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1592
Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, we have all now been aware over the last
few days in the news about the problems being faced with the Web site
upon which people are supposed to go in order to sign up to be on one
of these exchanges. That is important, because next year Americans are
going to owe money to the IRS if they do not have health insurance by a
certain date.
One of the ways people are supposed to get health insurance is by
going on one of those Web sites and logging on, registering, and being
able to see what their options are for insurance, and then signing up.
If you do not do that, then you are going to owe money to the IRS next
year.
The problem is those Web sites are not working. In fact, just today
as the Secretary was testifying before a House committee, the Web site
crashed again. There are a lot of different reasons why that is
happening. I am sure eventually, with all of the experts who are
involved in it, they will be able to set up a Web site that functions,
because this is the 21st century. The ability to go online and buy
something, frankly, is something people do every single day with all
kinds of things. So to me, it is inexplicable that they are not able to
do that when it comes to health insurance.
But in the meantime, people are struggling not just with the Web
site, by the way, there are problems now with the 800 number and the
paper application.
I believe the prudent approach is to say we are going to delay, that
we are going to put off punishing people, that we are going to put off
the individual mandate until the Web site works. I will admit, I do not
think the law works at all in its totality and it will eventually have
to be repealed. That is what I favor. But in the interim, what I am
proposing is something that I think is pretty reasonable; that is, the
notion that until these Web sites are working, how can we punish people
for not buying health insurance? Why are we going to punish someone for
not buying health insurance if the Web site they are supposed to buy it
on, by the administration's own admission, is not properly working?
This is creating a lot of anxiety for people. That is why I filed a
bill to do that. That is why I come on the floor today for the purpose
of making a motion.
As if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 225, S. 1592,
which is a bill to delay the individual mandate until the health
exchanges are functioning properly. I further ask unanimous consent
that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider
be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I think it
is pretty clear that this motion is inappropriate. This is not what we
should be doing and how we should potentially change the act. Actually,
the effect here is to disrupt implementation of the Affordable Care
Act. The Affordable Care Act is a law. It has been in place for several
years. The Supreme Court has upheld it. Attempts to repeal it failed. I
think the House has voted up to 20 times to try to repeal the ACA. They
have all failed. The act is here. So the goal here is to make it work,
make the act work. Then later on we can ask questions about what
happened, why it didn't work, why wasn't implementation of the
exchanges as good as a lot of us would have liked it to have been. Then
find out who is responsible, et cetera. Right now it works.
The effect of this motion is severalfold. One, it will deny people
having health insurance, people who otherwise would get health
insurance. If you delay the individual responsibility requirement, it
is going to cause a delay. People will not have insurance.
Second, it is going to increase the cost of health insurance for a
lot of people. Why? Because fewer people will be signed up. The
individual responsibility requirement will not be followed as much as
otherwise would be the case. The result is fewer people will be in the
insurance pool, and therefore prices will be higher.
Another consequence is it lowers the quality of health insurance,
especially for those individuals who are seeking to be insured. They
are going to have a lower quality product as a consequence of this
request. It is an attempt to destabilize, it is an attempt to undermine
the ACA.
I think for those reasons it is inappropriate and again is another
effort to obstruct. We should not proceed in this way, so I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Florida.
Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I do not intend to offer another motion
since the objection has been heard. I do want to point out a couple of
things. First of all, this notion that ObamaCare is the law--it is true
it is the law. It was passed by Congress in the years before I got
here. This is called the Calendar of Business. This is the Executive
Calendar. Basically every single bill that is in here is an effort to
change existing law, for the most part. That is what we do around here.
That is what the legislative process is about. Virtually every bill
that is filed is either an effort to create a new law, but usually it
is an effort to change existing law. So if we begin to argue around
here that once something is existing law it can never be changed, we
might as well close up shop, because that is what we do. That is what
the legislative process is about.
The second point that was made was that this law will prevent people
have having health insurance. That is not true. Let me say this: No. 1,
I am in favor of people having health insurance. I do think we cannot
ignore the health insurance problem this country faces.
No. 2, admittedly, I am in favor of repealing ObamaCare and replacing
it with a better alternative. But that is not what this bill does. All
this bill says--this is the only thing it says: The only thing it says
is you cannot enforce the individual mandate, you cannot tell people
next year that we will fine you, that the IRS is going to impose a fine
on you. You will not be able to do that until the Web site is fully
working.
In terms of this preventing people from getting health insurance,
that is simply not accurate. This does not prevent anyone from going
onto the Web site and signing up. If the bill I am proposing is
adopted, it would not keep
[[Page S7658]]
anybody from signing up for health insurance under ObamaCare. The only
thing it would do is keep the IRS from fining you if you are unable to
do it. The reason why that makes sense is because the way we are
supposed to do it on a Web site simply is not working.
So it is not accurate to say this will somehow prevent people from
buying health insurance. It does not. It does not prohibit you from
trying to get it on the Web site. It is just the recognition that the
Web site is not working well and there is a consequence to it. The
consequence to it is if they cannot get these Web sites up and running,
there are people who will not be able to buy health insurance and they
are going to get fined for it. That does not sound fair to me.
