Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 12 - Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 for November 2, 2011

[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 12]
[Issue]
[Pages 16445-16591]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

[[Page 16445]]

VOLUME 157--PART 12

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES--Wednesday, November 2, 2011

The House met at 10 a.m. and was called to order by the Speaker pro
tempore (Mr. Paulsen).

____________________

DESIGNATION OF SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from the Speaker:

Washington, DC.

November 2, 2011.
I hereby appoint the Honorable Erik Paulsen to act as
Speaker pro tempore on this day.
John A. Boehner,
Speaker of the House of Representatives.

____________________

MORNING-HOUR DEBATE

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
January 5, 2011, the Chair will now recognize Members from lists
submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning-hour debate.
The Chair will alternate recognition between the parties, with each
party limited to 1 hour and each Member other than the majority and
minority leaders and the minority whip limited to 5 minutes each, but
in no event shall debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m.

____________________

UMWA UPPER BIG BRANCH REPORT

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
California (Mr. George Miller) for 5 minutes.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, Members of the House,
last week the United Mine Workers of America released the results of
their investigation into the deadliest coal mine tragedy in four
decades. The report describes the conditions on April 5, 2010 in Massey
Energy's Upper Big Branch mine that led to a colossal explosion killing
29 miners. It confirms the findings of two other independent
investigations.
In short, Massey's failure to eliminate explosive coal dust
throughout the mine converted an otherwise manageable methane fire into
a catastrophic explosion. The force of this explosion traveled more
than 7 miles underground, destroying everything in its path. Miles of
coal belts were decimated, railroad tracks were twisted like pretzels,
and massive mining equipment was tossed underground like lawn furniture
during a hurricane.
The report noted that in the 15 months before the explosion, the mine
was cited 645 times for violations of mine safety laws. They faced $1.2
million in potential fines. However, rather than improving safety,
Massey challenged three-quarters of the fines. And in the month before
the explosion, miners had asked that the accumulation of explosive coal
dust be addressed 560 times. However, management only responded 65
times.
The Upper Big Branch mine was literally a powder keg. The mine
workers' investigation concluded that 29 miners died because of a
corrupt corporate culture that put production ahead of human life.
Massey Energy's top management was well aware of the conditions at
Upper Big Branch mine. They knew of the mountains of citations for
dangerous conditions, but all they had to do was file an appeal to get
Federal safety officials to back off.
Massey also obstructed mine safety inspections by illegally alerting
operations of an inspector on the property so they could cover up any
noticeable problems. And management knew that workers were complaining
about the conditions below ground. But all Massey had to do was remind
these miners that they were free to find other employment if they
continued to speak up.
Corporate officers didn't mince words when it came to production over
safety. In a ``RUN COAL'' memo from CEO Don Blankenship in 2005, he
told his workers their only concern was to produce coal. The message
was clear from the very top: produce coal, disregard safety problems or
find another job. Miners of Upper Big Branch and other Massey mines
have told Congress and investigators similar stories. To enforce their
perverse philosophy, top management demanded reports every 30 minutes
on how much their mines were producing.
It is clear that Massey Energy management actively disregarded their
workers' health and safety. Unfortunately, the knowing violation of a
mandatory health and safety standard is only a misdemeanor, no matter
how many miners are killed. This kind of conduct needs to be made a
felony, but efforts to increase sanctions have been stifled by the
mining industry's lobby. Instead of being held accountable for the
decisions that caused 29 deaths, Massey Energy executives got a massive
$195 million payout when they sold off their company, according to the
United Mine Workers report.
Even though Don Blankenship was forced to resign following the Upper
Big Branch tragedy, he pocketed $86 million in the golden parachute
when 29 of the miners under his jurisdiction and responsibility were
killed. If you wonder why people are talking about the 1 percent and
the 99 percent, the 99 percent in the mine had their lives put in
danger every day they went to work for Massey. And every day they
questioned it, they were threatened with job loss. But the 1 percent--
the 1 percent--walked away with $195 million for overseeing one of the
most dangerous mining operations in the history of this country.
What about the families of the breadwinners of the 99 percent? They
lost their breadwinner, they lost their husband, they lost their
father, and they lost their brother. Now we understand the disparity
that motivates people to occupy Wall Street. We know why people are
occupying hometowns all over the country. We understand this. But we
also know that these miners had to simply go to work. This was the job
that was available to them, but they were ridden roughshod over by
Massey.
These families are now simply left to pick up the pieces of their
shattered lives and may receive some scraps later on in some final
determination. It's a

[[Page 16446]]

familiar story in an era where Wall Street companies and their
executives took big payouts after wrecking our economy. But Massey
Energy executives' decisions resulted in the destruction of 29 lives
and 29 families. This makes Massey's payout even more disgusting.
Massey Energy was recently sold to Alpha Natural Resources. I have
been personally assured that these corrupt practices won't reappear
with the new owner. However, there are some troubling contradictions
that merit a careful watch. Despite stating their intention to fully
cooperate with the government investigations, Alpha has been keeping
some senior Massey managers who have invoked their Fifth Amendment
rights. And Alpha's recent actions to fight potential pattern of
violation sanctions at former Massey mines don't set well either.
Yes, mining is a dangerous job; but not every mining company operates
like Massey, nor should they, nor should we tolerate the Masseys of the
coal industry.

____________________

BRING OUR TROOPS HOME

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Jones) for 5 minutes.
Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, a couple weeks ago, I had the privilege and
the honor to visit our wounded at Walter Reed-Bethesda. It so happened
that five marines from Camp Lejeune Marine Corps Base in my district
were there. Four of the five had lost both legs--double amputees. And
the one kid that had his leg blown off by an IED, I went into his room,
as I did the other four, but this one had a question for me. His mom
was sitting in the room. And he said, Congressman, why are we still in
Afghanistan? And I told the young lance corporal, I don't know, I
cannot answer it. I don't understand why we are not pushing the
President to bring our troops home before 2014.
And that leads me to a quote by Ronald Reagan from his book entitled,
``An American Life: The Autobiography,'' based on Reagan's life. And it
dealt with Lebanon, and he was the President at the time. ``Perhaps we
didn't appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and the
complexity of the problems that made the Middle East such a jungle.
Perhaps the idea of a suicide car bomber committing mass murder to gain
instant entry to paradise was so foreign to our values and
consciousness that it did not create in us the concern for the marines'
safety that it should have.
``In the weeks immediately after the bombing, I believed the last
thing that we should do was turn tail and leave. Yet the irrationality
of Middle East politics forced us to rethink our policy there. If there
would be some rethinking of policy before our men die, we would be a
lot better off. If that policy had changed towards more of a neutral
position and neutrality, those 241 marines would be alive today.''
I thank Mr. Reagan for his service to our Nation, and I thank him for
those words. I wish both parties would listen to leaders like Ronald
Reagan who understood that you're not going to change the Middle East
no matter what you want to do or hope to do or pray to do. You can't do
it, and you won't do it.
Mr. Speaker, beside me are two little girls, one named Eden and one
named Stephanie. They are at the graveside of their father, Sergeant
Kenneth Bladuf, sergeant in the United States Marine Corps.

{time} 1010

About 2 months ago, he was sent to Afghanistan, along with a Colonel
Benjamin Palmer from Cherry Point Marine Corps Air Station, which is in
my district also.
One night, when they were having dinner with the Afghan trainees, one
of the trainees pulled out a pistol and killed both of them. It is so
ironic that the day before Sergeant Bladuf was killed, he had emailed
his wife and he said, ``I don't trust them, I don't trust them, I don't
trust any of them,'' and yet we keep spending $10 billion a month.
We're going to cut programs from senior citizens and children in
America. We can't balance the budget. But old Mr. Karzai, he'll get his
$10 billion a month. The Congress needs to look at this and start
bringing our troops home before 2014.
Mr. Speaker, also in Sunday's paper, it says: ``Suicide bomber hits
NATO bus; 17 people, including 12 Americans, are killed in the
deadliest attack since the war began.''
Mr. Speaker, I hope that we don't have to continue to go to Walter
Reed-Bethesda and see all of these broken bodies. If we're going to be
there until 2014, there are going to be a lot more broken bodies and
dead young men and women. I hope the leadership of both parties will
start joining those of us in both parties and bring our troops home
before 2014.
Mr. Speaker, again I state to all the children like Eden and
Stephanie, be proud of your moms and your dads. But for those of us who
are policymakers, we have the responsibility--not the generals, but we
the policymakers--of sending our young men and women to die and lose
their limbs for absolutely nothing but a corrupt leader.
Mr. Speaker, I will close right now with the same closing I do all
the time: God, please bless our men and women in uniform. Please bless
the families of our men and women in uniform. God, in Your loving arms,
hold the families who have given a child dying for freedom in
Afghanistan and Iraq. God, please bless the House and Senate, that we
will do what is right in Your eyes. Please bless President Obama, that
he will do what is right in Your eyes for his people. And three times I
will say, God please, God please, God please continue to bless America.

____________________

COMMENDING AMERICA'S VETERANS

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Donnelly) for 5 minutes.
Mr. DONNELLY of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the
veterans from my State of Indiana and across the United States for
Veterans Day. We owe them a debt of gratitude for their service to our
country and for their selfless devotion. They put their lives on the
line to defend our freedom, and there is no way that we can ever thank
them enough.
Over 52,000 veterans live in the congressional district that I am
honored to represent, Indiana's Second District. Meeting them is an
inspiration because of their humility and professionalism. When you
thank them for their service, they usually modestly say, Sir, I was
just doing my job.
Veterans embody the definition of patriot--selfless sacrifice in
order to defend the freedoms that we enjoy in the United States.
Veterans such as Mr. Marion Minks from Logansport, Indiana, who served
as a PFC with the U.S. Army during World War II. My office was honored
to represent Mr. Minks and also to present him with the Bronze Star,
the Purple Heart, and other military service medals that he earned.
Veterans such as Mr. Gary Whitehead from Elkhart, Indiana, who served
in the Navy for more than 20 years and then served his fellow veterans
as the Elkhart County Veterans Service Officer. For over two decades,
my office was honored to work with Gary to open a VA clinic to serve
veterans in north central Indiana in his own county, something he had
fought for for years and years.
Veterans such as Rich Mrozinski from La Porte, Indiana, who served in
the Air Force during the Vietnam War and later became commander of his
local VFW post. I had the honor to interview Rich for the Library of
Congress' Veterans History Project.
It is an honor and a privilege to serve the veterans of Indiana's
Second Congressional District. It is incumbent upon us to see that our
veterans receive the best quality care and the benefits that they have
earned through their sacrifice to our country. We must see that those
services are provided to our veterans with the promptness and the
respect that they deserve. That's why, while in Congress, I've worked
on legislation relating to veterans health care, educational benefits,
life insurance, and the disability claims process.

[[Page 16447]]

We still have much more work to do on behalf of our veterans. I urge
my colleagues in the House to pass the RAPID Claims Act, H.R. 2377,
which I introduced to take commonsense steps to improve the benefits
system and to provide our wounded warriors with a faster response on
their disability claims. It's the least we can do.
I also urge the House to pass the E-SERV Act, H.R. 2470, which I
introduced to improve the efficiency of the current electronic health
record system for military personnel and veterans. We must seek to make
the VA system work better for our military personnel, for our veterans,
and for their families.
This Veterans Day, I want to say thank you again to all of our vets
and to all of our servicemembers for their sacrifices for our freedom
and our security. They always deserve the very best.
God bless our veterans. God bless our servicemembers. God bless
Indiana. And God bless the United States of America.

____________________

REPUBLICAN JOBS AGENDA

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Long) for 5 minutes.
Mr. LONG. Mr. Speaker, I came to Congress as a small business owner.
And as any small business owner will tell you, the government can't
create jobs, only the private sector can.
I think it's easy to forget, but the United States Government does
not have any money that it does not first take from productive citizens
and businesses. When the government spends to create jobs, it has to
take money from people who earned it and who would have spent it or
invested it otherwise--the broken window effect, if you will. So the
reality is that government spending trades productive private sector
jobs for usually wasteful public sector jobs.
With record unemployment affecting families across the Nation, now is
not the time to increase the public sector on the backs of the private
sector and increase the burdens on our small businesses. Small
businesses are the engine that drives this economy, and it's time for
the government to get out of their way.
As part of the House GOP Plan for America's Job Creators, we've
opposed the President whenever he wants to create new taxes or more
regulations. So far this year, the House of Representatives has passed
many bills that focus on job creation. These are real jobs bills that
create real wealth-producing private sector jobs--not fake bills like
the stimulus that didn't do anything but stimulate the national debt--
bills that empower small business owners, fix the Tax Code to help job
creators, increase competitiveness for U.S. manufacturers, encourage
entrepreneurship and growth, maximize domestic energy production, and
pay down America's unsustainable debt burden. Some of these have passed
the Senate and gone on to become law, believe it or not. The free trade
agreements, for instance--for which I am especially proud.
When 95 percent of the world's customers are outside of America, it's
no surprise that jobs would be created as our companies are allowed to
compete and expand on the world stage. In fact, it's estimated that by
pursuing those agreements, we're creating up to a quarter of a million
new jobs. Good jobs will be created right here in America at a time
when jobs are badly needed.
House Republicans have also tried to fix our Tax Code. Complying with
our confusing Tax Code costs Americans billions every year--over $160
billion in 2009 alone.
We need to get Washington out of the way by simplifying the Tax Code
and lowering tax rates. We need a Tax Code that is flatter, fairer, and
simpler, a Tax Code that creates jobs by making America more
competitive. That's why I'm proud Congress passed the Small Business
Paperwork Mandate Elimination Act, which eliminated the 1099 form mess.
The 1099 form created an unprecedented accounting and paperwork burden
on small businesses across this country. A National Federation of
Independent Business small business survey determined the form is the
most expensive burden placed on small businesses by the Federal
Government.
Another House jobs bill that has now become law is the America
Invents Act, a bill that brings long-overdue patent reform. So three
free trade agreements, a tax reform bill, and a patent reform bill--if
you're counting. Out of the many jobs bills, only those have escaped
the graveyard of the United States Senate. It seems that some would
rather campaign and complain instead of doing what we know will create
jobs. We know that throwing money at problems doesn't solve a thing. If
it did, then all of our problems would have been solved with the
stimulus. We know that eliminating burdensome overregulation and
restrictions on job creators is a sure fire way to create jobs.
We need legislation that encourages entrepreneurship and growth.
America has historically been on the cutting edge of innovation and
technological development, but we are increasingly falling behind our
global competitors. We must make it easier for existing businesses to
grow and allow more start-up companies to flourish. That's why the
Senate needs to pass the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act, the Energy
Tax Prevention Act, the Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act, the
Consumer Financial Protection and Soundness Improvement Act, the
Protecting Jobs from Government Interference Act, Transparency in
Regulatory Analysis of Impacts on the Nation, the Cement Sector
Regulatory Relief Act, the EPA Regulatory Relief Act, the Coal
Residuals Reuse and Management Act, and we need to fix the Tax Code.

{time} 1020

The Gettysburg Address is 272 words; the Declaration of Independence,
1,500 words; the Constitution, 7,200 words; the Federal Tax Code, 10
million words.
Our Tax Code needs to be fixed, and that's why the Senate needs to
pass the 3 percent withholding rule repeal, which would repeal the 3
percent withholding on our contractors' payments with Federal, State,
and local governments.
This job-killing requirement would create costly new work for
Federal, State, and local governments and hold the money hostage from
government contractors. The IRS needs to learn that hurting businesses,
cities, towns, and consumers during a recession is not going to get our
economy back on track.
Much like the costly Form 1099 requirements that Congress repealed
earlier this year, the 3 percent withholding rule would impose more
burdens on cash-strapped employers and hurt job creation. Instead of
focusing on job creation and economic growth, business and local
governments will have to focus on enormous administrative and financial
challenges.
Just today, we learned the leadership in the Senate has been burning
the midnight oil figuring out a way to even gum up this 3 percent
repeal.

____________________

CHINESE CURRENCY MANIPULATION

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) for 5 minutes.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the issue of
Chinese currency manipulation.
In northwest Indiana, the steel industry provides middle class jobs
and economic security. It supplies the products with which a strong
economy can be built and a powerful national defense maintained.
China understands the value of steel and a strong manufacturing base
and has aggressively acted to support and subsidize its domestic
industries. For example, China has acted contrary to international
trading standards in order to help their domestic manufacturers by
routinely manipulating its currency in order to keep prices low on its
finished products.
As an effect, China's steel production has more than doubled since
2003, while U.S. production has dropped by nearly 40 percent. We have
also lost a third of

[[Page 16448]]

our manufacturing jobs as China's manufacturing sector continues to
grow, nourished by that country's blatant disregard of international
law and the abusive consequences visited on other nations and people,
most importantly, those who live and want to work in the United States
of America.
For example, it is estimated that China has devalued its currency
anywhere between 12 and 50 percent, giving its own exports a government
subsidy and, in effect, taxing American-made imports. This policy has
cost the U.S. upwards of 2.5 million manufacturing jobs over the last
decade and a staggering annual trade deficit of as much as $273
billion.
The Chinese have dialogued and dialogued and dialogued for years
about allowing their currency to appreciate but have continued the
practice of devaluing it. Our Nation is facing a jobs crisis, and we
can no longer afford to stand for this destructive policy.
H.R. 639, the Currency Reform for Fair Trade Act, would address the
issue of this manipulation by recognizing in law what we already know,
that currency misalignment is an export subsidy. The measure would take
commonsense steps to ensure our Treasury Department appropriately
identifies countries that engage in this unfair policy and allow the
United States to place countervailing duties on imports from offending
nations.
This act has 230 cosponsors, more than enough to pass the House. In
fact, just over a year ago, drawing on support from American labor and
manufacturing, the House supported a similar bill. On September 23,
2010, the House approved the Currency Reform for Fair Trade Act by an
overwhelming bipartisan vote of 348-79. Unfortunately, the Senate
failed to act. More than 260 of the Members who voted in favor of that
measure remain in the House. In this Congress, in October, the other
body did pass a similar measure by a bipartisan vote of 63-35. It is
time for the House to pass this bill.
Those who oppose efforts to punish China for its unfair trade
policies insist this measure would start a so-called trade war. We are
in a war, a war for jobs, and we are losing. China continues to fight
to win jobs while America's Government dawdles. This cannot continue.
According to a report by the Economic Policy Institute, titled,
``Unfair China Trade Costs Local Jobs,'' thanks to our trade imbalance
with China, 2.4 million jobs were lost in the United States between
2001 and 2008.
Unfortunately, currency manipulation is far from the only trade-
disrupting policy practiced by China. This summer, the New American
Foundation convened a task force led by Leo Gerard of the United
Steelworkers and Leo Hindrey of New America, and published a report.
The report they released further confirms the myriad of activities that
China engaged in that undermine our jobs.
China employs a complex and far-reaching set of industrial and
mercantile policies. Environmental and labor rules that we take for
granted are rare to nonexistent in China. China disregards intellectual
property protections such as trademarks, copyrights, and patents and
then steals technology from us and other countries around the world at
an annual cost of hundreds of billions of dollars. It does this, in
part, by shamelessly forcing foreign companies to divulge intellectual
property as a price for market access.
Further, China uses state secret laws to protect commercial interests
and is pursuing a policy of indigenous innovation whereby it
manufactures and maneuvers to increase the domestic production of high
value-added goods.
The House must pass and act on the Chinese currency manipulation
bill.

____________________

BORDER PATROL AGENT JESUS DIAZ

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Poe) for 5 minutes.
Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, in the dangerous border region between
Mexico and Texas, in the year 2008, outlaws from Mexico were caught
smuggling marijuana into the United States, and they were caught by the
Border Patrol agents.
Border Patrol Agent Jesus Diaz's actions later have resulted in him
being sentenced recently to 2 years in a Federal penitentiary. On
October 20 of this year, District Judge Ludham sentenced Diaz to 24
months in prison because the agent is alleged to have been too rough in
his handling of one of the drug smugglers who was arrested; and, also,
Diaz allegedly later lied about the incident to investigators.
Now, what Diaz is accused of is pulling the suspect's handcuffs back
and pushing the suspect to the ground while pressing the suspect's back
with his knee in order to get him to comply with the Border Patrol
agent's orders. Prior to the incident the suspect had illegally crossed
into Texas by boat with a large shipment of marijuana, and he was
accompanied by a member of the notorious MS-13 gang.
The U.S. Government had a choice to make: Prosecute the illegal drug
smuggler or prosecute the Border Patrol agent. The United States
Government chose poorly. The Mexican Government demanded that Diaz be
prosecuted by our government, and he was.
To top it off, the suspect was told he would not be prosecuted for
illegally coming into the United States or for the marijuana he brought
into the United States in return for his testimony against Border
Patrol Agent Diaz.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I'm not here today to comment on whether or not
Jesus Diaz used proper police procedure when he detained the suspect or
whether the jury or the judge made a mistake. Those issues will be
dealt with on appeal. However, it seems to me that this case should not
have been prosecuted as a crime. It should have been dealt with and
handled administratively within the U.S. Border Patrol, and the drug
smuggler should have been prosecuted.
The U.S. Federal Government had its priorities wrong. The National
Border Patrol Council, which represents 17,000 of our Border Patrol
agents, our border protectors, they agree. They argue that a situation
like this should have been handled administratively and did not rise to
the level of criminal conduct. But millions of taxpayer dollars and
thousands of man-hours were expended to obtain a 24-month sentence and
a conviction for Diaz, who had already spent 8 months in custody.
There is more. An internal investigation by the Department of
Homeland Security's Office of Inspector General and U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement Office of Professional Responsibility both
cleared Agent Diaz of any wrongdoing in the 2008 incident.

{time} 1030

But Mexico would have none of this and demanded and got its way.
The U.S. Attorney's Office went after Border Patrol agent Jesus Diaz.
And his case was tried in the western district of Texas, a jurisdiction
that has a history of, in my opinion, unfairly targeting border
protectors for prosecution. You remember, this is the same jurisdiction
that prosecuted Border Patrol agents Ramos and Compean for allegedly
shooting a drug smuggler as he ran away from the agents while they
tried to apprehend him. It took a Presidential commutation in 2009 to
finally end the persecution of these two agents, and millions of
Federal dollars were wasted on this case.
Then there's a similar case where Deputy Sheriff Gilmer Hernandez was
prosecuted for firing his weapon at a fleeing vehicle that had tried to
run him over. Same jurisdiction.
But the question we must ask ourselves is why the Federal Government
is spending time and money to prosecute our Border Patrol agents who
put their lives on the line every day down there on the border of the
U.S. and Mexico instead of spending time and money and resources to
enforce immigration laws in this country.
When ICE Director Morton and Secretary Napolitano from Homeland
Security recently testified in front of the Judiciary Committee, they
both said they just didn't have the money or the resources to fully
enforce immigration laws. They, in essence, in my opinion, granted
amnesty or parole to thousands of illegals in the United States.

[[Page 16449]]

But they have the money to go after Border Patrol agents.
Maybe they should use some of that prosecutorial discretion they're
so proud of to prosecute people who cross the border into the United
States with drugs over prosecuting Border Patrol agents.
In this case, the United States Government is on the wrong side of
the border war. The U.S. Attorney's Office should quit being the voice
of Mexico and be the voice of America. We should secure the border and
keep the drug smugglers from having their way, and don't give them a
get-out-of-jail-free card. It's time to get our money and our
priorities straight. Let's stop going after the good guys and spend
time and money going after the bad guys.
And that's just the way it is.

____________________

DOES GOD TRUST US?

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Rangel) for 5 minutes.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, as we see the Nation going
through such pain, I rise once again to see why we can't get along, why
Republicans and Democrats find it almost impossible to try to raise
some solutions to the problems we face.
There is no question that there are many Republicans in the House and
Senate that believe that the most important contribution that they can
make to our country is to get rid of the President. But at the same
time, we have 14 million people that have lost their jobs, many have
lost their homes, their savings, their hopes for the future. Probably
double that number we find underemployed. And the millions and millions
of people in districts like mine where people have actually given up
hope that they can restore their dignity and get the resources
necessary to provide for their families.
Yesterday, the House overwhelmingly passed a bill that would support
the motto ``In God We Trust.'' I reluctantly supported it because I
didn't want anyone to believe that I didn't trust God. But I felt
awkward because I didn't see where that was the question.
The real question, I would think, is, does God trust us? Does God
trust us to do the things that every religion says we should be doing?
Are we trusted to provide care and compassion for the vulnerable? Are
we trusted to know that we have a responsibility to the sick, to the
aged, to the disabled? That's where God really counts, no matter what
your religious background is.
And to talk about a motto and sharing that, I don't think that has to
be challenged. What is challenged is, what are we going to do about it?
Why do we find people young and old around the country protesting
against the disparity that exists between the poor, who God said
through his servant Jesus, his son Jesus, that they should be taken
care of? And the Scriptures are not too kind--at least not as kind as I
am--to the rich. But common decency would expect that there be fairness
in the resources this great Nation would have.
And that when we find that less than 1 percent of Americans control
42 percent of the national wealth, would we find that our educational
system is definitely not going to allow us to be competitive in the
future? When we see that the American Dream--and that to me is the most
important part of my pride in being an American; you don't have to
succeed in America, but the hope and the dream that people from all
countries can come here and have an opportunity to break out of their
class system, out of poverty, and join the middle class.
Even those who came as slaves and had their backgrounds just
eliminated; their names, their culture, their songs, their history, but
nevertheless, because of the Congress and trust in God they, too, have
been able to achieve, even to the extent of becoming President of the
United States and honored Members of the Congress through the
Congressional Black Caucus.
So once that hope is challenged by anybody, then it means for the
whole world the symbol that America is supposed to be. It's not one
that improves your quality of life but finds us having people losing
hope in the system. The fact that we don't speak out when thousands of
young Americans, brave warriors, are being killed and have been killed
in countries that their families have no idea where the countries are
located or what the issues were, and the necessity of protecting oil
has no longer been the issue.
So I say, yes, in God we trust, but we've got a few days left to see
whether or not we can have God trust in us.

____________________

BACK TO BASICS WITH THE BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
California (Mr. McClintock) for 5 minutes.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, the International Monetary Fund
estimated that as of Halloween night, the debt of this Nation surpassed
its entire economy for the first time since World War II.
We all know that if you live beyond your means today you're going to
have to live below your means tomorrow. That's the tomorrow that our
generation has created for the children who were dressed up as
princesses and cowboys when they came calling on Monday night. This is
our generation's eternal shame. And it's something that our generation
must act to set right.
The House is expected soon to vote on a balanced budget amendment
that's critical to stop this plunder of our children. There are a
number of excellent proposals out there, and I'd have no trouble
supporting any of them. I do rise, however, to express the hope that
the final product of these deliberations proves worthy of the wisdom
that guided the drafting of the Constitution.
The beauty of the American Constitution is in its simplicity and its
humility. The American Founders recognized Cicero's wisdom that the
best laws are the simplest ones. And they realized that they couldn't
possibly foresee the circumstances and conditions that might confront
future generations, and therefore they resisted the temptation to
micromanage every decision that might be made centuries in the future.

{time} 1040

Instead, they set forth general principles of governance and erected
a structure in which human nature, itself, would provide guidance in
future decisions to conform with these principles.
In crafting a balanced budget amendment, we need to maintain these
qualities. We shouldn't attempt to tell future generations specifically
how they should manage their revenues and expenditures in times that we
cannot comprehend. The experience of many States that operate under
their own balanced budget amendments tells us that the more complicated
and convoluted such strictures become, the more they are circumvented
and manipulated.
Many have quoted Jefferson's 1798 letter to John Taylor as support
for a balanced budget amendment. Here is what he actually wrote:
``I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our
Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for the
reduction of the administration of our government to the genuine
principles of its Constitution. I mean an additional article: taking
from the Federal Government the power of borrowing.''
What is a balanced budget? It's simply a budget that doesn't require
us to borrow. So, as Jefferson did, why don't we just say so? Instead
of trying to define fiscal years, outlays, expenditures, revenues,
emergencies, triggers, sequestrations, and so on, I hope that we would
consider 27 simple words:
``The United States Government may not increase its debt except for a
specific purpose by law, adopted by three-fourths of the membership of
both Houses of Congress.'' That's it.
Such an amendment, taking effect 10 years from ratification, would
give the government time to put its affairs in order and to thereafter
naturally require future Congresses to maintain

[[Page 16450]]

both a balanced budget as well as a prudent reserve to accommodate
fluctuations of revenues and routine contingencies. It trusts that
three-fourths of future Congresses will be able to recognize a genuine
emergency when they see one and that one-fourth of Congress will be
strong enough to resist borrowing for light or transient reasons. The
experience of the States warns us that a two-thirds vote is
insufficient to protect against profligacy.
Some advocate going much further by establishing limitations on
spending and taxation as well; but if borrowing is prohibited, there
exists a natural limit to the ability and willingness of the people to
tolerate taxation and therefore spending. The real danger is when
runaway spending is accommodated and made possible by borrowing, which
is simply a hidden future tax. The best and most effective way to
invoke that natural limit is with a simple prohibition.
At the end of the week, I will introduce this 27-word amendment and
will ask my colleagues to consider it with the many others that are
currently before the Congress.
As I said, I like virtually all of them, as they all accomplish the
purpose of restraining the reckless deficits that our generation has
produced; but in drafting an amendment to guide not only this
generation but all of those to follow, I would hope that we would do as
the Constitutional Convention would have done had it had the benefit of
Jefferson's wise counsel: to set down the general principle only and
allow future generations, with their own insights into their own
challenges, to put it to practical effect.

____________________

VOTING RIGHTS

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Ellison) for 5 minutes.
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, the right to vote is under attack. It may
not be easy to see; but in State legislatures all across this country,
we are seeing a quiet passing of laws that will strip American citizens
of their right to vote.
It may come as a surprise that this is happening in the United
States. Our great country is best known for its rich democratic
tradition, which is predicated on the right to vote; and this right to
vote has been expanding over time, not retracting. Throughout our
history, brave men and women have fought and died for the right, and it
has been denied to too many Americans for too long. Since its founding,
the United States has been on a course toward enfranchisement, not
disenfranchisement. Incredibly, that seems to be changing.
State legislatures are turning back the clock on decades of hard-
fought voter protections. This year, 34 State legislatures introduced
prohibitive voter ID bills. If passed, they could affect the voting
ability of nearly 21 million Americans. Two States have enacted
prohibitive proof-of-citizenship laws, which stand to exclude even more
voters at the polls; 13 States are working to make it harder to
register to vote; and nine are working to reduce early and absentee
voting.
These laws add up to the greatest attack on voting rights since the
Jim Crow era. In all, they could strip more than 5 million Americans of
the right to vote. That figure alone is half the margin of victory from
the 2008 Presidential election. Congress must act. Today, I am
introducing two bills to push back against these laws and protect
Americans' right to vote.
The first bill, the Voter Access Protection Act, will ensure that no
American citizen is denied the right to vote because they don't have
photo IDs on election day. The second bill, the Same Day Registration
Act, will allow Americans to register to vote on the same day they cast
their ballots. No American citizen should be turned back at the polls
because they didn't register weeks or months in advance. These bills
will help ensure that all Americans are able to exercise their
fundamental rights in Federal elections.
If you truly believe in democracy, you should be doing everything you
can to increase the enfranchisement of American citizens, not to take
it away. I urge all of my colleagues to support this critical and
patriotic legislation.

____________________

DOMESTIC ENERGY PRODUCTION IS THE SOLUTION

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson) for 5 minutes.
Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, rural Pennsylvania, like
other parts of the country, have not been immune to difficult economic
times; but today Pennsylvania is uniquely positioned to become a source
of growth and strength for our State, the region, and the Nation
through the development of what could be one of the world's largest
natural gas fields, the Marcellus shale, much of which is located in my
congressional district.
Marcellus production is offering our region and the country expanded
access to clean, reliable, and affordable energy--and a new source of
economic growth and stable jobs.
As Congress tackles challenges regarding jobs and the deficit, we
must consider domestic energy production as a logical and obtainable
solution to both of these challenges, for the United States has
enormous untapped deposits of coal, oil, natural gas, and other sources
of energy that can offer good-paying jobs, new sources of revenue,
affordable and reliable energy, as well as national energy security.
The economic success story of the Marcellus shale can be replicated
across this country by opening up all of America's domestic resources
and allowing new investment and technologies to expand the exploration
and production of America's own resources.
We can develop these resources, create jobs and tens of billions of
dollars in revenues, but only if the Federal Government encourages and
not discourages production. I'm not talking about a Solyndra-style
subsidy but, rather, government's getting out of the way of accessing
the natural resources that God has blessed us with.

____________________

PRISONER TORTURE IN AFGHANISTAN

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey) for 5 minutes.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, I spoke in this Chamber
about the U.N. report that outlined, in gruesome detail, prisoner abuse
at detention facilities in Afghanistan--inmates beaten with electrical
wires, hung from their wrists, and much worse. Now additional reporting
by The Washington Post has revealed that U.S. officials knew for some
time about this torture of prisoners by Afghan security forces.
So what did our top people in Afghanistan do about these warnings?
Apparently, not a thing.
For years our Special Operations forces and CIA officials had been in
and out of these prisons--dropping off detainees, meeting with Afghan
authorities, taking advantage of the intelligence gathered there. We
paid to rebuild one prison with the cold and chilling name Department
124, which sits behind a concrete fortress near U.S. military
headquarters in Kabul.
It would be hard--actually, it would be impossible--to miss what was
going on inside those walls; but for a long time, it was ignored--
nothing said, no meaningful oversight exerted. It wasn't until a few
months ago, when the U.N. made it clear they were releasing a report
detailing the torture, that our military commanders suddenly took
notice and stopped sending prisoners to these facilities. In a flash,
they instituted a monitoring program and human rights training.

{time} 1050

It's embarrassing, Mr. Speaker. But it seems like our leadership was
more concerned about public relations damage control than adherence to
human rights norms and international law.
The American people have sacrificed a lot for this war. And in
return, they've been fed a lot of high-minded assurances that we're
doing important work that advances American values. The name of this
mission is Operation

[[Page 16451]]

Enduring Freedom, but apparently we're not practicing what we preach in
Afghanistan because torture has no place in free society, no place in a
campaign that professes to be about human dignity and the rule of law.
At a time when we're considering major cuts right here at home in
lifesaving domestic programs so that we can get our fiscal house in
order, how can we possibly justify spending billions of dollars every
week on a military occupation that seems to be promoting and
encouraging torture? We cannot wash our hands of this. We cannot avoid
responsibility because this is happening on our watch.
Torture, whether we're practicing it ourselves or just tacitly
condoning it, isn't just reprehensible; it's bad national security
policy as well. It represents the United States of America in the worst
possible light and is surely a great recruitment tool for the
terrorists. When it comes to international affairs, the greatest
currency we have is our moral authority, but we continue to waste it by
acting like outlaws instead of the greatest superpower on Earth.
Mr. Speaker, the time has come. It is time we had a national security
approach that showcases the very best of America, one that demonstrates
our decency and compassion, one that emphasizes diplomacy and
reconciliation, one that puts civilian and humanitarian experts on the
ground instead of 100,000 troops with guns.
You don't need to invade a country to prove that America is strong or
to keep America safe. That's the heart of my SMART security plan that I
have been talking about for many years now. We've tried belligerence.
We've tried force. And over the last decade--well, actually, we've
tried all of this forever, and it just has not worked.
It's time, Mr. Speaker, for this war to end. It's time to implement a
SMART security platform. It is time now, Mr. Speaker.

____________________

HONORING AMERICAN HERO LANCE CORPORAL JUSTIN GAERTNER

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Nugent) for 5 minutes.
Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a great son of
Trinity, Florida, Corporal Justin Gaertner of the United States Marine
Corps First Combat Engineer Battalion. I have had the honor of getting
to know Justin over the past year, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to
share his story.
After being deployed to Afghanistan, Justin took on one of the most
dangerous jobs there is in the Marine Corps. He was the lead sweeper,
clearing roads of IEDs in advance of U.S. vehicles.
On November 26, 2010, Justin's unit was traveling with an eight-truck
convoy. One of the trucks struck an IED. Following the explosion, one
of Justin's good friends, Corporal Gabriel Martinez, lost both of his
legs in a second IED attack while he rushed to aid that downed vehicle.
Justin desperately wanted to help his friend, but his responsibility
was to continue the mission, to continue to sweep for IEDs to ensure
the safety of the rest of the convoy. It was during the sweep that a
third IED was remotely detonated as Justin had just entered that area.
The explosion propelled Justin into the air and took both of his legs
and severely injured one of his arms. Justin paid a terrible price that
day while helping to protect fellow marines.
When I first met Justin at Walter Reed Army Hospital in January of
this year, he was more concerned about his brother marines that were
still in country than he was about his own safety. He wanted to return
to that company of marines to help ensure the safety of his fellow
marines that were still left in Afghanistan. That's what heroes do.
He's since made an incredible recovery while at Walter Reed National
Military Medical Center, but that was with the help of dedicated
medical staff, the support of his mother and his family and of fellow
marines. Justin is getting stronger every day.
When I first met Justin in January of this year, he told me one of
his future goals was to compete in a marathon. Today I'm proud to
announce that this past weekend, less than 1 year since he was wounded
in combat, Justin completed the 2011 Marine Corps Marathon in the hand
crank division in 2 hours, 50 minutes, and 39 seconds. Justin and his
family have been an inspiration to me and make us all proud to be
Americans because of their sacrifice on the battlefield.
On behalf of a grateful Nation, I want to take this opportunity to
again thank Justin for his bravery and his sacrifice on behalf of his
Nation. And I want to thank all the troops that have been in harm's
way, that have volunteered to protect this great Nation at great risk
to themselves.

Shades of Green

IN HONOR OF AN AMERICAN HERO, LANCE CORPORAL JUSTIN GAERTNER, 1ST
COMBAT ENGINEER BATTALION, THE UNITED STATES MARINES

Shades . . .
Shades of Green . . .
On battlefields of honor bright . . .
There are but all of those who but bring their most
magnificent light . . .
As Brilliant, as brilliant . . . as any seen in this sight!
All in their Magnificent Shades of Green!
For these are but, The United States Marines!
Such men of might, who over evil do all in the darkest
fights!
Rushing into the face of death, as they are seen!
Oh yes, to be a United States Marine!
To but wear so proudly, those most Magnificent Shades of
Green!
As it was in battle . . . All in that fight . . .
When a Combat Engineer, with nerves of steel . . . Named
Justin so appeared . . .
The kind of men who have no fear!
As Justin, walked through the Valley of Death . . . out on
attack . . .
When, an IED . . . Almost took his life . . .
While, all in that moment of death or light . . . his fine
heart grew even greater in sight!
And on that next day as he awoke . . . as his heart to him so
spoke . . .
So spoke to him, as tears rolled down his face . . .
As he so realized, the full nature of what had took place . .
.
But, this Strong Son of the South . . . would not so give up
now . . .
Wiping the tears from his face, shining even brighter on that
day!
All in those Shades of Green . . . as his new battle was
under way!
As they took his legs, and most of his arm . . . but not take
his heart that day!
As something so told him deep inside, get up and start
running now . . .
As with his great heart, his first new steps he found!
To fine the faith and courage to so move onward now!
Because Marines Do! And Marines Win!
And failure was not an option, to any of them!
As one of Florida's brightest sons,
He said to himself, I will stand and I will run!
Pity get out of the way, I've got miles to go before I'm
done!
Justin time, as his brave heart so began to run!
Taking him to even greater places and heights where mere men
have never gone!
Because Marines climb mountains
Marines climb walls . . .
Marines always stand tall!
As there you go Justin, running to recovery!
Oh what a discovery, an even brighter Shade of Green!
As Justin You Will Teach Us . . .
As Justin, You Will So Beseech Us . . .
As it's so deep down in our hearts Justin, that you will
reach us!
All in what your life means!
And if I had a son, I wish he could so shine half as bright
as this one!
All in his most magnificent Shades of Green!
As one day too Justin, up in heaven you will be seen!
As an Angel, all because of how you so wore and so carried
yourself . . .
All in those most magnificent Shades of Green!
Ooo . . . Rah!

____________________

RECOGNIZING THE IMPORTANCE OF LABOR UNIONS

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Payne) for 5 minutes.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, nearly 25 million Americans are currently
unemployed or underemployed; yet despite this disparaging rate, efforts
to strengthen the workforce are being derailed by special interest
attacks on the middle class and workers. In Wisconsin, Governor Scott
Walker has taken away nearly all collective bargaining rights from the
majority of the State's public employees.

[[Page 16452]]

An Ohio referendum on State Senate Bill 5 aims to strip public
workers of collective bargaining rights. For the 4 years prior to the
enactment of Ohio's collective bargaining law, the State led the Nation
in safety forces work stoppages. When the city and its safety forces
had a dispute concerning wages, working conditions, and adequate
staffing, there was no way to resolve the dispute. That is why the
collective bargaining law was passed. And the law has worked. There
have been no safety forces work stoppages in Ohio since the law was
passed.
Only through collective bargaining do American workers still have a
voice. Still, this right is being attacked.
The New Jersey Statehouse passed a bill destroying the right of
public sector unions to collectively bargain over health care and
pension issues. These efforts to turn back the clock on public safety
and on those who protect and serve are unacceptable.
Today I rise in support of the workers of Wisconsin; I rise in
support of the workers of Ohio; I rise in support of the workers of my
home State of New Jersey. I rise today in support of the millions of
Americans who stand as proud union members seeking fair labor treatment
and a fair shot at the American Dream.
I have been protected by unions. I worked as a truck driver; I worked
as a teacher; I worked on the docks of Newark; I worked as a waiter; I
worked in the breweries of Newark--all of them protected by strong
unions. And that's what helped me get through college and helped me get
to the United States Congress.

{time} 1100

Today, I stand with 99 of my House colleagues to speak on H. Res.
452, which I introduced yesterday and which will recognize the
importance labor unions play by ensuring a strong middle class by
advocating for more equitable wages, humane working conditions,
improved benefits and increased civic engagement of everyday citizens--
the 99 percent. Ninety-nine Members cosponsored this resolution, and
I'm proud to introduce it.
Unions have pioneered benefits such as paid health care and pensions
and have helped strengthen access to the American dream by helping to
establish government policies and efforts such as family leave, minimum
wage, and Social Security. Unions have also been effective in
supporting immigrant rights, trade policy, health care and living wage
legislation.
Unions have been the voice for everyday Americans--from consumer
protections to health, safety, and civil rights. The labor movement has
fought to allow workers to negotiate on more equal footing with their
employers, providing for a healthy, balanced workplace.
Unions benefit everyone, members and nonmembers. According to the
Economic Policy Institute, if more of the 66 million American workers
who want to join a union could join one tomorrow, their paychecks and
benefits would increase, but so would millions of others. The union
premium, as it's called, succeeds in lifting wages of nonunion
employees in the same industries while not being a deterring factor of
the State's economic or its growth record.
Unfortunately, there has been a decline in union membership, due
largely to unfair labor practices and scare tactics by union-busting
employers. Between 1999 and 2007, more than 86,000 workers filed unfair
labor practice claims with the NLRB for being illegally fired by their
employer for union activity.
As a result of such efforts to weaken unions, among other things, our
economy continues to suffer and the gap between the rich and the poor
continues to widen, undermining the foundation of the American middle
class. Contrary to the belief of union bashers, unions do not increase
unemployment or reduce job opportunities. Rather, there are a great
deal of facts that correlate the strength of the economy and the middle
class to the growth or decline of union membership.
Further, a recent report from the Congressional Budget Office also
infers the impact that union membership decline has had on our economy
and wealth distribution. The report found that from 1979 to 2007,
average inflation-adjusted after tax income grew by 275 percent for the
1 percent of the population with the highest income. For those in the
top 20 percent of the population, average real income grew only by 65
percent. However, the bottom fifth rose only by 18 percent. Three-
fifths of the people are in the middle, and they grew by 40 percent. So
that is not an equal distribution of growth wealth.
The Wall Street Journal has stated ``the main reason U.S. companies
are reluctant to step up hiring is scant demand.'' Demand is scarce
because wages are stagnant while profits are up. The chief investment
officer at JPMorgan Chase states: ``U.S. labor compensation is now at a
50-year low relative to both company sales and U.S. GDP.'' While wages
are down, profit margins are up.
Let me ask you to support this legislation. We will continue to stand
on the steps of Ohio, march in the streets of New Jersey, in our
neighborhoods. I, in addition to the 99 Members of the House who
support this bill, we urge its passage.

____________________

FINDING COMMON GROUND

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Benishek) for 5 minutes.
Mr. BENISHEK. Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of talk about the
partisanship and venom in Washington this year. And while we will
certainly see fierce debates in the future, I believe Members of this
body can still come together and find common ground.
On the surface, my colleague Hansen Clarke and I are very different.
He is a lawyer representing the city of Detroit with a liberal voting
record. I'm a conservative physician representing rural northern
Michigan and the Upper Peninsula. We are both new to this House and
share an interest in learning more about the unique challenges facing
Michigan's citizens. After meeting Hansen during freshman orientation,
we agreed to tour each other's district.
In August I had the opportunity to head down to Michigan's 13th
District in Detroit. There we toured employers such as Edward C. Levy
Company and Mercy Primary Care Center and got to have some lunch on
Mack Avenue. It was great to learn more about the district and be back
in Detroit where I did my medical training. Next week Congressman
Clarke will tour with me in Michigan's Upper Peninsula. We will be
meeting with area employers in Marquette and Escanaba, and will be
getting a chance to see the splendor of Lake Superior with a visit to
Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore in Munising. I hope Hansen will even
get to try one of northern Michigan's famous pasties for lunch.
Mr. Speaker, although Hansen and I are from different parties and
dramatically different parts of the State, we are united in the goal of
improving economic conditions in the great State of Michigan. We
believe that neither party has a monopoly on good ideas, and by working
together, we can help shape a better future for our children and
grandchildren.
Despite our difference of opinion on many issues, we both recognize
that America remains a place in the world like no other, and that with
liberty, courage, and hard work, there is no limit to one's destiny. I
encourage all Members of this Chamber to pair up and schedule a visit
to a different district.
Congressman Clarke, I'm honored to have you as my friend, and I look
forward to having you in Upper Michigan next week.

____________________

WORKING TOGETHER TO SERVE AMERICANS

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Clarke) for 5 minutes.
Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Congressman
Benishek for that wonderful invitation for me to visit your district.
Northern Michigan and the Upper Peninsula, it's one of the most
beautiful areas you can

[[Page 16453]]

ever see in the country. It has delicious food and great people. I know
I'm going to have a wonderful time. But also, too, my visit to northern
Michigan will help Dan and I have another set of common experiences
that we can use to help serve our people together.
With his area in northern Michigan and with the area that I'm hired
to represent, metropolitan Detroit, we can focus on the common needs of
our people. Let me give you an example. When Representative Benishek
visited the east side of Detroit with me this past summer, we found out
we had a lot of things in common. I'm born and raised on the east side.
Well, he actually lived on the east side when he attended one of the
finest medical schools in the country, Wayne State Medical School in
the city of Detroit.
We visited several places, but in particular we visited the Mercy
Primary Care Center. This is a health clinic located right in the heart
of Detroit. Firsthand, we were able to hear from and see the challenges
that many of our veterans are facing. Our veterans--these were young
men and women who, because of their loyalty to our country, were sent
overseas. They risked their lives. They risked their mental and
emotional well-being. Many of them came back to Detroit only to face a
place where they can't even find a job. They can't even find a home.
They are out on the street with no place to live. No one should have to
live in that type of indignity.
Representative Benishek, as a physician and as a Member of the House
committee that oversees the Department of Veterans Affairs, he wanted
to work with me to better serve these veterans. So he and I are now
working together with the Department of Veterans Affairs to better
provide shelter, health care, and training to these homeless veterans
in the city of Detroit. This is an example of how Republicans and
Democrats can work together to help our people.
And you know what? It's not really that hard for he and I to work
together. The folks that he represents and the people that I serve in
metro Detroit, like all Americans, we all want the same thing. We just
want to have a chance to live a decent life. We want those rights that
are spelled out in the preamble of the Declaration of Independence,
rights of life, of liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, just a chance
to live your life as fully as you choose it. That's the American dream.
So while the deliberations of this House many times highlight the
differences between Republicans and Democrats, he and I are choosing to
underscore how we can work together to serve our people and make this
country an even better place to live. It's my greatest honor to visit
the Upper Peninsula, and it's also my honor to serve this country as a
Representative of metropolitan Detroit.

____________________

{time} 1110
FARM ACT OF 2011

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp) for 5 minutes.
Mr. HUELSKAMP. Mr. Speaker, as I have traveled across the First
District of Kansas to host more than 70 in-person town hall meetings
during my first 10 months here in Congress, constituents have
reaffirmed our shared belief that Washington cannot be everything to
everybody and nor should it be. They have told me they can and want to
do more with less. They know that the more Washington spends today, the
more their children and grandchildren will have to pay back in the
future, and likely to a foreign nation.
And while they scale back their expectations, they want Washington to
scale back what it asks them to do. The ever-tightening grip and
imposition of the Federal bureaucracy's expensive, counterproductive,
and unnecessary burdens are killing America's agriculture industry.
Today, I will introduce the FARM Act of 2011--Freeing Agriculture to
Reap More Act. I am unveiling it today in light of the pending ag
discussions we hear are occurring in the supercommittee.
The FARM Act reflects the conversations I have had with constituents
and farm groups all across the First District and addresses their
concerns about the economic impacts of overregulation. In essence, the
FARM Act adds a regulatory title to the farm bill. Given the
consequences of overregulation, it merits its own title amid others
like trade, research, conservation, or farm credit.
Farmers and ranchers arguably pay some of the largest costs for
Washington's crushing burden of overregulation. Whether it is on youth
involvement on family farms, pesticide application permits, greenhouse
gases, farm dust, farm commercial vehicles, fuel hauling limitations
for farm equipment, or livestock emissions taxes, the Federal
Government continues to insist that it control the intricate, day-to-
day affairs of America's agriculture community. The FARM Act prohibits
this regulatory overreach.
Kansas' family farms do not need Washington writing detailed
instruction manuals for them on how much fuel they can or cannot put in
their tractors. They do not need Washington prohibiting them from
teaching their own children the value and importance of hard work by
allowing them to work a few hours on the farm. And they most certainly
do not need Washington imposing taxes on them for supposed greenhouse
gases emitted by their livestock. No, they need Washington to let them
run their operations in the safe and responsible, yet productive, ways
they have done for generations. The FARM Act allows our family farms to
continue the family tradition without fear of expensive and unnecessary
regulations.
Like the families that live and the farms that operate in rural
America, small towns in the First District of Kansas also have no need
for additional instruction from Washington. That is why the FARM Act
prohibits funding for the newly established White House Rural Council.
Rural communities are the embodiment of family and entrepreneurial
freedom, and this council seeks to replace that freedom with
centralized planning schemes. We simply cannot afford more of the
President's failed approaches.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the FARM Act of 2011.
It's time to stop the overregulation of America's farmers, ranchers, ag
communities, and rural America. It's time to put an end to Washington's
distrust of America's growers, ranchers, and producers, as well as all
of rural America.

____________________

VOTER SUPPRESSION

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Johnson) for 5 minutes.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen, nothing is
more fundamental in our democracy than the right to vote.
Unfortunately, our right to vote is under attack.
According to a new report by the Brennan Center for Justice, voter
suppression laws in States across the country could affect up to 5
million voters from traditionally Democratic demographics in 2012. It's
no coincidence that this number is larger than the margin of victory in
two of the last three Presidential elections.
These voter ID laws do nothing more than discourage and block
eligible voters, especially students, the poor, seniors, and
minorities. These are Americans who tend to vote for Democrats.
Recently, the media reported that a 96-year-old woman was denied a
voter ID card in Chattanooga, Tennessee, because of one of these new
laws. Her name is Dorothy Cooper, and she is a retired domestic worker.
In fact, she was born in my home State of Georgia, and she relocated to
Chattanooga so that she could find work. She could not get all the
documents together, and so, therefore, her request for a government-
issued ID was denied.
After Indiana's photo ID law was implemented, the media reported
about a group of elderly nuns who lacked driver's licenses and current
passports, and they were turned away from the polls. Unfortunately, if
States continue to pass these restrictive and unnecessary voter ID
laws, we will hear more of these stories.
The Tea Party Republicans are trying to hijack our right to vote so
that they can steal the 2012 election. I don't

[[Page 16454]]

know about you, but I'm disgusted with Tea Party Republican attempts to
use voter suppression laws to erode traditionally Democratic voters by
blocking their access to the polls.
These voter ID laws do not prevent fraud. In fact, they do nothing
other than suppress voter turnout. America has not seen this level of
suppression since the days of poll taxes and literacy tests.
More than 30 States introduced legislation this year designed to
impede voters at every step of the voting process. These laws do not
combat fraud but prevent millions of hardworking, taxpaying Americans,
especially minorities, young voters, the working poor, people with
disabilities, and senior citizens from casting ballots in 2012 and
beyond, making this the most significant setback to voting rights in a
century.
Photo ID restrictions disenfranchise eligible registered voters. An
estimated 11 percent of U.S. citizens--21 million people--do not have
current, government-issued photo ID's. While poll taxes were abolished
more than 60 years ago, this new slew of voter ID laws is reminiscent
of the days when poll taxes were required, days which none of us want
to revisit.
These Tea Party Republicans have been scheming from day one of
President Obama's term in office to make sure that he's a one-term
President. They want to take ``their'' country back. So State
legislators, in accordance with this scheme, have passed a spate of
laws specifically designed to block access to the ballot box by voters
who tend to vote for Democrats. It's not fair, it's not right, and it's
simply un-American.
Ladies and gentlemen, now is the time for all good men and women to
come to the aid of their country.

____________________

{time} 1120
NATIONAL RECYCLING WEEK

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Flores) for 5 minutes.
Mr. FLORES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize National Recycling
Week.
Recycling and the return of recycled materials to the manufacturing
process plays an important role in the global competitiveness of U.S.
industries. The use of recycled materials in manufacturing
significantly reduces energy use and emissions levels, reducing the
cost of producing goods. For example, in the glass industry, every 10
percent of recycled glass used to make new glass containers means a 2
to 4 percent drop in energy use and a 4 to 10 percent reduction in
greenhouse gas emissions. Glass containers can be used multiple times
to make new containers, but most used containers do not wind up back in
the manufacturing process.
Next week I plan to tour an Owens-Illinois glass plant in my
district. Owens-Illinois has been a part of the Waco community since
the 1940s and provides jobs to over 300 people. These are jobs we want
to keep in America, but O-I needs more recycled glass to remain
competitive. Unfortunately, glass and other containers have low
recycling rates when they are collected through single-stream
collection systems. Further, the lack of data on recovery rates is a
barrier to finding effective ways to collect more recyclable materials
that can be used in manufacturing.
Congress should encourage all stakeholders to take steps to improve
data collection related to the recovery of recycled materials, review
ways to increase the collection of recycled materials, and increase the
amount of recycled materials available for manufacturers. By improving
the collection of recycled materials, we can make American
manufacturers more competitive and protect and create highly skilled,
high-paying jobs.
This is another Main Street solution to grow American jobs under the
House Republican Plan For America's Job Creators. I encourage all
Americans to learn more about this plan at jobs.gop.gov.

____________________

RECESS

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 12(a) of rule I, the
Chair declares the House in recess until noon today.
Accordingly (at 11 o'clock and 23 minutes a.m.), the House stood in
recess until noon.

____________________

{time} 1200
AFTER RECESS

The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the
Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Terry) at noon.

____________________

PRAYER

The Chaplain, the Reverend Patrick J. Conroy, offered the following
prayer:
God of the universe, we give You thanks for giving us another day.
Bless the Members of this assembly as they set upon the work of these
hours, of these days. Help them to make wise decisions in a good manner
and to carry their responsibilities steadily, with high hopes for a
better future for our great Nation.
Deepen their faith, widen their sympathies, heighten their
aspirations, and give them the strength to do what ought to be done for
this country.
May Your blessing, O God, be with them and with us all this day and
every day to come, and may all we do be for Your greater honor and
glory.
Amen.

____________________

THE JOURNAL

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has examined the Journal of the
last day's proceedings and announces to the House his approval thereof.
Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Journal stands approved.

____________________

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Will the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
McIntyre) come forward and lead the House in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mr. McINTYRE led the Pledge of Allegiance as follows:

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of
America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

____________________

COMMUNICATION FROM THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE

The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from the Clerk of the House of Representatives:

Office of the Clerk,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, November 2, 2011.
Hon. John A. Boehner,
The Speaker, U.S. Capitol, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to the permission granted in
Clause 2(h) of Rule II of the Rules of the U.S. House of
Representatives, the Clerk received the following message
from the Secretary of the Senate on November 2, 2011 at 9:19
a.m.:
That the Senate passed with amendments H.R. 2112.
With best wishes, I am
Sincerely,
Karen L. Haas,
Clerk.

____________________

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will entertain up to 15 requests
for 1-minute speeches on each side of the aisle.

____________________

A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO BALANCE THE FEDERAL BUDGET

(Mr. SULLIVAN asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. SULLIVAN. Only in Washington, D.C., are we debating whether it's
a good idea to balance the Federal budget. The American people don't
have the luxury of choosing. Families and businesses across the country
are forced to balance their budgets and live within their means, and
the Federal Government should be held to the same standard.
I believe a constitutional amendment to balance our Federal budget is
a real long-term solution to our Nation's fiscal problems, and I am
pleased Congress will soon vote on one for the first time in 15 years.

[[Page 16455]]

This is a critical time for our Nation. Over 14 million Americans are
unemployed, and our record-setting level of debt is over $14 trillion.
Congress has a moral obligation to our children and grandchildren to
stop the outrageous spending and to restore fiscal sanity in Washington
in order to ensure we don't leave them under a mountain of debt.
I will continue fighting for a constitutional amendment to require
the Federal Government to live within its means just like families
across Oklahoma do every day.

____________________

WHITMARSH HOUSE

(Mr. CICILLINE asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute.)
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Whitmarsh House
in Providence, Rhode Island--a safe haven and support network for Rhode
Island youth, adults with developmental disabilities, and families for
over 40 years.
In recognition of the organization's commitment to excellence,
Whitmarsh House has received a 3-year accreditation from the Commission
on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities, or CARF. CARF is an
accrediting body that recognizes an organization's demonstration of
accountability and conformance to internationally accepted standards in
providing essential health and rehabilitation services to its
community. This accreditation comes as no surprise given the vital and
quality services Whitmarsh House provides every day to our communities
in Rhode Island.
Whitmarsh House has served hundreds of youth through programs that
support their development as productive and contributing members of our
society. I am proud to honor Whitmarsh House and to congratulate the
dedicated staff on receiving this important accreditation. I look
forward to seeing its continued work for the community in the coming
years.

____________________

THE UNESCO VOTE ON THE PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY

(Mr. OLSON asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. OLSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise with deep concerns about yesterday's
vote to grant the Palestinians full membership in the U.N. organization
known as UNESCO.
America has been crystal clear about what the consequences would be
for this kind of end run around negotiated peace between Israel and the
Palestinians seeking their own nation. This action by UNESCO emboldens
the fraudulent Palestinian bid for recognition without the Palestinians
immediately recognizing Israel's right to exist as a Jewish nation-
state or even denouncing their stated goal of Israel's destruction.
The United States had no choice but to refuse to make a scheduled $60
million transfer to UNESCO. That $60 million should be used to pay down
our Federal debt instead of to support an organization committed to
thwarting peace in the Middle East.

____________________

FLIGHT 3407 EMAILS

(Ms. HOCHUL asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Ms. HOCHUL. On a cold, snowy night in February 2009, the lives of
hundreds of people in my district were shattered. The cruel irony of 50
loved ones killed in a plane crash the Friday before Valentine's Day
weekend is lost on no one in my district, near Buffalo, which is
exactly where the Colgan Flight 3407 plane crash occurred.
The families began a quest for answers--hearings on Capitol Hill and
NTSB investigations. Finally, we thought we had the answers. Yet it
wasn't until a lawsuit was filed in Federal court in Buffalo and
through the perseverance of a Buffalo news reporter that they finally
announced that the company never gave critical emails regarding the
inability of this pilot to fly this plane. Those emails were never
revealed until now.
That's why I teamed up with our local delegation--Congresswoman
Slaughter, Congressmen Higgins and Reed, and Senators Schumer and
Gillibrand--to call for a Federal investigation by the United States
Attorney General into what this company knew and when they knew it.
Whether they possessed critical emails at the right time, whether they
gave them to us, whether there were other emails that would shed light
as to what happened on that night, the families deserve to know;
western New Yorkers need to know; and America needs to know.

____________________

IN HONOR OF OTTERBOX

(Mr. GARDNER asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the charitable
contributions and achievements of OtterBox, a business located in Fort
Collins, Colorado.
This business manufactures and develops coverings for tech products,
like cell phones and iPads, and it employs 350 people in my
congressional district. Aside from their great products and innovation,
OtterBox received national recognition by being named an honoree for
National Philanthropy Day in Colorado.
Last year OtterBox created a new wing to their business, one devoted
to altruistic values to help the surrounding community. This wing was
appropriately named OtterCares. OtterCares has participated in many
service projects, like providing school supplies to low-income children
and by donating 600 toys to less fortunate families during the holiday
season. Their work also includes volunteering at local food banks,
youth centers, and animal sanctuaries.
In addition, the company gave all 350 employees a $200 grant to give
to a charity or foundation of their choosing. The $200 was just a
start. They encourage their employees to raise and donate more. To this
day, OtterBox has raised over $74,000 for 70 different organizations.
The business utilizes this slogan: ``Throw a stone in the water, and
watch how far the ripple can spread.''
The ripple started by OtterBox is helping the entire Fort Collins
area. It is with great pride that I recognize OtterBox on the House
floor.

____________________

{time} 1210
REBUILDING THE AMERICAN DREAM

(Mr. CARNAHAN asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. CARNAHAN. Mr. Speaker, with less than 2 months left in 2011, this
Republican-controlled House has yet to focus on the top issues facing
our country: creating jobs, growing our economy, and rebuilding the
American Dream. Back home in St. Louis, I have seen firsthand how
businesses, families, seniors, and students are frustrated and
suffering because of inaction, obstruction, and political games in this
Congress.
Last week I met with business owners in my home State, including a
commercial and residential plumbing company in St. Louis. That business
is suffering from the terrible housing market and poor economy. It's
our responsibility to work to help our constituents who have built
businesses that have been hard-hit by these tough times.
The President has proposed the American Jobs Act which would help put
people back to work. And independent economists say this bill would
help create more than 1 million jobs. It's time for action. We cannot
retreat to our ideological corners and ignore the challenges that we
face. I will work with anyone, anywhere, anytime to grow the economy
and help create jobs. I challenge my colleagues to work with that same
spirit. It's time we pull together and put our country first.

____________________

ARNOLD DE LA PAZ

(Mr. FARENTHOLD asked and was given permission to address the House

[[Page 16456]]

for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. FARENTHOLD. This year Mr. Arnold De La Paz, the founder and
president of DLP Group, Inc., in Corpus Christi, was named the Small
Business Association's Lower Rio Grande Valley District Minority Small
Businessperson of the Year.
Mr. De La Paz is a service-disabled veteran who started his career
with a small painting company and eventually, through hard work and
dedication, founded the DLP Group, which is now one of the largest
paint manufacturers in America. Mr. De La Paz is one of many small
business owners that work every day to live and realize the American
Dream. We must continue to foster an environment where job creators
like Mr. De La Paz can succeed. We can do that here in Washington by
simplifying the Tax Code, reducing government regulation, and getting
the Federal budget under control.
I think Mr. De La Paz summed it up well when he said, ``Our Nation
has always been about the urge to dream and the will to enable it.''
Mr. De La Paz is an example to other small business owners. His
contributions as a job creator who has worked tirelessly to put
Americans back to work is what this country is based upon.

____________________

VETERANS' TUITION

(Mr. McINTYRE asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. McINTYRE. Mr. Speaker, as we approach Veterans Day and are ever
thankful for the veterans and servicemen and -women who have made our
country great, I rise to pay tribute to Sergeant Jason Thigpen of
Wilmington, North Carolina, who is here with us today. After his
service in Iraq, Jason started the Student Veterans Advocacy Group at
the University of North Carolina at Wilmington to support student
veterans and dependents seeking a college education.
Jason, who is a Purple Heart medal recipient, has shared with me and
others here on Capitol Hill his concerns that the Post-9/11 Veterans
Educational Assistance Act disallows out-of-state students to receive
in-state tuition at public universities, thus making it cost-
prohibitive for them to attend these public universities, even though
they otherwise qualify. I am certain that my colleagues here would
agree that our returning veterans who are pursuing an education under
the GI Bill should not have to worry about whether it's in-state versus
out-of-state tuition. These courageous individuals have been at the
forefront defending our freedoms and our values. They should not be
denied their opportunity to pursue an education. Let's support our
student veterans.

____________________

JOBS CAN'T GROW WHEN CASH FLOW SLOWS

(Mr. CRAWFORD asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address a topic that
concerns most Americans at this time, and that's jobs. The House has
opposed the administration when they have proposed hitting job creators
with new taxes or more regulatory burdens. So far this year, the House
has passed a total of 17 job-creating bills. This week, the House will
vote on two jobs bills that will enable small businesses and
entrepreneurs to access more capital to create more jobs. Jobs can't
grow when the cash doesn't flow. Smarter regulation and fewer
roadblocks to capital will help job creators put more Americans back to
work.
We in Congress have the responsibility to give entrepreneurs and
small business owners the business environment they need to unleash
America's economic potential. That's what we were sent here to do, and
that's what our constituents deserve.

____________________

ASSISTANCE FOR OUR VETERANS

(Mr. CLARKE of Michigan asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, earlier this morning, I spoke on
how glad I was that the Representative from Michigan's First District
was able to take a tour of the city of Detroit and visit Mercy Primary
Care Center. But when I visited that center, I was also appalled. I was
appalled by what I saw and what I heard--that our veterans from metro
Detroit, our veterans, young men and women who risked their lives,
their physical and mental health for our country, who went overseas and
came back home to face only no prospect of employment, no income to
even provide them with decent shelter, little access to mental health
and substance abuse treatment. So as a result, folks that we should be
revering as heroes ended up on the streets of Detroit, living like
animals. No one deserves to live that way in this country.
So right now, I'm asking this Congress, instead of just focusing on
cutting everything and cutting programs and funding initiatives, let's
help put people back to work. Let's provide them with mental health and
substance abuse treatment and give them the dignity that every American
deserves.

____________________

FLOOD PROTECTION FOR THE MISSOURI RIVER BASIN

(Mr. BERG asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. BERG. Mr. Speaker, North Dakota has experienced devastating and
unprecedented flooding this year. To provide additional flood control
storage, our State requested that the Corps lower the water levels in
Lake Sakakawea. This could help prevent a repeat of this year's
flooding. Last night, the Corps denied our State's request. I strongly
disagree with this decision.
The people of North Dakota are more than just frustrated. They have
lost so much to flooding, and they deserve more say in the Corps
management of the water levels. I have called on the Corps to testify
before Congress on what went wrong this last spring, and I will
continue to press for an honest conversation about the Missouri River
Basin's flood protection. The Corps should do everything within its
power to prevent another devastating flood next spring. Unfortunately,
this recent decision suggests that the Corps is continuing forward with
the same management plan that failed so badly this spring. Things need
to change now before the people of North Dakota and other Missouri
River States are faced with another devastating loss.

____________________

FINDING COMMON GROUND

(Mr. YARMUTH asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, this week at the University of Louisville's
McConnell Center, the Speaker of the House gave a speech on the need to
find common ground, but without compromise. We've been testing the
wisdom of this approach all this year. Here's what we've gotten:
stalemate, manufactured crises, and an inability to act on behalf of
the American people.
In a government as polarized as this, insisting on common ground
while refusing to compromise is maybe the best way to guarantee that 90
percent of our Nation's problems go unsolved. Not coincidentally,
that's the same percentage of Americans who disapprove of this Congress
and its ongoing search for a hidden, preexisting common ground.
I encourage the Speaker to hear the people out on this. They know the
solutions which we've already agreed are the easy ones, and they didn't
elect us to make easy decisions. They elected us to solve difficult
problems. In other words, to lead. Real leaders don't just look for
common ground. They create it. Our country was formed through
compromise and has been strengthened by it for more than 200 years.
Until Republicans provide leadership that values results over ideology
and economic progress over antitax pledges, this Congress will continue
to fail America.

[[Page 16457]]

____________________

REPUBLICAN NO-JOBS AGENDA

(Mr. SIRES asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. SIRES. Mr. Speaker, it has been 43 weeks since Republicans took
control of the House, and we have had 817 recorded votes, yet they have
failed to pass a single bill to create jobs. In turn, they have
actually voted against, blocked, or ignored an array of job-creating
proposals, including the American Jobs Act as well as segments of the
American Jobs Act.
There are 14 million Americans out of work that are counting on
Congress to pass legislation that creates jobs and improves the
American economy. The American Jobs Act will create and preserve jobs
now, put money back into the pockets of working Americans now, and give
businesses job-creating tax breaks now. Unfortunately, the majority is
continuing a no-jobs agenda by refusing to hold a vote on the American
Jobs Act. The House majority will not even follow the Senate's lead by
bringing job-creating components of the bill, like the provision that
preserves jobs for teachers and first responders, up for a vote. Mr.
Speaker, we must act now to establish confidence in our economy, and
the American Jobs Act is one way to achieve that goal.

____________________

{time} 1220
LATINO VETERANS

(Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California asked and was given permission to
address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to
commemorate the 70th anniversary of World War II and to commemorate the
service of Hispanic Americans who served in World War II and in all
wars, and to commemorate our Latino veterans across America.
During World War II, 500,000 Americans of Hispanic ancestry
courageously answered our Nation's call, including Latinos such as Ted
Williams, Manuel Ortiz, Maria Dolores Hernandez, Jose Limon, Desi
Arnaz, Cesar Chavez, and Guy Gabaldon.
The Hispanic American soldiers fought with integrity and bravery,
earning 126 Distinguished Service Crosses, over 1,400 Silver Stars, and
2,807 Bronze Stars for valor. They earned these medals sacrificing
their lives and blood to preserve the United States and freedom around
the world. Through the war, over 12,000 Latinos were awarded the Purple
Heart for wounds suffered in combat; 2,561 Latinos were prisoners of
war; and 9,831 Latinos were killed in action.
Because of their record of service, Mr. Speaker, I introduced H. Res.
404, which recognizes the service and the sacrifice of the members of
the Armed Forces and veterans who are Latino; and I urge my colleagues
to cosponsor this legislation.
I wish to remember these war heroes and the stalwart and selfless
service of Latinos in military history 70 years after World War II.

____________________

A NO-JOBS AGENDA FROM A NO-SHOW REPUBLICAN CONGRESS

(Mr. POLIS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, here we are 43 weeks into the current
Congress since the Republicans took control of the House, and yet we
have failed to pass a single bill to create jobs. Fourteen million
Americans without jobs, many millions more are underemployed, worried
about where their next paycheck is coming from. And yet the majority
has continued to block and ignore a number of job-creating proposals
advanced by Democrats, including the American Jobs Act. I renew my call
for Speaker Boehner to bring the American Jobs Act to the House floor
and allow the House to work its will to create jobs for the American
people.
The majority party will respond that there are a number of bills, but
just by calling a bill a jobs bill doesn't make it one, such as bills
that would increase childhood asthma and make people of all ages more
ill by preventing our EPA from enforcing its clean water standards. The
Dirty Water Act, again, instead of creating jobs, the bill undermines
the Clean Water Act. It's not a zero sum game. And by damaging our
environment and making people sick, we're not creating jobs.
I call upon the House of Representatives to pass jobs bills now.

____________________

AMERICAN JOBS ACT

(Mr. BACA asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, across the country, 14 million Americans, I
state, 14 million Americans are looking for work. And yet there are no
jobs that have been created, and the Republicans still don't have a
jobs plan.
In my congressional district in San Bernardino County, the
unemployment rate is 17 percent. People throughout our country are
hurting. They're hurting. They can't wait any longer for Congress to do
the job. We must bring the American Jobs Act for a vote. It will
provide an opportunity to put people to work.
It contains bipartisan ideas. It puts our teachers, firefighters,
first responders, and cops back to work. It provide tax cuts that will
help small businesses create new jobs. It puts our veterans and
returning troops back to work with a tax credit and provides an
immediate boost to our economy.
Republicans have supported all of these ideas in the past. It's time
they support them again. We must work together and pass the American
Jobs Act.

____________________

HOUSE REPUBLICAN JOBS PLAN

(Mr. YODER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. YODER. Mr. Speaker, our economy cannot recover without tapping
into the unlimited creative talents of the American people. Innovators
and entrepreneurs all across the country are primed to be the spark
that ignites the economic engine of America, putting millions of
Americans back to work. But these bright job creators face many
government-made obstacles to success.
In our free enterprise system, access to private capital and
investment is the lifeblood of our economy. With the threat of higher
taxes on investment income and new financial regulations on community
banks, it's no wonder that these small business owners aren't expanding
or creating jobs. H.R. 2930 and H.R. 2940 are two bills that remove
government barriers to economic growth by helping American businesses
gain access to the vital investment capital they need to create jobs
and grow the economy.
Mr. Speaker, together we can pass legislation that will unleash the
energy and talents of the American people and restore the prosperity
and promise of the United States of America.

____________________

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the Chair
will postpone further proceedings today on motions to suspend the rules
on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered, or on which
the vote incurs objection under clause 6 of rule XX.
Record votes on postponed questions will be taken later.

____________________

CIVILIAN SERVICE RECOGNITION ACT OF 2011

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 2061) to authorize the presentation of a United States flag
at the funeral of Federal civilian employees who are killed while
performing official duties or because of their status as a Federal
employee, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:

H.R. 2061

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

[[Page 16458]]

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Civilian Service Recognition
Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. PRESENTATION OF UNITED STATES FLAG ON BEHALF OF
FEDERAL CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES WHO DIE OF INJURIES
IN CONNECTION WITH THEIR EMPLOYMENT.

(a) Presentation Authorized.--Upon receipt of a request
under subsection (b), the head of an executive agency may pay
the expenses incident to the presentation of a flag of the
United States for an individual who--
(1) was an employee of the agency; and
(2) dies of injuries incurred in connection with such
individual's employment with the Federal government.
(b) Request for Flag.--The head of an executive agency may
furnish a flag for a deceased employee described in
subsection (a) upon the request of--
(1) the employee's next of kin; or
(2) if no request is received from the next of kin, an
individual other than the next of kin as determined by the
Director of the Office of Personnel Management.
(c) Classified Information.--The head of an executive
agency may disclose information necessary to show that a
deceased individual is an employee described in subsection
(a) to the extent that such information is not classified and
to the extent that such disclosure does not endanger the
national security of the United States.
(d) Employee Notification of Flag Benefit.--The head of an
executive agency shall provide appropriate notice to
employees of the agency of the flag benefit provided for
under this section.
(e) Regulations.--The Director of the Office of Personnel
Management, in coordination with the Secretary of Defense and
the Secretary of Homeland Security, may prescribe regulations
to implement this section. Any such regulations shall provide
for the head of an executive agency to consider the
conditions and circumstances surrounding the death of an
employee and nature of the service of the employee.
(f) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Employee.--The term ``employee'' has the meaning given
that term in section 2105 of title 5, United States Code, and
includes--
(A) individuals who perform volunteer services at the
discretion of the head of an executive agency; and
(B) an officer or employee of the United States Postal
Service or of the Postal Regulatory Commission.
(2) Executive agency.--The term ``executive agency'' has
the meaning given that term in section 105 of title 5, United
States Code, and includes the United States Postal Service
and the Postal Regulatory Commission.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Utah (Mr. Chaffetz) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah.

General Leave

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under
consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Utah?
There was no objection.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
H.R. 2061, the Civilian Service Recognition Act of 2011, was
introduced by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hanna) on May 31 of this
year. H.R. 2061 enjoys the support of 21 cosponsors on both sides of
the aisle, and the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
reported this bill by voice vote on June 22 of this year.
Mr. Speaker, each year a small number of Federal civilian employees
tragically lose their lives as a result of the duties they pledged to
fulfill. Sadly, nearly 3,000 Federal civilian workers have died on the
job since 1992.
Many civilian employees are veterans and thus are entitled to
military funeral honors. In addition, the Departments of Defense and
Homeland Security have regulatory authority over burial benefits
related to civilian employees who die as a result of their service with
an Armed Force in a contingency operation.
The Federal Government lacks a policy authorizing the presentation of
a United States flag to the families of Federal civilian employees
serving elsewhere who lose their lives as a result of their employment.
For those civilian employees who make the ultimate sacrifice in the
course of service to their country, H.R. 2061 authorizes agencies to
give a United States flag as a way for the Nation to formally express
sympathy and gratitude.
H.R. 2061 is supported by a broad coalition of Federal employee
organizations, including the Federal Law Enforcement Officers
Association, American Foreign Service Association, American Federation
of Government Employees, and the Service Executives Association.
I would like to thank Representatives Hanna and Hinchey for bringing
this important issue to the attention of this Congress. I would also
like to thank the minority for working with us to bring this
legislation to the floor for our consideration.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in strong support of H.R. 2061, the Civilian Service
Recognition Act of 2011, as amended. I commend Congressman Hanna for
his work on this legislation. This bill would authorize Federal
agencies to give the United States flag to the families of Federal
civilian and postal employees who lose their lives as a result of a
criminal act, an act of terrorism, a natural disaster, or in other
special circumstances as determined by the President of the United
States.

{time} 1230

There are more than 2.8 million Federal civilian and postal
employees. They are the men and women who gather and analyze the
intelligence that enables us to track down terrorists such as Osama bin
Laden. They are our postal employees who deliver the mail to us in the
rain, snow, sleet, and hail. They are the scientists who conduct
groundbreaking and lifesaving research like those that I've seen at
NIH. They are the food and water inspectors who ensure the products we
eat and drink will not harm us. They are the correctional officers
guarding criminals and terrorists, and they are the nurses and doctors
who care for us and our wounded veterans.
Many of these employees have high-risk, dangerous jobs, and they put
their lives on the line every day in service to our Nation. They give
their blood, sweat, and tears for our Nation. For example,
approximately 44,000 Federal civilian employees have served alongside
our uniformed servicemembers in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other combat-
related zones over the last decade. They have performed jobs critical
to our missions, and they have been essential to the successes our
military has achieved.
Over the past two decades, some 3,000 Federal civilian employees have
died on the job. The gift of a United States flag to the families of
Federal employees who die in the line of duty is a small token of our
very great appreciation for the ultimate sacrifice these public
servants have made.
That said, Mr. Speaker, these same civil servants that we seek to
honor here today are the very same people who are under attack from
some quarters for simply doing their jobs. Recently, the majority of
the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee recommended to the
Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction that Federal workers who
are already subject to a 2-year-long pay freeze also be subjected to
the following: arbitrary 10 percent workforce reductions, an extended
pay freeze through 2015, elimination of periodic step increases,
increased employee contributions to the Civil Service Retirement System
and the Federal Employees Retirement System, and a change in the
formula used to calculate Federal pensions that may reduce the benefits
provided to these many employees. In addition, our committee has
scheduled H.R. 3029 for consideration tomorrow. This bill would require
a 10 percent reduction in the Federal workforce by fiscal 2015.
It is appropriate and, in fact, past due that we pay tribute to our
civil servants who make the ultimate sacrifice in service to our great
Nation, and I am encouraged that the legislation before us enjoys
bipartisan support. But I remind my colleagues that it doesn't make any
sense to turn around and attack these same workers' livelihoods as we
consider further deficit reductions. Such actions denigrate the value
of the service these individuals provide to our great Nation, the very
service we are honoring in H.R. 2061.
If Federal employees are worthy of receiving a gift of our Nation's
flag

[[Page 16459]]

upon their deaths, they are surely worthy of receiving their full pay
and benefits for a lifetime of service to our country. Therefore, Mr.
Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill to honor Federal
employees killed in the line of duty. I also urge my colleagues to join
me in honoring all of our civil servants by opposing any further
efforts to balance the Nation's budget on the backs of these dedicated
men and women.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my
distinguished colleague from the State of New York, the primary author
of this bill, Mr. Hanna.
Mr. HANNA. I thank the gentleman from Utah for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in proud support of H.R. 2061, the Civilian
Service Recognition Act of 2011.
First, I would like to thank a few of my colleagues for helping to
bring this bill to the floor. My friend and colleague, a New Yorker,
Maurice Hinchey, one of the original cosponsors of this bill; my
neighbor and friend in the Cannon Office Building and someone who has
been supportive of this effort from the very beginning, Donna Edwards,
Representative from Maryland; Oversight and Government Reform Committee
Chairman Darrell Issa and Ranking Member Elijah Cummings for their
support of this bill; and the entire staff of the Oversight and
Government Reform Committee for its work on this bill.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank the people who prompted
the introduction of this bill: Grant Reeher and Terry Newell. These
gentlemen penned a joint opinion editorial in The Syracuse Post-
Standard suggesting that legislation be introduced to honor civil
servants who are killed in the line of duty.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is quite simple. If a civilian Federal
employee is killed on the job as a result of a criminal contact,
terrorism, natural disaster, or an extraordinary event as determined by
the President of the United States, their next of kin would be
authorized to receive a United States flag. The Congressional Budget
Office reports that this bill would have ``no significant effect on the
Federal budget.''
Mr. Speaker, since 1992, almost 3,000 civilian Federal workers have
been killed while on duty, both in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, and
Haiti, but also in places like Oklahoma City and Austin, Texas. This
legislation is widely supported by a variety of groups and individuals,
including civil service organizations, former Homeland Security
Secretary Michael Chertoff, and the American Legion.
I would like to note for the record that the American Legion raised
some concerns about the language of this bill. I am personally very
grateful and much appreciate their input. My office, as well as the
committee staff, have worked with the Legion not only to listen to its
concerns, but to act on them, which we have in this bill. In the end,
we made a better bill, mindful of the real differences between military
and civilian service, but also acceptable to all parties.
Legislative language aside, the spirit of this bill and the original
intent of this bill is simple. If a Federal civil employee is killed in
the line of duty, whether at home or abroad, their life will be honored
by this Nation. Their family will be presented a flag on behalf of the
United States of America.
More than 2 million Federal civilian employees work within our
country and in countless overseas posts, many of them in dangerous jobs
at Customs and Border Protection or the FBI, just to name a couple of
examples. This is a modest but significant benefit in honor of these
dedicated individuals who sacrifice on our behalf.
Until the September 11 attacks, the largest terrorism attack on
American soil took place in 1995--the Oklahoma City bombing. Employees
showed up at the Federal building that day, like so many before, to go
to work, to fulfill their oath of office and meet their obligations.
Ours is a grateful Nation, one that values the sacrifices made in
honor of this country. Mr. Speaker, a life can never be repaid, but it
can be honored. I urge all my colleagues to join me in support of H.R.
2061.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in proud support of H.R. 2061, the Civilian
Service Recognition Act of 2011.
First, I need to thank several of my colleagues for their help in
bringing this bill to the floor:
My friend and colleague to the south--and--the original co-sponsor of
this bill: Maurice Hinchey.
My neighbor in the Cannon House Office Building and someone who's
been supportive of this effort from the beginning: Donna Edwards,
representative from Maryland.
Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa and
Ranking Member Elijah Cummings for their support of this bill.
The entire staff of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee for
its work on this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I need to thank the people who prompted the introduction
of this bill: Grant Reecher and Terry Newell.
These gentlemen penned a joint opinion-editorial in The Syracuse
Post-Standard, suggesting legislation be introduced to honor civil
servants who are killed in the line of duty.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is simple. If a civilian federal employee is
killed on the job as a result of a criminal act, terrorism, natural
disaster, or an extraordinary event as determined by the President,
their next of kin would be authorized to receive a United States flag.
The Congressional Budget Office reports that this bill would have
``no significant effect on the federal budget.''
Mr. Speaker, since 1992, almost 3,000 civilian federal workers have
been killed while on duty, both in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, and
Haiti--but also in places like Oklahoma City, and Austin, Texas.
This legislation is widely supported by a wide array of groups and
individuals including civil service organizations, former Homeland
Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, and the American Legion.
I would note for the record that the American Legion raised some
concerns about the language of the bill. I personally very much
appreciated the input. My office, as well as Committee staff, worked
with the Legion to not only listen to its concerns, but act on them.
In the end we made this bill better. Mindful of the real differences
between military and civilian service, but acceptable to all parties
involved.
Legislative language aside--the spirit of this bill--and the original
intent of this bill--is simple: If a federal civilian employee is
killed in the line of duty whether at home or abroad, their life will
be honored by this nation. Their family will be presented a flag on
behalf of the United States of America.
More than 2 million federal civilian employees work within our
country and in countless overseas posts, many of them in dangerous jobs
at Customs and Border Protection or the FBI, just to name a couple of
examples.
This is a modest, but significant benefit in honor of these dedicated
individuals who sacrificed on our behalf.
Until the September 11th attacks, the largest terrorism attack on
American soil took place in 1995--the Oklahoma City bombing. Employees
showed up at the federal building that day--like so many before--to go
to work. To fulfill their oath of service to the U.S. Government.
Ours is a grateful nation, one that values the sacrifices made in
honor of this country.
A life can never be repaid, but it can be honored.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting
H.R. 2061.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Again, I wholeheartedly support this legislation, and I think it's a
very, very important piece of legislation. I want to congratulate Mr.
Hanna and all the cosponsors for it.
At the same time, though, there is an old saying: Give me my flowers
while I live. The fact is that there are many Federal employees, and we
get the calls every day, when we sit in committees and we hear negative
things said about Federal employees, and I think we forget that we take
so many of them for granted. And so often when you take people for
granted, you just assume that things are going to work and that
agencies are going to work.
In my district, I have the Social Security Administration, and I get
complaints from employees almost every day. As they see a downsizing,
they see their workload increasing tremendously, but yet they are still
being subject to pay freezes and things of this nature.

[[Page 16460]]

So I think, again, this legislation is extremely important; but,
again, I emphasize that I think it's so important that we not place
these Federal employees in positions where they are constantly told
that they're not doing enough work or they are not needed in many
instances and need to be downsized, need to have their pay reduced and
need to have the increases to their contribution to the retirement
system.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1240

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to just merely point out that since Barack Obama took office until now,
there are more than 141,000 additional Federal workers on the payroll.
So while there has been some discussion about not appreciating Federal
workers, I fully appreciate the Federal workers--they're patriotic
people, they work hard, they do a good job. But I do think we have an
expectation that people do a good day's work for a good salary. And
there is nothing that has been brought up today to suggest we're doing
anything other than recognizing those who are paying the ultimate
sacrifice. We have been increasing the number of Federal employees;
some of us are concerned about that. That is a discussion for another
day.
At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would yield such time as he may consume
to my distinguished colleague from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), who has been
very active on this issue and cares passionately about this issue.
Mr. WOLF. I thank the chairman for recognizing me. I appreciate it
very much.
I rise in strong support of the bill. It's very appropriate. The
first person killed in Afghanistan was a civilian employee from my
congressional district, a CIA employee, Michael Spann. I went to the
funeral out at Arlington Cemetery. He was the very first person, and he
was a civilian and gave his life there.
I also, about 7 or 8 months ago, went out to the agency where they
had a memorial service--the President was there, as was Director
Panetta--to remember the seven who were killed at that base there. You
could see the young families and just the pain and the agony and the
suffering. Also, the DEA; we lost three DEA people in Afghanistan
fighting the drug wars. And you can go on, the Border Patrol and all
the others. So I want to thank Mr. Hanna for the bill, thank the
chairman for it, and thank the ranking member. This is important, I
think, to do.
I want to thank the gentleman from New York, Mr. Hanna, for
introducing this legislation, which authorizes the presentation of the
United States flag to federal employees who have died in the line of
duty.
According to the Office of Personnel Management, since 1992, nearly
3,000 federal employees have paid the ultimate price while serving
their country.
Federal employees work side-by-side on the front lines with our
military personnel to carry out the Global War on Terror in locations
such as Iraq and Afghanistan. They put their lives at risk daily to
defend our national interests.
The first American killed in Afghanistan, Mike Spann, was a CIA agent
and a constituent from my congressional district. Imagine the dangers a
CIA or State Department employee or DEA agent or an FBI agent working
in Afghanistan with the U.S. military must encounter.
When I traveled to Afghanistan, I visited with FBI agents serving
side-by-side with our military in the fight against the Taliban. DEA
agents are also in Afghanistan and working to eradicate the poppy,
which the Taliban and al Qaeda use as a primary source of funding in
their operations. Last year, three DEA agents were killed in
Afghanistan.
A year ago January, I attended funerals for some of the seven CIA
agents who were killed by a Taliban suicide bomber at Forward Operative
Base Chapman near the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.
Federal employees also put their lives on the line here at home. The
Border Patrol agent shot and killed in Arizona this past December who
was working to stop the flow of illegal immigrants across our southern
border was a federal employee.
The three Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents who were
attacked, including one who was killed, outside of Mexico City were
federal employees.
Each federal employee repeats the following oath: ``I, [name], do
solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and
domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that
I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or
purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the
duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.''
We fly the flag to demonstrate our support for the values and
principals found in the Constitution and expressed by this oath. I
believe it is appropriate to allow for the presentation of the flag if
an employee is killed because they represent this oath, which is why I
am a proud cosponsor of this measure.
This legislation recognizes all unsung federal employees who work to
ensure that our government is running as efficiently and effectively as
possible to provide the services that taxpayers expect. I urge all
members to support H.R. 2061.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to
the gentlewoman from Maryland, Ms. Donna Edwards.
Ms. EDWARDS. I thank my colleague from Maryland for yielding.
I want to congratulate Congressman Hanna. It's been a privilege to be
able to work with Mr. Hanna on his efforts in resolving some issues
that have held up the passage of H.R. 2061--and I'm glad that we're
here today--the Civilian Service Recognition Act.
When Federal civilian servants take the oath of office, they solemnly
swear to ``defend the Constitution of the United States from enemies,
both foreign and domestic.'' This legislation would authorize the head
of an executive agency to give a U.S. flag to the next of kin of a
deceased employee who dies at home or abroad of injuries incurred in
connection with his or her employment with the government. The bill
specifies that the employee would have to die due to injuries sustained
with a criminal act, an act of terrorism, a natural disaster, or other
circumstance as determined by the President.
The legislation is a well-deserved reminder of the important work
done by our civilian employees, particularly when Federal employees
have been so criticized and placed on the chopping block during the
recent debates. H.R. 2061 is a modest but significant show of gratitude
to our Federal civilian employees and the families of deceased public
servants for their duty to the United States Government.
According to the Office of Personnel Management, over 100,000
civilian Federal employees have served in Afghanistan and Iraq
alongside our military forces. As the daughter of a career
servicemember, I know well the numerous sacrifices that members of our
armed services, public servants, and their families make, and this
doesn't in any way diminish the service that they engage in every day.
What it says, though, is that for those who serve in harm's way and who
lose their lives, that we value their service as well.
And very similar to members of the Armed Forces, members of the
Federal civilian workforce often risk their lives to carry out official
duties critical to the Federal Government's foreign and domestic
missions. OPM reports that more than 3,000 Federal employees have been
killed in the line of duty since 1992.
In 2008, as the gentleman from Virginia mentioned, an FBI special
agent was tragically shot and killed during a joint DEA, FBI, and local
police department raid. This special agent began his law enforcement
career with the Ocean City, Maryland, Police Department and later
served with the Baltimore, Maryland, Police Department. Another brave
Marylander, a DEA special agent who graduated from the University of
Maryland, was killed in 2009 when the U.S. military helicopter he was
in crashed while returning from a joint counternarcotics mission in
western Afghanistan.
I want to recognize the dedication of these civil servants. This is a
long-overdue recognition to the 146,000 Federal employees living in
Maryland's Fourth Congressional District, many of whom place their
lives on the line every day. I know that when I had the privilege of
joining our servicemembers

[[Page 16461]]

and our civilians in Afghanistan, I found many employed with the
Department of Agriculture, Homeland Security, the IRS--virtually every
agency of the United States serving in that dangerous and hostile
theater.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Congressman Hanna and the chair and
ranking member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee for
their work on this bill. I commend passage of this legislation and urge
all my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 2061, the Civilian Service
Recognition Act.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I just wanted to let the
gentleman know that he mentioned that there had been an increase in
Federal employees. There have been increases in DOD, DHS, and VA, but
all the other agencies over the 10 years have been decreasing.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I would urge passage of this legislation, and
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
While the gentleman from Maryland and I may disagree on the
statistics of the number of Federal employees, I think we can be united
in supporting this bill, H.R. 2061.
There are so many good people who are doing the right thing, they're
working hard, they're patriotic, and somehow, some way, unfortunately
they pay the ultimate sacrifice.
We simply urge our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to pass
this. It may seem trivial to some, but I guarantee you that to the
families who have suffered a loss of such consequence, of such
magnitude, a flag presented from the United States of America is
appropriate, it's something we should do. I congratulate Mr. Hanna for
bringing this bill forward, and I encourage all of my colleagues to
pass it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of
H.R. 2061, ``The Civilian Service Recognition Act of 2011.'' This bill
authorizes the presentation of a United States flag at the funeral of
federal civilian employees who are killed while performing official
duties or because of their status as a federal employee. The bill
affords the head of an executive agency the ability to present the
United States' flag to an individual who was an employee of the agency
and dies of injuries incurred in connection with such individual's
employment with the Federal government, suffered as a result of a
criminal act, an act of terrorism, a natural disaster, or other
circumstance as determined by the President.
As a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, I value the lives of
all American citizens who devote themselves to the public cause.
America has a longstanding tradition of honoring soldiers, sailors,
marines, and airmen who have fallen in battle. The debt we owe our
nation's armed service members, especially those who have fallen,
cannot be quantified. It is imperative that we recognize and fully
appreciate the men and women who risk their lives each day for our
freedom.
Just as we recognize our military for their bravery, we must
recognize our civil servants for their dedication to this nation. Our
country is made great on the backs of millions of federal employees.
Much like the men and women of the Armed Forces, the individuals tasked
with federal law enforcement and protection put their lives on the line
every day.
In March 2011, Deputy U.S. Marshal John Perry died from a critical
gunshot wound while attempting to apprehend a fugitive wanted for
assaulting a police officer and drug possession in St. Louis, MO. Mr.
Perry dedicated his life to federal law enforcement, and sacrificed his
life to make the country safer for all Americans. Deputy U.S. Marshal
John Perry was a brave and patriotic civil servant who certainly
deserves the honor of the United States flag.
NASA employee David Beverly was employed by the Johnson Space Center
in Houston, Texas, where I represent the 18th Congressional District.
On April 20, 2007 Mr. Beverly was fatally shot in the chest during a
hostage ordeal inside the Space Center. An electrical parts specialist,
David Beverly fostered innovation and space exploration for the benefit
of all Americans.
I have met many Americans who are proud of the work our government
does. These sentiments can only be attributed to the civil servants who
are the first line of contact to the federal government. Federal
workers offer themselves in service to their country. They serve their
duties with great pride. Federal employees serve this nation because
they believe in their sense of civic duty. Civil servants believe their
work provides them with an opportunity to protect and build the nation
for future generations. They seek to serve their country rather than
their own self-interests, and share in the belief that country comes
first above all else.
Federal employees are our neighbors; they are husbands and wives,
sisters and brothers, sons and daughters. They sacrifice time spent
with their families. They work long hours to support and defend the
Constitution. They pledge their allegiance to this land of freedom and
opportunity. They take the initiative to develop new and innovative
programs, techniques, and tools to improve the way the federal
government serves its citizens.
In my home state of Texas, approximately 190,000 people work for the
federal government. Houston employs approximately 30,000 federal
workers. They represent the values that we hold dear to our democracy.
These values are grounded in patriotism dedicated to making this nation
realize its loyalty to its citizens.
These civil servants make a positive difference in the lives of
Americans. They play an essential role in addressing challenging and
critical national issues. They create strong, sustainable, inclusive
communities and quality affordable homes for all. They help keep
terrorists and their weapons out of the U.S. as well as secure and
facilitate trade and travel while enforcing immigration and drug laws.
These federal agencies care for our troops when they return from
battle. The agencies make sure our borders are safe. They make sure the
air we breathe and the water we drink are clean. I am extremely proud
of the work that these federal employees do. I want them to know that I
support them and will forever be indebted to their great deeds.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz) that the House suspend the rules and
pass the bill, H.R. 2061, as amended.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

____________________

{time} 1250
INCREASING SHAREHOLDER THRESHOLD FOR SEC REGISTRATION

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 1965) to amend the securities laws to establish certain
thresholds for shareholder registration, and for other purposes, as
amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:

H.R. 1965

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

SECTION 1. SHAREHOLDER REGISTRATION THRESHOLD.

(a) Amendments to Section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.--Section 12(g) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (15 U.S.C. 78l (g)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by striking ``$1,000,000'' both places it appears and
inserting ``$10,000,000'';
(B) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``; and'' and
inserting a semicolon;
(C) in subparagraph (B), by striking the comma at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(D) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following:
``(C) in the case of an issuer that is a bank, as such term
is defined in section 3(a)(6) of this title, or a bank
holding company, as such term is defined in section 2 of the
Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841), not later
than 120 days after the last day of its first fiscal year
ended after the effective date of this subsection, on which
the issuer has total assets exceeding $10,000,000 and a class
of equity security (other than an exempted security) held of
record by 2,000 or more persons,''; and
(2) in paragraph (4), by striking ``three hundred'' and
inserting ``300 persons, or, in the case of a bank, as such
term is defined in section 3(a)(6), or a bank holding
company, as such term is defined in section (2) of the Bank
Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841), 1,200''.
(b) Amendments to Section 15 of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.--Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (15 U.S.C. 78o(d)) is amended, in the third sentence, by
striking ``three hundred'' and inserting ``300 persons, or,
in the case of

[[Page 16462]]

bank, as such term is defined in section 3(a)(6), or a bank
holding company, as such term is defined in section (2) of
the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841),
1,200''.

SEC. 2. STUDY AND REPORT ON REGISTRATION THRESHOLDS.

(a) Study.--
(1) Analysis required.--The Chief Economist and Director of
the Division of Corporation Finance of the Commission shall
jointly conduct a study, including a cost-benefit analysis,
of shareholder registration thresholds.
(2) Costs and benefits.--The cost-benefit analysis under
paragraph (1) shall take into account--
(A) the incremental costs and benefits to investors of the
increased disclosure that results from registration;
(B) the incremental costs and benefits to issuers
associated with registration and reporting requirements; and
(C) the incremental administrative costs to the Commission
associated with different thresholds.
(3) Thresholds.--The cost-benefit analysis under paragraph
(1) shall evaluate whether it is advisable to--
(A) increase the asset threshold;
(B) index the asset threshold to a measure of inflation;
(C) increase the shareholder threshold;
(D) change the shareholder threshold to be based on the
number of beneficial owners; and
(E) create new thresholds based on other criteria.
(b) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Chief Economist and the Director
of the Division of Corporation Finance of the Commission
shall jointly submit to the Committee on Banking, Housing,
and Urban Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on
Financial Services of the House of Representatives a report
that includes--
(1) the findings of the study required under subsection
(a); and
(2) recommendations for statutory changes to improve the
shareholder registration thresholds.

SEC. 3. RULEMAKING.

Not later than one year after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Commission shall issue final regulations to
implement this Act and the amendments made by this Act.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Schweikert) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Himes)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.

General Leave

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and to add extraneous material on this bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Arizona?
There was no objection.
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
If we've learned one thing in the last 5 years, it is that the body
of financial regulation which keeps us, as a people, safe must not be
static, must not be dead, but, rather, a living thing that evolves and
changes, not just to make sure that innovations and new products and
new businesses don't get us into the kinds of troubles that we've
experienced in the last 5 years, but also to make sure that the
financial services industry remains entrepreneurial, that people who
want to start small banks, small asset managers, small businesses of
any kind have an opportunity to get started, to raise capital and to do
well.
The securities laws that were established in 1933 and 1934 need to
evolve and adapt to reflect the conditions in today's market. This is
why I've introduced H.R. 1965. This bill would allow banks and bank
holding companies to remain private to a point at which they believe it
is in their interest to go public, undertake the fairly lengthy and
complicated process of public registration at a moment when it makes
sense for them to go into the public markets.
The original securities laws stipulated that banks would have to
register with the SEC when they had more than 500 shareholders. Our
small banks, our community banks experience difficulties because as
original investors move on or pass on and leave shares to their
beneficiaries, very rapidly banks reach that 500 shareholder number and
are required to undertake the very complicated, up-front processes, but
also the ongoing reporting requirements associated with public
registration.
H.R. 1965 would very simply raise that threshold from 500
shareholders to 2,000 shareholders, again allowing these small banks to
pick the optimal moment at which they go public, to allow them to
continue to raise money in the private markets from private investors
until such point that it makes sense for them to register and go
public.
Now, it might be asked, is this prudent? And the answer to that
question, of course, is that the banks and the bank holding companies
are very heavily regulated by their prudential regulators. From the
moment they are chartered, they are overseen by State and Federal
entities that are designed to keep them from any sort of fraud from
imprudent activities, and so this is an industry that is already
heavily regulated, even for these companies who remain private.
I'd like to note that this bill provides relief to small banks by
recognizing that unique characteristic, that they are regulated, and
that they should continue to have access to the capital sources that
got them started until they choose to go public.
I will note that this bill passed with broad bipartisan support in
both subcommittee and committee, and I'd like to close my statement by
thanking Chairman Bachus and Ranking Member Frank, as well as
subcommittee Chair Garrett and Ranking Member Waters, for their hard
work and cooperation in putting this bill together.
With that, I yield 4 minutes to the minority whip, Mr. Hoyer of
Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I congratulate him
for his leadership on this effort.
I thank my friend, Chairman Bachus, for his facilitating the passage
of this legislation.
Community banks, Mr. Speaker, are the life blood of our local
economies. They are locally owned and operated. They know their local
businesses and residents intimately, and lend to them, not just because
it's a sound business decision, but also because it benefits the
greater community.
With the credit and lending crisis we have experienced over the past
couple of years, the small banks that operate in our local communities
face numerous challenges just to stay afloat. These are the banks we
need to see lending to small businesses and homeowners, but they are
hamstrung in their attempt to raise capital by outdated SEC
registration requirements. This one is over half a century old.
Under the nearly 50-year-old 500 investor exemption rule, banks have
to register with the SEC if they have more than 500 shareholders. The
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Himes), whose bill this is, explained
why that is difficult and why it changes as people who have stock die
and leave their stock to more people and to heirs. Banks that have
exceeded this low threshold must provide extensive and costly financial
disclosure under our Federal securities laws.
Now, over the years, we have upped the threshold in terms of dollars
that the bank assets have, but we have not affected the number of
shareholders. To reverse this registration, they are then forced to
lower their number of shareholders by buying back stock which, all too
often, means losing local shareholders who keep these banks connected
with their local communities.
The rationale behind SEC registration rules generally is to provide
effective and timely disclosure to protect investors, which of course
all of us support. However, as Maryland's Banking Supervisor Mark
Kaufman notes, the current rule adds to banks' cost with little
associated benefits, especially considering that, unlike most private
companies, banks file public disclosure already on a quarterly basis
and do so on a more timely basis than public companies, as the
gentleman from Connecticut pointed out in his remarks.

{time} 1300

The American Bankers Association, the Independent Community Bankers
of America, State groups like the Maryland Bankers Association and
small banks throughout Maryland and

[[Page 16463]]

the Nation support raising this threshold to 2,000, which is what this
bipartisan legislation would do. This will lift a significant
regulatory burden on our community banks without any offsetting price
in regulatory oversight and make it easier for them to raise capital so
they can continue to lend and support job growth in our communities.
I strongly urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support
H.R. 1965.
I note that my friend from Arkansas (Mr. Womack) is also on the
floor. I want to thank him for his leadership in this effort as well.
Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Peters) be designated to control the balance of my
time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Connecticut?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from
Alabama will control the 20 minutes for the majority.
There was no objection.
Mr. BACHUS. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
At this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Womack), an original cosponsor of the legislation.
Mr. WOMACK. I thank the distinguished chairman for the time this
afternoon, and I'd also like to offer my thanks and appreciation to my
friend from Connecticut for his leadership on the issue. I am indeed an
original cosponsor.
The unemployment rate in our Nation is still in excess of 9 percent.
Millions of Americans are out of work. I just recently came back from
my district where we had a job fair, and of the 300 or 400 jobs that
were allegedly available on that particular day, there were several
times more than that looking. It is a painful reminder to me that job
creation is still critical to our country.
I'm also reminded as to how important it is that this job creation is
linked to access to capital by businesses large and small. The slow
pace of the recovery, the burdens of archaic and oftentimes unnecessary
regulation have fallen disproportionately on small businesses, and
particularly community banks.
As was commented on just a moment ago by the distinguished minority
whip, the community banks are the lifeblood of our communities. They
help a family purchase a home. They allow that mechanic the necessary
capital to open his first shop. They help a chef open her first
restaurant. Small businesses rely on these banks to give them a chance,
a chance to take advantage of the American Dream.
Today, this Chamber has the opportunity to make it easier for
community banks and small businesses to operate by removing a barrier
to raising capital. So today we have the opportunity to pass H.R. 1965,
and I strongly encourage my colleagues to support it. Your support will
result in the fact that community banks will have the flexibility they
need to raise capital without having to comply with onerous SEC
regulations intended for larger banks. They will use this money in my
district, the Third District of Arkansas, to create jobs, and that will
be good for my district, it will be good for our State, and it will be
good for America.
Again, my thanks for the time given to me by leadership and to my
friend from Connecticut, and I strongly encourage support of H.R. 1965.
Mr. PETERS. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1\1/2\
minutes to the subcommittee chair, Mrs. Capito from West Virginia, to
speak in favor of the bill.
Mrs. CAPITO. I thank the chairman of the committee, for recognizing
me.
I would like to speak in support of the gentleman from Connecticut's
legislation, H.R. 1965, which would amend the securities law to
establish certain thresholds for shareholder registration.
We all recognize that capital is tight for lenders and for
businesses, and this bill, along with several others that were passed
out of the Financial Services Committee, will address the issue of
capital formation and allow institutions much needed resources to
stimulate our economy. More capital equals more jobs, equals more
people back to work, equals a growing economy.
Cost of public companies to register with the SEC can be very, very
burdensome, and this cost is augmented when it's applied to smaller
institutions. They don't have the resources to be able to meet the
demands that larger companies do. So this bill would allow banks and
bank holding companies access to more capital for that very precious
and much needed impetus of job creation.
By raising the threshold from 500 to 2,000, it would permit easier
deregistration, and the expenses that are tied up with registering
would then go to stimulating our economy. More lending, more lending
for a florist, a restaurant. I noticed in Charleston, a long-time
restaurant that had been out of business was reopened under new
ownership just this morning. And that's good news, and that's the kind
of capital that small businesses need to be able to create jobs and
stimulate the economy.
I believe this is a good piece of legislation whose effect on the
economy will far outweigh any risks that it could propose, and I
heartily endorse the gentleman from Connecticut's legislation, H.R.
1965.
Mr. PETERS. Mr. Speaker, I currently do not have additional speakers;
so I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BACHUS. I thank the gentleman from Michigan.
At this time I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga).
Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of
H.R. 1965.
We missed that number by one. It should be 1964, because 1964 was the
last time that they actually updated these registration numbers. That
is a very long time. I can tell you, at age 42, it was a number of
years before I was even born the last time that this happened, and it's
high time that it does happen.
I can also tell you, Mr. Speaker, that here with the Republican
Americans' Job Creators Plan, the first thing on that list is: Empower
small businesses and reduce government barriers to job creation.
And I really hope that this bipartisan bill doesn't become part of
that lost 15 over in the Senate. This is a very proactive, bipartisan
step that this body is taking that as it goes over across to that next
Chamber needs to be addressed. We need to do this because we must
modernize; we must update; we must do these things to remain
competitive on a world market.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity and am pleased that I could
rise in support of that bill.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Schweikert).
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. First, I would like to offer a thank you to my
chairman, Mr. Bachus, and also to the sponsor of the bill, my friend
from Connecticut.
H.R. 1965 actually has an opportunity here to actually solve some
things that have been of frustration, and learning some of the story
was fascinating.
In Arizona, many of our community banks are quite new, but across the
country you hear the story of community banks that have been there for
many, many, many years. And we had one come testify and was telling us
the story off to the side that most of its shareholders actually go
back to returning soldiers of World War II, and they've literally had
the same families, the same family members holding these shares for 50,
60 years. It causes one little technical problem: They've literally
been up against their 500 shareholders for all of those years. So their
ability to access new capital has been limited by these rules.
So this is a classic case of, if we want our banking system,
particularly our community banks, our local lenders, to be capitalized,
which they're typically capitalized with local investments,

[[Page 16464]]

what a terrific piece of legislation. And it's one of those moments
where you stand here and you look across the aisle and you find
yourself smiling, saying, This is terrific. We're doing something
bipartisan. We're doing something that actually produces capital in our
Main Street of our communities, particularly for those lenders that
often fund our local neighborhood businesses. We're heading in the
right direction here.

