[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 15255-15274]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                    SPORTSMEN'S ACT OF 2012--Resumed

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the pending 
business.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 3525) to protect and enhance opportunities for 
     recreational hunting, fishing and shooting, and for other 
     purposes.

  Pending:

       Reid (for Tester) amendment No. 2875, in the nature of a 
     substitute.
       Reid amendment No. 2876 (to amendment No. 2875), to change 
     the enactment date.
       Reid amendment No. 2877 (to amendment No. 2876), of a 
     perfecting nature.
       Reid amendment No. 2878 (to the language proposed to be 
     stricken by amendment No. 2875), to change the enactment 
     date.
       Reid amendment No. 2879 (to amendment No. 2878), of a 
     perfecting nature.
       Reid motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Energy 
     and Natural Resources, with instructions, Reid amendment No. 
     2880, to change the enactment date.
       Reid amendment No. 2881 (to (the instructions) amendment 
     No. 2880), of a perfecting nature.
       Reid amendment No. 2882 (to amendment No. 2881), of a 
     perfecting nature.


                             Cloture Motion

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The cloture motion having been 
presented under rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the 
motion.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on S. 3525, a bill to 
     protect and enhance opportunities for recreational hunting, 
     fishing, and shooting, and for other purposes.
         Harry Reid, Jon Tester, Kent Conrad, Joe Manchin III, 
           Jeff Bingaman, John D. Rockefeller IV, Benjamin L. 
           Cardin, Ben Nelson, Max Baucus, Jeanne Shaheen, Mark 
           Pryor, Christopher A. Coons, Al Franken, Amy Klobuchar, 
           Jim Webb, Mark R. Warner, Michael F. Bennet.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. By unanimous consent the mandatory 
quorum call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on S. 
3525, a bill to protect and enhance opportunities for recreational 
hunting, fishing, shooting, and for other purposes shall be brought to 
a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), the 
Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from West 
Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 84, nays 12, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 203 Leg.]

                                YEAS--84

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Corker
     Crapo
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson (WI)
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--12

     Boxer
     Coburn
     Cornyn
     DeMint
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Lee
     Menendez
     Paul
     Reed
     Sessions
     Toomey

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Inouye
     Kerry
     Kirk
     Rockefeller
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of New Mexico). On this vote, the 
yeas are 84, the nays are 12. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen 
and sworn having voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  Cloture having been invoked, the motion to commit falls.


                            Vote Explanation

 Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for the 
cloture vote on the Sportsmen's Act (S. 3525). If I were able to attend 
today's session, I would have supported cloture on this 
legislation.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. 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.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the Reid substitute, S. 3525, the 
Sportsmen's Act of 2012, is legislation that has a lot of very good 
things in it. Senator Reid attempted--although outside the normal 
committee process--to put together a package of bills that could

[[Page 15256]]