So while I continue to want to repeal ObamaCare, I think for the good
of our people it is unfair to continue to hold over their head the
threat of an IRS fine when the method of compliance we are asking them
to follow is not fully functioning. That is all this would do.
I would point out this is not a theoretical concern. I get letters
and emails every day. But I want to read one I got. I will paraphrase
it. It is from Barbara in Ruskin, FL. She is 63 years old. She tried to
apply to the health insurance marketplace on October 1. As of the
writing of this email, she is no further along. She sought the services
of a certified navigator on October 14. After spending hours on line
trying to get an account established and making the application, the
navigator, with her on speaker phone, after many hours finally assisted
her in making an application. She was told she would receive additional
information via email. Ten days later she has still heard nothing. She
is worried because she is currently covered, but that is being
terminated at the end of the year because of ObamaCare. It is going to
end on December 31. According to the information provided to her, she
has to be enrolled in another insurance plan or she is going to face
the fine.
This is just one example. I could go on and on. I do not want to
burden the time of the Senate. But there are thousands upon thousands
of people who are dealing with this problem.
Here is the last point I would make. I have now heard on a number of
occasions the administration say with full confidence that by the end
of this coming month, by the end of November, the Web sites will be up
and running. If that is true, then there is no reason to be against my
bill. If, in fact, you are so confident the Web sites are going to be
up and running by the end of November, then this problem will be taken
care of. If, in fact, you are right, and the Web sites are going to be
up and running at the end of November, then the mandate will be back in
effect.
The only thing my bill does is say: As long as the Web site is not
working and until it is working, you cannot enforce the ObamaCare
mandates on people through a fine from the IRS. That is it. That is all
it says. That is why I think this makes all the sense in the world. I
am surprised that we somehow believe we should continue to hold the
penalty over people's heads when the way we are asking them to comply
with the law, by the admission of the administration, by the admission
of the Secretary today, is simply not working well enough.
I hope in the days to come my colleagues will reconsider, because I
think our people, irrespective of how you feel about ObamaCare, deserve
better. To that end, I would read to you one email I got from someone
who actually supports ObamaCare. Nicholas in Palm Bay, FL, wrote an
extensive email. He talked about how he submitted an application to the
Web site. It took hours to complete because of Web issues. They finally
finished the application 23 days later. The application is still in
progress, but it will not let him go any farther to choose the
insurance. So while he does not agree with me about defunding or
repealing ObamaCare, he agrees with me that we should suspend the
individual mandate penalty until this Web site issue is fixed.
I think there are a lot of people who are going to feel that way. I
think there are a lot of people who would be shocked that the
government is going to punish them for not buying insurance when the
Web site they are being sent to buy it on does not work.
Again, I think it is a commonsense approach. I am surprised there is
objection to it. I suppose I should not be, but I am. I hope in the
days and weeks to come my colleagues will reconsider, because in my
opinion, and I think in the opinion of many Americans, it is simply
unfair.
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. COONS. 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. COONS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favor of Ms.
Patricia Millett's nomination to the DC Circuit Court. As a member of
the Senate Judiciary Committee, I have the opportunity to closely
examine each of the judicial candidates nominated by our President. I
did so with Ms. Millett, attending her nomination hearing and speaking
to a wide range of the practitioners and colleagues who have direct
knowledge of her professionalism and experience. Without exception, at
every stage of her career and with every personal and professional
colleague with whom she has had work experience, Patty--Ms. Millett--
has distinguished herself as a person of integrity, intelligence, and
dedication. She is a person whose capability and devotion to a family
is an inspiration to those around her. She is unanimously recommended
by former living Solicitors General, and received the ABA's highest
rating.
Some of my colleagues here have argued that President Obama is trying
to ``pack the court'' by nominating Ms. Millett and two other nominees
to fill three current vacancies on the DC Circuit Court. These charges
of court packing strike me, frankly, as without foundation. Court
packing is an historical term used to describe when politicians try to
change the size of a court, expand a court, in order to control its
expected outcome. That was the cause of the objection to President
Roosevelt's plan to add up to six Justices to the U.S. Supreme Court
back in 1937.
In fact, a current legislative proposal to strip the President's
ability to fill three vacant seats on the DC Circuit could better be
called court stripping. In this particular case, making nominations to
vacant judicial positions is not court packing, it is a President doing
his job. Confirming highly qualified nominees to serve on this circuit
in this vacancy would be this body doing its job.
The charges of court packing are absurd on their face. They are even
more absurd when put in context.
Ms. Millett has been nominated to the ninth seat of the 11 authorized
on this court. There are currently three vacancies on this vital
circuit court.
I held a hearing earlier this year on judicial staffing levels in my
role as the chair of the Subcommittee on Bankruptcy and the Courts of
the Judiciary Committee. I invited the chair of the Judicial Conference
Committee on Judicial Resources, Judge Tymkovich, to come testify. For
those who ascribe significance to such things, Judge Tymkovich was
nominated by President George W. Bush to sit on the 10th Circuit Court
of Appeals.