{time} 1310

Mr. PETERS. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
About 2 years ago, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Peters) and I
were in Kabul and Kandahar together on a trip.
I remember talking to my Democratic colleague, saying that there must
be things that Republicans and Democrats can work together on to solve.
We were obviously in a country that was torn apart by differences, but
we both had something in common--we were concerned about our
constituents; we were concerned about unemployment; and we were
concerned about jobs. I think that's true of every Member in this body.
We know that the path to prosperity is jobs and that, if Americans
are working, if they're earning, they feel better about themselves and
that, if they're losing their jobs, then it's going to be not only a
problem for them and their families but for their communities and for
their country.
I am happy to report--and I think it's fitting that the gentleman
from Michigan would be across the aisle from me managing the time for
the minority--that here we are moving four pieces of legislation today,
tomorrow, and on Friday, legislation which will create jobs and will do
so without government expense. In fact, they'll do so with some
marginal savings to the government but with a great savings to those
businesses.
This morning--and I don't know that it was a coincidence--the job
figures came out. Large corporations lost 1,000 employees last month,
but our middle-sized and small businesses created 108,000 jobs. Now,
those aren't enough jobs; those aren't enough jobs for the people
graduating and going into the workforce, but that's where job creation
is coming from in the economy now--from small- and middle-sized
businesses, those with under 500 employees particularly, and from that
midrange of 50 to 500 employees.
This bill that the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Himes) has brought
forward has won bipartisan support because it actually will create jobs
in those small community banks and credit unions because it will make
their cost of capital less. In a recent survey, 70 percent of small-
and middle-sized businesses, those with 500 or fewer employees, said if
we had more capital, if we had more funding, we would hire. This is 70
percent. Only 14 percent said they were going to hire. The difference
in that number is that the others weren't sure that they could get
capital. There are two ways that you obtain capital to create jobs. One
is you go and borrow it from a bank, or from an insurance company in
some cases, or from someone else. But there is another way, which is by
someone willing to invest in your company.
As a small boy, I can remember my father had a business, and before
that, he'd invested with another man in a business. I think that one of
the American Dreams is not only owning a house--and that's still an
American Dream to own your own home even in the circumstances we've
been through--but either to have your own business or to be able to
invest in somebody else's business.
The gentleman from Connecticut's legislation will allow that
threshold of people who want to invest in a community-based financial
institution, and it will encourage those community banks to allow more
shareholders, more people, to participate. Yes, they will be
participating in the risk, but they'll also be participating in the
profit, which is really the American system. When you invest, you take
risks, but if things are successful, you profit. That's where the risks
and the profits ought to be taken. They shouldn't be taken by the
taxpayers involuntarily, and they shouldn't be taken by the government.
The government shouldn't take the taxpayers' money and invest in
business. It is those taxpayers--our constituents, our citizens--who
ought to make the decisions on what companies they want to invest in.
We all know community banks are struggling today. It will allow them to
attract investors, people who say, ``I want to invest in your bank.''
They may be people who do business with the banks, and will probably be
people who live in the community.
This bill will be the first of four bills that we bring forward, and
they are going to be successful. They're going to move from the House
to the Senate, I'll predict this week, because, as the minority whip,
the gentleman from Maryland, said, there is agreement that this is the
right thing to do and that we do have an obligation not only to oppose
some things but to also be for positive legislation. The House this
week will be for something. It will be for job creation. It will be for
allowing people to invest. It will be enabling companies to attract
that capital and hire people. So we can feel very good about ourselves
this week, and it can start with this bill.
This is not a minor piece of legislation, but it's on suspension
because it enjoys widespread support, as does the bill tomorrow. As for
the two in the following days, we've worked out the differences. The
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter) had a concern about a bill
later this week. He felt like it didn't have enough investor
protection. We've addressed that concern and have added his suggestion
to the bill.
All four of these bills that will move this week are bipartisan
bills. They're not Republican bills, they're not Democratic bills.
They're bipartisan bills. I commend the minority whip for speaking out
for these bills--I think that bodes well--and I hope the Senate was
listening. I also appreciate the gentleman from Connecticut for a bill
that really is long overdue. It will immediately allow our community
banks to invest and not be dependent on the government for help.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PETERS. Mr. Speaker, I just want to join in and thank the
gentleman from Connecticut for bringing this very commonsense piece of
legislation before us. It is essential to bringing capital into our
local communities and creating jobs, as Chairman Bachus mentioned. I
also want to thank Chairman Bachus for his leadership on this issue.
I remember very fondly our trip to Afghanistan. It is nice that we
have found common ground and that we are working today in a bipartisan
fashion to make sure that our communities are strong and are vibrant
and have the tools necessary to create additional jobs.
So, with that, I would certainly encourage my colleagues to support
this important piece of legislation, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R.
1965, which seeks, ``To amend the securities laws to establish certain
thresholds for shareholder registration, and for other purposes.'' This
legislation amends the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 regarding
registration of securities to modify the registration threshold for an
issuer that is either a bank or a bank holding company as well as for
an issuer that is neither a bank nor a bank holding company. It raises
the Exchange Act's shareholder cap from 499 to 1,999 shareholders for
banks and permits banks with less than 1,200 shareholders to cease its
reporting requirements under the Exchange Act. As well as, raises from
$1 million to $10 million the threshold for total assets of an issuer
that requires registration of a certain class of equity security.
This legislation would increase ability of banks to raise capital
from a larger shareholder base, which would create a level playing
field for smaller community banks. It also raises the Exchange Act's
shareholder cap from 499 to 1,999 shareholders for banks and permits
banks with less than 1,200 shareholders to cease reporting requirements
under the Exchange Act.

[[Page 16465]]

Under current law, banks and private companies have a 500 investor
threshold. Since 99.5 percent of banks reach the asset threshold for
registration as a public company, the only meaningful test of whether a
bank should be registered as a public company is the number of
shareholders. But while the asset threshold has been increased tenfold
since 1964, the shareholder threshold has stayed the same. Banks that
are nearing the 500 shareholder threshold may have nowhere to turn to
raise capital they need to meet the credit needs of their communities.
This provision limits the amount of capital banks and private
companies can raise before they have to adhere to the Security Exchange
Commission's (SEC) reporting requirements. The SEC reporting process is
extensive and expensive. Small businesses, especially, can ill afford
to comply with this stipulation at the cost of their ability to
innovate and procure capital. As it stands community banks are part of
a highly regulated industry governed by numerous statutes and
regulations affecting almost every aspect of banking activity. Each
banking institution is regulated by two agencies: a primary federal
regulator and, in the case of state chartered banks, by the state
regulator, as well.
Significant financial and other information regarding every bank and
savings association can be publicly viewed on the website maintained by
the FDIC. All banks are required to make annual reports available to
both their customers and investors. Most provide financial and other
information to investors through their company websites. The advantage
to the small community banks from increases in the registration and
deregistration thresholds would not be a lack of transparency, since
keeping shareholders and the public fully informed about the bank's
performance is essential to its presence as a community bank. Rather,
it is a reduction of regulatory burdens and reporting requirements that
pose a disproportionate burden on small community banks.
Banks should focus on lending money to small business rather than
fulfilling a regulation that should be modified. If we alleviate this
burden from banks, I expect these same banks will give loans and
provide other financial resources to our nation's businesses--
especially for our nation's small businesses.
Our nation's businesses need our help. Because of the 2008-2009
financial crises, the business environment has been suffering from
decreased access to credit. Appropriate access to credit allows for
innovation and encourages startups which may one day become major
employers. Currently, there is a distinct lack of capital procurement.
Small businesses need access to loans and other lines of credit in
order to build their businesses and create jobs. Before us is a measure
that would allow small businesses to get the support they need. This
bill will provide small businesses with increased access to capital.
According to the U.S. Small Business Administration, small businesses
account for 52 percent of all U.S. workers. They are the life blood of
our economy. Small businesses in the U.S. produced three-fourths of the
economy's new jobs between 1990 and 1995, and represent an entry point
into the economy for new groups. Women, for instance, participate
heavily in small businesses.
The number of female-owned businesses climbed by 89 percent, to an
estimated 8.1 million, between 1987 and 1997, and women-owned sole
proprietorships were expected to reach 35 percent of all such ventures
by the year 2000. They were hindered in large part because of lack of
access to traditional forms of credit. Before us today, is a measure
that would help businesses grow. Small firms also tend to hire a
greater number of older workers and people who prefer to work part-
time.
There are hundreds of stories of start-up companies catching national
attention and growing into large corporations. Just a few examples of
these types of start-up businesses making it big include the computer
software company Microsoft; the package delivery service Federal
Express; sports clothing manufacturer Nike; the computer networking
firm America On-Line; and ice cream maker Ben & Jerry's.
Without access to capital, Houston native Michael Dell would not have
been able to start one of the most successful computer retail
businesses in the world. His $1,000 dollar initial investment in the
1980s allowed Dell Computers to become a household name. Without this
capital, America would not have had one of its premier innovators.
The economic impact of this legislation is encouraging. Businesses
require capital in order to expand and flourish. When businesses are
presented with this opportunity, jobs are created that in turn, will
stimulate economic growth. Dell's headquarters alone employs roughly
16,000 people.
We must always remember that American small businesses are the heart
beat of our nation. I believe that small businesses represent more than
the American dream--they represent the American economy. Small
businesses account for 95 percent of all employers, create half of our
gross domestic product, and provide three out of four new jobs in this
country.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 1965, ``To amend
the securities laws to establish certain thresholds for shareholder
registration, and for other purposes.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1965, as amended.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

____________________

{time} 1320
SMALL COMPANY CAPITAL FORMATION ACT OF 2011

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 1070) to amend the Securities Act of 1933 to authorize the
Securities and Exchange Commission to exempt a certain class of
securities from such Act, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:

H.R. 1070

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Small Company Capital
Formation Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORITY TO EXEMPT CERTAIN SECURITIES.

(a) In General.--Section 3(b) of the Securities Act of 1933
(15 U.S.C. 77c(b)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``(b) The Commission'' and inserting the
following:
``(b) Additional Exemptions.--
``(1) Small issues exemptive authority.--The Commission'';
and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Additional issues.--The Commission shall by rule or
regulation add a class of securities to the securities
exempted pursuant to this section in accordance with the
following terms and conditions:
``(A) The aggregate offering amount of all securities
offered and sold within the prior 12-month period in reliance
on the exemption added in accordance with this paragraph
shall not exceed $50,000,000.
``(B) The securities may be offered and sold publicly.
``(C) The securities shall not be restricted securities
within the meaning of the Federal securities laws and the
regulations promulgated thereunder.
``(D) The civil liability provision in section 12(a)(2)
shall apply to any person offering or selling such
securities.
``(E) The issuer may solicit interest in the offering prior
to filing any offering statement, on such terms and
conditions as the Commission may prescribe in the public
interest or for the protection of investors.
``(F) The Commission shall require the issuer to file
audited financial statements with the Commission annually.
``(G) Such other terms, conditions, or requirements as the
Commission may determine necessary in the public interest and
for the protection of investors, which may include--
``(i) a requirement that the issuer prepare and
electronically file with the Commission and distribute to
prospective investors an offering statement, and any related
documents, in such form and with such content as prescribed
by the Commission, including audited financial statements, a
description of the issuer's business operations, its
financial condition, its corporate governance principles, its
use of investor funds, and other appropriate matters; and
``(ii) disqualification provisions under which the
exemption shall not be available to the issuer or its
predecessors, affiliates, officers, directors, underwriters,
or other related persons, which shall be substantially
similar to the disqualification provisions contained in the
regulations adopted in accordance with section 926 of the
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (15
U.S.C. 77d note).
``(3) Limitation.--Only the following types of securities
may be exempted under a rule or regulation adopted pursuant
to paragraph (2): equity securities, debt securities, and
debt securities convertible or exchangeable

[[Page 16466]]

to equity interests, including any guarantees of such
securities.
``(4) Periodic disclosures.--Upon such terms and conditions
as the Commission determines necessary in the public interest
and for the protection of investors, the Commission by rule
or regulation may require an issuer of a class of securities
exempted under paragraph (2) to make available to investors
and file with the Commission periodic disclosures regarding
the issuer, its business operations, its financial condition,
its corporate governance principles, its use of investor
funds, and other appropriate matters, and also may provide
for the suspension and termination of such a requirement with
respect to that issuer.
``(5) Adjustment.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of the Small Company Capital Formation Act of 2011
and every 2 years thereafter, the Commission shall review the
offering amount limitation described in paragraph (2)(A) and
shall increase such amount as the Commission determines
appropriate. If the Commission determines not to increase
such amount, it shall report to the Committee on Financial
Services of the House of Representatives and the Committee on
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate on its
reasons for not increasing the amount.''.
(b) Treatment as Covered Securities for Purposes of
NSMIA.--Section 18(b)(4) of the Securities Act of 1933 (15
U.S.C. 77r(b)(4)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``; or'' at the end
and inserting a semicolon; and
(2) by redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (E),
and inserting after subparagraph (C) the following:
``(D) a rule or regulation adopted pursuant to section
3(b)(2) and such security is--
``(i) offered or sold on a national securities exchange; or
``(ii) offered or sold to a qualified purchaser, as defined
by the Commission pursuant to paragraph (3) with respect to
that purchase or sale.''.
(c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 4(5) of the Securities
Act of 1933 is amended by striking ``section 3(b)'' and
inserting ``section 3(b)(1)''.

SEC. 3. STUDY ON THE IMPACT OF STATE BLUE SKY LAWS ON
REGULATION A OFFERINGS.

The Comptroller General shall conduct a study on the impact
of State laws regulating securities offerings, or ``Blue Sky
laws'', on offerings made under Regulation A (17 C.F.R.
230.251 et seq.). The Comptroller General shall transmit a
report on the findings of the study to the Committee on
Financial Services of the House of Representatives, and the
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the
Senate not later than 3 months after the date of enactment of
this Act.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Bachus) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Peters) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama.

General Leave

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
to add extraneous materials on the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Alabama?
There was no objection.
Mr. BACHUS. At this time I would like to yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert), the main
sponsor of this bill.
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to start this with a
heartfelt thank you to both Spencer Bachus of Alabama, the chairman of
the Financial Services Committee, for both his kindness to me as a
freshman and also for the guidance he has provided me, and to the
gentlewoman from California, who I hope will speak next, who partially
helped spearhead this idea and helped us move it forward.
One of the reasons I stand here right now with these boards is just
to sort of help get through the concept of this piece of legislation,
H.R. 1070. So often around here, we refer to it as the reg A bill. But
what does that mean to people? Well, to try to make it as simple as
possible, it is when a company has an opportunity to do a filing with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for a simplified process to go
public. The problem is, in today's world, that's limited to $5 million.
Well, no one is going public at $5 million.
And we can actually see some of our history of this. This was
actually first done in 1933 when at that time, in the Securities
Exchange Act, it was understood that there needed to be a path to go
public. Well, at that time, it was $100,000, and I think 1992 is when
it was moved up to $5 million.
Well, in 19 years, the world has changed a lot. But one of the
changes that I consider almost a crisis is the number of our companies
that aren't going public anymore. And you're going to see on a couple
of these boards here that the fact of the matter is we actually have
fewer, substantially fewer companies that are publicly traded today
than we did even a decade ago.
Now, the first slide here is somewhat simple. It is just sort of
trying to demonstrate how many years we have been sitting here at this
$5 million level, and it's been 19 years. But as we go on to the next
board--and I know this is a little busy to try to read. The staff got a
little colorful on this one. But what we were trying to point out is
that the number of IPOs that are less than $50 million today are almost
nothing.
My understanding is last year we had only three companies--only three
companies in the entire country take a look at filing in that $5
million and under space. And if you actually look from 1995 to 2004,
some of the latest data I was able to find from that entire time frame,
I think there were only 78 companies that actually pursued this
process. Well, in a country our size, this is a crisis, particularly if
we're looking for that path of equity, that path of financing, that
path of raising capital for these growing companies. This is one of the
reasons we stand here with this reg A bill, H.R. 1070.
Let's go on to this next board. And I know this is a little busy. But
this is also to try to make the point of what's going on from a
competitive standpoint when you look around the world. All those lines,
those are other companies that are listing on exchanges, that are
becoming publicly traded, that are reaching out to the world and
raising capital. Well, you will happen to notice a small problem: the
line with the dots, that's us. That's our country. We actually are
going in the other direction.
If I remember my numbers here, we actually today have 5,091 publicly
traded companies on the big exchanges. So we've got 5,000-some today.
In 1997, we had 8,823. Does anyone see the real problem there?
Literally in a little over a decade, we've gone down dramatically in
the number of publicly listed companies. And my great hope here is, by
raising this limit from the $5 million up to $50 million--which $50
million is chosen for quite a reason. That is the minimum threshold for
a couple of the large exchanges to be publicly traded. And that's why
we're doing this, because we're trying to create jobs, we're trying to
move equity, and we're trying to be competitive around the world.
Mr. PETERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The American people need to see our Congress taking meaningful action
to help grow our economy. America is tired of too much partisanship out
of Washington, and they want to see Republicans and Democrats working
together on bipartisan solutions to create jobs and grow American
businesses. As Chairman Bachus said earlier today, this is exactly what
we are doing.
But before I go any further, I would like to thank the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Schweikert) for introducing H.R. 1070, the Small Company
Capital Formation Act, and I would also like to thank the gentleman
from Arizona for working across the aisle to ensure that the concerns
of both Republicans and Democrats were met in this very commonsense
bill.
Mr. Speaker, this bill would permit a small company to raise up to
$50 million through a security offering process that balances both
streamlined registration with adequate investor protections. As of
right now, the current exemption under the SEC's regulation A is little
used due to the small size of issuances permitted. As a result, there
were only three offerings last year.
The current offering limit of $5 million hasn't been raised since
1992, almost 20 years; and it's long past time for us to do something
about it. In the last Congress, Democrats sent a letter to the SEC
recommending that it raise the exemption limits. Today we can fix this
problem by passing this bill.

[[Page 16467]]

Additionally, H.R. 1070 would also provide small and medium companies
with the ability to offer securities of up to $50 million publicly
without the full cost of a registered offering, potentially expanding
their access to capital beyond private offerings that many use.
In the spirit of bipartisanship, Democrats also added important
investor protections to this bill, such as requiring companies to
provide investors with audited financial statements annually. In
addition, Democrats offered investors legal recourse for misstatements
companies make in their prospectus documents in order to prevent
potential abuses.
Finally, the gentleman from Arizona has also worked with Democrats on
the remaining issue of contention, and that was the preemption of State
law. The gentleman from Arizona's substitute amendment to H.R. 1070
removes the exemption from State level review that was previously
provided to an issuer using a broker-dealer to distribute and issue.
Regulation A securities can be high-risk offerings that may also be
susceptible to fraud, making protections provided by the State
regulators an essential future.
Mr. Speaker, it's clear that we must pass this bipartisan legislation
to help our small companies grow and create jobs. I urge adoption of
this bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BACHUS. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Illinois (Mrs.
Biggert).
Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, small businesses are the engine of the American economy,
and our legislation will help to provide the boost that they need to
create jobs. When I talk to small business leaders in my district, they
consistently site burdensome government regulations, restrictions, and
their difficulty accessing capital as the primary barriers to growth.

{time} 1330

Currently, outdated Federal rules dampen both innovation and
investment because the cost of regulatory compliance is just too high
for the up-and-coming firms. H.R. 1070, the Small Company Capital
Formation Act, will help change that.
The subject of this bill, regulation A, was enacted during the Great
Depression to help small businesses access financing. However, these
rules have not been properly adjusted over time to reflect the rising
cost associated with taking a small company public. As a result,
regulation A prohibits smaller companies from taking advantage of a
crucial capital-raising vehicle.
H.R. 1070 will reopen the capital markets for small businesses,
allowing them to invest and hire new employees. This legislation will
jump-start the IPO market and revitalize public capital-raising
opportunities that have been severely suppressed over the last decade.
At a time when capital is harder to find than ever, this bipartisan,
commonsense proposal will make our financial system work to the benefit
of small businesses and promote greater competition in the marketplace.
I thank the gentleman from Arizona for his hard work on this
legislation, and I ask my colleagues for their support.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Earlier I said that the American citizens, our American citizens,
would like to see Republicans and Democrats work together to tackle the
challenges facing our country, and this bill is a great example of
that. Congresswoman Anna Eshoo from California introduced this bill,
along with my colleague Mr. Schweikert from Arizona, and they are
meeting that challenge. As I said, it's a bipartisan effort. I know she
deserves much credit for this legislation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PETERS. I certainly appreciate the comments of the chairman.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from California (Ms.
Eshoo), who has been an incredible leader on this issue.
Ms. ESHOO. I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding time, and
I want to thank my Republican colleagues for both what they are doing
today on the floor and for what you have said.
These are really difficult economic times for the people in our
country, and that's why it's so critical for Congress to bolster
American innovation. That, in my view, is really what this legislation
is about. It's an important way to facilitate capital formation, which
is really one of the important pillars of our national economy, capital
formation. I know how important this is for small businesses because my
congressional district, which is Silicon Valley, is the innovation hub
of our Nation and it thrives on capital formation.
In December of last year, almost a year ago, I came to the Financial
Services Committee at the invitation of then-Chairman Barney Frank, and
I want to recognize and thank him today for what he did then, as well
as the present chairman, Chairman Bachus, urging the committee to
renovate essentially regulation A, which was created, as others have
said, during the Great Depression to facilitate the flow of capital
into small businesses. It's really quite extraordinary that FDR and
Members of Congress in 1933 recognized the importance of capital
formation at that time, and we have honored that since then.
Now, reg A was established as a part of the 1933 Securities Act, and
it was designed to provide regulatory relief for small firms that want
to sell shares of company stock.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. PETERS. I yield the gentlelady 1 additional minute.
Ms. ESHOO. These many offerings have been used to help small
companies raise capital and test the waters for IPOs, initial public
offerings. Unfortunately, the regulation A threshold became stuck, as
others said, at a 1992 level of $5 million. At that low level, the
benefit of a regulation A offering is extremely limited. In fact, only
three companies, as has been said this afternoon, have taken advantage
of it in 2010. So this threshold, the $5 million threshold, falls far
short of what companies need to develop the cutting-edge technologies
in today's economy. It's outdated. It fails to serve its intended
purpose, and it's why this legislation is needed and why I'm so pleased
that, on a bipartisan basis, we are taking action today.
We need to raise the initial public offering limit to help provide
capital to small businesses.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has again
expired.
Mr. PETERS. I yield the gentlelady an additional minute.
Ms. ESHOO. Very importantly, we look forward to spurring hiring and
business development. That's what we are here for, and I think it's
what the American people want us to do.
I'm proud to be a cosponsor of H.R. 1070, to raise the regulation
offering limit from $5 million to $50 million, once again creating a
meaningful offering limit. What better time than now when our economy
needs this important boost.
So I thank the chairman of the full committee. I thank the ranking
member. I thank my colleague from Michigan, and I thank the gentleman
from Arizona for his very kind words, and I urge all of our colleagues
to support this. I think when we do later on today, it will be a source
of pride and encouragement to the American people.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
You've heard from a member of the Commerce Committee, Ms. Eshoo, who
I think said it well when she said that we're modernizing, we're
updating a rule which had come to restrict job growth.
Secondly, she mentioned technology. We know that small businesses are
the innovators. In fact, you look at Google, you look at Apple, you
look at Facebook, these companies just in the past two or three decades
started off as small businesses and they were able to grow. With the
passage of this legislation, we believe that path will be an easier
path. Sixty-five percent of the jobs created over the last 15 years
have

[[Page 16468]]

been in small business. As every speaker has acknowledged, if there is
a time to encourage job creation and capital formation, that time is
here.
I urge the Members to vote in favor of this legislation, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. PETERS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friends Mr. Schweikert
and Ms. Eshoo for their work on this bipartisan bill to help small
companies grow and expand. As we all know, the American people want to
see Congress working together to strengthen our economy and to create
jobs. This bill will help companies access the capital they need to
pull our Nation out from these tough economic times and put Americans
back to work.
Additionally, this bill provides the necessary protections investors
need to have in order to ensure that they will not be subjected to
potential abuses.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 1070, a
commonsense, bipartisan bill to improve our economy, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of
the Small Company Capital Formation Act, which will help restore the
purpose of the ``Regulation A'' exemption that was designed to make it
easier for growing small businesses to access capital.
It is critical that we ensure that innovative, growing small
companies have access to the capital that they need to continue to grow
and hire, because these companies play such an important role in our
economy.
Regulation A offers these small companies a unique chance to raise
money through small offerings under a streamlined and less costly
registration process. This opportunity is especially important in
today's economy, in which access to capital has been greatly reduced as
many banks hesitate to lend.
Unfortunately, in recent years, few companies have been able to take
advantage of the Regulation A exemption because the offering limit of
$5 million is too low and has not been updated in the last 30 years.
In fact, there have only been an average of eight filings per year
under the exemption in recent years.
By increasing the offering limit, this bill will ensure that more
growing companies can take advantage of Regulation A in order to access
the capital that they need to expand and thrive.
I'm glad that this bill has come to the floor in a bipartisan way.
This proposal is an important component of President Obama's American
Jobs Act and has the potential to benefit small businesses across the
country. It is the sort of commonsense solution that both parties
should be able to agree on.
I particularly want to thank the rest of the San Francisco Bay Area
delegation, as we have been working since early last year to enact this
long-needed change.
Once again, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1070, the
Small Company Capital Formation Act, and H.R. 1965, the Increase
Shareholder Threshold for SEC Registration Act. While I applaud the
bipartisan efforts of my colleagues to help small businesses grow and
create jobs, the sting of the effects of financial deregulation is
still too strong to allow me to support these bills.
With respect to H.R. 1070, I note that Congress has raised the
Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation A threshold five times.
Each time, however, was a modest increase that was in my mind relative
to the rate of inflation and the purchasing power of the dollar. H.R.
1070 would mandate an unprecedented tenfold increase in the current
threshold of $5 million to $50 million. Such an increase strikes me as
grotesquely large, especially since inflation has risen only 165
percent since 1980, and in my view constitutes a tremendous incitement
to perpetrate fraud on investors.
I take a dimmer view of H.R. 1965, which increases the number of
shareholders a bank can have before having to register with the SEC.
Under current law, that number is 500, and H.R. 1965 would increase it
four times to 2,000. I am not at all satisfied this increase is
justified and furthermore consider it a sly way to skirt federal
reporting requirements that are in place to protect the American
public.
Mr. Speaker, I share my colleagues' concern that not enough jobs are
being created and that Congress must take swift action. Where I part
ways with them is voting for seemingly innocuous measures like these
that unfortunately will decrease transparency for investors and create
incentives for all manner of financial rascality.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1070,
``Small Company Capital Formation Act of 2011'' which would require the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to create a new and larger
exemption, effectively raising the limit from $5 million to $50 million
for its Regulation A security offerings and permitting a more stream-
lined approach for smaller issuers. Presently, the limit for Regulation
A security offerings is $5 million; however, this avenue is rarely
pursed due to the small size of issuances permitted. The bill would
permit SEC to impose conditions on issuance under the rule, and would
require periodic review of the limit.
Regulation A was enacted during the Great Depression to stimulate the
economy by improving small businesses' access to equity capital. While
the initial offering threshold of $100,000 has been increased over the
years to the current $5 million set by the Commission in 1992, it has
not been increased to reflect the rising costs associated with bringing
a small company public over the last two decades.
In this day and age, a small to medium company simply cannot afford
to go public at a cost of $5 million. For the last 19 years we have had
substantially fewer companies that have chosen to go public. The $5
million threshold has resulted in a chilling effect. In the last year,
only 3 companies have utilized this process. Going public allows a
growing company to have access to capital, equity, and additional
financial resources. They need to raise capital in order to grow their
business. Currently, there are 5,100 public traded companies. In 1997,
there were 8,873 publicly traded companies. This legislation is
intended to reverse a downward trend.
Due to the low offering threshold, and without a corresponding state
``Blue Sky'' exemption for Regulation A offerings, Regulation A has not
provided a viable capital-raising vehicle for smaller companies in
recent years. Amplified by increased difficulties for smaller companies
resulting from the recent financial crisis, these shortcomings of
Regulation A have invited renewed focus on this regulation.
The legislation before us today is designed to encourage small
companies to attract additional capital which will allow them to invest
and hire additional employees. As part of a broader effort to tie the
financial regulatory environment to U.S. job creation and economic
competitiveness.
Small and medium companies would be able to offer securities up to
$50 million publicly without the full cost of a registered offering,
potentially expanding their access to capital beyond the private
offerings many now use. Additional protections for investors were added
to this bill. Companies utilizing Regulation D are required to provide
investors with audited financial statements annually.
We must implement policies that achieve the right balance between the
competing objectives of promoting valid investment business
opportunities and protecting citizens from inappropriate risk and
fraudulent schemes. This bill allows States to retain their ability to
review these generally high risk offers as a means for protecting
investors. Additional protections include giving investors legal
recourse for misstatements made by companies in the prospectus
documents. Regardless of an investors sophistication level, when a
company is dishonest, the investor must be protected.
Small businesses need access to loans and other lines of credit in
order to build their businesses and create jobs. Before us is a measure
that would allow small businesses to get the support they need. This
bill will provide small businesses with increased access to capital.
According to the U.S. Small Business Administration, small businesses
account for 52 percent of all U.S. workers. They are the life blood of
our economy. Small businesses in the U.S. produced three-fourths of the
economy's new jobs between 1990 and 1995, and represent an entry point
into the economy for new groups. Women, for instance, participate
heavily in small businesses.
The number of female-owned businesses climbed by 89 percent, to an
estimated 8.1 million, between 1987 and 1997, and women-owned sole
proprietorships were expected to reach 35 percent of all such ventures
by the year 2000. They were hindered in large part because of lack of
access to traditional forms of credit. Before us today, is a measure
that would help businesses grow. Small firms also tend to hire a
greater number of older workers and people who prefer to work part-
time.
We must always remember that American small businesses are the heart
beat of our nation. I believe that small businesses represent more than
the American dream--they represent the American economy. Small
businesses account for 95 percent of all employers, create half of our
gross domestic product,

[[Page 16469]]

and provide three out of four new jobs in this country.
Although I support the bill before us today, it is important to
highlight that having an opportunity to invest in small businesses is
important. However, given the risky nature of such investments, these
opportunities should be made available to investors who understand the
risk and have the financial wherewithal to handle any losses that may
come as a result of the investment. Small business needs access to
capital in order to grow and flourish. Individuals who invest in these
companies and startup should understand the unique risk associated with
such investments.
The success of small business is America's success. This success can
be achieved by encouraging small business growth and entrepreneurship.
Especially, as our nation is facing a prolonged period of high
unemployment and slow economic growth. Many of us have seen businesses
disappear since the financial crisis. These businesses did not fail
because of their inability to compete, or due to shortcomings in their
business plan or because of the goods and services they produced. They
failed because they could not get loans from banks.
Without access to capital, Houston native Michael Dell would not have
been able to start one of the most successful computer retail
businesses in the world. His $1,000 dollar initial investment in the
198os allowed Dell Computers to become a household name. Without this
capital, America would not have had one of its premier innovators.
The economic impact of this legislation is encouraging because
businesses require capital in order to expand and flourish. When
businesses are presented with this opportunity, jobs are created that
in turn, will stimulate economic growth. Dell's headquarters alone
employs roughly 16,000 people.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 1965, ``To amend
the securities laws to establish certain thresholds for shareholder
registration, and for other purposes.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 1070, as amended.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

____________________

{time} 1340
VETERANS' COMPENSATION COST-OF-LIVING ADJUSTMENT ACT OF 2011

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and
pass the bill (S. 894) to amend title 38, United States Code, to
provide for an increase, effective December 1, 2011, in the rates of
compensation for veterans with service-connected disabilities and the
rates of dependency and indemnity compensation for the survivors of
certain disabled veterans, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:

S. 894

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Veterans' Compensation Cost-
of-Living Adjustment Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. INCREASE IN RATES OF DISABILITY COMPENSATION AND
DEPENDENCY AND INDEMNITY COMPENSATION.

(a) Rate Adjustment.--Effective on December 1, 2011, the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall increase, in accordance
with subsection (c), the dollar amounts in effect on November
30, 2011, for the payment of disability compensation and
dependency and indemnity compensation under the provisions
specified in subsection (b).
(b) Amounts To Be Increased.--The dollar amounts to be
increased pursuant to subsection (a) are the following:
(1) Wartime disability compensation.--Each of the dollar
amounts under section 1114 of title 38, United States Code.
(2) Additional compensation for dependents.--Each of the
dollar amounts under section 1115(1) of such title.
(3) Clothing allowance.--The dollar amount under section
1162 of such title.
(4) Dependency and indemnity compensation to surviving
spouse.--Each of the dollar amounts under subsections (a)
through (d) of section 1311 of such title.
(5) Dependency and indemnity compensation to children.--
Each of the dollar amounts under sections 1313(a) and 1314 of
such title.
(c) Determination of Increase.--
(1) Percentage.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), each
dollar amount described in subsection (b) shall be increased
by the same percentage as the percentage by which benefit
amounts payable under title II of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 401 et seq.) are increased effective December 1, 2011,
as a result of a determination under section 215(i) of such
Act (42 U.S.C. 415(i)).
(2) Rounding.--Each dollar amount increased under paragraph
(1), if not a whole dollar amount, shall be rounded to the
next lower whole dollar amount.
(d) Special Rule.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs may
adjust administratively, consistent with the increases made
under subsection (a), the rates of disability compensation
payable to persons under section 10 of Public Law 85-857 (72
Stat. 1263) who have not received compensation under chapter
11 of title 38, United States Code.
(e) Publication of Adjusted Rates.--The Secretary of
Veterans Affairs shall publish in the Federal Register the
amounts specified in subsection (b), as increased under
subsection (a), not later than the date on which the matters
specified in section 215(i)(2)(D) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 415(i)(2)(D)) are required to be published by
reason of a determination made under section 215(i) of such
Act during fiscal year 2012.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Miller) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I rise today in support of Senate bill 894, the Veterans'
Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2011. This is critically
important legislation that authorizes a cost-of-living increase for our
veterans' disability compensation, veterans' clothing allowance
payments, and other compensation for survivors of veterans who die as a
result of service to our country. The 3.6 percent increase in benefit
amounts this bill would authorize is tied directly to the consumer
price index, which also controls the cost-of-living adjustment for
Social Security beneficiaries.
I want to thank the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee leadership,
Senators Murray and Burr, for working with me and our ranking member,
Mr. Filner, to get a COLA bill to the President's desk before Veterans
Day.
I urge all my colleagues to support Senate bill 894, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Like the chair, I rise in support of passage of this COLA act, S.
894, sponsored by my good friend, Senator Patty Murray of Washington,
the chair of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs. And I'm proud
to work closely with her in my role as the ranking member of the House
committee. I thank the leadership of this body for bringing this
uncluttered version of the veterans' COLA bill to the floor, which
passed in the Senate last month, so that we may pass it without delay
and get it to the President's desk.
The veterans' COLA increase will be 3.6 percent for 2012, a figure
tied directly to the Social Security COLA whose beneficiaries will also
see the same increase in their payments.
As it has since 1976, Congress, through the passage of the Veterans'
Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act, directs the Secretary of the VA to
increase the rates of basic compensation for disabled veterans and the
rates of dependency and indemnity compensation, what we call DIC, to
their survivors and dependents, along with other benefits, in order to
keep pace with the rate of inflation. This bill will enable disabled
veterans, their families, and their survivors from World War I through
the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Many of the over 3.5 million veterans who receive disability
compensation benefits depend upon these payments not only to provide
for their own basic needs, but for those of their spouses, children,
and parents as well. Without an annual COLA increase, these veterans,
their families, and survivors would likely see the value of their hard-
earned benefits slowly erode.

[[Page 16470]]

Mr. Speaker, I think we would be derelict in our duty if we failed to
guarantee that those who sacrificed so much for this country are able
to receive benefits and services that keep pace with their needs and
inflation.
We funded the war; let's fund the warrior and his or her family and
survivors. Let's ensure that their benefits make ends meet at the end
of the month. I urge my colleagues to support this COLA bill, and I
thank Senator Murray for sponsoring this important measure.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield such time as
he may consume to the chairman of the Subcommittee on Disability
Assistance and Memorial Affairs, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Runyan).
Mr. RUNYAN. I thank the chairman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 894, the Veterans'
Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2011. S. 894 is the
companion bill to H.R. 1407, which I introduced in April, which passed
this Chamber, as amended, on May 23 by voice vote. S. 894 provides a
cost-of-living adjustment equal to the cost-of-living adjustment being
provided this year to Social Security recipients for veterans'
disability compensation, veterans' clothing allowance, and compensation
for veterans' survivors.
This is an annual bipartisan bill which has been scored by the CBO as
having no additional budgetary impact. It is crucial to ensuring that
benefits for disabled veterans and their families are sufficient to
meet their needs. As chairman of the House Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs, and the
Member of Congress representing the district in New Jersey with the
largest number of disabled veterans, I have heard from many veterans
back home and in Washington about the importance of this needed
legislation.
This cost-of-living adjustment is tied to an increase in the consumer
price index, which has not increased in the last 2 years. S. 894's
increase in the COLA for 2012 reflects rising inflation rates in our
volatile economy and is necessary to ensure the well-being of America's
returning veterans who have honorably served our country and protected
our rights and freedoms.
I am pleased this bill is the first piece of legislation I had the
honor of introducing as a Member of this Congress, and I can think of
no greater priority or commitment that our country owes than to those
who have bravely worn the uniform and defended all that we hold dear as
a nation.
I want to thank Chairman Miller and Ranking Member Filner for
bringing this companion bill to the floor quickly. I would also like to
thank Speaker Boehner for his support in bringing this bill to a swift
vote. I urge all Members to support S. 894.
Mr. FILNER. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Tennessee, Dr. Roe.
Mr. ROE of Tennessee. I thank the chairman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this important
legislation which will deliver greater benefits to deserving veterans
in Tennessee and across this Nation.
Under Senate 894, veterans will receive a cost-of-living increase for
the first time in 2 years. This adjustment is equal to the 3.6 percent
annual increase that will be provided to Social Security recipients.
This will provide much-needed assistance to service-disabled veterans
who are receiving VA disability benefits and their families. This bill
is necessary to ensure the well-being of those who have honorably
served our country and protect our freedoms.
In these tough economic times, millions of Americans are struggling
to make ends meet, including many veterans. This bill represents an
opportunity to take care of those who have given so much to take care
of us and to help them through these hard times. I urge my colleagues
to support this legislation. And as a veteran who has recently returned
from Afghanistan, I can't say enough about what our troops in the field
are doing now. It is no greater honor than to provide this benefit
increase for them that they so richly deserve. I strongly support this.
I thank Mr. Filner for his support and the chairman for his support as
well.
Mr. FILNER. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may
consume to a new member of the committee, a great advocate for veterans
in his time here in Congress, the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr.
Guinta).
Mr. GUINTA. I thank the chairman for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to add my voice to those calling for a cost-of-
living adjustment for our military veterans. As Americans prepare to
observe Veterans Day next week, it's appropriate that this body is
preparing to vote on the Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living
Adjustment Act.
Mr. Speaker, this bill would provide a much-needed 3.6 percent
increase in benefits to our veterans, their children, and surviving
spouses. The men and women of America's Armed Forces answered our call
when the country had asked, and now we must do the same for them.
My State, New Hampshire, has the country's sixth-largest percentage
of veterans by population. Nearly 128,000 former service men and women
call the Granite State home. And many of them are hurting. The national
unemployment rate among veterans is 13 percent, more than 4 percent
higher than the general population.
That's why on Thursday, November 10, I'm hosting a special Veterans
Job Fair in my home State of New Hampshire at Manchester Community
College from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. to help them find work. And we've got
more than 40 willing employers who are attending, looking to find jobs
for our men and women returning to New Hampshire.
I urge my colleagues to join with me in passing this important cost-
of-living increase for the men and women who have given so much to all
of us.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Nugent), a member of the
Florida delegation who has three sons wearing the uniform of this
country, two sons currently serving in Iraq.

{time} 1350

Mr. NUGENT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As a Member of Congress who represents one of the largest veterans
communities in the United States, I recognize the significant
responsibility that Congress has to ensure that our veterans receive
the benefits that they so honorably have earned. These true American
heroes answered the call of duty and put their lives on the line to
protect our country, our freedoms, and our way of life.
It's important to remember that these proud Americans also spent
their lives working hard, playing by the rules, and saving for a stable
retirement. That is why today I am happy to rise in support of the
Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2011. This
legislation will provide our proud veterans with their first cost-of-
living adjustment since 2009.
Mr. Speaker, we as a Nation owe our veterans a debt that can never
fully be repaid. However, as Members of Congress, we can ensure that we
keep our promise to our veterans by supporting this important
legislation.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Brown).
Ms. BROWN of Florida. First of all, I want to thank you, Mr. Filner,
for all the service that you've done for the veterans throughout the
years. And of course I want to thank the chairman from Florida for your
work in bringing this legislation to the floor. It's very important to
the veterans.
This legislation affects the benefits of all veterans by raising the
compensation they receive to allow them to continue to buy the products
they need to live. It is important to pass this bill as a clean bill
for those who have made sacrifices to protect the freedoms we hold most
dear and do not suffer in these tough economic times.

[[Page 16471]]

In the words of the first President of the United States, George
Washington: ``The willingness with which our young people are likely to
serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly
proportional as to how they perceive the veterans of earlier wars were
treated and appreciated by their country.''
As we go to Veterans Day--that's coming up November 11--I want to
thank all of the veterans for their service.
God bless America.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Veterans
Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act. This legislation is of
great importance to my constituents and to veterans across the Nation.
When our military forces are sent into harm's way, they know that our
Nation is committed to caring for and compensating them and their
families for the impacts that result of their service. For their
sacrifice, we help to repay that debt with high quality care and fair
compensation.
Ensuring that compensation rates continue to keep pace with inflation
is critical to meeting our obligations to those men and women who have
given so much. Today, the House of Representatives will vote on a
measure to increase compensation for veterans and their families, so
that their income will cover the increased cost of food, housing, and
other essentials.
From Vietnam veterans still dealing with the effects of Agent Orange
to Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans impacted by traumatic brain injuries,
the lives of our troops can be forever changed by their military
service. When a servicemember's health or ability to work is impacted,
we must provide them with benefits that are commensurate with the
sacrifices they have made in defense of our Nation.
Today's bill helps to improve those benefits, and it helps us meet
the solemn obligation that we have to our veterans and their families.
Next week, we will honor those who have served on Veterans Day.
Today, I urge my colleagues to show veterans the respect that they have
earned through their sacrifice and service. I urge my colleagues to
vote in support of this important measure.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S.
894, the Veterans' Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2011. This
legislation increases the rate of disability compensation for veterans
and their dependents. It also increases disability, old age, and
survivor benefits provided under Title II of the Social Security Act.
This bill will benefit many; there were more than 3.2 million veterans
receiving total disability compensation in 2010.
The Veterans' Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act provides a much needed
cost of living adjustment for the courageous men and women who served
in the Armed Forces. It is in a spirit of deep gratitude and
appreciation that I fight to provide for our troops fighting abroad,
and our veterans who have returned from deployment. It is the
responsibility of Congress and the Administration to fulfill our moral
obligation to those who have fought for freedom and democracy.
In the State of Texas, we have nearly 1.7 million veterans, and the
18th District is home to 32,000 of them. Of the 200,000 veterans of
military service who live and work in Houston; more than 13,000 are
veterans from Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, and Operation
Iraqi Freedom. Additionally, there are almost 34,000 soldiers from
Texas currently deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am supporting this
legislation to ensure that our men and women in uniform are taken care
of when they return from combat.
Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom have presented
unanticipated challenges, greater threats, and higher stakes than ever
before. The men and women who have served in these operations during
the course of the past decade were tasked with the enormous
responsibility of protecting America from a new enemy, one that does
not identify itself with uniforms, or declare war, or invade by driving
tanks over a border. The Veterans' Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act
ensures that disabled veterans are properly compensated for their
sacrifices.
Throughout my tenure in Congress, I have remained committed to
meeting both the needs of veterans of previous wars, and to those who
are now serving. Veterans have kept their promise to serve our Nation;
they have willingly risked their lives to protect the country we all
love. We must now ensure that we keep our promises to our veterans.
We promise to leave no soldier or veteran behind. Politics and
partisanship should never be a factor in our support for American
veterans or troops. On the battlefield, the military pledges to leave
no soldier behind. As a Nation, let it be our pledge that when they
return home, we leave no veteran behind. I am pleased at the bipartisan
nature with which my colleagues have approached this legislation. We
must resolve together that we will provide returning veterans with the
welcome, services, care, and compassion that they deserve. Let us all
remember that one of the things that makes our Nation truly great are
the young men and women willing to fight to defend it, to defend us,
and to defend our way of life.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting S. 894, the Veterans'
Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2011.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the bill, and I yield back
the balance of my time.

General Leave

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks
and include any extraneous material they may have on Senate bill 894.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I once again encourage all my
colleagues to support Senate bill 894, and I yield back the balance of
my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, S. 894.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, proceedings
will resume on motions to suspend the rules previously postponed.
Votes will be taken in the following order:
H.R. 2061, by the yeas and nays;
H.R. 1965, by the yeas and nays;
H.R. 1070, by the yeas and nays.
The first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote.
Remaining electronic votes will be conducted as 5-minute votes.

____________________

CIVILIAN SERVICE RECOGNITION ACT OF 2011

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the vote on the
motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2061) to authorize
the presentation of a United States flag at the funeral of Federal
civilian employees who are killed while performing official duties or
because of their status as a Federal employee, as amended, on which the
yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz) that the House suspend the rules and
pass the bill, as amended.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 425,
nays 0, not voting 8, as follows:

[Roll No. 818]

YEAS--425

Ackerman
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Amodei
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Bachus
Baldwin
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Benishek
Berg
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carter
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Denham

[[Page 16472]]

Dent
DesJarlais
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Ellmers
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Farenthold
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Kucinich
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Olver
Owens
Palazzo
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Paulsen
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Polis
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Quayle
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Reyes
Ribble
Richardson
Richmond
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sewell
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Speier
Stark
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tierney
Tipton
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Webster
Welch
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Woolsey
Yarmuth
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--8

Bachmann
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Giffords
Lowey
Murphy (CT)
Ruppersberger
Rush

{time} 1419

Mr. DINGELL changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and
the bill, as amended, was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The title was amended so as to read: ``A bill to authorize the
presentation of a United States flag on behalf of Federal civilian
employees who die of injuries in connection with their employment.''.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________

INCREASING SHAREHOLDER THRESHOLD FOR SEC REGISTRATION

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Miller of Michigan). The unfinished
business is the vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 1965) to amend the securities laws to establish certain
thresholds for shareholder registration, and for other purposes, as
amended, on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the bill, as amended.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 420,
nays 2, not voting 11, as follows:

[Roll No. 819]

YEAS--420

Ackerman
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amodei
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Bachus
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Benishek
Berg
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carter
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Ellmers
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Farenthold
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gardner
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Kucinich
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Olver
Owens
Palazzo
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Paulsen
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Polis
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Quayle
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Reyes
Ribble
Richardson
Richmond
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta

[[Page 16473]]

Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sewell
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Speier
Stark
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tierney
Tipton
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Webster
Welch
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Woolsey
Yarmuth
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NAYS--2

Amash
Dingell

NOT VOTING--11

Bachmann
Barletta
Capps
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Murphy (CT)
Ruppersberger
Rush

{time} 1428

So (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and
the bill, as amended, was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. BARLETTA. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 819 I was inadvertently
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 819, had I been present, I
would have voted ``yea.''
Mr. GERLACH. Madam Speaker, unfortunately, I missed one recorded vote
on the House floor today. Had I been present, I would have voted
``yea'' on rollcall 819.

____________________

SMALL COMPANY CAPITAL FORMATION ACT OF 2011

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the vote on the
motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1070) to amend the
Securities Act of 1933 to authorize the Securities and Exchange
Commission to exempt a certain class of securities from such Act, as
amended, on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, as amended.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 421,
nays 1, not voting 11, as follows:

[Roll No. 820]

YEAS--421

Ackerman
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Amodei
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Bachus
Baldwin
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Benishek
Berg
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carter
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Ellmers
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Farenthold
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Kucinich
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Olver
Owens
Palazzo
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Paulsen
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Polis
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Quayle
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Reyes
Ribble
Richardson
Richmond
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Runyan
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sewell
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Speier
Stark
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tierney
Tipton
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Webster
Welch
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Woolsey
Yarmuth
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NAYS--1

Dingell

NOT VOTING--11

Bachmann
Bass (NH)
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Cleaver
Giffords
Gohmert
Hirono
Murphy (CT)
Ruppersberger
Sanchez, Loretta

{time} 1435

So (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and
the bill, as amended, was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The title was amended so as to read: ``A bill to amend the Securities
Act of 1933 to require the Securities and Exchange Commission to exempt
a certain class of securities from such Act.''
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr. CARSON of Indiana. Madam Speaker, I missed rollcall votes 818-820
because of a death in the family. Had I been present, I would have
voted ``yes'' on rollcall 818, ``yes'' on rollcall 819 and ``yes'' on
rollcall 820.

[[Page 16474]]

____________________

APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO THE CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON THE
PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair announces the Speaker's
appointment, pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 6913 and the order of the House of
January 5, 2011, of the following Members of the House to the
Congressional-Executive Commission on the People's Republic of China:
Mr. Wolf, Virginia
Mr. Manzullo, Illinois
Mr. Royce, California

____________________

LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION APPROPRIATIONS

(Ms. DeLAURO asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. DeLAURO. A recent graph in CQ Weekly dated October 28 depicts the
progress made so far on this year's appropriations bills. Only one
box--that's for the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education
Subcommittee--is blank.
With 9.1 percent unemployment, we need a vigorous debate over this
bill. Its jurisdiction includes job training, K-12 and higher education
funding, and health care services. And yet unlike the other 11
appropriations bills, Labor-H is the only appropriation bill that has
seen no action. Instead, the chairman has posted a draft bill on the
Internet representing his own preferences for the people's budget. But
the chairman, by himself, is not the subcommittee; and simply posting a
wish list without ever bringing it to the subcommittee or the full
committee for a markup is not an acceptable substitute for public
debate and amendment.
This kind of action represents a clear violation of the majority's
pledge to follow the regular order or the regular process. If no House
markup is held, this would be the first time in nearly a decade that
the subcommittee has failed to report a bill. It is time for the
chairman and the majority to keep their promises and hold a markup for
the Labor-H bill. The issues that face that subcommittee are far too
important to be left to the chairman's personal wish list.

____________________

OPERATION FAST AND FURIOUS, WHO'S TO BLAME?

(Mr. POE of Texas asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute.)
Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, when the coach messes up, blame the
team. This policy occurred yesterday.
Yesterday, in an attempt to divert attention from the Attorney
General, Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer took one for the head
coach and testified about Project Gunrunner. He claimed that he knew
about the practice of ``gun walking'' but still tried to punt the ball
by placing blame on Team ATF for not stopping Fast and Furious. But the
Department of Justice oversees the ATF, and apparently the Justice
Department knew about Fast and Furious. So why didn't they stop it? Mr.
Breuer said that he had talked to the ATF about it, and so he thought
he didn't need to tell the Attorney General. So now it appears the
dysfunctional Justice Department is responsible for this disaster.
Bottom line: Nearly 2,000 semiautomatic weapons were blindly sent
into the hands of criminal narcoterrorists in Mexico, and people died
because of this operation, at least two Americans and who knows how
many Mexican nationals. Thousands of guns are still unaccounted for in
Mexico.
Clearly, the Department of Justice needs a new head coach, and a
special counsel should be appointed to investigate Fast and Furious.
And that's just the way it is.

____________________

{time} 1440
TRIBUTE TO LUKE WEATHERS

(Mr. COHEN asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, this weekend I had the privilege,
unfortunately, to attend a funeral of a great American, a constituent
of mine living in Tucson, Arizona, when he passed at age 91, Colonel
Luke Weathers.
Colonel Weathers was a Tuskeegan Airman. Born in Mississippi, he came
to Memphis at I think it was age 5, and went to the famous Booker T.
Washington High School. At age 23, he went to Tuskeegan. He was one of
the first Tuskeegan Airmen and was decorated with more honors and
awards than you can imagine, every flying award you can possibly get.
He later went on to work with the air traffic controllers and was the
first African American air traffic controller in Memphis, Tennessee, at
our air traffic control station. He served 25 years with the FAA as an
air traffic controller, serving duties in Anchorage, Alaska, where he
started; also in Atlanta, Georgia; and in Washington.
Luke Weathers was a great man who didn't let race stop him, even
though sometimes his country's policies made it difficult to both
integrate the Air Force and the squadron and the FAA. And even his
church where the funeral was, Little Flower, he was the first African
American member of that church in 1963. I was pleased to be with the
family, honor this man's memory, and appreciate what he did for our
country.
Mr. Speaker, Luke Weathers was a great man.

____________________

HOUSE REPUBLICAN JOBS PLAN

(Ms. FOXX asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans have passed over 15 bills that
would help create jobs and, in addition, ease the energy needs of this
country. But where are those bills, and why is the President asking us
to pass his jobs bill which almost no Democrats have signed on to?
We've passed over 15 bills. They're stuck in the Senate. One Senator
has described the Senate as moribund.
Mr. Speaker, we can help create jobs in this country by empowering
small businesses and reducing government barriers to job creation,
fixing the Tax Code to help job creators, boost competitiveness for
American manufacturers, encourage entrepreneurship and growth, maximize
American energy production, and pay down America's unsustainable debt
burden and start living within our means. People can find out more
about our jobs program by going to jobs.gop.gov. I invite the American
people to see what Republicans have presented to the Senate. Those 15
bills should be passed.

____________________

OPPOSE CONFEDERATE FLAG ON TEXAS LICENSE PLATES

(Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to address
the House for 1 minute.)
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, one day before the Nation
gathers to commemorate Veterans Day, a day that brings all of us
together, it saddens me to come to the floor of the House and announce
under the leadership of Governor Perry, on November 10 in Texas, the
Department of Motor Vehicles board will be voting to authorize a State-
issued Confederate license plate.
Now, I realize that our work here in the Congress is about passing
the jobs bill, which we are advocating to do. But I think it is a
disgrace on the history of this Nation that a State-elected agriculture
commissioner by the name of Patterson continues to push forward this
untimely and ill-fated action.
The Confederate flag does not protect or honor Confederate soldiers.
You can do that in museums. The symbol of a Confederate flag is that of
a Klansman of the late 1880s and early 1900s; the brutality of slavery;
the oppression of slavery; the Jim Crowism of the 1940s and 1950s. It's
an ugly reminder of the past of our history. It is time to take America
forward and Texas forward.
I will be in Austin on November 10 opposing that action. I ask all
good-faith, well-intended Texans that want to take Texas forward to
come and oppose any vote that would issue a Confederate flag. And I
make a clarion call to all Americans who would like to drive to Texas,
come to Austin and

[[Page 16475]]

stand up against this dastardly deed. Stand up against promoting
slavery and oppression. Come to Texas and tell Governor Perry and
Commissioner Patterson enough is enough. Take the Nation forward. Don't
take it backwards.

____________________

SALUTING MARK ANDOL'S COMMITMENT TO AMERICAN WORKERS

(Mr. HIGGINS asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. HIGGINS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to share the story of Mark Andol, a
member of my western New York community. Mark owns a welding and
fabricating company in my district. Like many American manufacturers,
it lost sales to China in recent years and was forced to cut its 70-
person workforce in half.
Mark was frustrated and decided to do something about it. He opened a
general store that sells only products manufactured entirely in
America. When it opened last year, the store offered 50 products. Since
then sales have doubled, and it now sells over 3,500 products that are
100 percent American-made, right down to the packaging.
I visited Mark's store earlier this week and was highly impressed. I
was happy to invite him to the Make It in America working meeting
hosted by the White House and our Democratic whip, Mr. Hoyer, tomorrow.
Mr. Speaker, Mark's experience demonstrates why we need to strengthen
our trade laws and pass the China currency reform bill. In the
meantime, I would like to salute Mark Andol for his commitment to the
American worker.

____________________

JOBS

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Guinta). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 5, 2011, the gentleman from California (Mr.
Garamendi) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority
leader.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity
to take this hour together with my colleagues to discuss jobs in
America. I think we know from our recent visits back to our districts
that there's a great deal of pain in America. Americans want to go to
work, and yet the jobs are not available.
Our President has proposed the American Jobs Act, a program that
would put perhaps 1.9 million Americans to work as soon as the Congress
of the United States were to pass that legislation. And so that's the
subject matter of this hour, how to get Americans back to work and how
to pay for it.
I'm going to start with the pay-for, a word that's used around here
but perhaps not readily understood by Americans. Pay-for is how are we
going to pay for the Federal programs.
Let's start with an analysis of the distribution of income in
America. There's been more and more discussion about this in recent
weeks, and appropriately so because what has happened over the last 25-
30 years is a skewing, a wide separation of wealth in the United States
to a point where it is now perhaps the widest separation between the
very wealthy and the middle and poor people in America that has ever
occurred in our history. Here's a pretty good description of it. If you
take the top 1 percent, we've seen an enormous growth in their income,
about 350 percent.

{time} 1450

If you take the middle, the other 99 percent of the American
population, you see very, very modest growth. And in the case of the
poor, you've actually seen a decline in their income over the last two
decades. And that's what's happened, this enormous separation between
the very wealthy and the middle class, the working men and women of
America. It's not that the real rich don't work; just not that many of
them. But they sure have got a big share of the money.
Let's take, for example, the top executives of the oil industry. If
we were to take the top executives of the big five oil companies and
compare them to a firefighter, a firefighter averages about $47,000 a
year. An executive, a CEO of an oil company, would have 307 times that
amount of income. And if you take a teacher at say $53,000 a year, the
CEO would have 273 times the amount of income of a teacher. So what
you're seeing here in just the oil industry--and this is repeated
certainly in the banking and the Wall Street industries, the financial
industries--you see this enormous separation. Thirty, 40 years ago,
this was in the range of 40 times, maybe 50 times. But now we're
talking 300 to, in the lower 300s, a separation of the super wealthy
and the working middle class, the men and women that are out there
constructing schools, making our schools or teaching our kids or
protecting us, police and firefighters.
I put those graphs up because it provides us with a solution. Before
I get to the solution, let's just take one more look at the way this
income distribution is occurring here in the United States. The rising
inequality since the 1970s saw a very sharp break in the prosperity
from an earlier era. From 1946 to 1976, the top 1 percent actually had
a very small portion of the total wealth. From 1976 to 1990, we've seen
enormous growth in the average income--not the wealth but the average
income--of the top 1 percent so that now it dwarfs the rest of the
population. So this is why you see Occupy Wall Street, Occupy Oakland,
and the other cities talking about the 99ers, the 99 percent. The 99
percent are the rest of us, and the 1 percent are the CEOs, the Wall
Street barons and those that have made enormous amounts of income over
the last 20 years.
In the last decade, that's become even more apparent with the Bush
tax cuts that occurred in 2001 and 2003. They basically significantly
lowered the tax rate for the super wealthy and allowed them to keep
even more of the extraordinary growth in their salaries and their
income.
So how does that relate to American jobs? Well, very, very directly.
The American jobs program that the President put forth called the
American Jobs Act would provide very substantial opportunities for
employment. And what I'd like to talk about is small businesses here.
The small businesses of America are given a very substantial tax break
in two different ways if they are to hire new people. For example,
small businesses with less than $5 million of payroll are able to not
pay their payroll tax, in other words, keep that money and go out and
hire people. In addition to that, with Veterans Day coming up in just 1
week, we ought to be thinking about the veterans. We know that we have
more than 1.5 million Americans that have been overseas fighting in
Iraq, Afghanistan, and a few other places around the world. As those
veterans come back, they have become the highest proportion of
unemployed in America.
It would seem to me that since we are asking so much of those men and
women that have served in our Armed Forces, particularly those that
have served in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, we ought to be looking to
their interest very directly and making certain that our programs are
focused on them. Well, this is not lost on our President. In the
American Jobs Act, he deals very directly with this by providing
employers with a very powerful incentive to hire veterans. So with
Veterans Day coming up, let's take a look at that. Let's take a look at
what the President is proposing for the 877,000 unemployed veterans,
the men and women that were out there fighting for this country,
protecting us and doing what has been asked of them in an extraordinary
way. More than 6,000 of them have given their lives, and over 40,000
have been seriously wounded. Of that 40,000, a very large proportion
are permanently, permanently damaged in many difficult and
extraordinary ways. And 877,000 of them are unemployed. And the
President, looking at the necessity of building jobs in America, said,
let's take care of those people.
So what he has proposed, and I think this is a terrific idea, is that
small businesses, in fact, any business that is out to hire a veteran
will be given an immediate $5,600 tax credit so that the

[[Page 16476]]

taxes owed by that business or that employer would automatically be
reduced for every veteran hired by $5,600. Hire an unemployed veteran,
and you can reduce your taxes by $5,600. Even more so, if that veteran
happens to be among those that have been wounded--and as I said, that
is over 40,000--if you were to hire one of those wounded veterans, one
of the seriously wounded that is connected with their service
disability, the tax credit increases to $9,600. That's a very, very
powerful incentive for businesses to hire our veterans. So with
Veterans Day 1 week away, it's incumbent upon the 435 of us here in the
United States Congress to not just talk the talk, but begin to vote to
provide the veterans with the services that they need.
Now why did I start off with this graph? Why did I start off with
this, showing the income disparity in the United States? Because this
is how we should be paying for it--those Americans that have done
extraordinarily well. And we're not talking about just extraordinarily
well; we're talking about extraordinarily extraordinarily well. They
have seen their income rise to a point of astronomical figures in some
cases. And certainly it's seen on Wall Street. It's time for them to
push aside the George W. Bush tax cuts. These tax cuts allowed them to
keep a very large portion of their income. Taxes went down on income
over $250,000 for joint filers, it went down from 39 percent to 35
percent. And do keep in mind all of the tax writeoffs that they're able
to take advantage of that most Americans can't get. But nonetheless,
since they've had 11 good years, 11 good years where they have received
a significant tax cut, I think it's time for them to share and help our
veterans get a job.
And so the President has proposed, as part of his American Jobs Act,
which is fully paid for, that those men and women whose annual adjusted
gross income after deductions--adjusted gross income after deductions--
is $1 million or more, we're not talking about mom and pop on Main
Street here, we're talking about those folks on Wall Street and those
CEOs from the energy industry and the oil companies, those folks, it's
time for them to come back and help America. It's time for them to stop
shipping jobs offshore, stop playing all the Wall Street gambling games
that got us in such trouble, and it's time for them to share in a fair
way to pay for an American Jobs Act that would put veterans back to
work by providing businesses in the United States with a tax credit
when they hire one of those 877,000 unemployed veterans that have been
out there keeping this country safe.
So if you earn more than $1 million adjusted gross income after all
of your deductions, yes, 5.6 percent of that income over and above
would be surcharged, and it would go back up to just about 40 percent.

{time} 1500

Is that going to hurt anybody? No. Is it going to help somebody? Oh,
yes. Oh, yes, it's going to help Americans go back to work. And it's
not just in the area of veterans, although we certainly ought to be
focusing on this. My plea to my Republican colleagues here on the floor
is, let's not just talk about veterans and how we honor them next week.
Let's vote this week while we are here to put the American Jobs Act out
of this House, or at least put this part of the American Jobs Act out
of the House and pay for it with a surcharge on those very fortunate
Americans who have worked hard, been lucky, or whatever. Allow them the
opportunity to pay for putting our veterans back to work. So let's get
with it.
Now I know you're going to go back to your districts, and you're
going to go to the veterans parades and you're going to talk all the
talk. But here's where the walk occurs: in this House, in this week, we
have the opportunity--in fact, we have the obligation--to really help
our veterans, to really help them by putting them back to work; and
this is one way to do it.
Let me talk for a moment about another way of doing it, and I think
I'll deal with this one. Not only are there 877,000 veterans
unemployed, but well over 9 million, 12 million Americans, and another
12 million that are underemployed. The President, in his jobs act, says
for small businesses, if you hire an unemployed person who's been
unemployed for 6 months or more, you can have a $4,000 tax credit. So
veterans, $5,600; a wounded veteran--one of our returning heroes--
$9,600; and for a long-term unemployed American, hire somebody and you
can reduce your tax burden by $4,000. That's a pretty good deal.
In addition to that, if you're a small business with a payroll of
less than $5 million, you can write off, not pay the payroll tax at
all. For individual families, the President has proposed--and we all
talk about the need for individual families to have additional money in
their pocket, so the American Jobs Act said, for individual families,
tell you what, half of the payroll tax that you're presently paying--
about 6 percent--you don't have to pay it; you can keep that money.
It's over $1,500 a year in the pockets of average Americans out there.
So the President has put together a program here, the American Jobs
Act, to deal with unemployed--some 6 million have been unemployed more
than 6 months; hire them, get a $4,000 tax credit. Hire an unemployed
veteran and you can get a $5,600 tax credit. Or if that veteran happens
to be one of the wounded warriors, one of America's true heroes, it's
$9,600.
So it's time for us to act. It's time for the American public to tell
Congress we can't wait. We can't wait. We can't take any more of this
unemployment. Pass a real jobs program.
I know my colleague here, a few moments ago, was talking about the 15
bills that went over to the Senate. If you take a look at those bills,
not one of them was a real jobs bill. What they did was basically gut
the environmental regulations of this Nation so that our children can
have a little more arsenic, a little more mercury, a little more
pollution, and a little more polluted water. That's not a jobs bill.
There is no economist in this Nation that will tell you that by gutting
the environmental regulations you're going to produce jobs. What you're
going to produce is sickness, ill health, cancer, and the rest. So
those are not real jobs bills at all. The real jobs bill is the
American Jobs Act, and we're going to be talking about that with my
colleague from Ohio in just a few moments.
I want to share with you a piece of legislation that I've introduced.
All of us are paying taxes--or at least I think most every American
pays some sort of tax, a payroll tax or perhaps an income tax. That tax
money is used for a variety of things. It's used for our military; it's
used for our Social Security and Medicare and the like. It's also used
to subsidize a variety of programs. Today at a press conference, we
talked about the $12 billion a year of subsidies that we pay to the oil
companies. That's right, you and I pay our tax money to the oil
companies so they can have a little more. Keep in mind that this year
their profits are up 100 percent. In the last decade, they've had $1
trillion of profit. They don't need our tax money. But there is a
program for clean solar and wind. Those kind of programs are our tax
money being used to subsidize green energy.
We also use our tax money to build highways, bridges, trains, light
rail systems. This bill, H.R. 613, simply says that if our tax money--
in this case, the gasoline tax money--is going to be used, it must be
used to buy American-made equipment, so that that Amtrak train out
there is made in America. We're paying for it. It's our tax money; it
ought to be American made. This is part of the Make It In America
agenda. If you want to put a solar panel on your roof and you want the
Federal tax credit, terrific, buy American-made solar panels. If you
don't like American-made solar panels, use your own money, buy whatever
you want; but don't use our tax money to buy a Chinese panel. Help
American jobs; make it in America.
The same way with these wind turbines we're seeing all around the
United States. It's our tax money that's subsidizing that, and that's
good. What's not good is if that wind

[[Page 16477]]

turbine is made in China or Europe. American made. You want the tax
credit, buy American made credit.
Now joining us from the great State of Ohio is Congresswoman Betty
Sutton. I know that you've been involved in this for a long time, the
Make It In America agenda.
I yield to the gentlewoman to share with us her thoughts.
Ms. SUTTON. I thank the gentleman for his leadership. Representative
Garamendi has been a strong voice for the people of this country,
standing up for the middle class, and it is my privilege to join you
down here on behalf of the hardworking people of Ohio.
I think that we begin by noting that we think that the true measure
of America's economic success is the well-being of American families,
not just the stock market or corporate profits. Now, I know that you've
already talked about this, but it's just so important that we focus on
the fact that the promise of America must be for all Americans, not
just the wealthy few.
So we come to this floor and we once again look at a couple of
things. One of them--we've heard it many times, but it bears
repeating--you know, even some of those who have done so well in
America now are calling on us to have them do well by America. We've
heard Warren Buffett say--here's a chart that shows that his income was
$46 billion, his tax rate is 17.7 percent. His secretary's income is
$60,000 and his secretary's tax rate is 30 percent. And to quote Warren
Buffett, he says: ``My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a
billionaire-friendly Congress.'' So even he is calling on Congress, and
we join him in that call because it's so important that we focus on
what is the backbone of this country. What makes this country so great
is the strength of its middle class, and we know that it has been
squeezed and squeezed and squeezed.
We are now in a place where one in four homeowners are under water.
That means owing more on their mortgage than their house is even worth.
We know that college tuition and fees increased about 300 percent over
the last 20 years, and graduates are now leaving school with an average
debt of $24,000. Taxes for the richest 400 Americans were sliced in
half as their income quadrupled and now are paying only 17 percent.
Now, this is a complicated problem, and it's a serious problem; but
the good news is that it doesn't have to be this way. We all know that
the key, the solution to strengthening this great country and restoring
the promise of the middle class lies in getting people back to work.
So I'm very happy to hear you talking about your bill that deals with
making sure that we're buying American--iron, steel and manufacturing
goods--when we move into new industries in the future. And I have a
number of bills that require the use of iron and steel and manufactured
goods made in America when we build our infrastructure, which, of
course, is one of the key components, that building of our Nation's
infrastructure that our President is trying to make happen with the
American Jobs Act.

{time} 1510

Why do we need to do that? Obviously we need to put people back to
work, but we also have this: We have more than 2,700 miles of our roads
in need of repair. That's greater than the distance between Washington,
D.C., and San Francisco, California. Now, that's from the Research and
Innovative Technology Administration at the U.S. Department of
Transportation. So we know that the need is extraordinary.
What would this mean for our workers? Under the American Jobs Act,
building new jobs for nearly 2 million unemployed construction workers.
Can you imagine?
We know that when we strengthen our infrastructure, we strengthen our
middle class and we strengthen our Nation as a whole and its place in
the world.
So, with that, thank you again, Representative Garamendi, for being
down here fighting the fight, because we can do things differently and
get different results, results that work, not just for the privileged
few, not just for the billionaires and millionaires, but for people out
there who want nothing more than a chance, a fair chance at the
American Dream.
Mr. GARAMENDI. How correct you are. Thank you very much, Ms. Sutton,
and thank you for bringing up the issue of infrastructure.
Infrastructure's a problem all across this Nation.
I spoke earlier about the use of our tax dollars to support
infrastructure so that we buy American, so that we can make it in
America. And those are middle class jobs. Once we start making things
in America, we start making middle class jobs.
The American Jobs Act has the potential of putting 2 million
Americans back to work, many of them construction. Those are not just
temporary things that are going to be built. Those are permanent
foundations upon which the economy will grow in the future. So it's a
sanitation system; it's a water system; it's a highway. That is a solid
investment that gives the American economy a foundation upon which it
can build, and immediate jobs.
What does it take?
Ms. SUTTON. You mentioned our water and our sewer infrastructure,
which is important, critically important. And as we build that out, I
have a bill that's called Stop American Jobs from Going Down the Drain
Act, and what that would do is it would require that when we build that
water----
Mr. GARAMENDI. Reclaiming my time, you have a bill that does what?
Ms. SUTTON. It's called Stop American Jobs from Going Down the Drain
Act.
Mr. GARAMENDI. I thought I heard you correctly.
Ms. SUTTON. That's correct. And it's very simple because it deals
with our water and our sewer infrastructure, which is in desperate need
of rebuilding in this country. And as we rebuild it, we can even
multiply the jobs out if, as this bill requires, we use American iron,
steel, and manufactured goods, because then the ripple effects of
putting those folks who work in those industries, our ironworkers, our
steelworkers, those who work in manufacturing, they also will have the
benefit of us building out, in addition to our construction workers.
Mr. GARAMENDI. I want to come back to your Don't Let American Jobs Go
Down the Drain Act. I love that title. But even more so, I like what it
tries to accomplish. I'm going to come back to it.
Our colleague from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) has also joined us here
today.
If you could share with us your thoughts. You're not too far from
Ohio. You must have similar issues in that great Midwest.
I yield to the gentlewoman.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Everybody has the same issues: the underground
systems, the water systems, the overhead systems, the bridges. I wonder
sometimes about those who don't support the American Jobs Act. Don't
they drive over bridges? Don't their families drive over bridges?
We have 400 unsafe, structurally unsafe bridges in the State of
Illinois, and so aside from the jobs that it would create, the safety
issues that would be addressed.
I wanted to just debunk a myth that is so persistent and that some of
our colleagues on the Republican side want to repeat over and over
again, and that is that the stimulus bill did nothing, created no jobs.
And of course that's just not true. No matter how many times they say
it, it is not true. Between 1.9 million and 3 million jobs were created
or saved.
But I also know it's not true because many of those same people, when
the ribbons get cut on those projects, actually appear at the ribbon
cuttings. As we speak right now, there are people who are collecting
those photos and videos and news accounts of those people who say the
stimulus program created no jobs so that we can compile those kind of
things and show the hypocrisy that you have when the project opens,
there they are, smiling and cutting the ribbon, because it's not true.
It did create jobs.

[[Page 16478]]

I wanted to point out that at the very beginning of our country,
George Washington asked Alexander Hamilton to come up with a
manufacturing strategy. Hamilton was the Secretary of the Treasury, and
he came up with an 11-point manufacturing strategy because, at that
point, almost everything had to be imported mainly from England, from
whom our colonies had just broken and now our new country was trying to
create its independence.
Really what Alexander Hamilton did was kick off the American
industrial revolution, and there are a number of principles which I
think are very applicable today. They call stimulus--he doesn't use
that word, but he talks about pecuniary bounties, which essentially is
to support industries, to give money to create jobs. This has been
found to be one of the most efficacious means of encouraging
manufacturers; and it is, in some views, the best, though it hasn't
been the practice, he says, of the United States, and that we should do
that.
He also says, the encouragement of new inventions and discoveries at
home, and the introduction into the United States such as may have been
made in other countries, particularly those which relate to machinery.
So we had a comprehensive industrial manufacturing policy which
involved the public sector making contributions, investing and making
sure that not only did we have a vibrant industrial economy, but we had
people that would work in those things.
By the way, when George Washington found out that he had been elected
President, he looked for an American-made suit and finally found
someone in Connecticut that was actually making those, the fabric;
because, while we had the raw materials, they were made into clothing
mostly in England, and he was darned if he was going to be wearing an
imported-from-England suit to the inauguration as President.
Mr. GARAMENDI. I'm absolutely fascinated. I'd heard some of this
before, but I'm so happy you brought that to our attention. So since
the very first day of this country, we've had a policy in the United
States of encouraging manufacturing, making it in America.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. That's exactly right.
Mr. GARAMENDI. George Washington's inaugural suit, I'm going to use
that. That is a wonderful, wonderful story.
I understand the canal system, that was a way of transportation.
Infrastructure also came about at that time. I know here in the Potomac
River canal, George Washington started that at about the same time, and
then the Erie Canal. All of these were transportation systems that were
right back at the very beginning of our country.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. These are called public works projects for a reason.
They're done by the public sector. They are good for our country. They
are good for our economy. They put people to work. And that's exactly
what we ought to be doing, and that's what the American Jobs Act is
for.
Let me just emphasize one other piece of it, and that is the piece of
fixing our schools. Again, not only does this create jobs and not only
does this do it summer, winter, spring, and fall because you don't have
to wait for construction season, but it's also good for our children
who are sitting in schoolrooms around the country that are really
toxic, where there's asbestos contamination and that are dangerous or
inadequate in the sense of being unwired for the kinds of technologies
that we need for the future in order for them to be able to get good
jobs, not only now but when they become adults and go into the
workforce.
This is such a no-brainer to me. If we are serious about wanting to
educate or children as well as put people to work, as well as create a
healthy environment for them, this is such a sensible proposal, a part
of the American Jobs Act.
Mr. GARAMENDI. As I recall, there are 35,000 schools that could be
renovated--classrooms, playgrounds, roofs, painting, bathrooms,
laboratories--35,000 schools across this Nation.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. And electrical connections for the Internet.

{time} 1520

Mr. GARAMENDI. I bet some of those are in Ohio.
Ms. SUTTON. Absolutely. Ohio is in need, and I think it's important
that we look at not just the cost that we're experiencing today from
the failure to put people to work doing this work that needs to be done
in our schools, building our Nation's infrastructure, which needs
serious attention, according to all of the estimates and all of the
surveys out there. The fact of the matter is, it's important to look at
the long-term effects, too. Because those schools, if we fail to invest
in education, whether it's in the physical facilities or education in
general--which is another place that some of our colleagues across the
aisle want to cut back.
The American Jobs Act is going to put more teachers in the schools.
One of the things that we do is we choke off our future because other
countries, make no mistake, they're investing in education because they
know that that creates a better future, not just for the children and
the students themselves, but for their Nation and the strength of their
Nation.
They're also investing in their infrastructure for the same reason,
because having an up-to-date, a state-of-the-art infrastructure is
going to strengthen their competitiveness. It's going to strengthen
their place in the world.
And while others are doing that, here we are with all of this work
that needs to be done that would add to the value of our Nation which
is so great in the first instance. But there is no substitute for
creating real value.
In this last recession, we saw the very risky proposition of people
on Wall Street moving money around, not creating any real value. You
would think that more would have learned the lesson, because we need to
have strong infrastructure. When you put people to work building
things, you're creating real value. When you put people to work in
manufacturing and you take something of lesser value and you turn it
into something of greater value, that cannot be replaced with the
smoke-and-mirrors trading that we saw going on before the recession.
Mr. GARAMENDI. You're quite correct about smoke and mirrors.
When you brought up education, in the American Jobs Act, the
President has proposed a better deal for America. And part of it is
this education piece. It's right here.
In the American Jobs Act--fully paid for; we're not adding a nickel
to the deficit--fully paid for is a huge and important education piece.
We talked about the renovation of schools. Just the environment in
which kids will learn. If you have a good learning environment, it's
clean, it's healthy, well lit, the electrical system is working, you
have air conditioning and the rest, kids are going to learn much, much
faster in a better situation.
But you also need a teacher. Now, I know in California, I know from
my daughter and son-in-law, both of whom are teachers, the layoffs that
have occurred in their school and the increase in their class size. My
daughter went from 22 or 23 to 32 or 33 students in her class because
of layoffs. The President in his American Jobs Act has proposed that
280,000 teachers across this Nation go back into the classroom, that
they don't have a pink slip, that they're not unemployed. That they're
actually teaching our kids.
And as you said, the most important investment a society makes is in
the education of their children. Infrastructure, critically important.
Security, national security, military, critically important. But if you
don't have a well-educated workforce, all the rest will fail.
So let's put those teachers back in the classroom. Let's use a fair
tax policy: Those that have done so extraordinarily well in the last
two decades, the top 1 percent, let them help the rest of the 99
percent by paying 5\1/2\ percent more on income over and above a
million dollars. It works. It's fair. And 280,000 teachers will be back
in the classroom in my own State. Some 30,000 teachers will be back in
the classroom. And there will be police and firemen in the street to
help protect

[[Page 16479]]

us. What's wrong with that? Why are we not doing it?
In the Senate last week and again this week, a Republican filibuster
was used to stop the progress of the American Jobs Act, and here in the
House of Representatives, it's not even heard before committee. The
Republican leadership will not even allow it to be heard.
So let's get on with it. Let's put Americans back to work.
I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
Ms. SUTTON. Thank you so much, Representative Garamendi.
It seems there are some here in this body, and, with all due respect,
there are a lot of folks who come to Congress and they're fairly well-
heeled themselves. It seems that some who are here, they seem fixated
on protecting those tax breaks that ship jobs overseas. They seem very
concerned about that top 1 percent, the billionaires and the
millionaires.
It seems as if they almost believe that we can fix this country's
economy without making most Americans better off, which is a backwards
proposition. It's almost like they think that the top 1 percent is who
built this country, and that that's where all of our policies should be
aimed.
But I disagree and I know, Representative Garamendi, that you do as
well. We understand that when we have people working, building
infrastructure and making things and manufacturing, that that has a way
of rippling out, right? And then we have those taxpayers who of course
are energizing our economy. And then we have the revenue that comes
into our communities that can put our firefighters and our police
officers and our teachers into a salary that they have earned and they
deserve for doing the important work that they do.
But instead of doing that, instead of making the choice that those at
the top should pay a fair share, they want to take more out of those
firefighters and teachers and police officers and nurses.
Right now as we speak, we're a week away from a referendum in the
State of Ohio. If that issue, Issue 2, is voted down, it will be a
really big moment because what that would do is it would repeal a bill
that was passed by the State legislature there. And that bill is aimed
at attacking our firefighters, our police officers, our teachers, and
our nurses by reducing their collective bargaining rights, their
ability to even have a voice at the table, to be part of the solution,
which they always are because they know what's going on in America.
They didn't go into those jobs because they thought that they would
make tons of money. They went into those jobs because they had a
commitment to service, to teach our kids, to run into our homes when
they're burning to try and save us, to go out on our streets and make
them safe. And yet they're the ones that some are looking at to get
money back?
It wasn't our teachers or our firefighters or our police officers, it
wasn't the seniors on Social Security or Medicare, it wasn't the
students and their Pell Grants that drove our economy off the cliff. It
was Wall Street that drove our economy off the cliff. And it's time
that they pay a fair share so middle class America can start to breathe
a little easier again knowing that they'll have opportunities in this
country.
Mr. GARAMENDI. I am so proud of what you and others are doing in
Ohio, fighting back against an extraordinarily unfair law that takes
away the ability of people to come together and collectively voice
their concerns. That's what it's all about.
You can say it's unions, and yes, but it's also the ability of people
to say, Wait a minute--we're all working here at this school. We're the
workers. We're the teachers, and we should have a voice in what is
going on here. Not just in our pay and in our benefits, but also in the
way this is working.

{time} 1530

So you're fighting back, and you're making progress. Hopefully, that
proposition will pass, and we'll begin to set a new model.
Ms. SUTTON. Representative Garamendi, I couldn't agree more with the
idea that this is the voice of the people, that this is a referendum.
They said to the Republican Governor and the legislature there, You've
gone too far. Our firefighters and our police officers and our
teachers, they're not our enemies. They're our heroes; they're the
people who we look up to, who do good work on behalf of all of us, not
just those who are the privileged few. And this is where we make our
stand: on this referendum.
It's so important that the American people look at what's going on,
frankly, in Ohio, and that we have a strong voice. Just to make sure
that we have a correct record, a ``no'' vote on that issue is going to
repeal that bad bill. We'll see what the people in Ohio do, but I am
confident that we're speaking up together for one another and for
police and firefighters and teachers.
Mr. GARAMENDI. We need to also understand where the power has
shifted. The power has shifted here.
This is the average pay of the CEOs of the five biggest oil
companies--$14.5 million. That's 307 times the pay of a firefighter,
273 times the pay of a teacher, 263 times the pay of an average police
officer, and 218 times the average pay of a nurse.
So what we have seen--and part of this has to do with collective
bargaining--is that the power has shifted to the CEOs, to the
extraordinary wealthy, and that it has resulted in this situation:
where the middle class and the poor in America have seen virtually no
change in their incomes over the last 20, 25 years. They've been
flatlined--basically the same level of income. They're just making it.
This particular line is the next highest 20 percent. The only reason
they've seen their incomes grow is that both husband and wife are now
working. Back there, back in the seventies, mostly just one or the
other was working; but now both are working.
But look here: this is the top 1 percent. Here are the 99ers. Here is
the 99 percent down here at the bottom and the 1 percent up here. What
we're saying is let's put Americans back to work with the American Jobs
Act, and let's have a Fair Tax, not the George W. Bush tax cuts that
gave this group even greater wealth, a greater annual income by cutting
their taxes, but rather to restore that tax rate and allow that money
to be used to hire the unemployed veteran.
There are 877,000 unemployed veterans. These are the men and women
who fought for us in Iraq. These are the men and women who fought for
us in Afghanistan. These are the men and women who came back without
their legs, with their minds jumbled because of an IED--877,000 of
them. Give them a chance by this group that has been so extraordinarily
successful, in part, because of their own work and, in part, because of
the tax cuts that they've enjoyed for the last 11 years.
Ms. SUTTON. The gentleman makes such an important point.
Here we are. We're coming up on Veterans Day. It is not enough to
just go out to ceremonies on Veterans Day and express our appreciation,
although that should happen. We should be expressing our appreciation
to veterans, not just through those ceremonies but through our
policies. We have all of these veterans out there who are returning
from the current wars, and we have other veterans out there looking for
opportunities. The American Jobs Act will help us to create those
opportunities that they so richly deserve.
Let's be clear: the people who are fighting our wars, they are part
of the 99 percent. Very few are part of the 1 percent. So it's really,
really important that we do focus on giving them the opportunities, the
American Dream, the fact that if you work hard and if you try hard and
if you play by the rules that you'll be able to make it in America.
That is part of what they were fighting for.
So I could not agree more. We've got to focus on getting help to our
veterans.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Exactly.
As we begin to wrap up our hour here, Veterans Day is one week away.
There are 435 of us here in this House who are representing the
American

[[Page 16480]]

people, and we have an opportunity. All of us will be out there on
November 11. We'll be doing our parades, and we'll be giving our
speeches about how wonderful the veterans have been in America; 877,000
of them have returned from Iraq and Afghanistan and have served this
country in an extraordinary way. They're unemployed. They need a job.
The American Jobs Act will provide every employer in the United
States with a $5,600 tax reduction, not a tax credit, that is, their
taxes will be reduced by $5,600 for every unemployed veteran they hire.
If they hire a veteran who has been wounded, one of the returning
American heroes, it's a $9,600 reduction in that employer's tax.
Why are we not doing this? It's fully paid for. It's paid for with a
small tax increase by those who have been so extraordinarily successful
in the last decade. Why are we not helping our veterans find a job?
Because, in this House, the Speaker and the Republican Party refuse
to address this issue. No hearings have taken place on the American
Jobs Act that the President has put before this Congress. You can talk
the talk. You can talk the talk forever. You can go home and you can
talk the talk; or you can be here this week, and you can give our
veterans a real opportunity. It's not just those who have returned from
the war. There are veterans out there who fought in the previous wars,
who served this country in Vietnam and in the first gulf war. They're
unemployed or they are retired and they're receiving Social Security.
So, here on this floor, proposals have been put forth; and in the
supercommittee, again proposals have been put forth to reduce the
Social Security benefits, to reduce the foundation for retirement in
this Nation so that the 1 percent don't have to pay their fair share of
the taxes. Something is desperately wrong. Those seniors and those
veterans are dependent upon Medicare for their health when we consider
that it was Medicare that took more than 50 percent of the seniors out
of poverty in the 1960s and gave them the health care that they needed
to stay alive. Yet the proposal put forth on this floor that was voted
on three times by our Republican colleagues would destroy Medicare and
put every senior at risk, and those who are 55 and younger would never
receive Medicare. They'd be thrown to the mercy of the private
insurance companies.
Why would we ever allow that to happen? Because apparently some want
to continue the tax breaks for the superwealthy.
But here we are one week away from Veterans Day--and a lot of talk. I
want some action. America can't wait. These 877,000 veterans can't wait
for a job. In Ohio and in California and in every other State in this
Nation, this is the reality faced by veterans. This House has an
obligation, this Speaker has an obligation to put the legislation
before this House and to let us speak, to let us represent the people
who elected us.
Ms. Sutton, thank you so very much for joining us. You've been a
wonderful Representative of Ohio. I've watched you fight day after day
to put legislation in place so that your men and women in your district
can go back to work. Please wrap it up. Share with us your thoughts.
Ms. SUTTON. It is my honor and my privilege to stand up for the
people of Ohio and for the veterans you were just speaking of.
I just have to say, those veterans, those men and women who were on
the battlefield, they weren't just fighting for Wall Street; they were
fighting for the United States of America and all that it stands for.
They weren't just fighting for the top 1 percent; they were fighting
for all of us. Now they're coming back, and we have an obligation. We
have a promise that we have made to them, part of which would be
fulfilled if we could get the American Jobs Act passed. So it is
incumbent upon us to beat back.

{time} 1540

We hear a lot of rhetorical terms. In the last election we heard over
and over again, Oh, we could create jobs if we could get government off
the backs of the job creators.
Well, look, the refrain, people don't want government on their back,
I agree they don't want government on their back. But you know what?
They do want government on their side. And that is not what they have
been getting and that is why we have to be here, to stand up for the
middle class, to stand up for those veterans, for those seniors, for
those college students, for those workers, for those firefighters and
those police officers, those teachers and those nurses who have
suffered far less growth as, we know, Wall Street continues to flourish
with record CEO bonuses and all of those profits. We just want people
to pay a fair share, and we want the American people to have a fair
shake.
Thank you for your leadership. You have been tremendous.
Mr. GARAMENDI. And thank you so very much for so ably representing
Ohio and your constituents.
We've got work to do. We've got veterans to care for, and they need
help. Americans want jobs, and the American Jobs Act is there. If we
were to bring that up today or tomorrow instead of the foolish little
bills that have been going on around here for the last month and a
half, Americans could go back to work, and it would be fully paid for
with a fair tax. We have work to do.
I ask the Speaker of the House and my Republican colleagues to give
Americans a chance to go back to work. Put the American Jobs Act up for
a vote; put that tax up for a vote, and let's pass it. I think we'd
vote it out of here in half a moment if we had a chance. But right now
we don't even have that chance.
With that and hope for the future and thanksgiving for those men and
women that have been out there protecting this Nation, the veterans,
young and old, able and disabled, we thank them.
I yield back the balance of my time.

____________________

BALANCING THE BUDGET

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 5, 2011, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we are going to talk about
a very important development here in the House of Representatives--in
fact, in the entire Congress. Because of the vote this summer on the
Budget Control Act, we are going to have in both the House and the
Senate for the first time in about 15 years a vote on a balanced budget
amendment to the United States Constitution. The last time we did this
was on March 2, 1995--actually, the House had already passed it with
300 bipartisan votes, and it was brought to the Senate floor on that
day. The U.S. Senate failed by one vote to send a balanced budget
amendment to the States for ratification. The amendment had passed the
House by the required two-thirds majority previously, and the Senate
vote was the last legislative hurdle before ratification by the States.
As we know, balanced budget amendments--in fact, any constitutional
amendment is voted on by the House and the Senate, requiring a two-
thirds vote in each body, and then it does not go to the President of
the United States, as legislation does. Instead, it goes directly to
our States, and then three-quarters of the State legislatures would be
required to ratify it.
If that amendment had passed, then we would not be dealing with the
fiscal crisis we now face. If that amendment had passed, then balancing
the budget would have been the norm rather than the exception over the
past 15 years, and we would have nothing like the annual deficits and
skyrocketing debt that we must address today.
The good news is that, like 1995, this Congress is again standing at
a crossroads at this very moment. The decisions we make today will
steer the direction of the country for the next 15 years. We have an
opportunity now to take action to ensure that 15 years from today our
children will face a much brighter fiscal picture. We must not allow
ourselves to miss this opportunity.
Experience has proven time and again that Congress cannot, for any

[[Page 16481]]

significant length of time, rein in excessive spending. The annual
deficits and the resulting debt continue to grow due to political
pressures and a dependency on government programs. In order for
Congress to be able to consistently make the very tough decisions
necessary to sustain fiscal responsibility over the long term, Congress
must have an external pressure to force it to do so. The most realistic
change we have today to enact this type of institutional reform is
through a balanced budget amendment to our Constitution.
Many Members of Congress have introduced balanced budget amendments
in this Congress. I introduced two versions on the first day of the
112th Congress.
H.J. Res. 2 is the exact text that passed the House in 1995 and
failed in the Senate by one vote. This amendment requires total annual
outlays not to exceed total annual receipts. It also requires a three-
fifths majority to raise the debt limit. This legislation also has
limited exceptions for times of war.
H.J. Res. 1, which I also introduced, goes much further. In addition
to the provisions of H.J. Res. 2, it requires a two-thirds majority to
raise taxes and imposes an annual spending cap that prohibits spending
from exceeding 18 percent of GDP.
In the U.S. Senate, 47 Republican Senators--all the Republican
Senators--have cosponsored a balanced budget amendment, which is a
strong sign that the Senate is ready to engage in debate on this
subject as well.
Our extraordinary fiscal crisis demands an extraordinary solution, so
we simply cannot afford to succumb to political posturing on this issue
at a point in time so crucial to our Nation's future. We must rise
above that and move forward with a strategy that includes legislation
that will get to 290 votes on the House floor.
So as we consider a balanced budget amendment, I encourage the
Members of the body to devote our efforts to passing the strongest
balanced budget amendment that can garner two-thirds of the House of
Representatives. We're at a crossroads in the country. We can make the
tough choices and control spending, paving the way for our return to
surpluses and ultimately paying down the national debt, or we can allow
big spenders to lead us further down the road of chronic deficits and
leave our children and grandchildren saddled with debt that is not
their own.
I have been joined by a number of outstanding Members of the House,
and I am going to call upon them to offer some comments about the
importance of a balanced budget amendment to them and to their
constituents as well.
Since he got here first, I'm going to yield first to one of our new
Members, from the State of Indiana, a great fiscal conservative,
someone who believes strongly in limiting our government and balancing
our budget, Congressman Todd Rokita.
Mr. ROKITA. I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding
me this time and for your leadership here in the Congress year after
year over the years to see that we've come to this point where we again
can have a vote in these Chambers about the condition of our country
and about living within our means.
As I talk about the balanced budget amendment, I want to also address
what happened here on the House floor and what was said here on the
House floor in the last hour. They used the term ``foolish'' several
times. I want to describe how foolish what they said is.
Not enough dollars exist in the top 1 percent of taxpayers in this
country to possibly address the debt situation we face, to possibly
address our economy. There are not enough baseball players. There are
not enough football coaches. There are not enough Oprah Winfreys. There
are not even enough Warren Buffetts. Even if you taxed 100 percent of
everything they made and assume two things, that they wouldn't leave
the country and that they would continue to produce, there aren't
enough of them to solve this country's fiscal problems.
So when people come here to the House floor or talk anywhere else in
this Nation about how the rich aren't paying their fair share, by
definition, they are going to come after the middle class. They are
going to come after your property, those of us who live in the middle
class. Our property being our dollars, which aren't theirs, which
aren't the government's. They're ours. And that's what they're angling
for; make no mistake about it.
As you may know, I happen to be a member of the House Education and
Workforce Committee. A lot of talk was made here today about how we
don't spend enough on our education; we have to spend more on our
teachers. Let me just say this: The increase in our Federal budget for
education has been well over 300 percent since the early 1970s, yet we
haven't seen one bit of an improvement in our scholastic scores since
the Federal Government has been involved in the education business.

{time} 1550

I just find it humorous when they stand here and talk about how we
need to now spend money on infrastructure, now spend money on other
things that might marginally give us some more jobs. Where were they
during the first stimulus when only 6 percent, almost a trillion
dollars, went for infrastructure and the rest went for handouts like
food stamps, unemployment insurance and other things that won't
possibly grow the economy? Not to say that people didn't need help, not
to say they still don't need help. But it's a falsehood to think that
by giving more handouts you're going to improve the prosperity of this
Nation.
You cannot tax, you cannot spend, you cannot lay debt on our kids and
grandkids and expect this Nation to get stronger, expect this Nation to
be better off. It doesn't work. World history is littered with examples
where Nations have tried to do this very same thing; and all it has
resulted in is tyranny and the opposite of prosperity.
With that, thank you again for letting me speak about the balanced
budget amendment. I opposed the Budget Control Act when we had that
vote at the end of July because it wasn't a solution to our debt
problem; it was another Washington deal. But as I've said and will
continue to admit, there was a silver lining, and that silver lining
was the requirement that both Houses at least take a vote on the exact
same balanced budget amendment language, and they do it by December 31
of this year.
Our Constitution is the blueprint for our system of government. Our
Constitution has only been amended 27 times, and for very good reason.
It's not to change with the times. It's not to change with the
political winds. It's a blueprint, a document that has outlined a
process, contained in it negative rights, that has given us the best
system for raising the condition of all men that the world has ever
seen. And so it shouldn't be amended that often or that lightheartedly,
but it should be amended in this case.
This Chamber, this House, this Federal Government in general,
administrations both Republican and Democratic before us, have failed
in their job to have us as a Federal Government live within our means.
We need a constitutional amendment to do that now. Thomas Jefferson
himself even said it: ``I wish it were possible to attain a single
amendment to our Constitution, I mean an additional article taking from
the government the power of borrowing.''
Given our $15 trillion debt and what's coming, the red menace, the
tidal wave of debt that's coming in the near future, there is a clear
need for a balanced budget amendment.
Now, there are several different ones to consider. Which one should
we take up? I would love to have a balanced budget amendment that
contained a supermajority vote for us to even consider raising taxes in
order to balance the budget. I would love a balanced budget amendment
with language that contained an indication that the Federal Government
cannot exceed 20 percent of GDP. That would be spectacular. In this
season of football, I'd call that a touchdown pass that wins the game.
But there are other plays as well. And I'll take a 50-yard pass; I'll
take a 75-yard pass that gets us so far

[[Page 16482]]

down the field on this debt issue that it puts us in a position to win
the day, ``winning'' meaning we save the Republic, we keep the Republic
like Franklin suggested. So I would support a clean balanced budget
amendment. Clean meaning a statement that simply says we will not spend
more than we take in. Our expenditures will equal or be less than the
revenues we take in.
Now, some of my very good conservative colleagues would say, well,
you're setting us up for one day raising taxes. That may be true. But
in all honesty, that's a different fight. We can have that tax fight
later. Liberals love to raise taxes because their solution to
everything is a bigger government, and the only way to have a bigger
government is to have a more expensive government. That will never
change. So let's not have the perfect be the enemy of the good. Let's
have that fight. And if once in awhile they win, we know that the
people who win that fight won't be here for long. And in the meantime,
we have an amendment in our Constitution that declares each one of us,
as we take the oath to uphold the Constitution, ensures that we will
live within our means.
I thank the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman from Indiana for his remarks.
We are joined now by a very important member of our conference, a
leader, the chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee
and a strong supporter of fiscal responsibility and a balanced budget
amendment, the gentleman from Texas, Congressman Pete Sessions.
I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you today for your strong
leadership and the leadership of other members of this conference for
bringing forth a discussion about a balanced budget for the United
States of America. In fact, the United States Congress has brought up
this issue before, and it has been debated and discussed obviously
since not just the time of the signing of the Declaration of
Independence, but for many, many years afterwards.
Mr. Speaker, I would say to you today that every single Member of
this body should recognize the times that we live in are unlike any
that this great Nation has ever seen.
We find that we are in the midst of a threat of outside forces
against the United States. We find ourselves in a time of war. We find
ourselves in a time when we have political unrest with thousands of
people encamped in our cities who are displeased with the direction
that this country is going. We have millions of people, some 14 million
people who are unemployed in America, some 6 million who are
underemployed in this country.
We've seen out-of-control spending that has taken place from a
Federal Government that is not accountable. They tax too much, they
spend too much, and they listen too little. We have leaders of this
country who are not honest in speaking to the American people about not
only the truths of each party and what they stand for, but who I
believe mislead others about the things for which they stand for
themselves.
We find ourselves at a time in this country where we are faced with a
$14 trillion debt that is growing every single day. In fact, if any
American looks at the debt clock, they will see that it's spinning
wildly out of control.
Mr. Speaker, I did not come to this body, nor probably did others, to
think that they would be here to manage our demise. We come to
Washington full of hope and opportunity, with the expectations to
further the dreams of the American people, to further dreams for an
experience that would allow us to enrich our lives but also to leave
that that would be the best for the next generation. As an Eagle Scout
I grew up scouting and understanding that you should always leave your
circumstances better than what you found it.
Now, I'm well aware that the President of the United States,
President Obama, keeps talking about that this is a vision that he has
about a direction, but there is no end in sight to the damage and harm,
the carnage that is being laid to this country as a result of economic
demise. But what I would say, Mr. Speaker, is there are others who have
traveled down this road ahead of us, and we are watching them today and
we've been watching them for years as the very fabric of their
countries becomes torn apart.

{time} 1600

The essential ingredients that made those countries strong, not that
put them on the map, but that gave them a heritage, a meaning and a
national purpose, they are now seeing with this current generation are
falling apart. I would say as my message today I stand strong with Bob
Goodlatte and Randy Hultgren. We have Brother Rokita here, we have
Scott Garrett from New Jersey, and we have even a Member from as far
south as Mississippi, Steven Palazzo, who are going to come forth on
this floor and talk about the need for America to gather itself with
discipline and strength to add to the spirit and the resiliency of the
American people, that of entrepreneurship, that of tough love and hard
work that will make this country stronger and better.
I stand here, Mr. Speaker, as a result of understanding, as other
Members of this body that have circumstances that are very similar to
mine. I have a future that I want to leave better than what I found it.
I have two sons, one that's in the top 2 percent academically of
students in this country, and one that is in the bottom 2 percent of
students academically. And the future of this country is very important
to them, perhaps more important than mine was to me.
But on my son who is in the top 2 percent academically, Bill, the
future of his American Dream is being threatened because he wants to be
a physician. And physician after physician, those in the health care
field, are saying, Bill, don't do that. This is his dream. On Alex's
side, as a Down Syndrome young man, he is faced with a sure future
where he will be competing against all of us for the needs that he
should have as a disabled young man that should be the mission
statement of this government. Yet, the Federal Government will be
incapable and unable to perform because they are trying to take on
everybody, and thus they will not do their job right.
Former Senator Phil Gramm from Texas would speak about this often
years ago when the same threat of a Clinton health care plan existed.
Now it's the law. And Senator Gramm would talk about that, that little
red wagon that is designed for just a few people that the Federal
Government should get it right and support with government assistance--
those with a physical or intellectual disability, those who are seniors
like our parents, yes, my parents at 81 years old who have served this
country so well, so honorably and deserve a chance to be in that wagon
in their latter years and, lastly, those who are too poor to take care
of themselves.
Mr. Speaker, this balanced budget will ensure that we try and create
a mission statement with this Federal Government that is not about
expanding itself to where it is not within a mission statement, but one
where it is within a mission statement where we are going to require
the Federal Government to do a few things and do them well, because
we're not going to have the money unless we give it to them through
economic growth. And with economic growth, people can have their own
dreams and not depend on government.
So why we're all here today there could be different reasons. But it
will boil down to this: that the men and women of this body, some of
whom I have spoken about, including the gentleman from Alabama (Mr.
Brooks) who's joined us, are here for a mission and a purpose, and that
is to join with Chairman Bob Goodlatte from Virginia and say to him
that we want to leave America a better place than what we found it; and
we believe bankruptcy debt, misery, and loss of jobs is not the right
future.
I heartily sign back up for this important effort again, which I led
in '97, '98 and '99. I, once again, sign my name to that pledge. I am
for a balanced

[[Page 16483]]

budget to leave America a better place than we found it. I thank the
gentleman for yielding me time.
Godspeed and good luck, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you for your good work. Thank you for your
efforts on behalf of this cause.
I want to make reference to the fact that this Special Order that
we're all participating in is sponsored by the House Constitution
Caucus, which is chaired by Congressman Scott Garrett of New Jersey.
We'll hear from him in a few minutes.
But now I want to yield to another new Member of Congress who has
been very, very instrumental in working on a balanced budget amendment
and has made a number of good, constructive observations and
recommendations about this issue, and that's Congressman Mo Brooks from
Alabama.
Mr. BROOKS. I thank the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. Speaker, America faces a financial threat of historic
proportions. It has one basic cause. We suffer from unsustainable
budget deficits that threaten America with insolvency and bankruptcy.
We have seen what's been going on in Europe with Greece and with Paris
from a few years ago, with Rome, with riots in Greece where there's
even been fatalities. All of these relate to the financial stewardship
of their governments.
I hope that with the remarks I'm about to share that the people of
America will have a better understanding of the deficit situation we
face, because given that understanding, I have confidence, Mr. Speaker,
that the American people will cause Washington to do the right thing.
A little bit of history is in order. I've got a chart here, the
United States annual deficits. The last balanced budget we had was $128
billion, fiscal year '01, a Democrat President, Bill Clinton, a
Republican House and Republican Senate. Since that time, we've had 9/11
and we've had wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. You can see how the deficit
situation became worse. George Bush as President and Republicans in
control of Congress to $158 billion to $377 billion to $413 billion.
All of those were bad, no question.
Notably, we have the Bush tax cuts in the summer of 2003; and,
paradoxically, from one perspective across the aisle, things should
have gotten worse, but they got better because our economy improved and
our deficit declined to $318 billion to $248 billion to $161 billion.
We were on the right path as of November 2006.
Then we had a different mindset capture the United States House and
the United States Senate. We had a different Speaker of the House, a
different majority leader in the United States Senate, and a different
philosophy of government and a different economic philosophy that
unfortunately has failed miserably.
As a consequence, after the November 2006 elections where the
Democrats captured the United States Congress, we have a $459 billion
deficit followed by a $1.4 trillion deficit. Then we have a change in
the White House. For 2 years, two budgets, two sets of expenditures and
two sets of revenues were totally controlled by the other party, my
colleagues across the aisle. In FY10 and FY11, the fiscal year that we
just finished, we had back-to-back $1.3 trillion and $1.3 trillion
deficits.
Ladies and gentlemen, these deficits were bad. These are
unsustainable trillion-dollar deficits as far as the eye can see, and
they're a great risk to our Nation. To put it into perspective, that's
$2.3 trillion in revenue last year, $3.6 trillion in expenditures, a
$1.3 trillion deficit, and a $14.3 trillion accumulated debt. With what
happened with the Budget Control Act in August of this year, a bill
that I voted against, the debt ceiling was increased by $2.4 trillion
such that it will soon hit a $16.2 trillion debt burden in 2013.
Now, I mention trillions, and people's eyes often start to glaze
over, Mr. Speaker. Let me put it down in a family sense where hopefully
the American people can better understand it. Think in terms of a
family that's uncertain about their income. So they go over their
finances, and they discover that over the last 3 years they've averaged
$50,000 a year in income--not too bad. And then they look at their
expenses, and they've been averaging $80,000 a year in expenses. That's
scary to them, and it should be. They've been in the hole 3 straight
years for $30,000 a year. Then they pick up their Visa bill, and it's
for $320,000.
Now what do you think that family would do? Well, they'd cut their
spending and they would try to balance their budget in order to avoid
bankruptcy. Those analogies are exactly the same as that of the United
States of America--those ratios.