do some good things. I generally am supportive of the package. I think 
it has some very good qualities to it, and I very much want to support 
it. But there is a problem with it. It is a small but important 
problem, and it needs to be fixed.
  That is that, once again, after the Budget Control Act agreement 
reached in August, 15 months ago, the majority has brought forth a bill 
that violates the Budget Control Act, in which we agreed to a deemed 
budget as part of that process, and we are now spending more than we 
agreed to spend.
  Fifteen months ago, we agreed to limit spending each year for the 
next 10 years and to stay within a limited amount of spending. Because 
we are borrowing virtually 40 percent of every dollar we spend, this 
country has a debt crisis staring us in the eye. Without any doubt, the 
most obvious threat to America's future is the surging debt: $4 
trillion-plus increased debt in just 4 years, and the end is not in 
sight.
  So we agreed, as part of raising the debt ceiling, to limit spending. 
This bill violates that agreement, and we need not do that. This is not 
the first one; it is the fourth one. That irresponsibility is one of 
the things that has placed us into this fix.
  We looked the American people in the eye 15 months ago and said, 
Okay, we will raise the debt ceiling $2.1 trillion--because the 
administration had reached the limit of borrowing that the United 
States can incur--but we will reduce our projected spending increases 
over 10 years by $2.1 trillion. Part of the agreement in the Budget 
Control Act limited spending in various accounts, and this violates it.
  You might say, Jeff, that is your opinion. No, it is not my opinion. 
I raised this with Chairman Conrad of the Budget Committee, of which I 
am ranking member. He and his staff have looked at it, and they certify 
that this budget violation actually occurs; therefore, the legislation 
is subject to a budget point of order. It cannot go forward because it 
violates the deemed budget that we agreed to.
  If the budget point of order is raised, which will happen, then my 
colleagues will have a choice: They can either place the bill on a 
sound financial path that does not violate the Budget Control Act; or, 
they can say, Well, we won't pay any attention to that objection. We 
will waive the budget and just spend more than the budget allowed, 
because this is really important. It is really important that we raise 
revenue and spend more on the duck program.
  I have been supportive, and the duck stamp is important. But this is 
not the right way to do this. If you are going to spend more money, you 
need to reduce spending somewhere else.
  Also, I would point out the legislation was changed from the time it 
came out of committee. Part of the legislation at least when it was 
proposed in the Committee on Environment and Public Works of which I am 
a member, we observed that the proposal was to give bureaucrats--
government officials, unelected--the power to meet with special 
interests, or whoever they chose to meet with or not meet with, and set 
the amount of fees--taxes, you might call it--that would be required of 
Americans before they could hunt ducks. That has never been so. 
Previously, the Congress set how much you could charge for a duck 
stamp.
  So this was raised in committee, and our able chairwoman Senator 
Barbara Boxer agreed and by a voice vote it was accepted that Congress 
would set the limit on how much you could raise for duck stamps and 
burden duck hunters with. That is an important principle, in my 
opinion. That is violated by the bill that was brought up--not the one 
that passed committee, but the one brought up by the leader.
  I grew up in the country. When I go back home, I love to be in the 
woods. I don't hunt anymore, but I have been a big supporter. Many of 
my friends are hunters and fishermen and conservationists. So it is sad 
that we are having a dispute over this legislation, because we are so 
close to being able to work out the problems. My request to Senator 
Reid and to our colleagues would be: Let's fix this. Now it looks as 
though the bill will not be brought up until Monday when we come back, 
and I hope there will be ample opportunity for us to fix this problem 
so we are not passing a bill that violates the budget.
  Under the bill, it would authorize $142 million in new direct 
spending over the next 10 years. Some may say that is not a lot, but if 
that is so, they have been in Washington too long. Mr. President, $142 
million is a lot of money, and it is a very important principle because 
this is not the first time we violated the Budget Control Act.
  If we stay with our agreement that we made with each other, that we 
made with the American people 15 months ago when the Budget Control Act 
was agreed to, we will at least save $2.1 trillion over 10 years. But 
if we keep nibbling away at it and eroding what we agreed to, we not 
only undermine our own credibility, but we weaken our ability to 
balance the budget. And if we reach a new agreement--which we need to 
do as we deal with the fiscal cliff then don't the American people need 
to know we will stand by the agreement we make? Don't they need to know 
an agreement is something more than a momentary event to get past a 
crisis and then the next year we can just ignore it? There is too much 
of this attitude in this Congress. That is one reason this country is 
in such a dire financial condition. The Reid amendment would violate 
the committee spending allocations in the deemed budget and would do it 
not only next year but every year over the next 10 years. This 
violation does not need to happen.
  You say: This is technical. It is technical because it is paid for. 
We raise the revenue and we spend the revenue, but new spending is paid 
for by revenue--the tax increase on duck hunting--and therefore what 
are you worried about, Sessions?
  What are we worried about? The agreement was that this whole area of 
spending would be capped at a certain level. The way to do this is, if 
you are going to spend more on the duck program, then reductions ought 
to be made somewhere else in this vast spending program or else you tax 
and spend. That is what we are doing. It is just tax-and-spend.
  They say: We cannot cut anything else in the budget in dealing with 
interior, environment, and those issues. There is no way we can save 
another dime. We can't save $14 million a year over 10 years anywhere.
  Of course we can. There are plenty of places to save it there and in 
any of the other items of this government that waste money. What are 
they really saying? What they are saying is that of all the money we 
are currently spending, all of that is more important than finding $14 
million to spend on more duck preservation programs. I am not sure that 
is correct. I am a believer in the duck stamp program, and I would like 
to see if we can figure out a way to do more to make sure we preserve 
those migratory bird habitats and the duck population in America, and I 
am prepared to be pretty aggressive as a Member of the Senate in 
developing policies to do that. But you do not have to tax and spend 
more. That is the point.
  If you look at it and say that we cannot cut any other spending in 
the entire Federal Government to find $142 million for the duck 
program, I will just say to my colleagues, that is what we are paid to 
do. We are paid to make those tough choices. I don't like them 
sometimes, but it should not be hard in this instance to find this kind 
of payment. The idea that we can just up a fee and spend more money and 
violate the budget and nothing is going to happen and we are going to 
just go along and do that without objection, that time is over because 
we are in a debt crisis.
  We have run up trillion-plus deficits for the last 4 years. President 
Bush's last deficit was huge. It was one of the largest we had in--
maybe ever, $470 billion. We have averaged about $1,300 billion the 
last 4 years. The year before he left office, there was a $160 billion 
deficit. So we have $160 billion, $470 billion, a trillion-plus, 4 
consecutive years. We are on the road in just a few years to double the 
debt of the United States again. This cannot be sustained. That is all 
I am saying. We have had