Judge Tymkovich testified--convincingly, in my opinion--that the
Federal judiciary needs more judges, not fewer. Every other year, the
Judicial Conference submits to Congress a report on recommendations on
judgeships. That report did not conclude that any judgeships should be
removed or remain unfilled on the DC Circuit.
Judge Tymkovich also explained why the caseload statistics used by
some of our colleagues to argue that the DC Circuit has a low
caseload--and thus need not have its vacancies filled--are, in fact,
unconvincing. The DC Circuit hears a unique caseload, with four times
the number of complex administrative appeals than other circuit courts
around the country.
The DC Circuit is the circuit from which all the Federal agencies'
actions are repealed. More than any other court in the country, its
caseload is made up of very complex, very difficult cases with far-
reaching consequences and that require a great deal of time. Simply
looking at the raw number of cases filed, opened, and closed is not an
accurate predictor of whether a vacant seat on the DC Circuit should,
in fact,
[[Page S7659]]
be filled. The DC Circuit's caseload has remained steady over the past
10 years, so the Judicial Conference has seen no reason to recommend
any alteration in its staffing level.
The court packing argument made by some is also at odds with history,
especially when one considers that caseloads lower than they are now on
the DC Circuit were sufficient when all Republican Members then in
office voted to confirm then Judge Roberts to the 9th seat, Janice
Rogers Brown to the 10th seat, Thomas Griffith to the 11th seat, and
Brett Kavanaugh to the 10th seat when it became vacant. When Ms.
Millett is confirmed, the DC Circuit will still have more pending
appeals per active judge than after the confirmations of any of those
four earlier Bush nominees I just referenced. The caseload on the DC
Circuit would also remain above that of the current 6th Circuit and
10th Circuit, to which courts the Senate has confirmed Republican
supported judicial nominees this year.
A filibuster of Ms. Millett on caseload grounds would bring the
Senate to an unprecedented and regrettable place. It would destroy
comity and trust at a time when our Nation needs it most, when we need
to demonstrate to the people of the United States that this Congress
can function and that this Senate can fulfill its constitutional role.
It would not only facilitate the administration of justice by our
courts, but also allow us to tackle other issues if we could move past
endless and needless filibusters on issues such as this. It would allow
us to move forward to the broader issues of the day, tackling long-term
debt and deficit challenges, the fight against global terrorism,
reinvesting in our future, and working together to invest in
manufacturing and grow our economy. There are so many other issues that
call for the time of this body.
With that, I wish to urge my colleagues to look at Ms. Millett's
nomination on its merits and to not be distracted by what I think are
groundless arguments that this is an instance of so-called court
packing by this President.
This President is doing his job. He is nominating supremely qualified
candidates to serve in the highest courts of this land, and this body
should do its job and confirm those qualified nominees.
National Technological Innovation Day
If I might, I simply wanted to comment to this body that something
passed with little notice here yesterday. October 29, 2013, was
National Technological Innovation Day. This was recognizing the role
that technological innovation plays in the United States economy.
We know that innovation is absolutely essential to developing new
medicines, treatments, and cures to help us live longer and more
healthy lives. Innovation is essential to strengthen the manufacturing
sector of the American economy and make us more competitive. Innovation
is essential to allow us to take advantage of new materials and new
opportunities in the world and to access new export markets overseas.
Innovation overall is what has brought all that is best about modern
life and the modern world.
Yesterday, in a bipartisan way, we recognized that on October 29,
many years ago, was the very first day that DARPAnet was able to
exchange communications from one computer to another. It was literally
the dawning of the modern Internet age. This was made possible in part
by Federal investment and innovation.
I am grateful that Senator Moran, Senator Isakson, Senator Heinrich,
and Senator Kirk joined me in recognizing the unique and important role
that technological innovation has played in America's past, America's
present, and America's future.
I yield the floor, and 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. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coons). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. Johnson of Wisconsin pertaining to the
introduction of S. 1617 are printed in today's Record under
``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and 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. REED. 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. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to support my colleague and my
friend, Congressman Mel Watt of North Carolina, who has been nominated
by the President to be the next Director of the Federal Housing Finance
Agency--the FHFA. I have total confidence that Mel is fully capable and
qualified to serve as the FHFA Director, and I am not alone.
This week, the National Association of Home Builders wrote a letter
to Leaders Reid and McConnell unequivocally endorsing Congressman Watt,
stating:
During Representative Watt's tenure on the House Financial
Services Committee, he has proven to be a thoughtful leader
on housing policy. The FHFA needs a permanent director with
his leadership capabilities.
Senator Burr, Congressman Watt's Republican colleague from North
Carolina, and Senator Hagan recently shared a ``Dear Colleague'' in
which both North Carolina Senators stated clearly, in their words:
Congressman Watt has shown himself to be an honest, kind,
and capable individual with deep understanding of the housing
market. We urge you to support his nomination.