{time} 1610

We have to have a balanced budget constitutional amendment, I submit
to the American people, Mr. Speaker, because that is the only way
Washington will have the backbone to do the right thing, to protect
future generations from the risk of insolvency and bankruptcy that we
in America face today.
So I wholeheartedly endorse the efforts of Representative Goodlatte
and all the other members of the Constitutional Caucus who have been
working so hard to come forth with a substantive, effective, and
enforceable constitutional amendment that can help save our children
and grandchildren from the seriousness of the financial situation that
we in America face today.
As for me, Mr. Speaker, I will do my utmost to support a balanced
budget constitutional amendment. I will do my utmost to ensure that it
is an effective constitutional amendment, that it's not a dog and pony
show, that, in fact, it will achieve the desired result.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman for his very passionate support
of the cause of fiscal responsibility.
As I mentioned earlier, this Special Order is being sponsored by the
Congressional Constitution Caucus. And it's now my pleasure to yield to
another great champion of limited government and lower taxes and less
government regulation and balancing the budget, Congressman Scott
Garrett of New Jersey.
Mr. GARRETT. I thank the gentleman for not only managing the floor
tonight with regard to this conference, but also with regard to all
your great work with regard to trying to push forward the BBA, making
sure we get over the goal line this time.
As the chairman and founder of the Constitutional Caucus, we rarely
come to the floor to advocate for an amendment to the Constitution, but
that's exactly what we're doing here tonight. It brings us here tonight
because the United States Government has what? Just as the other
speakers have said, overspent, overborrowed, and overtaxed, putting
this Nation on the road to fiscal ruin. Yet, as much as that is true,
there are many who believe that the solution going forward is even more
of the same: more spending, more borrowing, more taxation. And only
here in Washington, DC, could that ever be given serious consideration.
American families are not given that luxury. American families have
to do what? They have to live within their means or face fiscal
disaster in their family pocketbook. So, too, here in the United States
Government we should live within our means as well; but unfortunately,
today, as you saw the previous chart and previous speaker, we have been
incapable of doing that. And that is why we're here tonight because we
know we must force ourselves to do so through a balanced budget
amendment.
Now, step back. Amending the Constitution is a difficult process. It
should not be entered into lightly. The process reflects the Founders'
commitment to republican self-government while protecting what? The
integrity of the supreme law of the land.
And so in the spirit, then, of the Founders' vision for an amendment
to the Constitution, we support tonight a balanced budget amendment as
the only solution to excessive and irresponsible spending that we've
seen go on for far too long. And yet we hear from the other side of the
aisle and the other House--Senate majority leader called the balanced
budget amendment a radical new idea. But how radical is it really?
Radical? Well, 49 States in this

[[Page 16484]]

country have some form of a balanced budget amendment, and they realize
they must abide by it to live within their means.
A new idea? Well, indeed, Thomas Jefferson is the intellectual
forefather of the balanced budget amendment. So we can go back some 200
years. Back in 1798, when Jefferson wrote to Virginia Senator John
Taylor that the solution to then-extravagant spending was a
constitutional amendment eliminating the power of the Federal
Government to incur debt, he went on to say:
I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our
Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for the
reduction of the administration of our government to the genuine
principles of its Constitution; I mean an article, taking from the
Federal Government the power of borrowing.
Now, the balanced budget amendment is the Jeffersonian solution,
therefore, to today's debt crisis. And yet, when you think about it,
the amount of spending and overspending that they had in Jefferson's
time pales in comparison to the reckless spending that we have today
and the reckless and fiscal ineptitudes that we see going on in
Washington.
According to CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, the government
will spend nearly--get this--$1.5 trillion this year more than it takes
in. And if we refuse to balance our budget, as your amendment would do,
what will happen over the next 10 years? Almost $9.5 trillion in
additional red ink will be added to the bottom line.
So, in conclusion, the choice I think is clear: Either we continue
down the same road with blissful disregard of the warnings of financial
catastrophe that we've seen, or we do what? We amend the Constitution
to require a balanced budget and put the United States back on the road
to sustainability and also prosperity.
So let's make the balanced budget amendment the 28th Amendment to the
Constitution.
Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey, and I like the
sound of that 28th Amendment to the Constitution.
Let me just say that, as I mentioned at the outset, because of the
vote by the Congress--the House and the Senate--signed into law by the
President, we will have a vote in both the House and Senate on a
balanced budget amendment before the end of this year, before December
31. And if either body passes a specific balanced budget amendment, the
other body has to vote on the same one so that we have the greatest
possibility that if we can reach that kind of consensus, we can
actually send a balanced budget amendment for the first time to the
States for ratification. It would require 38 States to ratify it. But
as the gentleman from New Jersey just noted, 49 out of 50 States have a
requirement in their constitution that they must balance their budgets.
I believe that with the public supporting this by numbers northward
of 80 percent--and it's very bipartisan support. I saw a recent poll
that showed that 74 percent of Democrats support this, as do a great
many Democrats here in the House. In fact, to pass a constitutional
amendment with 290 votes, it has to be bipartisan. So we are working
across the aisle to make sure that we build the kind of support that we
need to pass the strongest possible amendment to our Constitution
requiring that the government lives within its means.
I yield to another great supporter of that concept, another new
Member who came here to reform the way things are done here in
Washington, DC, and who has joined us in this effort, the gentleman
from Illinois, Congressman Randy Hultgren.
Mr. HULTGREN. I want to thank my good friend and colleague for the
amazing work that you've done over the years fighting for structural
change in how Washington does its business. Thank you, Congressman
Goodlatte, I really appreciate it. I appreciate the opportunity to be
able to speak for a couple of minutes today.
Mr. Speaker, since the people of the 14th Congressional District of
Illinois sent me to be their Representative in Washington, DC, last
year, I have fought to bring accountability and responsibility back to
Congress. Time and again, I voted to cut spending and reduce the size
of Federal Government, and I haven't been shy about going against and
opposing colleagues from the Republican side of the aisle when I felt
like they weren't doing enough to get our fiscal house back in order.
With every vote, I'm guided by the belief that Washington, like our
families and small businesses across the country, needs to live within
its means. I know that the path to renewed and future prosperity lies
through a return to fiscal sanity and not by saddling our kids and our
grandkids with more debt.
Our job-creating bills--that have been sent over to the Senate and
are stuck in the Senate right now--along with less spending and less
debt will help give small business owners and job creators the
confidence they need to hire and expand, putting Americans back to work
again and getting our economy moving again.
Unfortunately, this Congress' efforts to cut spending are, on their
own, insufficient. More importantly, any cuts we make today could be
reversed by future Congresses. Long-term deficit reduction and spending
restraint can only be accomplished through real structural changes to
the way that Washington operates. And I believe, as many of you do,
that a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution is exactly the
change that we need.
I have been an outspoken advocate for a balanced budget amendment
even before being elected, and one of the first things I did after
being sworn in was to cosponsor a balanced budget amendment. A balanced
budget amendment would force the Federal Government to spend only what
it takes in--a novel concept--but it is the surest path to fiscal
sanity, less spending, and a brighter future for our kids and our
grandkids.
Support for the balanced budget amendment is gathering momentum in
Congress and across this great Nation. In fact, as Congressman
Goodlatte said, the House and Senate are required to vote on a balanced
budget amendment very soon. But Congress has been here before. In 1995,
they nearly passed a constitutional amendment mandating a balanced
budget amendment but fell one vote short in the Senate. Imagine the
difference of this Nation if that would have passed at that time than
the situation that we're in right now. Sixteen years later, we have the
chance to finally get it right.
The time is now. It is our responsibility and our duty to support a
balanced budget amendment and bring accountability back to Washington.
Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman. I very much appreciate his
comments and would note the fact that we have, speaking here tonight,
Members from many corners of the country: Indiana, Alabama, Texas,
Illinois, Mississippi, Wisconsin, New Jersey, and Virginia.

{time} 1620

In fact, Members of Congress from about 46 or 47 States have
indicated their support for at least one version of the constitutional
amendment. If we can bring all of them together, and they can bring
just a few more Members together, we can get to that 290 votes, because
this is not a regional issue, this is not a partisan issue.
This is an issue that transcends the country. It's reflected in the
fact that this is an issue we can communicate directly with our
constituents about, and they understand exactly what we're talking
about because they live with the concept that they can't spend more
than they take in year after year after year. The businesses that they
work for, they can't spend more than they take in year after year after
year. Local governments, State governments are all bound by this
principle that you cannot live beyond your means. That principle should
be enshrined in the United States Constitution.
I yield to another Member who joins us in this effort, another new
Member--and it's the new Members who have helped to bring this issue
back to the fore, who really want to see a vote

[[Page 16485]]

on this for the first time in 15 years--Congressman Reid Ribble from
Wisconsin.
Welcome.
Mr. RIBBLE. Thank you very much. It is an honor to come down to the
floor of the House and work with you, Representative Goodlatte, on this
very important issue.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about the balanced budget
amendment. I came down to the floor of the House this afternoon with
some prepared comments, spent some time putting it together and wanted
to make sure that it was right, had help from my staff, but I'm going
to go a little bit off script today.
As I've listened to my colleagues speak on this very important issue,
they've covered much of what we want to say with the historical
context, with what Thomas Jefferson, our Founder said, what Abraham
Lincoln talked about--about government being by the people.
Instead, I think I'm going to talk about my experience here in
Congress. As my friend just mentioned, I'm a new Member. As a matter of
fact, right around this day today I've been here 10 months. I've never
served in Congress before, never served in an elected capacity before.
I ran a small roofing company in Kaukauna, Wisconsin.
I have to tell you that I'm struck that we're at this place in
history. When I look at our national debt, and you look at it on a
chart and on a curve from 1787 to 2011, from about 1787 to 1940, 1945,
that line is almost indecipherable from zero. Then as you go on and you
get to the late 2000s, that line begins to turn up. And now in the last
3 years, that line is nearly vertical as our national debt continues to
explode. And that debt has to be paid.
I've told high school students and college students back in Wisconsin
where I'm from that there's a reckoning coming for them. There will be
a date and time certain that this bill will have to be paid.
And yet, as I've worked here I've just discovered that, for whatever
reason, whether it's partisan bickering or pure ideological
differences, that we cannot, it seems, find agreement on controlling
our national debt and our deficits, annual deficits.
Just a few years ago the deficit was only $160 billion. As we heard
from my colleague from Alabama, the last 3 years it's been over $1
trillion each and every year. Something clearly has changed, and we
would like to say that it's changed in our economy. I would propose to
you, sir, that maybe it has changed in our government.
At some point, I call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, my
friends that are Republicans and Democrats alike, it is time to put the
sword down. We cannot, in fact, Mr. Speaker, we must not allow this
type of spending to continue so that our children, my grandchildren,
your children and grandchildren, will have to pay this bill, a bill
that they did not make and a bill that they should not owe.
So I stand before you today challenging my colleagues to consider a
better path forward, one that we use in our families, one that we use
in our businesses, one that 49 States use in their State governments,
and that is a balanced budget amendment to the United States
Constitution.
Just the other day I was standing right over where my colleague was
and is standing right now, and I had a copy of the Internal Revenue
Code. It's nearly 10,000 pages of fine print. An amendment to the
Constitution will be just a few words, and it's a simple thing.
But most importantly, the amendment to the Constitution that would
call for a balanced budget allows the American people, not just through
their Representatives here in Congress, which we clearly have seen is
not going to solve the problem, but allows the American people to
finally have a say through the ratification process.
I had a telephone town hall recently, Mr. Speaker, with 15,000
Americans on the line. I did a poll and I asked them, how many of you
would support a balanced budget amendment to the United States
Constitution requiring the government to live within its means? Over 80
percent of those respondents said that they would support this.
I want you to know, Mr. Speaker, that millions of families and
businesses every day live under the constraint of a balanced budget. As
a father, as a former small business owner, and now as a Member of
Congress, I have a different perspective on this whole thing, and the
perspective is that we must, must move forward with this.
As a father, I tried to teach my children the value of hard work, the
importance of saving for the future and not spending more than they
earn. As a business owner, I operated my company that same way. And
now, as a Member of Congress, I recognize that these ideas that many of
us, I would dare say the majority of Americans, hold true, is just as
good for their government. And so if a balanced budget in your family,
in your business, in your church and in your community and your State
makes sense, it clearly makes sense here.
The reckless spending will never stop, I believe, without it. There
will neither be the political will nor the courage to do so. Since
Washington has proven itself incapable of doing this job, it's time
that we let the people, the citizens of America have a voice so that
they can force their government to act responsibly.
I call on my colleagues to pass a balanced budget amendment to the
United States Constitution through this Chamber, the United States
Senate, and then send it back to the people, where they will finally
have their voice heard.
Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman for his comments.
As I indicated earlier, this is an issue that has to have a
bipartisan solution. It simply is not possible to pass constitutional
amendments that require two-thirds of the House, or 290 Members, and
two-thirds of the Senate, 67 Members, without Members reaching across
the aisle and working together to come up with language that is
agreeable and can be supported on both sides of the aisle.
And quite frankly, the nature of the problem that we are confronted
with is one that past Congresses controlled by both parties, Presidents
of both parties have contributed to, and the solution is going to have
to require also that same kind of bipartisan working it out on a year-
to-year basis balancing the budget.
It won't be easy. There will be tremendous differences of opinion
about whether we should do this by cutting spending or raising
revenues, or doing other things that can grow our economy and cause
more revenues to come in. But it cannot get to the first stage of
having future Congresses live by this without it being bipartisan.
That's why I'm so pleased that so many members of the Democratic Party
have signed on to support this effort. They've been led by an
outstanding Member who has championed a balanced budget amendment for a
long time, and that's Congressman Peter DeFazio from Oregon.
I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for
his leadership on this issue over almost a couple of decades. It's been
a long struggle. I hope the time is here.
I was one of 73 Democrats in 1995 to support a balanced budget
amendment which was basically silent on the issue of whether we would
get there with additional revenues and reforms that would raise
revenues, or with spending cuts, or a combination of both. Ultimately,
in the nineties, by a combination of revenue increases and reforms and
spending cuts, we did reach a balance in the year 2000, and actually
paid down debt. And had we passed that amendment in 1995, we wouldn't
be looking at a $14-plus trillion mountain of debt today.
As the gentleman before me spoke, that's not the legacy that I want
to leave to our kids and grandkids and great-grandkids, given the
magnitude of that debt. We have a responsibility to act, and anyone who
is observing Washington these days can see that it's hard, it's really
hard for Congress to come together and decide on issues that are
extraordinarily important to our Nation.

{time} 1630

We really need a little bit of forced discipline, I would say; and
that's the

[[Page 16486]]

way I look at a balanced budget amendment, that H.J. Res. 2 would force
us over a relatively short period of time to make very difficult
decisions on, yes, the potential for revenue increases or spending cuts
with virtually everything on the table to get to a mandatory balance of
the budget within a short period of time.
Then to begin to pay down the debt, which will take, if we aren't
running surpluses and we merely balance the budget into the future,
including our payments of interest and principal on the debt, it will
be some 30 years before our country could be debt free.
But that would at least be a point in time in which we knew that our
grandkids and others to follow would not be inheriting that debt.
So I'm very hopeful that when we have a vote some time, I understand,
perhaps in the next month, that we have an opportunity to bring up what
I believe is the version of the balanced budget amendment, most likely
to be able to engender a majority as it did in 1995, and that would be
H.J. Res. 2.
With that, I thank the gentleman for the time, and I look forward to
continuing to work with his leadership on this issue.
Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman.
In the next few weeks, as we anticipate a vote coming up quite soon,
we have a lot of work to do to make sure that we are giving every
Member of this body an opportunity to speak out for fiscal
responsibility and not just speak but put their vote on the line and
say, yes, we think we should send to the States an amendment to the
Constitution to require a balanced budget.
We are also joined by another new Member who has been a very strong
advocate for cutting government spending and having government operate
more efficiently and believes strongly in requiring that our government
do what everyone else in our society has to do, and that is live within
its means, balance its budget, and that's Congressman Marlin Stutzman
from Indiana.
I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. STUTZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Goodlatte, and thank you, Mr. Speaker,
for the time that we can come to the floor and talk about this
important issue.
I think it's an opportunity for us here in Washington to do something
that changes the direction of our fiscal condition in Washington, D.C.,
and our Federal Government.
As we all know, the economy has been very difficult for families
across this country in so many different ways. And people have realized
and have made tough decisions within their own budget, whether it's a
family budget, whether it's a business budget, and realize that the
economy and the difficulties that we face today are forcing decisions
to be made that are sometimes difficult, are not sometimes the choices
that we'd like to make.
But as the Federal Government continues to spend and spend money that
we don't have, money that we're borrowing--40 cents for every dollar
that we spend is borrowed money--I believe that this is a time for us
to let the people speak, let the American people speak on an issue that
is a principle that is so foundational for our family budgets, our
business budgets, what should be a very basic principle for our
government in the way that we operate, and that is a balanced budget
amendment.
This is a historic opportunity. It could also have historic
consequences. I believe that if we do not rein in Federal Government
spending and save the American Dream, we will, in effect, determine the
future of our great country. It is just very simple, and I believe that
as we take this time to talk about the balanced budget amendment,
whatever version people support in this Chamber and across the Hall in
the Senate, I believe that we have to have some basic principles, basic
concepts that we can all agree on.
How can we not agree on saying that every year Congress passes a
budget it's going to be balanced? It is just common sense.
I come from a State that has a balanced budget amendment, Indiana.
And we have a balanced budget. And now I know the temptations that have
come across the State legislature in Indiana to pass budgets that are
out of balance.
But if we have that anchor here in Washington that says we have to
pass a balanced budget, that we cannot continue to borrow and spend,
that is what's going to keep Washington in check.
Our Constitution is the bedrock of our experiment in self-government.
It is a remarkable document. Libraries have been written on its
importance and its legal application, but we cannot forget that the
wisdom our Founding Fathers built in the Constitution is timeless and
they're very simple truths.
People give the government its power is one of those. Government
exists to protect our God-given rights. Men are not perfect, so neither
is our government. So it must be limited, checked, and balanced.
Our great Nation rests on these principles. If we still believe in
those principles, we must recognize another simple but profound truth:
good government must live within its means.
So that's why I believe the balanced budget amendment to our
Constitution is crucial at this time. When we face $15 trillion of
debt, we're handing off and saddling our children and every person in
this country $48,000 of debt per individual. Unemployment has held
steady at historic high rates. Confidence is declining, and Washington,
like a spoiled child, continues to talk about tax increases and
stimulus programs that just do not work.
I believe we owe it to our generation, to future generations, to pass
a balanced budget amendment to our Constitution that requires the
Federal Government to live within its means just like every American
family and just like businesses across this country that are going to
move this economy forward.
I thank the gentleman from Virginia for his efforts with the balanced
budget amendment, and I am proud to stand here today and support it;
and I believe this is a great opportunity for Congress to stand with
the American people. This is our opportunity, and we must not fail.
Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman.
I have to say that we've seen support from all across the country,
from east coast States like New Jersey and Virginia all the way to the
west coast to Oregon. We've heard from Members of both parties, we've
heard from Members from States along the Canadian border, and Members
from States on the gulf coast.
This amendment has broad, broad support in the Congress, but it has a
high hill to climb in needing 290 Members to vote for it. We're
continuing to work to find that support. It's not a new idea. It's been
around for almost as long as our Constitution.
Thomas Jefferson has been cited, and I'll read that again here. He
said, ``I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our
Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for the
reduction of the administration of our government. I mean an additional
article taking from the Federal Government the power of borrowing.'' He
said that in 1798. That's not the only thing he said.
Later in his life he said, ``There does not exist an engine so
corruptive of the government and so demoralizing of the Nation as a
public debt. It will bring on us more ruin at home than all the enemies
from abroad against whom this Army and Navy are to protect us.'' Thomas
Jefferson said that in 1821.
And about our future generations, which several Members have
commented on here tonight, Thomas Jefferson said in 1789, the year that
our Constitution went into effect, ``Then I say, the Earth belongs to
each of these generations during its course fully, and in its own
right. The second generation receives it clear of the debts and
encumbrances of the first, the third of the second, and so on. For if
the first could charge it with a debt, then the Earth would belong to
the dead and not to the living generation.''
Thomas Jefferson wrote that to James Madison in 1789, and how
prescient was that as our new Nation was

[[Page 16487]]

starting work under a new Constitution that he would observe that we
are where we are today where we are passing on to future generations
debt that is unsustainable.
How ironic it is that we borrow money today to pay for programs today
and put that burden on the backs of our children and grandchildren and
those not yet even born with the likelihood that if we do not change
from this course, we will find that those very children and
grandchildren will not have these programs when they need to depend
upon it. They will only have the debt.

{time} 1640

This is what Thomas Jefferson meant when he said the Earth would
belong to the dead and not to the living.
Finally, let me give you one more quote:
``To preserve the independence of the people, we must not let our
rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between
economy and liberty or profusion and servitude.''
Mr. ROKITA. Just a quick note to the gentleman from Virginia.
As we're talking about ``why this hill''--and I think you mentioned
the hill being so high and so hard to climb--there might be people at
home watching right now, maybe even some in this Chamber right now, who
are wondering: Why would this be so difficult? We had others come up
and say they had a telephone town hall where over 80 percent of their
constituents were in favor of this. Why is this so hard?
We have to think of it this way:
There are two groups of constituents, and we can't appease both sets
all the time. There is a constituency that's the here and now that will
ensure that, if we do things they want, they'll give us another
election; they'll let us serve longer. Yet there is another
constituency that doesn't even exist yet. No matter what we do, we
won't be around for them to reward us. I would just suggest that
everyone here in this House of Representatives serve that latter
constituency: our kids, our grandkids, those who don't even exist yet.
Vote for them to make sure that we keep the Republic.
For those of you who are watching, make sure you tell your
Representatives, Hey, I want you to vote, not for me, not so that I can
have more on my plate now; I want you to vote for our future.
If the people of this country demand that of their Representatives
and their Senators, we will keep the Republic as Franklin demanded.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, that's an excellent note on which to
close.
I want to thank the gentleman from Indiana and everyone else who has
participated and the other gentleman from Indiana.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Palazzo). Members are reminded to
address the Chair and not the viewing audience.

____________________

REPORT ON RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2930,
ENTREPRENEUR ACCESS TO CAPITAL ACT, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF
H.R. 2940, ACCESS TO CAPITAL FOR JOB CREATORS ACT

Mr. SESSIONS, from the Committee on Rules (during the Special Order
of Mr. Goodlatte), submitted a privileged report (Rept. No. 112-265) on
the resolution (H. Res. 453) providing for consideration of the bill
(H.R. 2930) to amend the securities laws to provide for registration
exemptions for certain crowdfunded securities, and for other purposes,
and providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2940) to direct the
Securities and Exchange Commission to eliminate the prohibition against
general solicitation as a requirement for a certain exemption under
Regulation D, which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to
be printed.

____________________

MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY CAUCUS

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 5, 2011, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen) is
recognized for 30 minutes.
Mr. PAULSEN. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
For the next few minutes, some of us who are members of the Medical
Technology Caucus are going to share some of our thoughts about some of
the recent troubling developments that are threatening this American
industry. I will tell you, as cochair of the Medical Technology Caucus,
in Minnesota, I get a chance to tour these companies. We all know the
big names of the big titan companies; but nearly every week, I get a
chance to tour one of these small companies that might have five
employees, that might have 10 employees--companies that are not yet
profitable.
They're working on these really innovative and neat technologies that
are there to help patients improve their lives and save their lives. In
fact, Mr. Speaker, from 1980 to 2000, the medical technology firms were
responsible for a 4 percent increase in U.S. life expectancy, a 16
percent decrease in mortality rates, and also an astounding 25 percent
decline in elderly disability rates. I think, as we'll hear from some
of our colleagues, particularly from the Indiana delegation, which is
where we were just about a week and a half ago, we're learning there
are some new hurdles on the horizon.
Number one, there is a medical device tax that will be imposed in
just a little over a year. It's a $20 billion tax, and studies have
shown it's going to cost the industry about 10 percent of their
workforce. It's about 43,000 jobs that will be at risk. In fact, I just
met with an owner of a company today who mentioned that he believes
this excise tax, if put in place 1 year from now, will cost his company
at least 50 high-paying jobs.
Then you have the other issue of just an FDA that has become so
bureaucratic, so unpredictable, so inconsistent, and so nontransparent
that it's becoming more difficult for these companies to bring these
lifesaving technologies to market to make sure that the patients have
access to them.
I have traveled the country--to California, to Boston, to New York,
and we'll have a chance to go to North Carolina--where these pockets of
industries in the medical technology field are really strong and
vibrant. One area in particular was Indiana.
We were there just a little over a week and a half ago, and I will
tell you, of the folks who testified there--the companies and the
presence there and the jobs there--it was compelling. In fact, I'll
never forget the words from one of the testifiers there at the
committee when he mentioned, when he gets asked for advice on where to
invest, on where to start up, that his advice to new companies is, Go
to Europe. Go to Europe.
That is the wrong message.
Mr. Speaker, in this down economy, when we are trying to save jobs,
when we are trying to encourage job creation, we're encouraging one of
our best American success stories, one of our few net exporters, to
move overseas.
We've got legislation that's actually moving forward now. Many of
these members are coauthors of not only repealing the tax but also of
streamlining and modernizing the FDA to make sure we're doing what
Europe is doing, for instance, and to make sure we don't have as high a
hurdle. We want to make sure there is a strong, relevant, rigorous
process at the FDA because these companies want the gold standard. They
want the gold standard of approval, but they don't want the goalpost
moved in the middle of the process to make it so ridiculous that their
investments are not going to be worthy of the risk/reward that they
hope to have pay off.
When we were in Indiana, we had a bipartisan gathering of Mr. Rokita,
Mr. Young, Mr. Stutzman, and Mr. Donnelly who were there, along with
Representative Guthrie from the Energy and Commerce Committee. They
took the time to come out, to listen to

[[Page 16488]]

these companies that testified and also, more importantly, to listen to
the patients. We had a patient testify as well, Sheila Fraser, who is a
young high school student who was testifying about a device that was
implanted in her leg. It truly is an amazing success story because, in
a lot of cases, folks like her have to have amputations, and this is a
device that is now improving her life.
So I think, as much as we like to talk about the jobs and the
economic benefits, it's also just as important to hear it from the
patients' perspectives as to how these lifesaving technologies are
helping them and how these life-improving technologies are helping
them.
As I mentioned earlier, we've been to California, and Mr. Bilbray is
going to talk in a little while. This is an industry that covers many
spectrums of the economy across the country. So I just want folks who
are watching out there in America to understand there are some of us
who really care about this industry. We're fighting for it, and we
appreciate the input and dialogue that we've had as a part of that.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I want to first yield to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Rokita), who has been a leader already on this issue and
has helped us get coauthors to repeal that onerous innovation tax.
Mr. ROKITA. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I also thank the
gentleman for his leadership.
We were pleased to welcome you to Indiana, and I know you get that
same kind of welcome all over the Nation.
The gentleman from Minnesota, I think, has done an excellent job in
making sure that this issue not only was formulated the right way, not
only was formulated in a bipartisan way, but is now on the verge of
going through committee and coming to the floor so we can take action.
What action are we speaking of?
There is an insidious tax that was put in the new health care law, a
law colloquially referred to as ObamaCare. It is a 2.3 percent tax on
innovation. I often get asked in Indiana's Fourth District and in other
places around the State: How do we stay competitive? Why are you
letting jobs go overseas?
I am the first to point out that to succeed in this country, to
succeed in this Nation, if we are to be prosperous--to maintain and
increase our prosperity in the 21st century--we have got to stay a step
or two or five ahead of our competition. In Indiana, we're not
competing with people in Fort Wayne or in Jeffersonville or in Terre
Haute. We're competing with people from places that we can barely
pronounce, meaning not in the United States. No country was ever
ultimately successful by building a wall, whether it's a physical wall
like we found in ancient China or an economic wall like we see with
tariffs or, in this case, with taxes on companies and on an industry
that continues to innovate, that continues to keep us on the cutting
edge of what the world is doing in this area. That's important. That is
the key to our success.
By taxing these devices, by taxing this industry, you're not going to
get more of it; you're not going to get more innovation. You're going
to get less. If you want less of something, you tax it. By the way,
when you do that, you're not even going to get more revenue to pay for
that all-inclusive, government-run, bureaucrat-interpreted health care
system.

{time} 1650

I'm really pleased to be a cosponsor. I continue to learn on this
issue. I learned a lot from the field hearing that was done.
I would like to echo the point that was made: This was a bipartisan
hearing. Just like in the last hour, we saw in a bipartisan way that we
have to live within our means, and we can do that through a balanced
budget amendment. We had Democrats come to speak on that.
At the field hearing we had on the repeal bill of the medical device
tax, we had that same kind of bipartisanship. Bipartisanship does
exist. It exists in Indiana. And with this bill, it can exist here on
the House floor as well.
I was alarmed as well. The person testifying was Steve Ferguson from
the Cook Group. Mr. Cook, when he started his company, he started from
a spare bedroom in his apartment and grew it to a multibillion dollar
operation. He is one of the best examples of an American success story.
And his partner, Mr. Steve Ferguson, who testified--I will back up Mr.
Paulsen in this--said, when new startups come to him, when young men
and women come with an idea and want to start a company, he says, go to
Europe. Not because he isn't a true-blooded American patriot, but
because he's giving honest advice.
Now what does that say about our Federal Government? What does that
say about our bureaucracy when, instead of going through the FDA
approval process, the best advice is to go through the bureaucracy of a
union of countries that can barely stay afloat because of the debt
they're incurring? Where does that put us in a 21st century world?
Where does that put us in terms of our ability to continue innovating,
in terms of our ability to be prosperous?
We have got to put the swords down, as it was said earlier. We have
got to come together and realize that it's that innovation, it's that
economic freedom, it's that liberty to associate and provide an equal
opportunity for one's own success that has made us the best and most
successful experiment in self-governance that the world has ever known
and, as a result, has kept us on the cutting edge of profit-making
innovations that employ people, that keep taxes low, where we've proven
time and time again that the way to success is doing the opposite of
levying a tax, by letting individual men and women rise and fall on
their own decisions. That's what this medical device bill does.
Thank you for sponsoring this time, Representative Paulsen. It's been
an honor and a privilege and a pleasure to work with you.
Mr. PAULSEN. I thank the gentleman again for his leadership. I just
want to mention too, you had mentioned all the authors of this bill
that are trying to repeal this onerous tax. There are actually 204
Members now, Mr. Speaker, that want to repeal this tax, bipartisan
support. The amount of money this tax is expected to raise is actually
equal annually to the amount of money that's invested in the industry
every year. So it is a very wrongheaded move.
One of the first coauthors of this bill that would repeal this tax
and who, I think, recognizes the importance of this industry is my
friend and colleague from Pennsylvania. I yield to him and thank him
for his leadership and for being a part of the caucus effort.
Mr. ALTMIRE. I thank the gentleman from Minnesota. I can't think of
anybody in the Congress who has done more for medical innovation, his
leadership on the medical device tax, on FDA reform issues, than Mr.
Paulsen. It's an honor for me to be here tonight to discuss this issue
before the House.
What we have done in a very strong and forceful bipartisan way, which
is critically important and something we don't do nearly enough of in
this Chamber, is to send a message that we want to protect the medical
device industry in America. The innovations that are created in this
country are second to none. The way that we handle the FDA process
could be improved, and we are going to talk about that shortly.
But with regard to medical device issues in particular, I'm fortunate
that the district I represent is home to a number of large and small
medical device manufacturers that are doing great work right here in
America, producing medical devices that we rely on in this country,
that millions of Americans depend on.
And when we last year, in the last session of Congress, went through
the debate and eventually passage of the health care reform bill--which
I voted against--one of the issues that was in there was the medical
device tax, which seemed pretty arbitrary. They were looking for
sources of funding. They were looking for ways to make the bill come
into balance. And one of the industries that they targeted for

[[Page 16489]]

the tax was the medical device industry. I believe very forcefully that
it was shortsighted. I think it was something that should not have been
done. That's an industry that we have international leadership on in
this country. It's an industry that millions of Americans have an
everyday benefit from.
What we did was say, Well, you look at the portion of overall health
care costs in the country that that industry represents, and you are
going to create a tax that's going to pay for approximately that
portion of that industry to go towards the health care bill. I didn't
think it made sense then. I don't think it makes sense now. What I want
to do, along with the gentleman from Minnesota and the other 202--the
total of 204 cosponsors of this legislation--is just put common sense
back in place to say, we want to continue to have those innovations
take place in America, not in other countries; to continue to show the
worldwide leadership that we have shown and to continue to allow
American citizens to benefit from the great work that's being done
across the spectrum, large and small, of medical device manufacturers
in this country.
So the $20 billion cost that's associated with this tax is just the
tip of the iceberg. We're going to lose a lot more than just the cost
of what it's going to take to pay that tax if you're in the medical
device industry. We're going to lose the innovation. We're going to
lose the talent because we're competing with other countries for the
top talent in the world, and where individual people want to reside
when they undertake research and development of new drugs, new
pharmaceuticals, and also new medical devices. This tax is absolutely
the wrong thing to do, and I strongly support the gentleman's effort to
repeal the tax. We're going to talk later on, and I'm going to join the
discussion on FDA reform and some of the things we're doing, working
together, but this medical device tax, the reason it has attracted
bipartisan support for the repeal is because it makes no sense. It's
burdensome, and it's absolutely the wrong thing to do.
Mr. PAULSEN. I thank the gentleman again for his leadership and for
really standing up for Pennsylvania companies and understanding this is
an American success story, as he outlined. He is actually a coauthor of
some bills that are there to streamline and modernize the FDA, which we
will talk about in a second as well.
We also have my friend, the gentleman from Indiana, here as well. Mr.
Stutzman, I think you were at the hearing. Maybe you could share some
of what you learned from the hearing in Indiana.
Mr. STUTZMAN. I thank the gentleman from Minnesota. It was a great
day for us because of the things that we learned from those folks who
testified at the hearing there in Indianapolis.
Those of us in Indiana, we love racing, we love agriculture, we love
manufacturing. But we also have an industry there that we are very
proud of and is one of the emerging businesses for the world. The
orthopedic industry has $36 billion worldwide in revenue. And I am
fortunate enough to represent Indiana's Third Congressional District,
which includes the city of Warsaw and the areas surrounding Warsaw,
which is the orthopedics capital of the world.
I can tell you, you hear a lot of the great stories about racing from
Indiana. There are also great stories about companies that started in
apartments or in a garage from folks in Indiana in this particular
industry. It's an industry that I believe is so beneficial to people in
a personal way. I can tell you myself that my grandmother had two of
her hips replaced. And that is the industry that we are talking about;
knees, joints, hips, other parts of our body that can be replaced to
increase the quality of life that we enjoy.

{time} 1700

My grandmother had her hips replaced, and I know what it did for her.
This industry was really started about helping people and increasing
the quality of life that people have. We had a young lady there, Sheila
Fraser, who the gentleman from Minnesota mentioned. What a great story.
What an amazing young lady. She is a senior from Mishawaka, Indiana,
who had a knee replaced because of cancer in her bone. They can take
this particular device and extend it. As she grows taller, as her body
grows, they can adjust this particular device inside her leg as she
continues to grow. It's amazing technology, and that's why it's so
important for us to protect this industry, to do no harm to the
industry because it's growing fast. At a time when America is facing
high unemployment rates, this industry continues to grow. These are
high-paying jobs.
I know it is a huge benefit to the part of Indiana that I represent.
The jobs that are created, these are jobs that pay well and the type of
jobs that we want to keep right here in America.
As we talked about this tax, it is going to be a burden on these
businesses and on these jobs. I can tell you already after talking to
the folks in northeast Indiana at these businesses that there are other
countries like China. China has a growing population. You have other
countries that are starting to advance in bioscience, and this is why
it is so important for us to make sure that we don't affect this
industry in a way that it will start looking to other countries like
China or India, other places around the world. Europe, obviously, is
already a mature market. China is an emerging market, and they want
these particular devices built there. If we build them here, we can
export them to countries like China, and they can be buying American-
made products from companies and people who live in my community where
they are building these particular devices.
As was mentioned, 204 Members of the House of Representatives are
signed on to the repeal of this tax which I believe is a great number,
almost a majority. I would urge our leadership to bring this bill
forward to the floor for a vote because we know if this tax stays in
place, these companies are going to start looking elsewhere because
this is a huge burden upon them.
I thank each Member who was at the hearing in Indianapolis. We saw
some fantastic, amazing things that are being developed. And if we can
keep government from hindering this type of technology, this type of
growth, we're going to lead in new ways in manufacturing. We have the
automobile industry and the steel industry. This is an emerging market
that will continue to grow as people gain in wealth and they gain in
access to these types of services in the health care industry.
I would just encourage all of my colleagues to sign on to this piece
of legislation because we don't want to see this type of industry move
outside of the United States. I appreciate Mr. Paulsen and his
leadership.
Mr. PAULSEN. As you mentioned, I think one of the things that folks
don't often recognize, the medical device industry is high-value
manufacturing. Boy, I think of a State like California and the high-
value manufacturing that exists there. I visited some companies in
California one time, and I would like to yield to Mr. Bilbray who has
been a leader on moving some of the packages of bills to help
streamline the FDA and to modernize the FDA as well.
Mr. BILBRAY. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is leading on not just an issue of jobs.
This is an issue of jobs and lives. I think that is one thing we
overlook so often. I am glad to hear about the hearing in Indianapolis
because we had a hearing in San Diego. I'm sure that you guys are glad
that you didn't have to come to the hearing in San Diego because we
were in La Jolla overlooking the beach and the surf at the Scripps
Institution of Oceanography. But maybe some day you will be able to
break away and come to one of our hearings down in San Diego.
But, Mr. Speaker, we're talking about an issue that is not discussed
enough. I guess one of the issues that I'm really excited about on this
one is it's a bipartisan effort. If there was one thing I want everyone
to know about Washington, D.C.--Democrats, Republicans or
Independents--the biggest problem with this town isn't that Washington
tries new things or that Washington makes mistakes; but when Washington
tries new things and

[[Page 16490]]

makes mistakes, they're not willing to go back and correct it and
straighten it out. They ignore it.
In fact, a lot of times they think the only problem is just throw
more money or taxes at it or more regulation, and somehow it will make
it better. I think this is one of those items where Democrats and
Republicans should get together and say, Look, this was rushed through,
really wasn't looked into in depth and needs to be corrected and
straightened out.
That is what this bill, both the gentleman's bill and my bill say: We
need a step back period, a cooling off time, and let's look at this and
straighten this out. And the first thing we have to do is take this
huge tax off the back of not just the producers but the American
consumer. We're talking about a tax of $20 billion on an industry that
can ill afford this kind of burden, especially at this time. We're
talking in California alone 112,000 jobs, and something that all of us
will say later if we lose these jobs, Oh, my God, how could we have
done this. More importantly, we are talking about those lives of the
people who depend on not just those devices that are out there today,
but those that will be out there in the future.
Is there anyone here that can assure themselves that their children
or grandchildren or granddaughter or grandson or even their mother or
father won't need to have medical devices somewhere down the line, not
just to improve the quality of life, but to ensure life extension? Or
the fact of just being able to survive certain medical crises? Those
are all questions that we need to ask ourselves individually. But as a
Nation, we need to ask ourselves: Was this the right step for us to
take at this time or at any time? And if it wasn't, we have to be brave
enough to do what Washington doesn't do enough, and that is go back and
correct the mistakes and move on in a much better and much more secure
form, something that can be substantiated.
Let me be very blunt, as someone who has a major medical device
industry in my community, that there are ways we can correct these
things. Anna Eshoo and I, back in the 1990s, actually did tort reform
for medical devices. There was a kind of bipartisan support of it
saying put politics aside and put people first, and when it comes down
to it, you do not provide health care to the public by taxing it out of
the country. You're not going to make those kinds of opportunities
available to either the people who need the jobs or those who need the
medical breakthrough.
I want to say again that I look forward to working on this, and I
look forward to working on a bipartisan effort with my colleagues on
both sides of the aisle, things like FDA reform, which is going to be
another essential step that we have to do to make sure that we keep
this vibrant industry here, or we will all rue the day, Democrat and
Republican, if we allow it to leave the country and the jobs and
medical breakthroughs go with them.
Also, the huge resources that we have for more research and
development to be brought back into this country by repatriating
American money that is overseas, that is being kept overseas, but
because of punitive actions of the Federal Government here in
Washington, D.C., $2 trillion that could come back to help do research
and development, to save lives, to develop the next generation of
medical devices, to be able to create that opportunity in economics and
in medical breakthroughs, that's the kind of thing that we need to see
Democrats and Republicans work together on.
I look forward to building on the cooperation we see in this bill,
and work on it in other bills related to public health and the economic
opportunities of creating jobs in America with American jobs on
American soil.
Mr. PAULSEN. I thank the gentleman for being a leader. When folks
think of States like California, they think of high technology and
medical devices, but it's the investors who have a large component in
States like California that invest in these companies. Unfortunately,
the FDA has become so risk averse that the investors aren't investing
the resources needed to start the new products, and that's the pipeline
going over to Europe. That's the challenge we have.
Someone else at the hearing a little over a week ago was my friend
and colleague, Mr. Young, who also heard some of these personal stories
not only from the patient perspective but the innovator perspective.
I want to thank the gentleman from Indiana for his leadership and for
inviting me to be a part of that hearing in Indiana.
Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for his
leadership and I certainly share your desire to lighten the burden on
this high-value-added industry. We need to ensure that all of the
manufacturing jobs, all of the job and economic growth opportunities
that we can help create an environment for, a nurturing environment
for, that we do.

{time} 1710

One thing that I hear as I travel around southeastern Indiana and
listen to my constituents, there's a lot of feedback about the level of
uncertainty within our economy. There's regulatory uncertainty, there's
uncertainty about future tax rates, and there's uncertainty about
energy rates and health care costs. And so these medical device
manufacturers are certainly laboring under the burden of uncertainty
with respect to the FDA regulatory process. And then here we add an
additional excise tax to their bottom line. And so I'm happy to support
H.R. 436, which would lighten that burden.
I don't think probably many people appreciate--I certainly didn't
appreciate it until I started looking into it--exactly how burdensome
this device tax could be on the medical device industry. The tax is 2.3
percent of gross sales. So that's a top-line tax before all the other
deductions and costs come out. So, essentially, that would translate
into about 15 percent taxation on profits of many of these medical
device companies. You add that 15 percent profit tax to 35 percent
corporate tax and the 5 percent tax when you add together the State and
the local corporate tax burden, and you're north of 50 percent of tax
on profits. So it's no wonder that so many of these device makers are
instead deciding to expand their operations or start up new operations
overseas. And we have to do what we can to prevent that.
Now, in my home State of Indiana, approximately 40 percent of all
life sciences sector jobs are related to this devices industry, this
high value-added industry that improves the lives of so many patients
and certainly all the workers who work at these companies. My district,
in particular, has some employers that we'd like to keep around, like
the Cook Group in Bloomington, my hometown. And then as we head further
south to Jeffersonville, Indiana, we have MedVenture. And there are
people everywhere in between that work at this company.
The tax impact is going to burden not just the large companies,
however. There are 300-plus FDA-approved medical device manufacturers
in the State of Indiana. And as my colleague from Minnesota just
indicated, they're all searching for financing. They're searching for
venture capital to bring their fledgling operations to the next level.
So a Cook Group could probably weather this storm and figure out some
way to remain profitable, but it's the next Cook of the world, the next
tinkerer in their garage or their spare bedroom that may not be able to
grow their business and create the jobs that our constituents are all
demanding should this device tax go into effect January 1 of next year
as it's currently scheduled to do.
The regulatory challenges which I've already mentioned are also very
important. They must be addressed separately. I know there's separate
legislation out there to do that, and I will be supporting that
initiative as well. But the bottom line here is that there are jobs at
stake and there are people's lives at stake as well.
We heard very powerful testimony from Sheila Fraser. Her name has
been mentioned here before. She is an outstanding young lady, a high
school student, who at a very young age contracted cancer, and she was
going to

[[Page 16491]]

have to have her leg amputated. And because of the ingenuity and the
entrepreneurship of people in my home State of Indiana, they were able
to put together a company and sell these products and develop a product
that benefited Sheila Fraser directly. And now she's living a very
productive life, and she has both of her legs, thank the Lord. And we
need other people to benefit from similar sorts of innovations in the
future.
I am most proud to be here to speak on behalf of H.R. 436. I urge my
colleagues to sign on to this legislation and to vote in favor of it.
Mr. PAULSEN. I thank the gentleman. I'm not sure how much time we
have left in our colloquy, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. PAULSEN. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

____________________

CIVILIAN PROPERTY REALIGNMENT ACT

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 5, 2011, the gentleman from California (Mr. Denham) is
recognized for 30 minutes.
Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Speaker, I am here this afternoon to talk about H.R.
1734, the Civilian Property Realignment Act. Here we have an
opportunity to not only cut waste, but also to create jobs and to bring
in new revenue without raising taxes. Here's an opportunity for
Republicans and Democrats to agree and send the President actually
something he is asking for.
What the Civilian Property Realignment Act would do would be to have
greater oversight over leasing authority. We would also have
redevelopment of underutilized property, the best use possible, and
combine agencies. Where you may have 50 percent of an agency in one
building, 50 percent in another, we're going to combine them into one
agency.
And then we're going to sell off the things we just don't need,
properties that we have around the entire Nation, some of which have
sat vacant, some of them are declared excess, underutilized, sell off
the things we just don't need.
And then, finally, we want to create transparency. We want to shrink
the size of government by creating transparency, showing how many
employees are going to be housed in which buildings, and before we go
out and lease new space or buy new space actually let people know
before we go out and hire new employees. This is the best opportunity,
I believe, to shrink the size of government.
I want to go through these one by one. First of all, oversight of
leasing authority. We held a hearing several months ago. The Security
Exchange Commission went out over a weekend and secured 1 million
square feet over the next 10 years at the cost of $550 million. Over
half a billion dollars of taxpayer dollars were committed on a weekend
with no oversight, with no authority, and today we still have a vacant
space because the employees that may have been hired have never been
hired, and there's no proposal to ever hire the employees, yet
taxpayers are now on the hook for $550 million.
We need new oversight. We need greater oversight. The SEC, the
Securities and Exchange Commission, we have now pulled back their
oversight, but this is happening in many different areas of the
bureaucracy. Many different agencies have this authority today and
still have the ability to go out and secure these types of leases. It
is time to bring it all under one department. GSA has the opportunity
to manage all of our leases, all of our portfolios, and make sure that
we are actually making sound business decisions. What a philosophy that
is for government--actually see what we need, what agencies have how
many employees, what are their leasing needs, have the transparency and
the oversight before we go secure a new lease.
Redevelopment--we need to redevelop some of these properties. The Old
Post Office right down the street here about a block away from the
White House, a property that we had built in the late 1800s, it's a
beautiful property. It's one of the tallest buildings in the capital
region. It has a big clock. It is a nice historic building. That's one
we don't want to sell off. But rather than spend $6\1/2\ million every
year in upkeep, rather than have this vacant building that could be
utilized, why not redevelop it? Why not make that a showpiece? Why not
allow constituents and visitors to the Washington, D.C., area to
actually go up into this national monument, go up into the clock tower
and be able to take in one of the greatest views that our country has
to offer? And let's do it and make a profit. We have offers coming in
now from Trump, Waldorf Astoria, and Marriott Properties that all want
to redevelop this property, create hundreds of jobs in the short term
just in the redevelopment process, but also create hundreds of jobs in
the long term by making sure that we have an employment base for years
to come in this capital region.
But this isn't just about Washington, D.C. We have properties like
this across the Nation. If it's a historic property, then let's
redevelop it. Let's make sure that the infrastructure is there, done by
a private investor that is going to go out and redevelop this property
and then have the long-term job effect afterwards. It can be done, it
can be replicated, this one jobs investment.
The companies that are talking about moving into the Old Post Office
is $140 million total private investment, $100 million in materials,
300 immediate jobs. If you go around the D.C. area, you can see that we
could use the 300 jobs just in this one project.

{time} 1720

Then another 275 permanent jobs for year in, year out in this one
beautiful new hotel that would be redeveloped. That's $11.2 million in
annual revenues to the D.C. area. This is a way to get Republicans and
Democrats to agree on something that not only creates jobs, not only
gets rid of waste in $6.5 million that we spend every year just in
operating costs anyway, but get a property moving again in the right
way.
We also need to combine agencies, collocate. There are too many
properties out there where we have 25 percent utilization, 50 percent
utilization. Why wouldn't we have close to 100 percent utilization on
every property? You would in business. There's no business that wants
to keep vacant office space, vacant warehouse space; but in government,
because we don't have agencies talking to each other, we have vacant
office space and vacant warehouse space across the entire Nation.
Here's an opportunity to do more with less. We have an opportunity
to, in courthouse sharing, we have waste, 946,000 extra square feet,
which was constructed because of lack of sharing. The number of
courtrooms needed is 27 of the 33 courtrooms, which would have been
reduced by a total of 126 if all we did was just share. But this is one
example. Again, this goes across the entire bureaucracy across the
United States. Combining agencies, collocating, getting to 100 percent
utilization rate is something we ought to all strive for.
But I think one of the biggest areas, not only for redevelopment and
jobs, but to bring in revenue--there is a lot of talk out there about
taxes. If you really want to bring in revenue that Republicans and
Democrats can agree on, let's sell off some of those things that we
just don't need, properties that we have sat on for decades, properties
that we may have bought at one time or developed at one time because we
actually had a purpose for using them.
But there's no accountability, no efficiency to be able to say at a
certain point that this property is just not needed; it's not being
utilized; it hasn't been developed. It's going to cost us millions of
dollars every year in operating costs. It's going to cost us billions
of dollars to do tenant improvements.
We don't look at all of our properties across the Nation. We don't
even look at our asset portfolio by agency. Let's start taking a look
at the 1.4 million properties, buildings that we have across the Nation
that your Federal Government owns that utilizes taxpayer dollars and
make a business decision: Do we need it now? Is it being

[[Page 16492]]

used efficiently? And can we sell off some of the things that we just
don't need?
We've already identified 14,000 excess properties--``excess'' meaning
we don't need them today. Let's start by selling those off. But then
let's look at some big ticket items. Rather than giving the Presidio
back to California or to San Francisco, rather than doing a sweetheart
deal for one city or one State, selling off big billion dollar
properties to New York, let's do a competitive process that affects all
of our taxpayers, that actually brings revenue back to our Treasury and
reduces our debt.
And along the way, as we're selling off these properties, the private
individual that buys it or the company that's redeveloping it is going
to reinvest not only in the property, but in the community. You can
generate millions of jobs just by creating the redevelopment across the
entire Nation. So there's a great opportunity with our property sale as
well.
And then we also need oversight. I mean, there has been a huge lack
in oversight across the Nation. One of the glaring examples that I've
seen is in my home State of California, a courthouse that was proposed
over a decade ago. Now, in 2000 we had 60 judges, with a proposal to
add about 20 more judges. They were going to build a new courthouse.
About $400 million it was going to be to build this new courthouse.
We also spent millions of dollars acquiring this new piece of
property that is in a beautiful area of downtown, redeveloped all
around it; but it is a hole in the ground. For the last decade, we have
not done it because we haven't hired new judges; in fact, we have fewer
judges now. And across the Nation there is this new policy to actually
commingle, share courtroom space. So we've got two courtrooms in the
L.A. area that neither one is a hundred percent occupied. We have space
there just for individuals; but if we did sharing, we could actually
get rid of one of those two courthouses. But instead, we're going to
obligate a half a billion dollars to build a brand-new court site when
we're not utilizing the other two court sites that we have today.
We need greater oversight so that we can look at all of these
properties, the stimulus package that we had at one time and the money
that's still being spent out there and actually use them for shovel-
ready projects that will create jobs today. This little courthouse is
going to spend a half a billion dollars on courtrooms that we don't
need. We need greater oversight.
If we want to really move this country forward, if we want to get
Republicans and Democrats to agree, if we want to get both parties in
both Houses to work on something together, if you want to send
something to the President that the President is actually asking for
that creates jobs, not just numbers out there or long term, that
creates jobs today, something that's going to bring in revenue--we know
we need revenue, we know we've got a huge debt that we've got to pay
off--immediate revenue within the first year, over $15 billion within
the next decade. And I think that that is a very conservative estimate,
that we have a chance to sell quite a bit more than that itself.
And then, lastly, cutting waste. With one bill we can cut waste, we
can create jobs, and we can create revenue with both parties agreeing
to something that will move our country forward.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

____________________

RECESS

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 12(a) of rule I, the
Chair declares the House in recess subject to the call of the Chair.
Accordingly (at 5 o'clock and 27 minutes p.m.), the House stood in
recess subject to the call of the Chair.

____________________

{time} 1832
AFTER RECESS

The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the
Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Palazzo) at 6 o'clock and 32 minutes p.m.

____________________

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

By unanimous consent, leave of absence was granted to:
Mr. Carson of Indiana (at the request of Ms. Pelosi) for today on
account of a death in the family.
Mr. Ruppersberger (at the request of Ms. Pelosi) for today and the
balance of the week on account of medical reasons (surgery).

____________________

ENROLLED BILL SIGNED

Karen L. Haas, Clerk of the House, reported and found truly enrolled
a bill of the House of the following title, which was thereupon signed
by the Speaker:

H.R. 368. An act to amend title 28, United States Code, to
clarify and improve certain provisions relating to the
removal of litigation against Federal officers or agencies to
Federal courts, and for other purposes.

____________________

ADJOURNMENT

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the House stands
adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow for morning-hour debate.
There was no objection.
Accordingly (at 6 o'clock and 33 minutes p.m.), under its previous
order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, November 3, 2011,
at 10 a.m.

____________________

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC.

Under clause 2 of rule XIV, executive communications were taken from
the Speaker's table and referred as follows:

3709. A letter from the Director, Defense Procurement and
Acquisition Policy, Department of Defense, transmitting the
Department's final rule -- Defense Federal Acquisition
Regulation Supplement: Responsibility and Liability for
Government Property (DFARS Case 2010-D018) (RIN: 0750-AG94)
received October 4, 2011, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A);
to the Committee on Armed Services.
3710. A letter from the Chief Counsel, Department of
Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's final rule
-- Final Flood Elevation Determinations [Docket ID: FEMA-
2011-0002] received October 4, 2011, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Financial Services.
3711. A letter from the General Counsel, National Credit
Union Administration, transmitting the Administration's final
rule -- Share Insurance and Appendix (RIN: 3133- AD79)
October 4, 2011, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Financial Services.
3712. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Education,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- State Fiscal
Stabilization Fund Program [Docket ID: ED-2011-OS-0010] (RIN:
1894-AA03) received October 4, 2011, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Education and the
Workforce.
3713. A letter from the Assistant General Counsel for
Legislation, Regulations and Energy Efficiency, Department of
Energy, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Energy
Conservation Program: Compliance Certification for Electric
Motors [Docket No.: EERE-2010-BT-CE-0014] (RIN: 1904-AC23)
received September 27, 2011, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
3714. A letter from the Program Manager, Department of
Health and Human Services, transmitting the Department's
final rule -- Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program
(CICP); Administrative Implementation, Final Rule (RIN: 0906-
AA83) received October 7, 2011, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
3715. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and
Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines
and Vehicles [EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162; NHTSA-2010-0079; FRL-
9455-1] (RIN: 2060-AP61; 2127-AK74) received October 14,
2011, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce.
3716. A letter from the General Counsel, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, transmitting the Commission's final
rule -- Electric Reliability Organization Interpretation of
Transmission Operations Reliability Standard [Docket No.:
RM10-29-000; Order No. 753] received October 4, 2011,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy
and Commerce.
3717. A letter from the Director, Office of Congressional
Affairs, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, transmitting the
Commission's final rule -- Management Directive 11.6,
``Financial Assistance Program'' received October 11, 2011,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy
and Commerce.
3718. A letter from the Director, Office of Congressional
Affairs, Nuclear Regulatory

[[Page 16493]]

Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule -- Final
Division of Safety Systems Interim Staff Guidance DSS-ISG-
2010-01: Staff Guidance Regarding the Nuclear Criticality
Safety Analysis for Spent Fuel Pools received October 4,
2011, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce.
3719. A letter from the Senior Counsel for Regulatory
Affairs, Department of the Treasury, transmitting the
Department's final rule -- Supplemental Standards for Ethical
Conduct for Employees of the Department of the Treasury (RIN:
1505-AC38) received October 4, 2011, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform.
3720. A letter from the Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish
and Wildlife and Parks, Department of the Interior,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- Special
Regulations; Areas of the National Park System, Grand Teton
National Park, Bicycle Routes, Fishing and Vessels (RIN:
1024-AD75) received September 28, 2011, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Natural Resources.
3721. A letter from the Chief, Branch of Listing,
Department of the Interior, transmitting the Department's
final rule -- Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants;
Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for the Sonoma County
Distinct Population Segment of California Tiger Salamander
[Docket No.: FWS-R8-ES-2009-0044] (RIN: 1018-AW86) received
September 28, 2011, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Natural Resources.
3722. A letter from the Acting Chief, Listing Branch,
Department of the Interior, transmitting the Department's
final rule -- Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants;
Endangered Status for the Altamaha Spinymussel and
Designation of Critical Habitat [Docket No.: FWS-R4-ES-2008-
0107] (RIN: 1018-AV88) received October 11, 2011, pursuant to
5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Natural Resources.
3723. A letter from the Chief, Branch of Listing,
Department of the Interior, transmitting the Department's
final rule -- Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants;
Determination of Endangered Status for Casey's June Beetle
and Designation of Critical Habitat [Docket No.: FWS-R8-ES-
2009-0019] (RIN: 1018-AV91) received September 28, 2011,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Natural Resources.
3724. A letter from the Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Regulatory Programs, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule
-- Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic
Herring Fishery; Regulatory Amendment [Docket No.: 110131079-
1521-02] (RIN: 0648-BA79) received September 27, 2011,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Natural Resources.
3725. A letter from the Branch Chief, Publications and
Regulations, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the
Service's final rule -- Extension of Replacement Period for
Livestock Sold on Account of Drought in Specified Counties
[Notice 2011-79] received September 28, 2011, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Ways and Means.
3726. A letter from the Chief, Publications and Regulations
Branch, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's
final rule -- Supplemental Procedures for Church Plan Letter
Rulings (Rev. Proc. 2011-44) received September 28, 2011,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Ways
and Means.
3727. A letter from the Chief, Publications and Regulations
Branch, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's
final rule -- 2011 Prevailing State Assumed Interest Rates
(Rev. Rule. 2011-23) received October 12, 2011, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Ways and Means.
3728. A letter from the Chief, Publications and Regulations
Branch, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's
final rule -- Update for Weighted Average Interest Rates,
Yield Curves, and Segment Rates [Notice 2011-84] received
October 7, 2011, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Ways and Means.
3729. A letter from the Chief, Publications and Regulations
Branch, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's
final rule -- Updated Procedures for Opinion and Advisory
Letter Rulings for Pre-approved Plans (Revenue Procedure
2011-49) received October 12, 2011, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Ways and Means.

____________________

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ON PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to
the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as
follows:

Mr. SESSIONS: Committee on Rules. House Resolution 453.
Resolution providing for consideration of the bill (H.R.
2930) to amend the securities laws to provide for
registration exemptions for certain crowdfunded securities,
and for other purposes, and providing for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 2940) to direct the Securities and Exchange
Commission to eliminate the prohibition against general
solicitation as a requirement for a certain exemption under
Regulation D (Rept. 112-265). Referred to the House Calendar.

____________________

PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

Under clause 2 of rule XII, public bills and resolutions of the
following titles were introduced and severally referred, as follows:

By Mr. FLORES:
H.R. 3306. A bill to repeal the Advanced Technology Vehicle
Manufacturing loan program; to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce.
By Mr. REICHERT (for himself, Mr. Blumenauer, Mr.
Lucas, Mr. King of Iowa, Mr. Latham, Mr. Dold, Mr.
Peterson, Mr. Braley of Iowa, Mr. Larson of
Connecticut, Mr. Boswell, and Mr. Thompson of
California):
H.R. 3307. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to extend the renewable energy credit; to the Committee
on Ways and Means.
By Mr. POMPEO (for himself, Mr. Labrador, Mr. Ribble,
and Mr. Flake):
H.R. 3308. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to terminate certain energy tax subsidies and lower the
corporate income tax rate; to the Committee on Ways and
Means, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the
Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as
fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. WALDEN (for himself and Mr. Kinzinger of
Illinois):
H.R. 3309. A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934
to provide for greater transparency and efficiency in the
procedures followed by the Federal Communications Commission;
to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. SCALISE (for himself and Mr. Walden):
H.R. 3310. A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934
to consolidate the reporting obligations of the Federal
Communications Commission in order to improve congressional
oversight and reduce reporting burdens; to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. BILBRAY (for himself, Mr. Filner, Mr. Hunter,
and Mr. Issa):
H.R. 3311. A bill to facilitate the hosting in the United
States of the 34th America's Cup by authorizing certain
eligible vessels to participate in activities related to the
competition; to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
By Mr. BRADY of Texas (for himself and Mr. Larsen of
Washington):
H.R. 3312. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Homeland
Security, in coordination with the Secretary of State, to
establish a program to issue Asia-Pacific Economic
Cooperation Business Travel Cards, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Homeland Security.
By Mr. DeFAZIO (for himself, Mr. Braley of Iowa, Mr.
Johnson of Georgia, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Filner, Ms.
Sutton, Mr. Blumenauer, Ms. Slaughter, Ms. Hirono,
Mr. Welch, Mr. Conyers, Ms. Edwards, and Mr.
Hinchey):
H.R. 3313. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to impose a tax on certain trading transactions; to the
Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mrs. CAPPS (for herself, Mr. Markey, and Ms.
Matsui):
H.R. 3314. A bill to direct the Secretary of Health and
Human Services to develop a national strategic action plan to
assist health professionals in preparing for and responding
to the public health effects of climate change, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. CASSIDY:
H.R. 3315. A bill to establish a pilot program providing
for monthly fee-based payments for direct primary care
medical homes for Medicare-Medicaid dual eligibles and other
Medicare beneficiaries; to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means,
for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in
each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within
the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. ELLISON (for himself and Ms. Moore):
H.R. 3316. A bill to prohibit election officials from
requiring individuals to provide photo identification as a
condition of obtaining or casting a ballot in an election for
Federal office or registering to vote in elections for
Federal office, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
House Administration.
By Mr. ELLISON (for himself and Ms. Moore):
H.R. 3317. A bill to amend the Help America Vote Act of
2002 to require States to provide for same day registration;
to the Committee on House Administration.
By Mr. FLEISCHMANN:
H.R. 3318. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to temporarily exclude capital gain from gross income;
to the Committee on Ways and Means.

[[Page 16494]]

By Mr. GRIJALVA:
H.R. 3319. A bill to allow the Pascua Yaqui Tribe to
determine the requirements for membership in that tribe; to
the Committee on Natural Resources.
By Ms. HANABUSA (for herself, Ms. Bordallo, and Ms.
Hirono):
H.R. 3320. A bill to amend the Compact of Free Association
of 1985 to provide for adequate Compact-impact aid to
affected States and territories, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. HERGER:
H.R. 3321. A bill to facilitate the hosting in the United
States of the 34th America's Cup by authorizing certain
eligible vessels to participate in activities related to the
competition, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
By Mr. HIMES (for himself, Mr. Connolly of Virginia,
Mr. Polis, and Ms. Hirono):
H.R. 3322. A bill to establish an Early Learning Challenge
Fund to support States in building and strengthening systems
of high-quality early learning and development programs, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Education and the
Workforce.
By Mr. HUELSKAMP:
H.R. 3323. A bill to reduce the regulatory burden on the
agricultural sector of the national economy; to the Committee
on Agriculture, and in addition to the Committees on Energy
and Commerce, Transportation and Infrastructure, Ways and
Means, and Education and the Workforce, for a period to be
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Ms. LEE of California (for herself, Mr. McGovern,
Ms. Slaughter, Mr. Ackerman, Ms. Schakowsky, Mrs.
Maloney, Mr. Fattah, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Jackson of
Illinois, Ms. Hirono, Mr. Larsen of Washington, Mr.
Clay, Ms. Chu, Ms. Norton, Mr. Towns, Ms. Moore, Ms.
Clarke of New York, Ms. DeGette, Mr. Rush, Mr.
Conyers, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Mr. Holt, Mr. Quigley,
Mr. Hastings of Florida, Ms. Woolsey, Mr. Blumenauer,
and Ms. DeLauro):
H.R. 3324. A bill to provide for the reduction of
unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections,
including HIV, and the promotion of healthy relationships,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Education and
the Workforce, for a period to be subsequently determined by
the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such
provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee
concerned.
By Mr. PERLMUTTER (for himself, Mr. Moran, Mr. Al Green
of Texas, Ms. Waters, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, Mrs.
Capps, Mr. Sires, Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. Larson of
Connecticut, Mr. Cleaver, Mr. Filner, and Mr.
Quigley):
H.R. 3325. A bill to create livable communities through
coordinated public investment and streamlined requirements,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Financial
Services, and in addition to the Committees on Transportation
and Infrastructure, and Energy and Commerce, for a period to
be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. QUAYLE (for himself and Mr. Flores):
H.R. 3326. A bill to enable States to opt out of the
Medicaid expansion-related provisions of the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act; to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. REED (for himself, Mr. Owens, Mr. Guinta, Mr.
Crawford, Mr. Gosar, Mr. Broun of Georgia, and Mr.
Westmoreland):
H.R. 3327. A bill to direct the Secretary of Transportation
to issue categorical exclusions from environmental assessment
requirements for certain highway construction activities, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
By Mr. RENACCI (for himself and Mr. Roskam):
H.R. 3328. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social
Security Act to provide a six-month grace period for certain
Medicare advanced diagnostic imaging services suppliers to
receive accreditation; to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means,
for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in
each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within
the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California (for herself, Mr.
Donnelly of Indiana, Mr. Rush, Mr. Rangel, Mr.
Filner, Mr. Benishek, and Mr. Braley of Iowa):
H.R. 3329. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to
extend the eligibility period for veterans to enroll in
certain vocational rehabilitation programs; to the Committee
on Veterans' Affairs.
By Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California (for herself, Mr.
Rush, and Mr. Rangel):
H.R. 3330. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to
extend the Department of Veterans Affairs demonstration
projects on adjustable rate mortgages and hybrid adjustable
rate mortgages; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
By Mr. SENSENBRENNER:
H.R. 3331. A bill to require an accounting for financial
support made to promote the production or use of renewable
energy, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy
and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology, for a period to be subsequently
determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of
such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the
committee concerned.

____________________

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XII of the rules of the House of
Representatives, the following statements are submitted regarding the
specific powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact the
accompanying bill or joint resolution.

By Mr. FLORES:
H.R. 3306.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7.
By Mr. REICHERT:
H.R. 3307.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
``The constitutional authority of Congress to enact this
legislation is provided by Article 1, section 8 of the United
States Constitution, specifically clause 1 (relating to
providing for the general welfare of the United States) and
clause 18 (relating to the power to make all laws necessary
and proper for carrying out the powers vested in Congress),
and Article IV, section 3, clause 2 (relating to the power of
Congress to dispose of and make all needful rules and
regulations respecting the territory or other property
belonging to the United States).''
By Mr. POMPEO:
H.R. 3308.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3
By Mr. WALDEN:
H.R. 3309.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
This bill is enacted pursuant to Article I, Section 8,
Clause 3 of the United States Constitution, which empowers
Congress to regulate Commerce among the several States.
By Mr. SCALISE:
H.R. 3310.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
This bill is enacted pursuant to Article I, Section 8,
Clause 3 of the United States Constitution, which empowers
Congress to regulate Commerce among the several States.
By Mr. BILBRAY:
H.R. 3311.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for
carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other
Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the
United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
By Mr. BRADY of Texas:
H.R. 3312.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3: ``The Congress shall have
Power . . . To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations. . .
.''
By Mr. DeFAZIO:
H.R. 3313.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Interstate Commerce Clause
By Mrs. CAPPS:
H.R. 3314.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3
By Mr. CASSIDY:
H.R. 3315.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1
By Mr. ELLISON:
H.R. 3316.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
This bill is enacted pursuant to the power granted to
Congress under Article I of the United States Constitution
and its subsequent amendments, and further clarified and
interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States.
By Mr. ELLISON:
H.R. 3317.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
This bill is enacted pursuant to the power granted to
Congress under Article I of the

[[Page 16495]]

United States Constitution and its subsequent amendments, and
further clarified and interpreted by the Supreme Court of the
United States.
By Mr. FLEISCHMANN:
H.R. 3318.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article I, Section 8, clause 1.
By Mr. GRIJALVA:
H.R. 3319.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution.
By Ms. HANABUSA:
H.R. 3320.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, to regulate Commerce with
foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the
Indian Tribes; and Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 to make
all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying
into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers
vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United
States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
By Mr. HERGER:
H.R. 3321.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution which
allows the Congress of the United States To make all Laws
which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into
Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested
by this Constitution in the Government of the United States,
or in any Department or Officer thereof.
By Mr. HIMES:
H.R. 3322.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Clause 3 of section 8 of article I of the Constitution.
By Mr. HUELSKAMP:
H.R. 3323.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
This bill is enacted pursuant to Article I, Section 8,
Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which grants Congress the
authority to regulate commerce between the several states,
and from Amendment X to the United States Constitution, which
grants states all authority not explicitly given to the
federal government. This bill seeks to ensure and promote
commerce between states, and to return authority previously
and erroneously claimed by the federal government, back to
the states.
By Ms. LEE of California:
H.R. 3324.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
This bill is enacted pursuant to the power granted to
Congress under Article I of the United States Constitution
and its subsequent amendments, and further clarified and
interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States.
By Mr. PERLMUTTER:
H.R. 3325.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Clause 1 of Section 8 of Article 1 of the Constitution of
the United States, whereby the Congress is authorized to
provide for the ``general Welfare of the United States.''
By Mr. QUAYLE:
H.R. 3326.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Amendment X of the U.S. Constitution
By Mr. REED:
H.R. 3327.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 as well as Article I,
Section 8, Clause 18.
By Mr. RENACCI:
H.R. 3328.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Art. 1, Sec. 8, Clause. 3 To regulate commerce among
foreign nations and the several states.
By Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California:
H.R. 3329.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article I, Section 8
By Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California:
H.R. 3330.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article I, Section 8
By Mr. SENSENBRENNER:
H.R. 3331.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 of the U.S. Constitution

____________________

ADDITIONAL SPONSORS

Under clause 7 of rule XII, sponsors were added to public bills and
resolutions as follows:

H.R. 10: Mr. Goodlatte.
H.R. 12: Mr. Clyburn, Mr. Sablan, and Mr. Kildee.
H.R. 31: Mr. Meehan.
H.R. 104: Ms. Herrera Beutler and Mrs. Schmidt.
H.R. 139: Mr. Holt, Mr. Van Hollen, and Mr. Miller of North
Carolina.
H.R. 157: Mr. DesJarlais, Mr. McKinley, and Mr. Hultgren.
H.R. 178: Mr. Cuellar.
H.R. 212: Mrs. Roby.
H.R. 321: Mr. Miller of North Carolina.
H.R. 361: Mr. Ribble and Mrs. Roby.
H.R. 363: Ms. Speier and Mr. Berman.
H.R. 374: Mr. Heck and Mrs. Roby.
H.R. 402: Mr. Keating and Mr. Carnahan.
H.R. 436: Mr. Amash and Mr. Kissell.
H.R. 459: Mr. Gene Green of Texas and Mr. Walden.
H.R. 507: Mr. Hanna.
H.R. 553: Mr. Rothman of New Jersey.
H.R. 676: Ms. Richardson.
H.R. 709: Mr. Watt.
H.R. 735: Mr. Chabot and Mr. Sensenbrenner.
H.R. 750: Mr. Broun of Georgia.
H.R. 835: Mr. Bass of New Hampshire and Mr. Hanna.
H.R. 862: Mr. Connolly of Virginia.
H.R. 891: Ms. Schwartz.
H.R. 904: Mr. Harris.
H.R. 973: Ms. Foxx.
H.R. 993: Mr. Conaway.
H.R. 1058: Mr. Young of Florida.
H.R. 1063: Mr. Ribble.
H.R. 1173: Mr. Guinta, Mr. Gosar, Mr. Broun of Georgia, Mr.
Marchant, Mr. Gary G. Miller of California, and Mr. Rokita.
H.R. 1175: Mr. Johnson of Ohio.
H.R. 1195: Ms. Herrera Beutler.
H.R. 1236: Ms. Fudge.
H.R. 1265: Mr. Boren and Mr. Bachus.
H.R. 1358: Mr. Young of Florida.
H.R. 1370: Mr. Guinta.
H.R. 1386: Ms. Fudge, Mr. Michaud, Mr. Connolly of
Virginia, and Mr. Gene Green of Texas.
H.R. 1426: Mr. Kelly.
H.R. 1489: Mr. Cicilline and Ms. Sutton.
H.R. 1511: Mr. Kingston.
H.R. 1515: Mr. Hastings of Florida, Mr. Johnson of Georgia,
Mr. Carson of Indiana, and Mr. Ackerman.
H.R. 1639: Mr. Renacci.
H.R. 1659: Mr. Doyle.
H.R. 1724: Ms. DeGette.
H.R. 1738: Mr. Hanna.
H.R. 1744: Mr. Griffith of Virginia.
H.R. 1755: Mr. Broun of Georgia.
H.R. 1802: Mr. Broun of Georgia.
H.R. 1815: Mr. Pearce and Mr. Chabot.
H.R. 1834: Mr. Jordan, Mr. Scalise, and Mr. Chandler.
H.R. 1946: Mr. Aderholt and Mr. Butterfield.
H.R. 1951: Mr. Holt.
H.R. 1956: Mr. Chaffetz and Ms. Foxx.
H.R. 1965: Mr. Ruppersberger.
H.R. 1971: Mr. Jones.
H.R. 2028: Mr. Tierney.
H.R. 2059: Mr. Gosar, Mrs. Noem, Mr. Burgess, and Mr. Long.
H.R. 2065: Mr. Filner.
H.R. 2082: Mr. Boren.
H.R. 2088: Mr. Dold.
H.R. 2105: Mr. Bilirakis and Mr. Smith of New Jersey.
H.R. 2108: Mr. Farr.
H.R. 2131: Mr. Bonner, Mrs. Capps, Mr. Pearce, and Mr.
Griffin of Arkansas.
H.R. 2137: Mr. Meehan and Mr. Quigley.
H.R. 2194: Ms. DeGette.
H.R. 2195: Mr. Moran.
H.R. 2227: Mr. Barrow, Mr. Engel, and Mr. Matheson.
H.R. 2239: Ms. Baldwin.
H.R. 2284: Mr. Ross of Florida.
H.R. 2299: Mrs. Roby.
H.R. 2308: Mr. Huizenga of Michigan.
H.R. 2369: Mr. Paul, Mr. Tiberi, and Mr. Flake.
H.R. 2435: Mr. Broun of Georgia.
H.R. 2446: Mr. Jones, Mr. Crawford, Mr. Duncan of
Tennessee, and Mr. Royce.
H.R. 2453: Mr. Engel.
H.R. 2469: Ms. Moore.
H.R. 2487: Ms. Schakowsky and Mrs. Maloney.
H.R. 2492: Mr. Tierney and Mr. Pascrell.
H.R. 2528: Mr. Flores.
H.R. 2536: Mr. Hanna.
H.R. 2563: Mr. Wolf and Mr. Stivers.
H.R. 2586: Ms. Moore.
H.R. 2595: Ms. DeGette and Mr. Heinrich.
H.R. 2602: Mr. Ross of Florida.
H.R. 2697: Mr. Smith of Nebraska.
H.R. 2706: Mr. Flores and Mr. Young of Alaska.
H.R. 2815: Ms. Hahn.
H.R. 2829: Mr. Wolf.
H.R. 2870: Mr. Austria and Mr. Kline.
H.R. 2874: Mr. Jones, Mrs. Ellmers, Mrs. McMorris Rodgers,
and Mr. Johnson of Ohio.
H.R. 2918: Mr. Johnson of Ohio, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson
of Texas, and Mr. Forbes.
H.R. 2948: Mr. Pastor of Arizona, Mr. Holt, Mr. Lujan, Mr.
Higgins, Ms. Chu, Mr. Ackerman, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Mr.
Connolly of Virginia, Mr. Keating, Mr. Al Green of Texas, Ms.
DeGette, Mr. Polis, Mr. Sires, and Mr. McNerney.
H.R. 2962: Ms. Hayworth and Mr. Pearce.
H.R. 2982: Mr. Ellison and Mr. Johnson of Ohio.
H.R. 2992: Mr. Marchant.
H.R. 3010: Mrs. Adams, Mr. Gohmert, Mr. Austria, Mr. Davis
of Kentucky, Mr. Johnson of Ohio, Mr. Baca, Mr. Costa, Mr.
Calvert, and Mr. Cardoza.

[[Page 16496]]

H.R. 3020: Mr. Crowley.
H.R. 3029: Ms. Buerkle and Mr. Amash.
H.R. 3046: Mr. Gonzalez, Mrs. Davis of California, and Mr.
Ryan of Ohio.
H.R. 3059: Mrs. Maloney, Mr. Platts, and Mr. Rogers of
Michigan.
H.R. 3076: Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Ms. Lee of California, Mr.
Grijalva, Mr. Hastings of Florida, and Mr. Al Green of Texas.
H.R. 3086: Mr. Ackerman, Mr. Nadler, and Ms. Slaughter.
H.R. 3094: Mr. Calvert and Mr. Bachus.
H.R. 3127: Mr. Huelskamp, Mr. Ribble, Mr. Roe of Tennessee,
Mrs. Schmidt, and Mr. Brady of Texas.
H.R. 3130: Mr. Jordan and Mr. Nunnelee.
H.R. 3145: Mr. Higgins.
H.R. 3155: Mr. Pearce.
H.R. 3156: Mr. Paul.
H.R. 3162: Mr. Cassidy, Mr. Forbes, and Mr. Bucshon.
H.R. 3163: Mr. Stark, Ms. Lee of California, Mr. Towns, Mr.
Lewis of Georgia, Mr. Jackson of Illinois, Ms. Norton, Ms.
Fudge, Mr. Davis of Illinois, Mr. Payne, Mr. Rangel, Ms.
Edwards, Mr. Cleaver, Ms. Clarke of New York, Mrs.
Christensen, Mr. Hastings of Florida, Mr. Thompson of
Mississippi, Mr. David Scott of Georgia, Mr. Meeks, Mr.
Richmond, Ms. Richardson, and Mr. Carson of Indiana.
H.R. 3185: Mr. Johnson of Ohio, Mr. Long, Mrs. Ellmers, and
Mrs. Hartzler.
H.R. 3194: Mr. Broun of Georgia.
H.R. 3200: Ms. Clarke of New York.
H.R. 3202: Mr. Young of Alaska.
H.R. 3218: Mr. Flores, Mr. Pence, Mr. Manzullo, Mr.
Kingston, Mr. Cole, Mr. Posey, Mr. Conaway, Mr. Barton of
Texas, and Mrs. Schmidt.
H.R. 3233: Mr. Clarke of Michigan.
H.R. 3243: Mrs. Blackburn and Mr. Neugebauer.
H.R. 3267: Mr. Benishek.
H.R. 3270: Mr. Denham.
H.R. 3286: Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Mr. Thompson of
California, Mr. Langevin, Mr. Filner, Ms. Bordallo, and Ms.
Edwards.
H.R. 3289: Mr. Gosar and Mr. Pearce.
H.R. 3294: Mr. Stutzman, Mr. Flores, and Mr. Yoder.
H.R. 3296: Ms. Hirono.
H.J. Res. 20: Mr. Flores.
H.J. Res. 81: Mr. Nunnelee, Mr. Hultgren, Mr. Palazzo, Mr.
Young of Indiana, and Mr. Cuellar.
H. Res. 25: Mr. Duncan of South Carolina.
H. Res. 295: Ms. Norton.
H. Res. 341: Ms. Pingree of Maine, Mr. Latham, and Mr.
Connolly of Virginia.
H. Res. 351: Mr. Bartlett.
H. Res. 356: Mr. Diaz-Balart and Mr. Wolf.
H. Res. 433: Mr. Kline.

____________________

CONGRESSIONAL EARMARKS, LIMITED TAX BENEFITS, OR LIMITED TARIFF
BENEFITS

Under clause 9 of rule XXI, lists or statements on congressional
earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits were
submitted as follows:

The amendment to be offered by Representative McHenry, or a
designee, to H.R. 2930, the Entrepreneur Access to Capitol
Act, does not contain any congressional earmarks, limited tax
benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in clause 9
of rule XXI.
The amendment to be offered by Representative Brad Miller
of North Carolina, or a designee, to H.R. 2940, the Access to
Capital for Job Creators Act, does not contain any
congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited
tariff benefits as defined in clause 9 of rule XXI.

[[Page 16497]]

SENATE--Wednesday, November 2, 2011

The Senate met at 9:30 a.m. and was called to order by the Honorable
Kirsten E. Gillibrand, a Senator from the State of New York.
______

prayer

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Today's opening prayer will be offered by
Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks, Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew
Congregation of the Commonwealth, London, England.
The guest Chaplain offered the following prayer:
Sovereign of the universe, who created all in love, teach us to love
all that is good and beautiful in this world. Teach us to honor the
dignity of difference, recognizing that one who is not in our image is
nonetheless in Your image; never forgetting that the people not like us
are still people--like us.
At this fateful moment in the human story, bless us that we may be a
blessing to others. Guide the nations of the world to honor You by
honoring one another, so that by reaching out in love we may turn
enemies into friends and become your family on Earth, as You are our
parent in heaven.
Beloved God, bless the Members of this United States Congress and
guide their deliberation, that they may govern this great Nation with
wisdom and justice, grace and compassion, bringing honor to Your Name
and Your blessing to humankind. Amen.

____________________

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

The Honorable Kirsten E. Gillibrand led the Pledge of Allegiance, as
follows:

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of
America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

____________________

APPOINTMENT OF ACTING PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will please read a communication to
the Senate from the President pro tempore (Mr. Inouye).
The bill clerk read as follows:

U.S. Senate,

President pro tempore,

Washington, DC, November 2, 2011.
To the Senate:
Under the provisions of rule I, paragraph 3, of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby appoint the Honorable
Kirsten E. Gillibrand, a Senator from the State of New York,
to perform the duties of the Chair.
Daniel K. Inouye,
President pro tempore.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND thereupon assumed the chair as Acting President pro
tempore.

____________________

RECOGNITION OF THE MAJORITY LEADER

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.

____________________

ORDER OF PROCEDURE

Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator
from Connecticut, chairman of our Homeland Security Committee, speak
briefly. He is someone who is every day an example to the rest of us in
morality and the observance that he does through his religion. It is
something we all admire. Senator Lieberman.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Connecticut is
recognized.

____________________

RECOGNIZING CHIEF RABBI LORD JONATHAN SACKS

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I thank our leader. Again, I have had
many conversations about things political, which will not surprise
anybody who is hearing me speak. But perhaps people will be surprised
that Senator Reid and I have probably had as many conversations about
matters spiritual and personal. Those conversations tie us together
forever.
It is my honor to welcome to the Senate Jonathan Sacks, the chief
rabbi of the United Kingdom, and to thank our extraordinary Chaplain
Barry Black for joining me in hosting the chief rabbi.
The truth is that I knew Chief Rabbi Sacks from his writings before I
knew him personally. He has written 24 books, the most recent of which
was published earlier this year, called ``The Great Partnership, God,
Science and the Search for Meaning.'' His writing is extremely
insightful. It is broadly accessible. Perhaps paraphrasing the old
commercial--and the occupant of the chair, being from New York, will
remember this about Levy's Jewish Rye: ``You don't have to be Jewish to
love Levy's Jewish Rye.'' Well, you don't have to be Jewish to benefit
from Rabbi Sack's writing.
He is the sixth incumbent of the Chief Rabbi position in the United
Kingdom, having served in that position since 1991. The role was
formalized in 1845. He was knighted by Her Majesty the Queen in 2005,
and then on the 27th of October, 2009, was made a life peer, taking his
seat in the House of Lords, where he sits on the cross benches as Baron
Sacks of Aldgate in the City of London. So we welcome Rabbi Sacks not
just as the Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom but as a member of a
fellow legislative body. He has spoken with remarkable wisdom and
insight and has formed my faith in so many ways.
As I heard him give the opening prayer today, I could not help but
think that he stands in a proud tradition that began with those
remarkable Christian reformists who left England to come more than two
or three centuries ago to our shores, forming the United States of
America more than two centuries ago, and in our founding documents,
responding to their faith, but also creating the foundation of the
liberties that succeeding generations of Americans have enjoyed and
that we in this Chamber work hard to protect and strengthen every day.
Again, I thank the Chair and the leader. I particularly thank Chief
Rabbi Sacks for honoring us with his presence and his words today.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader.

____________________

SCHEDULE

Mr. REID. Madam President, following leader remarks, the Senate will
be in a period of morning business for 1 hour, with the majority
controlling the first half and the Republicans controlling the second
half.
Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of
the motion to proceed to S. 1769, the Rebuild America Jobs Act.
I filed a cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 1769 last night. If
no agreement is reached, we will vote on this tomorrow morning. I am
working with the Republican leader to come up with an expeditious way
of expressing the will of the Senate in the next 24 hours.
Again, tomorrow the Senate will vote on the Rebuild American Jobs
Act. It is a plan to put hundreds of thousands of Americans back to
work, constructing thousands of miles of roads, bridges, runways, and
train tracks.
The plan is paid for with a small tax--less than a penny--on every
dollar a person earns in excess of $1 million every year. The
legislation asks millionaires and billionaires to contribute a little
more than they do today, knowing there is a pricetag associated with
getting our economy back on track.
My Republican colleagues say they oppose this plan to hire hundreds
of thousands of construction workers and rebuild our Nation's
collapsing infrastructure because they believe the wealthiest Americans
cannot afford to pay a few pennies more.

[[Page 16498]]

Even the majority of people who would pay this tax say that isn't
true. They support our plan. This tiny fraction of American taxpayers
who would pay a tiny fraction more each year are among the 1 percent of
Americans who have done better and better with each passing decade.
Between 1979 and 2007, the annual aftertax income at the top 1
percent of American wage earners has increased by 275 percent. That
same 1 percent now makes more than the other 99 percent of Americans
combined. These are the latest figures. It is difficult to compile
these numbers. Think about what has happened in the last 4 years. They
have even gotten richer and richer. I repeat, that 1 percent now makes
more than the other 99 percent of Americans combined. And not all of
that 1 percent of wealthy Americans would even qualify to pay this tax
to fund billions of dollars in road construction and create hundreds of
thousands of jobs. Only those whose income is more than $1 million.
Some billionaires and millionaires would not qualify because their
income in a given year is less than $1 million. They may have a lot of
property wealth and things of that nature.
Tomorrow, my Republican colleagues face a choice, which is not
whether to invest in roads or bridges or whether the richest of the
rich can spare a few pennies for the sake of our economy; the choice is
about priorities. Who will Republicans put first, the millions of
ordinary Americans who are struggling to find work and put food on the
table or the millionaires and billionaires, whose biggest problem is
that they may have to pay an additional $7,000 on the second million
they make each year?
We ought to be able to agree that making enough money to pay even a
dollar more under our plan is a wonderful problem to have. But so far,
Republicans have been pretty clear what their priorities are. They
unanimously voted against the American Jobs Act. That legislation would
have put more than 2 million people back to work and cut taxes for
middle-class families and small businesses.
Then they unanimously voted against the Democrats' plan to put
400,000 teachers and tens of thousands of police officers and
firefighters back to work. Republicans have cost this country millions
of jobs in the last few weeks alone. They will have another opportunity
tomorrow to show America whose side they are on--billionaires and
millionaires or the middle class.
Seventy-two percent of Americans, including 54 percent of
Republicans, want us to pass this plan. Seventy-six percent of them,
including 56 percent of Republicans, want us to pay for it by asking
the Nation's wealthiest citizens to contribute their fair share.
Americans--Democrats, Republicans, and Independents--know the only
way out of the worst recession since the Great Depression is to invest
in what this country needs--its workers to be employed. They believe it
is fair to ask those who have profited most from this country's success
to help shoulder that burden.
Republicans have obstructed and opposed every Democratic effort to
create jobs this year. Why would they do that? Fear. Because those job
creation efforts would cost millionaires and billionaires even a dollar
more. Who do they fear? The truth is they are terrified to violate the
infamous Grover Norquist tax pledge, even though they know Norquist is
wrong--or if they don't know, they should know. They are in thrall, my
Republican colleagues, and in submission to a man whose singular focus
is keeping taxes low for the very wealthy, no matter what the effect is
on this Nation. They fear his political retribution.
I hope my Republican colleagues will heed this message sent yesterday
by former Republican Senator Alan Simpson, a conservative bona fide,
regarding Grover Norquist's pledge. He said the only power Norquist
wields is the power you give him. Senator Simpson said:

He can't murder you; he can't burn your house. The only
thing he can do is defeat you for reelection, and if that
means more to you than your country, you really shouldn't be
in Congress.

That is what Simpson said. I believe most Senators--and certainly
most Americans--know that legislating isn't simple. It is not as simple
as a mindless pledge. Those Senators must have the courage to act on
their convictions.
As British historian Thomas Fuller once said, ``Better break your
word than do worse in keeping it.''

____________________

RECOGNITION OF THE MINORITY LEADER

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader is
recognized.

____________________

A DIFFERENT APPROACH

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, there is no denying the fact that the
policies of the past 2\1/2\ years have made a bad situation worse. For
2\1/2\ years, Democrats completely dominated this town. They got
everything they wanted. And what happened? Unemployment has hovered at
around 9 percent for 32 months. The so-called misery index is worse
than it has been in more than 25 years. Consumer confidence is at
levels last seen during the height of the financial crisis. But if one
number really stands out, it is this: 1.5 million. That is the number
of fewer jobs we now have in this country since the day President Obama
signed his signature ``jobs bill'' into law.
These are just some of the numbers that all of us, Republicans and
Democrats, read about every single day. But it is not the numbers that
compel us to action; it is the stories that lie behind them. It is the
millions of men and women who have seen their dreams shattered, their
lives upended, and their potential unfulfilled.
What Republicans have been saying is that if we truly want to help
improve the situation we are in, if we want to turn this ship around,
then we need to learn from our mistakes and take a totally different
approach. We know what policies haven't worked. We have tried that.
What sense does it make to try those same policies again and again?
That is why Republicans in the House and the Senate have been taking a
different approach.
Democrats may control the White House, and they may control the
Senate, but for the past 10 months Republicans in the other half of
Congress have done their best to correct the mistakes and excesses of
the previous 2\1/2\ years and set us on a different course.
They have done something else that Democrats have not done over the
past few years: Week after week, the Republican majority in the House
of Representatives has been passing bills that actually have a chance--
actually have a chance--of gaining bipartisan support and becoming law.
They are actually trying to do something.
Unlike the President and the Democrats who run the Senate, House
Republicans are designing legislation to pass rather than fail. They
want to make a difference rather than make a point, and the only thing
keeping these bills from becoming law is that the Democrats in the
Senate will not take them up.
We know the President's strategy. His so-called jobs bill has one
purpose and only one: to divide us. Just this morning I read a story
that quoted some Democratic operative almost bragging about the fact
they do not expect any of the legislation the President has been out
there talking about on the bus tour to pass. They openly admit these
bills are designed to fail.
It is not exactly a state secret that Republicans--and, yes, some
Democrats--don't think we should be raising taxes right now on the very
people we are counting on to create the jobs we need to get us out of
the jobs crisis. Yet the one thing every single proposal Democrats
bring to the floor has in common is it does just that.
So the Democrats' plan is to keep putting bills on the floor they
know ahead of time we will vote against instead of trying to solve the
problem. They do not even hide it. The President's top strategist
actually issued a memo a few weeks ago stating the President would use
this legislation not as a way to help people but as a way to pummel
Republicans.
Meanwhile, House Republicans have passed bill after bill after bill
actually

[[Page 16499]]

designed to do something. On March 31 they passed H.R. 872, the
Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act. It got 57 Democratic votes--57
Democratic votes--in the House, a bipartisan bill that could pass and
become law. On April 7 they passed H.R. 910, the Energy Tax Prevention
Act. It got 19 Democratic votes. The list goes on and on. There are 15
of these, Madam President--15 of them--that have passed, and each with
significant Democratic support--one with 33, one with 28, one with 21,
one with 23, one with 16, one with 10, and one with 47 votes.
So there are 15 of these bills that have passed the House with
bipartisan support, and in the Senate we don't take up any of them
because we are busy taking up bills that everybody knows are not going
to pass.
This week, over in the House, they are going to pass four more bills
making it easier to hire out-of-work Americans. Just last week, House
Republicans passed a bill that would repeal a law requiring the IRS to
withhold 3 percent of future tax payments from any company that does
business with the government--a bill the President himself said he
would be willing to sign into law, and 170 Democrats voted for it. So
why don't we pass it in the Senate? The President is waiting to sign
it.
This is just the latest example of a simple bipartisan bill that
struggling businesses are begging us to pass but that Senate Democrats
are holding up right now because it doesn't fit the story line.
I am not saying we have to vote on every one of the bills the House
passed just as they are--there is an amendment process for that--but
why not take them up? Every one would help create jobs, and none--
none--would raise taxes. That is what we call compromise. It is called
finding common ground, and it is how the American people expect us to
legislate.
What we are witnessing in Washington right now is two very different
styles of governance: a Republican majority in the House that believes
we should actually do something about the problems we face and which
has put together and actually passed bipartisan legislation that would
help address those problems, and a Democratic majority in the Senate
that has teamed up with the White House on a strategy of doing
nothing--nothing--all for the sake of trying to score political points
and spreading the blame for an economy their own policies have cemented
in place as they look ahead to an election that is still more than a
year away.
The President's economic policies have failed to do what he said they
would, and now he is designing legislation to fail. Americans are
actually tired of failure. So Republicans are inviting Democrats to
join us in succeeding at something--anything--around here that would
make a difference.
I guess to sum it up, Madam President, what we are saying is, why
don't we quit playing the political games? The problems we face are
entirely too serious to ignore. Let's take up the bipartisan bills that
House Republicans have already passed and actually do something. There
is no better time to tackle the problems we face than now. Let's not
squander this moment because some political strategist over in the
White House is enamored with their own reelection strategy.
Let's take advantage of this moment to act when the two parties share
power in Washington. As I often note, it is only when the two parties
share power that they can share the credit and the blame. That is why
some of the biggest legislative achievements have taken place at
moments like this, and that is why I have been calling on Democrats in
Washington--privately and publicly--for the past year to follow the
example of those Congresses and those Presidents before us who were
wise enough to seize an opportunity such as this one for the good of
the country.
We face many serious crises as a nation. We know how to solve them.
Let's not let this moment pass us by.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO C. FRANK RAPIER

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I wish to express my thanks and
appreciation to one of Kentucky's hardest working public servants at
the end of a long career. Charles Frank Rapier, the executive director
of the Appalachian high intensity drug trafficking area--that is kind
of a mouthful, and we have a way to shorten that called Appalachia
HIDTA--will be retiring this November after 46 years in law
enforcement.
This guy is a bit of a legend, Madam President. Director Rapier--
called Frank by his friends--has been leading the Appalachia HIDTA
Program since 2003. Prior to his appointment, he served as deputy
director of that program for Kentucky. The Appalachia HIDTA Program was
established in 1998 to combat one of our country's greatest problems:
illegal drug trafficking and drug abuse.
The problem of drug abuse that Frank has pledged his career to
fighting is particularly bad in my home State of Kentucky. Kentucky
ranks in the top three of marijuana-producing States. More Kentuckians
died of drug overdoses in 2009 than in fatal car crashes--an
astonishing 82 per month. The threat from illegal meth use poses a
problem across the State as well. This rampant drug abuse increases
crime and destroys families in Kentucky.
Under Frank's leadership, the Appalachia HIDTA Program has attacked
drug trafficking organizations in the tristate area of Kentucky, West
Virginia, and Tennessee head on. And let me say, Madam President, he
has done an amazing job, a truly amazing job.
Specifically, in 2009, Appalachia HIDTA disrupted or dismantled 82
separate drug trafficking organizations. That translates into hundreds
of thousands of marijuana plants destroyed and hundreds of arrests. In
2006, they kept an estimated $1 billion worth of profits off of illegal
drug activities out of the State of Kentucky.
Frank played an integral role in arranging a visit to Kentucky
earlier this year by Gil Kerlikowske, the Director of the White House
Office of National Drug Control Policy, better known as the Nation's
drug czar. The Director's visit, which I was proud to help facilitate,
has been an important step in maintaining our focus in Kentucky to stem
drug abuse and save our family members, friends, and neighbors from the
dangers of drug addiction and drug-related crimes during a time of
shrinking Federal resources.
As a strong supporter of efforts to fight drug abuse in Kentucky, I
have gotten to know Frank and have seen firsthand his efforts. He is a
humble man, but he is highly respected in the law enforcement community
throughout the State--and even the Nation, for that matter--for the
wonderful job he has done. I know his dedication and leadership in this
important fight against illegal drugs will be greatly missed.
Frank knows well the area he has worked so hard to protect. Born and
raised in Corbin, KY, he received his bachelor's degree from Eastern
Kentucky University where he began his law enforcement service as an
EKU campus police officer. He attended graduate school at Xavier
University, served as an instructor at the Federal Law Enforcement
Training Academy at Glynco, GA, has taught at numerous police
academies, and has been a speaker at many law enforcement conferences.
Before working with Appalachia HIDTA, Frank was a special agent with
the U.S. Treasury Department for 32 years. He was a member of the
National Undercover Resource Pool and the National Response Team. Over
the course of his long career, he has served many assignments with the
U.S. Secret Service and State Department, including working as a member
of the Southeast Bomb Task Force that investigated the Olympic bombing
case in Atlanta in 1996.
While with the Treasury Department, Frank received four Special
Achievement Awards, a Special Act Award, a Performance Award, and the
Director's Award/Masengale Memorial Award.
After 46 years in law enforcement, I wish Frank congratulations on a
job

[[Page 16500]]

well done and best wishes in his retirement. Countless Kentuckians owe
their thanks to Frank as well.
Frank regularly describes the practice of asking his granddad: What
did you do in the war? He feels prepared to be asked the same question
himself now as he nears the end of his career. He knows someday there
will be an accounting. He has worked all his professional life so that
his answer to that question can be: I fought back against a tide of
illegal drugs and saved lives. He has certainly done that, and more.
I know my colleagues in the Senate join me in thanking Director
Rapier for decades of service. The work he has done for so many years
has created a safer, stronger Kentucky.
Madam President, I yield the floor.

____________________

RESERVATION OF LEADER TIME

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

____________________

MORNING BUSINESS

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will be in a period of morning business for 1 hour, with
Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with the
time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their
designees, with the majority controlling the first half and the
Republicans controlling the final half.
The Senator from New Mexico.

____________________

REBUILD AMERICA JOBS ACT

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I rise today to speak in favor of the
Rebuild America Jobs Act. I, first, just clarify for folks, because it
is a little confusing, we have had several proposals to create jobs
that have come to the floor in the last several weeks, and they have
similar names. The one before us today is the Rebuild America Jobs Act,
and it is a portion of the larger American Jobs Act that President
Obama proposed and set out for the Congress to consider in September.
Let me talk first about that larger bill which the President
proposed. This American Jobs Act the President proposed would have a
very significant and beneficial impact on my State of New Mexico. Under
that legislation, there would be payroll tax cuts for about 40,000
businesses in my State. There would be an expansion of payroll tax cuts
for workers that would provide a typical household in New Mexico,
having a median income of $44,000, with a tax cut of about $1,360 per
year.
There would be support for up to 2,600 construction jobs in upgrading
public schools. There would be $20 million to revitalize vacant and
foreclosed businesses and homes. There would be over $49 million for
community colleges in New Mexico. There would be unemployment insurance
reforms that could help put 32,000 unemployed New Mexicans back to
work. And there is funding in that legislation for up to 3,100 teachers
and police officers and first responders to keep those people on the
job so they can continue to provide services to our schools, to our
students, and to our communities.
But despite the fact that all these important investments would be
fully paid for--and that is made clear in the legislation; not a single
dollar would be added to the national debt--this comprehensive
legislation was blocked by a filibuster by our Republican colleagues a
couple weeks ago. I commend Senator Reid for continuing to fight to
keep job creation on top of the legislative agenda and for bringing up
parts of this broader legislation independently to see if we can get
support for any of these individual parts because each of them has a
great deal of merit.
Two weeks ago, we voted on the Teachers and First Responders Back to
Work Act. This would have helped States and local governments keep over
400,000 teachers, police, and firefighters on the job during these
tough economic times. It was disappointing to me that this effort
failed to get enough votes so we could go ahead and consider the bill.
The legislation we are discussing would provide $50 billion in
infrastructure investments in highways and transit and in rail projects
across the country, and in doing those investments it would create
thousands of jobs. Among other things, it would put Americans to work
in improving 150,000 miles of roads, 4,000 miles of train tracks,
restoring 150 miles of airport runways, and in implementing the NextGen
air traffic modernization efforts that this Congress should be strongly
supporting. Those are efforts to improve air safety and to reduce
delays in air traffic.
So passage of this legislation would mean at least $284 million in my
home State of New Mexico in immediate infrastructure investments. That
investment of $284 million would support a minimum of 3,700 local jobs.
These resources are greatly needed in my State. The Federal Highway
Administration estimates that about 22 percent of New Mexico's major
roads are in poor or mediocre condition; 19 percent of our bridges are
structurally deficient or functionally obsolete, according to the
Federal Highway Administration.
In addition, the bill includes $10 billion to establish an
independent national infrastructure bank in order to leverage private
and public funds in advancing a broad range of infrastructure projects
through loans and loan guarantees. Under this proposal that was modeled
after bipartisan legislation introduced by Senators Kerry and Hutchison
earlier this year, the bank would help finance large-scale
transportation, water, and energy projects that are of national and
regional significance. I am glad to see that the infrastructure bank
included in this bill would begin to address some of the significant
challenges we have of stimulating investment in new energy projects.
There is simply not enough capital available in the country to deploy
these technologies at the scale we need to deploy them to meet our
national security objectives and to remain competitive in growing
international markets for clean energy technologies. So the
availability of this type of financing through this national
infrastructure bank could be helpful in developing the transmission
capacity required to bring renewable energies developed in my State of
New Mexico to communities throughout the country.
Let me also briefly comment on the fact that there is revenue raised
in order to pay for this set of investments that are being proposed;
that is, there is a so-called offset for the cost of this legislation.
That is because I think all of us agree the deficit is at unsustainable
levels. We should not be committing to increased spending without
finding a way to pay for it, and that is why this legislation contains
a revenue-raising provision. The legislation would impose a 0.7-percent
surtax on income exceeding $1 million.
What does that mean? That means that if a person's annual income is
$1 million, then this legislation does not, in any way, change the
taxes they are required to pay. So any garden-variety millionaire who
only receives $1 million per year in income is not required to pay any
more under this legislation. But if they exceed that and their income
is $1,110,000, for example, they would have to pay an extra $700 toward
the cost of this legislation.
The reality is, modernizing our Nation's infrastructure and
stimulating job growth and enhancing policies to assist with our
economic recovery does cost money. We all wish it did not, but it does.
Frankly, if we are going to give more than just lip service to
addressing our persistent deficits, I think it is reasonable to ask the
wealthiest among us to pitch in to move America forward to get this
economy moving again.
In New Mexico, less than one-tenth of 1 percent of taxpayers would be
impacted by this modest surtax. That means 99.9 percent of New Mexicans
would not be impacted at all, and the handful of filers who would be
impacted would only pay the surtax on the portion of their annual
income that exceeds $1 million.
I strongly believe this legislation, the Rebuild America Jobs Act,
that we are going to try to proceed to tomorrow--or whenever we can get
consent

[[Page 16501]]

from our Republican colleagues to proceed to it--I believe is important
legislation. It is an important step in turning our economy around, and
I urge my colleagues to support it.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. COONS. Madam President, I rise because this week, once again, the
Senate of the United States has the opportunity to create jobs, to find
a way to work together to make a real difference in the long-term
strength of this Nation, and to finally punch back against this
recession which has taken so much from the working families of our
States.
I rise in support of the Rebuilding America Jobs Act, a bill that
will invest $60 billion in our Nation's crumbling infrastructure and
put hundreds of thousands of Americans back to work.
Investments in America's infrastructure are investments in America's
future, and they could not come at a more critical time for our
country, our communities, or our future.
The rest of the world is pouring money into its infrastructure
because they know it will not only make it easier for them to recover
from this recession; they know it will make them more competitive for
their long-term future, for their people, for their countries, for
their economies. So at a time when our competitors are pouring money
into fixing, expanding, building their infrastructure, we have turned
off the spigot. We are starving our roads and our bridges, our sewers
and our water systems, our tunnels, our ports, our runways, our
railroad tracks. We are starving them of the repairs they need to
function properly--not just today but to lay the groundwork for our
competitiveness for the next generation of Americans.
China, one of our greatest economic competitors, is spending 9
percent of its GDP on infrastructure. As anyone who has visited China
in recent years knows, all across the nation of China there are
gleaming new highway systems, brandnew ports, brandnew airports and
runways, brandnew transportation infrastructure that connects newly
built cities leaping from the ground as if by magic because they have
invested enormous amounts in a modern infrastructure. Europe broadly is
investing 5 percent of GDP in modernizing their infrastructure. In the
United States, where modern infrastructure has for a generation made us
the envy of the world, we are investing just 2 percent--just 2
percent--of our GDP. This is foolish.
Few people argue that infrastructure isn't important. In fact, it is
one of the few things that seem to enjoy broad support in this Chamber,
in this city, and in this country. Folks as disparate as the AFL-CIO
and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce agree that investing in modernizing
our infrastructure is critical, not just for putting Americans back to
work but getting America working for our country's future. They both
support the idea of an infrastructure bank because they know investing
in infrastructure isn't just about rebuilding our roads, it is about
rebuilding our economy.
When companies make decisions about where to locate, about where to
build a new factory, about where to expand production, about where to
lease a new office, infrastructure is always at or near the top of
their list. Proximity to a highway means everything if someone is going
to run or expand a factory. Being close to a port is critical if their
products need to be exported overseas. Access to airports and railways
is imperative if someone wants to do business outside their community
or our country. High-speed Internet can be every bit as important as
these century-old transportation technologies and can be every bit as
important as clean water, modern ports or new railroads.
Infrastructure is important in every State of our Nation and
especially so in my coastal State of Delaware. The Port of Wilmington
brings 4 million tons of goods through Delaware each year, providing
high-wage, high-skilled jobs for the longshoremen and the communities
immediately around our port that rely so much on its vital link to the
global economy. Railways allow Amtrak to connect businessmen and women
from New York to our financial services sector, to our legal and
banking community in Wilmington, and it is one of the busiest railroad
stations in America. I-95, the east coast corridor, connects truckers
and motorists up and down the east coast to our little State.
But as folks have known for too long, one of the worst choke points
in the whole East Coast on I-95 was in our State. I used to get calls
all the time in my role as county executive because folks mistakenly
thought it was somehow my role to modernize this highway. It was John
F. Kennedy who cut the ribbon on this modern interstate highway, and
we, frankly, have failed to invest in keeping up with the times, in
keeping up with the growth in traffic, in keeping up with the tempo of
global commerce since then.
Delaware has finally solved these problems. With the leadership of
the Obama administration and this Chamber, the investments that were
made in infrastructure over the last 2 years, we finally have solved
that chokepoint on I-95. Today, motorists move through at great
speeds--pay their tolls to Delaware, yes--and are able to get on their
way, north or south, and engage in commerce at the speed that the
modern economy demands. That is what we seek to do nationwide. That is
what the Rebuilding America Jobs Act can do.
For the last 25 or 30 years, we have been building off the
infrastructure built by our parents' generation, hoping that a little
bandage here, a little ointment there, a little wire, a little bubble
gum would be enough to get us through another year. But that is not a
strategy for laying the groundwork for a great future for our children.
It is not even a strategy for keeping up. The chokepoints on America's
roads can't be allowed to choke America's economy for the next
generation. One-third of our Nation's major roadways are in poor or
even mediocre condition, and one-quarter of our bridges have been rated
structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. We have even faced the
human suffering and the reputational disaster of having bridges
collapse across this country in recent years. We have failed to invest
in our future. As a country, we can keep swerving to avoid these
potholes, but eventually we are going to hit them.
The Rebuilding America Jobs Act would fill that pothole, would make
smooth the rough places of this Nation, and accelerate our economic
growth for the future. I am a cosponsor of the Rebuilding America Jobs
Act because this bill would fill the pothole we have been avoiding for
decades. It would rebuild 150,000 miles of American roadways, maintain
4,000 miles of train tracks, upgrade 150 miles of airport runways. It
would restore critical drinking water and wastewater systems for our
communities, and strengthen our energy infrastructure. In short, it
would make us competitive. It would put people back to work. It would
get us on the right road to a sustained recovery. It would put hundreds
of thousands of Americans back to work in that sector of economy that
took the first and hardest hit from the recession.
More than 2 million Americans who worked in construction have lost
their jobs since this tragic recession hit, including 8,000 in my home
State of Delaware alone, and we have thousands of folks in the skilled
building trades ready to go. They need us to get over our differences,
find a way past these endless, mindless filibusters, and get them to
work. This week we have an opportunity to invest in those people and
invest in our country. Infrastructure is such a smart investment, and
in this economy and in this competitive global environment where our
allies and competitors are outstripping our investment because they see
clearly the road to the future, we simply cannot afford to continue to
refuse to act.
It was 1 year ago today that the people of Delaware elected me to
represent them in Washington. Every day since I have wondered when this
Chamber was finally going to come together across the partisan divide
and start moving on jobs. The persistent partisanship

[[Page 16502]]

here that has plagued this body is in my view not worthy of the very
real human needs of the people who sent us here.
Last month, folks in this Congress, mostly from the other party,
prevented us from acting on jobs--not once, not twice, but several
times. I do not understand the strategy here, but the endless
filibusters must stop. I know there is debate over how we are going to
pay for this particular proposal to put $60 billion into
infrastructure, but as Senator Bingaman commented just before me, this
is a modest increase in revenue from the very wealthiest Americans that
I believe is justified in this critical economic time. Too many of my
neighbors, too many of my constituents, are out of work.
I don't think we have a choice. We need to act. The President is
right, we cannot wait to act. The Rebuilding America Jobs Act not only
invests in America's jobs for today but in our economy tomorrow. We
cannot wait any longer to fill this pothole. This bill deserves
bipartisan support and I hope my colleagues will join me in voting for
it this week.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. BEGICH. Madam President, I rise to speak also on the Rebuild
America Jobs Act. Our Nation's infrastructure is in a state of
disrepair. We see it in the potholes in our streets, in the congested
highways of public transit that lack the capacity to safely and
efficiently get Americans where they need to go. The American Society
of Civil Engineers gives our Nation's infrastructure a D grade. One in
four bridges in the United States is structurally deficient. Our
deteriorating infrastructure has negative impacts on commerce and our
economy. We no longer have an infrastructure system that is the envy of
the world.
When you invest in public infrastructure, you have two results: You
create immediate construction jobs and you lay the foundation, the
groundwork, to improve communities and facilitate commerce. That was
certainly my experience when I was mayor of Anchorage.
I became mayor in 2003 at a time of economic slowdown--not quite as
bad as the national recession we face today, but we inherited huge
budget deficits and a dramatic slowdown in our economy. Our answer to
turn Anchorage around was to invest in our basic system of roads and
water and sewer and power--basic infrastructure. One of the best
examples of the public infrastructure investment was a small community
in the northern part of Anchorage called Mountain View. We knew there
was great potential for economic turnaround in this community. We knew
it because the community was interested. But in that community the
public infrastructure hadn't been invested in for decades. We did some
simple things at first--upgraded the roads, basic systems that move
people from one end of Mountain View to the other. We invested in
schools. Then we invested in some public facilities. Today, Mountain
View is the home of a branch of one of our large credit unions which is
now their top performer in new accounts. Also new retail was
established there--restaurant, phone store--and housing developments
where no housing was being developed in this neighborhood. As a matter
of fact, this neighborhood--I know it well because I grew up not far
from there--was the neighborhood where people lived and then they tried
to figure out how to move out of the neighborhood. Today it is a
community of choice, a place where people want to go. Well over 140
housing units have been developed in this community in the last 5
years. Also additional public offices and a library were developed
there for the first time in over 22 years. Simple investments created
private sector investment along with it.
Another example is, we built a new $100 million convention center in
our downtown Anchorage. The new Dena'ina Center is now an economic
engine attracting bigger conventions and meetings and tens of thousands
of visitors a year. In September alone the new convention center
generated almost $12 million in revenue supporting restaurants, shops,
and hotels.
Again, as someone born and raised in Anchorage, I remember when
businesses were fleeing the downtown. They saw it as not an opportunity
for economic development. By making these simple investments, we can
have a long-term impact. This $100 million may sound like a lot of
money. Let me give another example--$40,000 we invested in improved
street lights in a small part of downtown along G Street. Property
owners had legitimate concerns of safety after dark. When winter hits
in Alaska, there is a lot less light, so we invested about $40,000 per
street light, installing some simple street lights, a dozen or so along
the road there. As a result, the character of the street has
dramatically changed. We have seen 10 new businesses spring up in a
three-block section of G Street because it is safer. People move freely
at any time of the day. There are year-round retail and restaurant
businesses such as an Urban Greens, Jo Jo A Go Go, Modern Dwellers,
Alaska Cake Studio, and Octopus Ink--a variety of new businesses.
Retailers are investing their hard-earned capital, reaching out to
expand opportunity for Anchorage. These businesses probably would not
have made the investment without the small investment of the public
infrastructure.
In my view, we need to follow this model on a national level. Failure
to invest in our crumbling infrastructure--our roads, bridges,
airports--will cost us nearly a million American jobs without this
investment. It is incredibly important to move our economy forward by
legislation such as the Rebuild America Jobs Act. We have an
opportunity to reverse this trend while helping to put hundreds of
thousands of people back to work. This could put Alaskans back to work
on important projects--bridge repairs outside the Denali National Park,
a critical route between Alaska's two population centers and a heavily
traveled route for tour operators and shippers; intersection upgrades
on two of the busiest roads in downtown Fairbanks; highway safety
improvements along the Seward Highway outside of Anchorage that reduce
deadly traffic accidents and delays; safety improvements along the
Sterling Highway on the Kenai Peninsula--other areas of high visitor
traffic in the summer.
We know these improvements will support local economic growth all
around Alaska, which is still a very young State compared to many
States, and has tremendous transportation needs. Two years ago, this
Congress approved the Recovery Act which funded sorely needed projects
across my State--projects such as the Gustavus dock, Alaska Railroad
line improvements, Glenn Highway repairs, and airport upgrades. These
all created immediate construction jobs and have also improved access
points so private companies can increase revenues and create long-term
jobs.
The Rebuild America Jobs Act not only provides desperately needed
repair funds, it also provides the seed money for the National
Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank that will attract private sector
capital to help fund a broad range of nationally significant projects.
The concept for the infrastructure bank has broad bipartisan support
and is currently being championed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Moody's estimates for every $1 spent on roads and water and sewer--
the basic infrastructure of this country--GDP is raised by $1.59. The
Rebuild America Jobs Act would make some key investments--$27 billion
to rebuild roads and bridges; $9 billion to invest in public transit;
$3 billion to invest in our airports and modernization of our air
traffic control system, which will make aviation more efficient and
safer.
For Alaskans, this investment would fund $220 million in much-needed
transportation improvements and modernization which of course means
good jobs--an estimated 2,900 jobs in Alaska from this bill.
Infrastructure development and investment has historically been a
bipartisan effort. The American people want Congress to work together.
This is a good bill to deal with our Nation's

[[Page 16503]]

roads, bridges, rails, ports, and runways.
Let me close by saying I have been here almost 3 years. We have some
good bills that passed and we argued over some that we wished would
pass. We have had some success over the last couple of weeks here, when
you think about the China currency bill, the three trade bills. Now we
have this bill. We have put three jobs bills up. Two have not been able
to pass because of opposition from the other side but here is one that
we know has bipartisan support. The infrastructure bank, the Chamber of
Commerce is actively promoting this because they see the melding of the
public and private sectors moving together to invest in the future of
this economy. They also know when you lay down those roads or that
better infrastructure on rail or transit, the net result is private
sector investment will occur either right after it or simultaneously.
I hope folks on the other side will make the decision that it is wise
to invest today and move this bill forward so we can have a long-term
economic impact for our country.
I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.