[[Page 15257]]

similar budget problems on the postal reform bill, the highway bill, 
and the veterans jobs corp bill. We have had problems with spending 
violations on those bills too.
  I really hope we will use this period of time to work out some 
language that fixes this problem. My budget staff can provide a long 
list of things that would save us this much money and have no real 
impact on the productivity of our government.
  The Migratory Bird Habitat Investment and Enhancement Act--that is a 
good name, sounds like something we should be for--would actually give 
the Interior Department a blank check to increase the price of the duck 
stamp. It gives the Interior Department--unelected bureaucrats--the 
power to set how much we pay. Currently, it is $15. They could make it 
whatever figure the Secretary decides it should be, without any limit 
whatsoever. We discussed this in committee. The committee said: No, 
this is not the way we want to go. We have not done this before. 
Congress has stepped up to the plate and been responsible and decided 
how much we are going to extract from the American people before we 
allow them to go duck hunting. Granting that power to the Secretary is 
a significant change from what the committee voted on.
  The duck stamp is purchased by all duck hunters in the United States. 
It was established in 1934. Since its beginning, it has always been set 
by Congress, not somebody in the bureaucracy. This is an unchecked 
power. I think it is a delegation of power to a person not accountable 
to the people, and it might violate the Constitution because only 
Congress can appropriate money and raise taxes. If it doesn't violate 
the Constitution explicitly, it violates the spirit of the 
Constitution. Moreover, by increasing the price of the duck stamp, if 
you think about it, in this amendment--it is an amendment, a revenue-
raising amendment to an S. numbered bill. Senator Reid, therefore, by 
doing that, has put up a revenue enhancement bill originating in the 
Senate. The Constitution says revenue bills have to originate in the 
House. That places the bill in jeopardy. The House is very jealous--
rightly so--of their constitutional prerogative of commencing all tax 
revenue bills in the House. The Congressional Budget Office, our 
objective analysis team, scores the duck stamp provision as an increase 
in revenue. If the House exerted its privilege under the Constitution, 
this bill would be subject to a blue slip, a rejection based on the 
revenue clause.
  Also, amazingly, we have no amendments. There is no process to even 
bring up amendments to vote. So we are stuck with the position of 
either supporting the bill as is in all its complexity or not. If we 
fixed this matter, I would be supportive of the bill. We tried to study 
it. I think it is OK and pretty good, actually. It is a positive step 
in the right direction if we simply fix this. So the proper remedy for 
this situation is to allow amendments or send the bill back to 
committee and figure out how to pass legislation that is within the 
budget limit.
  I will not mention all the good things about this bill. There are a 
lot of them: the National Fish and Wildlife Act; the North American 
Wetlands Conservation Act has some good provisions in it. A number of 
the other pieces of legislation are excellent. I do not think that is 
in dispute. It is supported by a lot of great wildlife organizations. I 
support that.
  On September 22 the Senate voted 84 to 7 to invoke cloture on a 
motion to proceed, with the full expectation that when the Senate 
returned this month, an opportunity would be provided to address the 
budget concerns and to improve the bill. But now we see that my friend 
the majority leader has decided to move forward without confronting 
these issues.
  I hope we can figure out a way to avoid this situation. Maybe people 
did not think about it clearly. Maybe they just thought it is paid for, 
therefore it cannot be a problem with the budget. But even though it is 
paid for, it really is a problem with the budget, and we do not need to 
delegate to some unelected official, even if it is constitutional--
about which I have doubts--the ability without limit to raise fees for 
a normal historic right of Americans to go hunting ducks. I believe 
that has to be fixed, too, and we should do that.
  Finally, I understand the intent is to recess for the rest of the day 
and all next week. However, in the Armed Services Committee yesterday, 
we were told we can get the armed services authorization, the Defense 
authorization bill up for a vote. We can actually bring it up and we 
can have a vote, and this is great news, and we have to do it in 3 days 
and very limited amendments, but if you Republicans will agree with 
that, we can get the bill up.
  This is the first time in 50 years we have not passed a Defense bill 
prior to the September 30 fiscal year end. We are already into the new 
fiscal year. It should have been passed long ago. More than that, we 
could have spent 3 weeks on the Defense bill. We did nothing in 
September. We are doing nothing next week.
  What is this about? It is about the management of the Senate 
defeating the historic ability of Members of the Senate to actually 
participate in the great issues of our time. One of them is the Defense 
Department budget and policy. The Defense authorization bill came out 
of the Armed Services Committee unanimously, but several of us in 
committee said that we have amendments we want to bring up on the 
floor. Other Members not on the Armed Services Committee have a right 
to talk about this $540-some-odd billion expenditure, the largest 
single expenditure outside of Social Security and Medicare in the 
entire budget. We are supposed to be thankful we did nothing in 
September, we are going to do nothing next week, but you now only have 
3 days and just a very few amendments, and Senator Reid will pick and 
choose which ones you Republicans get to offer. That is why we are 
having problems.
  Senator Reid continues to assert that Republicans are filibustering. 
What Republicans are saying is we are prepared to move to these bills, 
but we would like the leader to tell us how many amendments we can get. 
He has figured out a way to fill the tree--what we call the amendment 
tree--to a degree that has never been done before, and that allows him 
to pass legislation without any amendment.
  So we say we would like to have amendments, Mr. Leader. This is the 
Senate.
  OK. Submit a list of them to me. You can have two, and it can't be 
this amendment, it can't be this amendment, and it can't be this 
amendment. It can only be these kinds of amendments. We will be nice to 
you. Well, maybe three. Ok, you get three--on a $540 billion defense 
bill that sets the policy for our military, that decides what weapons 
systems we are going to invest in with billions of dollars?
  Some people in this Senate have opinions about it and they want to 
come to the floor. Maybe when they were campaigning they said: I am 
against such and such in the Defense bill, and they want to come here--
and it is in the bill and they are against it and they want to offer an 
amendment and explain why it shouldn't be in the bill. They want to 
offer an amendment to take it out.
  Sorry. We don't have time.
  I think this is a dangerous trend. I believe we shouldn't be 
recessing today. I believe we should be working. We have the fiscal 
cliff. We have the defense sequester. We have monumental tax increases 
about to occur. We have the death tax going to 55 percent of virtually 
anything somebody has. All these things are going to happen if we don't 
take some action. We have all these people talking, secretly planning 
and talking and working, and so about Christmas Eve I suspect they will 
walk in here with a plan we will be told we have to support or else we 
will work through Christmas or on January 1 we will be here, and we 
will have a catastrophe if all these bad things happen.
  The President will not even say what he is for. He will not even lay 
out a plan. Congressman Ryan laid out a plan. He has defended it all 
over the country and is prepared to discuss it