He is indeed qualified to serve as the FHFA Director. He is an
incredibly decent and honest person who I know will always work
diligently toward a decision based on the facts, not on ideology or
momentary trends. Democrats know this, and Republicans who have worked
and served with him know this.
Despite this, there is some question whether Congressman Watt has the
technical experience to run FHFA. So let us look at Congressman Watt's
record to see if we can peel that back and look closely.
He is a graduate of Yale Law School, who for 22 years practiced
business, economic development, and real estate law. He is not a
theoretician. He understands the impact of foreclosure, not just the
macroeconomics but the personal dimension. He understands the role of
financial intermediaries, banks and housing agencies. He has been a 21-
year member of the House Financial Services Committee, so legislatively
he has been engaged and involved in every major business, financial,
and housing initiative in the last two decades, and he has seen this
from the perspective of a legislator.
He has earned the support of his colleagues, but also he has earned
the support of his constituents and his neighbors back home. He has the
endorsement of the former Republican Chairman of the House Financial
Services Committee, Spencer Bachus of Alabama, who noted:
Congressman Watt has played an integral role in the
financial services committee's deliberations on housing
policy and is known as a serious and substantive legislator .
. . In my experience in working with him on a variety of
issues, I have always personally respected Congressman Watt
for his intellect, attention to detail, and dedication to
serving the public.
Again, this is a reflection of two decades of service at the heart of
the process of legislating with respect to housing policy in the United
States. So when we combine his legal training, his practical experience
as a lawyer, his two decades of service as a member of the House
Financial Services Committee, he is fully qualified for this key
position, which is so vitally important now because we have to
seriously tackle the issue of housing finance reform, and we have to
take into consideration the needs and concerns of all the stakeholders,
from investors to homeowners.
Again, Congressman Watt has that perspective--knowing the intricacies
from his legal training of financial laws, doing what he has to do to
protect the interests of his clients, and as a legislator with over two
decades of experience in creating housing policy in the United States.
The FHFA should be led by a Director, confirmed by the Senate, not an
[[Page S7660]]
Acting Director. We have to send the signal this is a position that is
important and deserves a confirmed Director, notwithstanding the skills
and abilities and the great dedication of the current Acting Director.
We need to have someone in the position who has been confirmed by the
Senate. There are too many critical decisions each day, and too much at
stake in terms of housing finance reform not to have a confirmed
Director of the FHFA.
I urge my colleagues to allow this nomination to come before this
body for a vote. Congressman Watt deserves no less, and I indeed urge
support for his confirmation.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
Youth Employment
Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, today I rise to call attention to a
problem that seems to have gotten lost in the shuffle recently. That
issue is our unemployed and underemployed American youth.
On September 14, the Wall Street Journal published a must-read story
entitled: ``Wanted: Jobs for the New 'Lost' Generation.'' I would like
to read a brief excerpt from that article.
Like so many young Americans, Derek Wetherell is stuck. At
23 years old, he has a job, but not a career, and little
prospect for advancement. He has tens of thousands of dollars
in student debt but no college degree. He says he is more
likely to move back in with his parents than to buy a home,
and he doesn't know what he will do if his car--a 2001
Chrysler Sebring with well over 100,000 miles--breaks down.
``I'm kind of spinning my wheels,'' Mr. Wetherell says. ``We
can wishfully think that eventually it's going to get better,
but we really don't know, and that doesn't really help us
now.''
Derek Wetherell's experience is hardly unique. It is unfortunately an
experience shared by Americans across this Nation, including in my home
State of Nebraska. Despite promises of economic recovery, jobs remain
scarce, particularly for young people. A quick survey of family
members, neighbors, and friends reveals that too many adult children
are now living at home, stuck in their parents' proverbial basements.
A study released by The Opportunity Nation shows that 6 million young
people between 16 and 24 are neither in school nor are they working.
That means roughly 15 percent of America's youth are idle when they
should be gearing up for their most productive years. The study went on
to state:
Youth unemployment is at its highest in more than a decade,
and young people in many European countries now have a better
shot at moving up the ladder from poor to rich than they do
in America.
The United States has always stood as the land of opportunity--the
new home sought by immigrants from Europe and from around the world,
risking life and limb for personal freedom and economic progress.
It seems that the ancient European capitals now offer young people
more hope--a better chance at upward mobility--than our failing
economy. That must change.
The jobless youth don't belong exclusively to any class, race, or
gender. This problem does not discriminate. Nearly 1 in 4 African-
American youth is unemployed, while the unemployment rate for young
Latinos in September was 15.8 percent. Young men are unemployed at a
rate of over 17 percent, while nearly 13 percent of young women are out
of work.
Washington Monthly recently discussed the long-term impact of
joblessness on our youth.
The consequences are dire for these young Americans.
They're not only more likely to have a hard time in the job
market; researchers have found that disconnection has
scarring effects on health and happiness that endure
throughout a lifetime.
Unemployed, uneducated youth are at greater risk for
criminality and incarceration, and they often go on to become
unreliable spouses and improvident parents.