____________________

TAX REFORM

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, as we debate here in the Senate how to
get our economy going again to deal with what is a stagnant economic
set of circumstances, something that we have been grappling with now
for a few years, I think it is instructive to look at what is happening
in Europe. It was interesting to me as we look even at the papers this
morning, the front page of the Wall Street Journal, ``Fears of
Political Chaos Tank Global Markets as Europe's Bailout Plan Teeters.''
Then much of the paper today, at least in the news reporting, is all
about what is happening in Europe and the Greek crisis and the
sovereign debt crisis that is being experienced in that country.
The business page in the New York Times, ``Aftershocks for Athens and
Wall Street; European Debt Crisis Tightens Its Chokehold On Global
Markets.'' There is a whole series of stories again there about the
same issue.
The front page of the Washington Post above the fold, ``Europe
Bailout Again In Doubt, Greece Seeks Referendum.''
My point is as we have observed now what is happening in Europe, it
should be a lesson to us and a warning sign about what we need to be
doing to get our economy back on track in this country. What is really
saddling Europe right now is the fact that the European governments
have gotten too big for their economies to support, so they are
drowning in all of this debt. They have debt-to-GDP ratios that way
exceed the normal levels that are required for admission into the
European Union. Yet they continue to struggle with these huge amounts
of debt, much of which was created over a long period of time. It
didn't happen overnight. It is, frankly, that many governments made
promises they could not keep. So now they are dealing with that and
trying to figure out how they are going to work their way out of it. It
is becoming increasingly concerning, I think, to people all across the
globe and certainly to us in the United States.
If we look at the debt-to-GDP ratios in some of these countries
around the world, they are pretty staggering. Greece is somewhere in
the 180 percent debt-to-GDP area; in Portugal, Spain, countries like
that, in some cases it is in excess of 200 percent debt-to-GDP.
Where are we in this country? We are already at 100 percent. We are 1
to 1. Our debt-to-GDP now is at a level we have not seen since the end
of World War II. Spending as a percentage of our economy, debt as a
percentage of our economy, deficits as a percentage of our economy--all
at historic highs relative to anytime in history, at least in recent
history going back to World War II.
I think, hopefully, the lesson to take away from all of this is we
have to get our fiscal house in order. We are in a deep hole. We cannot
continue to dig that hole deeper. When I hear the discussion about how
to revive our economy, and I hear it revolve around we need to have
more government intervention, we need to have more government spending,
to me, that is literally a warning sign that we are on the wrong path.
That is exactly what has happened in Europe. Governments have gotten
too big. Their economies can no longer support them, and they are now
faced with untenable circumstances; serious, dramatic austerity
measures, accompanied by contracting economies, all leading to a
complete mess in Europe. Hopefully, one that will not spill over into
this country and around the globe. That concern clearly exists today,
which is why we see so many of these headlines in our American papers
focusing on that particular issue.
My point is simply this: I think as we look at how we deal with our
economy in the United States, it starts with balancing our budget,
getting our fiscal house in order, trying to get that debt and spending
as a percentage of our economy down to more normal historic levels. If
we go back over the past 40 years in American history, our spending as
a percentage of our GDP has been in the 20-percent to 21-percent range
on average. That is a 40-year historical average. Incidentally, the
five times we have balanced the budget since 1969--and there have only
been five times, regretably, where we actually balanced the budget--the
spending-to-GDP ratio was 18.7 percent on average. So, clearly, in
those times when we balanced the budget going back to 1969, those 5
years, we had an economy, obviously, that was expanding and growing,
but also we had government spending under control at a reasonable
level.
Today we are in the 24-percent to 25-percent range of spending as a
percentage of our economy. Debt to GDP is now literally at 100 percent.
That is something we have not seen. It is historic in terms of our
country's economy and our fiscal situation. I think it suggests that we
cannot spend our way out of this; we cannot borrow our way out of this.
All that will do is compound the situation, make it worse rather than
better. I think we have seen that in the first couple of years of this
Presidency.
President Obama, when he came into office, had a very aggressive
agenda. He wanted to expand the role of government. So we had a
stimulus program funded with borrowed money that was focused on
government spending, government stimulating the economy. We had a
massive new health care bill, $2.5 trillion when it was fully
implemented. That was a big expansion, the biggest expansion of
government we have seen, literally, in the last 40 years.
We have seen excessive regulation to the point that there are now
61,000 pages of new regulations that have been issued or pushed through
this year, all of which, again, compounds and makes worse the problem
we have of growing spending as a percentage of GDP, growing debt as a
percentage of GDP, and a shrinking private economy, or at least an
economy that is not growing at the rate we would like to see, and
continuing to run unemployment rates that are north of 9 percent. So
these are serious economic circumstances and worsened, I believe, by
the policies that have been put in place since this President took
office.
I believe we need to take a different approach. We need to move in a
different direction. We cannot continue to double down on what we know
does not work. Clearly, government spending, government stimulus of the
economy--if the last stimulus bill was any indication of that,
certainly it has not worked. So much of what I hear being talked about
now from my colleagues on the other side and from this administration
is very similar to that. We are talking about a lot of the same
prescriptions for our economy: We need to spend more here--which, of
course, entails more borrowing or higher taxes on the people who create
jobs.

[[Page 16504]]

In fact, the more recent iterations of that have entailed a tax
increase on people who create jobs--a permanent tax increase, I might
add--to pay for temporary spending programs, temporary spending ideas
that have already been proven not to work. It seems ironic, in a way,
that we are having that discussion. It strikes me at least that there
are lots of other ideas we ought to be thinking about if we are serious
about getting the American economy back on track and growing and
expanding.
Of course, we all talk about the issue of taxes. Taxes are clearly an
issue when it comes to our competitive place in the world and our
ability to compete with other countries around the world. We continue
to see companies move jobs to other places because our tax structure in
this country is not competitive. We have the second highest tax on
business in the entire world right now, which I think makes us
anticompetitive and makes it more difficult for us to attract jobs and
investment in this country.
We have, as I said, a regulatory structure that is spinning out of
control in terms of new regulations, new mandates, new requirements on
American businesses. Quite simply, we are making it more costly and
more difficult for American businesses to create jobs when we ought to
be looking at how we can make it less difficult and less costly, less
expensive, cheaper, if you will, to create jobs. So that is where we
ought to be looking.
Of the things that strike me that fit into that debate, No. 1 is tax
reform. I think getting tax rates down on businesses and individuals,
broadening the tax base, is something we ought to be having a debate
about, and tax reform that would put policies in place that are going
to be there for a while, that there is some permanence to. We continue
to change tax law every year or two, and that kind of economic
uncertainty makes it very difficult for American businesses to invest.
Who in their right mind is going to make investments based upon a set
of policies that are going to be in place for at best 2 years, at worst
maybe a year? That is how we have been setting tax policy of late.
We need to create economic certainty through more permanent tax
changes that promote long-term economic growth, not this decisionmaking
that is designed for people in the near term. Do something that might
give us a little bit of economic pop in the next 6 to 12 months, but
something that actually puts in place conditions where businesses will
make long-term investments, create long-term good-paying jobs right
here in America.
I think that is the kind of economic debate we need to have. Frankly,
instead of talking about redistribution of wealth or redistribution of
income, which is so often what we hear coming out of the White House,
we ought to talk about what we can do to promote economic growth. How
can we get this economy growing and expanding, and what are the
policies that will make that happen? Tax reform, clearly, in my view,
is one, and tax reform that is focused on getting rates down and making
us more competitive with the rest of the world. Then I think we ought
to have a debate about what we are going to do about these regulations.
Regulations are out of control.
There are a series of things that have been passed by the other body,
by the House of Representatives, which they call the ``forgotten 15.''
There are a whole series of things dealing with domestic energy
production and development, doing away with some of these costly
regulations. All of these are pieces of legislation, bills that have
passed in the House of Representatives this year.
Since January when we came into this new session of Congress, 15
bills have passed in the House of Representatives that have not been
acted on in the Senate. Many of us have tried and will continue to try
to get votes on some of these as amendments, perhaps, to bills that
might be moving through the Senate. If we are serious about supporting
policies that will create the right conditions for economic growth, it
seems to me at least we could start by taking legislation that has
passed the House with broad bipartisan support. These are policies that
have come through one body of the Congress that we could put on the
Senate floor and the agenda in the Senate that would impact the economy
and the job creators. These are all things we have heard people say
they want and they need.
If we look at the number of regulations coming out of Washington, DC,
and what it would take in terms of our job creators to comply with all
of that, it is an astonishing 82 million hours. It is 82 million hours
to comply at a cost of $80 billion. That is what these new regulations
that are coming out of Washington just in this last year, or since this
administration has taken office, that is the cost to our economy of all
of these new requirements that are being imposed upon our businesses.
We know regulations, excessive redtape kills jobs. It increases our
dependence on foreign oil, and it imposes costs on our businesses that
we, frankly, cannot afford.
If we look at what the Federal regulations cost job creators
annually, it is somewhere along the order of $1.75 trillion. That is
the composite of all of the regulations that exist on the books today,
not just those that have been enacted since this administration came to
power. They have taken it to a whole new level.
It is interesting because the chairman of the business roundtable and
the chairman, president, and CEO of Boeing company, a gentleman named
Jim McNerney, in a Wall Street Journal op-ed and printed on Monday,
noted the following:

A tsunami of new rules and regulations from an alphabet
soup of Federal agencies is paralyzing investment and
increasing by tens of billions of dollars the compliance cost
for small and large businesses.

He goes on to say:

What we face is a jobs crisis, and regulators charged with
protecting the interest of the people are making worse the
problem that is hurting them now. . . . An increasingly
skeptical business community needs proof Washington can put
America on a sustainable fiscal footing and promote economic
growth.

The recognition that we have to get our fiscal house in order, the
recognition that this alphabet soup of Federal agencies is paralyzing
investments, increasing by tens of billions of dollars the compliance
for large and small businesses is what this particular CEO, who leads a
large business organization in this country, has put his finger on in
terms of the things we need to get the economy in this country growing
again.
I hope as we continue to have this discussion in the Senate, rather
than focusing, again, on raising taxes on people who create jobs--and
that is what these proposals that have been put in front of us would
do. We had one we voted on the last time we were in, the week before
last, and we have one we will probably have a vote on sometime this
week--essentially saying we are going to permanently raise taxes on job
creators to pay for temporary spending programs that have already been
proven not to work. That doesn't sound like a jobs plan to me. That
sounds like another futile attempt to have Washington become relevant
to this debate, knowing full well it really is the job creators out
there in this country, it is our private economy where the jobs are
really going to be created.
As the American people follow this debate, this is a very real issue
for them because it affects their jobs. It is something about which
they care deeply and profoundly. Economic issues, bread-and-butter
issues, kitchen table issues are what the American people focus on. So
I think they care deeply about this debate, and they should because
what we do here impacts them and their children and grandchildren for
generations to come.
If we think about the fact that today we have a $15 trillion Federal
debt and what that translates into per family in this country, it is
about $126,000 per family. Every family owes their share of the Federal
debt, $126,000. Now, compound that by adding the total unfunded
liabilities of our Federal Government, which now total over $60
trillion, and those are the obligations we have to pay Social Security
and Medicare benefits for future generations.

[[Page 16505]]

That share of that unfunded liability per family in this country
exceeds $500,000 per family, and that exceeds the amount they pay for
their mortgages and for all the other things combined in their daily
lives. Take their mortgage payments, car payments, the payments they
are making on their student loans, all those sorts of things are all
exceeded by that amount--the mortgage, in effect, they have because of
the unfunded liabilities their government has racked up.
So we look at where we are, we look at what we are doing to the
American people with the spending and the borrowing here in Washington,
DC, and we look at what is happening in Europe, and we can see some
real parallels there, and it is a path I hope we will not go down. But
it is clear to me at least that we continue to try to make promises to
people in this country that we can't keep. When we get to the point--
and I think we are there--where the size of government, the growth in
our government in this country cannot be supported by our economy, we
have to make some decisions, and those decisions are not going to be
easy. We need to get government back into a more normal, historical
size relative to our economy, and I think that will help unleash the
job creation we need in this country.
By the way, as I mentioned, the amount of debt many of these European
countries have racked up as a percentage of their GDP--we are not far
behind. We are 1 to 1, about 100 percent. As I said, today Greece is
about 180 percent.
But if we look at the studies that have been done and how sovereign
debt impacts the economy and jobs, there is a clear correlation and
clear connection. A good body of research done by a couple of
economists, Carmen Reinhart and Ken Rogoff, suggests that when we get a
debt-to-GDP level that exceeds 90 percent and we sustain that, it will
cost about a percentage point of economic growth every single year. In
this country, when we lose a percentage point of economic growth, it
costs about 1 million jobs. So these high, sustained, chronic levels of
debt-to-GDP at the ratios we are at and continue to be at today
continue to make it more difficult for our economy to create jobs, that
coupled, as I said, with all of the new requirements we are imposing on
businesses.
I want to mention a couple of other things in wrapping up when I talk
about those requirements because, in those cases, the ``forgotten 15''
that have been passed by the House of Representatives do focus on some
areas that are costing a lot of money in our economy for our job
creators. Again, these are 15 bills passed by the House of
Representatives, all with bipartisan support, none of which has been
taken up and acted on here in the Senate. It seems to me we ought to at
least have votes on these, and these are things American businesses are
telling us they need to get the economy growing again.
The other thing we know that is making it more difficult and costly
for American businesses to create jobs is the new health care bill.
The Des Moines Register reports that last week Iowa-based insurer
American Enterprise Group announced that ``it will exit the individual
major medical insurance market, making it the 13th company to pull out
of some portion of Iowa's health insurance business since June of
2010,'' mere months after ObamaCare passed. As a result, 35,000
individuals receiving coverage from American Enterprise's individual
insurance policies will now lose their current coverage. For these
individuals, the promise that they will not have to change plans, that
nothing will change under the Obama plan except they will pay less, has
once again proven to be hollow.
Another example of an insurance company that is moving out of the
business--and if we look at the more recent reports about companies
that are dropping or talking about dropping coverage, we now know there
is a McKinsey & Company report out there. They surveyed a bunch of
companies in this country, both large and small, and 30 percent of
employers and 28 percent of large employers will definitely or probably
stop offering coverage after 2014.
So all of those people who derive their health insurance coverage
from their employer or the individual marketplace are seeing not lower
costs but higher costs and probably fewer options. That is the trend we
are seeing. That is the experience so far, after passage of ObamaCare,
the impact it is having on American businesses and American businesses'
ability to create jobs in our economy.
So the health care heavy weight, the anchor that is putting on
American businesses, coupled with all the other regulations that are
coming out of Washington, DC, coupled with a tax code that is riddled
with uncertainty and questions about what is going to happen next in
terms of raising taxes on job creators in this country, focused more on
income and wealth redistribution rather than economic growth, which is
where we ought to be focused, suggests that we are headed in the wrong
direction fiscally. We are headed in the wrong direction economically.
We are headed in the wrong direction with regard to tax and regulatory
policies in this country.
We still have time to change direction. I hope we start by taking
these 15 bills passed by the House of Representatives and putting them
on the floor of the Senate for a vote instead of having yet another
political vote, which is what we are going to have this week, that
would permanently raise taxes on the people who create jobs in this
country--permanently raise taxes--to pay for temporary programs that
have proven not to work, as is evidenced by the failed stimulus bill
from 2 years ago. We can do better. We can do better by the American
people, and we need to. But it has to start here, and it can start by
picking up things that we know have bipartisan support.
Madam President, I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a
quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.

____________________

CONCLUSION OF MORNING BUSINESS

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Morning business is closed.

____________________

REBUILD AMERICA JOBS ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 1769,
which the clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

Motion to proceed to the consideration of the bill (S.
1769) to put workers back on the job while rebuilding and
modernizing America.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, the Rebuild America Jobs Act addresses
two of our most fundamental responsibilities: first, the need to
respond to the urgent jobs crisis and, second, the duty to create the
physical framework for economic growth now and into the future.
There should be no debate about our duty to fulfill those two
responsibilities. Yet, once again, we are in a situation where the
refusal of our Republican colleagues to compromise, even on
consideration of measures they have supported in the past, prevents us
from acting on behalf of the American people.
I am encouraged by reports that perhaps finally the need to act has
convinced some of our colleagues across the aisle to at least consider
allowing the Senate to debate this legislation. I hope for the sake of
millions of people in Michigan and in every other State who are waiting
for us to act that at least some of our Republican colleagues will
relent and allow us to at least debate this measure.
What would this bill accomplish? Simply put, it seeks to create jobs
now

[[Page 16506]]

and into the future. It does so by funding a wide array of
infrastructure projects, including roads, bridges, rail transport, mass
transit, airport facilities, and updated air traffic control systems.
These projects would put construction workers on the job immediately.
They would, according to estimates by Moody's, boost economic growth by
more than a dollar and a half for every dollar we spend. And the
benefits would continue into the future as American companies and
American workers benefit from the increased competitiveness that
modernized infrastructure provides.
In my home State of Michigan, this legislation would result in more
than $900 million going to infrastructure projects. It would create
about 12,000 jobs. Residents of my State are keenly aware of the need
to act, and to act now, on the jobs crisis, and they are keenly aware
of the terrible costs we pay if we allow our economic competitors to
establish advantages over our workers. In my State, nearly one-third of
our bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. More
than one-third of our major roads are in poor or mediocre condition.
About 40 percent of our major urban roadways are congested. The people
of Michigan want us to act on jobs, and they want us to act now to
maintain America's competitive edge.
These are not controversial ideas--at least they have not been in the
past. Support for infrastructure is traditionally bipartisan. It was a
Republican President--Dwight Eisenhower--who launched the Interstate
Highway System. This bill includes an infrastructure bank based on a
bipartisan idea once supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Every
Member of this body, Democrat and Republican, fights for adequate
infrastructure spending for their State. Why, when faced with the dual
challenges of a jobs crisis and increasingly outdated infrastructure,
would we hamper our ability to grow now and in the future by not
allowing a debate on this bill and adopting this bill?
Perhaps some of my Republican colleagues object to the way this bill
is paid for. As has been the case with previous jobs bills, this
legislation would not add a dollar to the deficit. It would pay for
these much needed infrastructure efforts by asking those with incomes
of more than $1 million a year to pay a fraction of a percentage point
of their income above $1 million a year in additional taxes. Again,
outside the Halls of Congress, this is not a controversial notion. A
strong majority of Americans, including a majority of rank-and-file
Republicans, support the idea of asking the wealthiest among us to
contribute to solving our jobs crisis.
I might say, in terms of investing in infrastructure, a recent CNN
poll shows that 72 percent of Americans support investing in
infrastructure to create jobs. We know from this poll that a huge
majority of Americans want us to invest in infrastructure. They want us
to invest in infrastructure now to create jobs. That is mirrored by
other polls which show a vast majority of Americans believe the fair
way to pay for this investment is for the wealthiest among us to pay a
small fraction of the income they make above a level such as $1
million, which is what is provided for in this bill. Now, make no
mistake, if Republicans reject this legislation because of the funding
mechanism, they are voting directly in opposition to the will of the
American people and against the concepts of basic fairness that should
guide our actions.
Finally, relative to this pay-for, there is only one group of
Americans who have done well financially in the last few decades; that
is, the wealthiest 1 percent. The rest of Americans, middle-income
Americans, have either lost ground or gotten nowhere, but the
wealthiest 1 percent of Americans have done exceedingly well, and their
proportion of the national income has grown dramatically. So to say
income above $1 million should not pay a small fraction of a percent in
a surcharge to help pay for what this country desperately needs and
would create jobs flies right against the feelings and beliefs of the
vast majority of the American people.
Finally, the vote we are going to take in the next couple days is not
even a vote on the bill. This is a vote on ending a Republican
filibuster on the motion to proceed to the bill. It is a motion which
would allow us to begin to debate a bill.
I have been continually surprised at the lockstep opposition of
Republicans to even beginning to debate on these matters. I would make
a simple request, and a number of us have done the same. Let's debate
this legislation. Allow us to debate the legislation. If the
legislation can be improved, offer ideas to improve it. If there is a
better idea, offer the better idea. I believe Republicans would have a
very receptive audience if they propose ideas for which there is strong
evidence of benefits and economic growth and job creation. But until we
can get a job-creation measure to the floor of the Senate, we cannot
even discuss those issues in a legislative setting; we can only really
hear debate as to whether we ought to be allowed to debate those
issues.
A bipartisan vote to begin the debate on jobs legislation would send
an important signal to the people we all represent, a signal that we
are ready to put aside partisanship and address the problems our people
face. I hope Republicans will end their filibuster so we can adopt the
motion to proceed to this jobs bill.
Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I rise to address our Nation's job
crisis and to share some thoughts about why it is important that we
proceed to debate on the Rebuild America Jobs Act. It may come as a
surprise to some across the Nation that at this point this Chamber is
not debating the Rebuild America Jobs Act but that we are debating
whether to debate. Only in the Senate could we be engaged in that type
of question, when across America millions of folks want to see us act,
want to see us create jobs.
It was only a few weeks ago we had a similar debate. That debate was
over the America Jobs Act, a broad portfolio of measures to put our
economy back on track and create jobs for Americans. To get closure on
whether to debate, we had to get a supermajority under the rules of the
Senate.
My colleagues across the aisle opposed that and we could not get to
the debate of the bill on how to create jobs. Now we have before us a
smaller segment of that bill, one that focuses on the construction
industry. Again, we find ourselves debating whether to debate rather
than getting down to work and creating jobs. So I hope this time the
outcome will be quite different.
The jobs crisis has hit hard across this Nation. It hit especially
hard in my home State of Oregon, where the job rate has been lowered as
the unemployment rate has been higher than in most States across this
Nation. One of the main reasons Oregon is hurting is because our
construction industry, our residential and commercial construction
industry, is flat on its back. More than 40,000 construction jobs have
been lost in Oregon since 2007. Thousands more have been lost in
related industries such as forest products and nursery stock and grass
seed, all of which only thrive when we are building homes in America.
Right now, we are not building homes in America.
So we need a boost to get the construction industry moving again. If
you do not believe me, just listen to the people in the State of
Oregon. A few weeks ago, I asked my constituents to write in and share
their stories. Today, I am going to share some of those stories with
all of you. Carolann from Marion County writes in and says:

I am a construction cost accountant with 47 years of
experience and two masters degrees. I have been widowed since
1996. I am 69

[[Page 16507]]

years old. I fully support my 67-year-old sister who has
dementia and is in remission from colon cancer. Wall Street
and my own bout with cancer just before I turned 65 has wiped
out a lifetime of savings, my retirement nest egg. I have to
work or we will be homeless in about 3 months. I drive a 16-
year-old vehicle that is on its last legs. I have aging
parents who are struggling to keep their farm. Those are the
facts. In late 2008, for the first time in my career, I was
laid off from my construction accounting job. Since that time
I have been unable to find another job in any field despite
my good references. Currently I work part time for a start-up
dot-com. My prognosis for continued employment is shaky.
Banks will not loan money to a start-up. This summer I went
from June 26 to September 7 without a paycheck of any kind.
Last week I applied for a job at Wall Mart for Oregon's
minimum wage. I will probably get hired, but I am not kidding
myself about job security. That does not exist any more for
most of us. Senator, the worst thing about all of this is our
do-nothing Congress. Washington, D.C. has lost touch with
America.

Her words ring powerfully in this Chamber. She, similar to millions
of other Americans, is saying this economy is tough. Family
circumstances are rough. Why does Congress not get down to work and
debate and pass job-creating legislation? She is frustrated with this
do-nothing Congress and we are debating whether to debate a jobs bill.
I encourage my colleagues to listen to Carolann from Marion County.
Let's get past this point and get down to debating the jobs bill.
Hank from Marion County writes:

Three years ago, I was at the top of my more than 35 years
in construction management working as a senior project
manager on a large project. As the economy tanked, the
projects were terminated. Today I am unemployable after
hundreds of applications. I am left able, willing and highly
experienced, yet undesired. Our farm was foreclosed and my
wife and I had to file bankruptcy. Currently our mortgage
lender refuses to complete a home loan modification, although
they qualified us 2 years ago for the program. And since then
we have been making the required payments each month even
without a final agreement. We have met with community groups,
written letters, made calls, yet nothing seems to happen. In
another year when the bankruptcy period ends, we fear the
bank will simply foreclosure again and we will lose our farm.

Again, another voice from a family deeply affected by the collapse of
the construction industry and a call to us to help put it back on its
feet.
Brian from Yamhill County writes:

I have worked in the lumber industry for 35 years. In 2009
I was laid off for 11 months. I did go back to work in June
only to be cut again after only 5 days of work. I went back
to work in December for the same company. In September 2010
there was a cutback. More than 70 people lost their jobs. I
was lucky. I made the cut. But my pay was reduced by nearly
$5 an hour. I went from driving a fork lift to a clean-up
position. 6 months went by and then another cut. This time
another 60 people lost their jobs. I was lucky again. And I
worked at a new position for nearly a year until September
2011, and then came another cut. This time I was one of 42
people to be laid off with no chance of a call back. Now
there are rumors that the entire plant is closing. I have
been out of work for 1 month now. And in my job search I have
been running into the same thing everywhere I go: No work
available.
Every industrial area I go into I see many buildings where
companies have gone out of business. Windows and doors are
boarded up. I want Congress to do the job they are being paid
to do so I can go back to work.

That is the line he closes on: that we here in this Chamber should do
the job we are assigned; that is, to take on, amend, and pass job-
creating legislation so he can find a job, so he can go back to work. I
think his sentiment is echoed by millions of American families. There
is no substitute for a job. No program can come anywhere close to the
important role a job plays in the personal satisfaction, the structure
it gives us in our life, in the knowledge we are putting a roof over
our family's head and putting food on the table. No program can
suffice. A job is the heart of the success of our families. Yet here we
are fiddling while Rome burns or, in this case, filibustering while
millions of Americans go without jobs. It is not right.
I say to my colleagues, particularly I wish to encourage my
colleagues across the aisle who filibustered the last effort to put the
jobs bill on the floor: Stop. Talk to the folks in your home State who
are unemployed, who expect us to do what every American worker expects
us to do, which is to debate and pass job-creating legislation.
The bill which we are debating whether to debate, the Rebuild America
Jobs Act, is a commonsense strategy to put people back to work in an
industry that needs it, making investments our country will have to
make sooner or later anyway. One in four bridges in America is rated
deficient. We get a D grade on our infrastructure from the American
Society of Civil Engineers.
This is not the America we know. It is not the America we want. Let's
build the America of the future that will have the infrastructure to
drive our economy positively. Infrastructure is not an option; it is a
necessity. We can build it now when interest rates are low and jobs are
needed or we can spend more later when our infrastructure has
deteriorated further and it is more expensive. We can do it earlier,
with lower interest rates and more bang for the buck, or we can do it
later, when it will be more expensive, more difficult, with a higher
interest pricetag. It doesn't seem to be a difficult choice. It
certainly doesn't seem to be a difficult choice as to whether we should
at least be on the bill, debating it.
I know many folks are coming to the Chamber to address the question
of how we get a jobs bill actually before the Senate. I hope all of my
colleagues will get on the line with folks back home, go to that town
meeting, and say: Do you want us to debate a bill or do you want me to
keep stalling and preventing a debate on how to create jobs? I am
pretty confident 9 out of 10 people--and maybe 10 out of 10 people--
will stand up and say: Quit stalling. Let's get to work here so America
can get back to work.
Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, today I want to discuss the jobs bill
we are currently debating and how important it is that we pass this
right away.
I also want to respond to the minority leader's remarks this morning
in which he tried to deny the bipartisan nature of this proposal and,
instead, sought to divert this Chamber toward a hodgepodge of bills
taken up by the House.
All across the country, and in our State of New York, from
Poughkeepsie to Buffalo, there are roads, bridges, and sewer systems in
need of serious repair. In each of these places, there are thousands of
middle-class families desperately looking for work.
In the construction trades--the backbone of the middle class in many
of our communities, in New York and around the country--there is 25,
30, 40 percent unemployment. That is true for many of my colleagues on
both sides of the aisle. We all know that in previous recessions, 60
percent of the new jobs were in construction. That is because they
lower interest rates and build more housing. There is no more lower
interest rates because, when the recession began, they were already
very low and, of course, there is a surplus of housing now in America.
This week, by voting to pass the Rebuild America Jobs Act, the Senate
can get thousands of Americans off the unemployment line and back into
the workforce. Because they get paid good salaries, the money they get
flows into the economy and creates a multiplier effect that creates
other jobs. These are good, solid, high-skilled American jobs--jobs we
need.
Investing in our roads, bridges, and sewer systems could not be more
urgent. More than one in four of our Nation's bridges is either
structurally deficient or obsolete. I put out a list of those in New
York State and it was astounding, in every part of our State.
We all know that, as we get closer to winter, our deteriorating roads
will place a heavy burden on commuters and local taxpayers. Our local
towns,

[[Page 16508]]

villages, counties, and cities cannot afford the infrastructure work
that is needed right now because of tight budgets and budget cutbacks
at the Federal, State, and local levels. As this past weekend's storm
made clear, investing in our crumbling sewer systems has never been
more essential. All up and down the Northeast, old sewer systems have
given way to serious flooding. We can make a downpayment on these
priorities by passing this bill, and we should do so in a bipartisan
manner.
When I travel across New York State, two of the first things people
bring up to me are jobs and fixing our infrastructure. This bill does
both. It doesn't matter whether the people are Democratic, Republican,
Independent, from upstate or downstate, men or women, liberal or
conservative, they all say the same thing, and we see this reflected in
public opinion. A recent CNN poll showed nearly three-quarters of
Americans support additional Federal investments in our infrastructure.
Yes, they are worried about the deficit and our long-term fiscal
health, but they know we can't cut our seed corn--infrastructure
projects that create jobs and help America grow economically.
Here is the best part of this bill. It invests in projects that
create jobs, but it is fully paid for by asking the wealthiest among
us--those who have incomes of over $1 million--to pay a fraction more
in taxes. They pay that not on their entire income but just on the part
that is above $1 million. So if a millionaire--someone worth a lot of
money--has an income of $1.1 million, they only pay the small .7-
percent increase on the $100,000 that is over 1 million. Their first
million doesn't change. The tax policy doesn't change.
Over the last decade, the middle class has taken a punch in the gut.
The cost of sending kids to college has gone way up, the job market is
tougher and tougher, and middle-class incomes are declining while costs
to the middle class are rising. As a middle-class family sits around
the dinner table Friday night trying to figure out how to pay all those
bills and provide a great life for their future and for their children,
it is very hard for them. However, the very wealthy--the very wealthy--
have done very well over the last decade.
A lot of those wealthy people live in our State of New York. We say:
God bless them. They started successful businesses and have done well
over the last decade. So to pay for this bill, we are just asking them
to pay a sliver more--.7 percent more of each $1 they earn over $1
million. This is a situation where they can't say: We are afraid the
money will be wasted, because it goes to infrastructure--directly to
infrastructure. The way this is set up, there is no politics in the
process. It is the most needed projects that get the work.
Let me cite a fact. I know many of my colleagues joined with me and
Senators Brown of Ohio, Stabenow, and Casey in saying China has to play
fair, and we are all worried China will get ahead of us economically.
But right now China is spending four times as much on infrastructure as
the United States--four times as much. That is not four times as much
per capita, that is four times as much period.
Here is the real kicker: According to a recent survey of 1,400
business leaders in 142 countries, the United States ranks No. 24 in
overall infrastructure quality. Is that a shame? We are behind
countries such as Barbados and Oman. We also rank No. 20 in roads
behind the United Arab Emirates, Portugal, and Namibia; No. 22 in ports
behind Malaysia, Bahrain, and Panama; and No. 31 in air transportation
infrastructure behind Chile, Thailand, Malaysia, and Malta.
How can it be that these great United States that we dearly love, and
which always was at the top in creating roads and bridges and tunnels
and great water systems--the third water tunnel in New York is being
built right now, and it is an engineering wonder, though the planning
for it started in the 1950s, I believe--is now ranked No. 31 in
transportation, 22 in ports, 20 in roads behind countries such as the
United Arab Emirates, Portugal, Malaysia, Thailand, and Chile? If that
isn't a wake-up call, I don't know what is. We can't afford to let our
global competitors get the edge.
So this bill builds back infrastructure, creates good-paying jobs
that will send a shot into the arm of an economy that desperately needs
it, and pays for it only by taxing the income over $1 million of those
who are very wealthy and have done very well in our society.
How can anyone vote against something such as this? One could think
maybe the only reason is because some people don't want the economy to
grow and prosper. I hate to think that, but infrastructure has always
been a bipartisan issue in this body, and it should continue to be.
Let me respond directly to the minority leader's comments this
morning. He derided the proposal on the floor as something that had
already been tried, something that had no chance of passing, and
something that was not bipartisan.
First, already been tried? Oh, yes. Is the minority leader saying
because we built the Erie Canal or built the highway system in the
1950s we shouldn't do any more infrastructure? That makes no sense.
That just makes no sense. Every study shows the infrastructure part of
the stimulus bill created lots of jobs and left us with better
infrastructure.
The minority leader then said, as I mentioned, not just that it had
been tried already but that it was not bipartisan. We know the need for
infrastructure is a bipartisan priority. Just because the minority
leader may be imposing a top-down strategy that bars anyone on his side
from voting for any proposal offered by the President to improve the
economy doesn't mean these proposals aren't bipartisan.
Just yesterday, the former Republican Senator from Ohio, a fiscal
conservative if there ever was one--Senator Voinovich--was quoted as
saying he believed the need to repair our roads and bridges was so
great he thought President Obama should be raising the gas tax to fund
those investments. I don't know if I agree with him on that specific
solution, but isn't it remarkable, a Republican Senator calling for
revenue increases to pay for infrastructure investment?
That is what we do in this bill. Let me say once again that Senator
Voinovich is no longer in the Senate, so he is free to pretty much do
as he wants. But I would hope other Senators who are in the Senate
would join in that call because I believe they know in their heart it
is the right thing to do.
The only difference between what we propose and what Senator
Voinovich proposes is that instead of asking middle-class Americans to
pay more at the pump, we ask those who have an income above $1 million
to pay their fair share and to help put construction workers back on
the job. That seems like the right set of priorities to me.
So the minority leader is clearly wrong when he says this concept
isn't bipartisan.
Another former Senator--Chuck Hagel from Nebraska--has been a leader
in calling for an infrastructure bank, which also is in this bill.
Senator Hagel sponsored one of the first pieces of legislation creating
an infrastructure bank and has continued to call for it since leaving
the Senate.
So there are lots of Republicans out in the country who support this
measure, and the polling shows a large number of Republicans who
support the kind of proposal we have on the floor--building
infrastructure and having those who make over $1 million pay for it so
we don't increase the deficit. This is a bipartisan proposal.
So let's not hear from the minority leader or anybody else that the
proposal on the floor isn't bipartisan. Just this morning, the top
Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee was quoted
discussing the progress he and the chairwoman of that committee are
making on a 2-year surface transportation bill. This is great news. I
am glad to hear they are close to advancing that bill. But if one
believes infrastructure is enough of a priority that they can support a
long-term highway bill, why would they object to speeding up some of
that investment now so we can put more Americans to work quickly?

[[Page 16509]]

This bill is bipartisan for sure. The minority leader has a political
strategy to block all our President's initiatives to improve the
economy. What does the minority leader call for instead? He has called
for the Senate to take up a hodgepodge of bills sent over by House
Republicans that, even when taken together, don't do enough to tackle
the jobs problem.
Who would believe this hodgepodge of bills will do more for jobs than
the traditional way we get out of recessions--infrastructure building?
Most of the ideas cited by the minority leader have next to nothing to
do with jobs at all. Many of these ideas belong more on a lobbyist's
wish list rather than any serious jobs agenda.
It is a stretch to call many of these bipartisan. Many of these bills
are items Republicans would be seeking to pass even if we were in a
boom and had full employment. Many are just ideological priorities
dressed up as job solutions.
It is laughable for the House leadership to act as though these
proposals would address the jobs crisis when they are sitting on real
solutions such as the China currency bill. The Speaker and the majority
leader over in the House say they want to do something about jobs. They
say they are worried about the two Houses not working together. We had
a large bipartisan majority--65 votes--saying we are going to force
China to play fair on currency because their failure to do so causes
millions of jobs--good manufacturing jobs, primarily, though not
exclusively--to leave this country. There is nothing more Congress
could do that would lift our manufacturing sector than to confront
China's unfair trade practices. But Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader
Cantor sit on that bill and then tell us to take up this hodgepodge of
items. The China currency bill passed with a bipartisan supermajority
in the Senate. Yet the House leadership continues to sit on the
sidelines as China takes advantage of us. The China currency bill is
languishing in the House for no good reason.
I suggest Speaker Boehner heed the will of his Chamber and put that
bill on the floor and that the minority leader in the Senate would be
well served to stop pretending these pieces of the President's jobs
bill are not bipartisan just because he is withholding his support in
service to a strategy that, perhaps, outlines his No. 1 goal: the
defeat of the President.
It is time to stop the games and accomplish something that can make a
real dent in the jobs crisis. I say to my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle: Pass this bill, rebuild our ailing and aging infrastructure,
create jobs, and make sure what we do here does not increase the
deficit by having those whose income exceeds $1 million pay a small,
little increase to pay for it.
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). Without objection, it is so
ordered.

USDA APHIS Memo

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, yesterday we concluded our work here in the
Senate on our version of the Agriculture appropriations bill. I am a
member of the Appropriations Committee, a member of the agriculture
appropriations subcommittee, and I supported the legislation we passed,
but there is an outstanding issue at the Department of Agriculture of
which I was only recently made aware. To me, it is a very serious
issue, and given more time I would have taken action here on the Senate
floor. It is an issue I will continue to pursue as a member of the
conference committee as we work toward our final fiscal year 2012
Agriculture appropriations bill.
The issue involves a memo issued by the Department of Agriculture
last month, October 6, authorizing the Department of Agriculture Animal
and Plant Health Inspection Service, APHIS, to conduct an animal
welfare scientific forum. This forum was approved by Under Secretary
Edward Avalos on October 12.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the USDA's
memo.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Decision Memorandum for the Under Secretary

Through: Gregory Parham, Administrator, Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service.
From: William H. Clay, Deputy Administrator, Wildlife
Services.
Subject: APHIS Animal Welfare Scientific Forum.

ISSUE

How can APHIS effectively engage animal advocacy groups in
ongoing scientific reviews and discussions of animal welfare
issues related to APHIS program activities?

SUMMARY

At a meeting on July 26, 2011, between representatives from
USDA's Marketing and Regulatory Programs (MRP) and the Humane
Society of the United States (HSUS), HSUS representative John
Hadidian requested that USDA establish an Animal Welfare
Working Group to address animal welfare concerns regarding
the use of existing and emerging lethal control technology.
The Under Secretary agreed with the general concept. APHIS
recommends hosting a scientific forum facilitated by Animal
Care (AC) at the APHIS Center for Animal Welfare in Kansas
City, MO, to bring together animal advocacy groups as well as
industry organizations to discuss the latest science
regarding lethal control technology and other animal-welfare
related activities carried out by the Agency. Wildlife
Services (WS), AC and Veterinary Services (VS) activities in
use now or those that may be used in the future would all be
open for discussion at the forum. Pertinent scientific
information gathered at the forum would be presented to the
appropriate APHIS programmatic advisory committee for
consideration.
Senior leaders from WS, AC and VS would meet with HSUS and
several other advocacy groups in advance of the forum to
identify priority topics for discussion and potential
speakers.

Background

In the past several meetings with MRP and APHIS
representatives, HSUS representatives have consistently
raised concerns regarding horse slaughter, horse transport,
and WS' use of lethal control methods, as well as several
welfare issues related to enforcement of the Animal Welfare
Act. At a meeting between Under Secretary Avalos and HSUS on
July 26, 2011, HSUS representative John Hadidian requested
that an animal welfare working group be established to
address animal welfare concerns regarding the use of new and
emerging lethal control technology. Under Secretary Avalos
agreed with the general concept.
APHIS representatives believe that HSUS' intent is to
position the organization to be recognized nationally as
influencing APHIS policy on critical and sensitive welfare
issues. Where and how emerging and existing lethal control
technology can be used is one of many issues HSUS wishes to
influence. By expanding the proposed group to other APHIS
programs besides WS, and establishing a scientific forum,
APHIS would be able to engage HSUS and other advocacy groups
on a range of animal welfare issues and focus on science-
based, practical application approaches, using best practices
recognized and developed with input from a variety of
stakeholders, including industry groups, animal advocacy
groups, and State and Federal partners.
The National Wildlife Services' Advisory Council (NWSAC) is
the recognized body to make recommendations to the Secretary
regarding future WS activities. Topics of discussion from the
forum that might aid or impact APHIS activities could be
passed to the NWSAC or equivalent advising bodies for VS and
AC, as appropriate.
HSUS and other welfare advocacy groups would be invited to
participate in a preplanning meeting for the forum with
senior leaders from WS, AC and VS. These groups would have
input into the topics to be discussed, potential speakers for
the topics, dates and times for the forum, how the forum
should run, etc.
The APHIS Center for Animal Welfare in Kansas City, MO is
experienced at managing dialogue between diverse groups on
controversial and emotional issues and in facilitating group
interaction so that individuals stay focused on established
topics. Holding the forum at the Center would make it
convenient for transparent interaction with all interested
stakeholders from across the country.

OPTIONS

Option 1. Establish an Animal Welfare Scientific Forum
consisting of representatives from APHIS, animal advocacy
organizations, industry groups and other interested
stakeholders. This would allow APHIS to engage animal
advocacy organizations with concerns about WS' use of lethal
control methods, as well as other APHIS issues, such as

[[Page 16510]]

horse slaughter and transport This process would also refocus
attention from prescriptive protocols based on subjective
criteria to science-based approaches while still allowing for
input from diverse groups, including end users.
Option 2. Do not establish a scientific forum and continue
operating under existing protocols. HSUS and other advocacy
groups currently meet with APHIS programs individually at
random intervals to discuss issues of concern. Multiple
meetings of these advocacy groups with the different APHIS
Programs are less efficient than a single forum that covers
multiple issues.

RECOMMENDATION

APHIS recommends Option 1. This will provide cross-program
participation and will allow animal advocacy groups to
participate in a non-prescriptive manner.

DECISION BY THE UNDER SECRETARY

Option 1: (Signed) Edward Avalos, October 12, 2011.

Mr. MORAN. What is ironic about this forum is there is little science
involved. It is little more, in my view, than the Department of
Agriculture spending taxpayer dollars on a forum to provide the Humane
Society of the United States a public forum to espouse its anti-
agriculture views. The document speaks for itself in this regard. On
page 2, the document states:

APHIS [the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service]
representatives believe that the Humane Society's intent is
to [promote and] position the organization to be recognized
nationally as influencing APHIS policy on critical and
sensitive welfare issues.

After reading that statement, it becomes clear that the Department of
Agriculture is catering to an outside organization instead of relying
on the advice of animal scientists at our land grant universities or
even at the Department of Agriculture. If the Department of Agriculture
was interested in science, why would it allow an animal rights
organization to steer its agenda? Why wouldn't APHIS simply request the
latest animal research from scientists across the country to make sure
its guidance is up to date?
In addition to catering to HSUS, in planning this forum the
Department of Agriculture APHIS is precluding input from members of the
agricultural industry it is supposed to promote. The memo states:

HSUS and other welfare advocacy groups would be invited to
participate in a preplanning meeting for the forum with
senior leaders from Wildlife Services, Animal Care, and
Veterinary Services. These groups would have input into the
topics to be discussed, potential speakers for topics, dates
and times for the forum, how the forum should run, etc.

That is quoting from the memo. No mention in the memo is made of
asking any agricultural organization or animal scientists for
preplanning assistance. According to the memo, HSUS is going to set the
agenda for this forum. Even if the agricultural industry is later
invited to the event, Agriculture would have the cards already stacked
against them.
I believe it is important for most Americans to understand that HSUS
is not your local animal shelter. HSUS is a national lobbying
organization that spends most of its budget to lobby against farmers
and ranchers who provide us with food or clothing that we enjoy. In
fact, tax documents show that HSUS spends less than 1 percent of its
budget on grants to animal shelters. Given these facts, you would have
to wonder why the Department of Agriculture is giving this organization
this platform and shunning producer organizations. This is one more
demonstration that this organization is no real friend of rural America
or the American farmer and rancher.
My purpose this morning is to inform my fellow Senators of this
troubling development at USDA and to put the Secretary on notice that
this type of conduct from the Department is unacceptable.
The Department's mission statement reads as follows:

We provide leadership on food, agriculture, natural
resources, and related issues based upon sound public policy,
the best available science, and efficient management.

USDA should live up to its mission statement and work to promote
agriculture, not work against farmers' and ranchers' best interests
and, I would say, not work against the best interests of the consumers
of food in this country. Going forward, I will do my best to make sure
the Department of Agriculture adheres to its mission statement.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Updating the Postal Service

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, just a few minutes ago, Senators
Lieberman, Collins, Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts, and I
gathered in the press gallery upstairs to unveil a proposed compromise
that is designed to help ensure we have a viable, strong U.S. Postal
Service in this country for the next 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 years and
longer.
There has been a lot of time spent in debate over jobs: How are we
going to save jobs? How are we going to create jobs in this rough
economy we are moving through? As it turns out, there are about 7
million jobs that flow from the Postal Service. There are only about
500,000 people who actually work for the Postal Service these days.
There are roughly another 7 million who are associated with the Postal
Service in one way or the other.
If we do nothing, the Postal Service--which lost $10 billion last
year, is on track to lose a couple hundred billion dollars over the
next 10 years--will literally go out of business next year--not in 10
years, not in 5 years but next year. That is a consequence none of us
can look forward to and we need to provide predictability and certainty
and part of that is to make sure we have a Postal Service that meets
the needs of our businesses and the interests of our citizens.
The situation is dire, but it is not hopeless. This is one we can fix
and the four of us believe this legislation will fix this problem not
in 5 years, not in 10 years from now but literally provide the fix that
is needed this year.
I mentioned in our press conference that a couple years ago my sister
and I went to the home of my parents. My parents are now both deceased.
We went to their home and we rooted through all kinds of nooks and
crannies and boxes in the attic. We came across a treasure trove of
letters they exchanged during World War II. They wrote to one another
when my dad was overseas. They wrote several times a week. They saved
the letters.
When I was in Southeast Asia back during the Vietnam War, the
happiest day of the week for us was the day the mail came. The letters,
the postcards, the birthday cards, the packages we received, magazines,
the newspapers, made that the best day of the week.
When our Presiding Officer and I go on a CODEL to Afghanistan or to
Iraq to visit our troops and see how they are doing and what we need to
be doing, they still get the mail over there, but it is not like it was
when I was serving or when my dad or my uncles were all serving. Troops
today communicate with their families back home with Skype. They have
the ability to use the cell phones. They have the Internet, Facebook,
Twitter. You name it, it is a different game today. As the way we
communicate in this country and in this world has changed, the Postal
Service needs to change the way they do business and they are ready and
anxious to do just that.
I think there is a good analogy in trying to figure out what the
Postal Service needs to do to right size its enterprise. There is a
good analogy we can draw from by looking back just 3 or 4 years ago at
the situation the U.S. auto industry was in. Think about this: In 1970,
my first trip to Southeast Asia, the market share of Ford, Chrysler,
and GM was just about 85 percent. In 2009, their market share dropped
to less than 50 percent.
When the auto industry reported to us and to the rest of the country
in 2009 that given their market share, they had more employees than
they needed, they had more auto plants than they

[[Page 16511]]

needed, and there was a mismatch in terms of the wage-benefit structure
they were paying their own employees versus the wage benefits that were
being paid to their competition selling cars, trucks, and vans in this
country, they asked us for a bailout--not exactly a bailout. They asked
for a cash transfusion. They promised to pay it back with interest. Lo
and behold, they have, and 3 years later Ford, Chrysler, and GM are
still in business. They have fewer employees than they had 3 years ago.
They have fewer auto plants than they had, but they have changed the
wage-benefit structure and made some changes in their health care costs
and the way they administer health care costs which are now overseen by
the United Auto Workers. As I said earlier, the moneys we invested in
those two companies, Chrysler and GM, was money that has been repaid,
largely, with interest.
The Postal Service, in 2011, is in a situation not unlike where our
auto industry was a couple years ago. Given their market share, the
Postal Service has more employees than they need. The Postal Service
has more post offices than they need. They have more processing centers
around the country than they need. What they would like to be able to
do is not to fire employees, not to abrogate labor contracts. What they
have asked to do is to do what the auto industry did in working with
their workers; that is, to incentivize people at the Postal Service who
are eligible to retire to go ahead and retire. There are about 125,000
of them. We have seen the Postal Service head count drop from 800,000
employees a decade ago to a little under 600,000 today. The Postal
Service needs to reduce the head count by another 100,000 or so over
the next couple years by incentivizing people eligible to retire to go
ahead and retire. The Postal Service thinks they can do that for about
$2 billion. By doing that, 100,000 Postal Service employees will be
eligible to retire. That will save the Postal Service $8 billion a year
going forward.
Last year, the Postal Service lost $10 billion, and in the years to
come they are projected to lose about $20 billion. We could literally
address about half of that financial challenge with one fell swoop,
incentivize employees eligible to retire.
The Postal Service is interested in being able to close some post
offices. They would like to be able to consolidate some post offices--
where they have two, make one. In some cases, they would like to be
able to take the services they provide at a post office and offer them
at maybe a retail outlet that is open more than 6 days a week or maybe
a retail outlet open 24/7, potentially put postal services in some
supermarkets in communities across the country, put them in some
convenience stores or maybe in pharmacies. The idea would not be to
provide worse service; the idea would be to provide better service in a
lot of instances.
There are 33,000 post offices in the country. The Postal Service is
looking today at 3,700 of them to decide whether they are viable. Under
current law, the Postal Service can close a post office. They cannot do
it solely on economic grounds, but they can close a post office pretty
much at their volition and maybe have a cursory conversation with the
community but not much.
The legislation we have proposed would say that the post office, as
they look at these 3,700 post offices that are under review--and
perhaps others in the future--that before they go about closing any of
them, the Postal Regulatory Commission--which is responsible for
setting service standards for the post office--would have to be part of
that decisionmaking process in these communities across America. They
would make sure the service standards the Regulatory Commission--the
regulators, if you will, for the post office--has established are going
to be met in the future if a post office is closed or post offices are
consolidated or the services are colocated. This has to be a
transparent process, where the folks who live and work in those
communities have the opportunity to be full participants in that
decisionmaking.
With respect to the closure of mail processing centers, there are
over 500 of them across the country. The Postal Service would like to
close as many as 300 of them. Under the legislation we have proposed,
there would be the opportunity for communities, businesses, small and
large, postal customers, residential customers, and others to have the
opportunity to make clear whether the close of a mail processing center
in their town or community would somehow be inopportune and a real
detriment to that community in ways that are not fair.
Those are three things that the postal service wants to be able to
do: address their head count needs, take a close look at how many post
offices we have and whether those services can be provided in a more
cost-effective way, and the third is to look at the 500-plus mail
processing centers we have and try to figure out how many of those can
be closed.
The Postal Service delivers mail from my State to the Presiding
Officer's State in Minnesota--I can mail a letter today and probably it
would get out there on Friday or maybe Saturday. The standard service
today is, in some cases, next-day service; in some cases, service can
be as much as 3 days. What the Postal Service has asked is, they will
still be able to do 1-day service, but they would like for the standard
to be officially 2 to 3 days. That is one of the things they are asking
for the opportunity to do, and our bill let's them do that.
The other thing the Postal Service has asked for is some relief, if
you will--not a bailout, not taxpayer dollars--with the health care
costs. Currently, the Postal Service pays into Medicare for its
employees. They are the second largest payer into Medicare of all the
employers in the country. They also pay into something called the
Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. We have the Postal Service
sort of paying twice for health care service for its retirees. People
65 and over, 85 percent of them are eligible for Medicare. If they are
not, they are still eligible for the Federal employees health benefits
as retirees. The Postal Service has asked to do what a lot of other
companies do. What a lot of other companies have asked is that Medicare
would be their primary source of health care coverage. In addition to
that, the Postal Service would provide a Medigap plan to fill the gaps
that Medicaid and Medicare do not cover. We think that is a reasonable
request. We have also given the Postal Service the opportunity to
negotiate with the labor unions to see if it might make sense for the
Postal Service to withdraw from the Federal Employees Health Benefit
Program and establish their own plan for roughly 1 million people. They
will have a chance to study that and decide whether that makes sense.
I will mention three other things we believe the Postal Service can
do to reduce costs. One of those is the way they deliver the mail. For
a lot of folks in my home, the mail is delivered to our front door.
There is a mailbox by our front door. What we are suggesting in our
legislation is that in some cases the Postal Service looks at whether
that is an efficient way to deliver the mail or maybe is curbside
delivery fine. If someone has a mailbox, the letter carrier puts the
mail in the mailbox and doesn't have to get out, park the vehicle, walk
up to the house and put it in the mailbox and walk back to the vehicle.
A fair amount of money can be saved there.
There is money that can be saved in the way workers' comp is handled
for Postal Service employees--and we also believe for Federal employees
and the President agrees--and we have that legislation in this bill
too.
In addition, in finding ways to save money, I would hasten to add it
is important for the Postal Service to find new ways to make money. We
have seen the TV ads about flat-rate boxes. If it fits, it ships. The
price is pretty good, and the service is pretty good too. That is the
kind of idea we need more of from the Postal Service. The Postal
Service has a partnership with FedEx and UPS. Most people think of them
as competitors, but actually the Postal Service has partnered with

[[Page 16512]]

FedEx and UPS. FedEx and UPS don't want to deliver to every door in
America every day for 6 days a week. They don't want to do that. They
simply ask the Postal Service to deliver to those doors that FedEx and
UPS don't want to deliver to on a particular day, and the Postal
Service makes money doing this. They make a lot of money doing this.
When the holiday season comes upon us, we will find there is a need
for--a lot of people don't just go to brick-and-mortar stores to buy
holiday gifts, they want to order online, and the Postal Service can
participate broadly in that business too.
The last thing I wish to mention is this: In addition to making
money, we have to come up with new ideas. Those are a couple ideas that
work. There are others. We are looking for ways to save money in State
and local government. Why not consolidate some of the operations in
post office buildings. We have a couple more tenants and we can provide
service there for other purposes. We do that for passports. Why not do
it for other things? We will hear a lot about virtual mailboxes in the
days to come and whether that might be a new piece of business for the
post office to be involved in as well.
Let me close by saying this: I think as we go forward in this
process, we need to be mindful of the Golden Rule, to treat people the
way we want to be treated. That includes customers of the Postal
Service, be they businesses or residential customers, employees of the
Postal Service, the taxpayers. We need to treat everybody the way we
want to be treated.
The last thing I would say, my friend from Tennessee, who is
standing, and I are two people here who believe we ought to be serious
about solving the big problems, as is the Presiding Officer. There are
a lot of people who think we are incapable of dealing with big
challenges these days.
This is a big challenge. The Postal Service is one of the two largest
employers in this country. The consequences of the Postal Service going
down next year are not what we want to see visited on this country.
Seven million jobs would be in jeopardy. If we simply try to put them
on autopilot and let the taxpayers pay for it, it would be over $200
billion more of a hit on the Treasury.
This is a big challenge. This is one we can fix. To the extent we can
pull together in the Senate, as we have done in our committee on this
issue, I think we will set a good example for our Nation to say: Yes,
we can still take on a tough problem, and we can fix it--not in a year
or two or three from now but this year.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I know we are rotating right now. What I
thought I might do is yield just a couple of minutes to Senator
Blumenthal, and then let him yield back to me if that would be OK.
But I do want to thank Senator Carper for his leadership on this
issue. We have looked at this bill and others, and we are glad they
have been able to come to an agreement between each other. Obviously,
the issue of the Postal Service is one of the big issues we need to
deal with. I agree with him. I think that is something we can do now. I
thank him for his leadership.
I yield back for the Senator from Connecticut.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Tennessee,
Mr. Corker, for very graciously beginning this discussion. I want to
join in thanking the distinguished Senator from Delaware for all of his
hard work and his very successful and insightful discussion this
morning. It is a problem that concerns all of us very deeply and
immediately, and his leadership has been an enormous contribution to
the Nation on this issue.

The GAIN Act

I am pleased to be here today with Senator Corker to discuss a
problem that is spreading across the country. It is a public health
threat to our troops, our children, our frail, and our elderly
involving the spread of mutant germs, so-called superbugs, that are
resistant, sometimes even immune to existing antibiotics.
I have been very proud of the work Senator Corker and I have done
together. He has joined me, and we have been joined by Senators Bennet,
Hatch, Casey, Alexander, Coons, and Roberts in the Senate, and by
Representatives Gingrey and DeGette in the House, along with a very
bipartisan group of respected Members there on an issue that is truly
bipartisan. I wish to yield to Senator Corker and then continue my
remarks on an issue that ought to concern us very closely and
immediately.
Reports from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggest
that these infections are not only prevalent but spreading across the
country. I have a detailed set of charts that demonstrate this problem.
He and I have developed what I think is a solution the Congress can
consider in order to provide incentives for development of new
antibiotics, new medicine, that can help the Nation prevent the spread
of these kinds of diseases.
So with that, I yield for the distinguished Senator from Tennessee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of New Mexico). The Senator from
Tennessee.
Mr. CORKER. Thank you, Mr. President. I am sure the Chair is familiar
with us going back and forth, and I thank the Chair. I thank my friend
from Connecticut. I know he mentioned the Senators who have joined us
in this effort, as well as the House Members on the other side of the
Capitol, in a bipartisan way.
First, I thank him for his leadership on this issue and for
approaching our office about it. I know the public watches Washington
and wonders if there is ever anything that is done in a bipartisan way.
There are actually lots of efforts that are undertaken that way, and I
am very glad to be working with him and his staff who have been very
professional and, hopefully, this bill can become law.
The problem is that we have these drug-resistant bacteria called
superbugs. All of us have read and heard about them. They are becoming
harder and harder to treat because we lack the new antibiotics capable
of combating these infections. It is actually scary when we think about
what is happening in many facilities across our country. So it is
obviously crucial to discover new antibiotics so we can stay ahead of
this growing trend of drug resistance.
Drug discoveries, obviously, don't happen overnight. Action is needed
now to ensure that we have access to these lifesaving medications when
we need them.
These are serious infections. They are definitely life threatening to
the patients, especially children and the elderly. In fact, the CDC,
the Centers for Disease Control, has named this antibiotic resistance
as one of the top public health concerns in our country.
According to the Infectious Disease Society of America, 100,000
deaths and 360,000 hospitalizations result from antibiotic-resistant
infections each year in the United States. In my State of Tennessee,
nearly 2,000 cases of MRSA are reported annually. MRSA is a common and
very dangerous type of antibiotic-resistant bacteria often found in
hospital settings. Again, I am sure all of us know of cases where this
has happened to loved ones, friends, and others.
The financial impact of these infections is also staggering, costing
our health care system $35 billion to $45 billion annually.
This problem is also threatening the health of our troops abroad. One
particular type of bacteria, known as a Ramibacterium, is striking
hundreds of wounded soldiers coming back from Iraq. Since 2003, more
than 700 U.S. soldiers have been infected or colonized with this life-
threatening bacteria.
While bacterial infections continue to become more resistant to
traditional antibiotics, innovation of new antibiotics capable of
combating these infections has slowed by an alarming rate. FDA approval
of these new antibiotics has decreased by 70 percent since the 1980s.
Between 2003 and 2007,

[[Page 16513]]

there were five new antibiotics approved by the FDA compared to 16 new
antibiotics from 1983 to 1987.
This bill, the GAIN Act, provides meaningful market incentives and
reduces regulatory burdens to encourage the development of new
antibiotics that will help us save lives and reduce health care costs.
Specifically--and I appreciate the way the Senator from Connecticut has
approached this--the bill provides 5 additional years of exclusivity to
new drugs developed to treat these superbugs.
The bill also gives these antibiotics priority status during the FDA
review process so they can move through more quickly. It encourages the
FDA to revisit the clinical trial guidelines for antibiotics. By
encouraging a more robust antibiotic pipeline, we can help ensure
patients have access to lifesaving treatments while also reducing
health care spending.
The GAIN Act is a straightforward, commonsense bill that provides
market incentives to encourage innovation without putting Federal
dollars at stake. Antibiotic resistance is a growing issue that we must
address to properly prepare for the future.
Dr. William Evans, the director and CEO of St. Jude Children's
Hospital in Tennessee, recently wrote a letter supporting this bill.
Many of my colleagues know of St. Jude and the wonderful work they do
for children across our country. Here is his quote:

We don't want to find ourselves in a situation in which we
have been able to save a child's life after a cancer
diagnosis, only to lose them to an untreatable multi-drug
resistant infection.

I wish to thank my colleague again, Senator Blumenthal from
Connecticut, for his leadership on this bill, and I look forward to
working with him to ensure it gets proper consideration in the Senate.
Also, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support be printed in
the Record from the following organizations: St. Jude Children's
Hospital, Le Bonheur Children's Hospital, University of Tennessee
Health Sciences Center, and East Tennessee State University Quillen
College of Medicine.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
St. Jude

Children's Research Hospital,

Memphis, TN, October 14, 2011.
Hon. Richard Blumenthal,
Hon. Bob Corker,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Blumenthal and Corker: I am writing on behalf
of St. Jude Children's Research Hospital to express our
support for the Senate companion bill of H.R. 2182, the
Generating Antibiotic incentives Now (GAIN) Act of 2011. The
mission of St. Jude Children's Research Hospital is to
advance cures, and means of prevention, for pediatric
catastrophic diseases through research and treatment. The
GAIN Act represents an important first step in addressing a
public health issue that significantly affects our mission.
We believe that the legislation is of great importance not
only to our children's hospital and the children and families
we serve, but to children and families across the country.
Many of the children we treat at St. Jude have compromised
immune systems, and are particularly vulnerable to bacterial
infections. At the same time that multi-drug resistant
strains of Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA)
and gram negative bacteria are on the rise, the number of new
antibiotics being approved has dropped precipitously. A study
conducted at St. Jude and published in Pediatric Blood &
Cancer compared MRSA colonization rates in pediatric oncology
patients in 2000-2001 with rates in 2006-2007. The study
showed an increasing prevalence of colonization with MRSA
observed in children with cancer at our institution, and that
the colonization was associated with infection. Recurrent
MRSA infections were seen in 22 percent of patients. A copy
of the study is enclosed.
We applaud the work that you and your bipartisan group of
colleagues are doing to address the issue of the dwindling
antibiotic pipeline. We believe that the GAIN Act is an
important first step in stimulating new antibiotic
development and getting lifesaving drugs to the children we
treat. We don't want to find ourselves in a situation in
which we have been able to save a child's life after a cancer
diagnosis, only to lose them to an untreatable multi-drug
resistant infection. Thank you for your leadership in the
Senate to ensure that we have the tools we need to treat the
children entrusted to our care.
Sincerely,
William E. Evans,
Director and CEO.
____

Le Bonheur,

Children's Hospital,

Memphis, TN, October 26, 2011.
Hon. Bob Corker,
U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Corker: on behalf of the patients, families,
physicians and associates of Le Bonheur Children's Hospital,
I commend your efforts to invigorate the development of new
antibiotics to combat the spread of antibiotic resistant
bacteria with the introduction of the GAIN Act. Thank you for
taking the lead on this important public health concern.
Antibiotic infections have been on the rise for many years,
disproportionately affecting children and increasing the cost
of care. We applaud your efforts to encourage antibiotic
innovation, an important step to ensuring that lifesaving
medicine will be available to the many children who need
them.
Please let us know how we can assist in passing this
important legislation. Our many pediatric physicians,
researchers and clinicians are available to lend whatever
support you need. Thank you, Senator Corker, for working to
improve healthcare for children.
Sincerely,

Meri Armour,

President and C.E.O.
Le Bonheur Children's Hospital.
____

The University of Tennessee

Health Science Center,

Memphis, TN, October 25, 2011.
Hon. Bob Corker,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Corker. We, here at Le Bonheur Children's
Hospital and the Department of Pediatrics at the University
of Tennessee Health Science Center, applaud your efforts to
spur development of new antibiotics to combat the spread of
antibiotic resistant bacteria with the introduction of the
GAIN Act. Thank you for taking the lead on this important
public health concern.
Antibiotic-resistant infections have been on the rise for
many years, in many cases disproportionately affecting
children. For example, infections caused by methicillin-
resistant Staphylococcus aureus (``MRSA'') have been
particularly frequent in children and may be life-
threatening. My colleagues Steve Buckingham and Sandy Arnold
and I have published a series of articles summarizing our
experience with these infections and discussing the impact of
antibiotic resistance on the treatment of children with
serious infections.
We commend your efforts to encourage antibiotic innovation
that will bring lifesaving medications to the many children
(and adults) who need them.
As a pediatric infectious disease specialist, please let me
know how I can assist and support your efforts on this
important issue. Thank you, Senator Corker, for your hard
work and vision.
Sincerely,
B. Keith English, M.D.,
Professor and Interim Chair, Department of Pediatrics,
University of Tennessee Health Science Center Interim
Pediatrician-in-Chief, Chief, Division of Infectious Diseases
Le Bonheur Children's Hospital.
____

East Tennesssee State University, Office of the Vice
President for Health Affairs,
Johnson City, TN, November 2, 2011.
Hon. Bob Corker,
Dirksen Senate Office Building, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Corker: We are writing on behalf of East
Tennessee State University to express our support of S. 1734,
the Generating Antibiotic Incentives Now (GAIN) Act of 2011.
At the turn of the last century, infectious diseases were
the leading cause of death in America. Between improvements
in sanitation and the development of vaccines and
antibiotics, the impact of infectious diseases on human
health has been greatly reduced in our country. However, we
are concerned that as microorganisms develop resistance to
existing antimicrobial agents there is an increased
possibility that we will see a resurgence in some infectious
diseases that are currently under control. Additionally, with
continued growth of the world's population, and the shortened
travel times between continents, resistant organisms have the
capacity to spread quickly across the globe. We believe that
the GAIN Act, S. 1734, will be a first step in stimulating
new research in antibiotic development to address a
predictable public health crisis.
East Tennessee State University Division of Health Affairs
(including the Colleges of Medicine, Nursing, Pharmacy,
Public Health, and Clinical and Rehabilitative Health
Sciences) has research programs strongly focused on meeting
the needs of our region, particularly needs of the
underserved and other vulnerable populations. We recognize
the necessity to promote advancements in

[[Page 16514]]

research related to infectious disease and currently conduct
clinical and basic science research in these areas. We feel
that the GAIN Act will expedite our efforts to produce novel
treatments for disease and in turn, reduce the related burden
of illness to the region and state.
Sincerely,
Wilsie S. Bishop,
Vice President for Health Affairs and Chief Operating
Officer.
Philip C. Bagnell,
Dean of Medicine.
Gregory A. Ordway,
Chair of Pharmacology.
Priscilla B. Wyrick,
Chair of Microbiology.

Mr. CORKER. With that, I yield the floor for my good friend, someone
with whom I have thoroughly enjoyed working on this issue. I thank him
again for his leadership on a very important issue that matters to all
of us.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Again, my thanks to my very distinguished colleague
from Tennessee whose leadership and contribution to this bill has been
instrumental from the very start. I welcome him and have been thankful
for his partnership on this issue.
As my colleague from Tennessee said so well, these antibiotic-
resistant drugs are a spreading scourge. Reports from the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention suggest that MRSA infections are
responsible for more than 17,000 deaths in the United States every
year--more than AIDS and many other diseases that are regarded as
public health threats. All 50 States have seen rates of antibiotic-
resistant E. coli infections double in less than 10 years.
A lesser known bug, Acintobacter, a bacteria that affects increasing
numbers of our troops serving in Iraq, has infected more than 700 of
our servicemembers since 2003. The numbers are continuing to rise.
Those numbers are alarming. I have some charts I will show in just a
moment that will be even more graphic. But to put a human face on this
problem, Jamel Sawyer, a former college football player from Norwalk,
CT, knows all too well the crippling impact of these antibiotic-
resistant infections.
He was in school in Boston. He suffered from severe back pain and a
rising temperature. He went to the hospital and was told he was
suffering from a kind of antibiotic-resistant staph infection which
surmounted multiple rounds of antibiotic treatment. He was left
paralyzed and unable to walk. He was paralyzed from the waist down and
remains very severely handicapped as a result. Right now he is fighting
to gain back his ability to walk and function normally.
We are in an arms race with superbugs. We are in a fight with
antibiotic-resistant mutating germs that are a spreading, persistent,
and pernicious problem all around the country. The resistance is fueled
by careless use of antibiotics, the overuse of certain kinds of
antibiotics, or failure to use them properly, as when they are not used
for the full round when they should be and thereby lead to greater
resistance on the part of these germs.
Failure to use these antibiotics properly and failure to exercise
good stewardship is important, but it is not the only cause. We need to
stay ahead of these germs in an arms race to develop new antibiotics
and provide incentives for those antibiotics.
The problems we are encountering are shown by these charts, beginning
first in the year 2000 with antibiotic-resistant E. coli. As this chart
makes clear, nowhere--in no State in the United States--was there a
rate above 10 percent. That accounts for the light yellow pattern here.
In 2009, the situation was very different. In States across the
country--major States, including New York and the entire East--the rate
was above 35 percent. In many parts of the Midwest, including the
Presiding Officer's State, the rate was above 25 percent. E. coli
resistance to treatment by this commonly used antibiotic presents a
threat particularly to our children and our elderly.
The next chart I wish to show concerns Acintobacter. This bacteria
has afflicted particularly our troops coming back from Iraq. It is, in
fact, nicknamed ``Iraqtobacter'' by many military doctors, and it has
literally jumped enormously in the number of cases.
This was the case in the year 2000, showing almost everywhere rates
below 5 percent. The present incidence is very different, alarmingly
so. In some States it is above 50 percent, including, I believe, New
Mexico, and in many parts of the East above 30 to 40 percent.
This Acintobacter incidence is something that is a major national
security problem insofar as 700 troops have been infected with
Acintobacter, and as Robert Jackson, the director of Military Families
United said so eloquently about this disease:

The worst part is that many of our men and women in uniform
survive the war effort only to return and die of this
infection in the continental United States. Thus Military
Families United strongly supports the GAIN Act, which would
ensure that American companies have the motivation to combat
the most modern, multi-drug resistant diseases.

I brought these charts simply to show how the spread of these
superbug infections has affected the entire United States. There are
other diseases like MRSA and VRSA. They are a set of acronyms that are
comparable to, in effect, a modern plague.
Fully one-third of all deaths from H1N1 Swine Flu, for example, in
2009 were actually caused by antibiotic-resistant bacteria. According
to the Infectious Disease Society of America, 100,000 deaths and
360,000 hospitalizations in the United States resulted from antibiotic-
resistant infections, at a cost of $26 billion to our health system
annually.
What is the reason for the rise and spread of these diseases? Well,
the main reason is we do not have new antibiotics to treat and cure
them. The reason for that dearth of new antibiotics goes to the
fundamentals of modern economics involving the drug industry.
Antibiotics are prescribed and used for a course of 2 weeks, if they
work. There are blockbuster drugs and miracle drugs that are used for
the treatment of chronic diseases and, therefore, are used often for
lifetimes. The revenues from those blockbuster drugs are themselves
blockbuster products and profits.
The problem with antibiotics is the lack of economic incentive to
develop them in the modern economics of the pharmaceutical industry.
The GAIN Act would remedy that problem. It would incentivize the
development and research required to implement and discover these new
drugs. It would extend the data exclusivity rights for 5 years. It
would speed and expedite consideration of these drugs by the FDA. It
would provide a fast track, essentially, and enable prompt review. It
would moderate and eliminate the kinds of regulatory hurdles which is
so important in providing not only incentives but also a track to
consumers so they would have the availability of these drugs.
I personally would welcome other ideas if there are any for
strengthening the incentives for development of these antibiotics that
are so important to treat and cure the antibiotic-resistant germs that
cause these problems. I hope we will continue to have the kind of
bipartisan momentum in favor of these new developments.
I close by saying we are all talking about jobs on the floor of the
Senate these days. This proposal is also, in a way, a jobs-related
program. It would enable small innovators and small businesses--one is,
for example, Rib-X Pharmaceuticals in New Haven, a 50-person company
trying to develop new drugs through innovation. The kind of boost and
incentive this bill will provide is very important for the innovators
of America who are out there trying to provide cures for Acintobacter,
MRSA, E. coli--all of them superbugs--providing a solution to this
problem that I think is very much urgent and in the interests of our
Nation.
This measure is a first step. I hope we can come together to enact
it. I urge the Senate to join me in doing so.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.

[[Page 16515]]

Somalia and Al-Shabaab

Mr. KIRK. Mr. President, I rise today to thank the Government of
Kenya and its President Kibaki for the difficult decision he and his
government have made with regard to Somalia.
We all recall Somalia as the site of the Black Hawk Down tragedy in
1993. As much as Americans might wish to ignore that troubled country,
I do not think we can. Somalia is a country whose government collapsed
in 1991 but has now given rise to what is arguably the second largest
terror presence on planet Earth, called al-Shabaab. The country also
represents a new 21st-century threat of piracy across America's Persian
Gulf oil supply lines.
On October 16, at the invitation of the Somali Transitional Federal
Government, the Kenyan Government launched Operation Protect the
Country against the al-Shabaab terrorist organization based in Somalia.
We all recall that al-Shabaab is an al-Qaida affiliate that has been
designated as a foreign terrorist organization by the United States
since 2008. It is responsible for multiple attacks in Somalia, Kenya,
and Uganda, including a suicide bombing in July 2010 in Kampala that
killed 76 people, including an American citizen, 25-year-old Nate Henn
of North Carolina who worked for the Invisible Children nonprofit
organization. Also, on October 25, al-Shabaab kidnapped and is still
holding another American citizen, 32-year-old Jessica Buchanan of
Virginia.
About 4,000 Kenyan troops are now approaching the critical Somali
port city of Kismayo where al-Shabaab makes most of its money and is
headquartered. The success of the Kenyan operation would mean a
significant weakening of al-Shabaab's ability to plan and execute
terrorist attacks and would greatly support the security of the region
and the United States.
Also joining in the fight against al-Shabaab are prominent local
tribal militias, including the Ahlu Sunnah Waljamaah, the ASWJ; the
Raas Kaambooni Front; and the Jubaland militia formed under the former
TFG defense minister, Mohamed Abdi Mohamed.
I commend the Kenyan Government and the allied groups for their
action, and the United States and NATO should support this Kenyan
action.
Al-Shabaab poses a significant threat to America's national security
and to Kenya's safety. Since 2009, al-Shabaab has conducted at least 10
attacks on Kenyan soil and the territorial seas along her coastline. In
a particularly heinous crime, on October 1, al-Shabaab kidnapped a
disabled French woman on Kenyan soil and dragged her to Somalia, where
she later died. Last week, al-Shabaab militants also threw a grenade
into a Nairobi nightclub.
Because of al-Shabaab's refusal to allow access for humanitarian
organizations to relieve famine, Kenya is also now home to 600,000
Somali refugees. In many ways, the famine and distress that is now
evident in Somalia should be called the al-Shabaab famine.
Al-Shabaab also poses a direct threat to the United States by
actively radicalizing and recruiting American citizens.
On October 29, a suicide bomber attacked an African Union base in
Mogadishu, killing himself and 10 other human beings. The suspect,
Abdisalan Hussein Ali, was a 22-year-old American citizen who grew up
in Minneapolis and studied to be a doctor before he suddenly
disappeared to join al-Shabaab in 2008. The recording he allegedly made
before his death contained a disturbing message aimed at young
Americans. He said:

Today, jihad is what is most important. It's not important
that you become a doctor, or some sort of engineer.

According to the FBI, Ali was one of 30 American citizens who have
now joined al-Shabaab. In August of 2010, the FBI arrested 2 and
charged 12 more individuals in Minnesota, Alabama, and California
``with acts of terrorism that include providing money, personnel, and
other material support to the Somali-based terrorist organization al
Shabaab.'' At the time, Attorney General Eric Holder called it ``a
deadly pipeline that has routed funding and fighters to al Shabaab from
cities across the United States.''
On July 27, an investigation by the House Committee on Homeland
Security found the following:

Al-Shabaab has an active recruitment and radicalization
network inside the U.S. targeting Muslim-Americans in Somali
communities. It also ensnared a few non-Somali Muslim-
American converts, such as a top Shabaab commander:
At least 40 or more Americans--

According to the House--

have joined Shabaab;
So many Americans have joined that at least 15 of them have
been killed fighting with Shabaab, as well as three
Canadians;
Three Americans who returned to the U.S. were prosecuted,
and one awaits extradition from The Netherlands;
At least 21 or more American Shabaab members overseas
remain unaccounted for and pose a direct threat to the U.S.
homeland.

The House said:

Al-Shabaab has the intent and capability to conduct attacks
or aid core Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in
Yemen with striking U.S. interests and the U.S. homeland.

They said that al-Shabaab has openly pledged loyalty and support to
al-Qaida and al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula in Yemen and has
cemented an alarming set of operational ties to both groups.
The House report also points out that after the successful U.S.
operation to kill Osama bin Laden, al-Shabaab's leadership eulogized
bin Laden and vowed revenge against the United States. Omar Hammami,
another al-Shabaab leader raised in the United States, said he ``swore
[a] blood revenge against his own homeland for the May 1 killing of
Osama Bin Laden.''
Al-Shabaab poses a grave threat to regional stability and to our own
national security. I thank the Kenyan Government and their allies in
Somalia for taking action. Our administration and our NATO allies
should support Kenya. We should also make sure that in this support we
have the objective to collapse al-Shabaab in Somalia. With luck, while
al-Shabaab may have found a recruit or two among American citizens to
wage jihad against their own country, there, hopefully, will be no al-
Shabaab to fight for if they ever reach Somalia.
Mr. President, I yield back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
Mr. KERRY. Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. President, I believe we are currently debating the motion to
proceed to go to the energy, water, et cetera, package. Included in
that is the proposal of the President that he has sent up asking the
Senate to vote on the question of an infrastructure bank.
I believe there was a prior vote in the Senate on that in the context
of the Jobs Act, which we all know failed at that time. There are some
signs that this may wind up being a partisan effort here, but I hope
colleagues will stop and think very carefully about the infrastructure
bank proposal and what it represents to our country.
Whether we can get it over the hurdle at this moment, I do not know.
But it is an idea whose time has come, and I am confident in the next
weeks or months, hopefully, the Senate will embrace this concept. The
reason for doing so is very simple. Colleagues on both sides of the
aisle are increasingly reminded when they go home, as well as familiar
here just in the general dialog about where we are going in our
country, of the enormous deficit reduction--the deficit; it is on my
mind--of the infrastructure deficit we face in this country as a whole.
So I want colleagues to stop and think hard about a simple question:
How are we going to build America? How are we going to build America
going forward so that we can do what our parents and our grandparents
did for us, providing us with the basic infrastructure of a nation that
has been able to allow people to move easily from home to work to
places of commerce across the country, an interstate highway system,
all of our airports, our train stations, all of the assets that
provided for the strength of our Nation and for the kind of communities
we live in? None of it appeared out of nowhere. It was built because
people had a vision, people had an idea about how

[[Page 16516]]

you make communities strong, and also how economies work. The fact is
that some of the greatest projects in our country, whether it is some
of the great bridges we look at today--Golden Gate Bridge, Triborough
Bridge, George Washington, countless bridges across the Potomac and
elsewhere--the tunnels, the roads, our water treatment facilities, our
airports, and the airline system we have, all of those things
contribute to the strength of our country.
But everyone here knows we are not currently pursuing a set of
projects calculated to make America more competitive and to continue
that rich history and tradition of building for the future. We are busy
living off the assets that were created by the generations that
preceded us. So the question has to be asked by every colleague here:
Are we going to appropriate the money for grants? And the answer is no,
partly because the deficit and the debt are telling us in loud terms we
do not have those kinds of funds right now, but also because everybody
here sees the difficulty we are having trying to get the highway bill
reauthorized or the FAA bill reauthorized in order to do the things we
need to do.
The proposal for an infrastructure bank is a proposal that recognizes
this fiscal reality. We simply do not have and will not allocate the
types of funds necessary to do the job every American knows has to be
done. That does not mean the job cannot be done. There is a way to do
it. And the way to do it is to invite other people's money, the private
sector, not tax dollars, to come to the table and invest in these
projects, where these projects have revenue streams that will support
that kind of investment.
One of the important features of the infrastructure bank that I ask
colleagues to focus on is the fact that this bank is not a grant
entity. There will be no grants. It is exclusively loans, and
exclusively loans that meet the fiduciary test of their ability to be
able to be repaid, to have a revenue stream that will support the loans
themselves.
I would say to my colleagues, some of them I know have asked me
occasionally: Well, is this going to be an entity such as Fannie Mae or
Freddie Mac? Is it going to be one of those government-supported
entities that got some folks in trouble? The answer is no, resoundingly
and profoundly no. It is not similar in any way whatsoever. Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac issued stock. They were for-profit entities listed on
the New York Stock Exchange. They were using the Federal guarantee on a
loan to actually leverage their position in the marketplace in
competition with other entities and for-profits. This bank is not for
profit. No issuance of stock will be listed on any exchange. It will
exist exclusively for the purpose of lending to those types of projects
that meet the highest fiscal standards with respect to the ability of
those projects to be repaid.
In fact, in each and every lending situation, the infrastructure bank
will make a risk analysis, just as you do on any deal in Wall Street.
There is a risk analysis, and a risk factor will be assigned to that
deal. In fact, fees will be charged to the borrowers, to the
dealmakers, in order to cover that level of risk. That will be part of
the cost of the transaction.
The benefit of this infrastructure bank is that by virtue of the
Treasury Department providing a discount for the Federal Treasury
guarantee, you actually make the loan attractive in terms of the
private sector in competition, and it does so at a level, as I said, of
risk analysis that does not put the Federal Government or the taxpayer
on line and at risk for the measured level of the loan itself, but only
the risk which is credited or put on the books in terms of what is
carried by the Treasury Department as the risk of this particular loan.
So, in fact, if you look at the type of projects that are authorized
by this--only energy projects, transportation projects, and water
projects--in the better part of the country, they are limited to $100
million size or up, and there is a set-aside for rural communities. In
the rural communities, the level of loans could be $25 million or up,
because obviously in parts of rural America, you have smaller kinds of
projects, and we want everyone in the country to be able to share from
the benefits of this kind of an infrastructure bank.
I would say to my colleagues, this bank has bipartisan support. It
has been introduced in slightly different forms from what the President
has put it in. But the fundamentals of the bank in structure and
concept are the same. It has been introduced by Senator Kay Bailey
Hutchison of Texas, who is a coauthor; Senator Lindsey Graham, Senator
Mark Warner are the original cosponsors. But it has other cosponsors
and broader support including, I might add, the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce, which is a strong supporter of the infrastructure bank, and
was present at the announcement of this legislation, as well as the
AFL-CIO.
Why is this infrastructure bank necessary? What is it we need? Well,
everybody knows that the experts are telling us we have a $2.2 trillion
infrastructure deficit in America. That means there are over $2.2
trillion of projects around the country, countless bridges in countless
communities around the country, roads or tunnels or airports, countless
projects which need to be repaired, upgraded, or put in place at first
instance.
We are that far behind, a $2.2 trillion deficit to what we ought to
be doing. The American Civil Society of Architects and Engineers tells
us that we could spend about $250 billion a year for the next 40 years
just to bring our roads up to par, and we are not about to do that, we
know, because we do not have the money, because we are not getting that
kind of an appropriation now for our initiatives.
Listen to what Oklahoma City Mayor Mike Cornett says: Mayors see up
close the deferred maintenance that is going on in the Nation's cities.
It is a ticking timebomb. We also know it puts people to work.
Well, Cornett is president of the Republican Mayors and Local
Officials Coalition within the U.S. Conference of Mayors. He knows what
he is talking about in terms of this deferred maintenance. But the
truth is, every Senator here knows. You can go back home and find
mayors and State senators, State representatives, Governors,
Departments of Transportation--all of them are pleading with us to try
to help provide the kinds of funding necessary because they are simply
overwhelmed. I might add many of our States are living under court
orders to do some of these projects, particularly the water, the
combined sewer overflow-water treatment facilities, where communities
have sued and you need to do those projects in order to meet the
standards. And they are under court order, without understanding where
the money is going to come from. But they are under a court order.
The fact is that whether we decide to do these things is going to
determine how competitive America is going to be. Right now, everybody
knows we are facing a transformational economic challenge. It is
different from the challenge we faced in the last century. During that
period of time, as we came out of World War II, we were the only major
economy in the world left standing. At the end of the war, we had both
the vision and foresight as well as the courage to put a lot of money
on the line in the Marshall plan to help rebuild Europe and rebuild
Japan. And we saw throughout the Cold War the ways in which that
investment paid back for the United States of America, indeed for the
western world and for the values that we made central to that kind of
an investment.
That has changed. It started to change in the eighties and nineties,
and now we are seeing, with the rise of less developed countries that
are, after all, doing the very things that we encouraged them to do--we
told them you have got to liberate your societies to be able to go out
and compete in the marketplace, that they needed to open up that
market, they needed to trade, they needed to excite capital formation
and invest and so forth. That is exactly what they have done. They have
not changed their political systems, in many cases, which remain
totalitarian and closed, one party, but they have

[[Page 16517]]

certainly changed their economic systems, and in doing so, they have
transformed the marketplace we are competing in. So the United States
is not looking at the same playing field, where we had unlimited
resources, unlimited capacity to go out and, frankly, win. We could win
many times without even trying that hard. But now other people are
doing the same things we took for granted. They are competing in
science, they are competing in technology, they are competing in
manufacturing, they are competing in software, and they are competing
all kinds of things that were our domain for a long period of time.
The market globally has changed significantly enough that we are
facing a challenge to our ability to be able to remain the No. 1
economy. I heard today that China will probably be the No. 1 economy in
the world within 5 or 6 years, much faster than we had anticipated
previously. So if the United States is going to compete and get its act
together going forward, we have to invest in the infrastructure of our
country, because that is how you, No. 1, create jobs, but, No. 2, you
provide the ability to move goods, to provide for people, to provide
for the quality of life and the kinds of institutions that make a
difference to our ability to be able to compete and to live the quality
of life we want.
The figures of other people's commitment to infrastructure tell us
the story. China is investing 9 percent of its gross domestic product
in infrastructure. Europe is investing 5 percent of its GDP in
infrastructure. Here in the United States, we are investing somewhere
around 2 percent. Figures vary--2.2, 2.1, 2 percent. I think Brazil
invested over $240 billion in its infrastructure in the last 3 years,
and the Brazilian economy is growing in double digits. North Korea,
Mexico, Brazil, China, India, all growing in double digits, and the
United States is stuck in this recession, maybe just breaking out of
it, but with very uneven growth.
The infrastructure bank is geared to fill a void in our investment
abilities in this country. Again, Senators know we are not going to
invest billions of dollars of appropriated money--taxpayer dollars--
because of the competition we have in our discretionary funds now
because of the way we are heading in terms of the fiscal cliff and debt
cliff and because of the challenge of the rising costs in health care
and entitlements. We don't have that money.
While we get control of those components of our economy, we need to
be investing in the infrastructure of our Nation and putting people
back to work. We need to invest in highways, roads, bridges, mass
transit, inland waterways, commercial ports, airports, air traffic
control systems, passenger rail, including high-speed rail and freight
rail systems, and the water sector. We can invest in wastewater
treatment facilities, storm water management systems, dams, drinking
water treatment facilities, levees, and open space management systems.
In the energy sector, we need transmission in America. We need an
energy grid that is modern. We need distribution, storage, energy
enhancements for buildings, public and commercial.
There is an extraordinary amount of work to be done--if we decide to
do it. Hundreds of billions of dollars is sitting on the side lines
right now. It could come in and help us with these projects. The
infrastructure bank is precisely the entity that will bring that
private capital to the table so that it is the Chinese who are
investing in an American infrastructure project that they cannot take
back to China; it is here in America. It improves our lives, but it
gives them a return on investment for the money they put on the line in
a deal, which, frankly, is the kind of deal that will produce the sort
of long-term, patient capital investment that I think a lot of people
are going to be turning to given the nature of the financial turmoil we
see going on in the world today.
We are in a competitive race with other countries to attract this
private equity investment. An infrastructure bank could help us put
that money to work here at home.
Some people say: Senator, why do you need the infrastructure bank to
do this if these deals are so attractive? Why doesn't the money come
and they will invest it anyway and so forth?
It doesn't work that way for a number of reasons. First of all, our
financial institutions have not developed a long-term infrastructure-
lending business. We don't have that in this country the way other
banks in other parts of the world do.
If you look at a major American infrastructure transaction over the
last few years, guess what. Non-U.S. banks--mostly Australian and
European--are the ones providing most of the financing. They are doing
it at an average of 20 to 1--20 parts by the non-U.S. banks, the
European and Australian banks, and 1 part U.S. investment. Given the
troubles the European sovereign market has today, I think it is going
to be a very long time before we see a lot of European banks looking to
invest over here. Maybe I am wrong.
The lack of investing by our institutions is not because the
investment is too risky. The problem is that for a very long time, the
vast majority of American infrastructure has been financed through the
municipal bond market, the rest largely through Federal grants, which I
have said are now under pressure. So there has been no need for large
bank lending to be created. As we all know, large bank lending--that
market just doesn't happen overnight.
The municipal bond market also relies principally on small retail
investors for most of its funding. Because of the way it is designed,
it can't access large global pools of capital or, for that matter,
pension funds. Pension funds are prohibited from investing in those
bonds.
The municipal bond market is not well-suited to fund large, cross-
State, cross-boundary projects, so we need something else. That
something else is this kind of infrastructure bank, with all of the
very strict limits that have been put into place to keep it from
reaching too far. It doesn't cost a lot of money--$10 billion of
startup funding. It becomes self-financing. Every loan is a loan that
can be repaid because they rely on sources of revenue that are among
the most dependable sources of revenue in the marketplace--from energy
projects that sell electricity, and you have a pretty regular stream of
buyers for that. You have a pretty regular stream of people who need
water in their homes and pay for the water. All of these revenue
streams--the tolls on bridges, for instance, and these others--have a
certainty and longevity to them that make these kinds of deals very
attractive.
I say to my colleagues that one of the silver linings of this kind of
infrastructure investment is this: For every $1 billion, the Federal
Highway Administration tells us you will create, I think, 30,000 jobs.
The range of jobs, depending on whom you listen to, goes from about
20,000 to 35,000. Let's say it is 20,000 jobs per billion. People say
this bank investment of $10 billion can leverage more than $\1/2\
trillion--$500 billion--of investment, so you are talking 20 million
jobs over the course of perhaps 10 years.
I think there are so many compelling reasons for engaging this.
Europe has an infrastructure bank. We have State infrastructure banks,
but the State infrastructure banks don't have the advantage this bank
has of being able to do transboundary, cross-State deals. They also
don't have the advantage of having a discount on the lending component
coming through the Treasury Department of the Federal component of
this--done, as I said, under the strictest fiduciary standards. Only 50
percent of any project can be lending. The rest has to be equity and
has to be invested by the other investors in the deal. It could be a
combination of investors, but they need to invest.
I close by saying that a modern infrastructure is really the
lifeblood of our economy. I don't know how many of my colleagues have
taken the Acela to New York, but it is a train that has the ability to
go 150 miles an hour. It only goes 150 miles an hour between here and
New York for about 18 miles of the trip because you cannot go fast
under the Baltimore tunnel because vibrations might cause it to fall
in. You cannot go fast over the bridges of the

[[Page 16518]]

Chesapeake because the train will wind up in the Chesapeake. This is
absurd.
Many of us have had the pleasure of having a train ride in China. I
rode recently from Beijing to Tianjin--a trip that used to take 8 to 10
hours takes 29 minutes. You are going 200 miles an hour. The water on
your table is barely jiggling during the entire ride. It is an
extraordinary accomplishment. They are building something like 55,000
miles of that kind of high-speed rail system over there, as they spend
their 9 percent of GDP on infrastructure.
We can do better. The United States of America can do better. We know
that. We are the country that had invention and building construction
in our DNA, the country that went to the Moon and developed these
extraordinary technologies that connect human beings around the world
instantaneously.
I am convinced that if we put this infrastructure bank together, all
of a sudden the United States will attract capital, create jobs,
modernize our economy, and have benefits that spill out all across our
Nation. I hope our colleagues will get rid of the politics and embrace
this idea, which is long overdue.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, before the Senator leaves the floor, I
commend the Senator from Massachusetts. He has said much this afternoon
that I certainly agree with.
I also want to touch on one other point about the Senator's work--the
Senator from Massachusetts--in this area. The public, perhaps more than
anything else, is talking about why people in Washington, DC, cannot
work together, why we can't come up with ways to build coalitions. I am
not sure people picked up on it in the Senator's remarks, particularly
with respect to China. They are investing far more than we are. But he
has pulled together the chamber of commerce and the AFL-CIO for an
infrastructure package. That doesn't happen by osmosis or because
somebody puts out a press release. He put in the time to try to build
that coalition, which, of course, is key to getting bipartisan support
up here. I want the Senator to know I very much appreciate it. I know
he brought exactly the same approach to his work on the supercommittee,
trying to find common ground on some of the most challenging issues so
that we will generate growth and deal with health care costs.
I have some remarks to make, but I am glad I had a chance to listen
to the Senator from Massachusetts because I thought the point he made
about bringing people together was important. And I hope people will
say, as we look at this transportation package--I just want to get on
the bill, frankly, so we can open other kinds of ideas. The Senator has
put in a lot of time, and it paid off with coalitions such as the
chamber of commerce and the AFL-CIO. That is the kind of approach that
will solve some of these big problems.
Mr. KERRY. I thank my friend from Oregon. Nobody works harder on
building coalitions than the Senator from Oregon. He has done a superb
job on health care and tax policy, so those words mean a lot. I
appreciate that. Thank you.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, my sense is that if you tune in on the
Senate today--and, of course, the ways of the Senate are always hard to
follow. The occupant of the chair is involved in changing the rules of
the Senate and has a sense of what I am talking about. You try to
figure out what the Senate is up to, and at this point you have learned
that today the Senate is working on infrastructure. You hear that word
again and again. You roll your eyes and you say: Wake me when the
potholes get fixed.
What I want to do for a few minutes this afternoon is try to tie this
to what I believe is first and foremost on the minds of the American
people, and that is jobs. That is what we hear about morning, noon, and
night.
The fact is that we cannot have big-league economic growth in America
with little-league transportation systems. It is not possible. If our
bridges and roads are falling apart, we simply cannot have the growth
we need, and job growth is the No. 1 issue for our people, and
literally infrastructure improvement--roads, bridges, and
transportation systems and jobs are two sides of the same coin. They go
hand in hand. That is point No. 1.
Point No. 2 is on the question of how we stack up to some of our
competitors worldwide. If we can't move goods and services efficiently
in this country, our businesses are practically in the position where
they have to put up a sign and say: We cannot compete with China
because when China is making these kinds of investments that we heard
Senator Kerry and other colleagues on both sides of the aisle talk
about in the last few days, you know what we are up against.
Transportation is the key to moving goods and services efficiently.
We have bottlenecks, for example, in my part of the country, in the
metropolitan area and, frankly, in rural areas where people could not
have dreamed there would be a traffic jam even a few years ago.
Point No. 3 is there is no economic multiplier in our country like
transportation. When you make well-targeted investments in
transportation, you create jobs for the folks who are building those
projects, you create jobs for the people who are selling the equipment,
you are creating jobs for folks such as the people in the restaurants
who make the ham sandwiches for the workers who are out there building
the projects and trying to find ways to help our people avoid traffic
and save gas as they try to get to and from work. So this is a big
economic multiplier.
And, No. 4, Mr. President, as you know from your experience as a
westerner, the history of our part of the world is that private
investment has always followed well-targeted public investments. You
look all over the West and the great distances our folks have to
travel, and you will see again and again the key to getting more
private sector investment. In my view, the key to economic recovery is
the private sector job growth that is behind the tax reform bill I have
with Senator Coats--the first bipartisan tax reform bill. We need
private sector job growth in the West. The history of our region is
that private sector employment has traditionally followed well-targeted
public investments.
What I want to see us do--and what the vote that is coming up is all
about--is to have a chance to move to the bill. If we move to the bill,
I believe there are all kinds of opportunities for Democrats and
Republicans, through amendments and a variety of opportunities, to
exchange ideas and to come up with bipartisan approaches. I have had a
chance to be part of those kinds of discussions in the last few years.
Look, for example, at the common ground that has developed between
Senator Boxer and Senator Inhofe on the Environment and Public Works
Committee. They are making a lot of progress in reauthorizing a
transportation bill. That is only one example here in the Senate of
Democrats and Republicans coming together.
Let me cite two others. In the Economic Recovery Act, I had a chance
in the Senate Finance Committee to advance an idea I have been working
on for more than 5 years. There was a very large and bipartisan group
of us who worked on it. Former Senator Talent was the original
Republican, but Senator Thune was involved, Senator Wicker, Senator
Collins, and a very large bipartisan group working with colleagues on
our side of the aisle. The Senator from Minnesota, Amy Klobuchar, is
one who comes to mind, who has been a very thoughtful advocate of
improvements in transportation. So in the Senate Finance Committee, as
we moved forward with the Economic Recovery Act, Chairman Baucus and
then ranking minority member Senator Grassley, in effect, said: Well,
we have been hearing about some of these ideas this bipartisan group
has been advancing. Let's give them a chance to make their case. I
offered the proposal to create something called Build America Bonds.
This was a chance to, for the first time, move the Federal Government
into the bonding area. It has long

[[Page 16519]]

been done, of course, at the State and local level, and it received
good reviews from the private sector.
I recall the day when Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley asked me
what I predicted in terms of the results of the Build America Bonds. I
said: We have gotten basically about a year and a half. As you know,
the Recovery Act was passed in the winter of 2009, and the IRS had to
implement the rules. But when we wrapped up the period for which we
issued Build America bonds, more than $181 billion worth of Build
America bonds had been used all across the country for capital
infrastructure projects. They had been used in big projects on the east
coast of the United States--the New Jersey Turnpike was one--and they
had been used for roads in southern Oregon.
If you want to talk efficiency, look at the Web site of our State
treasurer, Ted Wheeler, who said they were saving in our State 10
percent by issuing these Build America bonds.
I see my friend from California is here, Senator Feinstein, and I
believe California was one of the largest users of Build America bonds.
To have a program that was envisioned as perhaps selling $5 billion or
$36 billion worth of bonds selling more than $180 billion is an example
of what we can do on a bipartisan basis that will put people to work
and will actually save money.
The savings we found in Oregon can also be illustrated by the
analysis done by the Department of the Treasury that finds the same
sort of savings we found in Oregon.
With respect to the Build America bonds, in some respects they were
too successful. People said: Oh, perhaps they are being used for more
kinds of projects than was acceptable to some people. So once again we
said, we are going to come back and try to find a way to generate
bipartisan support. My colleague from North Dakota, Senator Hoeven, and
I got together and we put forward another proposal--a different
version--that we call the TRIP program--the Transportation and Regional
Infrastructure Program. Our plan would allow State infrastructure banks
to issue bonds to pay for transportation projects, once again having a
small supportive role from the Federal Government. The folks who run
the numbers at the Joint Committee on Taxation say that with this
bipartisan proposal--a Republican from North Dakota, a Democrat from
the State of Oregon--it would be possible to get $50 billion worth of
transportation projects with this model, with only $12 billion worth of
cost over 10 years.
I only illustrate this fact to suggest that if it is possible to get
on the bill, I think we are going to see colleagues on the Republican
and the Democratic side look to try to cooperate and find some common
ground. Senator Kerry made the point about the infrastructure bank, how
we got the support of the Chamber of Commerce, Senator Graham and
Senator Hutchison and others. I have gone through some of the history
of other transportation efforts--that progress is being made now with
Senator Boxer and Inhofe on the transportation bill; and the Build
America bonds effort, which produced a thirtyfold increase over what
was anticipated, literally revolutionizing the municipal bond market
and was utilized for big projects, such as the New Jersey Turnpike, and
small projects, such as roads in southern Oregon; and now if we can go
to this bill--and that is what the vote is all about, whether we
actually get on the bill--we will be able to offer alternatives and
ideas. Frankly, the provisions that are in the bill in its current
form, I don't see how anybody can be against them. The question of
highway repair is about as fundamental a function of government as
anything one can imagine. So there is plenty in this bill I think
colleagues on both sides of the aisle could support.
I have cited a number of examples of bipartisanship in this area,
where we can do more in the infrastructure field while we save money,
and I hope colleagues will vote--I gather the vote will be tomorrow--to
move to the bill and give us a chance to get serious about what I think
is central to growing the American economy and at well-targeted
investments in transportation.
To me, the question of job creation and infrastructure are literally
two sides of the same coin, so I hope the Senate moves to this
legislation tomorrow and begins to beef up our effort to deal with a
fundamental part of job creation in this country. It is so fundamental
that in much of the country, if we don't make the investments, it will
literally be the equivalent of saying to our businesses: Put up a sign
that says you are not going to be in a position to compete with China
right now; come back another time. That is unacceptable to me and to
Oregon businesses and Oregon workers. That is why I hope my colleagues
will vote to go to the bill.
With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oregon and
the Senator from Massachusetts. I happened to hear their comments, and
they are both very good and they are both right on.
I was thinking while Senator Wyden spoke about the fact that in the
past 6 months those of us on this side have tried on four different
occasions to pass legislation related to jobs. We began on May 4 to
reauthorize the Small Business Innovation Research Program, which would
direct grants to small businesses to develop technologies. That fell on
a cloture vote. It did not get 60 votes. It only got 52. We then tried
to reauthorize the Economic Development Administration, which I think
most of us know essentially is a cost share for communities in
distress. That didn't get cloture. It fell 49 to 51. We then tried the
President's big jobs act on October 11. That vote fell. It did not get
cloture. It only got 50 votes. We then tried taking a part of that on
October 20, in order to fund 400,000 school jobs and thousands of jobs
for police and fire departments--first responders--throughout the
Nation. That was paid for with a .5 percent surtax on people who could
well afford to pay for it and probably would want to pay for it, but
that fell on a 50-50 vote. We did not get the 60 votes for cloture.
Today, we are trying for a fifth time on a part of the President's
bill which has to do with infrastructure. Again, there is a pay-for. It
is paid for by a .7 percent tax on people who can well afford to pay
that .7 percent. And I think Senator Wyden and I both know the value of
keeping this Nation No. 1, because we come from the West. We are on a
burgeoning trade basin. We seek competition with countries that have a
blooming infrastructure, and we see the plugs and the bumps and the
stoppages in this country because of an absence of adequate
infrastructure.
I am delighted the Senator is here and that we share this same cause.
Hopefully, there is going to be some change in the mindset on the other
side of this great Hall and people will realize if we are going to
remain No. 1--and we are not No. 1, and I will go into that in my
speech--then we have to pass this segment of the President's bill. So I
thank Senator Wyden very much for his comments.
As I said, this legislation offered by the majority leader includes
the key infrastructure provisions of the President's Jobs Act. It is
$50 billion for our roads, bridges, airports, and transit systems, and
it capitalizes a freestanding infrastructure bank with $10 billion.
This bill makes the investment without increasing the deficit. Funds
appropriated are offset by a .7 percent surcharge only on people who
can afford it.
I come from a State where unemployment is high--11.9 percent--and
employment in our construction sector is down 44 percent, as you can
see from this chart. This is actually California's construction jobs,
and you can see where it was in 2000. You see it rise to 900,000 in
2006, and since that time it has plummeted. The fact of the matter is,
construction, to a great extent, drives the economy in a number of
States, and I think California heads that list. So infrastructure and
employment go directly together.
Last week, this body passed legislation authorizing the sale of power
from the Hoover Dam. The Hoover Dam is on

[[Page 16520]]

the border between Nevada and Arizona, and it was built in the 1930s.
But it reminds me of the invaluable contribution that infrastructure
investments have made in generations past. During the depths of the
Great Depression, we stepped forward to help build Hoover Dam. Between
1931 and 1936 our Nation made a massive effort involving thousands of
workers--more than 100 of whom lost their lives--to build a powerplant
unlike anything the world had ever seen.
This is kind of a working picture of Hoover Dam being built. At the
time, many in Congress argued the cost of this engineering marvel was
too high and the investment of taxpayer dollars too risky. They opposed
efforts to invest in an unproven energy technology like hydropower. The
debate was strikingly similar to the debate we hear today. Luckily for
the people of California, believers in American infrastructure and
technology won the Hoover Dam debate. As the years have passed, the
investment has been repaid and the wisdom of Congress' investment
remains clear.
Today, Hoover Dam, all these years later is still owned by the
American people.
It produces power for the Southwestern United States at less than
one-quarter of the market price. It is the quintessential example of
why infrastructure spending and investment makes sense. During the
depths of the Depression, it gave people jobs and hope. But its
benefits were permanent, not fleeting. The investment made in the 1930s
is still paying dividends for the economy of the Southwest.
Today, this legislation invests $50 billion in America's
transportation infrastructure. That is specifically $27 billion for
highways, $9 billion for transit, $4 billion for high-speed rail, $2
billion for Amtrak rail improvements, $3 billion for airports and air
traffic control modernization, and $5 billion for discretionary grants
and TIFIA loans to multimodal projects. These funds are actually in
addition to funding levels in the surface transportation bill which
authorizes $52 billion annually and the FAA authorization which
authorizes $16 billion annually. The proposal also appropriates $10
billion to capitalize an infrastructure bank. With its own appointed
board and CEO, this bank would have the power to issue loan guarantees
and loans, at the Federal funds rate, to large projects in water,
transportation, and energy.
The bank's authority is similar to the functions performed by EPA's
State Revolving Fund, the DOE's Loan Guarantee Program, and the
Department of Transportation's TIFIA and RRIF Programs.
In the long term, centralizing these functions in a single
infrastructure bank will establish more consistent lending rules and
policies. So I think a lot of us have gotten together from time to time
to see what could be done to fund a real infrastructure bank.
Presently, when we build infrastructure, we have no way of financing
it. We put up the whole cost upfront. Most States and cities don't fund
their infrastructure that way. They float bonds, and they are amortized
over time. So the ability to have an infrastructure bank to loan money,
to look at various instruments, to move infrastructure production
throughout this country I think is vital. Because the bank will lend,
not grant, funds, it will leverage $10 billion into approximately $100
billion in actual investment dollars.
The bank would be particularly beneficial to California--I must say
that--and we lead the application list for Federal financing
assistance.
For example, Los Angeles citizens voted to tax themselves by raising
the sales tax in order to build a desperately needed subway and transit
system. They seek a Federal loan. They have the money to pay it back;
it comes every year due in sales taxes, but they seek a Federal loan to
build the system in 10 years, not 30 years because they need it sooner
rather than later. The County of Riverside seeks a Federal loan to
build a toll road on the Highway 91 goods movement corridor, through
which millions of containers move from the Ports of Los Angeles-Long
Beach to every community in America.
I think most people in this body don't understand that approximately
50 percent of all the containers that come into this country, east
coast, west coast, come in at Los Angeles-Long Beach, 40 to 50 percent,
and they go out in multimodal areas in stacked trains into the Midwest.
But they run into all kinds of impediments. There is not separated
grades. There is not the ability to move these trains as rapidly as
they should be. So if we are going to keep up with the delivery of
cargo into the heartland of this country, most of which comes from
Asia, we need to do something. California's communities are prepared to
repay these loans, but they need help in the beginning.
The Federal Highway Administration estimates that for every $1
billion of Federal transportation spending, 27,822 jobs are produced.
It is one of the biggest bang for the buck programs I know of. For
every $1 billion in spending, nearly 30,000 jobs are generated. So this
bill is a job generator. For every $1 spent on infrastructure projects,
it also spurs economic activity, raising the level of gross domestic
product by $1.59.
So what is the conclusion? Investing in infrastructure is essential
to addressing our nationwide unemployment crisis. Oh, I only wish we
could see this.
Congestion is a big problem in this country. I told you about Los
Angeles-Long Beach. What I should also tell you is that the average Los
Angeles commuter spends 63 hours per year stuck in traffic. That costs
$1,400 a person. In Greater Los Angeles, commuters spend 515 million
hours stuck in traffic every year. They waste 407 million gallons of
fuel, at a total economic cost of $12 billion. That is just L.A.
I see the Senator from Illinois is on the floor. That is just L.A. I
wonder what the Chicago numbers would be. They have to be large. San
Francisco, San Jose, San Diego, and Riverside County face all the
similar congestion. In each area, the average commuter spends more than
30 hours a year stuck in traffic. That costs us $6.4 billion, and
nationwide, congestion is causing Americans to travel 4.8 billion hours
more and to purchase an extra 3.9 billion gallons of fuel, for a
congestion cost of $115 billion in 1 year. That year happens to be
2009. This is the equivalent of wasting 130 days of flow from the
Alaska pipeline each year. It is enormous.
So is this bill necessary? The answer is clearly a resounding yes. In
my State, 66 percent of our major roads are in poor condition, 68
percent of our urban interstates are congested, vehicle travel on our
highways increased by 27 percent from 1990 to 2007, and 30 percent of
our bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete.
One of the best infrastructure projects in the Nation is the repair
of Doyle Drive going onto the Golden Gate Bridge. Senator, I wish you
could see it because this is a stimulus project and it is amazing
because you actually see these dollars at work. Huge ramps are being
rebuilt going down to ground level, this great icon of America. The
Golden Gate Bridge would never be built today. We just wouldn't build
it. If we did, it would take 100 years to do it with all the permits we
need. But it is there, it is an icon, and there is a major
infrastructure package working on it.
Our Nation's deteriorating surface transportation infrastructure is
going to cost the economy more than 876,000 jobs. It is going to
suppress GDP growth, it is estimated, by $897 billion by 2020. Poor
road conditions cost U.S. motorists $67 billion a year in repairs and
operating costs--$333 per motorist. Failing infrastructure will drive
the cost of doing business in this country up by $430 billion in the
next decade, as the costs to ship goods and raw materials will increase
due to bottlenecks and roads that beat up vehicles.
There was a time when America built big things. In the 1800s, we
built the transcontinental railroad in one of the great private-public
partnerships of all time. We built projects such as the Bay Bridge, the
Golden Gate Bridge, the Hoover Dam in the 1920s and the 1930s. In the
1950s and 1960s, we built an interstate highway system unlike anything

[[Page 16521]]

else anywhere on the planet. In the 1970s, we built the Bay Area Rapid
Transit system in San Francisco. This multidecade investment gave
America an economic advantage over every country around the world.
Now listen to this. As recently as 2005, the World Economic Forum
rated U.S. infrastructure as No. 1 for economic competitiveness--No. 1
in 2005 for economic competitiveness. But in just 5 years, we have
slipped to No. 15--not 5, not 10 but 15 in 5 years because we haven't
kept up what is a deteriorating infrastructure caused by overuse. The
argument is so solid to pass this bill, I can't understand how anyone
could vote against it.
China is spending today 9 percent of its GDP on infrastructure. They
are our competition. I live on the Pacific Rim. I can tell you, every
time any one of us goes to China they will look around the city,
whether it is Beijing or Shanghai, and you will count 20 to 50 cranes
building in that city, improving infrastructure.
I stood in Shanghai when the head of the government told me: In 10
years, we will build 375 kilometers of underground subway and 25
stations. Guess what. They did and are doing it. We can't do that. It
is a problem. Of course, China doesn't have NEPA, it doesn't have CEQA,
it doesn't have three dozen permits you have to get. It is easy to
write a letter to Mrs. Lee or Mrs. Chu and say: You will move in 30
days because your apartment building is going to be destroyed. That
doesn't happen here.
But there is no excuse not to do what is in this bill. There is no
impediment to do what is in this bill. It might not take us back to No.
1, but it might take us back to No. 3 or No. 4.
China spends 9 percent. Do you know what we spend? I will tell you.
According to the Economist, on April 28, we spent 2 percent of GDP on
infrastructure.
A lot of people are doing columns on whether America remains No. 1 in
the world, whether we have lost our clout, whether we have lost our
competitiveness, whether we have lost our ability to invest in the
future. This bill is a good testing ground because this measure is all
infrastructure, with the ability to get it done in the future by a bank
that can specialize in the arena.
So it is a good test. It seems to me, if we want this country to be
No. 1, we have to vote yes. I believe the will is on this side of the
aisle and I send a challenge to the other side of the aisle. There is
no reason not to vote for this bill.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cardin). The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from California for her presentation.
As she talked about her wonderful hometown of San Francisco, one of my
favorite cities outside Illinois, I thought about my most recent trip
there to that Golden Gate Bridge and the wonderful work that is done in
the Presidio. What a tribute it is to that beautiful part of our
country that the investments are being made now so people can enjoy it.
It was filled with people, bicyclers, walkers, runners, families,
tourists, and everybody. It is an indication to me that if you build
it, they will come.
In this situation, I couldn't help but reflect as the Senator went
through the litany of all the great achievements in America over the
last 60 years from the viewpoint of infrastructure. Think back to
President Eisenhower and the big debate that was on then about the
interstate highway system: Was it going to be bonded or paid for with
taxes? It went back and forth, and it ended with a bipartisan
agreement, and thank goodness it did. We need that kind of bipartisan
agreement right here.
Were it not for the interstate highway system, your State would be
much different today. So would mine. Thank goodness, 60 years ago, a
Republican President and a Democratic Congress reached an agreement. It
can be done.
The Democrats did not say if Eisenhower gets this, people are going
to think better of him. They thought better of the Nation, and that was
a commitment that made a difference.
I thank the Senator for telling us this story. I appreciate it.
Mr. President, we had a meeting this morning with economists from
labor and business, and they came and talked to us about what is going
on with the American economy. Nothing they said was a great surprise,
but it sure was troubling. One-fifth of all men in America are
currently out of work. Just a few years ago, it was one-twentieth.
Since 1969, there has been a 28-percent decline in purchasing power
of the average working family. Even though they are working, they have
fallen behind. The level of fear and anger in our country is growing.
We have had slow economic growth rates, and we are facing some serious
issues. The United States today has the same number of jobs it had in
the year 2000, 11 years ago, but we have 30 million more Americans in
2011 than we did in the year 2000. We can lament this and read about it
and say isn't it a darn shame or we can do something about it.
Fortunately, for those of us who have been elected to this Chamber,
we have a reason to do something. In fact, that is the reason we have
been sent here. People didn't send us to give inspiring speeches; they
sent us to solve problems, to make life better for America, to make
this a stronger Nation--a secure, safe, and stronger Nation. We have
that power to do this, and the question is whether we will.
I can tell you many people argue that the President's efforts to get
this economy moving have failed. I could not disagree more. I have been
around Illinois, and I have taken a look at what we have built in
America with the stimulus funds. It is impressive. In my home State, it
is impressive, not only in terms of infrastructure but helping
businesses get started and to succeed.
Douglas Holtz-Eakin is the president of the right-leaning American
Action Forum and was Senator McCain's top economic adviser during the
2008 Presidential campaign. In the Washington Post, on Sunday, he said:
``The argument that the stimulus had zero impact and we shouldn't have
done it is intellectually dishonest or wrong.''
That is from a conservative, Republican-leaning economist. He knew
the stimulus helped. America would have been in a deeper hole today had
we not acted to reduce taxes and to help build America in ways that
will serve us for generations to come.
We know now we need to do more. Tomorrow we are going to give our
colleagues in the Senate a chance to join us in making that happen. We
are going to try to move this country forward by putting people to work
building things that count. Highways and bridges and airports and
schools, community colleges and things that will serve us for years to
come. It will create thousands of jobs all across America. We know the
stimulus bill did that.
The Department of Transportation estimates that $48 billion in
transportation funds put 65,000 people to work on 15,000 projects. I
just saw one last week. It is the new Intermodal Transportation Center
in Normal, IL. It is amazing. Right next to the Amtrak station, they
have built an intermodal center which has kicked off a renaissance in
downtown Normal, IL. There are restaurants, a brandnew hotel I stayed
in, a Marriott. There are all sorts of shops and a lot of activity. It
is all focused on the centerpiece that is now under construction and
will soon be completed. This intermodal center is paid for by the same
stimulus funds that many come to the floor and question or mock. This
multimodal center is a centerpiece for the growth of a great town in
the Midwest.
Incidentally, the rail service of that Amtrak station is being funded
with $1.1 billion in high-speed rail grants that were part of the
stimulus as well. We didn't just build the buildings, we are putting
down new rail with concrete to make sure people have a safe, secure,
and faster ride. The station is built with $22 million in TIGER grant
funds through the same Recovery Act.
These investments are doing great things for Normal, for Illinois
State University that is there. The mayor of Bloomington, who is right
next door, came over to say he agreed too.