[[Page 15258]]

and explain it. What is the President's plan? What is Senator Reid's 
plan? Does the majority leader have any plan to confront our pension 
programs for Social Security and Medicare that are going broke? Does he 
have any plan to fix them? What is it? Isn't this important? Does he 
have any plan to get us off this trillion-dollar debt course? What are 
we going to do?
  Growth is going down. We were at 2.4 percent in 2010; we had that 
much GDP growth. We have had a very slow recovery from the 2007-2008 
recession. But then did it go up in 2011? No; it dropped to 1.8. What 
about the first three quarters of this year? It was 1.77. The growth is 
not occurring. We are borrowing and spending, but we are not creating 
growth. I think we need to deal with this crisis we face and the 
uncertainty of policies is hurting America's economy also.
  I am disappointed we are not dealing with these important issues. I 
am disappointed we are recessing, and we need to do better.
  Mr. DURBIN. Today the Senate voted to end debate on S. 3525, the 
Sportsmen's Act of 2012. Along with 84 of my colleagues, I voted to 
support cloture in an effort to move this bill forward. It is a 
compilation of almost 20 different pieces of bipartisan legislation 
that are important to the sportsmen's community. The Sportsmen's Act 
will increase habitat conservation while improving access to 
recreational fishing and hunting lands. These are laudable goals that 
are worth supporting. However, the bill also contains troubling 
provisions allowing the importation of polar bear trophies and lead 
ammunition that I hope will be changed before final passage of the 
bill.
  In its current form, the bill would allow several hunters who killed 
polar bears in Canada before a ban was put in place to bring those bear 
hides back to the United States. This provision would reward hunters 
who unethically killed polar bears despite multiple warnings of an 
imminent ban on imports and the imminent listing of polar bears as an 
endangered species. If enacted, this provision could easily lead to 
outcomes that no one wants--it could increase demand for polar bear 
trophies and lead to more poaching or illegal trade of polar bear 
parts. It could also stimulate demand for other exotic and endangered 
animal parts from around the globe. That is why I am a cosponsor of 
Senator Kerry's amendment to remove this provision from the bill.
  I also oppose the current bill's exemption of ammunition and fishing 
tackle from regulation under the Toxic Substances Control Act. Many 
people are concerned that wildlife in heavy-hunting regions is being 
poisoned as they consume prey that contains lead ammunition fragments. 
The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service banned the use of lead shot for 
hunting waterfowl nationwide in 1991 because of concerns that lead 
shots were causing sickness and death in migratory birds that end up 
ingesting the shots. And several states have banned the use of lead 
ammunition in areas where protected bird species live. Exempting 
ammunition and tackle from EPA regulation doesn't make sense when we 
know these products are harmful to game and birdlife. I hope the Senate 
will adopt Senator Lautenberg's amendment, which I cosponsor, to remove 
this provision from the bill.
  Ensuring adequate funding for conservation programs and access for 
sportsmen to recreational lands is important. There is no doubt about 
that. I support that. But these goals should not be achieved at the 
expense of animal welfare or public health and safety.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I listened with interest to my 
colleague from Alabama, and I have great confidence that we will have a 
robust debate on the National Defense Authorization Act over the next 
few weeks and that we will keep our record intact that has now been in 
place for some 50 years of putting in place a national defense 
authorization act. We did so at this time last year and we did so the 
previous year and I have every confidence that we will have a 
comprehensive national defense authorization act that will direct the 
Pentagon and all the men and women in uniform who serve us so well as 
to the policies of the United States. I know I will work with my 
colleague from Alabama to see that accomplished.


