[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 4532-4535]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Ms. COLLINS (for herself and Ms. Cantwell):
  S. 659. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
protect Medicare beneficiaries' access to home health services under 
the Medicare program; to the Committee on Finance.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to join with my colleague 
from Washington in introducing legislation, the Home Health Care Access 
Protection Act of 2011, to prevent future unfair administrative cuts in 
Medicare home health payment rates.
  Home health has become an increasingly important part of our health 
care system. The kinds of highly skilled and often technically complex 
services that our Nation's home health agencies provide have helped to 
keep families together and enabled millions of our most frail and 
vulnerable older and disabled persons to avoid hospitals and nursing 
homes and stay just where they want to be--in the comfort and security 
of their own homes. Moreover, by helping these individuals to avoid 
more costly institutional care, they are saving Medicare billions of 
dollars each year.
  That is why I find it so ironic--and troubling--that the Medicare 
home health benefit continually comes under attack.
  The health care reform bill signed into law by the President last 
year includes $40 billion in cuts to home care over 10 years. Moreover, 
these cuts are a ``double-whammy'' because they come on top of $25 
billion in additional cuts to home health imposed by the Centers for 
Medicare and Medicaid Services through regulation in the last several 
years.
  These cuts are particularly disproportionate for a program that costs 
Medicare less than $20 billion a year. This simply is not right, and it 
certainly is not in the best interest of our nation's seniors who rely 
on home care to keep them out of hospitals, nursing homes, and other 
institutions.
  The payment rate cuts implemented and proposed by CMS are based on 
the assertion that home health agencies have intentionally ``gamed the 
system'' by claiming that their patients have conditions of higher 
clinical severity than they actually have in order to receive higher 
Medicare payments. This unfounded allegation of ``case mix creep'' is 
based on what CMS contends to be an increase in the average clinical 
assessment ``score'' of home health patients over the last few years.
  In fact, there are very real clinical and policy explanations for why 
the average clinical severity of home care patients' health conditions 
may have increased over the years. For example, the incentives built 
into the hospital diagnosis-related group--or DRG--reimbursement system 
have led to the faster discharge of sicker patients. Advances in 
technology and changes in medical practice have also enabled home 
health agencies to treat more complicated medical conditions that 
previously could only be treated in hospitals, nursing homes, or 
inpatient rehabilitation facilities.
  Moreover, this unfair payment rate cut is being assessed across the 
board, even for home health agencies that showed a decrease in their 
clinical assessment scores. If an individual home health agency is 
truly gaming the system, CMS should target that one agency, not 
penalize everyone.
  The research method, data and findings that CMS has used to justify 
the administrative cuts also raise serious concerns about the validity 
of the payment rate cuts. For example, while changes in the need for 
therapy services significantly affect the case mix ``score,'' the CMS 
research methodology disregards those changes in evaluating whether the 
patient population has changed. Moreover, the method by which CMS 
evaluates changes in case mix coding is not transparent, does not allow 
for true public participation, and is not performed in a manner that 
ensures accountability to Medicare patients and providers in terms of 
its validity and accuracy of outcomes.
  The legislation we are introducing today will establish a reliable 
and transparent process for determining whether payment rate cuts are 
needed to account for improper changes in ``case mix scoring'' that are 
not related to changes in the nature of the patients served in home 
health care or the nature of the care they received. This process will 
still enable the Secretary of Health and Human Services to enact rate 
adjustments provided there is reliable evidence that higher case mix 
scores are resulting from factors other than changes in patient 
conditions. The legislation will also prevent the implementation of 
future Medicare payment rate cuts in home health until the Secretary is 
able to justify the payment cuts through the improved process set forth 
in the bill.
  Home health care has consistently proven to be a compassionate and 
cost-effective alternative to institutional care. Additional deep cuts 
will be completely counterproductive to our efforts to control overall 
health care costs. The Home Health Care Access Protection Act of 2011 
will help to ensure that our seniors and disabled Americans continue to 
have access to the quality home health services they deserve, and I 
encourage all of my colleagues to sign on as cosponsors.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KYL (for himself, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Coburn, 
        Mr. Crapo, and Mr. Roberts):
  S. 660. A bill to protect all patients by prohibiting the use of data 
obtained from comparative effectiveness research to deny or delay 
coverage of items or services under Federal health care programs and to 
ensure that comparative effectiveness research accounts for 
advancements in personalized medicine and differences in patient 
treatment response; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions.
  Mr. KYL. 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. 660

       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 ``Preserving Access to 
     Targeted, Individualized, and Effective New Treatments and 
     Services (PATIENTS) Act of 2011'' or the ``PATIENTS Act of 
     2011''.

     SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN USES OF DATA OBTAINED FROM 
                   COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH; ACCOUNTING 
                   FOR PERSONALIZED MEDICINE AND DIFFERENCES IN 
                   PATIENT TREATMENT RESPONSE.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services--
       (1) shall not use data obtained from the conduct of 
     comparative effectiveness research, including such research 
     that is conducted or supported using funds appropriated under 
     the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public 
     Law 111-5) or authorized or appropriated under the Patient 
     Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148), to 
     deny or delay coverage of an item or service under a Federal 
     health care program (as defined in section 1128B(f) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320a-7b(f))); and
       (2) shall ensure that comparative effectiveness research 
     conducted or supported by the Federal Government accounts for 
     factors contributing to differences in the treatment response 
     and treatment preferences of patients, including patient-
     reported outcomes, genomics and personalized medicine, the 
     unique needs of health disparity populations, and indirect 
     patient benefits.
       (b) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed as affecting the authority of the Commissioner of 
     Food and Drugs under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 
     or the Public Health Service Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BROWN of Ohio (for himself and Ms. Snowe):
  S. 665. A bill to promote industry growth and competitiveness and to 
improve worker training, retention, and advancement, and for other 
purposes;

[[Page 4533]]

to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Selecting 
Employment Clusters to Organize Regional Success, SECTORS, Act, which 
Senator Sherrod Brown and I are introducing. This legislation would 
amend the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 to establish an industry or 
sector partnership grant program administered by the Department of 
Labor.
  The SECTORS Act provides grants to industry clusters--interrelated 
group of businesses, service providers, and associated institutions--in 
order to establish and expand sector partnerships. By providing 
financial assistance to these partnerships, this legislation would 
create customized workforce training solutions for specific industries 
at a regional level. A sector approach is beneficial because it can 
focus on the dual goals of promoting the long-term competitiveness of 
industries and advancing employment opportunities for workers, thereby 
encouraging economic growth. Existing sector partnerships have long 
been recognized as key strategic elements within some of the most 
successful economic development initiatives throughout the country. 
Unfortunately, current federal policy does not provide sufficient 
support for these critical ventures.
  As Co-Chair of the bipartisan Senate Task Force on Manufacturing, one 
of my key goals is to ensure that manufacturers have access to a 
capable workforce. Unfortunately, manufacturers across the country have 
raised significant concerns about whether the next generation of 
workers is being trained to meet the needs of an increasingly high-tech 
workplace.
  In fact, in my home State of Maine, the manufacturing sector has shed 
an alarming 26,200 jobs in the past ten years, or 1/3 of the State's 
manufacturing employment. And since the beginning of 1990, our state 
has lost 43,000 jobs. It is therefore critical that we as a Nation 
provide unemployed manufacturing workers the training needed to excel 
as our manufacturing sector becomes increasingly technical. This 
legislation provides a crucial link between establishing worker 
training programs and fostering new employment opportunities for those 
who have been affected by the manufacturing industry's decline. By 
promoting this innovative partnership, we will take a crucial step 
toward rejuvenating our economy.
  Throughout the country, sector partnerships are being used to promote 
the long-term competitiveness of industries and to advance employment 
opportunities. For example, the State of Maine has created the North 
Star Alliance Initiative. The Alliance has brought together Maine's 
boat builders, the University of Maine's Advanced Engineered Wood 
Composites Centers, Maine's marine and composite trade association, 
economic development groups, and investment organizations for the 
purpose of advancing workforce training.
  Our Nation's capacity to innovate is a key reason why our economy, 
despite difficult times, remains the envy of the world. Ideas by 
innovative Americans across the spectrums of professions and industries 
have paid enormous dividends, improving the lives of millions 
throughout the world. We must continue to encourage all avenues for 
advancing our nation's economic well-being if America is to compete at 
the vanguard of innovation. The SECTORS Act will help align America's 
workforce with the needs of our Nation's employers to promote a robust 
and growing economy.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself, Mr. Johnson of South Dakota, Mr. 
        Conrad, and Mr. Tester):
  S. 666. A bill to require a report on the establishment of a 
Polytrauma Rehabilitation Center or Polytrauma Network Site of the 
Department of Veterans Affairs in the northern Rockies or Dakotas, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. BAUCUS. 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. 666

       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 Traumatic Brain 
     Injury Care Improvement Act of 2011''.