[[Page 16522]]

The Peoria airport is another story. They just completed a brandnew
airport terminal. It is beautiful. Mr. President, $6.4 million in
Federal stimulus funds are going right into Peoria, creating jobs in
Peoria, and building an airport for the 21st century. There were 120
workers at work building this terminal--good pay, good benefits, jobs
right here in America.
The Englewood Flyover Project in Chicago is going to eliminate the
biggest railroad bottleneck in the Midwest. It will mean that goods and
passengers move more quickly through that great city and to their
destination. It will put hundreds to work for this construction, and it
came right out of the stimulus package.
I listened earlier when Senator Feinstein talked about choices we
have to make in this country. I think the choices are pretty clear. We
know what China is doing. If we go to China today, we will see building
cranes in every direction. She talked about a 375-mile underground
subway system. When I was there, they talked about 50 new airports they
are going to build in the next 5 years that can land every Boeing
aircraft. They are building the ports, the airports, the roads, and the
railroads to compete with us in the 21st century. What are we doing? We
are locked in a partisan debate on the Senate floor, where we cannot
get one Republican vote to support the President's jobs bill to create
jobs building America's economic future--not one.
Why? I will tell you why. Let's get down to brass tacks. The
Republicans say we cannot vote for any bill that raises taxes. The
President's jobs bill--the part we are going to bring--does raise
taxes, and here are the taxes that are raised. For those making over $1
million a year in income--that is over $20,000 a week in income--we
say, on the income over $1 million, they have to pay a surtax of .7
percent. That would mean that the first $100 that the millionaire makes
over $1 million, they would have to pay 70 cents. The Republicans have
said: No way. We will not make the millionaire pay 70 cents on the
first $100 he earns over $1 million, even if it means putting people to
work in America. Who disagrees with that position? A majority of
Democrats, Independents, and a majority of Republicans, a majority of
the tea party members disagree with the Republican position, but not a
single Republican has broken ranks yet to join us in a bipartisan
effort to put Americans back to work and pay for it by having the
wealthiest, the most well off in our country pay 70 cents on $100.
To me, that is not too much to ask. I would ask that and more of
those who have been blessed with a comfortable life and a good income
and a nice home and no worries. For them to pay a little more so
America can get moving forward and we can reduce this unemployment rate
is not too much to ask. It is what we were sent here to do.
I encourage my colleagues to join us. Let's get together, if we can,
in a bipartisan basis tomorrow and pass this portion of the jobs act
and put America to work.
Incidentally, at this point, the Republicans have produced no jobs
bill. They have no ideas. As we are united in fighting this recession
and unemployment, they are united in opposing anything proposed by
President Obama. I don't think that is the way we need to operate.
Thank goodness when President Eisenhower built the interstate system,
a Republican President and Democratic Congress looked beyond the next
election and into the next century and what America needed.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.

A Second Opinion

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, the October 2011 issue of the AARP
bulletin contains an interesting opinion piece. It was written by the
Senate majority leader, Harry Reid. It is right there on the front
page, Senate Leader Reid. His opinion piece is entitled ``The Health
Care Law is Already Working.''
I come to the floor, as I do from time to time, to give a doctor's
second opinion. I have a second opinion today about the piece in the
AARP paper. I find the choice of the words in the title, ``The Health
Care Law is Already Working,'' ironic, especially as the American
people continue to express negative views about President Obama's
health care law.
I come to the floor--as a physician who has practiced medicine in
Wyoming and taken care of Wyoming families for a quarter of a century--
to talk about the health care law and to talk about health care in
America. What we see is a growing majority of Americans who want to see
the entire law repealed and replaced with patient-centered reforms.
Don't take my word for it. Let's look at the facts. On October 18,
2011, just last week, the Kaiser Family Foundation released its monthly
health tracking poll. This is a nonpartisan Kaiser survey and it tracks
the public views about the health care law, and they have been doing it
ongoing. The results this month are truly astonishing. About half of
all Americans have an unfavorable view of the health care law. Overall
favorability of the health care law stands at just 34 percent, an
alltime low. The number of individuals who view the health care law
very favorably stands at 12 percent, an alltime low. The number of
people who think they will personally be better off due to the health
care law stands at 18 percent, an alltime low. The number of
individuals who think the country, as a whole, will be better off due
to the health care law stands at just 28 percent, an alltime low.
Approval of the law among Democrats dropped 13 percentage points to an
alltime low. These results make it clear that the new health care law
does not work.
About 19 months ago, Mr. Schumer, the senior Senator from New York,
claimed on NBC's ``Meet The Press'' that:

. . . as people learn about the bill, and now that the bill
is enacted, it's going to become more and more popular.

The President and Washington Democrats miscalculated. They made
numerous promises to the American people and they said we need to act
fast. We can answer questions later. They asked the American people to
trust them. Then the Nation watched as weeks went by, new stories
uncovered another health care law glitch, another health care law
unintended consequence and another of the President's broken promises.
Seniors all around the country know that the President's health care
law took over $500 billion from a broken Medicare Program not to save
Medicare but to start a whole new government spending program for
someone else, not for seniors. Medicare patients know the health care
law failed them and failed to address the broken physician payment
system. America's seniors understand that Washington Democrats can't
cut $\1/2\ trillion from Medicare and then claim those cuts will not
impact their own health care.
When we look at Medicaid, Governors all across the country know the
health care law's Medicaid expansion will restrict patient access to
care and very likely bankrupt our States. Medicare only pays health
care providers cents on the dollar. That is why about 40 percent of
physicians don't accept Medicaid patients. Having a government health
care card doesn't mean patients will actually have access to medical
care.
We also have concerns since the law was passed about employers
dropping coverage. President Obama promised that if Americans liked
their current health care plan, under the law, they would be able to
keep it. Over the last 19 months, employers have made it clear that the
law's mandates are too expensive, threatening their own ability to
offer health insurance to their employees.
A reputable national consulting firm surveyed employers across
industries, geographies, and employer sizes. The company produced a
report titled ``How U.S. Health Care Reform Will Affect Employees'
Benefits.'' The company, McKinsey & Company, found that overall 30
percent of employers will either definitely or probably stop offering
employer-sponsored coverage after 2014. That is when the President's
health care law goes into full effect. Among employers with a high
awareness of the

[[Page 16523]]

health care law, understanding the specific implications of the law,
that number of those who will either definitely or probably stop
offering employer-sponsored coverage jumps to 50 percent. At least 30
percent of employers would actually gain economically by simply
dropping coverage even if they compensate employees through other
benefit offerings or higher salaries. So how did we get from ``if you
like the plan you have, you can keep it'' to ``30 percent of employers
will either definitely or probably stop offering health insurance''?
The problems continue to mount. Recently, on October 20, 2011,
Walmart announced its decision to scale back health insurance for some
part-time employees. A New York Times article explained that future
part-time Walmart employees working less than 24 hours per week won't
be allowed to join the company's plan. New part-time employees working
between 24 and 33 hours a week won't be able to buy insurance for their
spouses. The New York Times article quotes Walmart as saying that the
increasing cost of health care is the reason for the change.
Now let's take a look at people's premiums. In 2009, President Obama
promised that his health care plan would reduce health insurance
premiums $2,500 a year for families in America. Well, the opposite has
occurred. President Obama's law has forced Americans to pay more for
their health care premiums. On September 27, 2011, the Kaiser Family
Foundation issued a report showing that the employer average annual
family premium increased 9 percent, from $13,770 to $15,073. The
employer average annual single premium--the other was a family, now for
singles--the single premium increased 8 percent, from $5,049 to $5,429.
Of course, part of this premium increase is tied directly to the health
care law.
Then let's look at the CLASS program. That program has recently
failed. Remember, President Obama's health care law established a
brandnew Federal long-term care entitlement program. It was referred to
as CLASS, but the letters stood for ``Community Living Assistance
Services and Supports.'' Well, to qualify, people would have to pay the
government a monthly premium for 5 years, and then after those 5 years,
they could begin collecting benefits. It is now known that the CLASS
program was an intentionally designed budget gimmick. The Congressional
Budget Office estimated that the CLASS program would reduce the deficit
by $86 billion. These ``savings'' came from the premium dollars the
CLASS program would collect for the first 5 years, all while the
program wasn't required or allowed to pay out any benefits to
individuals. So all the money would be coming in. Instead of holding on
to that excess money being collected to pay out for future expenses,
Washington Democrats here in the Senate used those funds to pay for
President Obama's health care law.
Fast forward, and we now know for sure that the program is not
financially viable and does not work. How do we know that? Well, many
of us knew it when it was going on here on the Senate floor a few years
ago, but on October 14 of this year, Health and Human Services
Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced that the administration will not
implement the CLASS program.
An op-ed she has written appeared in the Huffington Post, and it
said:

. . . as a report our department is releasing today shows,
we have not identified a way to make CLASS work at this time.

The Obama administration had 19 months to figure out how to implement
the program, and they couldn't do it. Administration officials at the
Department of Health and Human Services knew the CLASS program was
unsustainable, and I believe they knew it before President Obama signed
the health care law. They knew it, the administration knew it, and the
administration failed in their duty to be honest with the American
people and tell them.
Today, the White House still refuses to admit that the CLASS program
is a colossal failure. In the middle of last month, October 17, 2011,
White House spokesman Nick Papas said:

Repealing the CLASS Act isn't necessary or productive. What
we should be doing is working together to address the long-
term care challenges we face as a country.

How can the White House admit that this part of the health care
spending law will burden taxpayers with yet another unsustainable
entitlement program and at the same time demand that it stay on the
books? How do they do that?
After having received the AARP bulletin with the headline ``The
Health Care Law Is Already Working'' from the Senate majority leader, I
came to the conclusion that I needed to come to the floor with a second
opinion. The health care law needs to be repealed. It must be replaced
with reasonable, commonsense, and financially sound alternatives. This
health care law is not working. It is not good for patients; it is not
good for providers, the doctors and the nurses who take care of those
patients; and it is not good for the American taxpayers.
I will continue to come to the floor of the Senate as we learn more
and more about this health care law. It seems that just about every
week or so there is a new, unintended consequence that comes forward, a
new concern for patients, a new concern for providers, a new concern
for the taxpayers. I will continue to work with my patients and with my
colleagues to find a health care law that gets patients the care they
need from the doctor they want at a price they can afford.
Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Merkley). The Senator from Minnesota.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I am here today to discuss the critical
need to address our Nation's crumbling transportation and
infrastructure system. The cracks in this system became abundantly
clear to all of our country and, in fact, the entire world when, on the
afternoon of August 1, 2007, the I-35W bridge in Minneapolis collapsed
into the middle of the Mississippi River, taking the lives of 13
Minnesotans and injuring so many more.
As I said that day, a bridge just shouldn't fall down in the middle
of America, especially not an eight-lane interstate highway which is
one of the most heavily traveled bridges in our State, especially not
at rush hour in the middle of a metropolitan area, especially not a
bridge six blocks from my house that I take my family over all the time
to go visit their friends. That is what happened on that day, in the
middle of a sunny day in the middle of America. Yet, years after that
bridge collapsed and then was rebuilt, 25 percent of our Nation's
bridges are still structurally deficient or obsolete.
I wish I could say the bridge collapse was the only tragedy my State
has suffered because of a broken infrastructure system. It is not. We
saw another one just this October in Goodhue County on Highway 52,
which connects the Twin Cities with Rochester, home to the Mayo Clinic.
Within a 10-day span, one intersection on Highway 52 between Rochester,
MN, and the Twin Cities of Minnesota was the site of two fatal crashes
that claimed three lives and injured others. Even before these tragic
crashes, everyone agreed that an interchange was needed so that drivers
weren't forced to risk racing across a four-lane, divided highway, but
the county and the Minnesota Department of Transportation didn't have
the funds to build an interchange which could have eased the situation
and could have saved lives. The worst part is that intersection of
Highway 52 isn't even the most dangerous stretch of that road. In fact,
local leaders have marked other projects as higher priorities. Yet the
funds aren't there, the money isn't there to address these problems.
These are just two examples of the impact of our infrastructure and
transportation needs in this country. There are tens of thousands more
in small towns and big cities from Maryland to Minnesota. That is why I
have come to the floor to discuss the Rebuild America Jobs Act,
legislation I introduced with several of my colleagues, including
Senator Manchin of West Virginia and Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of

[[Page 16524]]

Rhode Island. We have come together as Senators from all corners of the
country because we recognize the urgent need for new and bold
initiatives to rebuild America.
Our legislation would get the ball rolling on desperately needed
improvements by establishing an infrastructure bank--something that has
long garnered bipartisan support in the Congress--and directing $50
billion toward infrastructure. Both of these ideas, as I have noted,
have enjoyed bipartisan support in the past. In fact, standing there
with us this afternoon was Ray LaHood, a former Republican Congressman
who is now the Secretary of Transportation under a Democratic
President.
We have also said there is no such thing as a Democratic bridge or a
Republican bridge or a Democratic or Republican highway. Transportation
has always been a bipartisan issue in this country, and it must
continue to be. That is why we are continuing to push this legislation.
We may not pass it this week, but I know from my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle that there continues to be interest in moving
ahead on infrastructure funding.
This legislation is about improving public safety so that no bridge
ever collapses again in the middle of America, but it is also about
creating better opportunities for our businesses and jobs. I say that
because if we look back through history, it is clear that many of the
major milestones that contributed to America's greatness were rooted in
our infrastructure. Whether it was connecting the east and west coasts
by rail in 1869 or the WPA in the 1930s or the construction of the
Interstate Highway System that began in the 1950s with a Democratic
Congress and a Republican President--Dwight Eisenhower--or even the
amazing innovations of the early American auto industry, our country
did not move forward because our leaders tinkered at the edges of the
status quo. America flourished because of innovators such as Henry
Ford, who once said: ``If I'd asked my customers what they wanted,
they'd have said a faster horse.'' Then he turned around and built the
Model T.
If Henry Ford were alive today, he would say that America cannot
afford to take a horse-and-buggy approach to infrastructure. That is,
in fact, what we have been doing. While other countries are moving full
steam ahead with infrastructure investments, we are simply treading
water.
In an increasingly competitive global economy, standing still is,
sadly, falling behind.
China and India are spending about 9 and 5 percent respectively of
their GDP on infrastructure. Even Europe spends 5 percent of its GDP.
Yet how much are we committing right now? About 2 percent. The effects
of this shortsighted strategy are increasingly clear. In its 2007 and
2008 report, the World Economic Forum ranked American infrastructure
sixth in the world. That was only a few years ago, and yet we have
already slipped to 16th place, putting our roads roughly on par with
those of Malaysia and far behind those of Germany, Canada, and Hong
Kong. This is a huge problem because the strength of our infrastructure
is directly tied to the competitiveness of our economy. Just look at
the numbers. As our country slipped in the rankings for infrastructure,
we also dropped in the World Economic Forum's rankings on
competitiveness. Last year we were in fourth place, and this year we
are in fifth place.
Competitiveness is a huge element here, but it is not just about
global bragging rights. Fundamentally, it is about lifting the parking
brake that has kept our economy idling and addressing the major
inefficiencies we have seen in our infrastructure system.
If we want to move to this next-century economy, it is going to be
about exports. It is going to be about making stuff again, inventing
things, exporting to the world. If we do not have the roads to carry
the trucks to bring those goods to market or the waterways and the
barges to do it or an air traffic control system that is up to speed on
a competitive basis internationally, we are not going to be that
economy that so many of our workers and so many of our businesses want
us to be.
Failing to move ahead will have consequences no one likes. For
example, it would not be altogether different from levying a
multibillion-dollar tax on American industry. I say that because
inefficiencies in infrastructure are expected to drive up the cost of
doing business by an estimated $430 billion, according to the American
Society of Civil Engineers. That is just in the next decade.
America spends 4.8 billion hours in traffic--just sitting there in
traffic--every single year. When trucks idle in traffic on the highways
or wait at port facilities to be loaded and unloaded or when freight
trains sit waiting to pass in our congested rail network, our economy
hemorrhages dollars, losing roughly $200 billion each year. To put that
number in perspective, it is roughly 1.5 percent of our gross domestic
product.
Increased transportation costs will make it more expensive for
companies to ship goods and purchase raw materials. We can only expect
that those costs would be passed on to customers.
Traffic congestion, as I mentioned, costs us billions. When I said
4.8 billion hours per year, actually, I thought: Did I get that wrong?
Is it millions? But, no, it is, in fact, 4.8 billion hours each year
stuck in traffic. That is $101 billion in lost revenue. That is $713
per motorist.
The bad news is that without action those numbers are only going in
one direction--up. By 2020, it is estimated that our crumbling
infrastructure will cost our economy more than 876,000 jobs and $897
billion in lost GDP growth.
As I alluded to earlier, the public safety aspect of this debate is
also incredibly important, and it is something we cannot afford to
ignore, particularly in the context of population growth. According to
the Census Bureau, the American population is expected to add another
120 million people by 2050. That is a 40-percent increase in 40 years,
and it is like adding the entire nation of Japan or more than three
States of California. Think about that. We cannot stand still on our
infrastructure. That is 120 million more people on our roads, bridges,
tunnels, highways, and airports--structures that are already
insufficient for meeting the needs of today's population.
But here is the good news. Addressing this challenge does not just
make sense from a long-term competitiveness perspective, it also makes
sense because it would be an immediate shot in the arm for our economy.
We are still looking at an environment where too many Americans are out
of work or have seen their hours cut back. And people who have taken it
the hardest are people in the construction industry. In construction,
the unemployment rate now is 13.3 percent--more than 4 points higher
than the national average.
The Rebuild America Act will help get these workers back on the job.
Here is how we do it:
First of all, we will need to make smarter decisions to stretch our
transportation dollars further. This is a compelling case for public-
private partnerships--we all know government cannot do this alone--
public-private partnerships for private sector jobs. That is why the
infrastructure bank part of the Rebuild America Jobs Act is so
important. The American Infrastructure Financing Authority would
provide loans and loan guarantees to finance projects that would
otherwise be too expensive for any one city, county, or even a State to
accomplish on its own. The bank would serve as an incentive for the
creation of public-private partnerships and the mechanisms necessary
for repaying loans once the projects are completed. This will help
ensure the quality of projects too, because no private firm is going to
invest in a project that is likely to fail.
The infrastructure bank would allow State transportation departments
to move more projects off the books and to tackle other critical needs.
So the Minnesota Department of Transportation could finally have the
resources

[[Page 16525]]

to focus on fixing Highway 52 and Goodhue County Road 9--or projects in
Missouri or projects in Maryland or projects in Oregon. There are needs
all over this country.
I wish to make an important point here that the American taxpayers
need to know; that is, they would be protected as well. Projects would
be considered and reviewed by expert staff, separate from the
independent and nonpartisan board that would select the projects. There
are strong oversight protections, and projects would have to be backed
by a dedicated revenue stream.
All of this is part of the reason this infrastructure bank has always
had bipartisan support. Senator Kerry has worked very hard on this
legislation, as have many of my Republican colleagues. They have
suggested a similar model in the BUILD Act, many of the sponsors. The
BUILD Act has 10 bipartisan cosponsors.
Beyond bipartisan congressional support, an infrastructure bank has
earned the support of people as far-ranging as from the chamber of
commerce to the AFL-CIO.
With the initial infusion of $10 billion that the Rebuild America Act
proposes, it is estimated it could leverage private investment to
generate between $300 billion and $600 billion for infrastructure
improvements. The infrastructure bank is the kind of bold and new
action we should be taking as a nation.
Coming from a State, as I do, where there is a large rural
population, I also think it is important to note that rural America--
whether they are in South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, or Nevada--
should not be left behind. The infrastructure bank would be structured
so that the kinds of projects that are important to rural regions, such
as clean drinking water and sanitary sewer systems, could also compete
for loans and loan guarantees.
Right now, too many repair and replacement projects in our Nation's
drinking water and sanitary sewer systems are endangered by a lack of
funding. According to the 2008 EPA survey of needs, Minnesota needs
$4.1 billion to upgrade our drinking and sanitary water systems. And in
2011 alone, my State has $400 million worth of projects that are just
sitting there.
Clean water projects are vital to the safety and health of our
communities, particularly our rural communities. We all benefit from
projects that can promote public health, protect our environment, help
create jobs, and support local infrastructure. Let me give you an
example. In southwestern Minnesota, we are working on a three-State
effort--consisting of Iowa, South Dakota, and Minnesota--to get water
to 20 communities. The region's current lack of water has brought
economic development to a standstill in an area where there are all
kinds of possibilities for development in an agricultural community.
According to the manager of the Lincoln Pipestone Rural Water System in
Minnesota, this lack of clean water has forced the community to turn
away businesses that would have otherwise opened in the area, including
a large dairy plant, a large cattle-feeding operation, and biofuels
plants. That is just in the last 5 years. In other words, the community
has lost untold jobs and economic growth because it lacks the water.
Importantly, the infrastructure bank that the Rebuild America Jobs
Act would create also includes technical assistance to rural
communities. Five percent of the initial investment to capitalize the
bank would be designated for projects in these very areas. That is $500
million for rural America.
As we move forward with this conversation, we cannot lose sight of
the critical importance of the multiyear surface transportation bill.
This is something we need, and we need it now.
The surface transportation bill gives certainty to State departments
of transportation so they can make the multiyear planning decisions on
how best to spend Federal and State resources.
The certainty of a multiyear bill also benefits the private sector.
Once States know how much they can put toward infrastructure projects,
they can begin contracting with companies--private companies--in
engineering, design, and construction. These are companies such as
Caterpillar, which employs 750 people at its road-paving equipment
manufacturing facility in Minnesota. I visited there in August.
Caterpillar's employees are the kind of people who are out there on the
front lines of American industry. They are people who make the slogan
``Made in America'' not just a slogan; it is real. They depend on the
certainty that only a multiyear Transportation bill provides. We have
an opportunity to give them that certainty.
I know Chairman Boxer and Senator Inhofe have been working on this
out of their committee, but I did want to keep in mind that as we work
on the rebuild America jobs bill, as we work on the Transportation bill
we are talking about today that I would like to get passed by the end
of this year, that we also are cognizant of the fact that there is a
very important 2-year bill they are debating at this very moment.
When we look at the state of our Nation's infrastructure, there is no
escaping the fact that we are far from where we need to be. Our 21st-
century economy depends on a 21st-century transportation network. It is
that simple. Fixing our infrastructure is one of the best possible ways
to strengthen our Nation's most basic foundation--the channels we use
for everything from commerce and exporting to emergency management and
disaster response.
But I also believe it is about bringing America back to the brass
tacks. We know we have to do something about our debt, and I personally
believe we can get there with a balanced approach, with spending cuts
and looking at closing some of these loopholes. But even then, we must
focus on what will move our economy forward in the long term. We simply
can no longer base our economy on being a country that just simply
churns money and shuffles paper, simply being a country that consumes,
that imports and spends its way to a huge trade deficit. That has not
worked.
What we need to be now is a country that makes things again, that
invents things, that exports to the world. The only way we are going to
make that happen is if we have the roads and the bridges and the rail
and the barges and the airports to carry these goods to market. That is
what this is about. We cannot put it off any longer. We must move
forward now in a bipartisan manner to get this done for our country.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Thank you very much, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on this
infrastructure jobs bill, and actually I think my good friend from
Minnesota has done a great job of explaining why we need to be focused
on infrastructure. I think if I was going to summarize my comments, as
they might compare with hers, they would be that we need to be focused
on the longer term problem.
We certainly do have a committee that is working on a 2-year bill,
and here we are spending time today talking about a bill that I think
is likely not to happen. Even if it did happen, would it be better than
a 2-year bill? Of course not. Does it do anything better than the
traditional infrastructure focus of the country that includes
communities and cities and States instead of Federal bureaucrats? Of
course it does not. We need to be focused on the right thing, at the
right time.
The top concern on American minds today is righting our Nation's
economy, having an economy that creates private sector jobs. While we
take different approaches to addressing this issue, I think the
Congress is genuinely united in understanding what the goal should be;
we just have such a difference of opinion as to how to get there.
What role does infrastructure play in private sector job creation and
competition? It plays a critical role. In fact, it is one of the few
places where the Federal Government actually can take actions that
specifically create private sector jobs.

[[Page 16526]]

Roads and bridges are maintained and kept clean and kept open and
supervised by State and local authorities, but they are built by
private sector contractors. So that is a good thing. The question is,
What is the best way to get there? Unfortunately, we are 2 years
removed from the expiration of the last surface transportation bill,
and we are talking in the Transportation Committee--I am told; I am not
on that committee--I know Chairman Boxer and the ranking Republican,
Mr. Inhofe, are talking about how you can have another 2-year extension
of that bill. It is unfortunate we are not talking about the 4- or 5-
or 6-year surface transportation bill we have traditionally talked
about because that is the kind of time it takes to really make a
project that matters work.
We have been holding the surface transportation bill together with
duct tape and Super Glue for a couple of years now, and the last time
we did this, in September, we extended that bill for 6 months. The
President frankly began to put his energy behind this different
proposal that I have lots of concerns about. But I have even greater
concerns about the fact that the energy and focus is there instead of
on how do we get at least a 2-year extension of a transportation bill,
a surface transportation bill that would work.
I said we were holding the bill together--the legislation together--
by duct tape and Super Glue. Unfortunately, that is how we are also
holding the transportation system together, because you cannot have the
Eisenhower vision that was mentioned earlier of an interstate system,
you cannot have an Eisenhower vision that has a 6-month shelf life or a
6-month window of opportunity. If you are going to have that kind of
system put in place, you have to have a system that is put in place
with an understanding that this is an ongoing program, that we have
ongoing sources of funding, that we have an ongoing ability to
contract.
That is why we need to be talking about the best way to find new and
innovative ideas to invest in our infrastructure development. I am
increasingly concerned that this legislation we are talking about today
takes a short-term ``Federal bureaucrat knows best'' approach, rather
than the approach we have had good success with in the country when we
were building roads and bridges and airports and infrastructure in ways
that mattered.
In all of our home States, certainly in my home State of Missouri,
community leaders and job creators tell me that they are clearly
looking for more certainty of how to create jobs. They need the ability
to look beyond 3 or 6 months in order to plan and anticipate investment
levels to expand their operations. We need to make smart investments in
our Nation's infrastructure so people who build infrastructure can look
forward with certainty, and communities that are dependent on
infrastructure can look forward with certainty, and a business that is
thinking about making a job-expanding commitment to a community knows
what the highway plan is for the decade, not for the next day.
We have to get there, and you cannot get there 6 months at a time.
This piecemeal approach, including the continuing resolution, and the
so-called stimulus bill, and other things that postpone other efforts
for communities to get funding, the whole idea of an infrastructure
bank that would go for projects that had some ability to pay for
themselves--when you ask questions about that, nobody knows what that
means. Nobody knows why. If these things have an ability to pay for
themselves, States could bond them out tomorrow. If you have a revenue
stream that will pay off the building of a bridge, if you figured out
how to create that revenue stream, States could issue that bond right
now.
The only reason to have a Federal infrastructure bank is because the
infrastructure bank is insolvent and not planned to be solvent, and
only the Federal Government can give it the credibility it needs so it
can ever possibly be used. But that is not the long-term solution to
infrastructure.
As we have witnessed in recent months, the President's idea of a jobs
plan apparently is focused on holding press conferences in front of
bridges--he had one today--to sell the idea that another stimulus bill
will create more jobs. How does the President ever expect shovel-ready
projects to be shovel ready? They only get to be shovel ready if you
have a lot of time to plan and you know what the funding source is, and
you know how you are going to not just start the project but complete
the project--bridge replacement and major infrastructure investment and
critical projects.
But if this bill does become law, 10 percent of the money, the
Congressional Budget Office estimates, would be spent between now and
September 30 of next year. So this is no economic recovery plan. It is
also no long-term highway plan. And 10 percent of the money spent in
the next 11 months is not what it takes to get this job done.
Of course, 50 percent of that--of all of the money--would be spent by
the Federal highway department rather than allocated, as we have
allocated Federal highway money since the 1950s, back to the States
with incentives for them to match that money and to do the best they
could to have a fair distribution of highway and surface transportation
money across the country.
These piecemeal solutions will not work. There are many examples of
communities that are facing challenges and they want to know how that
question is going to be met. In Washington, MO--not Washington, DC, but
Washington, MO--there is an 80-year-old bridge that goes across the
Missouri River. It needs to be replaced. It has needed to be replaced
for some time now. But are we going to let the President of the United
States decide if that is the bridge we replace? There are some things
that the President should not decide. The President is without any
question in the best position to decide what is the best way to go into
Abbottabad and get Osama bin Laden. The President is not in the best
position to decide what are the bridges to be built between Kentucky
and Ohio.
I know he likes to give that example a lot because the Republican
Senate leader is from Kentucky and the Republican Speaker of the House
is from Ohio. And he says, we need a bridge between Ohio and Kentucky.
That may actually be true. But the President of the United States is
not the best person to solve that problem. The best people to solve
that problem are the people in Kentucky and Ohio who get their gas tax
money, their transportation money, whatever kind of funding we can
figure out meets the needs of the future and say, here is our 10-year
plan. Here is how we are going to fund our 10-year plan. In year one we
are going to do the bridge planning for which of these bridge
possibilities we need. In year two we are going to plan the bridge we
decided we needed. In year three we are going to build the bridge.
Maybe by year six or seven someone is using the bridge. This is the
idea. These ideas, these short-term solutions, simply do not work.
State departments of transportation are hesitant to commit to long-
term projects without the assurances of a funding stream in the future.
The President's bus tour will not provide individuals with more
certainty, but instead a long-term investment plan would work to answer
these questions. We need a clear Federal infrastructure blueprint to
help county commissioners, to help contractors and cities, to help
statewide departments of transportation lay the groundwork to plan, to
assess local needs, to hire more employees, to make the decisions
necessary to encourage economic growth.
In addition to the short-term approach that I think this bill has, I
am concerned with some of the policies included in this proposal. With
the increased funding for discretionary proposals, grant programs such
as the Federal TIGER grants and now the infrastructure bank, the
message being sent to the States is that Washington bureaucrats will
set the priorities. Our entire infrastructure network is in desperate
need of comprehensive updating that refuses to be put off any longer.
We need to refocus all our efforts on the modes of transportation, the
flexibility between them. Why we continue to rely on fragmented
programs makes

[[Page 16527]]

no sense to me or lots of other people. The answer is not to continue
writing blank checks to the administration and then hoping that the
people who will make the decision--with zero accountability, frankly--
will somehow make that in the best interests of all of our States. We
need to do the hard work of crafting and investing in a formula that
works for the future.
Chairman Boxer and Ranking Member Inhofe have been working hard
putting together a new reauthorization bill. I wish that were a 6-year
bill, not a 2-year bill. But I tell you, a 2-year bill has far greater
possibilities for success than a 6-month bill that will go away before
it is able to do any good.
I look forward to starting the work. I hope we can stop taking time
on things that will not work and start solving the problems that have
to be solved for the country, that have private sector job recovery
that we need to be prepared for the next century, as people in this
body worked in the 1950s to see that we could be prepared for the last
50 years of the last century.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant editor of the Daily Digest proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, most every Republican in this body and
probably outside of this body would admit that President Obama
inherited a very bad economy by the time he was sworn in. The only
thing is, by every measure of the economy, this economy is much worse
now than what he inherited.
The Obama economy is bad because there is a prospect of taking more
money from the American taxpayers with the biggest tax increase in the
history of the country next year; and many brand new regulations that
are very costly to the economy. Particularly small businesses do not
know where they are going to be hit next and where their costs will be.
We have this big budget deficit that is a damper on the economy. In
every respect, things this administration are doing are putting a wet
blanket on the economy. We have wrongheaded energy policies as well.
We hear the President say, when he puts forth his jobs bill, touring
the country in his bus: Pass this bill right now. Pass this bill right
now. We have had some experience with efforts to pass bills ``right
now.'' They got passed, like the stimulus bill, 1 month after he was
sworn in, which was supposed to keep unemployment under 8 percent. But
it has never been under 8 percent since 1 month after that time. We
have to pass the health care reform bill ``right now.'' And the health
care reform bill was passed that very first year when the other party
controlled everything, all three political branches of government. They
had everything their way. And it was passed ``right now.''
We are finding out that passing something right now is not the way to
do business, particularly if it is done in a partisan way. I think the
extent to which the President would lead instead of being on the fringe
would help this process along, because he is the only elected official
in this country who speaks for the national voice. Each one of us
representing our constituencies has a national perspective, but we also
have to be worried about the needs of our constituents.
Let's go to what the latest effort is of this President to turn this
economy around his way and get this bill passed ``right now.''
Just a few weeks ago, the Senate considered a so-called jobs bill
that would have provided $35 billion of the $447 billion for the
purpose of creating or saving jobs for teachers and policemen and
firefighters. This bailout was included by President Obama in this $447
billion stimulus bill No. 2 that he proposed in his speech before
Congress this September.
When it became apparent the Senate leadership didn't have the
necessary votes for the whole package, then Majority Leader Reid chose
to move this bill in parts instead of in one big package. Most of the
reason he had to do that is because people in his caucus were not ready
to vote for big tax increases or taking more money away from the
American people and sending it to Washington.
Proponents of that bill argued that this $35 billion bailout was
necessary to prevent the layoff of teachers and public safety
employees. Don't forget, this isn't the first time the Senate has
considered this type of bailout because it was that bailout that just
had to pass ``right now,'' in February of 2009, which was supposed to
keep employment under 8 percent. That was the $814 billion stimulus
bill Congress enacted in early 2009. It included bailout money for
State and local governments.
That is one of the reasons it didn't work, because whether it is the
State, local, or Federal government, governments consume wealth. They
don't create wealth. When we put half of that $814 billion bill into
public employment, it doesn't create jobs. That money should have been
used to stimulate private sector employment.
President Obama stated that bill would save or create up to 4 million
jobs over the following 2 years. That bill was supposed to create or
save 150,000 jobs for teachers, nurses, firefighters, and police
officers according to our President.
Then, in August 2010 Congress passed another State and local bailout,
this time sending $26 billion to States to save or create public sector
jobs. At that time, Robert Gibbs, the White House spokesman, stated
that this bill was ``a very important proposal, particularly to ensure
that 160,000-plus teachers don't get fired as a result of bad State
budgets.'' This $26 billion was the second effort by Congress to help
States plug their budget holes while claiming that we were saving the
jobs of teachers and other government workers.
The truth is, these efforts to save State and local public sector
jobs are more simply a bailout of State and local governments that have
failed to rein in their own spending. State and local governments
became addicted to tax-and-spend big government policies, and Federal
bailouts have only aided the addiction.
Rather than making the necessary and difficult budget decisions,
these State and local governments come to rely on the spendthrift
behavior of their Congress to spend more and plug budget holes.
Nationally, the debt held by States is approaching $3 trillion. That
doesn't even figure in unfunded pension liabilities. Some of the States
in the worst trouble are Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York, New
Jersey, Connecticut, Illinois, and California. The increase in debt has
had a significant impact on their budgets or on their bond rates and
their ability to find competitive bond rates and competitive financing.
The free-spending State legislatures, coupled with a huge public work
force, have driven up the cost of doing business in these States. It
has negatively impacted their unemployment rate and their economic
growth.
For much of the history of our country, States have been responsible
for financing their schools, police, firefighters, first responders,
and other public employment. We know that throughout the 224-year
history of our country most of the time these State and local
governments have done a pretty darn good job. States that have done
well have grown economically and attracted more jobs. With economic
growth we are going to have more taxpayers. What this country needs is
more taxpayers, not more taxes.
States that haven't managed their budgets well have had, as you might
expect, the opposite result. This competition among States has created
a system that demands and rewards good government and, in the process,
attracts employers and workers.
A Federal bailout of States upsets this balance. It rewards bad
behavior and ultimately hurts the American economy. Federal bailouts
eliminate the risks associated with poor economic policies. The moral
hazard of Federal bailouts is that it sends a message to bad actors
that there are no

[[Page 16528]]

negative consequences for their failure to effectively govern.
At the same time, this type of Federal stimulus is ineffective at
saving or creating jobs, and it does nothing to promote private sector
growth. Annual Federal deficits are close to about 8 to 9 percent of
GDP, and our national debt is $15 trillion. We cannot afford to bail
out States and continue to encourage poor fiscal behavior by our
States.
The bailout of Democratic Governors and State legislatures--and I
suppose I ought to include Republican Governors and Republican State
legislatures, as well--and public employees may be good politics, but
it is terrible economics and creates even worse fiscal situations.
Rather than propose political solutions during this economic downturn,
the President should work with Congress to find real, authentic,
genuine solutions to our economic and unemployment problems.
The recession began in December 2007, and nearly 1 in 10 Americans
remain unemployed today. More than 26 million Americans are either
unemployed or underemployed. The policies of the past 2\1/2\ years have
not worked; they have made things worse.
Now, for the benefit of people--and maybe we can't say this too often
because it looks strictly partisan--but we all ought to admit that this
President inherited a bad economic situation. It is nothing to be proud
of for a Republican President or any of us Republicans who were in
office at that time. But by any measure of the economy, this President
has made things worse.
The time for political documents has long past. It is time to govern,
to work together, to get our economy growing again, and move the Obama
economy into a bipartisan economy, at least to job creation.
For those who are unemployed, it is a depression. It is time we did
something to help turn this situation around. Private sector employers
need an international trade agenda that opens new doors to sell U.S.
agricultural goods and manufactured products and services. Obviously, I
am glad the President finally sent to the Senate three trade agreements
and that they were passed last month. They were delayed, though,
unnecessarily for years, and the rest of the world is moving ahead
without us. We are more than capable of increasing exports, but we need
the markets to do it. It is very simple. Why worry about exports?
Because only 4 percent of the people on the face of the Earth live in
the United States. The other 96 percent live outside the United States.
Who are we going to market to, the 4 percent? Yes. But if we are going
to expand our economy, we are going to have to market to the other 96
percent.
Thank God, President Obama has set an agenda that he wants to double
exports. But in order to reach this goal and do everything possible to
generate economic activity and opportunity in the United States, the
President needs to move forward on other job-generating and trading
initiatives without delay.
It is time to put an end to job-killing Federal regulations--as I
move on to a new subject of why the economy is not so good. New
regulations from EPA, the Department of Labor, National Labor Relations
Board, and others are making it harder for businesses to grow.
Understand that I said ``new'' regulations. I think sometimes people,
when they hear us talk about a moratorium on regulations, they think we
ought to take all of the present regulations off the books. They may
not necessarily be good, but the economy has accounted for them
already.
When we have 9.1 percent unemployment, and we have all these new
regulations coming out--66,000 pages of new regulations so far just
this year--that just makes it very hard to decide whether we ought to
hire somebody--particularly, for small business.
Remember, small business creates 70 percent of the new jobs and about
25 percent of all employment in America. In some cases, new regulations
are actually destroying jobs. With unemployment at 9.1 percent, it is
time for the Federal bureaucracy to stop harmful, job-killing, new
regulations.
What we are calling for is not to stop ever regulating into the
future, but to put a short-term moratorium on regulations so that
people have a chance to get us out of the hole we are in with this 9.1
percent unemployment--let's say a measure of getting unemployment down
to 7 percent before we have new regulations.
It is also time to develop domestic energy resources that will create
jobs while increasing domestic energy supplies. Nobody seems to be very
concerned about spending $830 million every day--just in case that
sounds phenomenal, $830 million a day is the amount of money we send
overseas to bring oil into this country. That is a terrible subsidy to
the volatile Middle East, which wants to train Americans to kill us or
to reward Hugo Chavez, who badmouths us almost every day.
We need to make more energy available, driving down prices, making
our country more energy independent. The President's energy agenda is
moving us backward because of not enough emphasis on the fossil fuels
that are available in this country. It was only 3 years ago that
natural gas was $14, $15 per unit because we thought we were using it
all up in America. Recent discoveries tell us that we have natural gas
for maybe 100 years. It is down to around $4 or $5 now per unit.
But it is not a case of finding fault with the President on green
energy because whatever source of energy we have, if we want a growing
economy, we are obviously going to use more energy. We just must use it
more conservatively. We ought to encourage conservation, and we should
also encourage the use of fossil fuels wherever it can be found. It
ought to encourage all sorts of green energy, and that is all the
biofuels we in the Midwest talk about--the wind energy that my State is
second in production of, and it is also solar, biomass, cellulosic,
biofuels, all of the above.
I said conservation, and I guess the fourth one would be nuclear
energy. It is time to change course and develop energy sources at home
and create jobs in the process.
Finally, in 2009, President Obama said we don't raise taxes in a
recession. He stated his position clearly: The last thing you would
want to do is raise taxes on anyone during a recession because it would
harm businesses and economic growth. We know when he said that
unemployment was under 8 percent. So if we have 9.1 percent
unemployment now and will for quite a bit into the future, aren't we
still in a recession? So isn't the President's own benchmark the
benchmark we ought to be using yet today? Yet we have the biggest tax
increase in the history of the country--taking more money away from the
taxpayers and sending it to Washington--coming up next year.
Wouldn't it do a great deal of economic good if this President said
exactly what he said about the time he was sworn in; that we shouldn't
increase taxes during a recession. Yet we have all these jobs packages
put before the Senate that include job-killing tax hikes. That is why
they have been received with bipartisan opposition. To those who say
the packages the President has proposed have been killed by
Republicans, one of the reasons the majority leader had to change the
President's tax packages for a vote here a couple weeks ago is because
there is opposition within his own conference about that. A few
courageous Senate Democrats have consistently said no to their
leadership when it comes to raising taxes on small business and other
job creators.
The only bipartisanship we have seen so far is the bipartisan
opposition to ill-conceived political documents. The Democratic
majority needs to get serious about addressing our economic problems.
It is time to consider policies that will get people back to work
without harming the economy. It is time to stop the political aspects
of this debate. The best way to do that, it seems to me, is to look at
the other body--controlled by Republicans--that has passed 15 pieces of
legislation that will help turn this economy around. We haven't taken
up any of them, although I think we are about ready to take up, thank
God, one of the 15 that is referred to as the ``3-percent
withholding.'' Unemployed Americans need

[[Page 16529]]

to know we are going to do something to help create jobs and grow the
economy, and taking up more of those 15 bills would be getting
something done in a bipartisan way. Unfortunately, so far the
Democratic majority and President Obama are more interested in
political strategies than creating jobs and economic growth. The only
reason I say that is it seems to me there is little intellectual
honesty on the part of the President when in a speech given to a joint
session of Congress one evening--as he did in September--he would plead
for bipartisan support and then, the very next day, go out on the road
on a political venture and say he can't get the cooperation of the
Republicans--pass that bill right now.
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HARKIN. 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. HARKIN. Mr. President, later this week--I assume sometime
tomorrow--the Senate is expected to vote on the Rebuild America Jobs
Act. This is a practical, commonsense piece of legislation that does
two urgent and important things: It will help to modernize America's
crumbling infrastructure, and it will help to put Americans back to
work and get our economy going again.
Not surprisingly, this bill enjoys overwhelming popular support among
the American people. Every day, Americans see the infrastructure crisis
with their own eyes. They see interstate highways increasingly
overwhelmed--potholes everywhere. They see bridges and overpasses that
are structurally unsound and in danger of collapse. Need I mention the
gridlock in some of our major cities because of inadequate roadways and
access points for automobiles? China and Brazil are building world-
class seaports, while ours are left over from early in the last
century.
We know we need to make major Federal investments in modernizing
America's infrastructure, so why not do it now, at a time when our
Nation is suffering from the most protracted period of joblessness
since the Great Depression. The construction sector is the hardest hit
part of our economy. We can put those people back to work renewing our
infrastructure and, again, as I said, boosting our economy.
Why aren't we doing this? The answer is, Republicans have made it
clear they intend to block this legislation tomorrow, just as they have
blocked so many other bills designed to put Americans back to work and
get the economy moving again. They filibustered and killed the American
Jobs Act. Two weeks ago, they filibustered and killed the Teachers and
First Responders Back to Work Act. It seems to me if the word ``no''
were removed from the English language, our Republican friends would be
rendered speechless.
Let me state the obvious. The word ``no'' will not put 28 million
Americans back to work. The word ``no'' will not allow us to strike a
balanced agreement to bring deficits under control. The word ``no''
will not allow us to undertake a robust program to modernize our
transportation system.
The job-creating investments in this bill are fully paid for with a
tiny fractional tax on the richest of the rich in the United States.
These wealthy Americans would pay a 0.7-percent surtax on incomes in
excess of $1 million a year. Let me repeat that. This infrastructure
jobs bill we will be voting on tomorrow, which the Republicans have
indicated they are going to filibuster and kill, is fully paid for with
a 0.7-percent surtax on incomes in excess of $1 million a year. If
those making more than $1 million a year even noticed such a negligible
tax, I would be astonished. Still, the Republicans say no.
Let's put this in context. Just last week, the nonpartisan
Congressional Budget Office reported that over the last three decades
the aftertax income of millionaires and billionaires increased by 275
percent. That is correct. The Congressional Budget Office said over the
last three decades the aftertax income of millionaires and billionaires
increased 275 percent. During the same 30 years--the same three
decades--the average take-home pay of middle-class workers in America
actually declined. So is it any wonder the middle class is upset when
they see what has happened to them over the last 30 years--flat,
slightly declined in terms of their living standards and their income--
while the superrich increased their take-home by 275 percent.
The top 1 percent of income earners in America now take home more
than half of all the money earned each year in America. Again, that
needs repeating. The top 1 percent of income earners in America take
home over half of all the money earned in America every year. Mind-
boggling, isn't it? Mind-boggling. Yet Republicans adamantly oppose any
tax increase on these people--even 0.7 percent--which would go toward
the infrastructure of America and putting people back to work.
Certainly, no one questions the solicitude of Republicans toward the
rich and the superrich. I just wish they would show even a fraction of
that concern on behalf of the besieged middle class in this country.
Republicans on this so-called supercommittee are willing to block all
progress in order to prevent any tax increase at all on the rich, but
they are demanding--demanding--deep cuts to Social Security, Medicare,
student loans, and other Federal programs that undergird the middle
class in the United States. Meanwhile, Republicans in the Senate
continue to block the bills we have proposed in order to put people
back to work and get the economy moving again.
Some pundits have speculated that, for political reasons, Republicans
are deliberately blocking any legislation that would boost the economy
or create jobs because that would make President Obama maybe look good.
These pundits point out the Senate's minority leader has been explicit
in stating that his No. 1 priority is to prevent the reelection of
President Obama. So many of the pundits say that, to the extent
Republicans can prevent us from doing anything--keep this place in
gridlock, keep us from having a jobs program--and the economy gets
worse, then they will say to the American people: See, President Obama
is not doing his job. The economy is getting worse.
I just heard my colleague from Iowa. In his speech, he was at least
honest enough to say President Obama had inherited a bad economy. That
is true. He admitted that. My friend from Iowa, my colleague, went on
to say, however, that President Obama has made it worse; that he hasn't
improved anything over the last 2\1/2\ years; that his plan hasn't
worked.
I daresay it is the Republicans who have been blocking anything we
could do to put America back to work, including their voting no
tomorrow, which I understand they will, in order to prevent us from
getting this infrastructure and jobs bill through.
A more charitable explanation is Republican ideology is simply that
government can't create jobs. This may be a sincere belief of most
Republicans, but I must point out it is sincerely wrong. Across our
Nation's history, an often visionary Federal Government has funded and
spearheaded initiatives that have expanded private commerce, given
birth to countless inventions and new industries and created tens of
millions of jobs in the process.
Let's take a look at history. One of the most visionary advocates of
Federal investment to create jobs was, believe it or not, the father of
the Republican Party--Abraham Lincoln. Despite the disruption of the
Civil War, Lincoln insisted on moving the Nation forward through bold
Federal investments and initiatives. For example, in 1862, he signed
the Pacific Railway Act, authorizing huge Federal land grants to
finance construction of the transcontinental railroad--one of the great
technological feats of the 19th century. To produce the rails for this
railroad, he enacted a steep tariff on foreign steel in order to get
the American steel industry going.
There is a story--I don't know if it is real or apocryphal--about
Abraham

[[Page 16530]]

Lincoln. He was approached by, I guess, the free traders of his time
who said: If you are going to build this transcontinental railroad, it
would be cheaper to import the rails from England. They have the steel
mills, they know how to do it, and it would be cheaper to build them in
England and ship them here. It is said Lincoln thought about this for
some time and came back and said: Well, it seems to me, however, if we
buy the rails from England, they have our money and we have the rails.
But if we build the rails here, we have our money here and we have the
rails.
As I said, I don't know if that story is true, but I have heard it
many times in my lifetime. Thus, he put in place a steep tariff, kept
England's rails out, rebuilt our steel industry, and, as they say, the
rest is history.
These and other Federal initiatives during Lincoln's Presidency had a
transformative impact on the U.S. economy--creating new industries and
millions of new jobs. Again, Lincoln did this despite the fact the
Federal Government was deeply in debt--deeply in debt--and running huge
deficits to finance the Civil War.
It is almost humorous to imagine how today's Republicans would have
reacted to Lincoln's agenda. No doubt they would have attacked him as
reckless and irresponsible. They would whine that we are broke and
can't afford to invest in the future. I keep hearing this all the time:
We can't afford to do this. We can't afford that. We are broke. We are
broke. Doesn't anybody understand we are broke?
I keep pointing out the United States is the richest country in the
history of mankind--the richest country in the history of mankind. We
have the highest per capita income of any nation in the world. So if we
are so rich, why are we so broke? We have got to keep asking that
question. I am sure the tea party contingent would have demanded that
Lincoln be expelled from the party, all of which reminds us how far the
modern-day Republican Party has strayed from its progressive, forward-
thinking beginnings. Indeed, the present-day Republican Party would
have excoriated President Reagan. I see they just put a new 9-foot
statue of him out at National Airport. They should put underneath it,
``He raised taxes in 1982, 1983, and 1984.'' Yes, President Reagan
raised taxes in 1982, 1983, and 1984.
Dwight Eisenhower, another Republican, championed one of the greatest
public works projects in our history, and that is the building of the
Interstate Highway System. A 1996 study of the system concluded that:

The interstate highway system is an engine that has driven
40 years of unprecedented prosperity and positioned the
United States to remain the world's preeminent power into the
21st century.

And, of course Franklin Roosevelt in the depths of the Depression put
a lot of people to work, and they built a lot of good things. So I
thought I would bring this over here. I hang this on the wall in my
office. This is my father's--not my grandfather's--WPA card. For all
you young people here, you can read your history. WPA stands for the
Works Project Administration. It was instituted in the Depression to
put people back to work building public works projects. So this is my
father's WPA card because he was out of work, and he went to work on
WPA. It has his name here, Patrick F. Harkin, Cumming, IA. It says
here: You are asked to report, ready for work at once at a project as a
laborer, $40.30 per month, 138 hours max, Warren County. Signed by my
father.
So my father went to work on WPA, and this is his card. I keep it as
a reminder of a lot of things, but also a reminder of the good things
the government can do. They gave my father a job. He was married and
had five kids and the sixth one on the way--me; no work, no income. Of
course, that was before Social Security or Medicare or anything else.
What did they do? Did they stand around doing nothing? Years later,
my father took me out to visit some of the projects he worked on, on
WPA. There is a place out in Des Moines called Lake Ahquabi. It is a
huge State park, it is a recreational facility, campgrounds, Boy
Scouts, a big lake there, conference centers, still being used today,
built by my father. Well, not by him alone, but he worked on it in the
WPA, still being used today. You can go in and look at the high school
built by WPA, still being used today, I might add. My father was rather
proud of the things he worked on.
When they built the high school, did the government do it? Was it
some kind of government entity that built it? No, it was a private
contractor. Who dug out the lake and built the things at Lake Ahquabi?
Private contractors.
The bill we are going to vote on tomorrow, the public works bill, the
putting America back to work jobs bill, would put people all over
America back to work on highways and bridges, and sewer and water
systems and things such as that, who would be employed by the private
sector, by private companies to do the work. And the work needs to be
done.
Many of the things my father and others in the WPA worked on in the
1930s still are being used today, although they are crumbling. Someone
recently said that we are still driving on Eisenhower's highways and
going to Roosevelt's schools.
What is our generation going to do to rebuild that infrastructure for
future generations? Well, I guess we are going to sit around here and
do nothing, because the Republicans continue to filibuster and block
any meaningful jobs bill getting through the Senate.
Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for a question as to how much more
time the Senator will be taking, so we can adjust?
Mr. HARKIN. I would say to my friend from Arizona, less than 10
minutes, about 7 minutes.
Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator.
Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator.
Investments such as these, investments such as what Abraham Lincoln
did or what Eisenhower did or Franklin Roosevelt did, investments that
were led by Lyndon Baines Johnson to educate our workforce and to
retrain our workforce, to make sure every child had a good education in
America, all of these helped people who were unemployed, helped them to
get jobs, helped them to become taxpayers, and it set the stage for
economic growth in our country.
To me, the most obvious and quickest way to dramatically ramp up our
Federal investments in infrastructure is to pass this jobs bill. The
American Society of Civil Engineers estimates that America faces a $2.2
trillion infrastructure backlog. Bringing the U.S. infrastructure into
the 21st century would rapidly create millions of private sector jobs,
especially in the hard-hit construction industry, while modernizing our
arteries and veins of commerce.
There could be no economic recovery without robust, forward-thinking
investments to boost our competitiveness and put people back to work.
This means to invest in education, innovation, the infrastructure in
America. It means restoring a level playing field with fair taxation, a
good ladder of opportunity to give every American the education they
need to gain decent employment and achieve the American dream.
Again, it is all wrapped up in the Rebuild America Jobs Act that we
will be voting on here tomorrow. I wish I could say I am hopeful that
we could pass it, but I understand the Republicans are going to
filibuster it and we won't have the 60 votes needed. That is a shame,
because we need to put people back to work and we need to rebuild our
infrastructure, and we can't wait much longer to do it.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and I note the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Unanimous Consent Request--S. 720

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Finance be discharged from

[[Page 16531]]

further consideration of S. 720 and the Senate proceed to its immediate
consideration; that the bill be read a third time and passed, the
motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements
relating to the measure be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Reserving the right to object, which this Senator
does, I want to make a comment and then I will give my answer.
Mr. President, the good Senator, who is on the Finance Committee,
wants to repeal the CLASS Act. It is called long-term care. To be sure,
the CLASS Act is not perfect, but little of what we do in the Senate is
perfect. But if there is anything in this country that we ought to be
driving toward, it is a long-term care policy, which right now consists
of impoverishing yourself and getting rid of your assets, homes, house,
whatever, car, in order to classify for Medicaid. That way you can get
it. It is called the humiliation of Americans with legitimate health
care needs.
The CLASS Act could be amended through the regular legislative
process to make it sustainable over the long term, but always our
friends on the other side of the aisle find it easier to object and
repeal. ``Let's repeal something.'' You don't have to have an
alternative in mind. You can leave people in the same sense of
suffering as we found way back during the Pepper commission, where
people would prostrate themselves in order to qualify for Medicaid, in
which they would have a chance at getting some long-term care. We need
to discuss this, because it is a huge problem.
In 2008, 21 million Americans had a condition that caused them to
need help with their health and personal care. Why? Because Congress
has shied away from this subject forever. We have made a habit of
shying away from it. Medicare does not cover long-term services and
other supports, yet about 70 percent of people over age 65 will require
some type of long-term services and support at some point during their
lifetime--70 percent of people over 65. As our population ages, the
need for services will grow. A little known fact is that about 40
percent of the individuals who need long-term care are under the age of
65, and long-term care services and supports can help these individuals
be more independent and be part of the workforce and to have a sense of
self-esteem.
Medicare, as I say, does not cover these services. The difference
between Medicare and Medicaid and what each of their roles should be is
such that there is now a separate agency in Health and Human Services,
which I helped promote, which is now sorting out what is the best
relationship between the two so they don't have to duplicate each other
and so they can clarify roles and get at the problems.
Medicare doesn't cover these services, so Medicaid is in fact the
real, de facto, long-term care program in the country. That is what it
is. Only after middle-class Americans impoverish themselves are they
allowed to get into that situation.
Again, the CLASS Act is not complete as an answer, but it was at long
last an attempt on the part of the Congress to do something about it.
That in itself was a signal victory. An attempt to help people live
with dignity in their homes and communities is not something which we
should consider a frivolous matter.
Those who are gloating today about the administration's decision not
to carry forward with the CLASS Act are not the fiscal heroes they make
themselves out to be. They have no answers. They have no answers. They
have no alternatives. But if you can repeal something, boy, you can
take that home and people say, Boy, they got rid of that part of
government, not having any understanding of what it does to people who
have situations either of age or other problems which they cannot help.
And they are called people.
Instead, they use this as a political opportunity to bash the
President. I was disappointed when the President did this. I was very
disappointed. But it doesn't mean we have to go along. Imagine that,
bashing the President, using seniors and people with disabilities as a
political prop instead of putting forward real solutions. What this
place lacks is in fact real solutions. A lot of people like to tease
the health care bill. They are, for the most part, wrong. Not entirely
wrong. But one thing they can't tease is the fact that a whole bunch of
people called Senators and Congressmen and staff members worked hard
for a very long 2 years to try and come up with answers. And we did.
Let's have a serious discussion how to meet the current and future
needs of seniors and people with disabilities. They are all of our
friends. We know them. Those needs are not going away.
Having said that, I object to the Senator's request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I appreciate the objection of the Senator
from West Virginia and I appreciate his comments about the importance
of long-term care. I agree, it is something we need to address in this
country. There are other ideas out there, and I think better ideas,
ideas that are based upon incentives as opposed to creating a new
government program. But let me get, if I might briefly here, for a
moment at what I believe is the real issue.
This was a program destined to fail. It was clear from the beginning
many of us said that. There were 12 of my colleagues on the other side,
12 Democrats who voted to strike this particular provision from the
health care bill back in December of 2009. I think at that time many of
us were making the same arguments the experts are now conceding at the
Department of Health and Human Services. In fact, there were colleagues
on the other side, one of my Democratic colleagues, who called this ``a
Ponzi scheme of the first order, the kind of thing that Bernie Madoff
would be proud of.'' That is how it was described before it was voted
on and put into the health care bill to help demonstrate the health
care bill would actually reduce the deficit.
The fact is, after having had several months to look at this, here we
are 19 months or so later, the Department of Health and Human Services
has concluded that this doesn't work. They can't make it work. Now the
CBO has come out and said it doesn't impact the budget. My view is we
ought to pull this, we ought to get it off the books, and we ought to
address the issue in a way that makes sense for the American people,
not in a way that adds trillions of dollars of additional debt.
If we look at what we have today in terms of unfunded liabilities, we
have $61.6 trillion in unfunded liabilities in this country or $528,000
for every family. That is five times what most families have in terms
of home mortgages, car mortgages, other types of debt. That is what we
are piling on the American people today. This would have been yet
another unfunded liability, and the experts warned us at the time.
Now, we did an investigation of this. It was published in September.
I worked with some of my House colleagues on it. It was ``The CLASS
Act, The Untold Story.'' It concluded that the actuaries at HHS were
saying before this bill was even passed that it would be a recipe for
disaster, that it would lead to an insurance death spiral, and the
Chief Medicare Actuary at HHS said at the time:

. . . 36 years of actuarial experience lead me to believe
that this program would collapse in short order and would
require significant Federal subsidies to continue.

That is what the experts were saying about this program way
back before it was even voted on in 2009.

I think we ought to acknowledge what now everybody concludes to be
the case; that is, this program will not work. It is actuarially
unsound. We ought to repeal it. We ought to get it off the books, and
that was simply what my motion would do. I regret that the other side
has objected to it, but I have some of my colleagues today who have
been very active on this issue.
I say to my colleague from Arizona, in light of this report that came
out from the HHS last month outlining exactly why they cannot move
forward with CLASS, it seems difficult to understand why the
administration

[[Page 16532]]

doesn't support repeal of this program. Can my colleague make any sense
out of this contradiction and apparent hypocrisy to say a program
doesn't work, yet we want to keep it on the books?
Mr. McCAIN. I say to my colleague I do not quite understand it
either.
In response to the comments of the Senator from West Virginia about
the importance of long-term care, I think all of us understand that. I
think all of us who meet and have interface with our constituents
recognize that the issue of long-term care is one of transcendent
importance. The Senator from West Virginia said he would be glad to
make some changes or tweaks to the program. We would be eager to hear
of those. We would be eager to hear how we could change the program,
the CLASS Act, so it is not, as Senator Conrad, the chairman of the
Budget Committee, said of the CLASS Act, ``a Ponzi scheme of the first
order, the kind of thing that Bernie Madoff would have been proud of.''
I think it is pretty clear if we accept Senator Conrad's and other
objective assessments of the CLASS Act that we have to go back to
square one. We are not going to be able to fix a program about which,
the Congressional Budget Office said:

. . . the programs would add to budget deficits in the third
decade--and in succeeding decades--by amounts on the order of
tens of billions of dollars for each 10-year period.
The CLASS program would add to budget deficits in future
decades even though the proposals require the Secretary of
Health and Human Services to set premiums to ensure the
program's solvency for 75 years.

I would like to interject. I know my colleagues share my view. When
Senators leave we kind of forget them. Maybe we do not mention them
anymore. But we owe a debt of gratitude to Senator Gregg, former
Senator from New Hampshire, who put in this provision that required
solvency over a period of 75 years before it could be implemented. If
it had not been for that provision, we would now be moving forward with
a program that, according to the CBO, would add tens of billions of
dollars to the deficit in each 10-year period.
Wherever you are, Senator Gregg, and I know you are happier than if
you were here, I offer my appreciation and my thanks.
I note the presence of Dr. Barrasso. I think there is something we
ought to understand about the CLASS Act. It did have a short-term
impact according to the way the Congressional Budget Office ``scores''
things, tells us how much things will add or detract from the deficit,
either plus or minus. The fact is, the CLASS Act, in the first 10
years, because younger people would be paying in premiums and would not
have gotten to the point where they are eligible for the benefits, it
disguised the cost of what we know now as--what we call ObamaCare.
Because of the way they are restricted on scoring, the CLASS Act, at
least for 10 years, contributed $70 billion and helped them estimate
that the Health Care Reform Act, known as ObamaCare, would have $122
billion in savings, when in reality after the first 10-year period it
was tens of billions of dollars in added deficit and burdens on average
Americans.
I ask my colleague, Senator Barrasso, Isn't there a way we could
address the long-term care problem in America? Isn't there a way we
could address this issue without piling on, as the CBO judged the CLASS
Act, an increase of tens of billions of dollars to the deficit, which
we all know right now is $44,000, I believe, for every man, woman, and
child in America?
Mr. BARRASSO. I respond to my colleague from Arizona that we all have
concerns for the people of America. That is why we were here trying to
offer constructive ideas to make sure people would get the care they
need, from the doctor that they want, at a price they can afford.
We heard the President make promises that the cost of premiums would
go down $2,500 a family. We have seen instead the premiums have gone
up.
We heard the President say: If you like what you have, you can keep
it. We saw that we lost out on that. So many people are going to lose
the health coverage they like under this new health care law. So I say
to my colleague, absolutely there are things we can do and should be
doing.
It is astonishing. I received through my medical office the AARP
Bulletin. On the cover of this AARP Bulletin for this past month,
October 2011, the headline is, ``Senate Leader Reid: The Health Care
Law Is Already Working.'' This is what the Senate majority leader has
said on the cover of the AARP Bulletin. Yet the Kaiser survey that
tracks public views about health care every month has come out with
their recent numbers, and the results are astonishing. The American
people have seen through this health care law to the point that a
majority of Americans now have an unfavorable view of the health care
law.
Mr. McCAIN. So we now have about two-thirds of what was advertised as
a savings now going by the boards; in other words, $70 billion of the
advertised $122 billion in total savings that we voted on not that long
ago; is that correct?
Mr. BARRASSO. That is exactly the way I read it, that is the way the
American people read it, which is why the overall favorability of the
health care law now stands at only 34 percent, an all-time low.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent we be able to enter
into a colloquy now for 25 minutes?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. THUNE. I would simply say--we have the ranking member of the
Budget Committee here too--that it strikes me that there were probably
lots of other budget gimmicks in the health care law that are going to
come to the surface in the same way this CLASS Act gimmick has. The
Senator from Arizona pointed out they tried to understate the true cost
by taking a lot of savings in the early years as people were paying
premiums, knowing full well in the outyears it was going to add
billions of dollars to the deficit. So it was a gimmick that was used,
again, to make this salable to the American people and salable here.
In spite of that, there was still a majority of Senators who voted
again against this, who actually voted to strike the provision from the
health care bill in December of 2009 when I offered that amendment.
It seems to me at least we ought to have bipartisan support now that
everyone has come out and recognized what we were trying to tell them
in advance: this doesn't work, it was a gimmick, and we ought to get it
off the books.
I ask my colleague, the ranking member of the Budget Committee, about
this budget gimmick that was used. Is it illogical to think if we have
this $2.5 trillion expansion of government in the form of this new
health care bill that somehow it is going to reduce the Federal deficit
because that was the argument that was made at the time, and that is
one of the reasons they were able to make that argument? I suggest
there are going to be lots of other gimmicks we are going to uncover to
demonstrate this thing was way out of line at the time, but I ask for
his comments as being the ranking member of the Budget Committee.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, Senator Thune deserves a lot of credit
for pursuing this issue tenaciously and seeing his prediction validated
now by President Obama's own Secretary that this cannot be a viable
program. But he is exactly correct. One of the greatest financial
misrepresentations in history, if it continues to be on the books, will
be the contention that this health care bill would actually create
money for the U.S. Treasury, actually produce a surplus.
They used a 10-year scoring model; $70 billion, 60 percent or so of
the total savings this bill is alleged to produce--not savings, actual
revenue, net revenue increase--was this program. Now it is gone.
As Senator McCain correctly said, Judd Gregg deserves great credit
for it because he put in the bill that the Secretary had to certify
that this was a sound program. So after all the political smoke had
been going on, after the bill had been passed, while they were
defending it as a viable CLASS Act program that would actually produce

[[Page 16533]]

revenue for the government, when she had to certify it, I suppose,
under penalty of perjury--she could go to jail if she didn't do it
correctly--she said she could not do so.
It was never possible this bill was going to be a moneymaker for the
U.S. Treasury. They double-counted, maybe $300 billion, $400 billion,
$500 billion in money that is Medicare money also counted as income to
fund an entirely new bill. That is going to come out also.
As Senator Barrasso has noted, their estimates have been wildly
inaccurate concerning the ability to bend the cost curve down, to
actually reduce health care costs. This was something a lot of people
thought was a good idea. This was going to produce a reduction in our
insurance premiums, and since the bill was passed they have gone up
dramatically, just the opposite of what was promised.
I think this is a death knell for the entire health care concept.
This is just one more example of it. I thank the Senator.
Mr. McCAIN. I say to my colleague, what is a little hard to
understand--maybe Dr. Barrasso understands it--the Secretary of Health
and Human Services said they can find no way to implement it, after
nearly 2 years. So why would there be an objection to Senator Thune
having just moved to repeal the CLASS Act?
If they tried for all of these months since the passage of the bill
to figure out a way they can meet the Judd Gregg proviso that required
the 75-year sustainability, then one would wonder why--one would wonder
why we would not just go ahead and repeal it. If there is a better
proposal, as we have all agreed, to address the long-term care issue in
America, then why don't we sit down at the drawing board and find a way
to care for people who, in their most vulnerable years, need government
assistance?
I know of no one in this body who is opposed to a viable, reasonable,
fiscally sound long-term care program. This is not it. This is not it.
It is not even close. So I wondered why my colleagues on the other side
of the aisle would refuse to repeal it unless it is some distorted
pride in authorship.
Mr. THUNE. I would say to our colleague from Wyoming, who is a
physician and has a lot of experience on these issues, who comes down
every week with a second opinion talking about all the various issues
regarding the health care bill--the more recent one, as we have all
seen now is contrary to predictions--health care costs are going up.
The predictions were that they would go down. That is also something
many of us saw coming.
The question is if we leave this on the books, and if they decide at
some point to resurrect it--after they have already acknowledged it
doesn't work--and come up with some new language that does away with
the Judd-Gregg proviso, what are the fiscal consequences of this
program being resurrected? We talked about this, and there were lots of
predictions made at the time.
In fact, the Senator from Arizona had statements from some of our
colleagues who said on the floor at the time how this was going to be a
great deal and how it was going to work. The administration said at the
time that this was not a budget gimmick. That is what they were quoted
as saying. Clearly this was a budget gimmick. We all know that now. It
is a Ponzi scheme. Clearly that is what the actuaries are saying at
Health and Human Services.
If, in fact, we don't get this repealed and at some point this
program ends up being resurrected, what are the fiscal consequences and
implications for the country and future generations who will be saddled
with yet another unfunded liability, another entitlement program that
is not paid for?
Mr. BARRASSO. I think this is devastating for the country. I told the
President directly that overall I thought his proposal was going to
bankrupt the country. We stood here and debated over a year ago the
fact that the Democrats in this body were voting to take $500 billion
away from our seniors on Medicare--not to save Medicare, but to start a
whole new government program for somebody else. And when we talk about
long-term care and what people need over the course of their lifetime,
they took money away from hospice. They took money away from home
health. They continue to take money away from hospitals and the
physicians who take care of our seniors.
Mr. McCAIN. The popular Medicare Advantage Program.
Mr. BARRASSO. Which has an advantage because it coordinates care. It
does a number of things that are important. I believe this is the
reason why last week in the Kaiser poll, the number of individuals who
have a very favorable view of the overall health care law has dropped
to 12 percent, an all-time low. The number of people who think they
will personally be better off under the health care law is only 18
percent, an all-time low. The number of people in the country who think
that the country as a whole will be better off due to the health care
law stands at 28 percent, an all-time low. The American people realize
we need truth, honesty in budgeting.
I know my colleague from the Budget Committee is working on that. He
has an op-ed I read and has a proposal and is working on that. That is
what the American people want. They want some honesty in budgeting, not
the kind of politics and budget gimmicks and tricks we see happening
here. The American people are tired of being misled and sold a bill of
goods. They see through it. They don't like it, they don't want it, and
that is why all of the polling on the health care law shows it at an
all-time low.
Mr. THUNE. We all saw this coming and we tried our best to prevent
it, but now we know and we have these statements that came out as part
of the report that was done by the House and Senate, an investigative
report called the CLASS Act, the untold story. It was published in
September. What it revealed was that the Health and Human Services
Department actuaries--the people who are the experts, not the
politicians, not those of us who are making many of these statements
during the political debate we are having here in the Senate--who are
actually responsible for doing the math on this came up and called the
CLASS program a recipe for disaster. Those were in internal e-mails we
discovered when we were doing this investigation.
Prior to their announcement in October that HHS is not moving forward
with the CLASS program at this time, Secretary Sebelius and other
officials at the Health and Human Services Department claimed through
much of 2011 that the Department had sufficient authority to modify it.
What they were trying to suggest is that we can make this work. Yet
these internal documents cast significant doubt on all of those
assertions.
I will repeat this because I think this is important. The Chief
Actuary, during 2009, when this program was being debated--it was a
part of the health care bill. It was during the debate here in the
Senate. Richard Foster said:

. . . 36 years of actuarial experience lead me to believe
that this program would collapse in short order and require
significant Federal subsidies to continue.

That was what they were saying in 2009 before this vote ever
occurred. He also went on to say:

. . . this would end in an insurance death spiral because the
coverage would only be attractive to sicker people who will
need costly services. This will force premiums higher and
deter healthy individuals from enrolling.

You have all the experts who were putting all this information out
there and sharing this with their superiors, all of who were out there
on the record promoting this as being something that would work and
something that is not a budget gimmick, but actually could, in fact, be
actuarially sound. We all know now it was not. It wasn't then and isn't
now and that is why we ought to repeal it.
Again, I appreciate my colleagues' input and work on this. I think
this is something we ought to end. We need to put the final touches on
this program and end it once and for all so it doesn't come back in
some other form and saddle future generations with trillions of dollars
of additional unfunded liabilities and debt. There are ways we can
approach this issue.

[[Page 16534]]

In fact, I have some ideas that I introduced in 2007 that deal with
long-term care and providing incentives for people that we all are
going to be faced with at some point in our lives. But this is the
wrong way. It was the wrong prescription at the beginning. It is the
wrong prescription now. That is why it ought to be repealed.
Mr. SESSIONS. If I recall, Senator Thune quoted the Chief Actuary,
Richard Foster, in his statement that this would collapse during the
debate on the floor. This was talked about, but the administration and
our Democratic colleagues refused to listen. They continued to repeat
the idea that they would have this large surplus. They counted this
money as surplus money in justifying voting for passage of this bill
when common sense told us in a host of areas, including this one, it
was not going to produce a surplus. It goes to mean something systemic
about our problem and why this Congress now going into the third year
will be borrowing 40 percent of the money the United States spends. It
is because the politics here is that we want to pass the bill. When
somebody shows it is not actuarially sound and it is going to cost
money in the outyears, they don't worry about that; somebody will take
care of that in the outyears. It is that kind of mentality that I think
has helped overrule commonsense budgeting.
We have not had a budget now in over 900 days in this Senate. So this
is not the kind of responsible approach to managing the taxpayers'
money.
I know Senator Barrasso raised this repeatedly, that this should not
be counted, but did we hear Secretary Sebelius at that time? Back in
2009 she wrote to Senator Kennedy and said to express the
administration's support for inclusion of this bill, calling it an
innovative bill. They were supporting it, promoting it, totally
ignoring the critics and, as a result, they got the bill passed on a
straight party-line vote. As a matter of fact, I believe had Senator
Brown from Massachusetts taken office 2 weeks sooner, there would not
have been the 60 votes necessary to pass it. There would have only have
been 59 and the bill would not be law today.
I thank both Senators for their consistent, steadfast explanation of
the financial danger of this legislation and their willingness to
continue to carry on that fight. I hope we learned something throughout
our whole budgetary and financial process here. We cannot continue to
play games with the American people's money. We have to be honest with
them--honest about our budget, honest about what things are going to
cost, and only then can we get the country on a sound footing.
Mr. THUNE. We have to quit making promises we cannot keep. What we
are seeing today in Europe and the meltdown that is occurring in the
economies over there is a result of too many promises that were made,
too much government debt, governments that have gotten too big, that
can no longer be supported by the economy in those countries.
That is where we are headed. That is why we have to start living
within our means. We have to quit spending money we don't have, and
this was a perfect example of the tendency around here to want to grow
government, to have a government answer, a government solution for
everything, when this makes matters not better but much worse. It makes
it much worse for hardworking taxpayers in this country and for future
generations of Americans for whom this would become an enormous
liability added already to the $528,000 that every family in this
country owes, the mortgage they have on their families already as a
result of the unfunded liabilities we have already racked up. We cannot
keep making promises we cannot keep.
I hope we can get this repealed, and I appreciate my colleagues' hard
work in that regard and look forward to getting an opportunity to get
it voted on. I am sorry our request this afternoon to repeal it was
rejected, but I hope we will get another opportunity to revisit that
and perhaps a vote that will actually put people on the Record. I
believe there is a majority of Senators who agree with us on this
point.
Mr. SESSIONS. I would say a couple of weeks ago the Wall Street
Journal, after all of this happened, wrote that ``including this CLASS
Act was a special act of fiscal corruption.''
If a private business said: Invest in our company; I have a plan that
is going to be sound and it is going to make money in the future, trust
me, invest your money with me, vote for me, yet they knew and had
evidence in their files and their own employees were saying it was not
sound, it was actually going to cost money, I wonder what would happen
to them.
Mr. BARRASSO. You would hear about it. This speaks to the problems we
have in this body. When they write legislation in the cloak of
darkness, behind closed doors, and come in and vote at 1 in the morning
and try to jam things through at a time when an administration calls
for openness and transparency and then they do this sort of thing with
the books in a manipulative way and try to come up with ways to say
that it saves money--in any other true, real business, people would go
to jail for this sort of behavior, I would assume. Is it wrong? All the
way wrong? We have seen other so-called bets that this administration
has made which have the American people scratching their head.
Yesterday it was noted that at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, bonuses
have been paid to 10 of their executives to the tune of over $12
million. I called for the President to cancel those bonuses. The White
House is fairly silent on that. Yet when Senator Obama was running for
President, he wrote a letter to the Treasury Secretary and said: Make
sure no bonuses go to Freddie and Fannie. Now under his administration,
$12 million, it was reported yesterday, went to 10 executives. It
doesn't seem to be a problem now. The White House said there is nothing
they can do about it. Well, why not get the Secretary of the Treasury
involved? That is what Candidate Obama did in 2008. It is time for this
White House to stand up and do what is right.
Mr. SESSIONS. Let me say a more accurate explanation of how this
happened. The Congressional Budget Office scored this as a surplus,
indeed, over 10 years. And, as Senator McCain said, the benefits only
come out after 5 years and these are people paying in, so the real
benefits and payments take place in outer years.
The question is, Is the plan sufficient to be actuarially sound for
the distant future when the payouts occur? So what happened was, Mr.
Orszag had been CBO Director. He said it was not a gimmick and not a
Ponzi scheme. In one sense, he was telling the truth. He was using a
window score from the Congressional Budget Office over the first 10
years, when it didn't pay out any benefits and had a surplus, to claim
that this was going to make the bill itself financially sound. In a
sense, to me, it is these kinds of gimmicks that might keep somebody
from being prosecuted and sent to jail if they were a private person.
This ought to end in the Congress. I think the American people are
crying out for honesty in budgeting. They want us to be responsible.
They want us to tell them the good news but to also tell them the bad
news financially that we face.
They know we can't do things we would like to do if we don't have the
money. They know we don't have the money to keep taking on new
obligations. So I feel as though this is not healthy.
When Secretary Sebelius came along and had to certify that they had a
75-year actuarially sound program, there was no way she could do it. It
knocks a gaping hole into the entire scheme, this health care bill.
I think it is a lesson for all of us. On every vote we do, we need to
be sure we are honest not only in the short-term window but in the
long-term window also.
Mr. THUNE. Too often, the practice around here is focused on the
short term, the near term, the gain, to be able to have some sort of
political victory at the expense of what is in the best interests of
this country and our children and grandchildren. This is a perfect
example of that. I appreciate

[[Page 16535]]

my colleagues being here. This discussion will be continued.
I yield the floor.
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. VITTER. 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. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Sessions and I have up to 15 minutes for a colloquy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

LSU Versus Alabama

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, Senator Sessions and I come to the floor
following a discussion of a lot of important issues on the floor to
discuss the most important issue back home for us this week, which is
the upcoming regular season national championship game between LSU and
Alabama. In the history of the SEC, this is the first ever regular
season matchup between a No. 1 and No. 2 team in the SEC. As most folks
probably know, LSU and Alabama are both 8 to 0 overall and 5 to 0 in
the SEC.
Obviously, I know who is going to win. The Tigers are going to win.
They have beaten five ranked opponents this year, three of those away
from home, as we are going to have to play Alabama. They have outscored
all opponents 314 to 92 this year. Not to get cocky or anything, but
LSU has beaten Alabama 8 out of the last 11 years, including 4 of the
last 5 times in Tuscaloosa.
We have a lot of strengths. Our senior quarterback Jarrett Lee leads
the SEC in passing efficiency. We have a ferocious defense led by
lineman Sam Montgomery and defensive backs Tyrann Mathieu and Mo
Claiborne. Tyrann, by the way, is much better known as Honey Badger.
This is a prelude to the BCS championship which, by the way, is going
to be in January in New Orleans in the Superdome.
So we feel great going into this game, and that is why I was very
eager to get with both Senators from Alabama and have a friendly wager
which the Senator from Alabama will explain. The loser is going to
treat the winners to some great gulf shrimp and other seafood. We feel
great about it, so we look forward to it.
As I turn the floor over to Senator Sessions, I would just summarize
our feelings in Louisiana in a simple way: You all have a great team--
maybe one of the best Alabama teams ever--but it doesn't matter who
LSU's opponent is because, as we say in Louisiana, the Honey Badger
takes what he wants. We are looking forward to doing that on Saturday
night.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank Senator Vitter for those
comments. We are going to look forward to being very hospitable to the
fabulous LSU fans who will be in Tuscaloosa for the ``Titanic tussle in
Tuscaloosa,'' the game of the century, many are calling it, the match
of the millennium, between Alabama and LSU. It is always a big game,
and it is going to be a big game especially this year.
While we have a minute on the floor and there is no other business
being conducted, I just wish to celebrate college football,
particularly in the Southeastern Conference. When we go to those games
and see the color and the crowd and the enthusiasm and the roar for the
home team, it is a thrilling event. It is very special. The fans in
Tuscaloosa are very sophisticated. They know this is a big game, one of
the biggest games in the history of the University of Alabama, and they
know when good plays are good and bad plays are bad. It is going to be
exciting. They know LSU is consistently one of the great teams in
America.
So Alabama is doing pretty well: Eight and zero, their all-star
defense is No. 1 in scoring and No. 1 in total defenses. They also have
their No. 1 rushing defense in the country, allowing only 44 yards per
game, a historic number that ranks better than Alabama's national
championship game in 1992 and the undefeated and untied 1966 team. So
it is going to be a special time.
Our university is a great university. The University of Alabama has
been growing in strength for years now. It has one of the greatest
presidents in America: Dr. Robert D. Witt, who was my high school
classmate, and Judy Bonner is the provost there, sister of Congressman
Jo Bonner. So it is an exciting time in Alabama in general.
Academically and otherwise, the University of Alabama is doing great--
one of its best years in its history.
I wish to also point out and thank the LSU fans and chefs John Folse
and Rick Tramonto, along with Bob Baumhower and Steve Zucker from
Alabama, for sponsoring the LouisiBama Gumbo Bowl to benefit tornado
victims in Tuscaloosa. That shows true class in both of the schools'
fan base. For all the talk going on this week, I hope to see the kind
of respect this partnership indicates among all our fans.
While I don't think it will happen, should Les Miles and his team
somehow manage to get out of Tuscaloosa with a victory, I would love to
treat Senator Vitter and Senator Landrieu to some of the finest gulf
seafood there is, healthy and straight from the Gulf of Mexico, which
my colleague knows is fresher and cleaner and finer than it ever has
been, and maybe we could garnish it with some of the best grass that
marks the field at Bryant Denny Stadium. I understand Les Miles is a
fan. I would also be more than happy to bring my friend, Senator
Vitter, an Alabama tie on the Monday after the game, which I think
would look good if he were to wear it on the floor of the Senate.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, should the unthinkable happen, I will do
that. Should the unthinkable happen, I will deliver fresh, healthy gulf
seafood to Senator Sessions' office as well as Senator Shelby's. We
have been in contact with Senator Shelby's office and Senator
Landrieu's office and they are part of this friendly arrangement as
well. So we will look forward to that. But, most of all, we will look
forward to a great game Saturday night, and we will both look forward
to a win Saturday night. One of us will have to be disappointed--we
will see who--but it is going to be a great game.
Mr. SESSIONS. I thank Senator Vitter for his friendship and good
service in the Senate. We work on so many things together. But college
football is special, and I think the game this weekend will be one of
the great games in college history. I am so excited about it. I know
the fans in both our States, and throughout the country, are excited
about it.
Mr. VITTER. Amen.
With that, we yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MENENDEZ. 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. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I came to the floor to speak about a
different type of football. It seems to be a political football that
some of our colleagues are playing on the question of getting America
back to work again. I am amazed at the political posturing we have seen
this year.
I know for some of our colleagues on the other side, this election
cycle has been driven by tea party economics that demand political
purity over good governance. They have said no to just about
everything. The problem with no to everything is that no doesn't create
a job, no doesn't build an economy, no doesn't create prosperity, no
doesn't get America moving again. They have said no to every different
venture we have had to try to put America back to work.
Certainly, back in my home State of New Jersey, what I hear from the
average citizen is: Senator, help me get back to work. Because I have
New Jerseyans who come up to me, sometimes with tears in their eyes,
and say: This is the first time in my life I have been unemployed.
While that has created a significant economic consequence to them and
their family, it

[[Page 16536]]

has shaken something even more profound, which is that social contract,
that promise in America that if I prepare myself, work hard and
sacrifice, I get ahead, and my children will do better than I did
growing up. That has been shaken to the core by the economic challenges
we inherited as a result of the crisis of 2008 and that we have been
working out of.
So I have a problem when, every time we come to the floor to offer an
opportunity to get those New Jerseyans, to get those Americans back to
work, all I hear is no.
They say no, refusing to invest in rebuilding our infrastructure, to
creating jobs, to keeping us competitive in a global economy.
They know roads and highways and bridges in their States--in every
State--are in critical need of improvement, and yet we have to come
here time and time again, day after day, to fight back a politically
charged, ideologically fueled opposition that says one thing but does
another.
The fact is, even those who oppose this legislation for political
reasons know good governance means investing in our future. It means
putting Americans back to work. In an economy in which 70 percent of
GDP is consumer demand, if there is no job, there is no money, and if
there is no money, there is no demand. So in addition to the lives of
New Jerseyans and Americans which we could positively affect, this is
about our global picture in terms of our economy. It means also keeping
us competitive in this global economy.
Let me talk about that global economy for a moment because we are in
it. We see what happens in Europe, and we see how we are affected here
at home with our markets and whatnot. But let's look at a different
place. Let's look at China. Let's look at the competition. According to
China's 5-year plan, they have a range of investment priorities for the
future: clean energy technology; biotechnology, including
pharmaceutical and vaccine production; high-tech equipment for
manufacturing airplanes; a new space program and satellites.
In fact, this week they launched a satellite, the first step toward a
Chinese space station by the end of the decade.
China is planning more high-speed rail, next generation powerplants
and manufacturing facilities, new nuclear, solar, and wind energy
technologies.
The plan calls for building new energy-efficient cars and adding
9,000 kilometers to their highway system, expanding their national
high-speed rail system to 45,000 kilometers, and building light rail
systems in 21 urban metropolitan areas.
They are planning 6 new heavy material ports, adding 440 new 10,000-
ton shipping berths; a second Beijing airport; and 11 regional
airports.
This is some pretty stiff competition that will allow Chinese
businesses to thrive.
This is the challenge we have. Yes, we have a debt question in our
country, and we must meet that challenge. There is no question we
should and we can and we must. But by the same token, we need to grow
this economy as part of meeting that challenge, an economy that was on
the brink of ruin when this administration inherited it, an economy
that--I will never forget that famous meeting or infamous meeting in
September of 2008 that was called by the Chairman of the Federal
Reserve that members of the Banking Committee and others were called
to. I remember going to it and listening to him describe a series of
financial institutions that were on the verge of bankruptcy and
collapse and in doing so would have created systemic risk to the entire
country's economy and being on the verge not of the great recession we
talked about but a new depression. That is what we have been working
out of.
But even in this economy, we have to make investments and build for a
competitive future. We invest just 2 percent of our gross domestic
product on infrastructure projects. Europe and China invest between 5
and 9 percent, respectively.
The President today called on Congress to up the ante. The American
Jobs Act would invest $50 billion in our transportation infrastructure
and $10 billion in a national infrastructure bank, putting hundreds of
thousands of construction workers back on the job. But it is not just
the construction workers. Certainly, we want to get them back to work.
It is all the architectural firms, all the engineering firms, all the
people who work at those firms who will help build this infrastructure.
It is all the suppliers for all the materials that will be needed to do
this and everybody who produces those supplies and everybody who
transports it and everybody who installs it. So it is an enormous
ripple effect in getting our people back to work--hundreds of thousands
waiting to work, working for America's future.
Clearly, opposition to the Rebuild America Jobs Act is not about good
governance because we have ways and we have offered ways to pay for
this fully. It is about politics. It is about playing political games.
But it is playing political games with the lives and livelihoods of
American families.
While China is planning major investments in retooling for their new
economy, we cannot even seem to agree to fix our own roads. It is akin
to the story of Nero fiddling while Rome burned, except American
families and businesses are the ones who are going to get burned in
this story.
The President today released a report that highlights the importance
of rebuilding our roads and bridges and railways and airports and has
cited important projects around the country. They include over 17,000
jobs in New Jersey that would put people to work making our future
brighter.
One of the projects the President's report highlights as an example
of success is in New Jersey: the Route 52 causeway bridge replacement
between Somers Point and Ocean City in Atlantic and Cape May Counties.
This is a critical emergency evacuation route for Ocean City during
floods and hurricanes. The new bridge eliminates the need to raise the
drawbridge at the old section that is still being replaced. This is a
critical $400 million project that is an investment in New Jersey, in
our community, in our infrastructure that will upgrade an old bridge to
meet today's needs, protect the community, and put people to work.
We can make these investments and still find ways to responsibly
reduce the deficit. An investment is not even just about new projects,
of course. It is about maintaining the very infrastructure we have
already spent money on in the past that we need to preserve for future
use.
Thirty-six percent of New Jersey's bridges are structurally deficient
or functionally obsolete. Seventy-eight percent of New Jersey's major
roads are listed in poor or mediocre condition. Sixty-four percent of
New Jersey highways are chronically congested because of a 29-percent
increase in vehicle travel on New Jersey's highways from 1990 to 2007.
All of that, and we already have $13 billion worth of maintenance
projects on hold because we do not have the money to pay for them.
Those are just numbers in one respect, but those numbers are about
lives. Because when we have infrastructure--major roads, major
highways--that are in bad condition, it means we are sitting more time
in traffic and less time being productive at work or having more
quality time with our families. It means businesses that have a product
they need to get to the marketplace are going over an infrastructure
that means it takes more time. It takes longer to get that product to
market. It has consequences. It adds to the costs. It creates an
uncompetitive set of circumstances. It is about the quality of our
lives and our economy at the same time.
That $13 billion is not to add even any capacity to New Jersey's
transportation system. It is just to keep the status quo. As I have
said for quite some time, as we have attempted, with my colleague,
Senator Lautenberg, to build a new Trans-Hudson Passenger Rail Tunnel,
which is critically needed in that region--and we have learned since
September 11 that multiple modes of transportation are incredibly
important so that, God forbid, if we have a tragedy again--we learned
on

[[Page 16537]]

that day, when all the bridges were closed and all the tunnels were
closed that ferries brought people out of downtown Manhattan to New
Jersey, ultimately, to be taken to hospitals--multiple modes of
transportation and options are critical for our economy. They are also
critical for our security. Yet we cannot even keep up-to-date that
which we have, much less create a new Trans-Hudson tunnel that would
open the entire region with its economic opportunities. We cannot grow
if we are stuck. In that region, as in many regions of the country, we
are stuck.
We can begin the long-overdue process of maintaining, rehabilitating,
and replacing if we pass this legislation. We can do it if we act
together as a nation, as we did in 1956. In 1956, it was a Republican
administration that created the Interstate Highway System, and now we
cannot seem to get one Republican to vote to maintain that system. In
2011, we cannot get one Republican to vote to help keep us competitive
and put Americans back to work.
We need our Republican colleagues in Congress to end the roadblock
and fix the roads. They need to vote yes to providing every State with
the resources they need to repair and rebuild aging roads and bridges
and put people back to work.
Think of the jobs we could create nationwide if we publicly committed
to investing enough to keep up and stay competitive with the Chinas of
the world. Even if China is able to meet only a fraction of its
ambitious goals, it will be far beyond the course we are presently on.
In 1956--I want to go back to that history--under a Republican
President, Dwight Eisenhower, Congress passed the Federal Aid Highway
Act. It took 35 years, but we committed this Nation to building 46,876
miles of highway--one of the largest public works projects at that time
in the Nation's history. Why? Because a young Army officer, Dwight
Eisenhower, saw the need.
He drove across the country in an Army convoy that left Washington on
July 7, 1919, went to Gettysburg, and took the old Lincoln Highway to
San Francisco. On the journey, bridges cracked and had to be rebuilt,
vehicles got stuck in the mud, equipment broke, and they did not arrive
on the west coast--they left on July 7--they did not arrive on the west
coast until September 6--a 2-month journey that gave birth to the
American Interstate Highway System.
Let's not be so shortsighted that we will turn back the clock to the
days of the old Lincoln Highway. I understand the need to reduce our
deficit, and these provisions I have talked about that I support are
paid for. But I do not understand the blind commitment to doing
nothing, refusing to invest in our future and create American jobs in
the process and calling it good governance.
Good governance is what President Eisenhower did when he signed the
Federal Highway Act into law. Now it is up to us to invest in
maintaining it. Let's be honest with ourselves about the fact that good
governance means investing in our Nation, in our people, in our
progress, in our prosperity, in our future. Investing in our
infrastructure is an investment in our country and in our future. Let's
put today's ideologically driven politics aside and recall the
practical Republican politics of President Eisenhower who saw a
national need and had the will and the wisdom to put the Nation to work
to build it.
So I ask my colleagues: Where is the Grand Old Republican Party that
united America behind an interstate highway system and put government
and people to work to make it happen?
If we put aside the ideological posturing, if we put aside the
suggestion I have heard many times that the major goal is--by some of
our Republican colleagues--to make Barack Obama a one-term President
and then, ultimately, use both the filibuster to stop progress in the
Senate and/or use a constant ``no'' vote to stop progress for the
Nation under the guise that is the way President Obama will fail--the
problem with that is, that is, at the end of the day, in my mind, not
about President Obama failing, that is about the Nation failing at one
of the most critical times in our country's history and one of the most
critical times in our economy.
If we can put aside the ideological posturing, if we can put aside
the political strategy and gamesmanship, if we are honest with
ourselves about what good governance means and what it means to
American families to invest in creating jobs and keeping us globally
competitive so that we can continue to grow that economy and create
other jobs for individuals that will help them realize their hopes and
dreams and aspirations, that will help them contribute to the Nation,
that will create new revenues that will be part of meeting our debt
challenge, we would pass this legislation and make it happen. That is
the opportunity before the Senate. It is one I hope our colleagues will
grasp.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Sanctuary Cities

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, earlier today my friend and colleague
from Illinois, Senator Durbin, came to the floor and criticized--
wrongly, I believe--my State of Alabama and the State of Arizona for
something that I would think we would all want every State and locality
to do; that is, cooperate in the enforcement of Federal immigration
law.
Alabama and Arizona are undertaking a legitimate effort in attempting
to help enforce the laws of the United States when this administration
too often has failed to do so. The American people and the rule of law
in our country have suffered as a result.
This administration has flatly refused to enforce our national laws--
generous immigration laws that they are--despite the fact that there is
on the books extensive and a fair code of laws designed to facilitate
substantial, legal immigration into our country. Moreover, the Obama
administration is systematically going after States that attempt to
assist--Arizona, Alabama, now South Carolina, and Indiana next. Even
more egregious is that the administration has refused to take any
action against States and localities that affirmatively, proactively,
and intentionally impede the immigration enforcement in the United
States. These jurisdictions include San Francisco County, Santa Clara
County, Washington, DC, and perhaps the most egregious example: Cook
County, IL, which recently passed an ordinance--passed an ordinance
directing local Illinois law enforcement officials to ignore U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainers.
The detainers are sent to local jails, and they request that
officials at those jails detain illegal aliens for an additional 48-
hour period, statutorily provided, after that local jurisdiction's
business with that immigrant ceases so that an ICE officer may place an
alien into Federal custody. This is done on all kinds of crimes
throughout the country. People are arrested in Alabama; Georgia has
charges against them, and they send a detainer. If someone is arrested
in Illinois and the Federal Government has a charge against them, they
place a detainer. So when they are finished in that trial or with their
sentence, before they are released out on the street, they are turned
over to the other jurisdiction. Maybe it is a murder charge. Maybe it
is a serious felony charge. This happens every day in America. It is
common practice. If it were to cease, law enforcement in this country
would be dealt a devastating blow.
Cook County has decided that it gets to decide who gets deported from
the country and when, and acting in this way directly undermines
Federal law enforcement. When testifying before the Senate Judiciary
Committee last week, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet
Napolitano said, incredibly, that she has had no contact

[[Page 16538]]

with Cook County and has had no discussions with the Attorney General
of the United States on this issue.
So today Senators Grassley, Cornyn, Coburn, and I sent a letter to
Secretary Napolitano, and we requested that she and others in the
administration consider taking action against Cook County and other
local jurisdictions that purposefully and deliberately undermine the
laws of the United States and offer sanctuary to illegal aliens who
have broken our laws by entering the country illegally. Is there no
consequence to that in this country now? If that is so, aren't we, in
fact, putting up a sign on our borders that says: Just get by the
border and you are home free, nothing will ever happen to you. Isn't
that a magnet to more illegal immigration? Isn't that a mixed message
to the world? Don't we need to be sending a good and decent message;
that is, we believe in immigration. We are a nation of immigrants. We
have the most generous immigration laws in the world, but you must
comply with them. We can't accept everybody who would like to come
whenever they would like to come. We have to ask people to file
applications, meet certain qualifications, and come when your time has
come to come to America.
That is what law is all about. That is why people want to come to
this country, frankly, because in their countries they have no law, and
they don't have the opportunity to earn something and be able to keep
it.
Since the implementation of this ordinance in Chicago, over 40
suspected illegal aliens arrested on felony charges have been released
from Cook County jails. Last week, the Executive Associate Director of
Enforcement and Removal Operations at the Federal Department of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, told my staff that Cook
County presents a major problem for immigration enforcement efforts. In
fact, he said that Cook County, IL, is the most egregious example of
sanctuary city policies and is ``an accident waiting to happen.'' Yet
the head of the Department of Homeland Security stands silent, and the
Justice Department is too busy prosecuting States that are trying to
cooperate and uphold the law of the United States.
Senator Durbin said that no State is above the law, but it is these
sanctuary jurisdictions, such as Cook County, and not States such as
Alabama, Arizona, South Carolina, and Indiana that need to remember
they are not above the law.
The truth is that this is yet another example of a longtime trend in
Chicago of elected officials placating immigration law breakers while
thumbing their noses at Federal law enforcement, jeopardizing public
safety, and pretending that what they do is honorable and good and for
the taxpayers who elected them. But releasing dangerous criminals is a
dangerous thing to do. Releasing dangerous criminals--it could be a
person who goes and murders someone, as we have seen time and time
again.
The Cook County commission passed this order less than a month after
Chicago-based open-borders group National Immigrant Justice Center sued
the Department of Homeland Security, challenging the constitutionality
of these ICE detainers--things that have been done by every State,
city, and county throughout America for decades, hundreds of years--
since the founding of our Republic, I suppose. The lawsuit undoubtedly
influenced the Cook County commission. They decided they would be open
about it in voting in favor of this ordinance. So if one of those
illegal aliens arrested on felony charges and released by Cook County
commits a crime now, Cook County officials are to blame for it.
We should not release someone when the Federal authorities place a
detainer on them. They do not do that very often. They do not do it
nearly enough, frankly. So there will be a good reason for sure if they
place a detainer on them, and to ignore that is really stunning.
So sanctuary jurisdictions such as Cook County, IL, undermine the
ability of law enforcement personnel to enforce the laws that are on
the books now and represent a threat to our security. These
jurisdictions cannot choose if and when they will turn over illegal
aliens charged with a crime and wanted by ICE.
So if we are going to talk about who is and who is not above the law,
I suggest that my good friend--and we have worked together on a number
of things, some of them criminal justice issues--the Senator from
Illinois needs to clean up his own backyard rather than casting
unfounded criticisms on States that are taking up a valuable effort to
see that our immigration laws actually are enforced, to help end the
lawlessness that has caused so much disruption in our country and upset
the American people.
The American people are not anti-immigrant. We are a nation of
immigrants. The American people are not opposed to people being able to
come to our country. The American people do not dislike people who are
here. Their anger is basically addressed to those of us in authority
who are failing to maintain a lawful system of immigration, one that we
can be proud of, one that is consistently enforced throughout the
country. I believe that is what we should be striving for in our
Nation, and if somebody wants to change the law and allow more people
to come or fewer people to come, let's vote on it and have it right
here on the floor of the Senate, and maybe we can have some changes.
But, fundamentally, it is the duty of Homeland Security, it is the
duty of the Department of Justice to enforce the laws as they exist.
They do not get to make the laws and enforce them. It is the duty and
responsibility of Cook County to participate with the Federal
Government in fulfilling its basic duties, such as honoring detainment.
When you do not have that, we have a real problem in our country.
So I would suggest that the Attorney General take a little timeout
from his lawsuit against Arizona or Alabama or other States and focus a
little bit of his attention on a major jurisdiction such as Cook County
that is willfully and deliberately acting to undermine Federal law
enforcement.
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the bill
before the Senate--the Rebuild America Jobs Act. The Rebuild America
Jobs Act contains a variation of a bill that I cosponsored with Senator
Kerry--we call it the BUILD Act. It is the Building and Upgrading
Infrastructure for Long-Term Development Act, and so we call it BUILD.
But the changes that have been made in the bill that is before us today
are untenable, and I cannot support it.
Last March, I introduced the bipartisan BUILD Act along with Senators
Kerry, Warner, and Graham. It puts forward a method of addressing our
infrastructure needs that I think is the right way forward. The need
and demand for greater infrastructure investment is unprecedented. The
American Society of Civil Engineers estimates that a $2.2 trillion
investment is needed over the next 5 years to restore our
infrastructure to an adequate condition. Ignoring these needs hampers
our economic growth, impedes the flow of inter- and intrastate
commerce, and slows the development and distribution of domestic energy
production. We should consider new, innovative ways of financing our
infrastructure. Traditional government mechanisms alone cannot keep
pace with our national demand.
Our legislation--Senator Kerry's and mine--creates the American
Infrastructure Financing Authority. This would be an independent
authority designed to facilitate private investment in critical
infrastructure projects. It is designed like a bank, providing loans or
loan guarantees for regionally or nationally significant projects in
transportation, energy and water sectors.