                       Wind Production Tax Credit

  I come back to the Senate floor, as I have on many occasions, to urge 
all of us to take action on a policy that is bipartisan in its support 
and in its ramifications, and that policy is the production tax credit 
for wind energy. We need to renew that production tax credit. Why? It 
has encouraged billions of dollars in investment and it has helped 
create tens of thousands of good-paying American jobs all across our 
country.
  However, I have to tell my colleagues that our inaction over these 
last few months is jeopardizing the future of what is a very promising 
industry. We have literally, over the last months, seen wind industry 
jobs in the thousands disappear. That is not just a statistic. That is 
not just a statement. Those jobs have affected real Americans. These 
job losses were completely preventable. It is time for us to get back 
to work and extend the production tax credit so our wind industry can 
also get back to work.
  One of the things I have done is I have come to the floor some 20-
plus times to focus on an individual State. Today I wish to speak about 
a State that has an incredible potential for wind power; that is, 
Montana, the ``Last Best Place'' as Montanans like to describe their 
amazing State. Similar to almost every State in the country, Montana 
has seen the jobs, clean energy, and economic benefits of wind power.
  I wish to take the viewers on a little bit of a tour of Montana. 
``Big Sky Country'' is home to wind resources that could mean the 
State's current electricity needs 210 times over. When we compare that 
to other States, we see that Montana then has the third highest wind 
resource potential in the country. So it is a prominent player in the 
future progress of our Nation's wind industry. Therefore, it is no 
wonder that Montana has seen strong development in the wind industry 
sector.
  Looking at this map, Toole County, up here in the northwest corridor 
of Montana, is the site of a new wind farm, the Rim Rock Wind Farm, 
north of Cut Bank. It has 126 turbines. They completed the project in 
September of this year. What is most important is when we think about 
the jobs for local workers, the generation of $2 million in tax revenue 
which contributes to the $5.7 million in property taxes from wind farms 
across the State, it all goes to those local communities for schools, 
roads, and social services to enhance the quality of life for 
Montanans. The Rim Rock Wind Farm will power thousands of Montana homes 
and, along with other wind farms across the State, as I have mentioned. 
it provided great construction jobs as the project was built.
  So Montana will continue to be an attractive State for wind 
development. However, with the expiration of the PTC looming--
literally, within a few weeks the PTC will expire--the future growth of 
this important industry in Montana is in jeopardy.
  We have seen how important this industry is to our energy and 
manufacturing future. If it is sidelined by partisan wrangling, that 
would truly be a tragedy. I know--as does the Presiding Officer in his 
State of New Mexico as well as my State of Colorado--and the people in 
Montana know we need an all-of-the-above energy strategy to improve our 
overall energy security, and wind is playing a major role in that 
effort.
  We know Montana's two Senators, Senator Baucus and Senator Tester, 
are hard-working. They are very effective. They have always supported 
the production tax credit for their State and for the country. Senator 
Baucus, as the chairman of the Finance Committee, pushed forward 
bipartisanly supported tax extenders in early August that included the 
extension of PTC. It is crucial we take up this package as soon as we 
possibly can and pass

[[Page 15259]]