     SEC. 2. REPORT ON ESTABLISHMENT OF A POLYTRAUMA 
                   REHABILITATION CENTER OR POLYTRAUMA NETWORK 
                   SITE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS IN 
                   THE NORTHERN ROCKIES OR DAKOTAS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The States of the northern Rockies and the Dakotas are 
     among those States in the United States with the highest per 
     capita rates of veterans with injuries from military service 
     in Iraq and Afghanistan.
       (2) Traumatic brain injury (TBI) has become known as one of 
     the ``signature wounds'' of military service in Iraq and 
     Afghanistan due to its high occurrence among veterans of such 
     service.
       (3) A recent RAND Corporation study estimates that as many 
     as 20 percent of the veterans of military service in Iraq and 
     Afghanistan have a traumatic brain injury as a result of such 
     service, and many of these veterans require ongoing care for 
     mild, moderate, or severe traumatic brain injury.
       (4) The Department of Veterans Affairs recommends that all 
     veterans experiencing a polytraumatic injury be referred to a 
     Polytrauma Rehabilitation Center or a Polytrauma Network 
     Site.
       (5) The Department of Veterans Affairs Polytrauma System of 
     Care includes 4 Polytrauma Rehabilitation Centers and 22 
     Polytrauma Network Sites, none of which are located in North 
     Dakota, South Dakota, Idaho, Montana, eastern Washington, or 
     Wyoming, an area that encompasses approximately 740,000 
     square miles.
       (6) The vastness of this area imposes significant hardships 
     on veterans residing in this area who require care within the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs Polytrauma System of Care and 
     wish to live close to home while receiving care within such 
     system of care.
       (b) Report.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs 
     shall submit to Congress a report on the feasibility and 
     advisability of establishing a Polytrauma Rehabilitation 
     Center or Polytrauma Network Site for the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs in the northern Rockies or the Dakotas. One 
     of the locations evaluated as a potential location for the 
     Polytrauma Rehabilitation Center or Polytrauma Network Site, 
     as the case may be, shall be the Fort Harrison Department of 
     Veterans Affairs hospital in Lewis and Clark County, Montana.
       (2) Requirements.--The report required by this subsection 
     shall include the following:
       (A) An assessment of the adequacy of existing Department of 
     Veterans Affairs facilities in the northern Rockies and the 
     Dakotas to address matters that are otherwise addressed by 
     Polytrauma Rehabilitation Centers and Polytrauma Network 
     Sites.
       (B) A comparative assessment of the effectiveness of 
     rehabilitation programs for individuals with traumatic brain 
     injuries in urban areas with the effectiveness of such 
     programs for individuals with traumatic brain injuries in 
     rural and frontier communities.
       (C) An assessment whether the low cost of living in the 
     northern Rockies and the Dakotas could reduce the financial 
     stress faced by veterans receiving care for traumatic brain 
     injury and their families and thereby improve the 
     effectiveness of such care.
       (D) An assessment whether therapies that can prevent or 
     remediate the development of secondary neurologic conditions 
     related to traumatic brain injury can be interrupted by 
     stress caused by living in an urban area.
       (3) Consultation.--The Secretary shall consult with 
     appropriate State and local government agencies in the 
     northern Rockies and the Dakotas in preparing the report 
     required by this subsection.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SESSIONS (for himself, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Hatch, Ms. 
        Klobuchar, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Kyl, 
        Mr. Graham, Mr. Lee, Ms. Collins, Mr. Thune, Mr. Coburn, Mr. 
        Burr, and Mr. Chambliss):
  S. 671. A bill to authorize the United States Marshals Service to 
issue administrative subpoenas in investigations relating to 
unregistered sex offenders; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I seek recognition today to introduce 
and speak in favor of the Finding Fugitive Sex Offenders Act of 2011, 
which would give administrative subpoena authority to the Director of 
the U.S. Marshals Service for the investigation of sex offenders who 
have failed to register as

[[Page 4534]]