The costs to society are also considerable.
The direct support expenses and lost tax revenues
associated with disengaged young people cost U.S. taxpayers
$93 billion in 2011 alone--a bill that will only compound as
the years progress.
In short, our weak economy is not only frustrating young Americans
presently eager for work; it is jeopardizing their future. It is
threatening more than just their ability to find present jobs; it is
thwarting their efforts to build rewarding careers and to start
families. They are getting a late start--if any start at all.
And what about those young Americans who have found work? According
to a report by Accenture, over 40 percent of college graduates in the
last 2 years are overqualified for their jobs. In other words, many of
them are underemployed.
I believe all work has dignity. And while a college degree is
important, it is not for everyone. But hard-working young people should
have the opportunity to use their degrees and pursue their passions.
They are not asking for special treatment--they are just asking for a
chance. This economy is holding them back.
As if young people weren't facing enough adversity, now they are told
they are legally required to purchase costly health insurance. In fact,
the new law completely depends on their participation. Yet the report
on premiums released by the Department of Health and Human Services
shows that many young people will not qualify for subsidies to make
their premiums affordable.
A study published by the National Center for Public Policy Research
found that subsidies did not exist for people from 18 to 34 years of
age in 11 of 15 exchanges. These young people will be required to pay
the full price of their premiums, which we all know are skyrocketing
around this country. The American Academy of Actuaries published an
article noting that the young people who don't qualify for subsidies
will see an increase in costs of 42 percent.
Tom from Omaha wrote me to tell me about his 26-year-old son, who had
been paying $159 a month for his health coverage. ``Effective January
1, 2014, his rate will be $231. What is affordable about this?'' Tom
added that his son's deductible would ``increase by $3,000 and his out-
of-pocket costs by $3,850.'' We are no longer dealing with projections,
we are dealing with real people.
The National Center for Public Policy Research also found that even
with the subsidies, about 3.7 million young people would actually save
at least $500 by forgoing insurance and paying the fine, and as many as
3 million young people would save at least $1,000 by opting out of
ObamaCare.
The bottom line? We have record numbers of unemployed young Americans
now being forced to purchase health plans they do not want and, in some
cases, with coverage they don't even need. We need to empower, not
burden, young Americans.
The American dream of launching a career, starting a family, buying a
home, and forging a brighter future is not some quaint relic of a
bygone era. The dream is alive and well. Our young people are still
dreaming. It is time for us to honor our duty to ensure that the next
generation has the tools and experience to succeed, to keep America
strong, and to pursue that dream. Right now, we are falling woefully
short. But we can do better. Our children and our grandchildren are
counting on us. This generation isn't lost yet, and I am here to fight
for them.
Mr. 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. HELLER. 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. HELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on why I had a hold
on this particular nomination.
Contrary to some who are speculating on this issue, I am not voting
against this specific nominee. My concerns are with the way OPM
determines who can ask questions and who can receive answers.
Imagine, there is a Federal Government agency which determines who
can ask a question to them and who can get an answer. Whether a Member
of the minority or majority, every Member should be able to ask
questions and to receive those answers. Frankly, if you ask a question,
you should be able to get an answer; and when you get the answer, it
probably should be truthful. That is my argument, and that is the
purpose I have this hold.
I want to be very clear that I am not voting against the nominee as
an individual. I am voting against the agency itself.
[[Page S7661]]
OPM, in my opinion, has become one of the most politicized agencies
in Washington, DC. I believe the Office of Personnel Management has
refused to do its part to ensure that all Americans are treated fairly
under ObamaCare. Specifically what I mean by that is I believe what is
good for the American people should probably be good for Congress, and
what is good for Congress should be good for the American people. I
believe that is a standard which many of us in the Senate live by. I
think there are some who don't, but I think the majority do. If
something is good for the American people, it should be good for
Congress. And I think ObamaCare is a good example of that.
For me, the most concerning issue is whether OPM engaged in
negotiations with the Senate and House leadership to secure exemptions
and subsidies for Members of the Senate and the House of
Representatives. I wish to thank a colleague of mine from Louisiana,
Senator Vitter, for his hard-fought effort on this particular issue.
I am not the only person here in this Chamber who can't get questions
answered from OPM. I would like to walk for a minute the time line and
the difficulty I have had with OPM over the last couple of months
trying to get direct and truthful answers from this agency.
I will start on August 28. I wrote OPM asking specifically from the
agency to ensure that all congressional staff, including leadership and
committee staff, be fairly treated under ObamaCare.
This is what I said:
This is a missed opportunity for the Office of Personnel
Management (OPM), which currently administers and operates
Congressional health care, to ensure that all Congressional
staff, including Committee and Leadership, play by the same
rules as the American taxpayer.
I go on to say later:
As you issue your final rule in order to comply with
Section 1312 of the Affordable Care Act, I encourage you to
clarify this issue once and for all and require in addition
to Members of Congress that all Congressional staff--
Committee and Leadership--to go into the exchanges.