it. I wish to acknowledge the work of Senator Baucus and his focus on 
creating American jobs and securing true energy security. However, his 
work--our work--isn't finished. We have to get the PTC over the finish 
line and affirm our solemn commitment in this Chamber to Made-in-
America energy and American manufacturing. It is this simple. If we 
fail to extend the production tax credit, we are, in effect, shipping 
thousands of jobs overseas to places such as China and Europe and our 
foreign competitors.
  So I come to the floor again to implore all my colleagues to stop 
this possibility from becoming a reality. I wish to reiterate this 
isn't a partisan issue. There is broad support in this body for wind 
energy. There is also support in the House. So there is bicameral 
support as well as bipartisan support. We risk losing thousands of jobs 
and crippling an industry that is just now establishing itself as a 
very important part of our economic portfolio.
  I think the Presiding Officer would agree we are sent by the people 
of our States to make smart, informed decisions about the future on 
behalf of the American people. If we let this important production tax 
credit expire, it would be a decision we would all regret. I wish to 
underline as well that the tax credit is applied once that power is 
produced. This isn't a speculative subsidy. This isn't based on hoping 
something will happen. It actually is based on power that is produced 
and that tax credit is directed to the utility or the power company 
and, in some cases, the community power agency that provides the power. 
So it is based on actually producing those electrons through wind 
energy.
  Let's show America and the world we are as committed to energy 
independence and job creation as we often say. Wind is key to reaching 
that goal. Wind is the path to that goal. Let's put action behind our 
words and pass the production tax credit as soon as possible.
  It is as simple as this: The production tax credit equals jobs. Let's 
pass it as soon as possible. Let's pass it ASAP.
  Thank you. I look forward to sharing some perspectives on the great 
State of New Mexico soon in the future, and I thank the Presiding 
Officer for his attention.
  I yield the floor, and 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. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown of Ohio). Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I stand today to explain my ``no'' vote on 
cloture this morning in connection with the sportsmen's bill, S. 3525.
  This is a large bill. It is made up of a number of legislative 
proposals that have been put together. In many settings this is a good 
way to legislate. In many respects it is, and we utilize this procedure 
on an almost constant basis in order to make the laws of our country. 
Like many other pieces of legislation that come before us that have 
been formed in this fashion, this is a bill as to which I can say I 
support it in part and I don't support it in part. There are parts of 
it I like a lot, and there are other parts I like a lot less. That is 
exactly why we have an amendment process. True debate in this country, 
especially in this body, presupposes and depends for its existence on 
the availability of an open amendment process.
  You see, when people go into a store, they can decide which items 
they want to buy. They can decide to buy bread and milk and eggs or any 
combination of the three or other products they might want. It would be 
disturbing if they got to the grocery store counter and were told they 
may not buy bread and milk and eggs unless they also buy a bucket of 
nails, a half a ton of iron ore, a book about cowboy poetry, and a 
Barry Manilow album. Sometimes that is what we are told when we get to 
the table to vote in the Senate. In order to get some things we want, 
we have to buy a whole bunch of other things we might not want.
  That is a reality of the legislative process. It is a reality that 
goes along with compromise, and it is one we live with every day. But, 
again, this is why it is important for us to have an amendment process, 
so that we can at least debate the relevant merits of each piece of 
legislation. More importantly, so that we might figure out how to take 
a good piece of legislation and make it better or how to take a bad 
piece of legislation and make it good.
  In this circumstance, the majority leader has used a procedure known 
as filling the tree. He filled the tree, which means, in effect, that 
we can't offer amendments. We can't offer any amendments other than 
those few the majority leader decided could be offered. This shuts down 
debate. There can be no significant debate beyond that which will lead 
to a vote once the tree has been filled. This is a problem.
  Now, Republicans in this body, myself included, voted recently to 
proceed to this bill believing in good faith there would be an 
opportunity to amend this bill. The bill is important to me in many 
respects. One of the things that has gotten my attention is that it 
addresses a number of issues related to Federal public lands. It 
addresses a number of other issues related to wildlife conservation and 
wildlife management and other issues that are important to hunters and 
other outdoor enthusiasts across the country and in my State in 
particular.
  One of the reasons this bill is especially important to me is that I 
represent the great State of Utah--a State that has a lot of Federal 
land. In fact, two-thirds of the land in my State is owned by the 
Federal Government. For that and other reasons I would like the 
opportunity to address this piece of legislation by offering 
amendments--amendments that would make a good bill better.
  But this process--a process whereby the majority leader rules this 
body by dictate--is not good for the Senate. We have come to expect the 
Senate will be a great deliberative body. In fact, the Senate has long 
prided itself on being the world's greatest deliberative legislative 
body.
  There are a number of realities about the Senate that make this 
possible--far more possible than it might be in the House of 
Representatives. Here in the Senate we have only 100 Members. Just down 
the hall, in the House of Representatives, they have 435 Members. In 
that body it is not always possible to have an open amendment process. 
In this body it is assumed this is the usual order. This is how we are 
supposed to operate, to have an opportunity for Members to offer and 
debate and discuss amendments in advance of voting for the bill at the 
end of the day. Yet we have not had such an opportunity in this case 
because the leader filled the tree.
  This is significant, and I want to emphasize this point. It is true, 
of course, that majority leaders from both political parties have 
utilized this procedure from time to time, for one reason or another--
perhaps out of a professed need to expedite the legislative process in 
certain instances. But this majority leader has utilized this procedure 
a lot more than others. In fact, he has utilized it, by my count, a 
total of 67 times, more than any other majority leader in history. Why, 
I ask, has he done this? Why did he do it in this circumstance? Why has 
he done it in so many other circumstances throughout this Congress and 
throughout his service as majority leader?
  Is it because the Senate has demonstrated an inability to debate and 
discuss bills and amendments to bills in a reasonable, responsible 
manner? I don't think so. Let's point to a couple of examples. For 
example, the National Defense Authorization Act, which this body passed 
toward the end of last year--the NDAA of 2011. It passed out of this 
body overwhelmingly, notwithstanding the fact there were a number of 
amendments introduced. I believe there were dozens of amendments that 
were introduced, debated, discussed, and ultimately voted upon.
  Another example involved the farm bill. It was passed by this body 
earlier this year. If I am not mistaken, we had