required by the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act. The 
language of the bill is the product of bipartisan negotiations during 
the last Congress, which was included in a broader child crimes bill 
last year that passed both the Senate Judiciary Committee and the 
Senate, but did not become law.
  To understand the need for this bill, it is important to understand 
the history of recent child crimes legislation in Congress. When the 
Adam Walsh Act, which I cosponsored, was enacted in July 2006 to create 
a more uniform and enforceable sex offender registry system, over 
150,000 convicted sex offenders were believed to be unregistered and 
missing from the various state sex offender registries. A key component 
of the Walsh Act, one requested by John Walsh himself, was to give the 
U.S. Marshals Service primary enforcement authority to locate and 
arrest unregistered sex offenders who had crossed state lines or had 
earlier been convicted under federal law. The Walsh Act, however, did 
not provide the Marshals Service with administrative subpoena authority 
to perform these investigations, which can span jurisdictions and move 
quickly. The Finding Fugitive Sex Offenders Act will fix this gap in 
the law and grant the Marshals Service this long-needed authority.
  It is very surprising that this authority does not already exist in 
light of the hundreds of administrative subpoena authorities that are 
in place for various federal agencies, including the EPA, the DEA, the 
FBI, the CFTC, and even the Appalachian Regional Commission. In March 
2006, the Congressional Research Service reported that ``[t]here are 
now over 300 instances where federal agencies have been granted 
administrative subpoena power in one form or another.'' In reality, 
that number is even higher. According to the Department of Justice's 
2002 Report to Congress on the Use of Administrative Subpoena 
Authorities by Executive Branch Agencies and Entities, the Office of 
Legal Policy ``identified approximately 335 existing administrative 
subpoena authorities held by various executive branch entities under 
current law.'' Most of these authorities are for civil enforcement or 
regulatory compliance--matters far less critical and time-sensitive 
than locating a fugitive sex offender who has intentionally evaded 
registering his location or place of employment to avoid detection by 
law enforcement.
  There is no reason why the Marshals Service should not have this type 
of authority. In these fast-moving investigations across state lines, 
law enforcement simply cannot afford delays, especially on weekends and 
holidays when U.S. Attorney's Offices are closed and grand jury 
subpoenas are unavailable. Assistant Attorney General Rachel Brand 
explained the delays and limitations of traditional grand jury 
subpoenas in fast-moving investigations when she testified before the 
Senate Judiciary Committee on another administrative subpoena proposal 
in June 2004:

       Although grand jury subpoenas are a sufficient tool in many 
     investigations, there are circumstances in which an 
     administrative subpoena would save precious minutes or hours. 
     . . . For example, the ability to use an administrative 
     subpoena will eliminate delays caused by factors such as the 
     unavailability of an Assistant United States Attorney to 
     immediately issue a grand jury subpoena, especially in rural 
     areas; the time it takes to contact an Assistant United 
     States Attorney in the context of a time-sensitive 
     investigation; the lack of a grand jury sitting at the moment 
     the documents are needed (under federal law, the `return 
     date' for a grand jury subpoena must be on a day the grand 
     jury is sitting); or the absence of an empaneled grand jury 
     in the judicial district where the investigation is taking 
     place, a rare circumstance that would prevent a grand jury 
     subpoena from being issued at all.

  The reality is that sex offenders often fail to register precisely so 
they can evade detection and move to a new place where they won't face 
scrutiny. During the hearings and floor debates on the Adam Walsh Act, 
the Senate heard of the heart-breaking tragedies caused when sex 
offenders knowingly evaded registration so they could disappear from 
detection. Senators from Washington and Idaho went to the floor to 
describe the registry failures and disappearance of Joseph Duncan, who 
shortly after his release from custody in 2005, absconded from 
Minnesota and traveled across the country to Idaho, where he kidnapped 
Dylan and Shasta Groene from their home in the middle of the night. In 
the course of the kidnapping, he murdered the children's mother, 
brother, and the mother's boyfriend by beating them to death with a 
framing hammer. He then took the children to remote campgrounds across 
the state line into Montana, where he brutally abused them and later 
killed Dylan. As one Senator explained during the debate: ``Joseph 
Duncan was essentially lost by three States. He moved from State to 
State to avoid capture. No one knew where he was nor even how to look 
for him.''
  A similar tragic story involved the convicted sex offender who killed 
Florida 9-year-old Jessica Lunsford. John Couey had failed to tell 
authorities that he was living in a trailer just feet from Jessica's 
home. In 2005, he kidnapped Jessica from her bedroom and took her to 
his home where he raped and killed her. Ernie Allen, the President of 
the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, cited Couey in 
his congressional testimony in support of the Walsh Act, explaining 
that he ``was not where he was supposed to be and [his] presence was 
unknown to the police or Jessica's family even though he lived 150 
yards down the street from her and had worked construction at her 
elementary school.''
  As the Lunsford and Groene cases demonstrate, some sex offenders 
evade the registry requirements because they want to offend again. In 
these cases, time is law enforcement's enemy. According to the 
Department of Justice's guide for families with missing children, ``the 
actions of parents and of law enforcement in the first 48 hours are 
critical to the safe recovery of a missing child.'' The Lunsford case 
illustrates how vital it is for law enforcement to quickly locate sex 
offenders during a missing child investigation. John Couey reportedly 
told law enforcement that he kept young Jessica alive for three days 
before he smothered her inside a plastic trash bag. In a case like 
Jessica's, this type of authority literally could mean the difference 
between life and death.
  This legislation has broad support. When I drafted this language last 
Congress, I shared it with the Marshals Service and lawyers who work in 
the field of protecting children from exploitation. These professionals 
were not only supportive, but also very clear about the need for this 
subpoena authority.
  I strongly support this legislation and am thankful to the broad 
bipartisan group, including Senators Blumenthal, Hatch, Klobuchar, 
Grassley, Whitehouse, Cornyn, Kyl, Graham, Lee, Collins, Thune, Coburn, 
Burr and Chambliss, who have agreed to cosponsor this legislation. I 
hope the full Senate will take up and pass this legislation soon.
  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. 671