I wanted the dialog. I wanted this conversation. That is why I wrote
to OPM. Of course I was looking to hear back from them, and I received
no answer. I received no answer from the agency, so I followed up on
September 13. From August 28 to September 13, I got no answer.
On September 13, I wrote:
I would like to first express my disappointment with your
agency's lack of response to my stated concerns. In addition,
I would like to reiterate my request that the Office of
Personnel Management (OPM) clearly mandate in its final rule
that all Congressional staff, including Committee and
Leadership, be subject to the consequences of ObamaCare.
I think that is a fair dialog and a fair question to ask. That was on
September 13. Finally, on September 18, I got the response. Not the
response that I wanted, as you can imagine, but I did get a response.
In their letter, it says:
In issuing our final rule, OPM will address this specific
issue as well as others raised by members of Congress and the
public at large.
So in this letter on September 18, I wanted to have a discussion with
OPM, and OPM says: You can read the final rule. We are not going to
have a discussion with you. We are not going to reach out. We are not
going to come to your office. We just want you to read the final rule,
like every other American, and we are not going to have a discussion
prior to issuing the rule.
Obviously, I wasn't going to take that for an answer, so I reached
out and I requested a formal briefing with the Acting Director. Sure
enough, we had that meeting on September 26. So this is from August 28
all the way to September 26. I will tell you, frankly, it was a good
discussion. They were frank. They had a couple of members of their
staff there. I raised concerns about possible back door negotiations
that would allow for special treatment under the law. I asked
specifically whether OPM had engaged leadership on this issue. I asked
that question: Have you engaged leadership on this issue? I asked the
question three times: Did you engage with leadership on either the
House side or Senate side on how you wrote these rules? Three times I
asked that question and three times OPM had insisted that they had not,
that the answer was no. So they said no three times. They formulated
their proposal based on the advice of their lawyers.
I was OK with that. We had discussions on other principles of the
bill itself, but that was the essence of the conversation I had and I
was fine with that. Frankly, I was ready to release my hold. But what I
did want was answers in writing. I wanted to memorialize the
conversation that we had in my office, so I sent them another letter on
September 28, formally requesting OPM to provide me with a detailed
list of all conversations or negotiations that they had with staff
members of the Senate or House leadership when crafting the proposed
rule.
I want to be super specific. On September 28 we had numerous
questions but question No. 4 that I had:
Provide me a detailed list of all conversations or
negotiations you had with any staff member of Senate or House
Leadership when crafting your proposed rule specifically, the
provision giving each Member of Congress the authority to
determine who on their staff goes to the Exchange. If you
engaged in any discussions--both formal and informal--with
Leadership staff was there any undue pressure received from
staff during these discussions? Do you believe this to be a
conflict of interest?
So that question, that letter, was sent out. We had a great
discussion. Please memorialize, please respond, and I received none.
That was September 28. Please respond to that. They refused to do that.
On October 1, I started reading press reports, press reports both in
Politico and also in the National Review. After I asked OPM have you
ever dealt specifically with leadership in either House on these
proposed rules and they told me no three times, then we find out in
Politico that leadership worked for months--months to save these very
same longstanding subsidies, according to documents and emails provided
to Politico.
I go back to the original question and my concern, if you talk to an
agency, do you have a right, whether you are in the majority or
minority, to talk to OPM? Do you have a right to receive an answer, and
when you get an answer, should that answer be truthful? Three times
they told me no, they had not dealt with leadership, and you can see in
the press reports, the emails that were released that was not the case.
What was reported in these stories is directly counter to what OPM
told me in our meeting. I followed up with another letter dated October
8. I asked for OPM to provide me with detailed lists of all
conversations or negotiations that they had with leadership staff. So
this is what I said specifically:
In light of recent press reports that Congressional
Leadership staff negotiated with the Office of Personnel and
Management (OPM) regarding changes made to the Federal
Employees Health Benefit Program, I respectfully reiterate my
request that you provide me with a detailed list of all
conversations or negotiations with any staff member of Senate
or House Leadership. These news reports run directly counter
to statements that you made with [me and] three other OPM
staff members during our meeting two weeks ago.
This time I got a response. I finally get a response. OPM told me
they couldn't answer my question. They told me they couldn't answer the
questions because the government was shut down.
Pretty convenient and, frankly, very disturbing. All I am asking is
what OPM told me in our meetings--is it true or whether the press is
reporting the truth? Where is the truth? Senators have a right to ask
questions. They have a right to receive answers. Those answers should
be truthful. That is why I put on the hold. That is why I voted against
cloture on this nominee. This is why I will vote against the nominee,
not because I have an issue with the nominee herself. I have a problem
with this agency.
I want to reiterate and again express my appreciation with others in
this Chamber who are as frustrated as I am with OPM--Senator Vitter
being one of them--of not being able to get answers, to receive answers
back from this particular agency. I want to say I still believe--and I
think most in this Chamber believe this--that what is important and
good for the American people should be good for Congress; what is good
for Congress should be good for the American people. I stand by that
and will be voting against final confirmation on this nominee.