[[Page 16539]]

Let me emphasize that this will not provide grants. Grants will not
be given. They will not be allowed. Nationally significant projects or
regional projects would be at least $100 million. There is a $25
million category for rural areas, but we are not looking at a stimulus
where we go in and provide financing for small projects. This is for
dams, for desalination plants, or for an electric grid that isn't
working and causing brownouts in major areas.
We are talking about big dollars that are not easily raised in the
government sector or the private sector alone because it doesn't make
economic sense, unless we put the loans and the loan guarantees
together. There is a prohibition against spending more than 50 percent
of the project cost, and the other 50 percent has to have come from
another source--a private source or a State or local government source.
In addition, there has to be a revenue stream that will have the
ability to pay this loan back. We want the loans paid back so that more
infrastructure can be built. So we are talking about a revenue stream
from, say, water bills, if it is a water desalination plant that is
going to provide water for economic development, or if it is a dam that
is going to provide electricity, we have electric bills. But we have to
have a revenue source. So we have narrowed our legislation so that it
will have the ability to pay back the loan. It is going to be something
that can work.
In its first 10 years, it is estimated that our BUILD Act would
provide $160 billion in financial assistance for major projects like
this. So if it would be highways or bridges, there would be a toll that
would be necessary for the transportation--something that would have a
revenue stream to pay these back but allow them to be built because the
private sector is sitting on the sidelines right now.
The bank would not replace our existing Federal funding mechanism,
but it would supplement them for the large projects that have a major
public benefit. The bank administering this fund would apply sound
underwriting principles to assess the risk of a loan or loan guarantee.
The BUILD Act would require an initial appropriation. Senator Kerry
and I have committed to identifying a reasonable offset. Additional
deficit spending has never been an option for the BUILD Act. So it
would be $10 billion that would be taken from a program today and put
into this long-term bank so we can match loans and loan guarantees with
private funds or State or local funds and do big things, not little
things, except in rural areas where there is a $25 million threshold.
It is going to be $100 million or more, and no more than 50 percent of
it can be from this program.
I appreciate the fact the bill before us incorporates some elements
of the BUILD Act and seeks to correct some of the flaws in the previous
infrastructure bank proposals that have been put forward by the
administration. However, I think the differences between our BUILD Act
and the legislation brought forward by the majority leader take away
the bipartisan appeal of the bill.
Let me also say there is in this legislation--in addition to the $10
billion in the long-term plan Senator Kerry and I introduced--a $50
billion stimulus package, which is why I couldn't possibly support this
bill. It is another $50 billion stimulus package. I appreciate the need
for investment--obviously, that is why I support the BUILD Act--but $50
billion in the bill in addition to the $10 billion bank is more of the
same type of stimulus that has not worked. It is more debt. Well, I
guess it isn't more debt because they pay for it with a tax, which is
even worse. The bill before us has the $50 billion added to it, and it
is paid for with a surtax on people who are making more than $1 million
a year, and mostly from their businesses. That is why I can't support
it. It proposes a permanent tax increase to pay for a temporary
spending program. That is bad policy in itself.
Raising taxes on incomes that would harm business owners and job
creators is part of the reason people aren't hiring today. The
President keeps talking about more taxes on business. On top of the
Obama health care plan, it is causing businesses not to hire people,
and we have a 9-percent unemployment rate in this country.
So I think it is important we defeat the bill before us and try to
come up with something that is more akin to the BUILD Act that Senator
Kerry and I have put forward. Data from an August 2011 Treasury report
says four out of five people who would be hit by the surtax are
business owners--the same people we need to encourage to create jobs.
I think it is going to be essential, if we are going to try to create
jobs in our country, that we stop talking about surtaxes on businesses.
We have to stop talking about more costs, and we have to stop the
overregulation. We have overregulation, the talk of more taxes, and we
have the Obama health care plan that is going to have fines and taxes
that are coming after the next election when that all comes together.
Businesspeople are seeing this and saying: I am going to hold where I
am now instead of hiring people and getting our economy jump-started.
So I think job creation should be the key of anything we do in this
Congress. It should be our focus. It should be the priority, and that
means we should have conditions in the private sector that will create
job growth. The bill before us today is simply another $50 billion
stimulus plan that we have already seen doesn't work, and it is paid
for with a new tax that is going to further stifle business hiring.
Now more than ever we must focus our efforts in this Congress on
commonsense measures that will jump-start the economy and make our
businesspeople think it is worth hiring. Then we will have a surge in
the private sector, which is the sector that can create jobs that will
last.
So I am not going to be able to vote for the bill before us, but I
would like to urge my colleagues to look at the Kerry-Hutchison bill
that offers a long term approach. It is not going to be immediate
because it would take up to a year to set up this bill. But we
shouldn't be just talking about today. We shouldn't just be talking
about something that will jump-start the economy between now and the
end of the year. We should also be looking at the long term as well. We
should be looking at the long term fiscal situation and how we assure
that not only are we trying to jump-start right now but that we are
looking forward to the future. That is what a true BUILD Act would do.
That is what an infrastructure bank that is put in place with solid
principles would do.
The Kerry-Hutchison bill is such a bill. The bill that is before us
is not.
I hope we will be able to have a chance for our bill to go through
the Finance Committee and to get suggestions from our colleagues on
ways to strengthen it. But the bill before us today would hurt our
economy, hurt job creation, and that is not the direction we should be
going.
Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennet). The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I just left a meeting with President Obama
at the White House, and we discussed the jobs bill that is pending
before the Senate. It is a bill which the President put together and
presented to Congress almost 2 months ago. He invited the Republicans
at that time to come forward with their ideas, and hoped that we could
come up with a bipartisan approach to dealing with the 9-percent-plus
unemployment in our country and the 14 million people out of work, not
to mention another 10 million who are underemployed and could do better
with a better job.
We had a briefing this morning from an economist from labor and
business

[[Page 16540]]

who talked about some of the realities facing America today, and they
are daunting: that one out of five men in this country is out of work;
that we have seen, since 1969, a 28-percent decline in the purchasing
power of working families in America; that we are seeing growth rates
which are at least anemic and maybe even worse in terms of the future
of our economy.
There are those who are criticizing the President and saying his
approach is all wrong. But what those who criticize him offer is
nothing. Nothing. There is no Republican plan for creating jobs in this
country. It is a litany of complaints that they have had about the
Federal Government for decades. For example, they argue there are too
many rules and regulations, and that is what is impeding job growth.
I spent 2 straight weeks going across Illinois visiting businesses,
large and small, that have done well in this recession. Not a single
one has raised that issue. None. I don't think that is a real issue. It
is an issue that we should be concerned about when it comes to job
creation. It is not an issue for causation.
Secondly, the Republican approach has been, and consistently so, that
the most important thing they can do is to protect the income taxes
paid by the wealthiest people in America. That is not why I was sent to
Congress. I believe my responsibility is to look to the common good and
beyond the wealthiest in this country, particularly to help working
families who are struggling so much.
The bill that will come up tomorrow will give the Republicans a
chance to join us again in part of the jobs bill which they used to
support. Some of the elements of that bill are pretty straightforward:
$60 billion that will be spent on infrastructure, $50 billion for
transportation funding, and another $10 billion for the infrastructure
bank. Of that, $27 billion is for highways across America. I will take
a big chunk of that in Illinois, and I will bet you will in Colorado.
There is plenty to be done out there to alleviate congestion, to make
the roads safer. There is another $9 billion for mass transit. We need
it desperately. Mass transit, of course, keeps people off the highways,
moves them back and forth to work in a most economical way. Our mass
transit systems in Illinois and most places could use a shot in the arm
with an investment for safety and for reliability. There is $4 billion
for high-speed inner city passenger rail corridors. That is working in
Illinois, proof positive, almost $1 billion in our State. We got the
money, incidentally, that the Republican Governor of Wisconsin said he
didn't want. We said we will take it in Illinois and the people in
Wisconsin can wave as the train goes by. We are going to put that money
into better rail beds, faster service, more reliability.
We broke all records in Amtrak passenger volume a few weeks ago, 30
million passengers, the most ever in any 1 year in Amtrak history.
Eighty-two percent of passengers say they are satisfied with the good
service of Amtrak. It is an enterprise that has a lot of support in
America, and we want it to grow. Unfortunately, the other side has come
out against it many times. So the President has put $2 billion directly
into Amtrak. They can use it for new trains, new locomotives, and
passenger cars built in America. How about that? Good-paying jobs in
our country. There is $3 billion for TIGER and TIFIA grant loan
assistance, $2 billion for FAA improvement grants, $1 billion for FAA
NextGen air traffic control. And for the record, those of us who fly on
airplanes every week think this is long overdue. The air traffic
control system in America is based on science that is decades old and
goes back to World War II, and it is time to move beyond it. And we
can, but we need to invest to make sure that happens. Then there is $10
billion for the national infrastructure bank. That is absolutely
critical for us so that we can continue to grow and continue to build.
When I look at this, what it translates into is pretty amazing. It
would put people to work upgrading 150,000 miles of road in America,
laying or maintaining 4,000 miles of train tracks, restoring 150 miles
of runways at airports, and putting in place a NextGeneration air
traffic control system to reduce time delays and add safety. The plan
includes $27 billion for roads and bridges, $9 billion, as I mentioned,
for transit systems, and money for a competitive grant program, $5
billion, $4 billion for construction of high-speed rail. It is no
wonder this has been supported not only by the labor unions--they want
to put people back to work--but by businesses all across America that
have an interest in highway construction.
The national infrastructure bank, of $10 billion, will leverage
private and public capital to fund a broad range of infrastructure
projects. The bank would be based on a bill introduced by Senators John
Kerry and Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, which has been endorsed by the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce. So if you think these are all Democratic
ideas with no business support, one of the central elements here, the
infrastructure bank, has the support of the Chamber of Commerce. It
builds on legislation offered by Senators Rockefeller and Lautenberg,
and long-time bank champion Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro.
How do we pay for this? I think that is where the conversation starts
falling apart on the floor of the Senate. We pay for it and don't add
to the deficit by adding a new income tax surtax on those making over
$1 million a year. Listen carefully. Those making over $1 million a
year. So you have to already be making $20,000 a week before you pay
the first penny in new taxes, and the tax just applies to the
additional money over $1 million, and it is 0.7 percent.
I want to apologize, for the record. I think I misstated this earlier
when I said that for the first $100 of new income over $1 million, that
those who were millionaires would pay 7 cents more in taxes. I
misstated it. I missed it by a factor of 10. It turns out to be 70
cents instead of 7 cents. So the burden is 10 times what I suggested.
For every $100 a millionaire earns over $1 million, under this bill
to put America to work, they would have to pay 70 cents. The
Republicans have said, ``Unacceptable.'' It is unconscionable that we
would tax what they call the job creators.
We did a survey, incidentally, and found out that 1 percent of small
business owners make $1 million or more--1 percent. For 99 percent of
small business owners this is no tax increase, so it is not hurting job
creators. It is creating jobs and that is what we need to do, and I
cannot believe we are going to see this fail tomorrow again because we
do not want millionaires to pay 70 cents out of every $100 more they
make beyond $1 million, 70 cents in taxes. I think it is worth a lot
more than 70 cents to get America back to work, and I think the sooner
we do it, the better.
The Congressional Budget Office released a report that highlights the
trend in household income between 1979 and 2007. As I mentioned
earlier, American families, working families, have fallen further and
further behind. The data showed that the top 1 percent of earners saw a
dramatic increase in their share of household income. The remaining 99
percent were relatively unchanged.
The share of aftertax household income for the top 1 percent of the
population more than doubled, climbing to 17 percent in 2007 from 8
percent in 1979. For the top 1 percent of household earners, the
highest earners in America, average real aftertax household income grew
by 275 percent between 1979 and 2000.
What happen to the others? The top quintiles were receiving 53
percent of aftertax household income in 2007, up from 43 percent in
1979. People in the lowest fifth of the population received about 5
percent of aftertax household income--that is 20 percent of the people
receiving about 5 percent of aftertax household income in 2007, going
down from 7 percent in 1979.
People in the middle? Three-fifths of the population saw their share
of aftertax income decline by 2 to 3 percent in those years, 1979 to
2007.
If you wonder why people are sitting in tents in these ``occupy''
areas and why there is a rage across America, it has a lot to do with
this. People are

[[Page 16541]]

working hard, playing by the rules, and falling further and further
behind. They are looking up at the top and saying, I don't understand
this. Why is it that the bank CEOs are getting multimillion dollar
bonuses and the management of my company is getting a dramatic
increase, while they tell us we are the most productive workers in the
world? It is understandable they want a fair shake, and it starts with
putting people to work.
With 14 million people out of work today, getting them jobs where
they can start paying taxes instead of drawing benefits is something
they want and we should want. It is worth saying to the wealthiest in
America, pay your fair share; maybe a little bit more than you did
today. If it makes America a stronger nation and the economy stronger,
my guess is those folks making over $1 million a year will prosper too.
That has been the story of America. I am sure that story will be
repeated.
The question tomorrow is whether there will be a single Republican
vote to support us. I am not certain. I have to think back. I do not
believe we have had one Republican vote supporting the President's jobs
bill so far, any aspect of it. We are going to keep trying, and the
American people expect us to.
The President spoke today at Key Bridge, right here between
Arlington, VA, and DC, a bridge right near where I went to college and
crossed hundreds of times. It is a bridge that needs some work and he
was making that point, let's put Americans to work right there,
creating good American jobs with this jobs bill. The President made a
point of noting that while we are talking about passing a jobs bill in
the Senate, the House of Representatives is talking about commemorative
coins and reaffirming our belief in the phrase ``In God we trust.'' The
President said in the speech there is no doubt in his mind that people
do trust in God, they just don't trust in the House of Representatives
to get the job done here, to pass a jobs bill that will get people back
to work.
That is the challenge we face. That is the challenge America faces,
and a bipartisan solution will serve the Nation well.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I come to the floor tonight to
discuss an issue I have addressed many times in this Chamber over the
course of the past few years, and that is the urgent need for this
Congress to come together to pass policies that will spur job creation
in our country. I know the Presiding Officer, my colleague from
Colorado, has done so in powerful ways himself. I want to talk
specifically about the Rebuild America Jobs Act, legislation that is
pending as I stand here and as you sit here for Senate debate.
We both know that the Rebuild America Jobs Act is one component of
President Obama's comprehensive job creation package which he and the
American people have been urging us in this Congress to pass. But my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the Republicans, have
uniformly filibustered the President's comprehensive job creation
package, so we are now attempting to debate the package in smaller
legislative pieces. This week we are attempting to begin debate on the
Rebuild America Jobs Act, which would put hundreds of thousands of
Americans back to work rebuilding our crumbling bridges, our roads, and
our airports. It is an important bill. It is worthy of this Chamber's
debate consideration. It should not be subject to another filibuster
that leaves the American people wondering why the heck we cannot
charter a path forward that would help create jobs and build our
economy.
Before I specifically address what is in the Rebuild America Jobs
Act, I thought it would be informative to briefly talk about how our
economy got in the rough place it is in today. We are 3 years removed
from a near global economic meltdown. If you think about it, in the
final year of the Bush administration we lost nearly 4.5 million jobs.
That is very significant. Our economy was bleeding over 800,000 jobs a
month when President Obama was sworn in. Credit markets were frozen,
job losses mounted, and there was real concern that we as a nation
risked slipping into another Great Depression. The Presiding Officer
remembers all too well, as we all do, the concerns and the dynamics
that were present at that point.
Fortunately, President Obama took a leadership role and the Congress
worked with him to take steps to avert a catastrophe. But we are left
with an enormous hole we are trying to climb out of. Beginning in 2009,
we slowed the economic free fall that we passed and we put an end to
the great recession--at least on paper. The Presiding Officer knows
that. But, as typical of any recession, let alone the great recession,
job growth has trailed economic growth.
Under the President's leadership, in the last year and a half, the
economy has added nearly 2 million jobs. We are nearly halfway
restoring the jobs lost under the Bush recession. Yet with unemployment
standing at 9.1 percent nationwide, we still have a long way to go.
As I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, in order to speed up
economic recovery and bring down this stubborn unemployment rate, the
President presented to us a few months ago an ambitious job creation
package called the American Jobs Act. The bill, which consisted of
bipartisan proposals, as we well know, proposals that both parties had
supported time and time again, ran into a wall of uncooperative
partisanship in this Chamber and was grounded by a Republican
filibuster.
Mr. President, you and I both adhere to the concept of
bipartisanship, working with the other party, but this kind of
obstructionism has become way too common in the modern Senate and it
truly is getting in the way of our capacity, our desire to create jobs.
I say that in a plain and simple way. It has put in jeopardy our
future, frankly. We have to win a global economic race. We have traded
the burden of governing--I should say also the responsibility of
governing and legislating--for seemingly a set of ideological positions
and gamesmanship, and you know and I know Coloradoans are flat out
tired of it. They want their elected leaders to lead, to work across
the aisle and produce some results that will help working Americans,
will help small businesses.
I could not agree more with our citizens at home. I have to say that
I think impartial observers would say with regularity, tea party
interests in the Congress have taken our economy, have walked our
economy, driven our economy to the edge of a cliff with the repeated
threats of a government shutdown. If I could use the words of my
colleague from Colorado: Can you imagine a city government leader
allowing Denver, for example, to forfeit and default on its financial
obligations? It would not happen. It feels as though we are creating in
this Congress crises out of thin air, to rattle our economic markets.
You do not have to look back to August, to those dark days when the
debate over the debt ceiling and then threat of default was an economic
crisis completely of this element's own making. Then what followed?
What was predicted to follow: Our credit was downgraded and it had
economic effects.
I have been meeting with businesspeople this week who can give you
example after example. I was a businessman in the private sector. My
colleague from Colorado was. We know the Federal Government can only do
so much to grow jobs and positively affect the economy. But when you
have self-inflicted wounds, such as those that were produced in August,
you are going to stifle recovery and you are going to create real
business uncertainty in the private sector.

[[Page 16542]]

If we were serious about economic recovery, we would stop taking the
Federal budget to the brink of disaster at every opportunity. I know
there are people in this town who want to score points, but hard-
working Americans, hard-working Coloradoans, and our businesses
ultimately pay the price for this kind of increased uncertainty. If we
were serious about providing businesses, particularly small businesses,
with the capital they need, we would look for opportunities to do so.
One of the ways I believe the Senate could help would be to consider
and pass a bipartisan piece of legislation that I have introduced now
in a series of Congresses that will double the amount of loans credit
unions can offer to small businesses.
This would literally help tens of thousands of Americans. It would
allow businesspeople to create jobs for hundreds of thousands of
Americans and there would be no cost to the American taxpayer. This is
a form of lifting a regulation. Credit unions are overly regulated and
this simple change in the policy that applies to their access to the
small business sector would make a difference.
Instead--and this pains me to say--what I hear from the other side of
the aisle, what my Republican colleagues offer are proposals that rely
almost entirely on attacking the administration or suggesting that we
implement the failed policies that got us into this situation in the
past. This is one area where the commonsense rules that protect our
consumers and preserve our clean air and our clean water are designated
as the problem. There is, frankly, scant evidence to support their
regulatory boogeymen. They offer no hard evidence of these claims. I am
convinced the constant drumbeat about regulations is more harmful to
our country's job creation potential than the alleged effect of the
regulations themselves.
In fact, a recent Bloomberg study noted that this administration has
issued 5 percent fewer regulations than the Bush administration at the
same juncture. Economic data shows that these regulations have a minor
effect, if at all, on the economy. I have in hand studies that show the
right kinds of regulations, particularly when it comes to protecting
the public's health, that actually can create jobs. The Assistant
Secretary of Economic Policy at the Department of the Treasury recently
wrote: ``None of these data support the claim that regulatory
uncertainty is holding back hiring.''
On the contrary, she found that a lack of demand in the market and
global financial and economic conditions are the primary culprits for
our slow recovery.
This jives with what we hear generally from business leaders who, by
large margins, point to a lack of demand and uncertainty in the
marketplace as the primary barriers to their businesses, not Federal
regulation. What feeds this uncertainty and lack of demand is the
constant political threats to send our economy off a cliff and the
constant scare campaign that tells Americans to fear the Obama
administration.
I am not unsympathetic to the plight of the regulated sectors of our
economy. President Obama said it well. He said: ``We should have no
more regulation than the health, safety, and security of the American
people require,'' and we should make compliance with the ones we do
have as easy as possible. I don't want to overstate this, but that is
why I have taken steps to eliminate unnecessary Federal redtape, such
as easing the cap on how much credit unions can loan to small
businesses. But to constantly spread fear about our Government's work
to provide oversight and protect clean air and clean water is a further
uncertainty and worsen the lack of demand we see in the economy.
To break through this nonsense--and I don't use this word lightly--
this ``nonsense'' about the effect regulations are having, President
Obama has offered a real path forward based on sound economics and
bipartisan ideas. The Rebuild America Jobs Act was introduced
yesterday. As I said, it is a part of the President's overall
comprehensive approach. I hope we can move to debate this important
infrastructure bill.
We are going to have a vote tomorrow morning, I believe, that would
allow the Senate to move to actually debating the bill, and it would
significantly and immediately boost job creation across the country. We
would be able to ensure that we keep our roads and our bridges and
other infrastructure safe, while investing in new projects that will
stimulate businesses to invest and begin to create new, good-paying,
American-based jobs, the type of jobs that cannot be shipped overseas.
The American people, without question, overwhelmingly support the ideas
in this projobs bill. It is all about investing in the future of hard-
working Americans and making sure they have the tools to achieve the
American dream.
In Colorado alone, the investments for highway and transit projects
in the bill are estimated to support the creation of at least 6,400
local jobs. We would accept those jobs in a minute. We know those
people. We know the construction sector is one of the ones languishing
in our State. These are trained, committed Coloradans who are dying to
improve our State, to improve our infrastructure, to improve our
economy. Why is that important beyond our State or beyond our country?
We cannot compete if we do not have the infrastructure that allows
commercial activity to thrive. That has been one of our competitive
advantages for decades. Our competitors are not sitting back and
waiting for us. They are investing in their infrastructure now. We
don't have to go any further than China, India, Africa, South America.
Those countries and continents are investing in their infrastructure.
What was heartening is that recently we have seen a great coalition,
one that maybe we could mirror in the Congress, to support the
President's proposal. That is the AFL-CIO, the leading labor
organization in the United States that speaks for all the various
unions across our country, allied with business interests such as the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce. These are diverse interests. They are often
at loggerheads. They have come together to urge us to pass such a
measure that would build America.
The bill will not solve all our infrastructure challenges. It will
not respond to every infrastructure opportunity we have. For example,
we ought to reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration. That is
another less-than-valiant effort we made this year. As the Presiding
Officer knows, we left in August with the FAA not funded and that cost
us some economic growth. It put people out of work. Even for a week or
two, that was too much time to be out of work. We ought to fully
reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration and in the process
upgrade our national system of air travel.
I served in the House. I worked on the NextGen concept, which would
upgrade the way in which we direct airplanes to travel across our
country using satellite technology. Now we use radar technology. That
is a 20th century technology. We need a 21st century technology. So
let's pass a full authorization of the Federal Aviation Administration.
We ought to pass a robust highway bill. For too long we have not had
the full funding and full direction on a robust highway bill. I wish to
applaud the bipartisan work that has gone into that. Senators Boxer,
Inhofe, and Vitter have taken the first steps on a bipartisan proposal
to do just that.
I note that many of my Republican colleagues object to the Rebuild
America Jobs Act on the grounds that we would pay for it with
additional revenue from those who make annually more than $1 million. I
wish to point out that the American people disagree with them. Polls
show close to 70 percent of Americans support offsetting the costs of
the bill--because we are going to pay for this. We heard that message
loudly and clearly; that those who make over $1 million a year could
help shoulder more of the burden. I know I talked to people who have
done quite well at home in Colorado who are willing to make that kind
of investment if they see the return on the investment. The American
people are

[[Page 16543]]

ahead of us on this. They know it is a matter of simple fairness.
If I were in an ideal world--therefore, I am running the show--I
would make some changes to the bill to address our broader
infrastructure challenges. I would fold in the FAA; I would fold in the
highway bill I mentioned. But let's take the first modest step. Let's
open the floor of the Senate to debate on the Rebuild America Jobs Act
just like the American Jobs Act more generally. We could discuss how to
pay for it and what are the best mechanisms. Perhaps there is another
way to pay for it, but let's begin the process.
I wish to close by focusing on our home State of Colorado. I return
home, as the Chair does, almost every weekend and take the time to hear
out my fellow citizens and those who hired me to represent them in the
Senate. They will briefly complain about our inability to get things
done, as we know, even the simplest things it seems like this year. I
know my colleagues have similar experiences. But they quickly move to
what they are doing at home and how they are making their lives better.
I get energized by their commitment to working in their own
communities. The other thing I don't hear much at home is a litmus test
as to what political party we are a member of or what their concerns
are about who is up for reelection next year. They come together all
across our State, in Alamosa and Durango and Grand Junction, Sterling,
and the list goes on and on of communities that come together. That
isn't to say there isn't disagreement or that the solution comes easy,
but they don't deal in the kind of partisan bickering that has become
so common here.
I know the Presiding Officer feels that sense of possibility at home.
So let's match that sense of possibility. Let's match their energy. We
can take some heart from the fact that our economy is beginning to show
some signs of improvement.
The Department of Commerce report showed a 2.5-percent growth in
Gross Domestic Product. That is welcomed news and signals that we are
slowly making progress. I want to underline unemployment remains
stubbornly, maddeningly high at 9.1 percent. We must do better. I hope
we can start by a minimum voting tomorrow to at least debate the
Rebuild America Jobs Act.
Let's end the filibusters, particularly when it comes to starting a
debate. Literally, we are not even going to debate this bill. If we
were to open the debate tomorrow, in a few days' time, we would have to
have an additional cloture vote to end debate on the vote itself. If
the minority and my Republican colleagues don't want to move to end
debate, they certainly have that option at that time.
Let's keep faith with the description of the Senate, which was one of
my motivations for wanting to represent Coloradans here, which is the
most deliberative legislative body in the world. If we are the Chamber
that many look to for debate, for time spent to understand the best
policies for the country, let's keep faith with that. Let's keep faith
with our obligations as Senators. So the time for filibusters is over.
Let's go to work on behalf of the American people.
I remain optimistic. I think we can bring forth creativity and a
sense of cooperation. That is what we see at home. That is what happens
in Colorado. That is what happens in all the States that are
represented here. That is the American way. Let's bring the American
way to the Senate and put Americans back to work.
I thank the Chair for his patience, his interest, his partnership,
his service to the State of Colorado and the United States itself.
I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on Thursday,
November 3, 2011, when the Senate resumes consideration of the motion
to proceed to S. 1769, the Rebuild America Jobs Act, it be in order for
the Republican leader or his designee to move to proceed to S. 1786;
that the motions to proceed be debated concurrently, with the time
until 3 p.m. equally divided between the two leaders or their designees
prior to votes on the motions to proceed in the following order: Reid
motion to proceed to S. 1769 and McConnell or designee motion to
proceed to S. 1786; that the motions to proceed each be subject to a
60-affirmative-vote threshold; that if the Reid motion to proceed is
agreed to, the vote on the McConnell or designee motion to proceed be
delayed until disposition of S. 1769; finally, that the cloture motion
with respect to the motion to proceed to S. 1769 be vitiated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

MORNING BUSINESS

Mr. REID. I now ask unanimous consent to move to a period of morning
business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

THE DREAM ACT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, what if I came to the floor today and said
I have a new law I want to introduce, and here is what it says: If you
stop motorists across America, anywhere across America--for speeding,
reckless driving, driving under the influence--you can not only arrest
that motorist, you can arrest the child in the backseat. You can tell
that child in the backseat, maybe 2 years old or 5 years old, you have
to pay a price because your parent broke the law. People would laugh me
out of the Senate Chamber. That is not right. That is not the way we
handle justice in America. You do not impose a penalty on children
because of the wrongdoing of their parents.
Keep that in mind for a moment because I want to tell you a story, a
story that goes back 10 years in Chicago, IL, when a Korean-American
woman called my office in Chicago and said, I have a problem. Actually,
I have a good thing to tell you, she said. My daughter, who is
graduating from high school, is an accomplished concert pianist. She
has gone through the Merit Music Program in Chicago, a wonderful
program that allows kids--not from the wealthy families but kids from
families of lower income groups--a chance to own musical instruments or
take musical lessons and see if they thrive--and they do; 100 percent
of them go to college.
Her daughter was one of them, a concert pianist graduating from high
school, and her mom said: She has been accepted at the Julliard School
of Music in New York. We cannot believe it. She said: I run a dry
cleaner and my daughter is going to the best music school in America,
and the Manhattan Conservatory of Music has also accepted her. She sat
down and she was filling out the application, and she came to the box
which said nationality, citizenship, and she said: USA, right? And her
mom said: You know, we brought you here when you were 2 years old, from
Korea, and we never filed any papers. So I don't know what to call you
at this point, I don't know what your legal status is. Your brother and
sister were born here and they are American citizens. The mom said, I
am a naturalized citizen but we never filed any paperwork for you. I
don't know what to tell you. They called my office. We checked the law.
Do you know what the law said? The law said that young girl had to
leave the city of Chicago and America for 10 years--10 years--and then
apply to come back in. You see, her mother did not file the papers, and
at age 2 she became undocumented and illegal.
That is not right. It is no more just than to arrest the child in the
backseat for the speeding parent. But it was happening right before our
eyes. We started looking at it, and said the only way to deal with this
is to change the law, and here is what we said. If you came to the
United States as a child under the age of 16--as a child; if you
finished high school; and if you had no problems, no significant
criminal record--

[[Page 16544]]

we will give you two chances to become a legal person in America. First
chance: Enlist in our military. If you are willing to risk your life
for this country, you deserve a chance to be a citizen. Second: Finish
at least 2 years of college. Not a lot of kids do that, but if you
finish 2 years of college we will give you a chance to be legal. We
called it the DREAM Act. For 10 years I have been standing on the
Senate floor trying to pass the DREAM Act.
Time and again we have had a majority vote here. The last time I
think there were 55, if not 53, Senators. But because it is
controversial, someone objected and we needed 60 votes and we failed.
When I first introduced this bill, I would stand up in the Hispanic
neighborhoods of Chicago and I would talk about it. A lot of people
would listen intently. Then I would leave and go outside to my car to
leave and, without fail, usually in the dark of night, there would be a
young person standing by my car and that person would say to me:
Senator Durbin, I am one of those kids. Can you do something to help
me? Can you pass the DREAM Act? Many of them with tears rolling down
their cheeks, and they would tell me their stories, how they had no
future, no place to go. They couldn't go to college. If they graduated
from college, and some of them had, they could not become engineers or
doctors or lawyers or what they wanted to be. They were without a
country.
Time has changed that approach. These young people no longer stand in
tears in the darkness. They filled the galleries last December when we
voted on this. They were all over the galleries with caps and gowns
like graduates, and signs that said, ``I am a DREAMer.'' They waited
and watched, and the bill failed.
It broke my heart, and many of them left in tears. But they are
standing up to tell their stories now and some of them are brave enough
to stand up and let America know who they are and why they should have
a chance. I think they deserve a chance.
Let me tell you right off the bat I have a conflict of interest on
this bill. I guess Senators in this time of ethical considerations
should confess and make public their conflict of interest. See, my
mother was an immigrant to this country. She would have been a DREAMer
in her day. She was brought in at the age of 2 from Lithuania 100 years
ago. It was only after she was married and had two children that she
became a naturalized American citizen. I have a naturalization
certificate upstairs in my office. I am very proud of it. She passed
on. She saw me sworn into the Senate and passed on a few months after
that.
As her son, first-generation American, son of an immigrant, I stand
here as a Member of the Senate, a privilege which barely 2,000
Americans have ever had. It says a lot about my family but it says a
lot about America that I had my chance; the fact that my mother came
here at the age of 2, perhaps under suspicious circumstances, and was
given a chance to become an American citizen, raised a family, worked
hard, sent her kids to school, and saw one of them actually end up with
a full-time government job as a U.S. Senator.
That is why when I hear this debate across America on immigration I
wonder who these people are who are talking about how evil and negative
it is to have immigrants in our country. I just left an historic
ceremony a couple of hours ago. It was at the hall in the new Visitor
Center, Emancipation Hall. I could not believe my eyes. It was a
special Congressional Gold Medal honoring those Japanese Americans who
served in World War II. What astounded me was the number who showed up.
These are men who have to be in their eighties and nineties, who came
there to be honored with this Congressional Gold Medal, people of
Japanese ancestry, whose parents and relatives were often sent to
interment camps, and asked for the chance to risk their lives and serve
America in World War II and ended up being some of our most heroic
warriors.
I looked at that audience and I wondered if some of the critics of
immigration would criticize these men and their families, men who had
literally risked their lives--some lost their lives--many of whom were
seriously injured.
I am honored serving with so many great people in this Senate, but
none more than Danny Inouye, who is in my estimation a true American
hero, a recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor for his service
in the 442nd, and a man who still comes and leads the Senate as
chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Here was a person who
was frowned on and even being spit on for being Japanese at a time when
Pearl Harbor was still fresh in the minds of many people. But he said:
``Sign me up, hand me a uniform, give me a gun and I will die for this
country.'' He risked his life like thousands of others and I am glad
this honor was given today. But it is a constant reminder that we are a
nation of immigrants, we are a diverse nation, and it is in that
diversity we find our strength. We come from so many different corners
of the world and we come to America to call it home. These children are
in that same position.
When I see the argument being made in Arizona and Alabama, the anti-
immigrant argument being made, I am thinking to myself they are
ignoring the reality. The reality is the diversity of our Nation is its
strength, the fact that we come from so many different places, drawn
and driven to this great country for the opportunity it offers. The
Arizona law that was passed last year requires police officers to check
the immigration status of any individual if they have ``reasonable
suspicion'' that he or she may be undocumented. Under this law, any
undocumented immigrant can be arrested and charged with a State crime
solely on the basis of their immigration status, if they did nothing
wrong. It is a crime for a legal immigrant to fail to carry documents
proving their legal status at all times in the State of Arizona.
It doesn't sound right to me in this Nation of immigrants. Last year
it was Arizona. This year it is Alabama. Arizona Gov. Robert Bentley
recently signed H.R. 56, Alabama's immigration law that requires police
officers to check immigration status of any individual they suspect is
undocumented. Any undocumented immigrant can be arrested and charged
with a State crime. Legal immigrants must carry documents proving their
legal status at all times.
It is wrong to criminalize people based solely on their immigration
status. That is not the way we treat immigrants in our country and that
is not the way our criminal justice system should work. It is not right
to make criminals of people who go to work each day, cook our food,
clean our hotel rooms, and care for our children and parents. It is not
right to make criminals of those who worship with us in our churches,
synagogues, and mosques, and send their children to school with our own
kids.
I think about this and I think about what a blind eye some of the
backers of these laws have when they walk into a restaurant in a major
city and don't look up and notice who is cooking, who is cleaning the
dishes, who is taking care of their parents at the nursing homes, who
cut the grass at the golf course. Many of these people are
undocumented. We know it but we are not calling for them to leave. They
are serving us, right? No, with these laws we are condemning those in
similar status.
Here is the reality. Criminalizing immigrants will not help combat
illegal immigration. Law enforcement does not have the time or
resources to become the immigration office of America. That is why the
Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police opposes the Arizona law. It
makes it more difficult for them to keep people safe--not easier, more
difficult. Immigrants will be much less likely to cooperate with police
who can arrest them on the spot.
Alabama's law goes even further. Most contracts with undocumented
immigrants are declared null and void, including, for example, rental
agreements and child support agreements. Schools have to check the
immigration status of every student and parent and report that
information to the State.

[[Page 16545]]

Schools are authorized to report students and parents they believe to
be undocumented to the Federal Government.
I am concerned about the use of our schools in enforcing immigration
laws. The Supreme Court has made it clear that it is constitutional to
provide elementary education to children and not discriminate based on
their immigration status. The Education Department of our Federal
Government has warned States, including Alabama, not to use education
as a device to exclude those students who are otherwise eligible to be
taught.
It is good to tell these stories. It is good to speak to these
issues. But what I found over the years--and I am sorry it has been
years; I wish we had passed this long ago--the best way to tell the
story of the DREAM Act is to tell the story of the DREAMers. Let me
tell you a couple at this moment.
The first is about Amanda Uruchurtu. Here is Amanda. She is a pretty
young woman. She was brought to the United States at the age of 10. She
lives in Tuscaloosa, AL. When Amanda first arrived here she did not
speak a word of English. She sent me a letter about what it was like,
and here is what she said:

I remember how frustrating it was in school because I had
no clue what was going on, but I told myself that all the
frustration and fear should be blocked and I should
concentrate on learning English. . . . Some made fun of the
way I talked but that helped because it made me work even
harder and try to assimilate even more. Little by little I
worked with my accent to the point that it was hardly
noticeable.

There is Amanda. When she started high school she decided she knew
what she wanted to do with her life. She wanted to serve in the U.S.
military. She was No. 5 in her high school class. She was a member of
the National Honor Society and, listen to this, she received the
Daughters of the American Revolution award at her high school. Amanda
overcame great obstacles and wants to be part of America's future.
She asked, when she wrote to me, if I would tell her story and let
those who hear it know that Amanda wants to serve in the U.S. military,
but under our law she cannot. She is undocumented. If the DREAM Act
passed she would have her chance.
Here is another story, another lovely young lady, Karla Contreras,
brought to the United States at the age of 3. Today Karla is 16. She
lives in Pelham, AL. She is a sophomore in high school.
She is a leader in the Alabama Dreamers for the Future, an
organization of students of similar status, in her State. Her dream? To
become an attorney. Her family's considering moving to Washington State
because of this new Alabama law, this anti-immigrant law. Here is what
Karla wrote to me:

I have never really lived anywhere besides Alabama. I have
been here practically all my life. Alabama is my home.

Karla sent me a powerful essay about the Alabama immigration law. She
said:

All that people want is a better future, a job to maintain
them in an average way, a place they can call home with no
fear of being kidnapped by a drug dealer, a place where they
are not afraid to walk out to their yard. It is so hard for
me to see how these things could be a crime in anyone's eye.
This law is putting children in fear for their parents. Now
tell me who on earth would want to purposely frighten a
child.

In 1982, Texas passed a law that allowed elementary schools to refuse
entrance to undocumented children. The Supreme Court of the United
States of America struck down that law. As a result, millions of
children have received an education and millions have become citizens.
They are doctors, soldiers, policemen, lawyers, engineers, and
businesspeople who make America a better nation. Imagine what would
have happened if the Texas law had been allowed to stand. Incidentally,
that is exactly what Alabama wants today. Alabama should know--every
State should know--that no State is above the law. No State is above
the findings of our Supreme Court.
The American people have a right to be frustrated. Congress has
repeatedly failed to fix our broken immigration system. The
casualties--many are young DREAMers whom I talked about today, and many
have been around many years and still live in the shadows and live in
fear every single day. We are a better nation than that. We are a
nation of immigrants, a nation of justice, and a nation that can find
its way to give an opportunity to young people who have attended school
every day, stood, put their hand over their heart, and pledged
allegiance to the only flag they have ever known. They are asking for a
chance to be part of the future of America.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to help me pass the
DREAM Act.

____________________

CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS ACT

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in
the Record a letter to Attorney General Holder.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC, November 2, 2011.
Hon. Eric H. Holder, Jr.,
Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice,
Washington, DC.
Dear Attorney General Holder: I am writing to follow up
regarding my June 6, 2011 letter to you concerning the
Justice Department's implementation of the Crime Victims'
Rights Act--an Act that I co-sponsored. I am writing to ask
why the Justice Department persists in taking the view that
the CVRA does not extend rights to crime victims until the
formal filing of criminal charges.
As I explained in my earlier letter to you, Congress
intended the CVRA to broadly protect crime victims throughout
the criminal justice process--from the investigative phases
to the final conclusion of a case. Congress could not have
been clearer in its direction that using ``best efforts'' to
enforce the CVRA was an obligation of ``[o]fficers and
employees of the Department of Justice and other departments
and agencies of the United States engaged in the detection,
investigation, or prosecution of crime. . . .'' 18 U.S.C.
Sec. 3771(c)(1) (emphasis added). Congress also permitted
crime victims to assert their rights either in the court in
which formal charges had already been filed ``or, if no
prosecution is underway, in the district court in the
district in which the crime occurred.'' 18 U.S.C.
Sec. 3771(d)(3) (emphasis added).
As you know, it has now been more than four months since I
sent the letter to you explaining this clear point. In those
four months, I have not received any response from you.
Instead, during that time, on October 1, 2011, you
promulgated new Attorney General Guidelines for Victims and
Witness Assistance. These Guidelines persist in misconstruing
the CVRA so that it does not extend any rights to victims
until charges have been filed. Your Guidelines state: ``CVRA
rights attach when criminal proceedings are initiated by
complaint, information, or indictment.'' Guidelines at 8.
The Guidelines you have promulgated now conflict quite
clearly with the CVRA's plain language. This is not simply my
view. One court of appeals has addressed the issue of whether
the CVRA applies only after charges have been filed. In In re
Dean, 527 F.3d 391 (5th Cir. 2008), the Department took the
position that crime victims had no right to confer with
federal prosecutors until the Department had filed a plea
agreement in court. The agreement involved a corporation (BP
Products North America) whose illegal actions had resulted in
the deaths of fifteen workers in an oil refinery explosion.
In rejecting the Department's position that it did not have
to confer with victims earlier, the Fifth Circuit held that
``the government should have fashioned a reasonable way to
inform the victims of the likelihood of criminal charges and
to ascertain the victims' views on the possible details of a
plea bargain.'' Id. at 394.
In spite of this binding decision from the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, you have now promulgated
guidelines that directly conflict with that decision. As a
result, it continues to appear to me (as I noted in my
earlier letter) that your prosecutors are failing to extend
rights to potentially thousands of crime victims within the
Fifth Circuit in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas.
The Fifth Circuit's decision is hardly an outlier. To the
contrary, so far as I have been able to determine, the Fifth
Circuit's position is supported by all other court decisions
that have decided the issue. For example, in United States v.
Rubin, 558 F.Supp.2d 411, 419 (E.D.N.Y. 2008), the court
discussed a claim by various movants that they had been
victimized by a criminal fraud. The court explained that CVRA
can attach before charges are filed:
Quite understandably, movants perceive their victimization
as having begun long before the government got around to
filing the superseding indictment. They also believe their
rights under the CVRA ripened at the

[[Page 16546]]

moment of actual victimization, or at least at the point when
they first contacted the government. Movants rely on a
decision from the Southern District of Texas for the notion
that CVRA rights apply prior to any prosecution. In United
States v. BP Products North America, Inc., the district court
reasoned that because Sec. 3771(d)(3) provided for the
assertion of CVRA rights ``in the district court in which a
defendant is being prosecuted for the crime or, if no
prosecution is underway, in the district court in the
district in which the crime occurred,'' the CVRA clearly
provided for ``rights . . . that apply before any prosecution
is underway.'' United States v. BP Products North America,
Inc., Criminal No. H-07-434, 2008 WL 501321 at *11 (S.D. Tex.
Feb. 21, 2008) (emphasis in original), mandamus denied in
part, In re Dean, 527 F.3d 391 (5th Cir. 2008). But, assuming
that it was within the contemplation and intendment of the
CVRA to guarantee certain victim's rights prior to formal
commencement of a criminal proceeding, the universe of such
rights clearly has its logical limits. For example, the realm
of cases in which the CVRA might apply despite no prosecution
being ``underway,'' cannot be read to include the victims of
uncharged crimes that the government has not even
contemplated.
Rubin, 558 F.Supp.2d at 419.
United States v. Okun, 2009 WL 790042 (E.D. Va. 2009), also
reached the same conclusion that CVRA rights can apply before
charges are filed:
Victims have been permitted to exercise CVRA rights before
a determination of the defendant's guilt. See, e.g., United
States v. Edwards, 526 F.3d 747, 757-58 (11th Cir. 2008); In
re Mikhel, 453 F.3d 1137, 1138-39 (9th Cir. 2006) (per
curiam); see also United States v. Rubin, 558 F.Supp.2d 211,
418 (E.D.N.Y. 2008) (anyone the government identifies as
harmed by the defendant's conduct is a victim). Furthermore,
the Fifth Circuit has noted that victims acquire rights under
the CVRA even before prosecution. See In re Dean, 527 F.3d
391, 394 (5th Cir. 2008). This view is supported by the
statutory language, which gives the victims rights before the
accepting of plea agreements and, therefore, before
adjudication of guilt. See 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3771(a)(4).
Okun, 2009 WL 790042 at *2.
Also agreeing that at least some CVRA rights apply before
charging is In re Peterson, 2010 WL 5108692 (N.D. Ind. 2010).
The court acknowledged that some rights in the CVRA do not
apply before charges have been filed. But the court also
specifically held that ``a victim's `right to be treated with
fairness and with respect for [his or her] dignity and
privacy,' 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3771(a)(8), may apply before any
prosecution is underway and isn't necessarily tied to a
`court proceeding' or `case,' In re Dean, 527 F.3d 391, 394
(5th Cir. 2008); United States v. BP Products North America,
Inc., 2008 WL 501321 (S.D. Tex. 2008).'' Peterson, 2010 WL
5108692 at *2.
The most recent court decision to carefully review the
Justice Department's position is Jane Does #1 and #2 v.
United States, No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON (S.D. Fla.
Sept. 26, 2011). In that case, the court flatly rejected the
Department's claim that rights attach only after charges are
formally filed:
The Court first addresses the threshold issue whether the
CVRA attaches before the government brings formal charges
against the defendant[.] The Court holds that it does because
the statutory language clearly contemplates pre-charge
proceedings. For instance, subsections (a)(2) and (a)(3)
provide rights that attach to ``any public court proceeding .
. . involving the crime.'' Similarly, subsection (b) requires
courts to ensure CVRA rights in ``any court proceeding
involving an offense against a crime victim.'' Court
proceedings involving the crime are not limited to post-
complaint or post-indictment proceedings, but can also
include initial appearances and bond hearings, both of which
can take place before a formal charge. . . .
Subsection (c)(1) requires that ``Officers and employees of
the Department of Justice and other departments and agencies
of the United States engaged in the detection, investigation,
or prosecution of crime shall make their best efforts to see
that crime victims are notified of, and accorded, the rights
in subsection (a).'' (Emphasis added). Subsection (c)(1)'s
requirement that officials engaged in ``detection [or]
investigation'' afford victims the rights enumerated in
subsection (a) surely contemplates pre-charge application of
the CVRA.
Subsection (d)(3) explains that the CVRA's enumerated
rights ``shall be asserted in the district court in which a
defendant is being prosecuted for the crime or, if no
prosecution is underway, in the district court in the
district in which the crime occurred.'' (Emphasis added). If
the CVRA's rights may be enforced before a prosecution is
underway, then, to avoid a strained reading of the statute,
those rights must attach before a complaint or indictment
formally charges the defendant with the crime.
Id. at *3-4.
In sum, the plain language of the CVRA--and every reported
court decision I have been able to find--all clearly indicate
that the CVRA does extend rights to crime victims even before
charges are filed. Yet in spite of this, the Justice
Department has apparently prepared a new form letter to be
sent to victims that specifically tells crime victims that
they lack any rights in federal criminal cases before charges
have been filed in federal court. As I understand it, this
letter will be sent to victims in federal cases around the
country (including victims in the Fifth Circuit, the Eastern
District of New York, the Eastern District of Virginia, the
Northern District of Indiana, and the Southern District of
Florida) telling them that they should ``[p]lease understand
that these rights only apply to victims of the counts charged
in federal court. . . .''
Compounding the confusion is the fact that your own
Guidelines make it a matter of policy to confer with victims
about plea negotiations even before charges have been filed.
The new Attorney General Guidelines for Victims and Witness
Assistance specifically state: ``In circumstances where plea
negotiations occur before a case has been brought, Department
policy is that this should include reasonable consultations
prior to filing a charging instrument with the court.''
Guidelines at 41. I can only assume that this new policy has
been put in place to avoid the outrageous situations that
occurred in the Dean case and the Jane Does case, where
prosecutors did not confer with victims before the Government
reached final agreements with defendants. But the policy
would seem to be a complete dead letter if you never notify
victims that they have a right under the CVRA to confer with
the prosecutors.
In light of all this, I am writing to ask you several
questions. First, when will you send an answer to the
questions I raised in my June 6, 2011 letter? Second, why is
the Department failing to follow the CVRA's plain language,
as interpreted by these court decisions, and delaying
extending crime victims their CVRA rights until after formal
charges have been filed? And third, what is the Department
doing to implement the Fifth Circuit's binding decision in In
re Dean that crime victims can have rights under the CVRA
even before criminal charges are filed?
Sincerely,
Jon Kyl,
United States Senator.

____________________

AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT

CDBG Funding

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, as the chairman and ranking member of the
Transportation-HUD appropriations subcommittee are aware, I, along with
Senators Hoeven, Leahy, Sanders, Blunt, Menendez, Lautenberg,
Gillibrand, Baucus and Scott Brown have filed an amendment, Senate
amendment No. 839, to add $600 million in supplemental community
development block grant, CDBG, funding. We deeply appreciate the
inclusion of $400 million in supplemental CDBG funds to aid communities
impacted by disasters this year. However, given the magnitude of the
damage just in my State of North Dakota from flooding this year, I am
deeply concerned that this level of funding will not meet the needs. As
many of my colleagues know, the city of Minot, ND, was devastated by a
historic flood that impacted more than 4,100 homes and forced the
evacuation of 11,000 people. The road to recovery will be long. CDBG
offers an important component of the flood recovery effort to assist
with buyouts and assistance to homeowners and businesses to repair the
damage. My State alone has identified a need of at least $235 million
for CDBG funds. We would like to work with the chairman and the ranking
member of the subcommittee in conference to make sure there are
sufficient resources for CDBG to meet the needs that exist in my State
as well as others most impacted by this year's disasters.
Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, we have seen flooding of historic
proportion in North Dakota this year, and, as you know, other States
have also sustained severe damages from hurricanes, tornadoes,
wildfires and a range of natural disasters. In Minot, my hometown,
friends and neighbors were forced to evacuate their homes and live day-
to-day in makeshift accommodations. Some are not yet in temporary FEMA
housing as winter approaches. Almost as severe as the impact of the
floodwaters, however, is the anxiety of not knowing when and how much
help is forthcoming from the federal government. The State of North
Dakota, local communities, and the Federal Government are already
providing extensive assistance, but uncertainty over housing and
infrastructure persists in the aftermath of this disaster. We took an

[[Page 16547]]

important step forward in the Appropriations Committee 6 weeks ago when
we approved $400 million in supplemental CDBG funding, which goes
directly to help with housing for people who have lost their homes. We
are grateful to the subcommittee for approving that appropriation, but
I am here to tell you there is more to be done. We look forward to
working with subcommittee Chairwoman Murray and Ranking Member Collins
to ensure that we do all we can to maximize CDBG assistance to those in
need, not just in North Dakota, but across the Nation.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, some of the worst damage caused by
disasters around the country has been to the houses, mobile homes and
apartments where families have built their lives and made their homes.
In Vermont, entire mobile home developments were washed away in
Hurricane Irene's fury. Where homes once stood, now lies a path of
damage, destruction and heartbreak. Our small State's ability to build
new homes depends greatly on support from Federal safety net programs,
like the $400 million in emergency community development block grant
funding that we have worked to include in this bill. While this
emergency funding is a first step in addressing the urgent housing
needs of States like Vermont that have been struck by natural
disasters, we know that much more will be needed to help our decimated
towns and communities, and their citizens, get back on their feet. I
look forward to working with the chairman and ranking member of the
subcommittee to ensure that homeowners, businesses and towns have the
assistance they need to begin the long rebuilding process. I have not
seen damage and destruction of this magnitude in Vermont in my
lifetime. Vermont and other states that were hit by Irene are stretched
to the limit right now, and just as the victims of past disasters
throughout the country were able to rely on their fellow Americans'
help in their time of need, so should Vermonters be able to count on a
helping hand when they need it most.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I recognize the incredible impact of the
disasters in your States and other States across the country this year
and agree that CDBG is an effective tool in helping aid recovery
efforts. The Senators from North Dakota and the Senator from Vermont
have been strong advocates for this badly needed assistance. I pledge
to work with them to ensure that communities impacted by this year's
disasters have the support they need to recover.
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, over the past year, Missouri and the entire
country have faced numerous natural disasters that devastated the
livelihoods of people in our communities. As we work to rebuild, the
scope of these events has placed unusual logistical and financial
pressures on rebuilding efforts. Disaster community development block
grants provide communities with vital short-term and long-term recovery
funds that pick up where FEMA funding leaves off. The $400 million that
is included in the transportation; housing and urban development
appropriations bill is a step in the right direction. I am thankful for
the opportunity to join with Chairman Murray, Ranking Member Collins
and my other colleagues in expressing the importance of these funds for
the communities rebuilding after disaster. I look forward to continuing
our work together to make sure that disaster community development
block grants get the funds necessary to meet disaster needs in Missouri
and throughout the country.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, disasters have affected nearly every
State this year, and several States were hit particularly hard with
devastating tornadoes and historic flooding. CDBG disaster recovery
funding is an important tool that has helped States and communities
address recovery needs related to infrastructure, housing, and economic
development. I recognize that supplemental CDBG funding is important
for communities recovering from disasters, and I look forward to
working with my colleagues to help communities throughout the Nation.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the chairman and the ranking
member for their support. We look forward to working with them to
ensure our communities have the resources necessary to recover from
these devastating disasters.

____________________

EMERGENCY JUDICIAL RELIEF ACT

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to alert my colleagues that
I intend to object to any unanimous consent agreement for the
consideration of S. 1014, the Emergency Judicial Relief Act of 2011.
While the sponsors of the legislation adopted one amendment I offered
during debate in the Judiciary Committee, and that amendment improves
the legislation, the bill remains deeply flawed and I cannot support
it.
I oppose S. 1014 in its current form for a number of reasons, and I
will just briefly describe them here. First, I believe strongly that we
should analyze critically any expansion of the Federal Government, and
first and foremost, determine whether there is a more efficient and
cost effective way to allocate taxpayer resources. This is especially
true during a time when our Federal debt is at historic levels.
In its current form, this legislation creates 10 new judgeships and
converts two judgeships from temporary to permanent. The legislation
does not pay for the increased spending by cutting a corresponding
amount of Federal spending. Rather, it raises the filing fees imposed
on litigants.
The sponsors of the legislation have argued, based on caseload
statistics, that these districts have some of the highest caseloads in
the country. That may be true if you believe that the caseload
statistics accurately describe how busy a particular district is. I am
not arguing, today, that these statistics are necessarily inaccurate,
but I would simply note that there have been some questions raised over
the years regarding how well those statistics describe the caseloads.
Regardless, based on those same statistics, there are other districts
that are slow and getting slower.
If we conclude that some districts are disproportionately busy, and
therefore conclude that we should increase the number of judgeships in
those districts, then it only makes sense to offset the increase in
judgeships by reallocating judicial resources away from districts that
are slow. For this reason, I offered an amendment in the Judiciary
Committee that would have reduced the number of judgeships in other
districts by a total of 10. I will not take the time here to go through
the statistics in each of the districts where I proposed eliminating
judgeships. Suffice it to say, in each district slated for a reduction,
the caseloads have decreased over the last 5 years, with the exception
of 1 district, where the caseload has remained flat. And, even after
you reduce the number of judgeships in these districts, they would
still have caseloads that are well below the national average, across
all 94 districts. If we are going to add judgeships, I believe this is
the most appropriate way to do it.
The amendment I proposed in committee would also have delayed the
effective date for the creation of the new judgeships until after the
next Presidential election. Because none of us knows for certain who
will be sworn in as President in January 2013, delaying the effective
date would remove politics from the debate. Not only would it remove
politics from the discussion, but it is consistent with how this issue
was handled in the past. For instance, when the chairman of the
committee introduced legislation to create additional judgeships during
the 110th Congress, this is the approach he embraced.
Finally, I would note that the sponsors of the bill agreed to adopt a
separate amendment I offered in the Judiciary Committee that would
extend Whistleblower protection to Judicial Branch employees. This is
an improvement. My amendment ensures that Judicial Branch employees are
not simply left without redress when they face retaliation for blowing
the whistle on fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement. While I
appreciate the bill's

[[Page 16548]]

sponsors' willingness to adopt my amendment, and I believe it is an
improvement, the underlying legislation remains deeply flawed for the
reasons I have discussed. Therefore, I must oppose it. I urge my
colleagues to do the same.

____________________

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS

______

TRIBUTE TO JOHN BRUCE

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, John Bruce will retire as the
associate director for the Support Equipment Product Support
Integration Development on December 3, 2011, his 94th birthday. His
retirement is particularly noteworthy because John enjoys the
distinction of being the oldest and longest-serving employee of the
U.S. Army. This momentous occasion will be fittingly marked by a
celebration in his honor with his colleagues, family and friends in
Warren.
John Bruce began his service in the U.S. Army in 1942 during World
War II as a member of the Army Signal Corps. He was stationed in the
South Pacific as an intercept operator. After being honorably
discharged in 1946, John began his civilian career at the Detroit
Arsenal in Warren, MI as a cost/price analyst. In the ensuing decades,
Mr. Bruce has held a number of positions of increasing responsibility
at the Detroit Arsenal. He was an integral contributor to the
reorganization of the Defense Department and helped to consolidate and
centralize the Military Services field activities, which later became
the Defense Logistics Agency.
John Bruce has dedicated his life to serving our country and has
accomplished much in his long and illustrious career. John's
accomplishments throughout his career have been publicly recognized
through a number of citations and awards, including the 1975 Secretary
of the Army Award; 1983 Commanders Award for Exceptional Civilian
Service; 1990 Meritorious Civilian Service Award; 1991 Achievement
Medal for Superior Civilian Service; and 2002 Department of the Army
Decoration for Exceptional Service.
I know my Senate colleagues join me in congratulating John Bruce and
honoring his distinguished record of service to our country as he
retires on his 94th birthday. John has left a lasting impact on our
Nation's security, and he will be deeply missed by his colleagues. I
wish him the best as he embarks on the next chapter of his
life.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO DR. VIVIAN PINN

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, please allow me to join with family,
friends, and colleagues in extending my heartfelt congratulations to
Dr. Vivian Pinn on her retirement as Director of the Office of Research
on Women's Health at the National Institutes of Health after two
decades of exceptional service for women in our Nation.
First and foremost, let me say it has not only been a privilege to
work with her over the years to advance women's health policy, but to
call her my friend as well. In fact, just this past February, Vivian
was in my office where I had the extraordinary honor of receiving the
prestigious Women's Health Research Visionary Award. As one of two
recipients this year the other being my good friend and colleague,
Senator Barbara Mikulski of Maryland, one of the Senate's greatest
advocates and indeed voices for women, I can tell you this is an
accolade I will cherish forever. And that it was presented to me by
such a remarkable woman made the occasion all the more poignant and
special.
Indeed, Vivian is as phenomenal as she is inspirational--and her
monumental legacy at the National Institutes of Health and across the
country will reverberate for generations. Nearly 20 years after she
first took the helm of the Office of Research on Women's Health and a
career later, it is incredible to see how far we have come due in no
small part to her indelible efforts as a legendary and tireless
advocate.
Simply put, Vivian paved the way in America for women's health
research and continues to be an unrivaled force for the greater good.
In addition to her many accomplishments at the Office of Research on
Women's Health, her numerous awards and honors--including her induction
as a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1994, the
Elizabeth Blackwell award from the American Medical Women's
Association, and her election to the Institute of Medicine in 1995,
just to name a few--are truly indicative of her selfless and boundless
commitment. And we couldn't be more grateful.
The timeline of America's consciousness about women's health
fittingly parallels Vivian's unmatched trajectory of public service in
medicine. In 1990--with Vivian's help and my strong support in close
bipartisan, bicameral collaboration with Representative Pat Schroeder--
with whom I cochaired the Congress--Caucus for Women's Issues,
Representative Connie Morella who succeeded me as co-chair, Senator
Barbara Mikulski--our vital compatriot in the Senate, as well as
dedicated patient advocates across the country, the groundbreaking
Office of Research on Women's Health was established at the National
Institutes of Health, with Vivian as the first full-time director in
1991.
Throughout her tenure, she worked endlessly to ensure that women's
health became a priority at the National Institutes of Health, and have
helped increase the number of women in leadership roles in research and
academic institutions. Working with Vivian, our allies in Congress,
leaders at the National Institutes of Health like Dr. Bernadine Healy,
the former director who sadly passed away in August, as well as many
other stakeholders nationwide, we secured more funding and greater
attention to breast cancer, osteoporosis, ovarian and cervical cancer
research through groundbreaking programs like the Women's Health
Initiative.
Vivian, you are a trailblazer, a pioneer, a visionary, and frankly,
an icon of medicine. You saw what others could not see and led where
others would not act, and for that we are forever in your debt. You
have my very best wishes and my profound gratitude for all you have
achieved for women and the Nation.
Thank you for allowing me to share my thoughts as Vivian embarks on
this next chapter in her life.

____________________

RECOGNIZING ISLANDPORT PRESS

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, small businesses are the backbone of
America's economy. These small firms, which number over 27 million,
endeavor to create jobs and bring a sense of fiscal security into their
local communities. That alone is commendable, but what is truly rare
among small businesses is the one that seeks to promote their home
State's vast historical and cultural heritage, igniting a sense of deep
pride in the community and sharing this pride with others. With this
rare quality in mind, today I recognize and commend Islandport Press,
an independent book publisher, located in the coastal Maine town of
Yarmouth.
Eleven years ago, Dean Lunt had a dream of publishing books which
detail the historical and cultural riches of Maine and New England.
Growing up in Maine, Dean's grandmother encouraged him to write and
share, with the rest of the world, the history of their own Long
Island, a small island located off the coast of Maine. This inspired
Mr. Lunt to write and publish Islandport Press's first book ``Hauling
by Hand: The Life and Times of a Maine Island.'' This first book sold
3,000 copies, and inspired Mr. Lunt to continue publishing several
books, always with an eye on increasing awareness about this historic
region of our country.
In its efforts to continually develop and grow, Islandport Press has
expanded into the ever vast literary world, publishing several
categories of books that reflect the vast diversity of New England's
people and places, and has simultaneously established itself as an
award-winning publisher for children's books. In 2010, Islandport Press
was honored with its first Moonbeam Children's Book Award, receiving
the gold medal award in the category of Picture Book, All Ages, for
``The Fish House Door'' by Robert F. Baldwin and illustrated by Astrid
Sheckels. Moonbeam Children's Book Awards honor

[[Page 16549]]

exemplary children books with the goal of increasing childhood literacy
and inspiring life-long reading. There are 38 award categories, ranging
from Pictures Books, to Pre-Teen Fiction, to Best Book By A Young
Author.
This year, Islandport Press was again honored with three books
receiving awards. ``Mercy'' by Sarah Thompson was awarded the silver
medal for Young Adult Fiction-Horror/Mystery; ``Farmyard Alphabet'' by
Dahlov Ipcar was awarded the bronze medal for Best Board Book; and ``My
Cat, Coon Cat'' by Sandy Fuller and Jeannie Brett, was awarded a silver
medal in Best Picture Book for Ages 4-8. While these awards are
certainly remarkable accomplishments for the individual authors and
illustrators, they are also a testament to the keen eye that Dean has
for promising and talented authors who offer substantive new
literature.
Islandport Press is uniquely dedicated to promoting Maine and New
England as part of its mission. Each Moonbeam award is a well-deserved
reminder of the hard work and tireless effort of a dream that Dean Lunt
had, to share his piece of Maine with the world. I am proud to extend
my congratulations to everyone at Islandport Press for their dedication
to excellence, and offer my best wishes for their continued
success.

____________________

MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT

Messages from the President of the United States were communicated to
the Senate by Mr. Pate, one of his secretaries.

____________________

EXECUTIVE MESSAGES REFERRED

As in executive session the Presiding Officer laid before the Senate
messages from the President of the United States submitting sundry
nominations which were referred to the appropriate committees.
(The nominations received today are printed at the end of the Senate
proceedings.)

____________________

MESSAGES FROM THE HOUSE

At 10:49 a.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered
by Mr. Novotny, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has
passed the following bill, without amendment:

S. 1280. An act to amend the Peace Corps Act to require
sexual assault risk-reduction and response training, the
development of a sexual assault policy, the establishment of
an Office of Victim Advocacy, the establishment of a Sexual
Assault Advisory Council, and for other purposes.

The message also announced that the House has passed the following
bill, in which it requests the concurrence of the Senate:

H.R. 1002. An act to restrict any State or local
jurisdiction from imposing a new discriminatory tax on cell
phone services, providers, or property.

The message further announced that the House has agreed to the
following concurrent resolution, in which it requests the concurrence
of the Senate:

H. Con. Res. 13. Concurrent resolution reaffirming ``In God
We Trust'' as the official motto of the United States and
supporting and encouraging the public display of the national
motto in all public buildings, public schools, and other
government institutions.

The message also announced that the House has agreed to the following
concurrent resolution, without amendment:

S. Con. Res. 31. Concurrent resolution directing the
Secretary of the Senate to make a correction in the
enrollment of S. 1280.

____________________

ENROLLED BILL SIGNED

At 12:36 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered
by Mrs. Cole, one of its reading clerks, announced that the Speaker has
signed the following enrolled bill:

The enrolled bill was subsequently signed by President pro tempore
(Mr. Inouye).

____________________

MEASURES REFERRED

The following bill was read the first and the second times by
unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:

H.R. 1002. An act to restrict any State or local
jurisdiction from imposing a new discriminatory tax on cell
phone services, providers, or property; to the Committee on
Finance.

The following concurrent resolution was read, and referred as
indicated:

____________________

MEASURES PLACED ON THE CALENDAR

The following bill was read the first and second times by unanimous
consent, and ordered placed on the calendar:

S. 1786. A bill to facilitate job creation by reducing
regulatory uncertainty, providing for rational evaluation of
regulations, providing flexibilities to States and
localities, providing for infrastructure spending, and for
other purposes.

____________________

EXECUTIVE AND OTHER COMMUNICATIONS

The following communications were laid before the Senate, together
with accompanying papers, reports, and documents, and were referred as
indicated:

EC-3720. A communication from the Chief of the Publications
and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, Department
of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Salvage Discount Factors for 2011'' (Rev.
Proc. 2011-54) received during adjournment of the Senate in
the Office of the President of the Senate on October 27,
2011; to the Committee on Finance.
EC-3721. A communication from the Chief of the Publications
and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, Department
of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Unpaid Loss Discount Factors for 2011''
(Rev. Proc. 2011-53) received during adjournment of the
Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on
October 27, 2011; to the Committee on Finance.
EC-3722. A communication from the Chief of the Publications
and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, Department
of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``2012 Cost-of-Living Adjustments to the
International Revenue Code Tax Tables and Certain Other Tax
Items'' (Rev. Proc. 2011-52) received during adjournment of
the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on
October 27, 2011; to the Committee on Finance.
EC-3723. A communication from the Chief of the Publications
and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, Department
of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Eligibility for Exemption from User Fee
Requirement for Employee Plans Determination Letter
Applications Filed After January 31, 2011'' (Notice 2011-86)
received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of
the President of the Senate on October 27, 2011; to the
Committee on Finance.
EC-3724. A communication from the Chief of the Publications
and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, Department
of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Guidance Regarding the Treatment of Stock
of a Controlled Corporation under Section 355(a)(3)(B)''
((RIN1545-BH49)(TD 9548)) received during adjournment of the
Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on
October 27, 2011; to the Committee on Finance.
EC-3725. A communication from the Chief of the Publications
and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, Department
of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Applicable Federal Rates--November 2011''
(Rev. Rul. 2011-25) received during adjournment of the Senate
in the Office of the President of the Senate on October 27,
2011; to the Committee on Finance.
EC-3726. A communication from the Chief of the Publications
and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, Department
of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Deduction for Qualified Film and Television
Production Costs'' ((RIN1545-BJ24)(TD 9552)) received during
adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of
the Senate on October 27, 2011; to the Committee on Finance.
EC-3727. A communication from the Chief of the Publications
and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, Department
of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Disregarded Entities; Excise Taxes and
Employment Taxes'' ((RIN1545-BH90)(TD 9553)) received during
adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of
the Senate on October 27, 2011; to the Committee on Finance.

[[Page 16550]]

EC-3728. A communication from the Assistant Secretary,
Office of Legislative Affairs, Department of State,
transmitting, pursuant to law, certification for the export
of firearms, to include technical data, and defense services
to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs in the
amount of $1,000,000 or more; to the Committee on Foreign
Relations.
EC-3729. A communication from the Assistant Secretary,
Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of State,
transmitting, pursuant to the Arms Export Control Act, the
certification of a proposed manufacturing license agreement
to include the export of defense articles, including,
technical data, and defense services to the United Kingdom
for the manufacture of an integrated network to be used for
command and control functionality to support military and
civil defense applications for chemical, biological,
explosive, and radiological detection equipment; to the
Committee on Foreign Relations.
EC-3730. A communication from the Assistant Secretary,
Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of State,
transmitting, pursuant to the Arms Export Control Act, the
certification of a proposed technical assistance agreement to
include the export of defense articles, including, technical
data, and defense services to Australia to support the
manufacture and transfer of the Optus-10 Commercial
Communication Satellite in the amount of $50,000,000 or more;
to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
EC-3731. A communication from the Assistant Secretary,
Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of State,
transmitting, pursuant to the Arms Export Control Act, the
certification of a proposed technical assistance agreement to
include the export of defense articles, including, technical
data, and defense services to support the Configuration 3
Upgrade and Refurbishment of the Patriot Missile Air Defense
Systems and Radar for end-use by the Royal Saudi Air Defense
Force in the amount of $50,000,000 or more; to the Committee
on Foreign Relations.
EC-3732. A communication from the Assistant Secretary,
Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of State,
transmitting, pursuant to the Arms Export Control Act, the
certification of a proposed amendment to a technical
assistance license agreement to include the export of defense
articles, including, technical data, and defense services to
Singapore to support the integration of Satellite
Communication (SATCOM) radios and Helicopter Integrated
Electronic Warfare System (HIEWS) equipment for the upgrade
of AH-64D Apache helicopters in the amount of $50,000,000 or
more; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
EC-3733. A communication from the Assistant Secretary,
Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of State,
transmitting, pursuant to the Arms Export Control Act, the
certification of a proposed technical assistance agreement to
include the export of defense articles, including, technical
data, and defense services to the Republic of Colombia for
the repair, modernization, standardization, follow-on support
and performance upgrade of UH-60A helicopters in the amount
of $50,000,000 or more; to the Committee on Foreign
Relations.
EC-3734. A communication from the Assistant Secretary,
Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of State,
transmitting, pursuant to the Arms Export Control Act, the
certification of a proposed amendment to a technical
assistance agreement to include the export of defense
articles, including, technical data, and defense services to
the United Kingdom relating to the Fine Track System Kits in
the amount of $100,000,000 or more; to the Committee on
Foreign Relations.
EC-3735. A communication from the Assistant Secretary,
Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of State,
transmitting, pursuant to the Arms Export Control Act, the
certification of a proposed amendment to a manufacturing
license agreement to include the export of defense articles,
including, technical data, and defense services for the
manufacture and sales of Distraction Chaff Rounds in the
amount of $13,200,000 or more; to the Committee on Foreign
Relations.
EC-3736. A communication from the Assistant Secretary,
Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of State,
transmitting, pursuant to the Arms Export Control Act, the
proposed removal from the U.S. Munitions List of all chemical
toilets and their related components; to the Committee on
Foreign Relations.
EC-3737. A communication from the Assistant Legal Adviser
for Treaty Affairs, Department of State, transmitting,
pursuant to the Case-Zablocki Act, 1 U.S.C. 112b, as amended,
the report of the texts and background statements of
international agreements, other than treaties (List 2011-
0161--2011-0166); to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
EC-3738. A communication from the Chair of the U.S.
Preventive Services Task Force, transmitting, pursuant to
law, a report entitled ``First Annual Report to Congress on
High-Priority Evidence Gaps for Clinical Preventive
Services''; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
EC-3739. A communication from the Chair of the Community
Preventive Services Task Force, transmitting, pursuant to
law, the Task Force's first Annual Report to Congress; to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
EC-3740. A communication from the Director, Office of
Labor-Management Standards, Department of Labor,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Labor Organization Officer and Employee Reports; Final
Rule'' (RIN1215-AB74 and RIN1245-AA01) received during
adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of
the Senate on October 28, 2011; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
EC-3741. A communication from the Secretary of Health and
Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a petition to add workers from the Piqua Organic Moderated
Reactor in Piqua, Ohio, to the Special Exposure Cohort; to
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
EC-3742. A communication from the Secretary of Health and
Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a petition to add workers from the Norton Company in
Worcester, Massachusetts, to the Special Exposure Cohort; to
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
EC-3743. A communication from the Assistant Secretary,
Employee Benefits Security Administration, Department of
Labor, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule
entitled ``Investment Advice--Participants and
Beneficiaries'' (RIN1210-AB35) received during recess of the
Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on
October 25, 2011; to the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions.
EC-3744. A communication from the Deputy Administrator,
Wage and Hour Division, Department of Labor, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Nondisplacement of Qualified Workers Under Service
Contracts'' (RIN1215-AB69; RIN1235-AA02) received during
recess of the Senate in the Office of the President of the
Senate on October 25, 2011; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
EC-3745. A communication from the Special Master, Civil
Division, Department of Justice, transmitting, pursuant to
law, the report of a rule entitled ``James Zadroga 9/11
Health and Compensation Act of 2010; Final Rule; Correction''
(RIN1105-AB39) received in the Office of the President of the
Senate on October 20, 2011; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
EC-3746. A communication from the Section Chief of the
Division of Individual Exemptions, Employee Benefits Security
Administration, Department of Labor, transmitting, pursuant
to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Prohibited
Transaction Exemption Procedures; Employee Benefit Plans''
(RIN1210-AB49) received during adjournment of the Senate in
the Office of the President of the Senate on October 27,
2011; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
EC-3747. A communication from the Archivist of the United
States, National Archives and Records Administration,
transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to the
Administration's Fiscal Year 2011 Commercial Activities
Inventory and Inherently Governmental Inventory; to the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
EC-3748. A communication from the Chief of the Trade and
Commercial Regulations Branch, Customs and Border Protection,
Department of Homeland Security, transmitting, pursuant to
law, the report of a rule entitled ``CBP Audit Procedures;
Use of Sampling Methods and Offsetting of Overpayments and
Over-Declarations'' (RIN1515-AD65) received in the Office of
the President of the Senate on October 19, 2011; to the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
EC-3749. A communication from the Chairman of the Council
of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a
report on D.C. Act 19-198 ``New Issue Bond Program Tax
Exemption Amendment Act of 2011''; to the Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
EC-3750. A communication from the Chairman of the Council
of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a
report on D.C. Act 19-199 ``The Park at LeDroit Designation
Act of 2011''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs.
EC-3751. A communication from the Chairman of the Council
of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a
report on D.C. Act 19-200 ``Closing of a Portion of a Public
Alley in Square 1027, S.O. 06-5762, Act of 2011''; to the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
EC-3752. A communication from the Chairman of the Council
of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a
report on D.C. Act 19-201 ``Health Benefits Plan Grievance
Temporary Amendment Act of 2011''; to the Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
EC-3753. A communication from the Chairman of the Council
of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a
report on D.C. Act 19-202 ``Child Abuse and Treatment
Temporary Amendment Act of 2011''; to the Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
EC-3754. A communication from the Chairman of the Council
of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a
report

[[Page 16551]]

on D.C. Act 19-203 ``Residential Parking Protection Pilot
Temporary Amendment Act of 2011''; to the Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
EC-3755. A communication from the Chairman of the Council
of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a
report on D.C. Act 19-212 ``Public Sector Workers'
Compensation Return to Work Clarifying Temporary Amendment
Act of 2011''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs.
EC-3756. A communication from the Chairman of the Council
of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a
report on D.C. Act 19-209 ``Rita B. Bright Family and Youth
Center Designation Act of 2011''; to the Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
EC-3757. A communication from the Chairman of the Council
of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a
report on D.C. Act 19-210 ``Closing of a Portion of the
Public Alley in Square 2905, S.O. 11-4751, Act of 2011''; to
the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
EC-3758. A communication from the Chairman of the Council
of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a
report on D.C. Act 19-211 ``Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive
Designation Act of 2011''; to the Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs.
EC-3759. A communication from the Chairman of the Council
of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a
report on D.C. Act 19-213 ``Public Space Permit Fee Waiver
Temporary Amendment Act of 2011''; to the Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
EC-3760. A communication from the Chairman of the Council
of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a
report on D.C. Act 19-214 ``Green Building Technical
Corrections Temporary Amendment Act of 2011''; to the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
EC-3761. A communication from the Chairman of the Council
of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a
report on D.C. Act 19-215 ``Meridian Public Charter School-
Harrison Campus Property Tax Exemption Temporary Amendment
Act of 2011''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs.
EC-3762. A communication from the Chairman of the Board of
Governors, Federal Reserve System, transmitting, pursuant to
law, the Inspector General's Semiannual Report for the six-
month period from April 1, 2011 through September 30, 2011;
to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs.
EC-3763. A communication from the Chief Acquisition
Officer, Office of Acquisition Policy, General Services
Administration, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Federal Acquisition Regulation; Preventing
Personal Conflicts of Interest for Contractor Employees
Performing Acquisition Functions'' ((RIN9000-AL46)(FAC 2005-
54)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on
October 31, 2011; to the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs.
EC-3764. A communication from the Chief Acquisition
Officer, Office of Acquisition Policy, General Services
Administration, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Federal Acquisition Regulation; Successor
Entities to the Netherlands Antilles'' ((RIN9000-AM11)(FAC
2005-54)) received in the Office of the President of the
Senate on October 31, 2011; to the Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs.
EC-3765. A communication from the Chief Acquisition
Officer, Office of Acquisition Policy, General Services
Administration, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Federal Acquisition Regulation; Labor
Relations Costs'' ((RIN9000-AL39)(FAC 2005-54)) received in
the Office of the President of the Senate on October 31,
2011; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs.
EC-3766. A communication from the Chief Acquisition
Officer, Office of Acquisition Policy, General Services
Administration, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Federal Acquisition Regulation; Technical
Amendments'' (FAC 2005-54) received in the Office of the
President of the Senate on October 31, 2011; to the Committee
on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
EC-3767. A communication from the Chief Acquisition
Officer, Office of Acquisition Policy, General Services
Administration, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Federal Acquisition Regulation; Small
Entity Compliance Guide'' (FAC 2005-54) received in the
Office of the President of the Senate on October 31, 2011; to
the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
EC-3768. A communication from the Chief Acquisition
Officer, Office of Acquisition Policy, General Services
Administration, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Federal Acquisition Regulation; Federal
Acquisition Circular 2005-54; Introduction'' (FAC 2005-54)
received in the Office of the President of the Senate on
October 31, 2011; to the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs.
EC-3769. A communication from the Chief Acquisition
Officer, Office of Acquisition Policy, General Services
Administration, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Federal Acquisition Regulation;
Notification of Employee Rights Under the National Labor
Relations Act'' ((RIN9000-AL76)(FAC 2005-54)) received in the
Office of the President of the Senate on October 31, 2011; to
the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
EC-3770. A communication from the Chief Acquisition
Officer, Office of Acquisition Policy, General Services
Administration, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Federal Acquisition Regulation;
Certification Requirement and Procurement Prohibition
Relating to Iran Sanctions'' ((RIN9000-AL71)(FAC 2005-54))
received in the Office of the President of the Senate on
October 31, 2011; to the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs.
EC-3771. A communication from the Chief Acquisition
Officer, Office of Acquisition Policy, General Services
Administration, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Federal Acquisition Regulation; Small
Disadvantaged Business Self-Certification'' ((RIN9000-
AL77)(FAC 2005-54)) received in the Office of the President
of the Senate on October 31, 2011; to the Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
EC-3772. A communication from the Chief Acquisition
Officer, Office of Acquisition Policy, General Services
Administration, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Federal Acquisition Regulation; Sudan
Waiver Process'' ((RIN9000-AL65)(FAC 2005-54)) received in
the Office of the President of the Senate on October 31,
2011; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs.
EC-3773. A communication from the Chief Acquisition
Officer, Office of Acquisition Policy, General Services
Administration, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Federal Acquisition Regulation; Set-Asides
for Small Business'' ((RIN9000-AM12)(FAC 2005-54)) received
in the Office of the President of the Senate on October 31,
2011; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs.
EC-3774. A communication from the Chief Acquisition
Officer, Office of Acquisition Policy, General Services
Administration, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Federal Acquisition Regulation;
Representation Regarding Export of Sensitive Technology to
Iran'' ((RIN9000-AL91)(FAC 2005-54)) received in the Office
of the President of the Senate on October 31, 2011; to the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

____________________

EXECUTIVE REPORTS OF COMMITTEE

The following executive reports of nominations were submitted:

By Mr. ROCKEFELLER for the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
Michael A. Khouri, of Kentucky, to be a Federal Maritime
Commissioner for a term expiring June 30, 2016.
*Albert DiClemente, of Delaware, to be a Director of the
Amtrak Board of Directors for a term of five years.
*Robert L. Sumwalt III, of South Carolina, to be a Member
of the National Transportation Safety Board for a term
expiring December 31, 2016.
*Coast Guard nomination of Capt. Kurt B. Hinrichs, to be
Rear Admiral (Lower Half).
*Coast Guard nominations beginning with Captain Mark E.
Butt and ending with Captain Joseph A. Servidio, which
nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the
Congressional Record on September 15, 2011.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, for the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation I report favorably the following nomination
lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask
unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive
Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the
information of Senators.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

*Coast Guard nomination of Gregory L. Parsons, to be
Lieutenant Commander.
*Coast Guard nominations beginning with Michael B. Bee and
ending with James W. Whitley, which nominations were received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on
October 11, 2011.
*Coast Guard nominations beginning with Paul Albertson and
ending with Michael L. Woolard, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record on October 11, 2011.
*Coast Guard nominations beginning with Ricardo M. Alonso
and ending with Torrence B. Wilson, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record on October 11, 2011.
*Coast Guard nomination of Kenneth W. Megan, to be Captain.

[[Page 16552]]

*Coast Guard nomination of Jennifer A. Ketchum, to be
Commander.
*Coast Guard nominations beginning with Alonzo D. Alday and
ending with Peter J. Zauner, which nominations were received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on
October 31, 2011.

*Nomination was reported with recommendation that it be confirmed
subject to the nominee's commitment to respond to requests to appear
and testify before any duly constituted committee of the Senate.

____________________

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

The following bills and joint resolutions were introduced, read the
first and second times by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:

By Mr. MERKLEY (for himself, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Barrasso,
Mr. Schumer, Mr. Levin, and Ms. Snowe):
S. 1779. A bill to require the United States Trade
Representative to notify the World Trade Organization if any
member of the World Trade Organization fails during 2
consecutive years to disclose subsidies under the Agreement
on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. HELLER:
S. 1780. A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to
consolidate the reporting obligations of the Federal
Communications Commission in order to improve congressional
oversight and reduce reporting burdens; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Ms. Collins):
S. 1781. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to exclude from gross income amounts received on account of
claims based on certain unlawful discrimination and to allow
income averaging for backpay and frontpay awards received on
account of such claims, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Finance.
By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Mr. Kerry, Mr.
Menendez, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Franken, and
Mr. Durbin):
S. 1782. A bill to provide for the reduction in unintended
pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, including HIV,
and the promotion of healthy relationships, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
By Ms. LANDRIEU (for herself and Mr. Vitter):
S. 1783. A bill to amend title 46, United States Code, to
require the Maritime Administrator, in making determinations
regarding the non-availability of qualified United States
flag capacity to meet national defense requirements, to
identify any actions that could be taken to enable such
capacity to meet some or all of those requirements, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
By Mr. HELLER:
S. 1784. A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to
provide for greater transparency and efficiency in the
procedures followed by the Federal Communications Commission;
to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
By Mr. BLUMENTHAL:
S. 1785. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to provide work opportunity tax credits for the hiring of
long-term unemployed workers; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. HATCH:
S. 1786. A bill to facilitate job creation by reducing
regulatory uncertainty, providing for rational evaluation of
regulations, providing flexibilities to States and
localities, providing for infrastructure spending, and for
other purposes; placed on the calendar.
By Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mr. Sanders, and Mr. Brown
of Ohio):
S. 1787. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to impose a tax on certain trading transactions; to the
Committee on Finance.
By Mr. REID (for himself and Mr. Heller):
S. 1788. A bill to designate the Pine Forest Range
Wilderness area in Humboldt County, Nevada; to the Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources.
By Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself, Ms. Collins, Mr. Carper,
and Mr. Brown of Massachusetts):
S. 1789. A bill to improve, sustain, and transform the
United States Postal Service; to the Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs.
By Ms. AYOTTE (for herself and Mr. McCain):
S. 1790. A bill to modify the Financial Improvement and
Audit Readiness Plan to provide that the full statement of
budget resources of the Department of Defense is complete and
validated by not later than September 30, 2014; to the
Committee on Armed Services.
By Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts:
S. 1791. A bill to amend the securities laws to provide for
registration exemptions for certain crowdfunded securities,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing,
and Urban Affairs.
By Mr. WHITEHOUSE:
S. 1792. A bill to clarify the authority of the United
States Marshals Service to assist other Federal, State, and
local law enforcement agencies in the investigation of cases
involving sex offenders and missing children; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. WHITEHOUSE:
S. 1793. A bill to amend title 28, United States Code, to
clarify the statutory authority for the longstanding practice
of the Department of Justice of providing investigatory
assistance on request of State and local authorities with
respect to certain serious violent crimes, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. BLUMENTHAL:
S. 1794. A bill to correct and simplify the drafting of
section 1752 (relating to restricted buildings or grounds) of
title 18, United States Code; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.

____________________

SUBMISSION OF CONCURRENT AND SENATE RESOLUTIONS

The following concurrent resolutions and Senate resolutions were
read, and referred (or acted upon), as indicated:

By Mr. WYDEN (for himself, Ms. Ayotte, Mrs. Shaheen,
Mr. Begich, Mr. Merkley, and Mr. Heller):
S. Res. 309. A resolution supporting the preservation of
Internet entrepreneurs and small businesses; to the Committee
on Finance.

____________________

ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS

S. 296

At the request of Ms. Klobuchar, the name of the Senator from Oregon
(Mr. Merkley) was added as a cosponsor of S. 296, a bill to amend the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to provide the Food and Drug
Administration with improved capacity to prevent drug shortages.

S. 431

At the request of Mr. Pryor, the name of the Senator from Tennessee
(Mr. Alexander) was added as a cosponsor of S. 431, a bill to require
the Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins in commemoration of the
225th anniversary of the establishment of the Nation's first Federal
law enforcement agency, the United States Marshals Service.

S. 543

At the request of Mr. Wyden, the names of the Senator from Florida
(Mr. Rubio) and the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Heller) were added as
cosponsors of S. 543, a bill to restrict any State or local
jurisdiction from imposing a new discriminatory tax on cell phone
services, providers, or property.

S. 604

At the request of Mr. Wyden, the name of the Senator from Oregon (Mr.
Merkley) was added as a cosponsor of S. 604, a bill to amend title
XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for the coverage of
marriage and family therapist services and mental health counselor
services under part B of the Medicare program, and for other purposes.

S. 687

At the request of Mr. Cornyn, the name of the Senator from Georgia
(Mr. Isakson) was added as a cosponsor of S. 687, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently extend the 15-year
recovery period for qualified leasehold improvement property, qualified
restaurant property, and qualified retail improvement property.

S. 720

At the request of Mr. Thune, the names of the Senator from Illinois
(Mr. Kirk) and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Portman) were added as
cosponsors of S. 720, a bill to repeal the CLASS program.

S. 738

At the request of Ms. Stabenow, the name of the Senator from Oregon
(Mr. Merkley) was added as a cosponsor of S. 738, a bill to amend title
XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for Medicare coverage of
comprehensive Alzheimer's disease and related dementia diagnosis and
services in order to improve care and outcomes for Americans living
with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias by improving detection,
diagnosis, and care planning.

S. 968

At the request of Mr. Leahy, the names of the Senator from Georgia

[[Page 16553]]

(Mr. Isakson) and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss) were added
as cosponsors of S. 968, a bill to prevent online threats to economic
creativity and theft of intellectual property, and for other purposes.

S. 1106

At the request of Mr. Kohl, the name of the Senator from New York
(Mrs. Gillibrand) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1106, a bill to
authorize Department of Defense support for programs on pro bono legal
assistance for members of the Armed Forces.

S. 1181

At the request of Mr. Grassley, the name of the Senator from Ohio
(Mr. Brown) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1181, a bill to require the
Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins in commemoration of the
National Future Farmers of America Organization and the 85th
anniversary of the founding of the National Future Farmers of America
Organization.

S. 1301

At the request of Mr. Leahy, the name of the Senator from Montana
(Mr. Tester) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1301, a bill to authorize
appropriations for fiscal years 2012 to 2015 for the Trafficking
Victims Protection Act of 2000, to enhance measures to combat
trafficking in person, and for other purposes.

S. 1335

At the request of Mr. Inhofe, the name of the Senator from Oregon
(Mr. Merkley) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1335, a bill to amend
title 49, United States Code, to provide rights for pilots, and for
other purposes.

S. 1392

At the request of Ms. Collins, the name of the Senator from Indiana
(Mr. Coats) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1392, a bill to provide
additional time for the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency to issue achievable standards for industrial, commercial, and
institutional boilers, process heaters, and incinerators, and for other
purposes.

S. 1440

At the request of Mr. Bennet, the name of the Senator from Hawaii
(Mr. Inouye) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1440, a bill to reduce
preterm labor and delivery and the risk of pregnancy-related deaths and
complications due to pregnancy, and to reduce infant mortality caused
by prematurity.

S. 1460

At the request of Mr. Baucus, the name of the Senator from Oregon
(Mr. Wyden) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1460, a bill to grant the
congressional gold medal, collectively, to the First Special Service
Force, in recognition of its superior service during World War II.

S. 1527

At the request of Mrs. Hagan, the names of the Senator from Nevada
(Mr. Heller) and the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg) were
added as cosponsors of S. 1527, a bill to authorize the award of a
Congressional gold medal to the Montford Point Marines of World War II.

S. 1539

At the request of Mr. Cornyn, the name of the Senator from North
Carolina (Mr. Burr) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1539, a bill to
provide Taiwan with critically needed United States-built multirole
fighter aircraft to strengthen its self-defense capability against the
increasing military threat from China.

S. 1571

At the request of Mr. Isakson, the names of the Senator from Idaho
(Mr. Crapo) and the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven) were added
as cosponsors of S. 1571, a bill to amend title I of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965, and for other purposes.

S. 1575

At the request of Mr. Cardin, the name of the Senator from Minnesota
(Mr. Franken) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1575, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the depreciation recovery
period for energy-efficient cool roof systems.

S. 1616

At the request of Mr. Enzi, the name of the Senator from Kansas (Mr.
Roberts) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1616, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exempt certain stock of real estate
investment trusts from the tax on foreign investments in United States
real property interests, and for other purposes.

S. 1651

At the request of Mr. Sessions, the names of the Senator from Utah
(Mr. Lee) and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul) were added as
cosponsors of S. 1651, a bill to provide for greater transparency and
honesty in the Federal budget process.

S. 1704

At the request of Ms. Ayotte, the names of the Senator from Arizona
(Mr. McCain) and the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) were added as
cosponsors of S. 1704, a bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to
modify certain authorities relating to the strategic airlift aircraft
force structure of the Air Force.

S. 1707

At the request of Mr. Burr, the name of the Senator from Montana (Mr.
Tester) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1707, a bill to amend title 38,
United States Code, to clarify the conditions under which certain
persons may be treated as adjudicated mentally incompetent for certain
purposes.

S. 1731

At the request of Mr. Grassley, the name of the Senator from Michigan
(Mr. Levin) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1731, a bill to improve the
prohibitions on money laundering, and for other purposes.

S. 1762

At the request of Mr. Brown of Massachusetts, the names of the
Senator from New Hampshire (Ms. Ayotte), the Senator from Wyoming (Mr.
Barrasso), the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the Senator from
Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the
Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Johanns), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch)
and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr) were added as cosponsors
of S. 1762, a bill to repeal the imposition of withholding on certain
payments made to vendors by government entities and to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the calculation of modified
adjusted gross income for purposes of determining eligibility for
certain healthcare-related programs.

S. 1769

At the request of Mr. Leahy, his name was added as a cosponsor of S.
1769, a bill to put workers back on the job while rebuilding and
modernizing America.
At the request of Mr. Rockefeller, his name was added as a cosponsor
of S. 1769, supra.

____________________

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. REID (for himself and Mr. Heller):
S. 1788. A bill to designate the Pine/Forest Range Wilderness area in
Humboldt County, Nevada; to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Pine Forest
Recreation Enhancement Act of 2011.
The entire Nevada congressional delegation has joined together in
support of this important legislation for northern Nevada. The Pine
Forest Recreation Enhancement Act would designate 26,000 acres of
public lands within the Blue Lakes and Alder Creek Wilderness Study
Areas, WSAs, as the Pine Forest Range Wilderness Area while releasing
1,1500 acres of existing WSA lands. The bill also directs the Bureau of
Land Management, BLM, to exchange federal lands nearby ranches in
Humboldt County for private parcels within the existing WSAs. These
exchanges will allow the BLM to more effectively manage the wilderness
area and increase the economic opportunities for the adjacent ranches
by providing land for agricultural uses.
This bill is the product of a comprehensive local process that took
into consideration the concerns of local landowners, sportsmen,
conservationists, and other interested parties in Humboldt County. This
diverse group

[[Page 16554]]

of stakeholders came together to develop this compromise proposal
through a series of public meetings and field trips. This process was
so successful that, for the first time that I can remember, a
wilderness proposal was presented to our delegation with almost
unanimous support and the Nevada State Legislature passed a joint
resolution endorsing the work of the County commission and the Pine
Forest Working Group.
Beyond the widespread state and local support, there is no question
that the pristine natural lands and wildlife habitat in the Blue Lakes
and Alder Creek WSA should receive the strongest level of protection we
can provide for public lands. Rising from the confluence of the Great
Basin and Owyhee deserts, the Pine Forest Range boasts high alpine
lakes surrounded by granite spires that are home to a variety of large
trout including our Lahontan Cutthroat trout that is native only to
Nevada. The thick forests of aspen and pine that blanket these
mountains provide a stronghold for mule deer, pronghorn, and bighorn
sheep. The area is also well known by sportsmen across the west for its
world class chukar hunting; a favorite fall pastime for many Nevadans.
Protecting these untouched natural lands in Nevada is important to me
and to the people of Humboldt County. I want to thank each member of
the Humboldt County Commission, Garley Amos, Mike Bell, Tom Fransway,
Dan Cassinelli, and Jim French as well as Bill Deese for their work to
bring this legislation to fruition. I would also like to express my
gratitude to Jim Jeffress from Trout Unlimited, Shaaron Netherton from
the Friends of Nevada Wilderness, and the other members of the Pine
Forest Range working group for their tireless efforts that have been
universally recognized as the gold standard for developing wilderness
proposals.
I look forward to working with Chairman Bingaman, Ranking Member
Murkowski and the other distinguished members of the Senate Energy
Committee to move this legislation forward in the near future.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 1788

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Pine
Forest Range Recreation Enhancement Act of 2011''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings.
Sec. 3. Definitions.
Sec. 4. Addition to national wilderness preservation system.
Sec. 5. Administration.
Sec. 6. Adjacent management.
Sec. 7. Military overflights.
Sec. 8. Native American cultural and religious uses.
Sec. 9. Release of wilderness study areas.
Sec. 10. Wildlife management.
Sec. 11. Wildfire, insect, and disease management.
Sec. 12. Climatological data collection.
Sec. 13. Land exchanges.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds that--
(1) public land in the Pine Forest Range contains unique
and spectacular natural resources, including--
(A) priceless habitat for numerous species of plants and
wildlife; and
(B) thousands of acres of land that remain in a natural
state;
(2) continued preservation of the public land would benefit
the County and the United States by--
(A) ensuring the conservation of ecologically diverse
habitat;
(B) protecting prehistoric cultural resources;
(C) conserving primitive recreational resources; and
(D) protecting air and water quality; and
(3) designation of the Pine Forest Range as a wilderness
area is supported by the State, units of local governments,
and the surrounding communities.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) County.--The term ``County'' means Humboldt County,
Nevada.
(2) Map.--The term ``Map'' means the map entitled
``Proposed Pine Forest Wilderness Area'' and dated May 4,
2011.
(3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(4) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of Nevada.

SEC. 4. ADDITION TO NATIONAL WILDERNESS PRESERVATION SYSTEM.

(a) Designation.--Certain Federal land managed by the
Bureau of Land Management, comprising approximately 26,000
acres, as generally depicted on the Map is designated as
wilderness and as a component of the National Wilderness
Preservation System, to be known as the ``Pine Forest Range
Wilderness''.
(b) Boundary.--
(1) Road access.--The boundary of any portion of the
wilderness area designated by subsection (a) that is bordered
by a road shall be at least 100 feet away from the edge of
the road to allow public access.
(2) Road adjustments.--The Secretary shall--
(A) reroute the road running through Long Meadow to the
west to remove the road from the riparian area;
(B) reroute the road currently running through Rodeo Flat
Meadow to the east to remove the road from the riparian area;
and
(C) close, except for administrative use, the road along
Lower Alder Creek south of Bureau of Land Management road
#2083.
(3) Reservoir access.--The boundary of the wilderness area
designated by subsection (a) shall be at least 160 feet
downstream from the dam at Little Onion Reservoir to allow
public access.
(c) Map and Legal Description.--
(1) In general.--As soon as practicable after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall file a map and
legal description of the wilderness area designated by
subsection (a) with--
(A) the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of
Representatives; and
(B) the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the
Senate.
(2) Effect.--The map and legal description filed under
paragraph (1) shall have the same force and effect as if
included in this Act, except that the Secretary may correct
clerical and typographical errors in the map or legal
description.
(3) Availability.--Each map and legal description filed
under paragraph (1) shall be on file and available for public
inspection in the appropriate offices of the Bureau of Land
Management.
(d) Withdrawal.--Subject to valid existing rights, the
wilderness area designated by subsection (a) is withdrawn
from--
(1) all forms of entry, appropriation, and disposal under
the public land laws;
(2) location, entry, and patent under the mining laws; and
(3) disposition under all laws pertaining to mineral and
geothermal leasing or mineral materials.

SEC. 5. ADMINISTRATION.

(a) Management.--Subject to valid existing rights, the land
designated as wilderness by this Act shall be administered by
the Secretary in accordance with the Wilderness Act (16
U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), except that--
(1) any reference in that Act to the effective date of that
Act shall be considered to be a reference to the date of
enactment of this Act; and
(2) any reference in that Act to the Secretary of
Agriculture shall be considered to be a reference to the
Secretary.
(b) Livestock.--Within the wilderness area designated by
this Act, the grazing of livestock in areas administered by
the Bureau of Land Management in which grazing is established
as of the date of enactment of this Act shall be allowed to
continue--
(1) subject to such reasonable regulations, policies, and
practices as the Secretary considers to be necessary; and
(2) consistent with section 4(d)(4) of the Wilderness Act
(16 U.S.C. 1133(d)(4)), including the guidelines set forth in
Appendix A of House Report 101-405.
(c) Incorporation of Acquired Land and Interests.--Any land
or interest in land within the boundaries of the area
designated as wilderness by this Act that is acquired by the
United States after the date of enactment of this Act shall
be added to and administered as part of the wilderness area.
(d) Water Rights.--
(1) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(A) the land designated as wilderness by this Act is
located--
(i) in the semiarid region of the Great Basin; and
(ii) at the headwaters of the streams and rivers on land
with respect to which there are few, if any--

(I) actual or proposed water resource facilities located
upstream; and
(II) opportunities for diversion, storage, or other uses of
water occurring outside the land that would adversely affect
the wilderness values of the land;

(B) the land designated as wilderness by this Act is
generally not suitable for use or development of new water
resource facilities; and
(C) because of the unique nature of the land designated as
wilderness by this Act, it is possible to provide for proper
management and protection of the wilderness and other values
of land in ways different from those used in other laws.
(2) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to protect the
wilderness values of the

[[Page 16555]]

land designated as wilderness by this Act by means other than
a federally reserved water right.
(3) Statutory construction.--Nothing in this Act--
(A) constitutes an express or implied reservation by the
United States of any water or water rights with respect to a
wilderness designated by this Act;
(B) affects any water rights in the State (including any
water rights held by the United States) in existence on the
date of enactment of this Act;
(C) establishes a precedent with regard to any future
wilderness designations;
(D) affects the interpretation of, or any designation made
under, any other Act; or
(E) limits, alters, modifies, or amends any interstate
compact or equitable apportionment decree that apportions
water among and between the State and other States.
(4) Nevada water law.--The Secretary shall follow the
procedural and substantive requirements of State law in order
to obtain and hold any water rights not in existence on the
date of enactment of this Act with respect to the wilderness
area designated by this Act.
(5) New projects.--
(A) Definition of water resource facility.--
(i) In general.--In this paragraph, the term ``water
resource facility'' means irrigation and pumping facilities,
reservoirs, water conservation works, aqueducts, canals,
ditches, pipelines, wells, hydropower projects, transmission
and other ancillary facilities, and other water diversion,
storage, and carriage structures.
(ii) Exclusion.--In this paragraph, the term ``water
resource facility'' does not include wildlife guzzlers.
(B) Restriction on new water resource facilities.--Except
as otherwise provided in this Act, on or after the date of
enactment of this Act, neither the President nor any other
officer, employee, or agent of the United States shall fund,
assist, authorize, or issue a license or permit for the
development of any new water resource facility within a
wilderness area, any portion of which is located in the
County.

SEC. 6. ADJACENT MANAGEMENT.

(a) In General.--Congress does not intend for the
designation of land as wilderness by this Act to create a
protective perimeter or buffer zone around the wilderness
area.
(b) Nonwilderness Activities.--The fact that nonwilderness
activities or uses can be seen or heard from areas within the
wilderness designated by this Act shall not preclude the
conduct of the activities or uses outside the boundary of the
wilderness area.

SEC. 7. MILITARY OVERFLIGHTS.

Nothing in this Act restricts or precludes--
(1) low-level overflights of military aircraft over the
area designated as wilderness by this Act, including military
overflights that can be seen or heard within the wilderness
area;
(2) flight testing and evaluation; or
(3) the designation or creation of new units of special use
airspace, or the establishment of military flight training
routes, over the wilderness area.

SEC. 8. NATIVE AMERICAN CULTURAL AND RELIGIOUS USES.

Nothing in this Act diminishes--
(1) the rights of any Indian tribe; or
(2) tribal rights regarding access to Federal land for
tribal activities, including spiritual, cultural, and
traditional food-gathering activities.

SEC. 9. RELEASE OF WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS.

(a) Finding.--Congress finds that, for the purposes of
section 603 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of
1976 (43 U.S.C. 1782), the Bureau of Land Management land in
any portion of the Blue Lakes and Alder Creek wilderness
study areas not designated as wilderness by section 4(a) has
been adequately studied for wilderness designation.
(b) Release.--Any public land described in subsection (a)
that is not designated as wilderness by this Act--
(1) is no longer subject to section 603(c) of the Federal
Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1782(c));
(2) shall be managed in accordance with--
(A) land management plans adopted under section 202 of that
Act (43 U.S.C. 1712); and
(B) cooperative conservation agreements in existence on the
date of enactment of this Act; and
(3) shall be subject to the Endangered Species Act of 1973
(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

SEC. 10. WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT.

(a) In General.--In accordance with section 4(d)(7) of the
Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1133(d)(7)), nothing in this Act
affects or diminishes the jurisdiction of the State with
respect to fish and wildlife management, including the
regulation of hunting, fishing, and trapping, in the
wilderness area designated by this Act.
(b) Management Activities.--In furtherance of the purposes
and principles of the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et
seq.), management activities to maintain or restore fish and
wildlife populations and the habitats to support the
populations may be carried out within the wilderness area
designated by this Act, if the activities are carried out--
(1) consistent with relevant wilderness management plans;
and
(2) in accordance with--
(A) the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.); and
(B) appropriate policies, such as those set forth in
Appendix B of House Report 101-405, including the occasional
and temporary use of motorized vehicles if the use, as
determined by the Secretary, would promote healthy, viable,
and more naturally distributed wildlife populations that
would enhance wilderness values with the minimal impact
necessary to reasonably accomplish those tasks.
(c) Existing Activities.--Consistent with section 4(d)(1)
of the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1133(d)(1)) and in
accordance with appropriate policies such as those set forth
in Appendix B of House Report 101-405, the State may continue
to use aircraft, including helicopters, to survey, capture,
transplant, monitor, and provide water for wildlife
populations.
(d) Wildlife Water Development Projects.--Subject to
subsection (f), the Secretary shall authorize structures and
facilities, including existing structures and facilities, for
wildlife water development projects, including guzzlers, in
the wilderness areas designated by section 4(a) if--
(1) the structures and facilities will, as determined by
the Secretary, enhance wilderness values by promoting
healthy, viable, and more naturally distributed wildlife
populations; and
(2) the visual impacts of the structures and facilities on
the wilderness areas can reasonably be minimized.
(e) Hunting, Fishing, and Trapping.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may designate, by
regulation, areas in which, and establish periods during
which, for reasons of public safety, administration, or
compliance with applicable laws, no hunting, fishing, or
trapping will be permitted in the wilderness areas designated
by section 4(a).
(2) Consultation.--Except in emergencies, the Secretary
shall consult with the appropriate State agency before
promulgating regulations under paragraph (1).
(f) Cooperative Agreement.--
(1) In general.--The State, including a designee of the
State, may conduct wildlife management activities in the
wilderness area designated by this Act--
(A) in accordance with the terms and conditions specified
in the cooperative agreement between the Secretary and the
State entitled ``Memorandum of Understanding between the
Bureau of Land Management and the Nevada Department of
Wildlife Supplement No. 9'' and signed November and December
2003, including any amendments to the cooperative agreement
agreed to by the Secretary and the State; and
(B) subject to all applicable laws (including regulations).
(2) References; clark county.--For the purposes of this
subsection, any reference to Clark County in the cooperative
agreement described in paragraph (1)(A) shall be considered
to be a reference to the Pine Forest Range Wilderness.