       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 ``Finding Fugitive Sex 
     Offenders Act of 2011''.

     SEC. 2. SUBPOENA AUTHORITY FOR THE UNITED STATES MARSHALS 
                   SERVICE.

       Section 566(e)(1) of title 28, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) issue administrative subpoenas in accordance with 
     section 3486 of title 18 solely for the purpose of 
     investigating unregistered sex offenders (as that term is 
     defined in section 3486 of title 18).''.

     SEC. 3. CONFORMING AMENDMENT TO ADMINISTRATIVE SUBPOENA 
                   STATUTE.

       (a) In General.--Section 3486(a)(1) of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A)--
       (A) in clause (i)(II), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (B) by redesignating clause (ii) as clause (iii); and

[[Page 4535]]

       (C) by inserting after clause (i) the following:
       ``(ii) an unregistered sex offender conducted by the United 
     States Marshals Service, the Director of the United States 
     Marshals Service; or''; and
       (2) by striking subparagraph (D) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(D) As used in this paragraph--
       ``(i) the term `Federal offense involving the sexual 
     exploitation or abuse of children' means an offense under 
     section 1201, 1591, 2241(c), 2242, 2243, 2251, 2251A, 2252, 
     2252A, 2260, 2421, 2422, or 2423, in which the victim is an 
     individual who has not attained the age of 18 years; and
       ``(ii) the term `sex offender' means an individual required 
     to register under the Sex Offender Registration and 
     Notification Act (42 U.S.C. 16901 et seq.).''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--Section 3486(a) 
     of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (6)(A), by striking ``United State'' and 
     inserting ``United States'';
       (2) in paragraph (9), by striking ``or (1)(A)(ii)'' and 
     inserting ``or (1)(A)(iii)''; and
       (3) in paragraph (10), by striking ``paragraph (1)(A)(ii)'' 
     and inserting ``paragraph (1)(A)(iii)''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REID (for Mr. Rockefeller (for himself, Mr. Crapo, Mr. 
        Moran, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Roberts, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. Wicker, Mr. 
        Boozman, Mr. Thune, and Ms. Snowe)):
  S. 672. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend 
and modify the railroad track maintenance credit; to the Committee on 
Finance.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to 
extend the Section 45G short line freight railroad tax credit.
  Section 45G creates an incentive for short lines to invest in track 
rehabilitation by providing a tax credit of 50 cents for every dollar 
spent on track improvements. If this credit is allowed to expire at the 
end of the year, private-sector investments in infrastructure in our 
communities will fall by hundreds of millions of dollars.
  ``Short line'' railroads are small freight rail companies responsible 
for bringing goods to communities that are not directly served by large 
railroads. Supporting small railroads allows the communities 
surrounding them to attract and maintain businesses and create jobs. 
The evidence of the success of this credit can be found in communities 
across America.
  This credit has a real impact for the people of my state. West 
Virginia is the second biggest producer of railroad ties in the 
country. Since the credit first was enacted, approximately 750,000 
railroad ties have been purchased above what would have otherwise been 
purchased with no incentive. Those railroad ties translate directly 
into jobs. This credit does not create just West Virginia jobs, it 
benefits manufacturers of ties, spikes, and rail all across America.
  Over 12,000 rail customers across America depend on short lines. This 
credit creates a strong incentive for short lines to invest private 
sector dollars on private-sector freight railroad track rehabilitation 
and improvements. Shippers rely on the high quality service these 
railroads provide to get their goods to market. Unfortunately, this 
credit is scheduled to expire at the end of 2011.
  This bill would extend the 45G credit through 2017 and provide the 
important long-term planning certainty necessary to maximize private-
sector transportation infrastructure investment. 54 Members of this 
body sponsored legislation that extended this credit last Congress and 
I hope there will be similar support again this year.
  I thank the Chair and ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this 
important legislation that will benefit small businesses throughout the 
country.

                          ____________________