I yield the floor.
[[Page S7662]]
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.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent at this time to
enter into a colloquy with my colleague from North Dakota.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The remarks of Ms. Murkowski and Ms. Heitkamp pertaining to the
introduction of S. 1622 are printed in today's Record under
``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Blumenthal). The Senator from Montana.
The Tax Code
Mr. BAUCUS. The famed author George Bernard Shaw once wrote:
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the
unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to
himself.
A few weeks ago, lost among the headlines about shutdowns and
showdowns was another very important news story. This story didn't
receive big headlines. It didn't make the evening news, and it wasn't
trending on Twitter.
Yet the story in the October 8 edition of the New York Times has
serious implications for the future of our economy and our ability to
adapt to the modern world. The eye-opening article discussed the merger
of a California-based chip maker called Applied Materials. Applied
Materials merged with a Japanese company called Tokyo Electron.
Applied Materials is one of the biggest companies in Silicon Valley,
an industry leader with a global presence. They have more than 13,000
employees across 18 countries. Their headquarters, where they got their
start 46 years ago, is in Santa Clara, CA. In addition to 8,000 workers
in the Bay Area of California, Applied Materials has employees at
research, development, and manufacturing facilities in Texas, Utah,
Massachusetts, and in my home State of Montana.
Now, with the merger with Tokyo Electron, what is this all-American
company doing? It is shifting its corporation, not to Japan, but to the
Netherlands. That is right. This new American-Japanese company will be
incorporated in Holland.
Why are they moving to the Netherlands? What is going on.
In the New York Times article on the merger, reporter David Gelles
wrote:
Executives at Applied Materials highlighted a number of
advantages in announcing a merger recently with a smaller
Japanese rival, but an important one was barely mentioned:
lower taxes.
The merged company will save millions of dollars a year by
moving--not to one side of the Pacific or the other, but by
reincorporating in the Netherlands.
The article goes on to note that Applied Materials' effective tax
rate will drop from 22 percent to 17 percent as a result of the merger.
For a company that had nearly $2 billion in profit in 2011, that
amounts to savings of about $100 million per year.
Mergers resulting in U.S. companies being owned by companies in tax
haven jurisdictions such as Ireland, Bermuda, or the Cayman Islands,
are a new spin on the old ``inversion'' problem, and it is becoming an
increasingly popular practice.
The Times article highlighted the following additional examples.
Last year, the Eaton Corporation, a power management company from
Ohio, acquired Cooper Industries from Ireland for $13 billion and then
reincorporated in Ireland. The company expects to save $160 million a
year as a result of the move.
In July, Omnicom, the large New York advertising group, agreed to
merge with Publicis Groupe, its French rival, in a $35 billion deal.
The new company will be based in the Netherlands, resulting in savings
of about $80 million a year.
Also in July, Perrigo, a pharmaceutical company from Michigan, said
it would acquire Elan, an Irish drug company, for $6.7 billion. Perrigo
will also reincorporate in Ireland, lowering its effective tax credit
from 30 percent to 17 percent, and saving the company an estimated $150
million a year, much of it in taxes.
Earlier in the year, Actavis, based in New Jersey, bought Warner
Chilcott, a drug maker with headquarters in Dublin, and said it would
reincorporate in Ireland, leading to an estimated $150 million in
savings over 2 years.
It would be easy for us to attack these companies by calling them
immoral and unpatriotic, but it is much more constructive to step back
and ask: What's motivating these companies? Why are they moving their
headquarters abroad? How can we keep them in the United States? How can
we adapt to the world and fix the problem?
It is a very simple issue. Globalization has made America's Tax Code
system out of date.
The United States is stuck with a 35 percent corporate tax rate--one
of the highest in the world--and a maze of incentives that only an army
of tax lawyers can navigate. Some of these tax incentives are extremely
costly but are much less valuable to businesses than a rate reduction
with the same price tag.
When U.S. companies look abroad, what do they see? They see other
countries with more modern, more efficient, and more competitive tax
codes. Then, what do they do? They reincorporate overseas by acquiring
or merging with another business.
They are not necessarily breaking laws. In fact, many of these
companies are following the rules that America's outdated, overly
complicated Tax Code provides.
The United States is losing hundreds of millions in revenue as a
result. Even worse, it is losing jobs. When headquarters moves abroad,
good-paying jobs often go abroad too. We need to reverse that tide. We
need to bring our tax system into the 21st century to make the United
States more competitive. That is what tax reform can do. It can help
America overcome the competitiveness crisis that is driving businesses
and jobs overseas.
This competitiveness crisis was made very clear in a Harvard Business
School study last year with the sobering title: ``Prosperity at Risk.''
This indepth report examined the risks that threaten to undermine U.S.
competitiveness in the global marketplace. It also looked at what
action we could take in the United States to restore our country's
economic vitality.
