[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.

                          ____________________