[[Page 15260]]

over 70 amendments to that bill. I appreciated the majority leader's 
willingness in that circumstance to allow us to have a pretty open, 
robust debate and an open amendment process. We still passed the bill, 
even though we had to conduct a lot of debate and have a lot of 
discussion and have a lot of votes. But this, you see, is what makes 
this the greatest deliberative body in the world.
  This is what separates us from other legislative bodies around the 
country and throughout this planet. So it is not the case the Senate 
simply isn't responsible enough to be able to handle something such as 
an open amendment process because it has demonstrated its ability to do 
so time and time and time again.
  Now, let's talk about some of the things I like in this bill. I 
support the fact that this bill would increase access to public lands 
and remove some burdensome regulations on some activities occurring on 
those lands. On the other hand, I am not as wild about the fact that 
this bill devotes $6.5 million on neotropical migratory birds on a 
program that would require 75 percent of those funds to be spent 
outside the United States. I know in the big picture of things this is 
a very small figure in terms of our total national budget. 
Nevertheless, this is a lot of money. It is a lot of money to hard-
working Americans who are paying their taxes in order to fund programs 
like this. We ought at least to have an opportunity to debate 
amendments so that Americans can feel as if their money is being spent 
in the United States for causes that are important to Americans and not 
on birds outside the United States.
  Other Senators have other differences with the bill, other concerns. 
I agree with some of those concerns; I disagree with others. Each of 
them should have an opportunity to have those concerns aired, to have 
them debated in connection with amendments they might choose to 
introduce. We should be debating all of them. Instead, in effect, we 
are debating none of them.
  That kind of process is especially important in this circumstance 
because, you see, this bill, as I understand it, has never gone through 
committee. Normally, in committee we have an opportunity to put a bill 
through the markup process, to make amendments in committee. This 
didn't go there. All the more reason we should have an open amendment 
process right here.
  So I have introduced several amendments, and I will refer to just a 
few of them. One of them would involve a proposal to not spend money we 
don't have in order to support the conservation of multinational 
species. It will cost $150 million over 5 years. In other words, it is 
one thing to spend money on habitat preservation and species 
rehabilitation for species that actually exist in the United States. It 
is another thing to spend a lot of money on species outside the United 
States, on creatures that have never entered our borders and never 
will. That is something I think Americans are concerned about, and it 
is something I think we ought to have a chance to debate as long as we 
are debating and voting on this legislation.
  I have another piece of legislation that would require State 
legislative approval for any new Federal land designations. As I said a 
few minutes ago, with the Federal Government owning two-thirds of the 
land in my State, I am especially concerned about the possibility of, 
for example, the President deciding to just designate a new national 
monument within my State. This happened a few years ago when President 
Clinton designated the Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument 
inside Utah. He didn't go to Utah to announce it, he went to Arizona to 
announce it.
  This is beautiful land. It is beautiful territory. But all of this 
was accomplished by the stroke of a pen from one Chief Executive 
without any opportunity or input from Utah, from its 3 million 
residents, from its elected officials. I think anytime the Federal 
Government takes this kind of action--action that will have a profound 
impact on the State, on its sovereign rights, on its ability to raise 
revenue, on its ability to encourage and promote economic activity 
within its boundaries--there ought to be input and approval from the 
State legislature. I have an amendment that would address this concern.
  I have another amendment that would offer certain Federal lands for 
disposal by a competitive sale process. We have an enormous amount of 
land in this country. Some of it is being put to good use; other land 
is being set aside because of its wilderness characteristics; still 
other land is just sitting there not doing anything. I think some of 
that land could be sold and some of that money could be used to fund 
our programs--programs that are cash strapped, along with everything 
else in this country right now.
  These and other amendments need to receive consideration. I am not 
saying every one of them has to pass in order for this legislation to 
proceed, but every one of them ought to be debated, and the American 
people should have an opportunity to have their input through their own 
elected Senators.
  I would deeply regret it if this were somehow an indication that our 
majority leader intends to operate the Senate this way, not only 
throughout the duration of this Congress but into the next Congress as 
well. I want to be clear that I have great respect and admiration for 
our majority leader. I have known him for most of my life--since I was 
11 years old, in fact. I consider him a friend.
  I ask him--I implore him--as my friend to reconsider this practice of 
filling the tree and thereby forestalling the introduction of 
amendments. We need an open amendment process. Our status as the 
world's greatest deliberative legislative body requires nothing less.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Cyber Security

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, last evening the majority leader had a 
second cloture vote on S. 3414, the Lieberman cyber security bill. This 
vote to end debate on a comprehensive, complex bill that was never 
reported out of committee or subject to a markup came despite the fact 
that not a single amendment, except for those used to fill the 
amendment tree, was allowed to be made pending to the bill.
  The majority leader had made prior commitments to allowing a free and 
open debate on cyber security, a matter that Republicans acknowledge 
must be addressed, especially in the areas of information sharing, and 
providing some degree of liability protection to those companies that 
do share cyber threat information with one another and the Federal 
Government. Yet, despite this commitment, the majority leader triggered 
this second cloture vote on the bill and filled the amendment tree 
throughout floor consideration of cyber security legislation.
  Now the Senate will hopefully move to a full and open debate of the 
national defense authorization bill. During the time that that bill is 
considered on the floor--and I do expect that bill to be subject to an 
open amendment process--my hope is that the majority leader will work 
with me to reach agreement on allowing a debate on cyber security 
legislation with Republican amendments in order, especially since the 
ranking members of Armed Services, Intelligence, Commerce, and 
Judiciary are all cosponsors of a cyber security bill that needs to be 
considered as part of this debate.
  My expectation is that sometime in December after we have completed 
floor debate on the Defense authorization bill, and then disposed of 
the Intelligence authorization bill, we will then attempt to get an 
agreement on amendments to the cyber security bill.