SEC. 11. WILDFIRE, INSECT, AND DISEASE MANAGEMENT.

(a) In General.--Consistent with section 4(d)(1) of the
Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1133(d)(1)), the Secretary may take
such measures in the wilderness designated by this Act as may
be necessary for the control of fire, insects, and diseases
(including, as the Secretary determines to be appropriate,
the coordination of the activities with a State or local
agency).
(b) Effect.--Nothing in this Act precludes a Federal,
State, or local agency from conducting wildfire management
operations (including operations using aircraft or mechanized
equipment).

SEC. 12. CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA COLLECTION.

If the Secretary determines that hydrologic, meteorologic,
or climatological collection devices are appropriate to
further the scientific, educational, and conservation
purposes of the wilderness area designated by this Act,
nothing in this Act precludes the installation and
maintenance of the collection devices within the wilderness
area.

SEC. 13. LAND EXCHANGES.

(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Federal land.--The term ``Federal land'' means Federal
land in the County that--
(A) is not segregated or withdrawn on or after the date of
enactment of this Act;
(B) is identified for disposal by the Bureau of Land
Management through the Winnemucca Resource Management Plan;
and
(C) is determined by the Bureau of Land Management to be
appropriate for exchange consistent with section 206 of the
Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C.
1716).
(2) Non-federal land.--The term ``non-Federal land'' means
land identified on the Map as ``non-Federal lands for
exchange''.
(b) Acquisition of Land and Interests in Land.--
(1) In general.--Consistent with applicable law and subject
to subsection (c), the Secretary may exchange the Federal
land for non-Federal land.
(2) Incorporation of acquired land.--Any non-Federal land
or interest in non-Federal

[[Page 16556]]

land in, or adjoining the boundary of, the Pine Forest Range
Wilderness Area that is acquired by the United States shall
be added to, and administered as part of, the Pine Forest
Range Wilderness Area.
(c) Conditions.--Each land exchange under subsection (a)
shall be subject to--
(1) the condition that the owner of the non-Federal land
pay not less than 50 percent of all costs relating to the
land exchange, including the costs of appraisals, surveys,
and any necessary environmental clearances; and
(2) such additional terms and conditions as the Secretary
may require.
(d) Deadline for Completion of Land Exchange.--It is the
intent of Congress that the land exchanges under this section
be completed by not later than 5 years after the date of
enactment of this Act.
______

By Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself, Ms. Collins, Mr. Carper, and Mr.
Brown of Massachusetts):
S. 1789. A bill to improve, sustain, and transform the United States
Postal Service; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, today Senators Collins, Carper, Scott
Brown of Massachusetts, and I are introducing bipartisan, compromise
legislation to rescue the United States Postal Service, USPS, from
financial ruin and secure its commercial health into the future.
Five years ago, Senators Collins and Carper led Congress in the
adoption of postal reform legislation. The speed of the migration to
internet communications, combined with the recent economic downturn,
means we need to revisit the Postal Service's financial viability
again. This year, Senator Brown and I joined Senators Collins and
Carper in proposing the 21st Century Postal Service Act.
The Postal Service needs a fundamental restructuring of the way it
meets its obligations to the public, to its customers--including
individual and business mailers--and to its employees. If our reform
legislation is adopted, we are confident this time USPS, which was
founded in the 18th century, will survive and flourish into the 21st.
Too many people still rely on the Postal Service for us to sit back
and allow its demise. Despite a 22 percent drop in mail volume in four
years, the Postal Service will deliver 167 billion pieces this year. It
is the second largest private sector employer in our country after Wal-
Mart and has 557,000 career employees. It has 32 thousand post offices,
which represents more domestic retail outlets than Wal-Mart, Starbucks
and McDonalds combined.
The financial health of the USPS has been deteriorating for years.
But the rapid changeover to electronic communications and the recent
economic downturn have swept it up into a financial death spiral. In
this fiscal year, 2011, the Postal Service first projected a total loss
of $8 billion. That was in July. By September, it revised its estimate
and now says it will lose $10 billion. Unless major reform is adopted,
the Postal Service will run out of money to deliver the mail sometime
next summer.
That is why we are introducing this comprehensive legislation to put
a number of cost saving measures in place. Let me summarize just a few
of the most important provisions.
Of great interest to the American public will be our provision
related to 5-day delivery. As you all know, the Postal Service has been
pushing to reduce the number of days it delivers mail each week from
six to five. USPS believes this will achieve $3 billion in savings.
Communities across the country, however, are deeply concerned about
what this would mean for people who rely on Saturday delivery for
critical medications or newspapers.
We are mindful of these concerns, so our legislation would bar the
Postal Service from moving to 5-day delivery until two years after
enactment of our bill and, in the meantime, reduce costs in other ways.
The Government Accountability Office would have to verify that
sufficient savings cannot be achieved without going to 5-day delivery.
USPS also would have to identify customers and communities that might
be disproportionately affected by 5-day delivery and develop remedies
to address their concerns.
Our bill also recognizes that the Postal Service must continue to
decrease the number of its employees. Thus, we authorize USPS to offer
buyouts to help it transition to a smaller workforce. To ensure the
Postal Service can pay for these buyouts, we direct the Office of
Personnel Management to refund to the Postal Service what everyone
agrees has been an overpayment by USPS into the Federal Employees
Retirement System. Using this money to support buyouts, the Postmaster
General believes he may be able to reduce the Postal Service workforce
by as many as 100,000 employees over the next three years and save $8
billion a year.
To achieve healthcare savings, we would allow the Postal Service to
work with its employee unions and the Office of Personnel Management to
try to develop and agree on a new health plan for postal employees. The
Postmaster General is confident that he and the postal unions can agree
on an approach that could cut healthcare costs significantly, while
retaining adequate benefits.
Finally, our bill would help USPS get out from under the onerous
weight of its current pre-funding requirements for its retiree health
benefits by recalibrating the payments and amortizing them over time.
This, too, will provide significant financial relief to the Postal
Service.
We know many of our proposals will be controversial. But without
taking controversial steps, the Postal Service will not make it. We are
pursuing broad changes rather than working around the edges to put the
Postal Service back on the road to recovery. The Postmaster General has
told us he needs to cut $20 billion from the USPS' annual budget, and
we are giving him and his employees the tools to make that happen. The
bottom line is we must act quickly to prevent a Postal Service collapse
and we must act boldly to secure its future.
The U.S. Postal Service is not an 18th Century relic. It is a great
21st Century national asset. But times are changing rapidly and so too
must the Postal Service, if it is to survive.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed In the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 1789

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``21st Century Postal Service
Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.

The table of contents for this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Table of contents.
Sec. 3. Definitions.

TITLE I--POSTAL WORKFORCE MATTERS

Sec. 101. Treatment of surplus contributions to Federal Employees
Retirement System.
Sec. 102. Additional service credit.
Sec. 103. Medicare coverage for Postal Service Medicare eligible
annuitants.
Sec. 104. Restructuring of payments for retiree health benefits.
Sec. 105. Postal Service Health Benefits Program.
Sec. 106. Arbitration; labor disputes.

TITLE II--POSTAL SERVICES AND OPERATIONS

Sec. 201. Postal facilities.
Sec. 202. Additional Postal Service planning.
Sec. 203. Area and district office structure.
Sec. 204. Retail service standards.
Sec. 205. Conversion of door delivery points.
Sec. 206. Limitations on changes to mail delivery schedule.
Sec. 207. Time limits for consideration of service changes.
Sec. 208. Public procedures for significant changes to mailing
specifications.
Sec. 209. Nonpostal products and services.

TITLE III--FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION ACT

Sec. 301. Short title; references.
Sec. 302. Federal workers compensation reforms for retirement-age
employees.
Sec. 303. Augmented compensation for dependents.
Sec. 304. Schedule compensation payments.
Sec. 305. Vocational rehabilitation.
Sec. 306. Reporting requirements.

[[Page 16557]]

Sec. 307. Disability management review; independent medical
examinations.
Sec. 308. Waiting period.
Sec. 309. Election of benefits.
Sec. 310. Sanction for noncooperation with field nurses.
Sec. 311. Subrogation of continuation of pay.
Sec. 312. Social Security earnings information.
Sec. 313. Amount of compensation.
Sec. 314. Technical and conforming amendments.
Sec. 315. Regulations.

TITLE IV--OTHER MATTERS

Sec. 401. Profitability plan.
Sec. 402. Postal rates.
Sec. 403. Cooperation with State and local governments; intra-Service
agreements.
Sec. 404. Shipping of wine and beer.
Sec. 405. Annual report on United States mailing industry.
Sec. 406. Use of negotiated service agreements.
Sec. 407. Contract disputes.
Sec. 408. Contracting provisions.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act, the following definitions shall apply:
(1) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Postal
Regulatory Commission.
(2) Postal service.--The term ``Postal Service'' means the
United States Postal Service.

TITLE I--POSTAL WORKFORCE MATTERS

SEC. 101. TREATMENT OF SURPLUS CONTRIBUTIONS TO FEDERAL
EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM.

Section 8423(b) of title 5, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (6); and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following:
``(5)(A) In this paragraph, the term `surplus postal
contributions' means the amount by which the amount computed
under paragraph (1)(B) is less than zero.
``(B) For each fiscal year in which the amount computed
under paragraph (1)(B) is less than zero, upon request of the
Postmaster General, the Director shall transfer to the United
States Postal Service from the Fund an amount equal to the
surplus postal contributions for that fiscal year for use in
accordance with this paragraph.
``(C) For each of fiscal years 2012, 2013, and 2014, if the
amount computed under paragraph (1)(B) is less than zero, a
portion of the surplus postal contributions for the fiscal
year shall be used by the United States Postal Service for
the cost of providing to employees of the United States
Postal Service who voluntarily separate from service before
October 1, 2014--
``(i) voluntary separation incentive payments (including
payments to employees who retire under section 8336(d)(2) or
8414(b)(1)(B) before October 1, 2014) that may not exceed the
maximum amount provided under section 3523(b)(3)(B) for any
employee; and
``(ii) retirement service credits, as authorized under
section 8332(p) or 8411(m).
``(D) Any surplus postal contributions for a fiscal year
not expended under subparagraph (C) may be used by the United
States Postal Service for the purposes of--
``(i) repaying any obligation issued under section 2005 of
title 39; or
``(ii) making required payments to--
``(I) the Employees' Compensation Fund established under
section 8147;
``(II) the Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits Fund
established under section 8909a;
``(III) the Employees Health Benefits Fund established
under section 8909; or
``(IV) the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund.''.

SEC. 102. ADDITIONAL SERVICE CREDIT.

(a) Civil Service Retirement System.--Section 8332 of title
5, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(p)(1)(A) For an employee of the United States Postal
Service who is covered under this subchapter and voluntarily
separates from service before October 1, 2014, at the
direction of the United States Postal Service, the Office
shall add not more than 1 year (as specified by the United
States Postal Service) to the total creditable service of the
employee for purposes of determining entitlement to and
computing the amount of an annuity under this subchapter
(except for a disability annuity under section 8337).
``(B) An employee who receives additional creditable
service under this paragraph may not receive a voluntary
separation incentive payment from the United States Postal
Service.
``(2)(A) Subject to subparagraph (B), and notwithstanding
any other provision of law, no deduction, deposit, or
contribution shall be required for service credited under
this subsection.
``(B) The actuarial present value of the additional
liability of the United States Postal Service to the Fund
resulting from this subsection shall be included in the
amount calculated under section 8348(h)(1)(A).''.
(b) Federal Employees Retirement System.--Section 8411 of
title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(m)(1)(A) For an employee of the United States Postal
Service who is covered under this chapter and voluntarily
separates from service before October 1, 2014, at the
direction of the United States Postal Service, the Office
shall add not more than 2 years (as specified by the United
States Postal Service) to the total creditable service of the
employee for purposes of determining entitlement to and
computing the amount of an annuity under this chapter (except
for a disability annuity under subchapter V of that chapter).
``(B) An employee who receives additional creditable
service under this paragraph may not receive a voluntary
separation incentive payment from the United States Postal
Service.
``(2)(A) Subject to subparagraph (B), and notwithstanding
any other provision of law, no deduction, deposit, or
contribution shall be required for service credited under
this subsection.
``(B) The actuarial present value of the additional
liability of the United States Postal Service to the Fund
resulting from this subsection shall be included in the
amount calculated under section 8423(b)(1)(B).''.

SEC. 103. MEDICARE COVERAGE FOR POSTAL SERVICE MEDICARE
ELIGIBLE ANNUITANTS.

(a) Federal Employees Health Benefits Plans.--
(1) In general.--Chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code,
is amended by inserting after section 8903b the following:

``Sec. 8903c. Postal Service Medicare eligible annuitants

``(a) Definitions.--In this section--
``(1) the term `contract year' means a calendar year in
which health benefits plans are administered under this
chapter;
``(2) the term `Medicare part A' means the Medicare program
for hospital insurance benefits under part A of title XVIII
of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395c et seq.);
``(3) the term `Medicare part B' means the Medicare program
for supplementary medical insurance benefits under part B of
title XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395j et
seq.); and
``(4) the term `Postal Service Medicare eligible annuitant'
means an individual who--
``(A) is an annuitant covered under this chapter whose
Government contribution is paid by the Postal Service under
section 8906(g)(2); and
``(B) is eligible to enroll in Medicare part A and Medicare
part B.
``(b) Requirement of Medicare Enrollment.--
``(1) Postal service medicare eligible annuitants.--
``(A) Immediate application.--An individual who is a Postal
Service Medicare eligible annuitant on the date of enactment
of the 21st Century Postal Service Act of 2011 may not
continue coverage under this chapter, unless that individual
enrolls in Medicare part A and Medicare part B during the
special enrollment period established under section 1837(m)
of the Social Security Act.
``(B) Prospective application.--An individual who becomes a
Postal Service Medicare eligible annuitant after the date of
enactment of the 21st Century Postal Service Act of 2011 may
not continue coverage under this chapter, unless after
becoming eligible for Medicare part A and Medicare part B
that individual enrolls in Medicare part A and Medicare part
B during the applicable initial enrollment period under
section 1837 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395p).
``(2) Family members of postal service medicare eligible
annuitants.--
``(A) Family member is medicare eligible.--An individual
who, on the date of enactment of the 21st Century Postal
Service Act of 2011, is a Postal Service Medicare eligible
annuitant, is enrolled in self and family coverage under this
chapter, and has a member of the family who is eligible to
enroll in Medicare part A and Medicare part B, may not
continue coverage under this chapter, unless--
``(i) the family member enrolls in Medicare part A and
Medicare part B during the special enrollment period
established under section 1837(m) of the Social Security Act;
or
``(ii) the individual enrolls for self only coverage under
this chapter.
``(B) Family member becomes medicare eligible.--An
individual who, on the date of enactment of the 21st Century
Postal Service Act of 2011, is a Postal Service Medicare
eligible annuitant, is enrolled in self and family coverage
under this chapter, and has a member of the family who
becomes eligible to enroll in Medicare part A and Medicare
part B after that date, may not continue coverage under this
chapter, unless--
``(i) the family member enrolls in Medicare part A and
Medicare part B during the applicable initial enrollment
period under section 1837 of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1395p); or
``(ii) the individual enrolls for self only coverage under
this chapter.
``(c) Enrollment Options.--
``(1) Establishment.--For contract years following the date
of enactment of the 21st Century Postal Service Act of 2011,
the Office shall establish enrollment options for health
benefits plans that are open only to Postal Service Medicare
eligible annuitants or family members of a Postal Service
Medicare eligible annuitants who continue coverage

[[Page 16558]]

under this chapter in accordance with subsection (b).
``(2) Enrollment requirement.--Any Postal Service Medicare
eligible annuitant or family member of a Postal Service
Medicare eligible annuitant who continues coverage under this
chapter in accordance with subsection (b) may only enroll in
1 of the enrollment options established under paragraph (1).
``(3) Value of coverage.--The Office shall ensure that the
aggregate actuarial value of coverage under the enrollment
options established under this subsection, in combination
with the value of coverage under Medicare part A and Medicare
part B, shall be not less than the actuarial value of the
most closely corresponding enrollment options available under
section 8905.
``(4) Enrollment options.--
``(A) In general.--The enrollment options established under
paragraph (1) shall include--
``(i) an individual option, for Postal Service Medicare
eligible annuitants subject to subsection (b)(1);
``(ii) a self and family option, for Postal Service
Medicare eligible annuitants subject to subsection (b)(1) and
family members of Postal Service Medicare eligible annuitants
subject to subsection (b)(2); and
``(iii) a self and family option, for Postal Service
Medicare eligible annuitants subject to subsection (b)(1) and
family members of Postal Service Medicare eligible
annuitants, including family members not subject to
subsection (b)(2).
``(B) Specific sub-options.--The Office may establish more
specific enrollment options within the types of options
described under subparagraph (A).
``(5) Reduced premiums to account for medicare
coordination.--In determining the premiums for the enrollment
options under paragraph (4), the Office shall--
``(A) establish a separate claims pool for individuals
eligible for coverage under those options; and
``(B) ensure that--
``(i) the premiums are reduced from the premiums otherwise
established under this chapter to directly reflect the full
cost savings to the health benefits plans due to the complete
coordination of benefits with Medicare part A and Medicare
part B for Postal Service Medicare eligible annuitants or
family members of Postal Service Medicare eligible annuitants
who continue coverage under this chapter; and
``(ii) the cost savings described under clause (i) result
solely in the reduction of--

``(I) the premiums paid by the Postal Service Medicare
eligible annuitant; and
``(II) the Government contributions paid by the Postal
Service.

``(d) Conversion of Enrollment.--
``(1) In general.--For any individual who enrolls in
Medicare part A and Medicare part B in accordance with
subsection (b) other than during the special enrollment
period established under section 1837(m) of the Social
Security Act, coverage under this chapter shall be converted
to coverage under the applicable enrollment option
established under subsection (c) upon enrollment in Medicare
part A and Medicare part B.
``(2) Notification.--The Office shall provide reasonable
advance notice to any Postal Service Medicare eligible
annuitant or family member of any Postal Service Medicare
eligible annuitant that such annuitant or family member will
become subject to conversion of enrollment under paragraph
(1).
``(e) Postal Service Consultation.--The Office shall
establish the enrollment options and premiums under this
section in consultation with the Postal Service.''.
(2) Technical and conforming amendments.--The table of
sections for chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code, is
amended by inserting after the item relating to section 8903b
the following:

``8903c. Postal Service Medicare eligible annuitants.''.

(3) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection
shall apply with respect to contract years beginning 6 months
following the date of enactment of this Act.
(b) Special Enrollment Period for Postal Service Medicare
Eligible Annuitants.--
(1) Special enrollment period.--
(A) In general.--Section 1837 of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1395p) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(m)(1) In the case of any individual who is a Postal
Service Medicare eligible annuitant (as defined in section
8903c(a) of title 5, United States Code) at the time the
individual is entitled to part A under section 226(b) or
section 226A and who is eligible to enroll but who has
elected not to enroll (or to be deemed enrolled) during the
individual's initial enrollment period, there shall be a
special enrollment period described in paragraph (2).
``(2) The special enrollment period described in this
paragraph, with respect to an individual is the 6-month
period, beginning on the first day of the month which
includes the date of enactment of the 21st Century Postal
Service Act of 2011.
``(3) In the case of an individual who enrolls during the
special enrollment period provided under paragraph (1), the
coverage period under this part shall begin on the first day
of the month in which the individual enrolls.''.
(B) Effective date.--The amendment made by subparagraph (A)
shall apply to elections made with respect to initial
enrollment periods that end after the date of enactment of
the 21st Century Postal Service Act of 2011.
(2) Waiver of increase of premium.--Section 1839(b) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395r(b)) is amended by
striking ``(i)(4) or (l)'' and inserting ``(i)(4), (l), or
(m)''.

SEC. 104. RESTRUCTURING OF PAYMENTS FOR RETIREE HEALTH
BENEFITS.

(a) Contributions.--Section 8906(g)(2)(A) of title 5,
United States Code, is amended by striking ``through
September 30, 2016, be paid by the United States Postal
Service, and thereafter shall'' and inserting ``after the
date of enactment of the 21st Century Postal Service Act of
2011''.
(b) Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits Fund.--Section
8909a of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (d)--
(A) in paragraph (2)(B)--
(i) by striking ``2017'' and inserting ``2012''; and
(ii) by inserting after ``later, of'' the following: ``80
percent of''; and
(B) in paragraph (3)--
(i) in subparagraph (A)--

(I) in clause (iii), by adding ``and'' at the end;
(II) in clause (iv), by striking the semicolon at the end
and inserting a period; and
(III) by striking clauses (v) through (x); and

(ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``2017'' and
inserting ``2012''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(e) Subsections (a) through (d) shall be subject to
section 105 of the 21st Century Postal Service Act of
2011.''.

SEC. 105. POSTAL SERVICE HEALTH BENEFITS PROGRAM.

(a) Definitions.--In this section--
(1) the term ``covered employee'' means an employee of the
Postal Service who is represented by a bargaining
representative recognized under section 1203 of title 39,
United States Code;
(2) the term ``Federal Employee Health Benefits Program''
means the health benefits program under chapter 89 of title
5, United States Code; and
(3) the term ``Postal Service Health Benefits Program''
means the health benefits program that may be agreed to under
subsection (b)(1).
(b) Collective Bargaining.--
(1) In general.--Consistent with section 1005(f) of title
39, United States Code, the Postal Service may negotiate
jointly with all bargaining representatives recognized under
section 1203 of title 39, United States Code, and enter into
a joint collective bargaining agreement with those bargaining
representatives to establish the Postal Service Health
Benefits Program that satisfies the conditions under
subsection (c). The Postal Service and the bargaining
representatives shall negotiate in consultation with the
Director of the Office of Personnel Management.
(2) Arbitration limitation.--Notwithstanding chapter 12 of
title 39, United States Code, there shall not be arbitration
of any dispute in the negotiations under this subsection.
(3) Time limitation.--The authority under this subsection
shall extend until September 30, 2012.
(c) Postal Service Health Benefits Program.--The Postal
Service Health Benefits Program--
(1) shall--
(A) be available for participation by all covered
employees;
(B) provide adequate and appropriate health benefits;
(C) be administered by the Postmaster General; and
(D) provide for transition of coverage under the Federal
Employee Health Benefits Program of covered employees to
coverage under the Postal Service Health Benefits Program on
January 1, 2013;
(2) may provide dental benefits; and
(3) may provide vision benefits.
(d) Agreement and Implementation.--If a joint agreement is
reached under subsection (b)--
(1) the Postal Service shall implement the Postal Service
Health Benefits Program;
(2) the Postal Service Health Benefits Program shall
constitute an agreement between the collective bargaining
representatives and the Postal Service for purposes of
section 1005(f) of title 39, United States Code; and
(3) covered employees may not participate as employees in
the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program.
(e) Government Plan.--The Postal Service Health Benefits
Program shall be a government plan as that term is defined
under section 3(32) of Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1002(32)).
(f) Report.--Not later than June 30, 2013, the Postal
Service shall submit a report to the Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate and the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of
Representatives that--

[[Page 16559]]

(1) reports on the implementation of this section; and
(2) requests any additional statutory authority that the
Postal Service determines is necessary to carry out the
purposes of this section.

SEC. 106. ARBITRATION; LABOR DISPUTES.

Section 1207(c)(2) of title 39, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by inserting ``(A)'' after ``(2)'';
(2) by striking the last sentence and inserting ``The
arbitration board shall render a decision not later than 45
days after the date of its appointment.''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) In rendering a decision under this paragraph, the
arbitration board shall consider such relevant factors as--
``(i) the financial condition of the Postal Service;
``(ii) the requirements relating to pay and compensation
comparability under section 1003(a); and
``(iii) the policies of this title.''.

TITLE II--POSTAL SERVICES AND OPERATIONS

SEC. 201. POSTAL FACILITIES.

Section 404 of title 39, United States Code, is amended by
adding after subsection (e) the following:
``(f) Closing or Consolidation of Certain Postal
Facilities.--
``(1) Postal facility.--In this subsection, the term
`postal facility' does not include--
``(A) any post office, station, or branch; or
``(B) any facility used only for administrative functions.
``(2) Area mail processing study.--
``(A) New area mail processing studies.--After the date of
enactment of this subsection, before making a determination
under subsection (a)(3) as to the necessity for the closing
or consolidation of any postal facility, the Postal Service
shall--
``(i) conduct an area mail processing study relating to
that postal facility that includes a plan to reduce the
capacity of the postal facility, but not close the postal
facility;
``(ii) publish the study on the Postal Service website; and
``(iii) publish a notice that the study is complete and
available to the public, including on the Postal Service
website.
``(B) Completed or ongoing area mail processing studies.--
``(i) In general.--In the case of a postal facility
described in clause (ii), the Postal Service shall--

``(I) consider a plan to reduce the capacity of the postal
facility, but not close the post facility; and
``(II) publish the results of the consideration under
subclause (I) with or as an amendment to the area mail
processing study relating to the postal facility.

``(ii) Postal facilities.--A postal facility described in
this clause is a postal facility for which, on or before the
date of enactment of this subsection--

``(I) an area mail processing study that does not include a
plan to reduce the capacity of the postal facility, but not
close the facility, has been completed or is in progress; and
``(II) a determination as to the necessity for the closing
or consolidation of the postal facility has not been made.

``(3) Notice; public comment; and public hearing.--If the
Postal Service makes a determination under subsection (a)(3)
to close or consolidate a postal facility, the Postal Service
shall--
``(A) provide notice of the determination to--
``(i) Congress; and
``(ii) the Postal Regulatory Commission;
``(B) provide adequate public notice of the intention of
the Postal Service to close or consolidate the postal
facility;
``(C) ensure that interested persons have an opportunity to
submit public comments during a 45-day period after the
notice of intention is provided under subparagraph (B);
``(D) before that 45-day period provide for public notice
of that opportunity by--
``(i) publication on the Postal Service website;
``(ii) posting at the affected postal facility; and
``(iii) advertising the date and location of the public
community meeting under subparagraph (E); and
``(E) during the 45-day period described under subparagraph
(C), conduct a public community meeting that provides an
opportunity for public comments to be submitted verbally or
in writing.
``(4) Further considerations.--Not earlier than 30 days
after the end of the 45-day period for public comment under
paragraph (3), the Postal Service, in making a determination
whether or not to close or consolidate a postal facility,
shall consider--
``(A) the views presented by interested persons solicited
under paragraph (3);
``(B) the effect of the closing or consolidation on the
affected community, including any disproportionate impact the
closure or consolidation may have on a State, region, or
locality;
``(C) the effect of the closing or consolidation on the
travel times and distances for affected customers to access
services under the proposed closing or consolidation;
``(D) the effect of the closing or consolidation on
delivery times for all classes of mail;
``(E) any characteristics of certain geographical areas,
such as remoteness, broadband internet availability, and
weather-related obstacles to using alternative facilities,
that may result in the closing or consolidation having a
unique effect; and
``(F) any other factor the Postal Service determines is
necessary.
``(5) Justification statement.--Before the date on which
the Postal Service closes or consolidates a postal facility,
the Postal Service shall post on the Postal Service website a
closure or consolidation justification statement that
includes--
``(A) a response to all public comments received with
respect to the considerations described under paragraph (4);
``(B) a description of the considerations made by the
Postal Service under paragraph (4); and
``(C) the actions that will be taken by the Postal Service
to mitigate any negative effects identified under paragraph
(4).
``(6) Closing or consolidation of postal facilities.--
``(A) In general.--Not earlier than the 15 days after
posting and publishing the final determination and the
justification statement under paragraph (6) with respect to a
postal facility, the Postal Service may close or consolidate
the postal facility.
``(B) Alternative intake of mail.--If the Postal Service
closes or consolidates a postal facility under subparagraph
(A), the Postal Service shall make reasonable efforts to
ensure continued mail receipt from customers of the closed or
consolidated postal facility at the same location or at
another appropriate location in close geographic proximity to
the closed or consolidated postal facility.
``(7) Postal service website.--For purposes of any notice
required to be published on the Postal Service website under
this subsection, the Postal Service shall ensure that the
Postal Service website--
``(A) is updated routinely; and
``(B) provides any person, at the option of the person, the
opportunity to receive relevant updates by electronic
mail.''.

SEC. 202. ADDITIONAL POSTAL SERVICE PLANNING.

Section 302(d) of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement
Act of 2006 (39 U.S.C. 3691 note) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (8), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and'';
(2) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (8) as
subparagraphs (A) through (H), respectively, and adjusting
the margins accordingly;
(3) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), as so
redesignated, by striking ``shall include'' and inserting the
following: ``shall--
``(1) include''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) where possible, provide for an improvement in
customer access to postal services;
``(3) consider the impact of any decisions by the Postal
Service relating to the implementation of the plan on small
communities and rural areas; and
``(4) ensure that--
``(A) small communities and rural areas continue to receive
regular and effective access to retail postal services after
implementation of the plan; and
``(B) the Postal Service solicits community input in
accordance with applicable provisions of Federal law.''.

SEC. 203. AREA AND DISTRICT OFFICE STRUCTURE.

(a) Plan Required.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Postal Service shall submit to the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of
the Senate and the Committee on Oversight and Governmental
Reform of the House of Representatives--
(1) a comprehensive strategic plan to govern decisions
relating to area and district office structure that considers
efficiency, costs, redundancies, mail volume, technological
advancements, operational considerations, and other issues
that may be relevant to establishing an effective area and
district office structure; and
(2) a 10-year plan, including a timetable, that provides
for consolidation of area and district offices wherever the
Postal Service determines a consolidation would--
(A) be cost-effective; and
(B) not substantially and adversely affect the operations
of the Postal Service.
(b) Consolidation.--Beginning not later than 1 year after
the date of enactment of this Act, the Postal Service shall,
consistent with the plans required under subsection (a)--
(1) consolidate district offices that are located within 50
miles of each other;
(2) consolidate area and district offices that have less
than the mean mail volume and number of work hours for all
area and district offices; and
(3) relocate area offices to headquarters.
(c) Updates.--The Postal Service shall update the plans
required under subsection (a) not less frequently than once
every 5 years.

SEC. 204. RETAIL SERVICE STANDARDS.

(a) Establishment of Service Standards.--Not later than 1
year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Postal
Service shall exercise its authority under section 3691 of
title 39, United States Code, to establish service standards
for market-dominant products in order to guarantee customers
of

[[Page 16560]]

the Postal Service regular and effective access to retail
postal services nationwide (including in territories and
possessions of the United States) on a reasonable basis.
(b) Contents.--The service standards established under
subsection (a) shall--
(1) be consistent with--
(A) the obligations of the Postal Service under section
101(b) of title 39, United States Code; and
(B) the contents of the plan developed under section 302 of
the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006 (39
U.S.C. 3691 note), as amended by section 202 of this Act; and
(2) take into account factors including--
(A) geography, including the establishment of standards for
the proximity of retail postal services to postal customers,
including a consideration of the reasonable maximum time a
postal customer should expect to travel to access a postal
retail location;
(B) population, including population density, demographic
factors such as the age and disability status of individuals
in the area to be served by a location providing postal
retail services, and other factors that may impact the
ability of postal customers, including businesses, to travel
to a postal retail location;
(C) the feasibility of offering retail access to postal
services in addition to post offices, as described in section
302(d) of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of
2006 (39 U.S.C. 3691 note); and
(D) the requirement that the Postal Service serve remote
areas and communities with transportation challenges,
including communities in which the effects of inclement
weather or other natural conditions might obstruct or
otherwise impede access to retail postal services.

SEC. 205. CONVERSION OF DOOR DELIVERY POINTS.

(a) In General.--Subchapter VII of chapter 36 of title 39,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following:

``Sec. 3692. Conversion of door delivery points

``(a) Definitions.--In this section, the following
definitions shall apply:
``(1) Centralized delivery point.--The term `centralized
delivery point' means a group or cluster of mail receptacles
at 1 delivery point that is within reasonable proximity of
the street address associated with the delivery point.
``(2) Curbline delivery point.--The term `curbline delivery
point' means a delivery point that is--
``(A) adjacent to the street address associated with the
delivery point; and
``(B) accessible by vehicle on a street that is not a
private driveway.
``(3) Door delivery point.--The term `door delivery point'
means a delivery point at a door of the structure at a street
address.
``(4) Sidewalk delivery point.--The term `sidewalk delivery
point' means a delivery point on a sidewalk adjacent to the
street address associated with the delivery point.
``(b) Conversion.--Except as provided in subsection (c),
not later than September 30, 2015, in accordance with
standards established by the Postal Service, the Postal
Service may, where feasible, convert door delivery points
to--
``(1) curbline delivery points;
``(2) sidewalk delivery points; or
``(3) centralized delivery points.
``(c) Exceptions.--
``(1) Continued door delivery.--The Postal Service may
allow for the continuation of door delivery due to--
``(A) a physical hardship of a customer;
``(B) weather, in a geographic area where snow removal
efforts could obstruct access to mailboxes near a road;
``(C) circumstances in an urban area that preclude
efficient use of curbside delivery points;
``(D) other exceptional circumstances, as determined in
accordance with regulations issued by the Postal Service; or
``(E) other circumstances in which the Postal Service
determines that alternatives to door delivery would not be
practical or cost effective.
``(2) New door delivery points.--The Postal Service may
provide door delivery to a new delivery point in a delivery
area that received door delivery on the day before the date
of enactment of this section, if the delivery point is
established before the delivery area is converted from door
delivery under subsection (b).
``(d) Solicitation of Comments.--The Postal Service shall
establish procedures to solicit, consider, and respond to
input from individuals affected by a conversion under this
section.
``(e) Review.--Subchapter V of this chapter shall not apply
with respect to any action taken by the Postal Service under
this section.
``(f) Report.--Not later than 60 days after the end of each
fiscal year through fiscal year 2015, the Postal Service
shall submit to Congress and the Inspector General of the
Postal Service a report on the implementation of this section
during the preceding fiscal year that--
``(1) includes the number of door delivery points--
``(A) that existed at the end of the fiscal year preceding
the preceding fiscal year;
``(B) that existed at the end of the preceding fiscal year;
``(C) that, during the preceding fiscal year, converted
to--
``(i) curbline delivery points or sidewalk delivery points;
``(ii) centralized delivery points; and
``(iii) any other type of delivery point; and
``(D) for which door delivery was continued under
subsection (c)(1);
``(2) estimates the cost savings from the conversions from
door delivery that occurred during the preceding fiscal year;
``(3) describes the progress of the Postal Service toward
achieving the requirements under subsection (b); and
``(4) provides such additional information as the Postal
Service considers appropriate.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for
subchapter VII of chapter 36 of title 39, United States Code,
is amended by adding at the end the following:

``3692. Conversion of door delivery points.''.

SEC. 206. LIMITATIONS ON CHANGES TO MAIL DELIVERY SCHEDULE.

(a) Limitation on Change in Schedule.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of law--
(1) the Postal Service may not establish a general,
nationwide 5-day-per-week delivery schedule to street
addresses under the authority of the Postal Service under
section 3691 of title 39, United States Code, earlier than
the date that is 24 months after the date of enactment of
this Act; and
(2) on or after the date that is 24 months after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Postal Service may establish a
general, nationwide 5-day-per-week delivery schedule to
street addresses under the authority of the Postal Service
under section 3691 of title 39, United States Code, only in
accordance with the requirements and limitations under this
section.
(b) Preconditions.--If the Postal Service intends to
establish a change in delivery schedule under subsection
(a)(2), the Postal Service shall--
(1) identify customers and communities for whom the change
may have a disproportionate, negative impact, including the
customers identified as ``particularly affected'' in the
Advisory Opinion on Elimination of Saturday Delivery issued
by the Commission on March 24, 2011;
(2) develop, to the maximum extent possible, measures to
ameliorate any disproportionate, negative impact the change
would have on customers and communities identified under
paragraph (1), including, where appropriate, providing or
expanding access to mailboxes for periodical mailers on days
on which the Postal Service does not provide delivery;
(3) implement measures to increase revenue and reduce
costs, including the measures authorized under the amendments
made by sections 101, 102, 103, 104, 204, and 208 of this
Act;
(4) evaluate whether any increase in revenue or reduction
in costs resulting from the measures implemented under
paragraph (3) are sufficient to allow the Postal Service,
without implementing a change in delivery schedule under
subsection (a), to--
(A) become profitable by fiscal year 2015; and
(B) achieve long-term financial solvency; and
(5) not earlier than 15 months after the date of enactment
of this Act and not later than 9 months before the effective
date proposed by the Postal Service for the change, submit a
report on the steps the Postal Service has taken to carry out
this subsection to--
(A) the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform of the House of Representatives;
(B) the Comptroller General of the United States; and
(C) the Commission.
(c) Review.--
(1) Government accountability office.--Not later than 3
months after the date on which the Postal Service submits a
report under subsection (b)(5), the Comptroller General shall
submit to the Commission and to the Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate and the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of
Representatives a report that contains findings relating to
each of the following:
(A) Whether the Postal Service has adequately complied with
subsection (b)(3), taking into consideration the statutory
authority of and limitations on the Postal Service.
(B) The accuracy of any statement by the Postal Service
that the measures implemented under subsection (b)(3) have
increased revenues or reduced costs, and the accuracy of any
projection by the Postal Service relating to increased
revenue or reduced costs resulting from the measures
implemented under subsection (b)(3).
(C) The adequacy and methodological soundness of any
evaluation conducted by the Postal Service under subsection
(b)(4) that led the Postal Service to assert the necessity of
a change in delivery schedule under subsection (a)(2).
(D) Whether, based on an analysis of the measures
implemented by the Postal Service

[[Page 16561]]

to increase revenues and reduce costs, projections of
increased revenue and cost savings, and the details of the
profitability plan required under section 401, a change in
delivery schedule is necessary to allow the Postal Service
to--
(i) become profitable by fiscal year 2015; and
(ii) achieve long-term financial solvency.
(2) Postal regulatory commission.--
(A) Request.--Not later than 6 months before the proposed
effective date of a change in delivery schedule under
subsection (a), the Postal Service shall submit to the
Commission a request for an advisory opinion relating to the
change.
(B) Advisory opinion.--
(i) In general.--The Commission shall--

(I) issue an advisory opinion with respect to a request
under subparagraph (A), in accordance with the time limits
for the issuance of advisory opinions under section
3661(b)(2) of title 39, United States Code, as amended by
this Act; and
(II) submit the advisory opinion to the Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate and
the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House
of Representatives.

(ii) Required determinations.--An advisory opinion under
clause (i) shall determine--

(I) whether the measures developed under subsection (b)(2)
ameliorate any disproportionate, negative impact that a
change in schedule may have on customers and communities
identified under subsection (b)(1); and
(II) based on the report submitted by the Comptroller
General under paragraph (1)--

(aa) whether the Postal Service has implemented measures to
reduce operating losses as required under subsection (b)(3);
(bb) whether the implementation of the measures described
in item (aa) has increased revenues or reduced costs, or is
projected to further increase revenues or reduce costs in the
future; and
(cc) whether a change in schedule under subsection (a)(2)
is necessary to allow the Postal Service to--
(AA) become profitable by fiscal year 2015; and
(BB) achieve long-term financial solvency.
(3) Prohibition on implementation of change in schedule.--
The Postal Service may not implement a change in delivery
schedule under subsection (a)(2)--
(A) before the date on which the Comptroller General
submits the report required under paragraph (1); and
(B) unless the Commission determines under paragraph
(2)(B)(ii)(II)(cc) that the Comptroller General has concluded
that the change is necessary to allow the Postal Service to
become profitable by fiscal year 2015 and to achieve long-
term financial solvency, without regard to whether the
Commission determines that the change is advisable.
(d) Additional Limitations.--
(1) Rules of construction.--Nothing in this subsection
shall be construed to--
(A) authorize the reduction, or require an increase, in
delivery frequency for any route for which the Postal Service
provided delivery on fewer than 6 days per week on the date
of enactment of this Act;
(B) authorize any change in--
(i) the days and times that postal retail service or any
mail acceptance is available; or
(ii) the locations at which postal retail service or mail
acceptance occurs;
(C) authorize any change in the frequency of delivery to a
post office box;
(D) prohibit the collection or delivery of a competitive
mail product on a weekend or a recognized Federal holiday; or
(E) prohibit the Postal Service from exercising its
authority to make changes to processing or retail networks.
(2) Prohibition on consecutive days without mail
delivery.--The Postal Service shall ensure that, under any
change in schedule under subsection (a)(2), at no time shall
there be more than 2 consecutive days without mail delivery
to street addresses, including recognized Federal holidays.

SEC. 207. TIME LIMITS FOR CONSIDERATION OF SERVICE CHANGES.

Section 3661 of title 39, United States Code, is amended by
striking subsections (b) and (c) and inserting the following:
``(b) Proposed Changes for Market-dominant Products.--
``(1) Submission of proposal.--If the Postal Service
determines that there should be a change in the nature of
postal services relating to market-dominant products that
will generally affect service on a nationwide or
substantially nationwide basis, the Postal Service shall
submit a proposal to the Postal Regulatory Commission
requesting an advisory opinion on the change.
``(2) Advisory opinion.--Upon receipt of a proposal under
paragraph (1), the Postal Regulatory Commission shall--
``(A) provide an opportunity for public comment on the
proposal; and
``(B) issue an advisory opinion not later than--
``(i) 90 days after the date on which the Postal Regulatory
Commission receives the proposal; or
``(ii) a date that the Postal Regulatory Commission and the
Postal Service may, not later than 1 week after the date on
which the Postal Regulatory Commission receives the proposal,
determine jointly.
``(3) Response to opinion.--The Postal Service shall submit
to the President and to Congress a response to the advisory
opinion issued under paragraph (2), including any
recommendations contained therein.
``(4) Action on proposal.--The Postal Service may take
action regarding a proposal submitted under paragraph (1)--
``(A) on or after the date that is 30 days after the date
on which the Postal Service submits the response required
under paragraph (3);
``(B) on or after a date that the Postal Regulatory
Commission and the Postal Service may, not later than 1 week
after the date on which the Postal Regulatory Commission
receives a proposal under paragraph (2), determine jointly;
or
``(C) after the date described in paragraph (2)(B), if--
``(i) the Postal Regulatory Commission fails to issue an
advisory opinion on or before the date described in paragraph
(2)(B); and
``(ii) the action is not otherwise prohibited under Federal
law.
``(5) Modification of timeline.--At any time, the Postal
Service and the Postal Regulatory Commission may jointly
redetermine a date determined under paragraph (2)(B)(ii) or
(4)(B).''.

SEC. 208. PUBLIC PROCEDURES FOR SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO
MAILING SPECIFICATIONS.

(a) Notice and Opportunity for Comment Required.--Effective
on the date on which the Postal Service issues a final rule
under subsection (c), before making a change to mailing
specifications that could pose a significant burden to the
customers of the Postal Service and that is not reviewed by
the Commission, the Postal Service shall--
(1) publish a notice of the proposed change to the
specification in the Federal Register;
(2) provide an opportunity for the submission of written
comments concerning the proposed change for a period of not
less than 30 days;
(3) after considering any comments submitted under
paragraph (2) and making any modifications to the proposed
change that the Postal Service determines are necessary,
publish--
(A) the final change to the specification in the Federal
Register;
(B) responses to any comments submitted under paragraph
(2); and
(C) an analysis of the financial impact that the proposed
change would have on--
(i) the Postal Service; and
(ii) the customers of the Postal Service that would be
affected by the proposed change; and
(4) establish an effective date for the change to mailing
specifications that is not earlier than 30 days after the
date on which the Postal Service publishes the final change
under paragraph (3).
(b) Exception for Good Cause.--If the Postal Service
determines that there is an urgent and compelling need for a
change to a mailing specification described in subsection (a)
in order to avoid demonstrable harm to the operations of the
Postal Service or to the public interest, the Postal Service
may--
(1) change the mailing specifications by--
(A) issuing an interim final rule that--
(i) includes a finding by the Postal Service that there is
good cause for the interim final rule;
(ii) provides an opportunity for the submission of written
comments on the interim final rule for a period of not less
than 30 days; and
(iii) establishes an effective date for the interim final
rule that is not earlier than 30 days after the date on which
the interim final rule is issued; and
(B) publishing in the Federal Register a response to any
comments submitted under subparagraph (A)(ii); and
(2) waive the requirement under paragraph (1)(A)(iii) or
subsection (a)(4).
(c) Rules Relating to Notice and Comment.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Postal Service shall issue rules
governing the provision of notice and opportunity for comment
for changes in mailing specifications under subsection (a).
(2) Rules.--In issuing the rules required under paragraph
(1), the Postal Service shall--
(A) publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register that includes proposed definitions of the terms
``mailing specifications'' and ``significant burden'';
(B) provide an opportunity for the submission of written
comments concerning the proposed change for a period of not
less than 30 days; and
(C) publish--
(i) the rule in final form in the Federal Register; and
(ii) responses to the comments submitted under subparagraph
(B).

SEC. 209. NONPOSTAL PRODUCTS AND SERVICES.

(a) In General.--Section 404 of title 39, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by redesignating paragraphs (6) through (8) as
paragraphs (7) through (9), respectively; and

[[Page 16562]]

(B) by inserting after paragraph (5) the following:
``(6) after the date of enactment of the 21st Century
Postal Service Act of 2011, and except as provided in
subsection (e), to provide other services that are not postal
services, after the Postal Regulatory Commission--
``(A) makes a determination that the provision of such
services--
``(i) uses the processing, transportation, delivery, retail
network, or technology of the Postal Service;
``(ii) is consistent with the public interest and a
demonstrated or potential public demand for--

``(I) the Postal Service to provide the services instead of
another entity providing the services; or
``(II) the Postal Service to provide the services in
addition to another entity providing the services;

``(iii) would not create unfair competition with the
private sector; and
``(iv) has the potential to improve the net financial
position of the Postal Service, based on a market analysis
provided to the Postal Regulatory Commission by the Postal
Service; and
``(B) for services that the Postal Regulatory Commission
determines meet the criteria under subparagraph (A),
classifies each such service as a market-dominant product,
competitive product, experimental product, or new product, as
required under chapter 36 of title 39, United States Code;'';
and
(2) in subsection (e)(2), by striking ``Nothing'' and all
that follows through ``except that the'' and inserting
``The''.
(b) Market Analysis.--During the 5-year period beginning on
the date of enactment of this Act, the Postal Service shall
submit a copy of any market analysis provided to the
Commission under section 404(a)(6)(A)(iv) of title 39, United
States Code, as amended by this section, to the Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate and
the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House
of Representatives.

TITLE III--FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION ACT

SEC. 301. SHORT TITLE; REFERENCES.

(a) Short Title.--This title may be cited as the ``Workers'
Compensation Reform Act of 2011''.
(b) References.--Except as otherwise expressly provided,
whenever in this title an amendment or repeal is expressed in
terms of an amendment to, or a repeal of, a section or other
provision, the reference shall be considered to be made to a
section or other provision of title 5, United States Code.

SEC. 302. FEDERAL WORKERS COMPENSATION REFORMS FOR
RETIREMENT-AGE EMPLOYEES.

(a) Conversion of Entitlement at Retirement Age.--
(1) Definitions.--Section 8101 is amended
(A) in paragraph (18), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) in paragraph (19), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(C) in paragraph (20), by striking the period at the end
and inserting a semicolon; and
(D) by adding at the end the following:
``(21) `retirement age' has the meaning given that term
under section 216(l)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
416(l)(1));
``(22) `covered claim for total disability' means a claim
for a period of total disability that commenced before the
date of enactment of the Workers' Compensation Reform Act of
2011;
``(23) `covered claim for partial disability' means a claim
for a period of partial disability that commenced before the
date of enactment of the Workers' Compensation Reform Act of
2011; and
``(24) `individual who has an exempt disability condition'
means an individual--
``(A) who--
``(i) is eligible to receive continuous periodic
compensation for total disability under section 8105 on the
date of enactment of the Workers' Compensation Reform Act of
2011; and
``(ii) meets the criteria under 8105(c);
``(B) who, on the date of enactment of the Workers'
Compensation Reform Act of 2011--
``(i) is eligible to receive continuous periodic
compensation for total disability under section 8105; and
``(ii) has sustained a currently irreversible severe mental
or physical disability for which the Secretary of Labor has
authorized, for at least the 1 year period ending on the date
of enactment of the Workers' Compensation Reform Act of 2011,
constant in-home care or custodial care, such as in placement
in a nursing home; or
``(C) who is eligible to receive continuous periodic
compensation for total disability under section 8105--
``(i) for not less than the 3-year period ending on the
date of enactment of the Workers' Compensation Reform Act of
2011; or
``(ii) if the individual became eligible to receive
continuous periodic compensation for total disability under
section 8105 during the period beginning on the date that is
3 years before the date of enactment of the Workers'
Compensation Reform Act of 2011 and ending on such date of
enactment, for not less than the 3-year period beginning on
the date on which the individual became eligible.''.
(2) Total disability.--Section 8105 is amended--
(A) in subsection (a), by striking ``If'' and inserting
``In General.--Subject to subsection (b), if'';
(B) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c); and
(C) by inserting after subsection (a) the following:
``(b) Conversion of Entitlement at Retirement Age.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
basic compensation for total disability for an employee who
has attained retirement age shall be 50 percent of the
monthly pay of the employee.
``(2) Exceptions.--
``(A) Covered recipients who are retirement age or have an
exempt disability condition.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply
to a covered claim for total disability by an employee if the
employee--
``(i) on the date of enactment of the Workers' Compensation
Reform Act of 2011, has attained retirement age; or
``(ii) is an individual who has an exempt disability
condition.
``(B) Transition period for certain employees.--For a
covered claim for total disability by an employee who is not
an employee described in subparagraph (A), the employee shall
receive the basic compensation for total disability provided
under subsection (a) until the later of--
``(i) the date on which the employee attains retirement
age; and
``(ii) the date that is 3 years after the date of enactment
of the Workers' Compensation Reform Act of 2011.''.
(3) Partial disability.--Section 8106 is amended--
(A) in subsection (a), by striking ``If'' and inserting
``In General.--Subject to subsection (b), if'';
(B) by redesignating subsections (b) and (c) as subsections
(c) and (d), respectively; and
(C) by inserting after subsection (a) the following:
``(b) Conversion of Entitlement at Retirement Age.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
basic compensation for partial disability for an employee who
has attained retirement age shall be 50 percent of the
difference between the monthly pay of the employee and the
monthly wage-earning capacity of the employee after the
beginning of the partial disability.
``(2) Exceptions.--
``(A) Covered recipients who are retirement age.--Paragraph
(1) shall not apply to a covered claim for partial disability
by an employee if, on the date of enactment of the Workers'
Compensation Reform Act of 2011, the employee has attained
retirement age.
``(B) Transition period for certain employees.--For a
covered claim for partial disability by an employee who is
not an employee described in subparagraph (A), the employee
shall receive basic compensation for partial disability in
accordance with subsection (a) until the later of--
``(i) the date on which the employee attains retirement
age; and
``(ii) the date that is 3 years after the date of enactment
of the Workers' Compensation Reform Act of 2011.''.

SEC. 303. AUGMENTED COMPENSATION FOR DEPENDENTS.

(a) In General.--Section 8110 is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (a) the following:
``(b) Termination of Augmented Compensation.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), augmented
compensation for dependants under subsection (c) shall not be
provided.
``(2) Exceptions.--
``(A) Total disability.--For a covered claim for total
disability by an employee--
``(i) the employee shall receive augmented compensation
under subsection (c) if the employee is an individual who has
an exempt disability condition; and
``(ii) the employee shall receive augmented compensation
under subsection (c) until the date that is 3 years after the
date of enactment of the Workers' Compensation Reform Act of
2011 if the employee is not an employee described in clause
(i).
``(B) Partial disability.--For a covered claim for partial
disability by an employee, the employee shall receive
augmented compensation under subsection (c) until the date
that is 3 years after the date of enactment of the Workers'
Compensation Reform Act of 2011.
``(C) Permanent disability compensated by a schedule.--For
a claim for a permanent disability described in section
8107(a) by an employee that commenced before the date of
enactment of the Workers' Compensation Reform Act of 2011,
the employee shall receive augmented compensation under
subsection (c).''.
(b) Maximum and Minimum Monthly Payments.--Section 8112 is
amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by inserting ``subsections (b) and (c) and'' before
``section 8138'';
(B) by striking ``including augmented compensation under
section 8110 of this title but''; and
(C) by striking ``75 percent'' each place it appears and
inserting ``66 \2/3\ percent'';
(2) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c);

[[Page 16563]]

(3) by inserting after subsection (a) the following:
``(b) Exceptions.--
``(1) Covered disability condition.--For a covered claim
for total disability by an employee, if the employee is an
individual who has an exempt disability condition--
``(A) the monthly rate of compensation for disability that
is subject to the maximum and minimum monthly amounts under
subsection (a) shall include any augmented compensation under
section 8110; and
``(B) subsection (a) shall be applied by substituting `75
percent' for `66 \2/3\ percent' each place it appears.
``(2) Partial disability.--For a covered claim for partial
disability by an employee, until the date that is 3 years
after the date of enactment of the Workers' Compensation
Reform Act of 2011--
``(A) the monthly rate of compensation for disability that
is subject to the maximum and minimum monthly amounts under
subsection (a) shall include any augmented compensation under
section 8110; and
``(B) subsection (a) shall be applied by substituting `75
percent' for `66 \2/3\ percent' each place it appears.''; and
(4) in subsection (c), as redesignated by paragraph (2), by
striking ``subsection (a)'' and inserting ``subsections (a)
and (b)''.
(c) Death Benefits Generally.--Section 8133 is amended--
(1) in subsections (a) and (e), by striking ``75 percent''
each place it appears and inserting ``66 \2/3\ percent
(except as provided in subsection (g))''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(g) If the death occurred before the date of enactment of
the Workers' Compensation Reform Act of 2011, subsections (a)
and (e) shall be applied by substituting `75 percent' for `66
\2/3\ percent' each place it appears.''.
(d) Death Benefits for Civil Air Patrol Volunteers.--
Section 8141 is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)(2)(B) by striking ``75 percent'' and
inserting ``66 \2/3\ percent (except as provided in
subsection (c))'';
(2) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d); and
(3) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
``(c) If the death occurred before the date of enactment of
the Workers' Compensation Reform Act of 2011, subsection
(b)(2)(B) shall be applied by substituting `75 percent' for
`66 \2/3\ percent'.''.

SEC. 304. SCHEDULE COMPENSATION PAYMENTS.

Section 8107 is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``at the rate of 66 2/3
percent of his monthly pay'' and inserting ``at the rate
specified under subsection (d)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(d) Rate for Compensation.--
``(1) Annual salary.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
rate under subsection (a) shall be the rate of 66 \2/3\
percent of the annual salary level established under
subparagraph (B), in a lump sum equal to the present value
(as calculated under subparagraph (C)) of the amount of
compensation payable under the schedule.
``(B) Establishment.--
``(i) In general.--The Secretary of Labor shall establish
an annual salary for purposes of subparagraph (A) in the
amount the Secretary determines will result in the aggregate
cost of payments made under this section being equal to what
would have been the aggregate cost of payments under this
section if the amendments made by section 304(a) of the
Workers' Compensation Reform Act of 2011 had not been
enacted.
``(ii) Cost of living adjustment.--The annual salary
established under clause (i) shall be increased on March 1 of
each year by the amount determined by the Secretary of Labor
to represent the percent change in the price index published
for December of the preceding year over the price index
published for the December of the year prior to the preceding
year, adjusted to the nearest one-tenth of 1 percent.
``(C) Present value.--The Secretary of Labor shall
calculate the present value for purposes of subparagraph (A)
using a rate of interest equal to the average market yield
for outstanding marketable obligations of the United States
with a maturity of 2 years on the first business day of the
month in which the compensation is paid or, in the event that
such marketable obligations are not being issued on such
date, at an equivalent rate selected by the Secretary of
Labor, true discount compounded annually.
``(2) Certain injuries.--For an injury that occurred before
the date of enactment of the Workers' Compensation Reform Act
of 2011, the rate under subsection (a) shall be 66 \2/3\
percent of the employee's monthly pay.
``(e) Simultaneous Receipt.--
``(1) Total disability.--An employee who receives
compensation for total disability under section 8105 may only
receive the lump sum of schedule compensation under this
section in addition to and simultaneously with the benefits
for total disability after the later of--
``(A) the date on which the basic compensation for total
disability of the employee becomes 50 percent of the monthly
pay of the employee under section 8105(b); or
``(B) the date on which augmented compensation of the
employee terminates under section 8110(b)(2)(A)(ii), if the
employee receives such compensation.
``(2) Partial disability.--An employee who receives
benefits for partial disability under section 8106 may only
receive the lump sum of schedule compensation under this
section in addition to and simultaneously with the benefits
for partial disability after the later of--
``(A) the date on which the basic compensation for partial
disability of the employee becomes 50 percent of the
difference between the monthly pay of the employee and the
monthly wage-earning capacity of the employee after the
beginning of the partial disability under section 8106(b); or
``(B) the date on which augmented compensation of the
employee terminates under section 8110(b)(2)(B), if the
employee receives such compensation.''.

SEC. 305. VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION.

(a) In General.--Section 8104 is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by striking ``(a) The Secretary of Labor may'' and all
that follows through ``undergo vocational rehabilitation.''
and inserting the following:
``(a) In General.--
``(1) Direction.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), not
earlier than the date that is 6 months after the date on
which an individual eligible for wage-loss compensation under
section 8105 or 8106 is injured, or by such other date as the
Secretary of Labor determines it would be reasonable under
the circumstances for the individual to begin vocational
rehabilitation, and if vocational rehabilitation may enable
the individual to become capable of more gainful employment,
the Secretary of Labor shall direct the individual to
participate in developing a comprehensive return to work plan
and to undergo vocational rehabilitation at a location a
reasonable distance from the residence of the individual.'';
(B) by striking ``the Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare in carrying out the purposes of chapter 4 of title
29'' and inserting ``the Secretary of Education in carrying
out the purposes of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C.
701 et seq.)'';
(C) by striking ``under section 32(b)(1) of title 29'' and
inserting ``under section 5 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
(29 U.S.C. 704)''; and
(D) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Exception.--The Secretary of Labor may not direct an
individual who has attained retirement age to participate in
developing a comprehensive return to work plan or to undergo
vocational rehabilitation.'';
(2) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c);
(3) by inserting after subsection (a) the following:
``(b) Contents of Return to Work Plan.--A return to work
plan developed under subsection (a)--
``(1) shall--
``(A) set forth specific measures designed to increase the
wage-earning capacity of an individual;
``(B) take into account the prior training and education of
the individual and the training, educational, and employment
opportunities reasonably available to the individual; and
``(C) provide that any employment undertaken by the
individual under the return to work plan be at a location a
reasonable distance from the residence of the individual;
``(2) may provide that the Secretary will pay out of
amounts in the Employees' Compensation Fund reasonable
expenses of vocational rehabilitation (which may include
tuition, books, training fees, supplies, equipment, and child
or dependent care) during the course of the plan; and
``(3) may not be for a period of more than 2 years, unless
the Secretary finds good cause to grant an extension, which
may be for not more than 2 years.'';
(4) in subsection (c), as so redesignated--
(A) by inserting ``Compensation.--'' before
``Notwithstanding''; and
(B) by striking ``, other than employment undertaken
pursuant to such rehabilitation''; and
(5) by adding at the end the following:
``(d) Assisted Reemployment Agreements.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary may enter into an assisted
reemployment agreement with an agency or instrumentality of
any branch of the Federal Government or a State or local
government or a private employer that employs an individual
eligible for wage-loss compensation under section 8105 or
8106 to enable the individual to return to productive
employment.
``(2) Contents.--An assisted reemployment agreement under
paragraph (1)--
``(A) may provide that the Secretary will use amounts in
the Employees' Compensation Fund to reimburse an employer in
an amount equal to not more than 100 percent of the
compensation the individual would otherwise receive under
section 8105 or 8106; and
``(B) may not be for a period of more than 3 years.
``(e) List.--To facilitate the hiring of individuals
eligible for wage-loss compensation under section 8105 or
8106, the Secretary shall provide a list of such individuals
to the Office of Personnel Management, which the

[[Page 16564]]

Office of Personnel Management shall provide to all agencies
and instrumentalities of the Federal Government.''.
(b) Termination of Vocational Rehabilitation Requirement
After Retirement Age.--Section 8113(b) is amended by adding
at the end the following: ``An individual who has attained
retirement age may not be required to undergo vocational
rehabilitation.''.
(c) Mandatory Benefit Reduction for Noncompliance.--Section
8113(b) is amended by striking ``may reduce'' and inserting
``shall reduce''.
(d) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--
(1) In general.--Subchapter III of chapter 15 of title 31,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following:

``Sec. 1538. Authorization for assisted reemployment

``Funds may be transferred from the Employees' Compensation
Fund established under section 8147 of title 5 to the
applicable appropriations account for an agency or
instrumentality of any branch of the Federal Government for
the purposes of reimbursing the agency or instrumentality in
accordance with an assisted reemployment agreement entered
into under section 8104 of title 5.''.
(2) Table of sections.--The table of sections for chapter
15 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by inserting
after the item relating to section 1537 the following:

``1538. Authorization for assisted reemployment.''.

SEC. 306. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

(a) In General.--Chapter 81 is amended by inserting after
section 8106 the following:

``Sec. 8106a. Reporting requirements

``(a) Definition.--In this section, the term `employee
receiving compensation' means an employee who--
``(1) is paid compensation under section 8105 or 8106; and
``(2) has not attained retirement age.
``(b) Authority.--The Secretary of Labor shall require an
employee receiving compensation to report the earnings of the
employee receiving compensation from employment or self-
employment, by affidavit or otherwise, in the manner and at
the times the Secretary specifies.
``(c) Contents.--An employee receiving compensation shall
include in a report required under subsection (a) the value
of housing, board, lodging, and other advantages which are
part of the earnings of the employee receiving compensation
in employment or self-employment and the value of which can
be estimated.
``(d) Failure To Report and False Reports.--
``(1) In general.--An employee receiving compensation who
fails to make an affidavit or other report required under
subsection (b) or who knowingly omits or understates any part
of the earnings of the employee in such an affidavit or other
report shall forfeit the right to compensation with respect
to any period for which the report was required.
``(2) Forfeited compensation.--Compensation forfeited under
this subsection, if already paid to the employee receiving
compensation, shall be recovered by a deduction from the
compensation payable to the employee or otherwise recovered
under section 8129, unless recovery is waived under that
section.''.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--The table of
sections for chapter 81 is amended by inserting after the
item relating to section 8106 the following:

``8106a. Reporting requirements.''.

SEC. 307. DISABILITY MANAGEMENT REVIEW; INDEPENDENT MEDICAL
EXAMINATIONS.

Section 8123 is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(e) Disability Management Review.--
``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection--
``(A) the term `covered employee' means an employee who is
in continuous receipt of compensation for total disability
under section 8105 for a period of not less than 6 months;
and
``(B) the term `disability management review process' means
the disability management review process established under
paragraph (2)(A).
``(2) Establishment.--The Secretary of Labor shall--
``(A) establish a disability management review process for
the purpose of certifying and monitoring the disability
status and extent of injury of each covered employee; and
``(B) promulgate regulations for the administration of the
disability management review process.
``(3) Physical examinations required.--Under the disability
management review process, the Secretary of Labor shall
periodically require covered employees to submit to physical
examinations under subsection (a) by physicians selected by
the Secretary. A physician conducting a physical examination
of a covered employee shall submit to the Secretary a report
regarding the nature and extent of the injury to and
disability of the covered employee.
``(4) Frequency.--
``(A) In general.--The regulations promulgated under
paragraph (2)(B) shall specify the process and criteria for
determining when and how frequently a physical examination
should be conducted for a covered employee.
``(B) Minimum frequency.--
``(i) Initial.--An initial physical examination shall be
conducted not more than a brief period after the date on
which a covered employee has been in continuous receipt of
compensation for total disability under section 8015 for 6
months.
``(ii) Subsequent examinations.--After the initial physical
examination, physical examinations of a covered employee
shall be conducted not less than once every 3 years.
``(5) Employing agency or instrumentality requests.--
``(A) In general.--The agency or instrumentality employing
an employee who has made a claim for compensation for total
disability under section 8105 may at any time submit a
request for the Secretary of Labor to promptly require the
employee to submit to a physical examination under this
subsection.
``(B) Requesting officer.--A request under subparagraph (A)
shall be made on behalf of an agency or instrumentality by--
``(i) the head of the agency or instrumentality;
``(ii) the Chief Human Capital Officer of the agency or
instrumentality; or
``(iii) if the agency or instrumentality does not have a
Chief Human Capital Officer, an officer with responsibilities
similar to those of a Chief Human Capital Officer designated
by the head of the agency or instrumentality to make requests
under this paragraph.
``(C) Information.--A request under subparagraph (A) shall
be in writing and accompanied by--
``(i) a certification by the officer making the request
that the officer has reviewed the relevant material in the
employee's file;
``(ii) an explanation of why the officer has determined,
based on the materials in the file and other information
known to the officer, that requiring a physical examination
of the employee under this subsection is necessary; and
``(iii) copies of the materials relating to the employee
that are relevant to the officer's determination and request,
unless the agency or instrumentality has a reasonable basis
for not providing the materials.
``(D) Examination.--If the Secretary of Labor receives a
request under this paragraph before an employee has undergone
an initial physical examination under paragraph (4)(B)(i),
the Secretary shall promptly require the physical examination
of the employee. A physical examination under this
subparagraph shall satisfy the requirement under paragraph
(4)(B)(i) that an initial physical examination be conducted.
``(E) After initial examination.--
``(i) In general.--If the Secretary of Labor receives a
request under this paragraph after an employee has undergone
an initial physical examination under paragraph (4)(B)(i),
the Secretary shall--

``(I) review the request and the information, explanation,
and other materials submitted with the request; and
``(II) determine whether to require the physical
examination of the employee who is the subject of the
request.

``(ii) Not granted.--If the Secretary determines not to
grant a request described in clause (i), the Secretary shall
promptly notify the officer who made the request and provide
an explanation of the reasons why the request was denied.''.

SEC. 308. WAITING PERIOD.

(a) In General.--Section 8117 is amended--
(1) in the section heading, by striking ``Time of accrual
of right'' and inserting ``Waiting period'';
(2) in subsection (a)--
(A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking ``An
employee'' and all that follows through ``is not entitled''
and inserting ``In General.--An employee is not entitled to
continuation of pay within the meaning of section 8118 for
the first 3 days of temporary disability or, if section 8118
does not apply, is not entitled'';
(B) in paragraph (1), by adding ``or'' at the end;
(C) by striking paragraph (2); and
(D) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2); and
(3) in subsection (b)--
(A) by striking ``A Postal Service'' the first place it
appears and all that follows through ``A Postal Service'' the
second place it appears and inserting ``Use of Leave.--An'';
(B) by striking ``that 3-day period'' and inserting ``the
first 3 days of temporary disability''; and
(C) by striking ``or is followed by permanent disability''.
(b) Continuation of Pay.--Section 8118 is amended--
(1) in the section heading, by striking ``; election to use
annual or sick leave'';
(2) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ``section 8117(b)''
and inserting ``section 8117'';
(3) by striking subsection (c); and
(4) by redesignating subsections (d) and (e) as subsections
(c) and (d), respectively.
(c) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--The table of
sections for chapter 81 is amended by striking the items
relating to sections 8117 and 8118 and inserting the
following:

``8117. Waiting period.

[[Page 16565]]

``8118. Continuation of pay.''.

SEC. 309. ELECTION OF BENEFITS.

(a) In General.--Section 8116 is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(e) Retirement Benefits.--
``(1) In general.--An individual entitled to compensation
benefits payable under this subchapter and under chapter 83
or 84 or any other retirement system for employees of the
Government, for the same period, shall elect which benefits
the individual will receive.
``(2) Election.--
``(A) Deadline.--An individual shall make an election under
paragraph (1) in accordance with such deadlines as the
Secretary of Labor shall establish.
``(B) Revocability.--An election under paragraph (1) shall
be revocable, notwithstanding any other provision of law,
except for any period during which an individual--
``(i) was qualified for benefits payable under both this
subchapter and under a retirement system described in
paragraph (1); and
``(ii) was paid benefits under the retirement system after
having been notified of eligibility for benefits under this
subchapter.
``(3) Informed choice.--The Secretary of Labor shall
provide information, and shall ensure that information is
provided, to an individual described in paragraph (1) about
the benefits available to the individual under this
subchapter or under chapter 83 or 84 or any other retirement
system referred to in paragraph (1) the individual may elect
to receive.''.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--Sections
8337(f)(3) and 8464a(a)(3) are each amended by striking
``Paragraphs'' and inserting ``Except as provided under
chapter 81, paragraphs''.

SEC. 310. SANCTION FOR NONCOOPERATION WITH FIELD NURSES.

Section 8123, as amended by section 307, is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(f) Field Nurses.--
``(1) Definition.--In this subsection, the term `field
nurse' means a registered nurse that assists the Secretary in
the medical management of disability claims under this
subchapter and provides claimants with assistance in
coordinating medical care.
``(2) Authorization.--The Secretary may use field nurses to
coordinate medical services and vocational rehabilitation
programs for injured employees under this subchapter. If an
employee refuses to cooperate with a field nurse or obstructs
a field nurse in the performance of duties under this
subchapter, the right to compensation under this subchapter
shall be suspended until the refusal or obstruction stops.''.

SEC. 311. SUBROGATION OF CONTINUATION OF PAY.

(a) In General.--Section 8131 is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), in the matter preceding paragraph
(1), by inserting ``continuation of pay or'' before
``compensation''; and
(2) in subsection (b), by inserting ``continuation of pay''
before compensation; and
(3) in subsection (c)--
(A) by inserting ``continuation of pay or'' before
``compensation already paid''; and
(B) by inserting ``continuation of pay or'' before
``compensation payable''.
(b) Adjustment After Recovery From a Third Person.--Section
8132 is amended--
(1) in the first sentence--
(A) by inserting ``continuation of pay or'' before
``compensation is payable'';
(B) by inserting ``continuation of pay or'' before
``compensation from the United States'';
(C) by striking ``by him or in his behalf'' and inserting
``by the beneficiary or on behalf of the beneficiary'';
(D) by inserting ``continuation of pay and'' before
``compensation paid by the United States''; and
(E) by striking ``compensation payable to him'' and
inserting ``continuation of pay or compensation payable to
the beneficiary'';
(2) in the second sentence, by striking ``his designee''
and inserting ``the designee of the beneficiary''; and
(3) in the fourth sentence, by striking ``If compensation''
and all that follows through ``payable to him by the United
States'' and inserting ``If continuation of pay or
compensation has not been paid to the beneficiary, the money
or property shall be credited against continuation of pay or
compensation payable to the beneficiary by the United
States''.

SEC. 312. SOCIAL SECURITY EARNINGS INFORMATION.

Section 8116, as amended by section 308, is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(f) Earnings Information.--Notwithstanding section 552a
or any other provision of Federal or State law, the Social
Security Administration shall make available to the Secretary
of Labor, upon written request, the Social Security earnings
information of a living or deceased employee who may have
sustained an injury or died as a result of an injury that is
the subject of a claim under this subchapter required by the
Secretary of Labor to carry out this subchapter.''.

SEC. 313. AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION.

(a) Injuries to Face, Head, and Neck.--Section 8107(c)(21)
is amended--
(1) by striking ``not to exceed $3,500'' and inserting ``in
proportion to the severity of the disfigurement, not to
exceed $50,000,''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following: ``The maximum
amount of compensation under this paragraph shall be
increased on March 1 of each year by the amount determined by
the Secretary of Labor to represent the percent change in the
price index published for December of the preceding year over
the price index published for the December of the year prior
to the preceding year, adjusted to the nearest one-tenth of 1
percent.''.
(b) Funeral Expenses.--Section 8134(a) is amended--
(1) by striking ``$800'' and inserting ``$6,000''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following: ``The maximum
amount of compensation under this subsection shall be
increased on March 1 of each year by the amount determined by
the Secretary of Labor to represent the percent change in the
price index published for December of the preceding year over
the price index published for the December of the year prior
to the preceding year, adjusted to the nearest one-tenth of 1
percent.''.
(c) Application.--The amendments made by this section shall
apply to injuries or deaths, respectively, occurring on or
after the date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 314. TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

Chapter 81 is amended--
(1) in section 8101(1)(D), by inserting ``for an injury
that occurred before the effective date of section 204(e) of
the District of Columbia Self-Government and Governmental
Reorganization Act (Public Law 93-198; 87 Stat. 783; 5 U.S.C.
8101 note)'' before the semicolon;
(2) in section 8139, by inserting ``under this subchapter''
after ``Compensation awarded'';
(3) in section 8148(a), by striking ``section 8106'' and
inserting ``section 8106a'';

SEC. 315. REGULATIONS.

(a) In General.--As soon as possible after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Labor shall
promulgate regulations (which may include interim final
regulations) to carry out this title.
(b) Contents.--The regulations promulgated under subsection
(a) shall include, for purposes of the amendments made by
sections 302 and 303, clarification of--
(1) what is a claim; and
(2) what is the date on which a period of disability, for
which a claim is made, commences.

TITLE IV--OTHER MATTERS

SEC. 401. PROFITABILITY PLAN.

(a) Plan Required.--Not later than 90 days after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Postal Service shall submit to
the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
of the Senate, the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform of the House of Representatives, the Comptroller
General of the United States, and the Commission a plan
describing, in detail, the actions the Postal Service will
take to--
(1) become profitable by fiscal year 2015; and
(2) achieve long-term financial solvency.
(b) Considerations.--The plan required under subsection (a)
shall take into consideration--
(1) the legal authority of the Postal Service;
(2) the changes in the legal authority and responsibilities
of the Postal Service under this Act;
(3) any cost savings that the Postal Service anticipates
will be achieved through negotiations with employees of the
Postal Service; and
(4) projected changes in mail volume.
(c) Updates.--The Postal Service shall update the plan
required under subsection (a) not less frequently than
quarterly, until the last quarter of fiscal year 2015.

SEC. 402. POSTAL RATES.

(a) Commission Study.--
(1) In general.--Not earlier than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Commission shall commence a study
to determine--
(A) whether and to what extent any market-dominant classes,
products, or types of mail services do not bear the direct
and indirect costs attributable to those classes, products,
or types of mail service; and
(B) the impact of any excess mail processing,
transportation, or delivery capacity of the Postal Service on
the direct and indirect costs attributable to any class that
bears less than 100 percent of the costs attributable to the
class, as determined under subparagraph (A).
(2) Requirements.--The Commission shall conduct the study
under paragraph (1) in a manner that protects confidential
and proprietary business information.
(3) Hearing.--Before completing the study under paragraph
(1), the Commission shall hold a public hearing, on the
record, in order to better inform the conclusions of the
study. The Postal Service, postal customers, and other
interested persons may participate in the hearing under this
paragraph.
(4) Completion.--Not later than 6 months after the date on
which the Commission commences the study under subsection
(a), the Commission shall complete the study.
(b) Annual Updates Required.--Not later than 1 year after
the date of completion of

[[Page 16566]]

the study under subsection (a), and annually thereafter, the
Commission shall--
(1) determine whether any class of mail bears less than 100
percent of the direct and indirect costs attributable to the
class, product, or type of mail service, in the same manner
as under subsection (a)(1)(A);
(2) for any class of mail for which the Commission makes a
determination under paragraph (1), update the study under
subsection (a); and
(3) include the study updated under paragraph (2) in the
annual written determination of the Commission under section
3653 of title 39, United States Code.
(c) Postal Rates.--
(1) Definition.--In this subsection, the term ``loss-
making'', as used with respect to a class of mail, means a
class of mail that bears less than 100 percent of the costs
attributable to the class of mail, according to the most
recent annual determination of the Commission under
subsection (a)(1) or (b)(1), adjusted to account for the
quantitative effect of excess mail processing,
transportation, or delivery capacity of the Postal Service on
the costs attributable to the class of mail.
(2) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date on
which the study under subsection (a) is completed, and
annually thereafter, the Postal Service shall establish
postal rates for each loss-making class of mail.
(3) Considerations.--The Postal Service may establish
postal rates under paragraph (2) in a manner that ensures, to
the extent practicable, that a class of mail described in
paragraph (2) is not loss-making by--
(A) using the authority to increase rates under section
3622(d)(1)(A) of title 39, United States Code;
(B) exhausting any unused rate adjustment authority, as
defined in section 3622(d)(2)(C) of title 39, United States
Code, subject to paragraph (4); and
(C) maximizing incentives to reduce costs and increase
efficiency with regard to the processing, transportation, and
delivery of such mail by the Postal Service.
(4) Unused rate adjustment authority.--Section
3622(d)(2)(C) of title 39, United States Code, shall be
applied by annually increasing by 2 percentage points any
unused rate adjustment authority for a class of mail that
bears less than 90 percent of the costs attributable to the
class of mail, according to the most recent annual
determination of the Commission under subsection (a)(1) or
(b)(1), adjusted to account for the quantitative effect of
excess mail processing, transportation, or delivery capacity
of the Postal Service on the costs attributable to the class
of mail.

SEC. 403. COOPERATION WITH STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS;
INTRA-SERVICE AGREEMENTS.

(a) Cooperation With State and Local Governments.--Section
411 of title 39, United States Code, is amended, in the first
sentence by striking ``and the Government Printing Office''
inserting ``, the Government Printing Office, and agencies
and other units of State and local governments''.
(b) Intra-Service Agreements.--Section 411 of title 39,
United States Code, as amended by subsection (a), is
amended--
(1) in the section heading, by adding at the end the
following: ``and within the Postal Service'';
(2) in the second sentence, by striking ``section'' and
inserting ``subsection'';
(3) by striking ``Executive agencies'' and inserting the
following:
``(a) Cooperation With State and Local Governments.--
Executive agencies''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Cooperation Within the Postal Service.--The Office of
the Inspector General and other components of the Postal
Service may enter into agreements to furnish to each other
property, both real and personal, and personal and
nonpersonal services. The furnishing of property and services
under this subsection shall be under such terms and
conditions, including reimbursability, as the Inspector
General and the head of the component concerned shall deem
appropriate.''.
(c) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of
sections for chapter 4 of title 39, United States Code, is
amended by striking the item relating to section 411 and
inserting the following:

``411. Cooperation with other Government agencies and within the Postal
Service.''.

SEC. 404. SHIPPING OF WINE AND BEER.

(a) Mailability.--
(1) Nonmailable articles.--Section 1716(f) of title 18,
United States Code, is amended by striking ``mails'' and
inserting ``mails, except to the extent that the mailing is
allowable under section 3001(p) of title 39''.
(2) Application of laws.--Section 1161 of title 18, United
States Code, is amended, by inserting ``, and, with respect
to the mailing of wine or malt beverages (as those terms are
defined in section 117 of the Federal Alcohol Administration
Act (27 U.S.C. 211)), is in conformity with section 3001(p)
of title 39'' after ``Register''.
(b) Regulations.--Section 3001 of title 39, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(p)(1) In this subsection, the terms `wine' and `malt
beverage' have the same meanings as in section 117 of the
Federal Alcohol Administration Act (27 U.S.C. 211).
``(2) Wine or malt beverages shall be considered mailable
if mailed--
``(A) by a licensed winery or brewery, in accordance with
applicable regulations under paragraph (3); and
``(B) in accordance with the law of the State, territory,
or district of the United States where the addressee or duly
authorized agent takes delivery.
``(3) The Postal Service shall prescribe such regulations
as may be necessary to carry out this subsection, including
regulations providing that--
``(A) the mailing shall be by a means established by the
Postal Service to ensure direct delivery to the addressee or
a duly authorized agent;
``(B) the addressee (and any duly authorized agent) shall
be an individual at least 21 years of age;
``(C) the individual who takes delivery, whether the
addressee or a duly authorized agent, shall present a valid,
government-issued photo identification at the time of
delivery;
``(D) the wine or malt beverages may not be for resale or
other commercial purpose; and
``(E) the winery or brewery involved shall--
``(i) certify in writing to the satisfaction of the Postal
Service, through a registration process administered by the
Postal Service, that the mailing is not in violation of any
provision of this subsection or regulation prescribed under
this subsection; and
``(ii) provide any other information or affirmation that
the Postal Service may require, including with respect to the
prepayment of State alcohol beverage taxes.
``(4) For purposes of this subsection--
``(A) a winery shall be considered to be licensed if it
holds an appropriate basic permit issued--
``(i) under the Federal Alcohol Administration Act; and
``(ii) under the law of the State in which the winery is
located; and
``(B) a brewery shall be considered to be licensed if--
``(i) it possesses a notice of registration and bond
approved by the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau of
the Department of the Treasury; and
``(ii) it is licensed to manufacture and sell malt
beverages in the State in which the brewery is located.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the earlier of--
(1) the date on which the Postal Service issues regulations
under section 3001(p) of title 39, United States Code, as
amended by this section; and
(2) 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 405. ANNUAL REPORT ON UNITED STATES MAILING INDUSTRY.

(a) In General.--Chapter 24 of title 39, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

``Sec. 2403. Annual report on the fiscal stability of the
United States mailing industry

``(a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this section, and annually thereafter, the
Postal Regulatory Commission shall submit a report on the
fiscal stability of the United States mailing industry with
respect to the preceding fiscal year to--
``(1) the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs of the Senate; and
``(2) the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of
the House of Representatives.
``(b) Assistance.--The United States Postal Service and any
Federal agency involved in oversight or data collection
regarding industry sectors relevant to the report under
subsection (a) shall provide any assistance to the Postal
Regulatory Commission that the Postal Regulatory Commission
determines is necessary in the preparation of a report under
subsection (a).''.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of
sections for chapter 24 of title 39, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:

``2403. Annual report on the fiscal stability of the United States
mailing industry.''.

SEC. 406. USE OF NEGOTIATED SERVICE AGREEMENTS.

Section 3622 of title 39, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (c)(10)(A)--
(A) in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking
``either'' and inserting ``will'';
(B) in clause (i), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(C) in clause (ii), by striking ``and'' at the end and
inserting ``or''; and
(D) by adding at the end the following:
``(iii) preserve mail volume and revenue; and''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(g) Coordination.--The Postal Service and the Postal
Regulatory Commission shall coordinate actions to identify
methods to increase the use of negotiated service agreements
for market-dominant products by the Postal Service consistent
with subsection (c)(10).''.

SEC. 407. CONTRACT DISPUTES.

Section 7101(8) of title 41, United States Code, is
amended--

[[Page 16567]]

(1) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in subparagraph (D), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(E) the United States Postal Service and the Postal
Regulatory Commission.''.

SEC. 408. CONTRACTING PROVISIONS.

(a) In General.--Part I of title 39, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:

``CHAPTER 7--CONTRACTING PROVISIONS

``Sec.
``701. Definitions.
``702. Advocate for competition.
``703. Delegation of contracting authority.
``704. Posting of noncompetitive purchase requests for noncompetitive
contracts.
``705. Review of ethical issues.
``706. Ethical restrictions on participation in certain contracting
activity.

``Sec. 701. Definitions

``In this chapter--
``(1) the term `contracting officer' means an employee of a
covered postal entity who has authority to enter into a
postal contract;
``(2) the term `covered postal entity' means--
``(A) the United States Postal Service; or
``(B) the Postal Regulatory Commission;
``(3) the term `head of a covered postal entity' means--
``(A) in the case of the United States Postal Service, the
Postmaster General; or
``(B) in the case of the Postal Regulatory Commission, the
Chairman of the Postal Regulatory Commission;
``(4) the term `postal contract' means any contract
(including any agreement or memorandum of understanding)
entered into by a covered postal entity for the procurement
of goods or services; and
``(5) the term `senior procurement executive' means the
senior procurement executive of a covered postal entity.

``Sec. 702. Advocate for competition

``(a) Establishment and Designation.--
``(1) There is established in each covered postal entity an
advocate for competition.
``(2) The head of each covered postal entity shall
designate for the covered postal entity 1 or more officers or
employees (other than the senior procurement executive) to
serve as the advocate for competition.
``(b) Responsibilities.--The advocate for competition of
each covered postal entity shall--
``(1) be responsible for promoting competition to the
maximum extent practicable consistent with obtaining best
value by promoting the acquisition of commercial items and
challenging barriers to competition;
``(2) review the procurement activities of the covered
postal entity; and
``(3) prepare and transmit to the head of each covered
postal entity, the senior procurement executive of each
covered postal entity, the Board of Governors of the United
States Postal Service, and Congress, an annual report
describing--
``(A) the activities of the advocate under this section;
``(B) initiatives required to promote competition;
``(C) barriers to competition that remain; and
``(D) the number of waivers made by each covered postal
entity under section 704(c).

``Sec. 703. Delegation of contracting authority

``(a) In General.--
``(1) Policy.--Not later than 60 days after the date of
enactment of the 21st Century Postal Service Act of 2011, the
head of each covered postal entity shall issue a policy on
contracting officer delegations of authority for the covered
postal entity.
``(2) Contents.--The policy issued under paragraph (1)
shall require that--
``(A) notwithstanding any delegation of authority with
respect to postal contracts, the ultimate responsibility and
accountability for the award and administration of postal
contracts resides with the senior procurement executive; and
``(B) a contracting officer shall maintain an awareness of
and engagement in the activities being performed on postal
contracts of which that officer has cognizance,
notwithstanding any delegation of authority that may have
been executed.
``(b) Posting of Delegations.--
``(1) In general.--The head of each covered postal entity
shall make any delegation of authority for postal contracts
outside the functional contracting unit readily available and
accessible on the website of the covered postal entity.
``(2) Effective date.--This paragraph shall apply to any
delegation of authority made on or after 30 days after the
date of enactment of the 21st Century Postal Service Act of
2011.

``Sec. 704. Posting of noncompetitive purchase requests for
noncompetitive contracts

``(a) Posting Required.--
``(1) Postal regulatory commission.--The Postal Regulatory
Commission shall make the noncompetitive purchase request for
any noncompetitive award, including the rationale supporting
the noncompetitive award, publicly available on the website
of the Postal Regulatory Commission--
``(A) not later than 14 days after the date of the award of
the noncompetitive contract; or
``(B) not later than 30 days after the date of the award of
the noncompetitive contract, if the basis for the award was a
compelling business interest.
``(2) United states postal service.--The United States
Postal Service shall make the noncompetitive purchase request
for any noncompetitive award of a postal contract valued at
$250,000 or more, including the rationale supporting the
noncompetitive award, publicly available on the website of
the United States Postal Service--
``(A) not later than 14 days after the date of the award;
or
``(B) not later than 30 days after the date of the award,
if the basis for the award was a compelling business
interest.
``(3) Adjustments to the posting threshold for the united
states postal service.--
``(A) Review and determination.--Not later than January 31
of each year, the United States Postal Service shall--
``(i) review the $250,000 threshold established under
paragraph (2); and
``(ii) based on any change in the Consumer Price Index for
all-urban consumers of the Department of Labor, determine
whether an adjustment to the threshold shall be made.
``(B) Amount of adjustments.--An adjustment under
subparagraph (A) shall be made in increments of $5,000. If
the United States Postal Service determines that a change in
the Consumer Price Index for a year would require an
adjustment in an amount that is less than $5,000, the United
States Postal Service may not make an adjustment to the
threshold for the year.
``(4) Effective date.--This subsection shall apply to any
noncompetitive contract awarded on or after the date that is
90 days after the date of enactment of the 21st Century
Postal Service Act of 2011.
``(b) Public Availability.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the
information required to be made publicly available by a
covered postal entity under subsection (a) shall be readily
accessible on the website of the covered postal entity.
``(2) Protection of proprietary information.--A covered
postal entity shall--
``(A) carefully screen any description of the rationale
supporting a noncompetitive award required to be made
publicly available under subsection (a) to determine whether
the description includes proprietary data (including any
reference or citation to the proprietary data) or security-
related information; and
``(B) remove any proprietary data or security-related
information before making publicly available a description of
the rational supporting a noncompetitive award.
``(c) Waivers.--
``(1) Waiver permitted.--If a covered postal entity
determines that making a noncompetitive purchase request
publicly available would risk placing the United States
Postal Service at a competitive disadvantage relative to a
private sector competitor, the senior procurement executive,
in consultation with the advocate for competition of the
covered postal entity, may waive the requirements under
subsection (a).
``(2) Form and content of waiver.--
``(A) Form.--A waiver under paragraph (1) shall be in the
form of a written determination placed in the file of the
contract to which the noncompetitive purchase agreement
relates.
``(B) Content.--A waiver under paragraph (1) shall
include--
``(i) a description of the risk associated with making the
noncompetitive purchase request publicly available; and
``(ii) a statement that redaction of sensitive information
in the noncompetitive purchase request would not be
sufficient to protect the United States Postal Service from
being placed at a competitive disadvantage relative to a
private sector competitor.
``(3) Delegation of waiver authority.--A covered postal
entity may not delegate the authority to approve a waiver
under paragraph (1) to any employee having less authority
than the senior procurement executive.

``Sec. 705. Review of ethical issues

``If a contracting officer identifies any ethical issues
relating to a proposed contract and submits those issues and
that proposed contract to the designated ethics official for
the covered postal entity before the awarding of that
contract, that ethics official shall--
``(1) review the proposed contract; and
``(2) advise the contracting officer on the appropriate
resolution of ethical issues.

``Sec. 706. Ethical restrictions on participation in certain
contracting activity

``(a) Definitions.--In this section--
``(1) the term `covered employee' means--
``(A) a contracting officer; or
``(B) any employee of a covered postal entity whose
decisionmaking affects a postal contract as determined by
regulations prescribed by the head of a covered postal
entity;
``(2) the term `covered relationship' means a covered
relationship described in section 2635.502(b)(1) of title 5,
Code of Federal Regulations, or any successor thereto; and
``(3) the term `final conviction' means a conviction,
whether entered on a verdict or

[[Page 16568]]

plea, including a plea of nolo contendere, for which a
sentence has been imposed.
``(b) In General.--
``(1) Regulations.--The head of each covered postal entity
shall prescribe regulations that--
``(A) require a covered employee to include in the file of
any noncompetitive purchase request for a noncompetitive
postal contract a written certification that--
``(i) discloses any covered relationship of the covered
employee; and
``(ii) the covered employee will not take any action with
respect to the noncompetitive purchase request that affects
the financial interests of a friend, relative, or person with
whom the covered employee is affiliated in a nongovernmental
capacity, or otherwise gives rise to an appearance of the use
of public office for private gain, as described in section
2635.702 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, or any
successor thereto;
``(B) require a contracting officer to consult with the
ethics counsel for the covered postal entity regarding any
disclosure made by a covered employee under subparagraph
(A)(i), to determine whether participation by the covered
employee in the noncompetitive purchase request would give
rise to a violation of part 2635 of title 5, Code of Federal
Regulations (commonly referred to as the `Standards of
Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch');
``(C) require the ethics counsel for a covered postal
entity to review any disclosure made by a contracting officer
under subparagraph (A)(i) to determine whether participation
by the contracting officer in the noncompetitive purchase
request would give rise to a violation of part 2635 of title
5, Code of Federal Regulations (commonly referred to as the
`Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive
Branch'), or any successor thereto;
``(D) under subsections (d) and (e) of section 2635.50 of
title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, or any successor
thereto, require the ethics counsel for a covered postal
entity to--
``(i) authorize a covered employee that makes a disclosure
under subparagraph (A)(i) to participate in the
noncompetitive postal contract; or
``(ii) disqualify a covered employee that makes a
disclosure under subparagraph (A)(i) from participating in
the noncompetitive postal contract;
``(E) require a contractor to timely disclose to the
contracting officer in a bid, solicitation, award, or
performance of a postal contract any conflict of interest
with a covered employee; and
``(F) include authority for the head of the covered postal
entity to a grant a waiver or otherwise mitigate any
organizational or personal conflict of interest, if the head
of the covered postal entity determines that the waiver or
mitigation is in the best interests of the Postal Service.
``(2) Posting of waivers.--Not later than 30 days after the
head of a covered postal entity grants a waiver described in
paragraph (1)(F), the head of the covered postal entity shall
make the waiver publicly available on the website of the
covered postal entity.
``(c) Contract Voidance and Recovery.--
``(1) Unlawful conduct.--In any case in which there is a
final conviction for a violation of any provision of chapter
11 of title 18 relating to a postal contract, the head of a
covered postal entity may--
``(A) void that contract; and
``(B) recover the amounts expended and property transferred
by the covered postal entity under that contract.
``(2) Obtaining or disclosing procurement information.--
``(A) In general.--In any case where a contractor under a
postal contract fails to timely disclose a conflict of
interest to the appropriate contracting officer as required
under the regulations promulgated under subsection (b)(1)(D),
the head of a covered postal entity may--
``(i) void that contract; and
``(ii) recover the amounts expended and property
transferred by the covered postal entity under that contract.
``(B) Conviction or administrative determination.--A case
described under subparagraph (A) is any case in which--
``(i) there is a final conviction for an offense punishable
under section 27(e) of the Office of Federal Procurement
Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 423(e)); or
``(ii) the head of a covered postal entity determines,
based upon a preponderance of the evidence, that the
contractor or someone acting for the contractor has engaged
in conduct constituting an offense punishable under section
27(e) of that Act.''.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of
chapters for part I of title 39, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:

701''.tracting Provisions............................................

____________________

SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS

______

SENATE RESOLUTION 309--SUPPORTING THE PRESERVATION OF INTERNET
ENTREPRENEURS AND SMALL BUSINESSES

Mr. WYDEN (for himself, Ms. Ayotte, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Begich, Mr.
Merkley, and Mr. Heller) submitted the following resolution; which was
referred to the Committee on Finance.

S. Res. 309

Whereas the United States enjoys a strong Internet retail
market, which, for the past decade, has provided consumers in
the United States with the opportunity to purchase quality
products and services at competitive prices;
Whereas the free Internet marketplace has enabled a large
number of small retailers and entrepreneurs across the Nation
to establish and strengthen businesses on various e-commerce
platforms and therefore protect and create jobs, increase
consumer choice, create competition in the retail industry,
and provide quality goods and services at reasonable and
often discounted prices;
Whereas any Federal legislation that would upset the free
and fair Internet marketplace and allow State governments to
impose new, onerous and burdensome sales tax-collecting
schemes on out-of-State, Internet-enabled small businesses
would adversely impact hundreds of thousands of jobs, reduce
consumer choice, and impede the growth and development of
interstate commerce; and
Whereas at a time when national unemployment numbers are
high and businesses across the country are struggling to keep
their doors open, the Federal Government should promote pro-
growth and pro-business policies instead of enacting
legislation that extracts additional taxes from our Nation's
Internet-enabled businesses: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that Congress
should not enact any legislation that would grant State
governments the authority to impose any new burdensome or
unfair tax collecting requirements on small Internet
businesses and entrepreneurs, which would ultimately hurt the
economy of, and consumers in, the United States.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased today to be joined by Senators
Ayotte, Begich, Heller, Merkley, and Shaheen to submit a simple but
important bipartisan resolution. Our resolution simply expresses a
sense of the Senate that the government should not sack small online
businesses with any new tax collecting mandates that would hurt their
competitiveness, hurt economic recovery, hurt competition, and harm
consumers.
The Internet is transforming the way that commerce is conducted. It
is leveling the playing field so that the marketplace--whether for
goods and services or for ideas--is less and less dominated by the big
and by the powerful. The Internet is democratizing information, speech,
and making it easier to exchange ideas as well as goods and services.
The legal regime that the United States currently has in place, which
facilitates e-commerce, must be protected. Our Constitution and laws
such as the Internet Tax Freedom Act and section 230 of the
Communications Decency Act, which I championed and protect e-commerce
platforms from litigation and small e-commerce businesses from being
crushed by layers and layers of state and local taxes, are the pillars
that support America's e-commerce platforms and online entrepreneurs'
ability to compete.
Everyone in this body recognizes that small businesses are the
engines of our economy. They are responsible for the bulk of innovation
and job creation in this country--job creation that is so desperately
needed right now. In this difficult economic period, however, many
State and local governments are facing budgetary shortfalls. It is a
difficult challenge that I am sure all of my colleagues recognize, but
State budget gaps should not be filled by imposing new tax collecting
mandates on the very types of businesses that we rely on to innovate
and create the new jobs of tomorrow. But that is what some people are
suggesting that Congress allow. I am opposed to that right now,
especially given the economic challenges that we face.
Let me give just one example of why we shouldn't upset the legal
regime that is currently working to foster innovation, encourage e-
commerce and interstate economic activity and which supports jobs.
Without the regime that we have in place, a small online retailer,
whether it is someone that is selling new merchandise or used
merchandise, would be responsible for collecting sales tax for up to
15,000 different sales tax jurisdictions. That is just not a reasonable
thing to expect. That is not a reasonable thing to expect particularly,
say, from a stay-at-

[[Page 16569]]

home parent who sells household goods online to supplement the family's
income. Or a college student who buys and sells used merchandise online
to help finance the increasingly higher costs of attending college. We
don't want to saddle online entrepreneurs like these with new tax
collecting responsibilities that will, in effect, put them right out of
business.
I look forward to working with my Senate colleagues to build support
for this resolution and to ensure that we keep the policies in place
that enable small businesses, including online businesses, to have a
policy environment that allows them to innovate and create good
American jobs.

____________________

NOTICE OF INTENT TO OBJECT TO PROCEEDING

I, Senator Charles Grassley, intend to object to proceeding to S.
1014, a bill to provide for additional Federal district judgeships,
dated November 2, 2011.

____________________

NOTICE OF HEARING

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the
information of the Senate and the public that a field hearing has been
scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
The hearing will be held on Monday, November 14, 2011, at 10 a.m., in
7th Floor Courtroom of the Robert C. Byrd Federal Courthouse, 300
Virginia Street, East Charleston, WV 25301.
The purpose of the hearing is to examine Marcellus Shale Gas
development and production in West Virginia.
Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may
testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written
testimony for the hearing record may do so by sending it to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate,
Washington, D.C. 20510-6150, or by e-mail to Abigail_Campbell
@energy.senate.gov.
For further information, please contact Allyson Anderson at (202)
224- 7143 or Abigail Campbell at (202) 224-1219.

____________________

AUTHORITY FOR COMMITTEES TO MEET

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during
the session of the Senate on November 2, 2011, at 2:30 p.m. in room 253
of the Russell Senate Office Building.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet
during the session of the Senate on November 2, 2011, at 9:30 a.m. to
conduct a hearing entitled ``Ten Years After 9/11: The Next Wave in
Aviation Security.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Committee on the Judiciary

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate
on November 2, 2011, at 10 a.m. in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate
Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Nominations.''.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

SUBCommittee on European Affairs

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the
Senate on November 2, 2011, at 9:30 a.m., to hold a European Affairs
subcommittee hearing entitled, ``The European Debt Crisis: Strategic
Implications for the Transatlantic Alliance.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

SUBCommittee on International Operations and Organizations, Human
Rights, Democracy, and Global Women's Issues

and

Subcommittee on Near Eastern and South and Central Asian Affairs

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the
Senate on November 2, 2011, at 2:30 p.m., to hold a joint hearing of
the Subcommittee on International Operations and Organizations, Human
Rights, Democracy, and Global Women's Issues, and the Subcommittee on
Near Eastern and South and Central Asian Affairs entitled, ``Women and
the Arab Spring.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

SPECIAL Committee on Aging

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special
Committee on Aging be authorized to meet during the session of the
Senate on November 2, 2011, at 2:00 p.m. in room G-50 of the Dirksen
Senate office building to conduct a hearing entitled ``Ensuring Quality
and Oversight in Assisted Living.''.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

PRIVILEGES OF THE FLOOR

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that floor
privileges be extended for the balance of the day to my intern, India
Wade.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Julia
Feinberg and Adam Newman of my staff be granted the privilege of the
floor for the duration of today's proceedings on the motion to proceed
to S. 1769.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

FOREIGN TRAVEL FINANCIAL REPORTS

In accordance with the appropriate provisions of law, the Secretary
of the Senate herewith submits the following reports for standing
committees of the Senate, certain joint committees of the Congress,
delegations and groups, and select and special committees of the
Senate, relating to expenses incurred in the performance of authorized
foreign travel:

[[Page 16570]]

United States.......................... Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 12,641.20 ........... ........... ........... 12,641.20
Erik Fatemi:
Cambodia............................... Riel....................................... ........... 991.55 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 991.55
India.................................. Rupee...................................... ........... 2,422.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 2,422.00
United States.......................... Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 10,690.00 ........... ........... ........... 10,690.00
Adrienne Hallett:
Cambodia............................... Riel....................................... ........... 814.55 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 814.55
India.................................. Rupee...................................... ........... 2,422.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 2,422.00
United States.......................... Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 10,690.00 ........... ........... ........... 10,690.00
Laura Friedel:
Cambodia............................... Riel....................................... ........... 901.55 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 901.55
India.................................. Rupee...................................... ........... 2,162.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 2,162.00
United States.......................... Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 10,690.50 ........... ........... ........... 10,690.50
Sara Love Swaney:
Cambodia............................... Riel....................................... ........... 891.55 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 891.55
India.................................. Rupee...................................... ........... 2,102.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 2,102,.00
United States.......................... Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 10,690.50 ........... ........... ........... 10,690.50
Janet Stormes:
Japan.................................. Yen........................................ ........... 10.00 ........... 39.00 ........... ........... ........... 49.00
South Korea............................ Won........................................ ........... 492.00 ........... 62.00 ........... ........... ........... 554.00
China.................................. Yuan Renminbi.............................. ........... 858.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 858.00
Taiwan................................. Dollar..................................... ........... 295.50 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 295.00
Philippines............................ Peso....................................... ........... 570.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 570.00
United States.......................... Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 6,681.00 ........... 35.00 ........... 6,716.00
Senator Barbara Mikulski:
France................................. Euro....................................... ........... 2,513.89 ........... 405.43 ........... ........... ........... 2,919.32
United States.......................... Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 11,722.00 ........... ........... ........... 11,722.00
Gabrielle Batkin:
France................................. Euro....................................... ........... 2,513.89 ........... 405.43 ........... ........... ........... 2,919.32
United States.......................... Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 11,722.00 ........... ........... ........... 11,722.00
Julia Frifield:
France................................. Euro....................................... ........... 1,524.91 ........... 89.90 ........... ........... ........... 1,614.81
United States.......................... Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 11,722.00 ........... ........... ........... 11,722.00
Paul Grove:
Egypt.................................. Pound...................................... ........... 92.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 92.00
Israel................................. Shekel..................................... ........... 438.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 438.00
Malta.................................. Euro....................................... ........... 226.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 226.00
United States.......................... Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 4,354.65 ........... ........... ........... 4,354.65
Senator Mark Kirk:
Malta.................................. Euro....................................... ........... 146.01 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 146.01
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................ ........................................... ........... 25,372.63 ........... 108,985.61 ........... 35.00 ........... 134,393.24
DANIEL INOUYE,
Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, Oct.
11, 2011.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSOLIDATED REPORT OF EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR FOREIGN TRAVEL BY MEMBERS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE U.S. SENATE, UNDER AUTHORITY OF SEC. 22, P.L. 95-384--22 U.S.C. 1754(b), COMMITTEE ON ARMED
SERVICES FOR TRAVEL FROM JULY 1 TO SEPT. 30, 2011
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Per diem Transportation Miscellaneous Total
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar
Name and country Name of currency Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent
currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S.
currency currency currency currency
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Lindsey Graham:
United States.......................... Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 9,300.40 ........... ........... ........... 9,300.40
Afghanistan............................ Dollar..................................... ........... 68.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 68.00
Sergio Sarkany:
United States.......................... Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 9,300.40 ........... ........... ........... 9,300.40
Afghanistan............................ Dollar..................................... ........... 76.17 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 76.17
Senator John McCain:
United States.......................... Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 9,300.40 ........... ........... ........... 9,300.40
Afghanistan............................ Dollar..................................... ........... 68.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 68.00
Senator Mark Begich:
Croatia................................ Dollar..................................... ........... 124.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 124.00
David Ramseur:
Croatia................................ Dollar..................................... ........... 854.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 854.00
Senator Joseph I. Lieberman:
United States.......................... Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 9,300.00 ........... ........... ........... 9,300.00
Turkey................................. Lira....................................... ........... 4.80 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 4.80
Afghanistan............................ Dollar..................................... ........... 87.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 87.00
Vance F. Serchuk:
United States.......................... Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 9,300.00 ........... ........... ........... 9,300.00
Afghanistan............................ Dollar..................................... ........... 156.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 156.00
Turkey................................. Lira....................................... ........... 200.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 200.00
Michael J. Kuiken:
United States.......................... Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 13,578.00 ........... ........... ........... 13,578.00
Algeria................................ Dinar...................................... ........... 201.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 201.00
Italy.................................. Euro....................................... ........... 99.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 99.00
Tunisia................................ Dinar...................................... ........... 343.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 343.00
Mauritania............................. Ouguiya.................................... ........... 213.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 213.00
Michael J. Noblet:
United States.......................... Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 13,653.00 ........... ........... ........... 13,653.00
Algeria................................ Dinar...................................... ........... 196.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 196.00
Italy.................................. Euro....................................... ........... 91.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 91.00
Tunisia................................ Dinal...................................... ........... 363.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 363.00
Maruitania............................. Ouguiya.................................... ........... 264.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 264.00
Margaret Goodlander:
United States.......................... Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 9,410.00 ........... ........... ........... 9,410.00
Turkey................................. Lira....................................... ........... 200.00 ........... ........... ........... 14.00 ........... 214.00
Afghanistan............................ Dollar..................................... ........... 156.00 ........... ........... ........... 69.00 ........... 225.00
Daniel A. Lerner:
United States.......................... Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 12,641.20 ........... ........... ........... 12,641.20
Russia................................. Ruble...................................... ........... 1,099.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,099.00
Georgia................................ Lari....................................... ........... 575.70 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 575.70
Ukraine................................ Hryvnia.................................... ........... 383.53 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 383.53
Chad Kreikemeier:
United States.......................... Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 11,674.00 ........... ........... ........... 11,674.00

[[Page 16571]]

Afghanistan............................ Dollar..................................... ........... 13.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 13.00
Pakistan............................... Dollar..................................... ........... 25.65 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 25.65
Senator Jeanne Shaheen:
United States.......................... Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 11,674.00 ........... ........... ........... 11,674.00
Pakistan............................... Dollar..................................... ........... 15.65 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 15.65
Senator John McCain:
United States.......................... Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 6,981.00 ........... ........... ........... 6,981.00
United Arab Emirates................... Dollar..................................... ........... 102.69 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 102.69
Pakistan............................... Dollar..................................... ........... 146.72 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 146.72
India.................................. Dollar..................................... ........... 159.37 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 159.37
Senator Lindsey Graham:
United States.......................... Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 11,607.55 ........... ........... ........... 11,607.55
United Arab Emirates................... Dollar..................................... ........... 790.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 790.00
Christian D. Brose:
United States.......................... Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 9,300.40 ........... ........... ........... 9,300.40
Turkey................................. Dollar..................................... ........... 167.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 167.00
Afghanistan............................ Dollar..................................... ........... 78.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 78.00
United States.......................... Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 10,198.98 ........... ........... ........... 10,198.98
United Arab Emirates................... Dollar..................................... ........... 167.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 167.00
Pakistan............................... Dollar..................................... ........... 131.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 131.00
India.................................. Dollar..................................... ........... 506.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 506.00
William K. Sutey:
United States.......................... Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 10,210.46 ........... ........... ........... 10,210.46
Germany................................ Euro....................................... ........... 923.42 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 923.42
Italy.................................. Euro....................................... ........... 485.56 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 485.56
William G.P. Monahan:
United States.......................... Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 11,841.90 ........... ........... ........... 11,841.90
Afghanistan............................ Dollar..................................... ........... 10.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 10.00
Pakistan............................... Dollar..................................... ........... 236.65 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 236.65
Senator Richard Blumenthal:
United States.......................... Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 11,416.05 ........... ........... ........... 11,416.05
Pakistan............................... Dollar..................................... ........... 745.18 ........... ........... ........... 25.06 ........... 770.24
Ethan Saxon:
United States.......................... Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 11,176.05 ........... ........... ........... 11,176.05
Pakistan............................... Dollar..................................... ........... 745.18 ........... ........... ........... 36.79 ........... 781.97
Senator Lindsey Graham:
Malta.................................. Dollar..................................... ........... 210.14 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 210.14
Richard D. DeBobes:
United States.......................... Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 11,841.90 ........... ........... ........... 11,841.90
Pakistan............................... Dollar..................................... ........... 236.65 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 236.65
Senator Carl Levin:
United States.......................... Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 10,367.90 ........... ........... ........... 10,367.90
Pakistan............................... Dollar..................................... ........... 236.65 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 236.65
Christian D. Brose:
Malta.................................. Dollar..................................... ........... 266.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 266.00
Senator John McCain:
Malta.................................. Dollar..................................... ........... 254.64 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 254.64
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................ ........................................... ........... 12,474.35 ........... 224,073.59 ........... 144.85 ........... 236,692.79
CARL LEVIN,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, Oct.
4, 2011.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 16572]]

CONSOLIDATED REPORT OF EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR FOREIGN TRAVEL BY MEMBERS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE U.S. SENATE, AMENDED 1ST QUARTER, UNDER AUTHORITY OF SEC. 22, P.L. 95-384--22 U.S.C. 1754(b),
COMMITTEE ON FINANCE FOR TRAVEL FROM JAN. 1 TO MAR. 31, 2011
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Per diem Transportation Miscellaneous Total
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar
Name and country Name of currency Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent
currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S.
currency currency currency currency
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Max Baucus:
Brazil................................. Real....................................... ........... 1,298.08 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,298.08
Amber Cottle:
Brazil................................. Real....................................... ........... 1,298.08 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,298.08
Chelsea Thomas:
Brazil................................. Real....................................... ........... 1,298.08 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,298.08
Gabriel Adler:
Brazil................................. Real....................................... ........... 1,298.08 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,298.08
Scott Mulhauser:
Brazil................................. Real....................................... ........... 1,298.08 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,298.08
Michael Smart:
Brazil................................. Real....................................... ........... 1,298.08 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,298.08
John Lewis:
Brazil................................. Real....................................... ........... 1,298.08 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,298.08
Kate Downen:
Brazil................................. Real....................................... ........... 645.44 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 645.44
Delegation Expenses:
Brazil................................. Real....................................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 973.57 ........... 973.57
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................ ........................................... ........... 9,732.00 ........... ........... ........... 973.57 ........... 10,705.57
MAX BAUCUS,
Chairman, Committee on Finance, Aug. 5,
2011.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Delegation expenses include hotel expenses for security.