Harvard Business School surveyed 10,000 of its graduates who live and
conduct business worldwide. They asked about the challenges of doing
business in America. These individuals are leaders on the front lines
of the global economy. They are CEOs, CFOs, business owners, and
presidents. They are personally involved in decisions about whether to
hire, where to locate, and which markets to serve.
Unfortunately, these business leaders are pessimistic about America's
economic future. They think America's prosperity--our success, our
growth, and our economic status--is at serious risk. The vast majority
of those surveyed, 71 percent, expected U.S. competitiveness to
deteriorate over the next several years.
A survey found that the U.S. fared poorly when competing to attract
business and pointed to increased competition from emerging markets.
According to the survey: ``For the first time in decades, the business
environment in the United States is in danger of falling behind the
rest of the world.''
What did they identify as the root of America's competitiveness
problem? Respondents--remember, these are 10,000 Harvard Business
School graduates working all around the world and in the United
States--pointed to America's Tax Code as the root of the problem.
Specifically, they pointed to the complexity of the code as one of the
greatest current or emerging weaknesses in the U.S. business
environment.
The Harvard study made clear that our Tax Code puts American
businesses at a competitive disadvantage on the world market. That
obviously concerns us.
Where do we go from here? I believe we have to reform our Tax Code.
We have to adapt. We have to help make America more competitive. It is
very clear. It is very simple. We have to give companies such as
Applied Materials a reason to keep their headquarters in the United
States.
[[Page S7663]]
We have been through a difficult and counterproductive period on
Capitol Hill. The recent shutdown and the threat of default undermined
confidence in the U.S. and did $24 billion in unnecessary damage to our
economy.
According to a report from the White House Council of Economic
Advisers, the shutdown cost 120,000 jobs in October alone.
I spent last week home in my State, as others were in their States. I
was meeting with my bosses, the folks and citizens of Montana. They are
not too happy with the antics going on in Washington, DC--and rightly
so.
Fortunately, that battle is behind us and the government is back to
work. It is time for us to come together to tackle the challenges
facing our country.
Right now there are more than 11 million unemployed Americans looking
for work. Our economy is expected to continue growing at a sluggish
rate for the next year, less than 3 percent.
We have to ask: How do we create jobs? How can we spark faster growth
in our economy? How can we boost our competitiveness and keep American
companies at home in America?
Tax reform must be part of the solution. It is not the whole
solution, but it is part of the solution.
That was the clear message I heard traveling around the country this
summer with my friend Dave Camp. Dave is the chairman of the House Ways
and Means Committee. Dave and I met with families and businesses, large
and small, to hear about their experiences in dealing with the Tax
Code.
We visited a family-owned bakery in Minneapolis, a small appliance
store in New Jersey, a tech start-up in Silicon Valley, and a farm in
Tennessee. We visited some large companies as well, companies such as
3M, Intel, FedEx, who employ thousands of people in the United States
and around the world.
At every stop Dave and I heard the same message. U.S. companies and
workers, companies large and small, workers employed at large and small
companies, want a more simple, more fair Tax Code that closes loopholes
and helps them compete and strengthens our economy.
This issue is not going away. It is too important. With so many
people out of work, with economic growth still too slow, with a
competitiveness gap costing us jobs and revenue, it is time for us to
act. It is time for us to reform our Tax Code.
The chairman of the House and Senate Budget Committees brought their
conferees together for the first time today. They have come together to
try to find common ground on a budget and a plan to rebuild confidence
in our economy. Patty Murray and Paul Ryan are incredibly smart and
hard-working people. They care. And I am confident they can craft a
compromise to help get America back on track.
I look forward to working with Chairman Murray and Chairman Ryan in
the tax entitlement components of their discussions, but at the same
time I will continue to work on a parallel track with the Finance
Committee advancing tax reform.
We are working hard--in Bernard Shaw's words--to adapt to the world
and build a tax code that works. And Dave Camp is doing the same thing
in the House. We are going down separate paths but coming together with
a common goal--reducing the deficit, creating jobs, and promoting
economic growth. We are coming together to put America back on track.
Mr. 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. BAUCUS. 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. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all time on
both sides be yielded back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
All time having been yielded, the question is, Will the Senate advise
and consent to the nomination of Katherine Archuleta, of Colorado, to
be Director of the Office of Personnel Management?
Mr. BAUCUS. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Kaine) is
necessarily absent.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) and the Senator from Georgia (Mr.
Isakson).
The result was announced--yeas 62, nays 35, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 225 Ex.]
YEAS--62
Baldwin
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Blumenthal
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Chiesa
Collins
Coons
Donnelly
Durbin
Feinstein
Fischer
Flake
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Johanns
Johnson (SD)
King
Klobuchar
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Manchin
Markey
McCain
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Toomey
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--35
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
Cruz
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Johnson (WI)
Kirk
Lee
McConnell
Moran
Paul
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Thune
Vitter
Wicker
NOT VOTING--3
Inhofe
Isakson
Kaine
The nomination was confirmed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the motion to
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no
intervening action or debate, and that the President be immediately
notified of the Senate's action.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________