[[Page 16573]]

Vietnam................................ Dong....................................... ........... 1,307.57 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,307.57
United States.......................... Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 16,330.70 ........... ........... ........... 16,330.70
Fulton Armstrong:
Nicaragua.............................. Cordoba.................................... ........... 789.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 789.00
United States.......................... Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 539.10 ........... ........... ........... 539.10
Jonah Blank:
India.................................. Rupee...................................... ........... 980.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 980.00
Sri Lanka.............................. Rupee...................................... ........... 978.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 978.00
United States.......................... Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 7,892.20 ........... ........... ........... 7,892.20
David Bonine:
Thailand............................... Baht....................................... ........... 640.38 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 640.38
Singapore.............................. Dollar..................................... ........... 370.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 370.00
Indonesia.............................. Rupiah..................................... ........... 544.98 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 544.98
Vietnam................................ Dong....................................... ........... 1,227.57 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,227.57
United States.......................... Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 16,330.70 ........... ........... ........... 16,330.70
Steven Feldstein:
Ethiopia............................... Birr....................................... ........... 1,589.08 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,589.08
Rwanda................................. Franc...................................... ........... 397.08 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 397.08
United States.......................... Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 8,518.72 ........... ........... ........... 8,518.72
Paul Foldi:
Guatemala.............................. Quetzal.................................... ........... 400.82 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 400.82
United States.......................... Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 907.60 ........... ........... ........... 907.60
Douglas Frantz:
United Arab Emirates................... Dirham..................................... ........... 464.74 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 464.74
United States.......................... Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 11,708.50 ........... ........... ........... 11,708.50
Chad Kreikemeier:
India.................................. Rupee...................................... ........... 515.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 515.00
United States.......................... Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 9,064.80 ........... ........... ........... 9,064.80
Frank Lowenstein:
United Arab Emirates................... Dirham..................................... ........... 445.74 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 445.74
United States.......................... Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 11,708.50 ........... ........... ........... 11,708.50
Emily Mendrala:
Guatemala.............................. Quetzal.................................... ........... 507.82 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 507.82
United States.......................... Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 907.60 ........... ........... ........... 907.60
Damian Murphy:
Pakistan............................... Rupee...................................... ........... 721.07 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 721.07
Afghanistan............................ Dollar..................................... ........... 23.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 23.00
United States.......................... Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 12,279.30 ........... ........... ........... 12,279.30
John Schwenk:
Serbia................................. Dinar...................................... ........... 1,194.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,194.00
United States.......................... Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 4,938.60 ........... ........... ........... 4,938.60
Shannon Smith:
Cote d'Ivoire.......................... CFA........................................ ........... 264.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 264.00
United States.......................... Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 6,440.00 ........... ........... ........... 6,440.00
Shannon Smith:
Ethiopia............................... Birr....................................... ........... 618.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 618.00
United States.......................... Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 5,672.00 ........... ........... ........... 5,672.00
Halie Soifer:
Kenya.................................. Shilling................................... ........... 870.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 870.00
Ethiopia............................... Birr....................................... ........... 400.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 400.00
United States.......................... Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 9,816.92 ........... ........... ........... 9,816.92
Mark String:
Ukraine................................ Hrivna..................................... ........... 1,275.97 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,275.97
Moldova................................ Lei........................................ ........... 751.79 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 751.79
United States.......................... Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 9,911.20 ........... ........... ........... 9,911.20
Atman Trivedi:
Thailand............................... Baht....................................... ........... 208.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 208.00
Burma.................................. Rupee...................................... ........... 1,889.14 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,889.14
China.................................. Renminbi................................... ........... 1,180.18 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,180.18
United States.......................... Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 5,298.20 ........... ........... ........... 5,298.20
Debbie Yamada:
Serbia................................. Dinar...................................... ........... 1,205.54 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,205.54
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................ ........................................... ........... 27,910.86 ........... 173,459.13 ........... ........... ........... 201,369.99
JOHN KERRY,
Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations,
Oct. 21, 2011.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 16574]]

CONSOLIDATED REPORT OF EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR FOREIGN TRAVEL BY MEMBERS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE U.S. SENATE, UNDER AUTHORITY OF SEC. 22, P.L. 95-384--22 U.S.C. 1754(b), COMMITTEE ON
INTELLIGENCE FOR TRAVEL FROM JULY 1 TO SEPT. 30, 2011
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Per diem Transportation Miscellaneous Total
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar
Name and country Name of currency Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent
currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S.
currency currency currency currency
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jacqueline Russell:........................ ........................................... ........... 2,350.90 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 2,350.90
Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 11,869.90 ........... ........... ........... 11,869.90
Kathleen Rice:............................. ........................................... ........... 2,420.90 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 2,420.90
Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 11,869.90 ........... ........... ........... 11,869.90
James Smythers:............................ ........................................... ........... 2,010.14 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 2,010.14
Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 11,869.90 ........... ........... ........... 11,869.90
Andrew Kerr:............................... ........................................... ........... 6,299.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 6,299.00
Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 12,012.50 ........... ........... ........... 12,012.50
Ryan Tully:................................ ........................................... ........... 6,256.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 6,256.00
Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 12,021.50 ........... ........... ........... 12,021.50
Christian Cook:............................ ........................................... ........... 1,592.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,592.00
Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 9,695.00 ........... ........... ........... 9,695.00
Paul Matulic:.............................. ........................................... ........... 472.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 472.00
Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 9,957.10 ........... ........... ........... 9,957.10
Martha Scott Poindexter:................... ........................................... ........... 472.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 472.00
Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 9,957.10 ........... ........... ........... 9,957.10
Randall Bookout:........................... ........................................... ........... 660.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 660.00
Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 9,957.10 ........... ........... ........... 9,957.10
Hayden Milberg:............................ ........................................... ........... 472.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 472.00
Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 9,957.10 ........... ........... ........... 9,957.10
Richard Girven:............................ ........................................... ........... 3,857.98 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 3,857.98
Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 14,116.66 ........... ........... ........... 14,116.66
Andrew Kerr:............................... ........................................... ........... 3,598.98 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 3,598.98
Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 13,972.96 ........... ........... ........... 13,972.96
Jeffrey Howard:............................ ........................................... ........... 2,960.98 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 2,960.98
Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 14,116.66 ........... ........... ........... 14,116.66
Andrew Grotto:............................. ........................................... ........... 4,170.98 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 4,170.98
Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 14,116.66 ........... ........... ........... 14,116.66
Senator Ron Wyden:......................... ........................................... ........... 4,637.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 4,637.00
Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 10,014.80 ........... ........... ........... 10,014.80
John Dickas:............................... ........................................... ........... 4,455.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 4,455.00
Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 10,014.80 ........... ........... ........... 10,014.80
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................ ........................................... ........... 46,685.86 ........... 185,519.64 ........... ........... ........... 232,205.50
DIANNE FEINSTEIN,
Chairman, Committee on Intelligence, Oct.
25, 2011.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 16575]]

CONSOLIDATED REPORT OF EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR FOREIGN TRAVEL BY MEMBERS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE U.S. SENATE, UNDER AUTHORITY OF SEC. 22, P.L. 95-384--22 U.S.C. 1754(b), COMMISSION ON SECURITY
AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE FOR TRAVEL FROM APR. 1 TO JUNE 30, 2011
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Per diem Transportation Miscellaneous Total
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar
Name and country Name of currency Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent
currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S.
currency currency currency currency
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred Turner:
Denmark................................ Krone...................................... ........... 1,308.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,308.00
United States.......................... Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 3,031.80 ........... ........... ........... 3,031.80
Alex Johnson:
Austria................................ Euro....................................... ........... 6,170.99 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 6,170.99
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................ ........................................... ........... 7,478.99 ........... 3,031.80 ........... ........... ........... 10,510.79
BENJAMIN CARDIN,
Co-Chairman, Commission on Security and
Cooperation in Europe,
July 27, 2011.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSOLIDATED REPORT OF EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR FOREIGN TRAVEL BY MEMBERS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE U.S. SENATE, UNDER AUTHORITY OF SEC. 22, P.L. 95-384--22 U.S.C. 1754(b), COMMISSION ON SECURITY
AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE FOR TRAVEL FROM JULY 1 TO SEPT. 30, 2011
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Per diem Transportation Miscellaneous Total
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar
Name and country Name of currency Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent
currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S.
currency currency currency currency
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Benjamin L. Cardin:
Serbia................................. Dinar...................................... ........... 1,182.21 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,182.21
Senator Jeanne Shaheen:
Serbia................................. Dinar...................................... ........... 1,123.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,123.00
Fred Turner:
Serbia................................. Dinar...................................... ........... 1,307.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,307.00
Austria................................ Euro....................................... ........... 756.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 756.00
United States.......................... Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 2,898.40 ........... ........... ........... 2,989.40
India.................................. Rupee...................................... ........... 2,215.20 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 2,215.20
United States.......................... Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 8,382.50 ........... ........... ........... 8,382.50
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................ ........................................... ........... 6,583.41 ........... 11,280.90 ........... ........... ........... 17,864.31
BENJAMIN CARDIN,
Chairman, Commission on Security and
Cooperation in Europe,
Oct. 17, 2011.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSOLIDATED REPORT OF EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR FOREIGN TRAVEL BY MEMBERS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE U.S. SENATE, UNDER AUTHORITY OF SEC. 22, P.L. 95-384--22 U.S.C. 1754(b), REPUBLICAN LEADER FOR
TRAVEL FROM JULY 1 TO SEPT. 30, 2011
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Per diem Transportation Miscellaneous Total
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar
Name and country Name of currency Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent
currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S.
currency currency currency currency
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Hawkins:
United States.......................... Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 11,864.60 ........... ........... ........... 11,864.60
Jordan................................. Dinar...................................... ........... 360.00 ........... ........... ........... 55.20 ........... 415.20
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................ ........................................... ........... 360.00 ........... 11,864.60 ........... 55.20 ........... 12,279.80
MITCH McCONNELL,
Republican Leader, Oct. 11, 2011.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSOLIDATED REPORT OF EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR FOREIGN TRAVEL BY MEMBERS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE U.S. SENATE, UNDER AUTHORITY OF SEC. 22, P.L. 95-384--22 U.S.C. 1754(b), SENATE CAUCUS ON
INTERNATIONAL NARCOTICS CONTROL FOR TRAVEL FROM JULY 1 TO SEPT. 30, 2011
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Per diem Transportation Miscellaneous Total
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar
Name and country Name of currency Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent
currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S.
currency currency currency currency
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rene Hanna:
United States.......................... Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 1,098.70 ........... ........... ........... 1,098.70
Honduras............................... Lempira.................................... ........... 253.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 253.00
Guatemala.............................. Quetzal.................................... ........... 578.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 578.00
Eric Jacobstein:
United States.......................... Dollar..................................... ........... ........... ........... 1,098.70 ........... ........... ........... 1,098.70
Honduras............................... Lempira.................................... ........... 201.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 201.00
Guatemala.............................. Quetzal.................................... ........... 532.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 532.00
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................ ........................................... ........... 1,564.00 ........... 2,197.40 ........... ........... ........... 3,761.40
DIANNE FEINSTEIN,
Chairman, Senate Caucus on International
Narcotics Control,
Oct. 18, 2011.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

____________________

UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENT--EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be
determined by the majority leader, after consultation with the
Republican leader, the Senate proceed to executive session to consider
the following nominations: Calendar Nos. 353, 356; that there be 1 hour
for debate equally divided in the usual form; that upon the use or
yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote, without intervening
action or debate, on the nominations in the order listed, with 2
minutes for debate equally divided in the usual form between the votes;
that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid

[[Page 16576]]

upon the table, with no intervening action or debate; that no further
motions be in order to any of the nominations; that any statements
related to the nominations be printed in the Record; that President
Obama be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate
then resume legislative session.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

THE CALENDAR

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the consideration of the following items en bloc: Calendar
No. 130, S. 271; Calendar No. 131, S. 278; Calendar No. 139, S. 535;
Calendar No. 140, S. 683; Calendar No. 141, S. 684; Calendar No. 142,
S. 808; Calendar No. 143, S. 897; and Calendar No. 145, S. 997.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bills
en bloc.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that any committee-
reported amendments relative to these bills be agreed to en bloc, where
applicable; that the bills be read a third time and passed, as amended,
if amended, en bloc; that the motions to reconsider be laid upon the
table for each of these measures, with no intervening action or debate,
and any statements relating to the measures be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

WALLOWA FOREST SERVICE COMPOUND CONVEYANCE ACT

The Senate proceeded to consider the bill (S. 271) to require the
Secretary of Agriculture to enter into a property conveyance with the
city of Wallowa, Oregon, and for other purposes, which had been
reported from the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, with
amendments as follows:

(The parts of the bill intended to be stricken are shown in
boldface brackets and the parts of the bill intended to be
inserted are shown in italics.)

S. 271

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Wallowa Forest Service
Compound Conveyance Act''.

SEC. 2. CONVEYANCE TO CITY OF WALLOWA, OREGON.

(a) Definitions.--In this Act:
(1) City.--The term ``City'' means the city of Wallowa,
Oregon.
(2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Agriculture.
(3) Wallowa forest service compound.--The term ``Wallowa
Forest Service Compound'' means the approximately 1.11 acres
of National Forest System land that--
(A) was donated by the City to the Forest Service on March
18, 1936; and
(B) is located at 602 First Street, Wallowa, Oregon.
(b) Conveyance.--On the request of the City submitted to
the Secretary by the date that is not later than 1 year after
the date of enactment of this Act and subject to the
provisions of this Act, the Secretary shall convey to the
City all right, title, and interest of the United States in
and to the Wallowa Forest Service Compound.
(c) Conditions.--The conveyance under subsection (b) shall
be--
(1) by quitclaim deed;
(2) for no consideration; and
(3) subject to--
(A) valid existing rights; and
(B) such terms and conditions as the Secretary may require.
(d) Use of Wallowa Forest Service Compound.--As a condition
of the conveyance under subsection (b), the City shall--
(1) use the Wallowa Forest Service Compound as a historical
and cultural interpretation and education center;
(2) ensure that the Wallowa Forest Service Compound is
managed by a nonprofit entity; [and]
(3) agree to manage the Wallowa Forest Service Compound
with due consideration and protection for the historic values
of the Wallowa Forest Service [Compound]. Compound; and
(4) pay the reasonable administrative costs associated with
the conveyance.
(e) Reversion.--In the quitclaim deed to the City, the
Secretary shall provide that the Wallowa Forest Service
Compound shall revert to the Secretary, at the election of
the Secretary, if any of the conditions under subsection (c)
or (d) are violated.

The committee-reported amendments were agreed to.
The bill (S. 271), as amended, was ordered to be engrossed for a
third reading, was read the third time, and passed.

____________________

SUGAR LOAF FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT LAND EXCHANGE ACT OF 2011

The bill (S. 278) to provide for the exchange of certain land located
in the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forests in the State of Colorado, and
for other purposes, was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading,
was read the third time, and passed, as follows:

S. 278

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Sugar Loaf Fire Protection
District Land Exchange Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) District.--The term ``District'' means the Sugar Loaf
Fire Protection District of Boulder, Colorado.
(2) Federal land.--The term ``Federal land'' means--
(A) the parcel of approximately 1.52 acres of land in the
National Forest that is generally depicted on the map
numbered 1, entitled ``Sugarloaf Fire Protection District
Proposed Land Exchange'', and dated November 12, 2009; and
(B) the parcel of approximately 3.56 acres of land in the
National Forest that is generally depicted on the map
numbered 2, entitled ``Sugarloaf Fire Protection District
Proposed Land Exchange'', and dated November 12, 2009.
(3) National forest.--The term ``National Forest'' means
the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forests located in the State
of Colorado.
(4) Non-federal land.--The term ``non-Federal land'' means
the parcel of approximately 5.17 acres of non-Federal land in
unincorporated Boulder County, Colorado, that is generally
depicted on the map numbered 3, entitled ``Sugarloaf Fire
Protection District Proposed Land Exchange'', and dated
November 12, 2009.
(5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Agriculture.

SEC. 3. LAND EXCHANGE.

(a) In General.--Subject to the provisions of this Act, if
the District offers to convey to the Secretary all right,
title, and interest of the District in and to the non-Federal
land, and the offer is acceptable to the Secretary--
(1) the Secretary shall accept the offer; and
(2) on receipt of acceptable title to the non-Federal land,
the Secretary shall convey to the District all right, title,
and interest of the United States in and to the Federal land.
(b) Applicable Law.--Section 206 of the Federal Land Policy
and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1716) shall apply to
the land exchange authorized under subsection (a), except
that--
(1) the Secretary may accept a cash equalization payment in
excess of 25 percent of the value of the Federal land; and
(2) as a condition of the land exchange under subsection
(a), the District shall--
(A) pay each cost relating to any land surveys and
appraisals of the Federal land and non-Federal land; and
(B) enter into an agreement with the Secretary that
allocates any other administrative costs between the
Secretary and the District.
(c) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The land exchange
under subsection (a) shall be subject to--
(1) valid existing rights; and
(2) any terms and conditions that the Secretary may
require.
(d) Time for Completion of Land Exchange.--It is the intent
of Congress that the land exchange under subsection (a) shall
be completed not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act.
(e) Authority of Secretary To Conduct Sale of Federal
Land.--
(1) In general.--In accordance with paragraph (2), if the
land exchange under subsection (a) is not completed by the
date that is 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act,
the Secretary may offer to sell to the District the Federal
land.
(2) Value of federal land.--The Secretary may offer to sell
to the District the Federal land for the fair market value of
the Federal land.
(f) Disposition of Proceeds.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall deposit in the fund
established under Public Law 90-171 (commonly known as the
``Sisk Act'') (16 U.S.C. 484a) any amount received by the
Secretary as the result of--
(A) any cash equalization payment made under subsection
(b); and
(B) any sale carried out under subsection (e).
(2) Use of proceeds.--Amounts deposited under paragraph (1)
shall be available to the Secretary, without further
appropriation and until expended, for the acquisition of land
or interests in land in the National Forest.
(g) Management and Status of Acquired Land.--The non-
Federal land acquired by the Secretary under this section
shall be--
(1) added to, and administered as part of, the National
Forest; and

[[Page 16577]]

(2) managed by the Secretary in accordance with--
(A) the Act of March 1, 1911 (commonly known as the ``Weeks
Law'') (16 U.S.C. 480 et seq.); and
(B) any laws (including regulations) applicable to the
National Forest.
(h) Revocation of Orders; Withdrawal.--
(1) Revocation of orders.--Any public order withdrawing the
Federal land from entry, appropriation, or disposal under the
public land laws is revoked to the extent necessary to permit
the conveyance of the Federal land to the District.
(2) Withdrawal.--On the date of enactment of this Act, if
not already withdrawn or segregated from entry and
appropriation under the public land laws (including the
mining and mineral leasing laws) and the Geothermal Steam Act
of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.), the Federal land is
withdrawn until the date of the conveyance of the Federal
land to the District.

____________________

FORT PULASKI NATIONAL MONUMENT LEASE AUTHORIZATION ACT

The bill (S. 535) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to lease
certain lands within Fort Pulaski National Monument, and for other
purposes, was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was read the
third time, and passed, as follows:

S. 535

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Fort Pulaski National
Monument Lease Authorization Act''.

SEC. 2. LEASE AUTHORIZATION.

(a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior (referred to
in this section as the ``Secretary'') may lease to the
Savannah Bar Pilots Association, or a successor organization,
no more than 30,000 square feet of land and improvements
within Fort Pulaski National Monument (referred to in this
section as the ``Monument'') at the location on Cockspur
Island that has been used continuously by the Savannah Bar
Pilots Association since 1940.
(b) Rental Fee and Proceeds.--
(1) Rental fee.--For the lease authorized by this Act, the
Secretary shall require a rental fee based on fair market
value adjusted, as the Secretary deems appropriate, for
amounts to be expended by the lessee for property
preservation, maintenance, or repair and related expenses.
(2) Proceeds.--Disposition of the proceeds from the rental
fee required pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be made in
accordance with section 3(k)(5) of Public Law 91-383 (16
U.S.C. 1a-2(k)(5)).
(c) Terms and Conditions.--A lease entered into under this
section--
(1) shall be for a term of no more than 10 years and, at
the Secretary's discretion, for successive terms of no more
than 10 years at a time; and
(2) shall include any terms and conditions the Secretary
determines to be necessary to protect the resources of the
Monument and the public interest.
(d) Exemption From Applicable Law.--Except as provided in
section 2(b)(2) of this Act, the lease authorized by this Act
shall not be subject to section 3(k) of Public Law 91-383 (16
U.S.C. 1a-2(k)) or section 321 of Act of June 30, 1932 (40
U.S.C. 1302).

____________________

BOX ELDER UTAH LAND CONVEYANCE ACT

The Senate proceeded to consider the bill (S. 683) to provide for the
conveyance of certain parcels of land to the town of Mantua, Utah,
which had been reported from the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, with amendments, as follows:

(The parts of the bill intended to be stricken are shown in
boldface brackets and the parts of the bill intended to be
inserted are shown in italics.)

S. 683

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Box Elder Utah Land
Conveyance Act''.

SEC. 2. CONVEYANCE.

(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Map.--The term ``map'' means the map entitled ``Box
Elder Utah Land Conveyance Act'' and dated [July 14, 2008]
June 23, 2011.
[(2) National forest system land.--The term ``National
Forest System land'' means the parcels of National Forest
System land that--
[(A) are located in--
[(i) sec. 27, T. 9 N., R. 1 W., Salt Lake meridian; and
[(ii) the Wasatch-Cache National Forest in Box Elder
County, Utah;
[(B) consist of approximately 31.5 acres; and
[(C) are depicted on the map as parcels A, B, and C.]
(2) National forest system land.--The term ``National
Forest System land'' means the approximately 31.5 acres of
National Forest System land in Box Elder County, Utah, that
is generally depicted on the map as parcels A, B, and C.
(3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Agriculture.
(4) Town.--The term ``Town'' means the town of Mantua,
Utah.
(b) Conveyance.--[As soon as practicable after the] On the
request of the Town submitted to the Secretary by the date
that is not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of
this Act, the Secretary shall convey to the Town, without
consideration and by quitclaim deed, all right, title, and
interest of the United States in and to the National Forest
System land.
(c) Survey; Costs.--
(1) In general.--If determined by the Secretary to be
necessary, the exact acreage and legal description of the
National Forest System land shall be determined by a survey
approved by the Secretary.
(2) [Cost.--The Town shall pay each cost arising from a
survey described in paragraph (1).]
(2) Costs.--The Town shall pay the reasonable survey and
other administrative costs associated with the conveyance.
(d) Use of National Forest System Land.--As a condition of
the conveyance under subsection (b), the Town shall use the
National Forest System land only for public purposes.
(e) Reversionary Interest.--In the quitclaim deed to the
Town, the Secretary shall provide that the National Forest
System land shall revert to the Secretary, at the election of
the Secretary, if the National Forest System land is used for
a purpose other than a public purpose.
(f) Additional Terms and Conditions.--With respect to the
conveyance under subsection (b), the Secretary may require
such additional terms and conditions as the Secretary
determines to be appropriate to protect the interests of the
United States.

The committee-reported amendments were agreed to.
The bill (S. 683), as amended, was ordered to be engrossed for a
third reading, was read the third time, and passed, as follows:

S. 683

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Box Elder Utah Land
Conveyance Act''.

SEC. 2. CONVEYANCE.

(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Map.--The term ``map'' means the map entitled ``Box
Elder Utah Land Conveyance Act'' and dated June 23, 2011.
(2) National forest system land.--The term ``National
Forest System land'' means the approximately 31.5 acres of
National Forest System land in Box Elder County, Utah, that
is generally depicted on the map as parcels A, B, and C.
(3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Agriculture.
(4) Town.--The term ``Town'' means the town of Mantua,
Utah.
(b) Conveyance.--On the request of the Town submitted to
the Secretary by the date that is not later than 1 year after
the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall convey
to the Town, without consideration and by quitclaim deed, all
right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the
National Forest System land.
(c) Survey; Costs.--
(1) In general.--If determined by the Secretary to be
necessary, the exact acreage and legal description of the
National Forest System land shall be determined by a survey
approved by the Secretary.
(2) Costs.--The Town shall pay the reasonable survey and
other administrative costs associated with the conveyance.
(d) Use of National Forest System Land.--As a condition of
the conveyance under subsection (b), the Town shall use the
National Forest System land only for public purposes.
(e) Reversionary Interest.--In the quitclaim deed to the
Town, the Secretary shall provide that the National Forest
System land shall revert to the Secretary, at the election of
the Secretary, if the National Forest System land is used for
a purpose other than a public purpose.
(f) Additional Terms and Conditions.--With respect to the
conveyance under subsection (b), the Secretary may require
such additional terms and conditions as the Secretary
determines to be appropriate to protect the interests of the
United States.

____________________

ALTA, UTAH, CONVEYANCE ACT

The Senate proceeded to consider the bill (S. 684) to provide for the
conveyance of certain parcels of land to the town of Alta, Utah, which
had been reported from the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
with amendments, as follows:

[[Page 16578]]

(The parts of the bill intended to be stricken are shown in
boldface brackets and the parts of the bill intended to be
inserted are shown in italics.)

S. 684

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

SECTION 1. CONVEYANCE.

(a) Definitions.--In this Act:
(1) National forest system land.--The term ``National
Forest System land'' means the parcels of National Forest
System land that--
(A) are located--
(i) in sec. 5, T. 3 S., R. 3 E., Salt Lake meridian;
(ii) in, and adjacent to, parcels of land subject to
special use permit SLC102708, the authority of which expires
on December 30, 2026;
(iii) in the Wasatch-Cache National Forest in Salt Lake
County, Utah; and
(iv) in the incorporated boundary of the town of Alta,
Utah; and
(B) consist of approximately 2 acres (including
appurtenances).
(2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Agriculture.
(3) Town.--The term ``Town'' means the town of Alta, Utah.
(b) Conveyance.--[As soon as practicable after the] On the
request of the Town submitted to the Secretary by the date
that is not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of
this Act, the Secretary shall convey to the Town, without
consideration, all right, title, and interest of the United
States in and to the National Forest System land.
(c) Survey Costs.--
(1) In general.--In accordance with paragraphs (2) and (3),
the exact acreage and legal description of the National
Forest System land shall be determined by a survey approved
by the Secretary.
(2) Maximum area.--The acreage of the National Forest
System land determined under paragraph (1) may not exceed 2
acres.
[(3) Cost.--The Town shall pay each cost arising from a
survey described in paragraph (1).]
(3) Costs.--The Town shall pay the reasonable survey and
other administrative costs associated with the conveyance.
(d) Use of National Forest System Land.--As a condition of
the conveyance under subsection (b), the Town shall use the
National Forest System land only for public purposes.
(e) Reversionary Interest.--In the deed to the Town, the
Secretary shall provide that the National Forest System land
shall revert to the Secretary, at the election of the
Secretary based on the best interests of the United States,
if the National Forest System land is used for a purpose
other than a public purpose.
(f) Additional Terms and Conditions.--With respect to the
conveyance under subsection (b), the Secretary may require
such additional terms and conditions as the Secretary
determines to be appropriate to protect the interests of the
United States.

The committee-reported amendments were agreed to.
The bill (S. 684), as amended, was ordered to be engrossed for a
third reading, was read the third time, and passed.

____________________

UNITED STATES AND THE UINTAH WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT PAYMENT ACT

The bill (S. 808) to direct the Secretary of the Interior to allow
for prepayment of repayment contracts between the United States and the
Uintah Water Conservancy District, was ordered to be engrossed for a
third reading, was read the third time, and passed, as follows:

S. 808

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

SECTION 1. PREPAYMENT OF CERTAIN REPAYMENT CONTRACTS BETWEEN
THE UNITED STATES AND THE UINTAH WATER
CONSERVANCY DISTRICT.

The Secretary of the Interior shall allow for prepayment of
the repayment contract no. 6-05-01-00143 between the United
States and the Uintah Water Conservancy District dated June
3, 1976, and supplemented and amended on November 1, 1985,
and on December 30, 1992, providing for repayment of
municipal and industrial water delivery facilities for which
repayment is provided pursuant to such contract, under terms
and conditions similar to those used in implementing section
210 of the Central Utah Project Completion Act (Public Law
102-575), as amended. The prepayment--
(1) shall result in the United States recovering the net
present value of all repayment streams that would have been
payable to the United States if this Act was not in effect;
(2) may be provided in several installments to reflect
substantial completion of the delivery facilities being
prepaid, and any increase in the repayment obligation
resulting from delivery of water in addition to the water
being delivered under this contract as of the date of
enactment of this Act;
(3) shall be adjusted to conform to a final cost allocation
including costs incurred by the Bureau of Reclamation, but
unallocated as of the date of the enactment of this Act that
are allocable to the water delivered under this contract;
(4) may not be adjusted on the basis of the type of
prepayment financing used by the District; and
(5) shall be made such that total repayment is made not
later than September 30, 2022.

____________________

SURFACE MINING CONTROL AND RECLAMATION AMENDMENT ACT

The bill (S. 897) to amend the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation
Act of 1977 to clarify that uncertified States and Indian tribes have
the authority to use certain payments for certain noncoal reclamation
projects and acid mine remediation programs, was ordered to be
engrossed for a third reading, was read the third time, and passed, as
follows:

S. 897

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

SECTION 1. ABANDONED MINE RECLAMATION.

(a) Reclamation Fee.--Section 402(g)(6)(A) of the Surface
Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C.
1232(g)(6)(A)) is amended by inserting ``and section
411(h)(1)'' after ``paragraphs (1) and (5)''.
(b) Filling Voids and Sealing Tunnels.--Section 409(b) of
the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30
U.S.C. 1239(b)) is amended by inserting ``and section
411(h)(1)'' after ``section 402(g)''.
(c) Use of Funds.--Section 411(h)(1)(D)(ii) of the Surface
Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C.
1240a(h)(1)(D)(ii)) is amended by striking ``section 403''
and inserting ``section 402(g)(6), 403, or 409''.

____________________

EAST BENCH IRRIGATION DISTRICT WATER CONTRACT EXTENSION ACT

The bill (S. 997) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
extend a water contract between the United States and the East Bench
Irrigation District, was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading,
was read the third time, and passed, as follows:

S. 997

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``East Bench Irrigation
District Water Contract Extension Act''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORITY TO EXTEND WATER CONTRACT.

The Secretary of the Interior may extend the contract for
water services between the United States and the East Bench
Irrigation District, numbered 14-06-600-3593, until the
earlier of--
(1) the date that is 4 years after the date on which the
contract would have expired if this Act had not been enacted;
or
(2) the date on which a new long-term contract is executed
by the parties to the contract.

____________________

MEASURE PLACED ON THE CALENDAR--S. 1786

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that S. 1786 be
placed on the calendar.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

ORDERS FOR THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2011

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate
completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m. tomorrow,
Thursday, November 3, 2011; that following the prayer and pledge, the
Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed
expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use
later in the day; that following any leader remarks, the Senate resume
consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 1769, the Rebuild America
Jobs Act, with the time until 3 p.m. equally divided and controlled
between the two leaders or their designees.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page 16579]]

____________________

PROGRAM

Mr. REID. Mr. President, there will be up to two rollcall votes at
approximately 3 p.m. tomorrow. The first vote will be on the Reid
motion to proceed, and if that is unsuccessful, then there will be a
vote on the McConnell motion to proceed. Also, as indicated a few
minutes ago, we are going to have two votes on judicial nominations
tomorrow.

____________________

ADJOURNMENT UNTIL 10 A.M. TOMORROW

Mr. REID. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come
before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the
previous order.
There being no objection, the Senate, at 6:52 p.m., adjourned until
Thursday, November 3, 2011, at 10 a.m.

____________________

NOMINATIONS

Executive nominations received by the Senate:

THE JUDICIARY

ANDREW DAVID HURWITZ, OF ARIZONA, TO BE UNITED STATES
CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, VICE MARY M. SCHROEDER,
RETIRING.
KRISTINE GERHARD BAKER, OF ARKANSAS, TO BE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS, VICE
JAMES M. MOODY, RETIRED.

IN THE AIR FORCE

THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES AIR FORCE TO THE GRADE INDICATED WHILE ASSIGNED TO A
POSITION OF IMPORTANCE AND RESPONSIBILITY UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 601:

To be lieutenant general

MAJ. GEN. JOHN W. HESTERMAN III
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES AIR FORCE TO THE GRADE INDICATED WHILE ASSIGNED TO A
POSITION OF IMPORTANCE AND RESPONSIBILITY UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 601:

To be lieutenant general

MAJ. GEN. JOHN E. HYTEN

[[Page 16580]]

EXTENSTIONS OF REMARKS

____________________

PAYING TRIBUTE TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH

______

HON. CHARLES B. RANGEL

of new york

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, November 2, 2011

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, as October comes to a close, I rise today to
celebrate what was Domestic Violence Awareness Month as well as bring
attention to the one of many serious issues mainly women and children
in our society are struggling with domestic violence. In the United
States, every nine seconds a woman is assaulted or beaten by stalkers
or her partner. And believe it or not, domestic violence is the leading
cause of injury for women in America. According to a study, victims of
domestic violence are more than rapes, muggings and car accidents
combined. It really is difficult to see that even in this great Nation
of ours such unfortunate events can take place. We, as a nation, must
take collective action to make the case that violence is not the
solution and it never is acceptable.
Each year, ten million children in this country have witnessed
various forms of violence within the household. This, itself, I
believe, is unfortunate. The result of these acts has weakened women's
voice and positioned children in a situation where they have to grow up
without parents.
There is no doubt that domestic violence creates viral impacts for
our society. Each year, the Federal government injects hundreds of
million of dollars fighting against the cause by creating support
programs. In a smaller scale, many have suffered physically and
emotionally. In addition, victims would be forced out of work due to
injuries; this further positions them in a more economical
disadvantage. Women in this country and around the world deserve more
respect. They are the important element in our society. In fact, they
are the mothers of our Nation's future. This epidemic must be stopped.
Many of us know that violence against women has existed for a very
long time in our history. When the settlers set foot in America, they
adopted an old English common law, which authorized a husband to use
force upon his wife, for correction purposes. Not until 1871, that we
began to see women's liberation movements, which ultimately abrogated
men's legal right from committing violence on his spouse, at least in
Alabama. It became a nationwide concern in 1970 when the issue was put
under magnifying lens, while grassroots movements began to grow. Prior
to the movement in 1970s, domestic violence was not considered a public
issue, since violence mainly took place in one's private property. At
the time, the government had taken measures to ensure victim's access
to care and support. Though not until a decade later that legislations
were proposed as an attempt to take on the issue. In 1994, two
legislations were enacted as an effort to respond to this ongoing
problem, the Family Violence Prevention and Service Act and the
Violence Against Women Act. In 2006, the Congress reauthorized VAWA
2005 and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act 2005. These
legislations have created new programs to assist and ensure the safety,
well-being of survivors and victims. I am also pleased to see that the
President has been showing strong support for this campaign. For
FY2011, President Obama requests $649 million dollars for violence
against women programs. As of last year, there are 1,920 shelters to
house and assist victims, nation-wide. Our Nation has come a long way
on this issue and we still have many more unmet challenges to face.
Brighter days are ahead of us.
I would like to take this moment to recognize all my colleagues in
the House of Representatives, government agencies in the great State of
New York, local non-profit organizations such as Greater New York City
Chapter of The Links, Dominican Women's Development Center, Safe
Horizon 100 Black Women, and many others in my Congressional District
who have shown tremendous dedication and enthusiasm to fight domestic
violence, whether it is to seek for more protection or to ensure that
support programs continued to be funded.
Mr. Speaker, in my very own district a not-for-profit organization,
We All Really Matter or W.A.R.M., is leading the community to reach out
to battered women who have just been released from the shelters. On the
27th of October, W.A.R.M. will be holding its Second Annual Domestic
Violence Panel to present positive faces of women who have been abused.
This event will be a great resource for the community to learn more
about domestic violence as well as allowing victims the break the
silence.
We must continue to do all we can to eradicate violence in every
household in America. I strongly urge victims to speak up and reach out
to your local community about the issue. Do not allow shame and fear to
silence you. The best way to solve a problem is to confront it, not to
shy away from it. You are the voice of change in our community. Our
commitment is to ensure that there will be no more victims. We all
really matter and we all deserve to live in a community where there is
no place for violence.

____________________

A MAN ON THE GROUND IN SUDAN

______

HON. FRANK R. WOLF

of virginia

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, November 2, 2011

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I submit New York Times columnist Nicholas
Kristof's recent piece highlighting the courageous work of Ryan Boyette
in the Nuba Mountains of Sudan.
I had the privilege of meeting with Ryan when he was recently in
town. At a time when few outside groups or media have access to the
region, he has been an eye-witness to some of the atrocities presently
occurring in that country.
Ryan has issued a compelling clarion call to action. Will we answer
the call?

[From the New York Times, Oct. 22, 2011]

The Man Who Stayed Behind

(By Nicholas D. Kristof)

In the last few months, as you and I have been fretting
about the economy or moaning about the weather, Ryan Boyette
has been living in a mud-wall hut and dodging bombs in his
underwear.
Some humanitarian catastrophes--Congo, Somalia, Sudan--
linger because the killing unfolds without witnesses. So
Ryan, a 30-year-old from Florida, has made the perilous
decision to bear witness to atrocities in the Nuba Mountains
of Sudan, secretly staying behind when other foreigners were
evacuated.
I met Ryan a few years ago in Sudan, and even then he was a
compelling figure who spoke the local languages of Otoro and
Sudanese Arabic. An evangelical Christian deeply motivated by
his faith, Ryan moved to the Nuba Mountains in 2003 and
worked for Samaritan's Purse, an aid group led by the Rev.
Franklin Graham.
Early this year, Ryan married a local woman, Jazira, a
health worker--and 6,000 joyous Nubans celebrated at the
wedding, along with Ryan's parents, who flew in from Florida.
It was clear that war was brewing in the Nuba Mountains.
The region had sided with South Sudan in the country's long
civil war, but now South Sudan was separating while the Nuba
Mountains would remain in the north. The people--mostly
Muslim but with a large Christian minority--supported a local
rebel army left over from the civil war.
In June, fighting erupted. The Sudanese government moved in
to destroy the rebel army and depopulate areas that supported
it. Aid organizations pulled out their workers. Ryan decided
that he could not flee, so when Samaritan's Purse ordered him
to evacuate, he resigned and stayed behind.
``A lot of people tried to convince me to leave,'' Ryan
remembers. ``But this is where my wife is from, this is where
I've lived for eight years. It's hard to get on a plane and
say, `Bye, I hope to see you when this ends.'''
Ryan organized a network of 15 people to gather information
and take photos and videos, documenting atrocities. He used a
solar-powered laptop and a satellite phone to transmit them
to the West, typically to the Enough Project, a Washington-
based anti-genocide organization. He also supplied eyewitness
interviews that helped the Enough Project and the Harvard
Humanitarian Initiative find evidence of atrocities,
including eight mass graves, on satellite images. And he
helped journalists understand what was going on.

[[Page 16581]]

``He's irreplaceable,'' said Jonathan Hutson of the Enough
Project. ``There's no substitute for someone on the ground.''
Ryan tried to keep his presence in the region a secret, at
least from the Sudanese government, for fear that it might
seek to eliminate a witness. Once, a bombing seemed to target
his hut, but he heard the plane approaching and ran out in
his skivvies and took cover; the bombs missed, and he was
unhurt.
After the first few weeks, the killings on the ground
abated. But the government has continued the bombings.
``It's terrifying when they bomb,'' Ryan told me. ``You
don't feel safe at any time of day or night.''
The bombs typically miss and have killed fewer than 200
people, he says, but they prevent people from farming their
fields. Several hundred thousand people have been driven from
their homes in the surrounding state of South Kordofan, Ryan
says, and a famine may be looming.
``It's not a good time to have kids,'' Ryan quoted Jazira
as telling him. ``If we have kids, they'll just starve.''
Frustrated by the lack of attention for the Nubans' plight,
Ryan decided to return to the United States this month and
tell his story. He couldn't get a visa for Jazira in time--
obtaining an American visa for a spouse is a long and complex
process--so she is in a refugee camp for 15,000 Nubans in
South Sudan, struggling to address health needs there.
Meanwhile, in Washington, Ryan has testified before Congress
and met with White House officials.
Soon, he'll go back, rejoining Jazira and sneaking back
with her into the Nuba Mountains. It'll be more dangerous
than ever now that he has gone public, but he is determined
to give voice to the voiceless--and Nubans will do everything
to protect him.
In a world where leaders often pretend not to notice mass
atrocities, for fear that they might be called Upon to do
something, I find Ryan an inspiration. His eyewitness
accounts make it more difficult for the world to neglect a
humanitarian crisis in the Nuba Mountains--even if he does
need to brush up on his tech skills.
I asked Ryan if he planned to use Twitter.
``Twitter?'' he asked. ``I've been in the bush for nine
years, so I don't know how to use it.'' But he's planning to
learn.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO SPC. JOSEPH B. DeLOACH

______

HON. JOE WILSON

of south carolina

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, November 2, 2011

Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor one
of South Carolina's heroic sons, U.S. Army Specialist Joseph B.
DeLoach, from Ruffin, South Carolina. In 2010, Specialist DeLoach was
injured by an RPG while in Kunar Province, Afghanistan. He was serving
as a cavalry scout with the 1-32 Cavalry Squadron, 101st Airborne (Air
Assault), out of Fort Campbell, Kentucky.
The following poem, composed by Mr. Bert Caswell, an appreciated
Capitol tour guide, is a testament to this true American hero.

Out in Front

All in times for war!
There, are but all of those who so insure!
With Scouts Out in front, you must believe!
For way out up ahead, there are all of those fine soul who
have died and bled!
As all out there on the very edge of death, they so live . .
.
All for Country Tis of Thee, so much they give!
Scouts Out, Heroes who no doubt . . . may not be coming home!
Gathering Intel, melding into the battle zone . . . knowing
so very well, death lies close!
As they may be gone for days and days, for only our Lord God
so knows where are they!
All to help win all those wars! Airborne!
As to new heights Blake, your fine heart has soared!
For when they sign you up on that line,
You know for sure that you so live on all borrowed time!
Realizing, on each new day . . . you but live on, someone
else's prayers!
All for love of Country Tis of Thee, they cheat death we see!
Out of RECON, all by themselves as they must be!
As their magnificient souls go so far beyond!
Oh Yea Blake, Rambo aint got nothing on you . . . as into
that darkness disappearing, your gone!
The ones who so lead the way, and for all of them and their
fine families we now so pray!
Way out up ahead, as into that darkness all by themselves as
they've so led!
Give Blake some C4 and DEC CORD, and he will blow up anything
all for . . .
All for that old red, white and blue!
For he's a true Son of the South . . . through and through!
Scouts out!
Bad to the bone, as Blake that's you . . . the title that you
now so own!
As an American Hero so tried and true, but The Best That
South Carolina Can So Do!
In Seven months in Iraq, you were involved in six exploded
IED's attacks!
And then on that fateful day, after recovering from his
injuries re upping so bravely!
In Afghanistan, with your name on it . . . you met an RPG
that your sight so ripped!
Right on the very edge of death, four times . . .
As your Brothers in Arms rushing in . . . your so blessed!
As an Angel on the Battlefield, named SPC Resmondo . . . so
brought you back from death!
As you magnificient warrior, so lost your sight . . .
And yet you see far much more clearer than any of us tonight!
As you'd do it all again, All Out in Front . . .
As so magnficiently, bringing to all your light!
Scouts Out, are some of our nation finest men . . . who are
Devout!
As it's only upon themselves, they they must so count!
As this strong South Carolina son, was raised by his fine mom
and dad . . .
To be such the one!
But, there's even more greatness still to come . . . all in
Blake's three young sons!
Ethan, Bryson, and Joey Jr., are but Blake's greatest of all
loves!
Now, Blake is ``Out in Front'' all in his recovery, as he's
on the hunt!
Because, Scouts fight, and they don't run!
A quiet calmness all in his heart has so begun!
And if ever I have a son, I wish he could be like this one!
Whose, life speaks volumes . . . all because of what he's so
said and done!
As one day up in Heaven, one again, Blake you will be Out in
Front!
For all you've done, and you will see our Lord my son!

____________________

HONORING LT. COLONEL THOMAS PLOURDE

______

HON. MICHAEL H. MICHAUD

of maine

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, November 2, 2011

Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Lt. Colonel
Thomas Plourde of Lewiston, Maine. Plourde was a member of the 100th
Battalion, 442nd Japanese American Combat Team in World War II, all of
whom will be receiving Congressional Gold Medals today.
The 442nd Combat Team was comprised almost entirely of Japanese
Americans, men who volunteered to fight tyranny and oppression abroad
even while their families were interred in camps at home. For its size
and length of service, it was the most decorated unit in the entire
history of the United States military. In the course of their service,
the 442nd earned 9,486 Purple Hearts, eight Presidential Unit
Citations, and 21 Medals of Honor. These brave men fought with
unparalleled skill and valor winning tremendous victories for the
allies in Europe. Their heroism cannot be overstated.
At just 23 years old at the time of his enlistment, Thomas Plourde
would serve as a 1st Lieutenant before rising to become a company
commander for the 442nd. Following a decisive victory in the allied
push to liberate Italy, Lieutenant Plourde led a task force that
secured the capture of 33 German officers and over 300 soldiers in the
city of Alessandria. For his actions, he was awarded a division
citation and accepted the key to Alessandria on behalf of his
battalion. Subsequently Plourde would receive a field promotion to the
rank of Captain, a Bronze Star, a Purple Heart, and a Distinguished
Unit Badge for his heroism. Citing his effectiveness under fire and his
personal concern for the men under his command, Plourde's commanding
officer Major Mitsuyoshi Fukuda wrote that he had ``won the highest
respect from both the men and the officers within the 100th
Battalion.''
Today, Thomas Plourde's daughter, Janet Barrett, will accept the
Congressional Gold Medal on behalf of her father for his courageous
service in the war. The Congressional Gold Medal is the highest
civilian award in the United States. The decoration is awarded to an
individual who performs an outstanding deed or act of service for the
security, prosperity, and national interest of the country. Mainers
have a long tradition of service in the armed forces. I am proud of Lt.
Colonel Plourde's place in that history. His remarkable leadership and
heroism in the face of unspeakable evil will never be forgotten.
Mr. Speaker, please join me in honoring Lt. Colonel Thomas Plourde of
Lewiston, Maine, for his distinguished service to this country.

[[Page 16582]]

____________________

PENNY FOOLISH

______

HON. STEVEN R. ROTHMAN

of new jersey

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, November 2, 2011

Mr. ROTHMAN of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about
common cents.
Currently it costs more than a penny for the U.S. Mint to make a one
cent coin and more than a nickel to make the five cent piece. This
problem is currently being examined at the request of the U.S. Mint.
Over the next two years, a Pennsylvania company has been contracted
by the Mint to conduct research and development for more economical
alternative metallic materials for the production of all circulating
coins.
As this study begins, I would like to submit into the Record one
possible solution, offered by David L. Ganz, a friend of mine, a member
of the Board of Freeholders of Bergen County, N.J., and a former
president of the American Numismatic Association.
In an op-ed in the Sunday New York Times from August 21, 2011, Mr.
Ganz took on the issue of the penny and proposes a specific solution,
which I hope that the study will review along with other alternatives.

[From New York Times, Aug. 20, 2011]

Penny Foolish

(By David L. Ganz)

In this time of fiscal strain, Americans can find some
savings by simply looking in their purses and pockets.
Because of increases in commodity prices, it now costs more
than one cent to make a penny and more than five cents to
make a nickel. The United States Mint, sensitive to the risks
of changing the composition and feel of our coinage, has been
reluctant to revise the composition of these two coins.
But that is precisely what the Mint--which last year
produced 4 billion pennies and 490 million nickels--should
do.
While eliminating the penny has been debated for decades,
it is not a realistic option; the penny has tremendous
symbolic value and removing it would have the effect of
raising prices--particularly for people of modest means, who
use currency the most--because retailers would round up.
Reducing the size of the coins is impractical because of the
cost of recalibrating vending machines and the need to ensure
that the coin is not interchangeable with any foreign coin.
Changing the composition of the penny by using less costly
materials is the only feasible alternative. The Mint, part of
the Treasury Department, has changed the size or composition
of the cent more than a dozen times since 1793. Two of the
most recent alterations were the switch to zinc-coated steel
in 1943, caused by the wartime shortage of copper, and the
switch to zinc with copper plating in 1982, a response to
rising commodity prices.
Past debates have brought forth a variety of unconventional
suggestions: plastic (used as sales-tax tokens--representing
fractions of a cent--in the 1930s, but cheap-looking),
industrial porcelain (Germany and Thailand tried this, but it
breaks easily); and vulcanite rubber (used as currency in
Guatemala early in the last century, but too exotic for
American tastes).
Metallic alloys are probably the best choice for a new-
composition penny and nickel. The precise choice needs to
reflect four values: cost effectiveness, security of supply,
aesthetic acceptability and minimal disruption to vending
machines. (Pennies are not commonly accepted by machines, but
are sometimes inserted anyway; a penny of a different
composition could cause machines to jam.)
In a 1976 study of the penny, the Research Triangle
Institute rejected chromium, tin, titanium, copper-aluminum-
nickel-zinc derivatives and zinc mixtures. At current prices,
none of these would be cost-effective. In practical terms,
that leaves two basic metallic groups: an aluminum alloy,
which is better, heavier and stronger than the pure aluminum
cent proposed in the 1970s, but still expensive, and steel,
which is the clear favorite for affordability and security,
but poses technical challenges.
The best approach is to meld the two. Aluminized steel is
ideal because it is available coiled--squeezed by rollers and
then put into a lasso-like form that can be fed directly into
a coining press. It would work for the penny and the nickel--
and the dime, if it is ever threatened.
Let's use a new aluminized-steel alloy that allows the Mint
to produce an affordable penny. Ideally, this would be
accompanied by a redesign, and a collector's-edition one-cent
coin made of gold and silver. This would complement the
success the Mint has had with the state quarters program and
with collectors' coins made of precious metals.
Contrary to the song, pennies do not come from heaven. Ours
come from the Mint, which must supply them now and in the
future. Let's reintroduce the penny as a coin that matters,
and put its production on a sounder financial footing.

____________________

HONORING PATRICK HYLAND ON HIS DISTINGUISHED CAREER AS EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR OF THE NORTHEAST PUBLIC POWER ASSOCIATION

______

HON. EDWARD J. MARKEY

of massachusetts

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, November 2, 2011

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. Patrick
Hyland, who, for more than 22 years, has served with distinction as
executive director of the Northeast Public Power Association.
Under Pat Hyland's leadership, the Northeast Public Power Association
has been the leading voice for 79 consumer-owned utilities that provide
energy to more than two million citizens in the six New England states
of Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut and Rhode
Island.
Over the years, Pat Hyland has worked closely with Members of the New
England delegation, from both sides of the aisle, to advance the
interest of NEPPA consumers in New England. Under the leadership of
their local elected energy boards, NEPPA utilities are responsible for
providing reliable electric services at affordable prices throughout
the region.
Pat Hyland is well known throughout the New England Congressional
delegation for his integrity and forthrightness. He has played a
pivotal role in advocating on behalf of NEPPA utilities that deliver
vital electricity, and in some cases water services, on a non-profit,
publicly-accountable basis to consumers in small and large communities
throughout New England.
To highlight just two of his successes, Pat has effectively
spearheaded legislative efforts to increase awareness of impacts to
consumers in New England--who are also our constituents--of wholesale
and retail competition, including the creation of Regional Transmission
Organizations (RTOs), and energy capacity markets and the
implementation of key transmission rate policies.
Throughout his career, Pat Hyland has been actively involved in
federal energy policy. He was a key resource to me during the debate
over the amendment that I successfully offered to provide for open
transmission access when Congress enacted the Energy Policy Act of
1992; he was a voice of caution regarding the need to ensure
appropriate consumer and investor protections in the event of a repeal
of the Public Utility Holding Company Act in the Energy Policy Act of
2005; and he was a leader in the effort to obtain comparable renewable
incentives for the customers of consumer-owned utilities.
He has also taken the lead to increase consumer awareness about the
impact of wholesale and retail competition and operations of Regional
Transmission Organizations.
My personal and professional respect and admiration for Pat runs
deep, and I wish him happiness and good health in his retirement. The
wise counsel, calm determination, and good Irish sense-of-humor, which
he has provided to me and others in Congress for many years on behalf
of NEPPA, will be sorely missed.
I am told that one of the highlights of Pat's life was to meet the
legendary Celtics basketball player Bob Cousey. I understand that,
because over the last 20 years Pat Hyland has been New England's public
power ``point guard'': taking control of the game, mastering it with
wizardry and elegance, and dazzling fans.
And so I wish today, Mr. Speaker to say to Pat, thank you for your
service. We will miss you and we wish you well.

____________________

A TRIBUTE TO MR. WILLIAM ``BILL'' GOODWIN

______

HON. DAVE CAMP

of michigan

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, November 2, 2011

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Bill Goodwin in
recognition of his 75th birthday this Wednesday, November 2nd.
Bill Goodwin served as a page in the United States House of
Representatives during the 83rd Congress. Sponsored by former Michigan
Representative George Dondero, he began his time as a bench page in
January of 1953 at the age of 15 in an effort to support his widowed
mother and four siblings back home. Bill was quickly moved to work in
the Democratic Cloakroom where he answered calls, organized the
transportation of documents and later guarded lobby doors and access to
the House floor. Additionally, he participated in the page glee club,
sang for page graduations,

[[Page 16583]]

and was even asked by members of Congress to sing the Lord's Prayer on
the Floor while the House was in recess.
Most notably, Bill can be remembered for his valiant efforts during
the 1954 Puerto Rican shootings in the House Chamber where he assisted
in carrying stretchers from the House floor. In a widely popularized
photograph of the events, he can be recognized carrying a stretcher
bearing Representative Alvin Bentley down the House steps.
In 1955, Bill graduated from the Capitol Page School and returned to
Michigan to finish his studies. He entered Wayne State University as a
veterinarian student, but left two years later to return home to
support his family. He worked as a technician at National Cash Register
for several years, and left the company to begin his own cash register
business.
An avid entrepreneur, Bill later delved into the hovercraft business,
where he secured several patents for the vehicle over the years. Ever
the businessman, Bill currently operates his own landscaping business
and enjoys taking part in activities such as hunting, and singing in
the church choir.
Bill Goodwin's contributions to his family, the State of Michigan,
and this House of Representatives have been truly remarkable. On behalf
of the Fourth Congressional District of Michigan, I am honored today to
recognize Bill Goodwin in celebration of his 75th birthday. I hope the
year to come will bring him health, happiness, and special times with
family and friends.

____________________

HONORING STORIED GAY RIGHTS LEADER FRANKLIN KAMENY

______

HON. JAMES P. MORAN

of virginia

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, November 2, 2011

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce a recent editorial by
Nick Benton, editor and publisher of the Falls Church News Press. His
editorial, which appeared on October 19, 2011, reads as follows:

It was by a remarkable and gracious coincidence that the
first weekend after the passing of our gay movement's
greatest pioneer, Franklin Kameny, the Martin Luther King Jr.
Memorial was dedicated on the National Mall.
The ceremony included a viewing of the entirety of Dr.
King's 17-minute ``I Have a Dream'' speech delivered on the
steps of the Lincoln Memorial to 300,000 in the ``Great March
on Washington'' of August 28, 1963, the year of the 100th
anniversary of Lincoln's signing of the Emancipation
Proclamation.
Seven of the handful of original gay members of the
Mattachine Society of Washington, led by Kameny, attended
that historic rally and heard that speech. It was with its
echoes ringing in their ears that in 1965, Kameny and a tiny
cadre of fellow homosexuals carried out the first-ever
organized picket line demanding homosexual equality held at
the White House gates.
In his 1963 speech, Dr. King welcomed the racially-diverse
makeup of the rally. ``Many of our white brothers, as
evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize
that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. They have
come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to
our freedom,'' he intoned.
``We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are
created equal,'' Dr. King declared. ``I have a dream that my
four little children will one day live in a nation where they
will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the
content of their character.''
That speech directly inspired the rise of our modern gay
movement, led by Kameny (May 21, 1925-October 11, 2011),
Lilli Vincenz, Barbara Gittings and a handful of others, as
chronicled in the film documentary, ``Gay Pioneers'' (2004),
produced by the Philadelphia Equality Forum.
Frank Kameny, I am proud to say, was my friend in recent
years. He was arguably the single most seminal influence in
the history of our movement, so claimed at a Rainbow History
Project forum last week. Kameny was scheduled to speak at
that forum before his untimely death at age 86 just two days
before.
His was the strident, compelling force that led the effort
against the 1950s McCarthyite anti-homosexual witch hunts in
the government (David K. Johnson, ``The Lavender Scare, The
Cold War Persecution of Gays and Lesbians in the Federal
Government,'' 2004).
He organized picket lines when no one else was doing it and
carried on a relentless, lifelong fight for equality. He ran
for public office and railed loudly against injustice in an
era when no one, except in rarefied circles of literary or
artistic elites, dared publicly declare their homosexuality.
His crowning achievement was his relentless, eventually
successful campaign to get the American Psychiatric
Association to remove homosexuality from its list of mental
disorders in 1973. That signal achievement changed the public
perception of homosexuality, laying the groundwork for
growing public acceptance and affirmation since.
Kameny invented the slogan, ``Gay is Good,'' far more
controversial in its time than it seems now. I defended it
then against objections of dedicated gay friends who
considered it too radical.
When I first met Frank, I was a young gay activist in 1970
in San Francisco. Dr. King's speech permeating the national
ethos, I'd made two life-changing decisions, entering
seminary in 1966 and joining Kameny and his San Francisco
counterparts prior to Stonewall in early 1969 to ``come out''
and join the struggle for gay, and human, liberation.
Our fight, I wrote in the editorial for the first Gay
Sunshine newspaper, ``should harken to a greater cause, the
cause of human liberation, of which homosexual liberation is
just one aspect.''
Regrettably, about that same time, the onslaught of the
right wing, socially-engineered anarcho-hedonist
counterculture hijacked our movement, dashing Dr. King's
appeal to the ``content of character'' in the process. We've
had to live, and die, with the consequences of that since.
I reconnected with Frank in recent years, while his
contributions became more recognized and appreciated. A
milestone came when the many picket signs, leaflets, speeches
and photographs he'd kept from his earliest activist days
were formally received as a special collection at the
Smithsonian Institution. He was honored at the White House by
President Obama, and a photo of him and me with Vice
President Biden hangs in my office.
Along with another other early activist and mutual friend,
Lilli Vincenz, and her long-time partner Nancy Davis, I
hosted Frank as my guest at the national dinner of the Human
Rights Campaign in 2005, and often invited him to lunches at
The Palm restaurant in downtown D.C.
Those many lunches were not only to enjoy his company, but
to provide opportunities for my friends, especially younger
ones, gay and otherwise, to meet and appreciate this genuine
hero of our movement. Recently, of this ``Gay Science''
project, Kameny smiled and quipped, ``I think we wind up in
the same place.'' I concurred.

____________________

TO RECOGNIZE 18TH ANNUAL YOM HASHOAH-HOLOCAUST COMMEMORATION PROGRAM
FOR THE STATEN ISLAND JEWISH COMMUNITY

______

HON. MICHAEL G. GRIMM

of new york

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, November 2, 2011

Mr. GRIMM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the incredible
sacrifice made by the victims of the Holocaust. On the 27th Day of
Nissan, Jews around the world stood in respect and memoriam to honor
the senseless slaughter of so many. On Staten Island, the 18th annual
Yom Hashoah-Holocaust Commemoration Program for the Staten Island
Jewish Community was held at Temple Israel Reform Congregation, Randall
Manor. Holocaust survivor Inge Auerbacher--a woman of remarkable
bravery--gave the keynote address.
While humanity vowed never to repeat the atrocities committed during
the Holocaust, we must recognize that genocide continues in places like
Darfur and Rwanda. With the memory of the Holocaust permanently in our
minds, we must maintain an intense focus on the present and future to
put an end to these unconscionable crimes.

____________________

HONORING THE WASHINGTON STATE'S NISEI VETERANS

______

HON. JIM McDERMOTT

of washington

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, November 2, 2011

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Japanese-
American veterans who served so courageously during World War II in the
100th Infantry Battalion, the 442nd Regimental Combat Team, and the
Military Intelligence Service. In recognition of their extraordinary
service, they are being honored with the Congressional Gold Medal.
I am especially proud to join 26 veterans, six widows of veterans,
and more than 320 family members who are here today to attend the award
ceremony on behalf of Washington State's Nisei Veterans Committee. We
come together to acknowledge and to thank the Nisei veterans and their
families for their sacrifice and their patriotism.
As an Honorary Nisei Veteran, I have had the opportunity to talk to
many of these veterans, their children, and their grandchildren as we
remember the soldiers and their proud,

[[Page 16584]]

fearless service to our country, which is all the more exemplary given
that some of their families were held in U.S. internment camps solely
because of their race.
Mr. Speaker, the Nisei Veterans have helped to enrich the Seattle
community and strengthen our country. Their service and legacy are an
inspiration to us all. I am privileged to be a part of the ceremony in
Emancipation Hall at the Capitol Visitor Center.

____________________

HONORING WORTHINGTON WHITTREDGE AND THE HUDSON RIVER SCHOOL OF PAINTING

______

HON. DAVID N. CICILLINE

of rhode island

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, November 2, 2011

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to draw my colleagues'
attention to a recent change nearby at the Capitol Visitors Center. Two
paintings by Albert Bierstadt, ``Discovery of the Hudson River'' and
``Entrance into Monterey,'' are now on public display in the CVC. These
paintings capture the beauty of the American landscape, and, as part of
the Hudson River School of Painting, symbolize an important time period
in our country's history that impacted culture, recreation, and
conservation in the United States.
The Hudson River School was comprised of painters who created
detailed landscapes of the American wilderness. One of these men,
Worthington Whittredge, is connected to my district. His work
``Sakonnet Point, Rhode Island'' captures the calm and color of our
country's smallest state. His paintings of my district's coastline
reflect his studies with other American artists and European
influences. This vibrant landscape is very emblematic of many of the
School's ideals.
Whittredge, like many Hudson River School painters, garnered acclaim
and traveled widely both abroad and throughout the United States.
However, his works of the American West are not of mountainous scenes,
but of the plains. One of these works, ``Crossing the River Platte,''
resides in the White House Art Collection and has been displayed in the
Roosevelt Room.
As part of the first indigenous American schools of painting, the
School's painters used small brush strokes to create highly detailed
paintings that accurately portrayed the landscapes around them. This
technique contributed to one of the School's most important legacies.
Another way the Hudson River School influenced American history and
culture is through the creation of several National Parks. Many of
Whittredge's contemporaries, like Bierstadt, helped support
environmental conservation. Primarily through the artists' travels to
the American West, and also to other parts of the United States, we can
still see the dramatic landscapes they captured on canvas of
Yellowstone, Yosemite, Zion, and Acadia National Parks, among others.
These landscapes were also later used to help our predecessors create
the National Park Service in 1916.
Another legacy of the Hudson River School of Painting is the
Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City. Many of the School's
painters, like Whittredge, spent considerable time traveling in the
grand capitals of Europe and were inspired by the cultural and artistic
scenes. Together with local businessmen, lawyers, and educators, they
formed the Met in 1870. Several of the School's painters served as
trustees or as members of the executive committee. Today, many of their
works, including some by Whittredge, hang in the Met.
Mr. Speaker, it is clear that Worthington Whittredge and the Hudson
River School of Painting made significant contributions to American
art, culture, and conservation that have spanned three centuries.

____________________

ROCKY MOUNTAIN ARSENAL RESTORATION ADVISORY BOARD

______

HON. ED PERLMUTTER

of colorado

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, November 2, 2011

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the members of
the Rocky Mountain Arsenal Restoration Advisory Board in Colorado, who
are dissolving as a board this month after more than 17 years of
service to the nation.
As the primary community advisory board for the U.S. Army at the
Rocky Mountain Arsenal, the members have ensured that the community was
informed and involved during each phase of the design, remediation and
transformation of this environmental cleanup site into a premier urban
national wildlife refuge. Given the importance of the task and the many
years of work it required, their dedication deserves our recognition
and thanks.
Their work is particularly remarkable because of the unique role the
site has played in the history and defense of our nation. The U.S. Army
built the Rocky Mountain Arsenal following the attacks on Pearl Harbor
to manufacture chemical weapons as a deterrent against the Axis Powers.
After the war, the U.S. Army leased some of the facilities to Shell
Chemical Co., which manufactured agricultural chemicals at the site. As
the decades unfolded, the Rocky Mountain Arsenal played critical roles
in allowing our nation to win the Cold War, put men into space and
complete a historic demilitarization program.
These achievements came at a price, however. Although the U.S. Army
and Shell used accepted waste disposal methods of the time, some
contamination of the structures, soil and groundwater occurred. The
communities of Brighton, Commerce City and Denver, which surround the
Rocky Mountain Arsenal and are represented on the Restoration Advisory
Board, help forged consensus around the environmental restoration and
future use of the site.
Together with representatives from the U.S. Army, Shell Oil Co., U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Environmental Protection Agency, Colorado
Department of Public Health and Environment and Tri-County Health
Department, these citizens held more than 130 public meetings. They
reviewed countless technical documents, shared community questions and
perspectives and served as liaisons with the larger community to ensure
public concerns were addressed throughout the environmental restoration
program.
They also provided critical support for the future use of the site as
a national wildlife refuge once remedial actions were complete. Today,
the Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge encompasses more
than 15,000 acres and offers habitat to more than 330 wildlife species,
including American bald eagles and wild bison. Just as importantly, the
refuge offers exhibits to educate visitors about the historic use and
legacy of the site.
Now that the environmental restoration and transformation of the
Rocky Mountain Arsenal is complete and the board has completed its
oversight role, the Restoration Advisory Board has decided to dissolve.
Please join me in thanking the members for their service and in
congratulating them on a job well done.

____________________

IN RECOGNITION OF SHILOH COMMUNITY FELLOWSHIP UNITED HOLY CHURCH OF
AMERICA'S 75TH ANNIVERSARY

______

HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR.

of new jersey

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, November 2, 2011

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Shiloh
Community Fellowship United Holy Church of America (UHCA) as members of
the congregation gather to celebrate its 75th Anniversary. Since its
humble beginnings in 1920, the organization has grown structurally and
in membership, while continuing to provide outstanding spiritual
leadership to members of the community. This organization's service and
dedication is highly deserving of this body's recognition.
Shiloh Community Fellowship began hosting church services at the home
of the late Reverend Henry Jeffers in 1920. The steady increase in
membership later encouraged and supported the decision to relocate the
organization to Dewitt Avenue in Asbury Park, New Jersey. In 1938, the
late Bishop H.L. Fisher brought the church into fellowship with United
Holy Church of America (UHCA), a title which the organization retains
today. Throughout its tenure, Shiloh Community Fellowship UHCA was
governed by various administrations. In 1976, Reverend Sarah Wright
assumed leadership on behalf of her ill husband, Rev. Thomas Wright,
and became the first female to serve at Shiloh Community Fellowship. In
1987, the Board of Trustees unanimously agreed to build a new church at
142 Dewitt Avenue in Asbury Park to better serve constituents and
members of the congregation. The dedication service of the new building
was held on May 22, 2004 under the direction of Elder Felton Miller. In
October 2008, Reverend Mark E. White, Sr. was appointed to minister
various services at Shiloh Community Fellowship and was later installed
as the new Pastor on February 13, 2010. To this day, he continues to
provide insightful leadership and spiritual guidance to the members of
the community.
Mr. Speaker, once again, please join me in celebrating the Shiloh
Community Fellowship

[[Page 16585]]

United Holy Church of America's 75th Anniversary. The organization
continues to provide outstanding spiritual guidance and solace for
members of the Asbury Park community.

____________________

IMMIGRATION AND LOCAL LEGISLATIVE REFORM

______

HON. CHARLES B. RANGEL

of new york

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, November 2, 2011

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my growing concern on the
current state of our Nation's immigration reform. On October 2nd, I had
the privilege of attending a press conference at the Church of the
Ascension. I was joined by many of my constituents, my colleague
Congressman Luis Gutierrez of Illinois, State Senator Adriano
Espaillat, members of New York City Council, local city officials, and
numerous immigration rights advocates to discuss immigration reform and
a landmark bill that will change the way the City of New York
Department of Corrections works with the federal immigration
authorities and to reduce unnecessary immigrant deportations in New
York City.
Mr. Speaker, we all live in a nation built by immigrants. When our
great grandparents first arrived, they had hope to escape from
religious persecution or perhaps economic and political repression;
they had hope to work hard so they can build strong families and make a
decent living with respect and dignity. The United States of America is
known to be a country where anyone with good moral standing, courage,
endurance and the desire to do the right thing can achieve and live the
American Dream. The least we can all do for one another is to pave way,
not to inflict pain.
Upon their arrival, those newcomers had never been given legitimacy
to help grow this Nation. They were very well welcomed, simply because
this vast Nation desperately needed builders. Those people worked hard,
sacrificed to strengthen the agriculture, infrastructures and all other
things our generation relies on. Present day immigrants are still
important to our national economy. In a time when our national economy
is in peril, losing this part of our community would cause industries
to collapse.
The United States would not be the same without our ancestors, who
were, in fact, the product of immigrants. They have contributed
enormously to the standing of our economy and will continue to do the
same in the future. I believe that it only is fair to treat them with
justice and fairness. We certainly do not want to look back in 20 or 30
years and have our grandchildren ask: how could we be so cruel? America
can not be known as a place where Federal agencies simply disregard
local people and laws in order to detain, deport immigrants, separate
families and loved ones.
Folks, who are in the custody of local New York authorities, have
been, in the last two or three years, subjected to be detained,
questioned and can potentially be deported by ICE. Mr. Speaker, some of
these folks had no prior conviction. They pose no threat to our
society. Thus, deserve a second chance. Ultimately, we may have an
honest and extensive debate on whether or not we would like to use
amnesty or banishment as a method to fix our own problem, but it is
imperative that the procedure is done with respect to the law and basic
human rights.
I would like to praise my colleague, Congressman Luis Gutierrez, New
York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, Council Member Melissa Mark-
Viverito, Council Member Danny Dromm, Council Member Ydanis Rodriguez
and Make the Road NY Organization for their enormous efforts to bring
to the attention this issue. I would also like to praise the New York
City Council for taking a bold action to limit the Immigration and
Custom Enforcement's authority over New York City Department of
Correction. We certainly can not allow agency such as ICE to detain and
deport people without the appropriate legal basis. The introduction of
Int.656-2011 certainly is a stepping stone to a true, effective reform.
I would like to take this moment to show my sincere appreciation for
Pastor John P. Duffell for allowing the use of the site to advocate the
reform. This is truly a humanitarian concern and Churches through out
the country should not shy away from helping those who are in need. I
encourage more mosques, synagogues, churches throughout this country to
teach and advocate local people about immigration reforms. People
incline to think that religion and politics should not mix and that
religious institutions should stay away from this matter. Though this
isn't so. This matter is not about politics; it's not about winning or
losing; it's about people who just want to work hard and live well. We
want to treat and praise them like we have to our ancestors.
Finally, I encourage all my colleagues to consider immigration reform
as a serious concern and that we can no longer neglect to establish a
legislative reform that is fair, effective and serve the best of the
whole. Deporting people, tearing families apart, build a wall to keep
people out is not real reform; it is a temporary solution to a problem.
We need a sensible immigration policy which will allow the best, the
brightest and those who are willing to work hard to continue the great
chapter of our Nation's history. Mr. Speaker, America is strong because
people come from all over the world with the intent to achieve the
American Dream. The will of the people, as history have shown, have
strive our nation to success from every corner.

____________________

RECOGNIZING THE IMPORTANCE OF SCHOOL LIBRARIES

______

HON. LYNN C. WOOLSEY

of california

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, November 2, 2011

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the importance of
school libraries, which are changing to better address the needs of
students in the 21st century. School libraries are an important part of
our educational system and help prepare students for college and a good
career.
Teacher librarians teach students how to conduct good research, how
to be critical users of the information they find, and how to avoid
plagiarism. They also play an important role teaching online research
skills and raising awareness of cyber safety issues.
Mr. Speaker, I know how important school libraries are to the
students in my district and across the nation. Please join me in
recognizing the invaluable contributions that teacher librarians and
school libraries make to our education system.

____________________

THE INTRODUCTION OF A BILL, THE VET SUCCESS ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2011

______

HON. LINDA T. SANCHEZ

of california

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, November 2, 2011

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to
introduce a bill the Vet Success Enhancement Act of 2011.
This bill renews and extends the solemn promise we have made to our
veterans. It will allow our wounded warriors a greater chance to
prepare for, find and keep suitable jobs through apprenticeships,
vocational counseling and general career services.
Currently, many veterans miss their window of opportunity to enroll
in the VetSuccess program. Many veteran service organizations have come
before the Committee on Veterans Affairs and testified that the current
cut-off period does not adequately provide disabled veterans sufficient
time to enroll in the program.
Therefore, I am introducing this legislation to extend the
eligibility period by 3 years. It is my hope that this additional time
will allow our disabled veterans the time they need to complete
training that allows them to reenter the workforce.
Disabled veterans have paid a steep price in their service to our
country. The least we can do is fix a legislative technicality which
would ensure that our service men and women are able to benefit from
this important program that allows them to return to productive
civilian life.
Mr. Speaker, it is our duty to ensure that our wounded warriors are
given the opportunity to succeed here at home. I strongly believe that
participation in the VetSuccess program can help put veterans on a
meaningful path to success. I urge our colleagues to join me in
supporting our veterans.

____________________

DESTINY BEAN

______

HON. ED PERLMUTTER

of colorado

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, November 2, 2011

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and applaud
Destiny Bean for receiving the Arvada Wheat Ridge Service Ambassadors
for Youth award. Destiny Bean is a 8th grader at Oberon Middle School
and received this award because her determination and hard work have
allowed her to overcome adversities.
The dedication demonstrated by Destiny Bean is exemplary of the type
of achievement

[[Page 16586]]

that can be attained with hard work and perseverance. It is essential
students at all levels strive to make the most of their education and
develop a work ethic which will guide them for the rest of their lives.
I extend my deepest congratulations to Destiny Bean for winning the
Arvada Wheat Ridge Service Ambassadors for Youth award. I have no doubt
she will exhibit the same dedication and character in all her future
accomplishments.

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

______

HON. XAVIER BECERRA

of california

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, November 2, 2011

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, on October 26th I was unavoidably detained
and missed rollcall vote No. 812. If present, I would have voted
``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 812.

____________________

U.F. STUDENT BODY GOVERNMENT ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN RESOLUTION

______

HON. CLIFF STEARNS

of florida

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, November 2, 2011

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the University of
Florida's Student Body Government, and to submit for the Record their
resolution supporting the U.S. commitment to a negotiated settlement of
Palestinian conflict through direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.
The University of Florida Student Government was established in 1909,
and represents the interests of the student body. As representatives
for the students of the University of Florida, this student government
body has put forth Resolution 2011-138, which calls for the
continuation of peaceful negotiations between Israel and the
Palestinian Authority, and to oppose any attempt seeking a unilateral
declaration of statehood from the United Nations.
The students of the University of Florida hereby resolve:

Resolution Supporting the U.S. Commitment to a Negotiated Settlement of
Palestinian Conflict Through Direct Israeli-Palestinian Negotiations,
and Calling Upon the United States to Oppose Unilateral Palestinian
Efforts of Declaring Independence in the United Nations.

Whereas, a true and lasting peace between Israel and the
Palestinian people can only be achieved through direct
negotiations between two legitimate parties and the
acceptance of Israel's right to exist; and
Whereas, direct negotiations between two legitimate parties
to ensure an agreement that acknowledges both historical
territorial claims to land while also taking into account the
current demographic and security realities; and
Whereas, Hamas, an organization responsible for the death
of hundreds of Israeli and American civilians, has been
designated by the United States State Department as a Foreign
Terrorist Organization and is in control of the Gaza strip;
and
Whereas, Hamas has held merger talks with the Palestinian
Authority and continues to forcefully reject the possibility
of peace with Israel, and
Whereas, refusing to come to the table and negotiate
despite President Obama's direct request for a meeting
following the Israeli nine month settlement freeze, the
Palestinian Authority is preventing any constructive dialogue
from taking place that could eventually lead to the formation
of a Palestinian state; and
Whereas, the Palestinian Authority attempting to gain full
membership at the United Nations through a unilateral
declaration of statehood is counterproductive to the peace
process; and
Whereas, a poll done by the Palestinian Center for Public
Opinion showed that eighty-three percent of Palestinians
cited job creation as the most pressing issue, with only four
percent citing UN recognition of Palestinian statehood as the
most important; and
Whereas, of that same poll only forty percent of
Palestinians think that the UN vote will actually help to
bring about an independent Palestinian state; and
Whereas, the United States passed H. Res 268 and S. Bill
185 calling on the Administration to block the Palestinian
Authority's efforts at the United Nations, and to cut foreign
aid to the Palestinian Authority in the event of a unilateral
declaration, and
Whereas, the Obama administration has publicly criticized
the Palestinian Authority's push for an unsustainable
unilateral declaration, then be it
Resolved That the University of Florida Student Senate, on
behalf of the students of the University of Florida, join our
elected officials in support of a peaceful, two-state
solution through direct negotiations between the Palestinians
and Israelis; and be it further
Resolved That the students of the University of Florida
support a halt to any efforts for a unilateral declaration of
statehood at the United Nations and that the Palestinian
Authority terminates its association with Hamas, so that it
may be considered a legitimate partner for peace.

____________________

RECOGNIZING U.S. ARMY 1ST LT. ASHLEY I. WHITE STUMPF

______

HON. JAMES B. RENACCI

of ohio

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, November 2, 2011

Mr. RENACCI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize U.S. Army 1st Lt.
Ashley I. White Stumpf--a member of the North Carolina National Guard's
230th Brigade Support Battalion, 30th Heavy Brigade Combat Team. She
was attached to a Joint Special Operations Task Force in Afghanistan
when she and two Army Rangers were killed as enemy forces attacked her
unit with an improvised explosive device.
Ashley was commissioned in the U.S. Army as a Medical Service Corps
Officer after receiving a commission from Kent State University in
2009. After completing both the medical services officer basic course
at Fort Sam Houston, Texas, and the U.S. Army basic airborne course at
Fort Benning, Georgia, she volunteered to become a member of a new
tactical force called Cultural Support Teams.
Cultural Support Teams highlight the importance and necessity of
women on the battlefield today. Their primary task is to engage the
female population in ways that would be culturally inappropriate if
performed by a male service member. As a member of only the second
class of women to enter this program, Ashley was a trail-blazer.
Cultural Support Team members assist in a variety of functions in
Afghanistan, including medical programs, searches and seizures,
humanitarian assistance, and civil-military operations. In support of
these special Special Operations units, Ashley exposed herself to
danger on a regular basis and has now become the first casualty in what
the Army says is a new and vital wartime attempt to gain the trust of
Afghan women. She will be remembered for her sacrifice for years to
come.
Ashley's awards and decorations are many and include the Parachutist
Badge, the Ohio Faithful Service Ribbon, the Armed Forces Reserve
Medal, the Army Reserve Achievement Medal, and the National Defense
Service Medal. She will be posthumously awarded the Bronze Star, the
Purple Heart, the Meritorious Service Medal, the Afghanistan Campaign
Medal, and the Combat Action Badge.
Lt. Col. David Hodne stated it well when he said, ``Ashley was an
incredibly talented officer and teammate who lost her life while
committed to making a difference in our effort in Afghanistan. She
demonstrated a level of quiet courage that set the example for others
to follow, and we will never forget her sacrifice. Her family is in our
thoughts and prayers.''
A native of Alliance, Ohio, Ms. White Stumpf is survived by her
husband Cpt. Jason Stumpf of Raeford, N.C., her parents Robert and
Deborah White, twin sister Brittney and brother Josh, all of Alliance.
Loved by friends, family and citizens across this nation, Ashley will
remain a shining example of selfless sacrifice.
I honor Ashley's life, her service, and her memory. She will surely
be missed by many, but she--along with all of our fallen heroes--will
not be forgotten.

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

______

HON. W. TODD AKIN

of missouri

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, November 2, 2011

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 816 and 817, I was delayed and
unable to vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on both.

____________________

DEAN ROGERS

______

HON. ED PERLMUTTER

of colorado

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, November 2, 2011

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and applaud
Dean Rogers

[[Page 16587]]

for receiving the Arvada Wheat Ridge Service Ambassadors for Youth
award. Dean Rogers is a 8th grader at Drake Middle School and received
this award because his determination and hard work have allowed him to
overcome adversities.
The dedication demonstrated by Dean Rogers is exemplary of the type
of achievement that can be attained with hard work and perseverance. It
is essential students at all levels strive to make the most of their
education and develop a work ethic which will guide them for the rest
of their lives.
I extend my deepest congratulations to Dean Rogers for winning the
Arvada Wheat Ridge Service Ambassadors for Youth award. I have no doubt
he will exhibit the same dedication and character in all his future
accomplishments.

____________________

HONORING THE WORLD WAR II VETERANS OF ILLINOIS

______

HON. MIKE QUIGLEY

of illinois

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, November 2, 2011

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the World War II veterans
who are traveling to Washington, D.C. today with Honor Flight Chicago,
a program who provides as many World War II veterans as possible the
opportunity to see the World War II Memorial here in Washington, D.C.,
a memorial that was built to honor their courage and service.
The American Veteran is one of our greatest treasures. The Soldiers,
Airmen, Sailors, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen traveling here today
answered our nation's call to service during one of its greatest times
of need. From the European Campaign to the Pacific Asian Theatre to the
African Theater, these brave Americans risked life and limb, gave
service and sacrificed much, all while embodying what it is to be a
hero. We owe them more gratitude than can ever be expressed.
I welcome these brave veterans to Washington and to their memorial. I
am proud to submit the names of these men and women for all to see,
hear, and recognize, and I call on my colleagues to rise and join me in
expressing gratitude.
Marvin Leroy Abramson, Louis Alejandre, Earl Allen, Robert Arvidson,
Thomas Atchison, Julio A. Battistoni, Birgie Dean Bergeson, Charles S.
Bergh, Earl F. Bishop, Stanley J. Biskup, Ralph Blattner, Marjorie H.
Bobzin, William J. Bolt, Lloyd Bowman, Seymour Brodsky, Edward V.
Bucaro, Norman E. Burbury, Julius Burrell, Anthony Candice, Wiliam J.
Christian, Vernon Ciske, Guy Colletti, Irving Covitt, Louis Czyzewski,
Robert K. Dean, Walter J. Dobosz, Edward L. Effertz, Vincent J.
Fiduccia, Arthur E. Fossland, Paul J. Gerjol, Wilbert Gerrish, Louis
Guthmann, Arthur J. Habel, Gerald Hastings, Roscoe Hastings, Edward C.
Hausknecht Jr., Albert R. Heminger, Edward J. Heywood, William R.
Higgins, Gerald Hulslander, Diderick M. Iversen, Robert Jenkins, Alfred
Jordi Jr., Francis Kaduk, Albert Komar, John Kotowski, Robert Bernhardt
Krueger, Walter C. Kuhn, Herbert J. Lustig, George Mahony, James E.
McShane, William Merrill, Harold Milling, Edwin John Misniak, Charles
W. Moffett, Aldo J. Mob, Mary C. Nolan, Fulton Nolen Sr., Joseph R.
Pacholski, Jerome Pierce, Joseph P. Pomykala, Frank N. Popp, Frederick
Popper, Richard Priske, Robert Prorok, Eugene G. Qualizza, John Radke,
Fred V. Randazzo, Kenneth L. Rapalee, Raymond F. Reece, William G.
Rieker, John L. Ritchie, Eugene V. Rodarte, Shirley Marie Roeing,
Richard Sven Roeing, Sam A. Scardino, Louis C. Seno, Vincent James
Serio, Lawrence Smith, Samuel Stookal, Edward Sulkowski, Clarence F.
Talentowski, Herbert L. Tatroe, Hilbert 0. Teske, George H. Thompson,
Gilbert T. Vinzani, George H. Vozari, Barbara Q. Watson, Harold E.
Weir, Franklin C. Wellhausen, John P. Whitbroad, Richard Wolff, Berlin
W. Wyman, Elmo R. Younger, Michael Yurchak, Leonard F. Zaehler, Walter
Ziolkowski.

____________________

OUR UNCONSCIONABLE NATIONAL DEBT

______

HON. MIKE COFFMAN

of colorado

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, November 2, 2011

Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, today our national debt is
$14,971,1831,021,178.32.
On January 6, 2009, the start of the 111th Congress, the national
debt was $10,638,425,746,293.80.
This means the national debt has increased by $4,333,405,274,884.52
since then. This debt and its interest payments we are passing to our
children and all future Americans.

____________________

SALUTING THE BETTER BUSINESS BUREAU OF MIDDLE TENNESSEE

______

HON. JIM COOPER

of tennessee

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, November 2, 2011

Mr. COOPER. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to salute the Better Business
Bureau of Middle Tennessee. An organization dedicated to consumer
protection, business standards, and community involvement, the Bureau
has seen record growth and become a pillar in our great city of
Nashville.
In October of 1961, the Bureau opened its doors with 510 members.
During the 1960s, it handled nearly 80,000 service requests. After 5
decades of expansion and growth, the Better Business Bureau of Middle
Tennessee now has 5,000 members. In 2011, the Bureau will top 3 million
requests with 98 percent of all services delivered via the Internet.
The Better Business Bureau of Middle Tennessee has a solid reputation
for both helping the consumer and raising the standards of business.
The Bureau continually encourages businesses to strive for the highest
and most ethical standards in commerce. Local businesses aspire to be
recipients of the highly coveted ``Torch Award for Marketplace
Ethics.''
Although its primary focus is to direct consumers to businesses they
can trust, the Better Business Bureau of Middle Tennessee has become a
community partner and a good corporate citizen. The Bureau has invested
in higher education awarding scholarships to deserving high schools
students through the ``Students of Integrity'' program and partners
with many other nonprofits in community events throughout the area.
And so, Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege today to salute the Better
Business Bureau of Middle Tennessee for its 50 years of dedicated
service to our citizens and our community, and for promoting higher
ethical standards in business.

____________________

RECOGNIZING JUDGE RICARDO M. URBINA

______

HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON

of the district of columbia

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, November 2, 2011

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask the House of Representatives
to join me in recognizing Judge Ricardo M. Urbina, the first Latino
appointed to the bench in the District of Columbia. President Ronald
Reagan nominated Judge Urbina for the Superior Court of the District of
Columbia in 1981, and President Bill Clinton nominated him for the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia in 1994. Both before and
after these path-breaking judicial appointments, Judge Urbina has been
recognized by his peers, his city, and many organizations for his many
contributions to the law and to society.
Judge Urbina began establishing his reputation with his broad
experience as an attorney in the Public Defender Service for the
District of Columbia, in private practice specializing in commercial
litigation, and as an associate professor at Howard University School
of Law. Among Judge Urbina's achievements while on the bench was his
leadership of efforts by the bar and community organizations to create
the Superior Court's Office of Interpreter Services, which for the
first time institutionalized the practice of providing court
interpreters for non-English speakers and the hearing-impaired.
The District of Columbia and its residents are particularly grateful
for Judge Urbina's attention to our youth and for his work in
developing the next generation of legal achievers by exposing D.C. high
school students to the court system, as well as by teaching law while
on the bench. Throughout his career, Judge Urbina has been invested in
improving both the law that serves our community and the community
where the law is observed.
Judge Urbina has now taken senior status on the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia, but he will continue to serve the city,
the court, and the law in a multifaceted life and career that has been
characterized by dedication and wisdom. Judge Urbina's career in the
law has special meaning today particularly for Latinos, the fastest
growing community in our country. The judge's roots in our Latino
community make him a history-making role model particularly for a
community that had no presence on either our local or federal courts
before he paved the way on both. Yet, because of Judge Urbina's
professionalism,

[[Page 16588]]

excellence, character, and many contributions to the law and to the
community, he has set a high bar as a lawyer, judge and distinguished
citizen not only for lawyers, but for all who aspire to achieve in our
city.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the House of Representatives to join me in
honoring Judge Ricardo M. Urbina for his accomplishments on the courts
on which he has served and for his contribution to the law and to the
residents of the District of Columbia.

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

______

HON. ROBERT E. LATTA

of ohio

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, November 2, 2011

Mr. LATTA. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, November 1, 2011, I missed a
series of votes due to a mechanical failure of a United Airlines plane,
and the unavailability of a replacement, at Cleveland Hopkins Airport.
If I had been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall No. 816
and ``aye'' on rollcall No. 817.

____________________

HONORING CRYSTAL GLOBE AWARD WINNER FRANKIE FESKO

______

HON. PETER J. VISCLOSKY

of indiana

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, November 2, 2011

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, it is with sincere admiration that I
recognize the Asian American Medical Association, which is hosting its
35th Annual Gala on Saturday, November 5, 2011, at the Avalon Manor in
Merrillville, Indiana. Each year, the Asian American Medical
Association pays tribute to prominent, outstanding citizens and
organizations for their contributions to the community. In recognition
of their efforts, these honorees are awarded the prestigious Crystal
Globe Award at this annual banquet.
The Asian American Medical Association has always been a great asset
to Northwest Indiana. Its members have selflessly dedicated themselves
to providing quality medical services to the residents of Indiana's
First Congressional District and have always demonstrated exemplary
service through their many cultural, scholastic, and charitable
endeavors.
At this year's Annual Gala, the Asian American Medical Association
will present the Crystal Globe Award to one of Northwest Indiana's
finest citizens, Frankie Fesko. For her outstanding accomplishments and
charitable contributions to numerous organizations, she is worthy of
such an honor.
Frankie graduated from Illiana Christian High School and continued
her education, earning a bachelor's degree from Depauw University and a
master's degree from Purdue University. Frankie then spent many years
as a teacher for the School City of Hammond and the School Town of
Munster. She also worked as a Supervising Teacher at Purdue University
Calumet in Hammond.
Frankie has been a true inspiration when it comes to community
service, devoting much of her time and efforts to serving so many in
need throughout Northwest Indiana. Her amazing compassion and
generosity led her to become involved in many charitable organizations
throughout the years. Frankie has chaired many events including: the
Perennial Ball, which is a fundraiser for the Community Cancer Research
Foundation, the Share and Love annual luncheon fundraiser for the
Cancer Resource Center in Munster, and Briarfest, which benefits a
different organization every year and has supported the National Kidney
Foundation, Hospice of the Calumet Area, the Humane Society, Campagna
Academy, and the Boy Scouts of America. Additionally, Frankie serves as
a board member for many charitable organizations including: the Munster
Medical Research Foundation, the Community Cancer Research Foundation,
and the Legacy Foundation. Frankie serves as Chairwoman of the Board
for the Community Foundation of Northwest Indiana, which is a non-
profit organization that works to improve the health and quality of
life for people in Northwest Indiana. The businesses that the
foundation operates include three non-profit hospitals in Northwest
Indiana: Community Hospital in Munster, Saint Catherine Hospital in
East Chicago, and Saint Mary Medical Center in Hobart. The foundation
has also been instrumental in the development of The Center for Visual
and Performing Arts, the creation and operation of the Community Cancer
Research Centre Foundation, and the donation of land to create the
Edward P. Robinson Community Veterans Memorial and Hartsfield Village
Retirement Community in Munster. For her exceptional dedication and
passionate support to so many charitable endeavors, Frankie was awarded
the very first Community Leader Award at the Northwest Indiana's Most
Influential Women of the Year Awards Banquet in June 2011.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that you and my other distinguished colleagues
join me in commending the Asian American Medical Association, as well
as this year's Crystal Globe Award recipient, Frankie Fesko, for their
outstanding contributions to their communities and beyond. Their
unwavering commitment to improving the quality of life for the people
of Northwest Indiana and throughout the United States is truly
inspirational. For these reasons, the Asian American Medical
Association, its members, and Frankie Fesko are to be recognized, and I
am proud to serve as their representative in Washington, DC.

____________________

DILAN RAMOS

______

HON. ED PERLMUTTER

of colorado

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, November 2, 2011

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and applaud
Dilan Ramos for receiving the Arvada Wheat Ridge Service Ambassadors
for Youth award. Dilan Ramos is an 11th grader at Jefferson Senior High
and received this award because his determination and hard work have
allowed him to overcome adversities.
The dedication demonstrated by Dilan Ramos is exemplary of the type
of achievement that can be attained with hard work and perseverance. It
is essential students at all levels strive to make the most of their
education and develop a work ethic which will guide them for the rest
of their lives.
I extend my deepest congratulations to Dilan Ramos for winning the
Arvada Wheat Ridge Service Ambassadors for Youth award. I have no doubt
he will exhibit the same dedication and character in all his future
accomplishments.

____________________

HONORING THE MEMORY OF JOHN J. NALBONE, SR.

______

HON. BRIAN HIGGINS

of new york

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, November 2, 2011

Mr. HIGGINS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor a longtime leader in
the field of aviation--the late John J. Nalbone Sr. Mr. Nalbone
dedicated his life to the field of aviation and was tireless in his
efforts to make the skies accessible to many of his friends, family and
neighbors in his hometown of Dunkirk, NY.
Mr. Nalbone was fascinated with flying since boyhood, and shortly
after graduating from Jamestown High School he went off to Leroy, NY
where he was chosen to undergo early government training in the field
of modern aviation. This training became essential part of America's
defense system as the United States entered World War II in 1941. At
this time John was assigned to the 54th Flight Training attachment at
Dorr Field in Acadia, FL where he was the primary instructor for
Sherman Biplanes until the end of the war.
After the war, John and his wife relocated back to Western New York,
where he became a civilian flight instructor and was able to open his
own flight school at Werle Field, a small grass strip equipped only
with runway lights. John soon realized that through instruction, pilot
exams, and rebuilding of aircrafts he could continue to pursue his love
for flying while providing a modest lifestyle for himself and his
family.
By 1960, Mr. Nalbone became the manager of the Dunkirk Airport while
still maintaining his own airfield, instruction school and building
several of his own aircraft including a Steen Skybolt, and a Grumman
Tiger which he flew into his mid 80's.
During his lifetime, John was the recipient of numerous aviation
awards including the FAA's Lifetime Achievement Award in both 1996, and
2003. Mr. Nalbone was also awarded the prestigious Charles Taylor
Mechanics Award, which is presented to aviators with 50 or more years
of service in the aviation industry.
Mr. Nalbone passed away at the age of 93. He is survived by his three
children and six grandchildren. Clearly, Mr. Nalbone passed his love of
aviation along to his family. I have dealt very often with his son Lou,
who currently serves as President of Dunkirk Aviation, and who remains
Chautauqua County's most tireless advocate for aviation in New York's
Southern Tier.
Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to ask you and our colleagues to extend
the sympathies of

[[Page 16589]]

the House to the family of John J. Nalbone Sr., to recognize his
contributions to our military and to his community, and for his
commitment to the United States of America, and to Western New York.

____________________

RECOGNIZING RICHARD G. LANDIS

______

HON. TOM McCLINTOCK

of california

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, November 2, 2011

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Richard
Landis of Lake Wildwood, California. Mr. Landis grew up in Marysville
and Yuba City. He and his wife, Beth, met while attending the
University of La Verne. They have three grown children.
Dick Landis began his long legacy of contributing to his community by
serving our country as an aviator in the U.S. Army Air Corps. He had a
distinguished military service record, having flown the P-38 and the P-
51 in two and a half combat tours in the European theater.
After graduating from La Verne and leaving military service, Dick
went on to have a very successful business career, eventually rising to
be Chairman and CEO of the Del Monte Corporation, as well as serving on
the boards of several other corporations. During his tenure in the
private sector Dick was known for his active involvement in the
communities in which his firms did business. He was named California
Manufacturer of the Year in 1981 and given the Good Scout Award as well
as the Silver Beaver Award in 1975 by the San Francisco Bay Area
Council of the Boy Scouts of America, of which he was Executive Board
Chairman.
In the 1980s, Landis retired to Lake Wildwood. In Nevada County, Mr.
Landis has been a very enthusiastic supporter, member of the Board and
major donor to Music in the Mountains, Penn Valley Rotary becoming a
Paul Harris Fellow many times over and having received Rotary
Foundation's Major Donor Recognition, supporting and advising Nevada
County Habitat for Humanity, along with several other non-profit
organizations. He has authored two books on business and personal
ethics, one of which is aimed at encouraging youth to be active members
of their communities throughout their lifetimes.
This weekend, the Rotary Club of Penn Valley, California will host a
dinner in Dick's honor to thank him for his many years of support for
his community and to raise funds to endow the Dick Landis Music in the
Mountains Rotary Scholarship through the new Penn Valley Rotary
Foundation. The group is right to honor Mr. Landis, and I am proud to
rise today in recognition of his fine example of how a citizen can
contribute to his community and country.

____________________

INTRODUCTION OF A BILL TO AMEND TITLE 38, UNITED STATES CODE, TO EXTEND
THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS ON ADJUSTABLE
RATE MORTGAGES AND HYBRID ADJUSTABLE RATE MORTGAGES

______

HON. LINDA T. SANCHEZ

of california

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, November 2, 2011

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to
introduce a bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to extend the
Department of Veterans Affairs demonstration projects on adjustable
rate mortgages and hybrid adjustable rate mortgages.
My bill would ensure we continue to provide affordable mortgages for
our veterans, who put their lives on the line protecting our freedom.
This VA-backed mortgage program is currently set to expire next year.
In contrast to traditional Adjustable Rate Mortgages (ARMs), VA-
guaranteed ARMs limit the annual interest rate adjustment to a maximum
increase or decrease of one percent. Over the life of the loan, the
interest rate is limited to a maximum increase of five percent. For VA-
backed hybrid ARMs, the interest rate adjustment is limited to two
percent each year, with a maximum increase of six percent over the life
of the loan.
Compared to a conventional mortgage, VA-backed ARMs and hybrid ARMs
make it easier for veterans to obtain affordable financing. If interest
rates drop, veterans can save thousands of dollars in mortgage
payments. This legislation would make mortgages more affordable and
would play an important role in combating veteran homelessness.
The Department of Veterans Affairs estimates that over 100,000
veterans are homeless, while 1.5 million veterans are considered ``at
risk'' of homelessness due to poverty and substandard housing
arrangements. These mortgage extensions encourage veterans to pursue
the American Dream of homeownership and ensure that they are not living
on the streets due to the volatility and exposure of traditional
mortgages.
Mr. Speaker, one of the most overarching public policy goals of the
Congress and our country is to take care of our veterans. I strongly
believe that providing affordable mortgage rates is a key component in
our effort to meet this goal. I urge our colleagues to join me in
supporting this successful and necessary program.

____________________

EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR THE ``OCCUPY WALL STREET'' MOVEMENT, THE VOICE
OF THE 99% AND A VISION OF DEMOCRACY

______

HON. CHARLES B. RANGEL

of new york

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, November 2, 2011

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the Occupy Wall
Street Movement and to bring the voices of the long-oppressed 99% back
to the Representatives who are supposed to represent them.
Truly, when I think of the vision of democracy today, instead of our
gridlocked Congress, where we can hardly speak to each other because of
deeply polarized political differences, I look to the Occupy Wall
Street groups burgeoning across the country.
They took to heart the value of the freedoms of speech and assembly
consecrated in the Bill of Rights, and put them to practice. They are
convening in open air town halls to give voice to the voiceless and
organize as a unit. Here in Congress, every vote comes with a fight.
After it is all said and done, the disagreement remains and the
bitterness deepens. Out there in the General Assemblies of these
``Occupation'' sites, decisions are made by consensus. Who has it
figured out better?
Some are quick to dismiss the protesters as a bunch of kids who do
not know what they are doing. I beg to differ.
Yes, the Occupy Wall Street groups have no established leadership
team. But that is very much by choice. And in many ways, these eclectic
gatherings are so much stronger as a collective of equals. Each
individual, from child to senior, has taken initiative to help in a way
best suited to his or her interests and abilities. They have
voluntarily taken up posts to welcome newcomers, to offer legal advice,
to provide medical relief, to cook, to clean, to entertain, and to be
sure, to discuss policy, from sustainability to electoral reform.
And yes, these General Assemblies do not have a bill of solutions to
present for deliberation on the floors of Congress to rectify the
problems facing our country. But they have deliberately chosen not to
present a list of demands as an organizational strategy. In the second
issue of the New York occupation newspaper, cleverly named the
``Occupied Wall Street Journal'', they declared: ``No List of Demands.
We are speaking to each other and listening. This occupation is first
about participation.''
And they are right. All they need to know is that they are discontent
with the status quo in this country and are willing to do something
about it. This is what democracy is all about. If the people do not
express their point of view, how are their voices supposed to be
represented?
The fact is that the people have been trying to communicate their
grievances--through phone calls, letters, petitions, national
conferences, and other traditional methods of organizing--yet we, their
elected representatives, have failed to produce legislation to
adequately address their needs. Now they are mad as hell, and I do not
blame them. In fact, I thank them for containing their anger and
organizing in a non-violent manner.
My colleagues, it is our sworn duty to listen to our constituents and
represent their views. Why are we not honoring the position of the 99%?
Why do attacks on the 99% persist? What more do the American people
have to do to get its Congress to wake up and actually deliver the
systematic changes that are necessary to lift this country out of its
fiscal recession and spiritual depression? The American Dream needs to
be revived with some real

[[Page 16590]]

changes before it withers away like the millions upon millions of
dreams deferred.
Americans have been suffering long before these market crashes,
bubble bursts, and quagmire wars. This movement is not about ephemeral
concerns and will not be mollified by superficial fixes. The problems
highlighted by Occupy Wall Street contingents around the country are
deeply entrenched structural issues and we must address them earnestly
and develop permanent, holistic solutions. We can no longer afford to
patch one sleeve with the other. It is abundantly clear that a total
make-over is needed.
The process will be difficult, but we must undertake the challenge.
We cannot simply bicker on and watch more than a quarter of our
children grow up in poverty. We cannot simply hype up the promises of
higher education and abandon our students when they are locked down
with debt. We cannot simply wait for the ``market god'' to do its
wonders and leave our families to suffer as the prices go up and real
wages go down. It is not only our job to rectify these wrongs, it is
our moral obligation.
I call on all my colleagues to listen to the voices of the people and
act. Let us collaborate in good faith and reaffirm that this is a
government of the people, by the people, and for the people. The
American public is sick and tired of waiting. It is time to get to
work.
Once more I urge spiritual leaders all across the country to take an
active role in this movement. Every faith tradition affirms the value
of social justice. This is the time to fight for a more perfect nation,
one that would more closely embody the ideals upheld in our holy books.
I ask all faith leaders to encourage their congregants to contact their
elected officials and make sure that their views are faithfully
represented.
Lastly, I would like to remind all the leaders of the world that this
movement is not stopping at Wall Street, in New York, or even within
the bounds of the United States. More than 1,500 cities around the
globe committed to launching united campaigns for global change on
October 15, 2011. The ``Occupation'' is poised to continue, growing
persistently as more and more people step out and speak up. Never
forget that the power of government is derived from the consent of the
governed. Their will and support are the foundations on which our
nations were built. Listen to the 99%, preserve peace, and ensure
justice to all.

____________________

SENATE COMMITTEE MEETINGS

Title IV of Senate Resolution 4, agreed to by the Senate on February
4, 1977, calls for establishment of a system for a computerized
schedule of all meetings and hearings of Senate committees,
subcommittees, joint committees, and committees of conference. This
title requires all such committees to notify the Office of the Senate
Daily Digest--designated by the Rules Committee--of the time, place,
and purpose of the meetings, when scheduled, and any cancellations or
changes in the meetings as they occur.
As an additional procedure along with the computerization of this
information, the Office of the Senate Daily Digest will prepare this
information for printing in the Extensions of Remarks section of the
Congressional Record on Monday and Wednesday of each week.
Meetings scheduled for Thursday, November 3, 2011 may be found in the
Daily Digest of today's Record.

MEETINGS SCHEDULED

NOVEMBER 4
10 a.m.
Joint Economic Committee
To hold hearings to examine the unemployment situation
for October 2011.
210, Cannon Building

NOVEMBER 8
9:30 a.m.
Armed Services
To hold hearings to examine the Committee's investigation
into counterfeit electronic parts in the Department of
Defense supply chain.
SD-G50
10 a.m.
Energy and Natural Resources
To hold hearings to examine market developments for
United States natural gas, including the approval
process and potential for liquefied natural gas
exports.
SD-366
Finance
To hold hearings to examine unemployment insurance,
focusing on the path back to work.
SD-215
Foreign Relations
To hold hearings to examine the nominations of Roberta S.
Jacobson, of Maryland, to be Assistant Secretary for
Western Hemisphere Affairs, Mari Carmen Aponte, of the
District of Columbia, to be Ambassador to the Republic
of El Salvador, and Adam E. Namm, of New York, to be
Ambassador to the Republic of Ecuador, all of the
Department of State.
SD-419
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
To hold hearings to examine beyond No Child Left Behind
(NCLB), focusing on views on the Elementary and
Secondary Education Reauthorization Act.
SD-106
Judiciary
To hold an oversight hearing to examine the Department of
Justice.
SD-226
2 p.m.
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
To hold hearings to examine the nominations of Nancy
Maria Ware, to be Director of the Court Services and
Offender Supervision Agency for the District of
Columbia, Michael A. Hughes, to be United States
Marshal for the Superior Court of the District of
Columbia, Department of Justice, and Danya Ariel
Dayson, Peter Arno Krauthamer, and John Francis McCabe,
all to be an Associate Judge of the Superior Court of
the District of Columbia.
SD-342

NOVEMBER 9
10 a.m.
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
Business meeting to consider pending calendar business.
SD-342
2:30 p.m.
Commerce, Science, and Transportation
To hold hearings to examine securing our nation's
transportation system, focusing on oversight of
Transportation Security Administration's current
efforts.
SR-253
Foreign Relations
Near Eastern and South and Central Asian Affairs
Subcommittee
To hold hearings to examine United States policy in
Syria.
SD-419
Judiciary
Privacy, Technology and the Law Subcommittee
To hold hearings to examine health and privacy, focusing
on protecting health information in a digital world.
SD-226

NOVEMBER 10
10 a.m.
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
To hold hearings to examine the nomination of Roslyn Ann
Mazer, of Maryland, to be Inspector General, Department
of Homeland Security.
SD-342
Veterans' Affairs
To hold hearings to examine Veterans' Affairs mental
health care, focusing on addressing wait times and
access to care.
SR-418
2:15 p.m.
Indian Affairs
To hold hearings to examine S. 1192, to supplement State
jurisdiction in Alaska Native villages with Federal and
tribal resources to improve the quality of life in
rural Alaska while reducing domestic violence against
Native women and children and to reduce alcohol and
drug abuse and for other purposes, S. 872, to amend the
Omnibus Indian Advancement Act to modify the date as of
which certain tribal land of the Lytton Rancheria of
California is considered to be held in trust and to
provide for the conduct of certain activities on the
land, and S. 1763, to decrease the incidence of violent
crimes against Indian women, to strengthen the capacity
of Indian tribes to exercise the sovereign authority of
Indian tribes to respond to violent crimes committed
against Indian women, and to ensure that perpetrators
of violent crimes committed against Indian women are
held accountable for that criminal behavior.
SD-628

[[Page 16591]]

NOVEMBER 15
2:30 p.m.
Commerce, Science, and Transportation
To hold hearings to examine the nominations of Jon D.
Leibowitz, of Maryland, and Maureen K. Ohlhausen, of
Virginia, both to be a Federal Trade Commissioner.
SR-253

NOVEMBER 17
2:15 p.m.
Indian Affairs
To hold an oversight hearing to examine the future of
internet gaming, focusing on what's at stake for
tribes.
SD-628

DECEMBER 6
2:30 p.m.
Judiciary
Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights
Subcommittee
To hold hearings to examine the Express Scripts/Medco
merger.
SD-226