                         Tribute to Ernie Allen

  Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to a close personal friend of 
mine of over 40 years, a Kentuckian who is a hero to his country and an 
inspiration to many for his work on behalf of children where he has 
made a national impact.

[[Page 15261]]

  In his 23 years of service as president and chief executive officer 
of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, Ernie Allen 
has saved thousands of lives and reunited thousands of families.
  Today, November 15, Ernie retires from the helm of the National 
Center for Missing and Exploited Children, a private nonprofit center 
which he cofounded. Under his leadership, the National Center assisted 
in the recovery of more than 178,000 missing children. They have 
trained almost 300,000 law enforcement and criminal justice 
professionals in policy and protocols for missing children 
investigations. And they have achieved a missing child recovery rate of 
97.7 percent.
  Losing Ernie's talents at the National Center will be a loss for 
Kentucky as well as for the Nation. Kentucky was proud to have one of 
our own leading this important cause. I have known Ernie for over 40 
years, dating back to our days at Manual High School in Louisville. On 
the same day I won election as president of the student body of the 
high school, he was elected president of the junior high portion of the 
same school. We both went on to attend the University of Louisville and 
were actually fraternity brothers there.
  Knowing Ernie so well, I can assure you that his dedication to 
rescuing missing children runs very deep. Over 25 years ago, when I was 
judge executive in Jefferson County--a position that is the head of the 
executive branch of county government--Ernie was the director of the 
Louisville/Jefferson County Crime Commission. Louisville, of course, is 
the major city located within Jefferson County, and in fact these days 
the city and county governments have merged. That was not the case, 
however, in those days, and we in the county government had to 
coordinate and work with officials in city government. This Louisville/
Jefferson County Crime Commission was one of the best examples of 
cooperation between city and county government back in those days.
  That commission was the first of its kind to bring police officers 
and social workers together on behalf of kids. Just one innovation 
Ernie came up with back then was to make a fingerprint card for as many 
Kentucky kids as possible, and send that card home to the child's 
parents to use to assist investigators in the awful event their child 
ever went missing.
  Ernie's work in Kentucky established him as a national leader in his 
field as early as 1981. At that time, no nationwide organization 
existed to share and distribute information on missing children. If a 
child was abducted and taken over a State line, or even a county line, 
the chances that law enforcement in the new jurisdiction had all the 
information necessary to save that child were quite small.
  Ernie led the effort to lobby Congress to establish laws so that 
police could talk to each other across boundaries about these missing 
children. His work and patience bore fruit in 1984, when President 
Reagan signed the bill creating the National Center for Missing and 
Exploited Children as a public-private partnership.
  Ernie was an integral part of the founding of the National Center. He 
then became its president and CEO in 1989. He has been a nationally 
recognized authority in combating child abduction and exploitation for 
decades. The U.S. Justice Department sought out his expertise in the 
wake of the tragic child murders in Chicago and Atlanta, Congress has 
sought his expert testimony many times on issues ranging from 
international child abduction, to missing children, to online crimes 
against children.
  Ernie worked to secure the passage of the National Child Search 
Assistance Act, which prohibits waiting periods for initiating missing 
child investigations. Previously, some law enforcement agencies refused 
to take reports of missing children until a certain period of time had 
elapsed. Now, thanks to Ernie, there are no unnecessary bureaucratic 
delays in cases where any hesitancy can be the difference in returning 
an abducted child to their parents or opening a murder investigation.
  Ernie advocated for the AMBER Alert Program, which has to date saved 
600 abducted children. Today there is an AMBER Alert plan in every 
single State. Ernie has always recognized the critical role technology 
plays in these rescue efforts, from the AMBER Alert, to his 
spearheading the launch of the National Center's CyberTipline in 1998. 
This so-called ``911 for the Internet'' is a clearing center for 
reports on crimes against children on the Internet, and so far has 
received more than 1.5 million reports.
  Ernie is a lawyer and a member of the Kentucky bar. He is also a 
teacher, having held faculty positions at the University of Louisville, 
the University of Kentucky, and Indiana University. He has been honored 
by his alma mater, the University of Louisville, as a distinguished 
alumnus of the Louis D. Brandeis School of Law, and as an Outstanding 
Alumnus of the College of Arts and Sciences.
  I am pleased to report to my colleagues that Ernie will not be 
leaving the fight for America's kids. No, his passion won't allow him 
to take a typical retirement. We are lucky that even as he is stepping 
down from his role at the helm of the National Center for Missing and 
Exploited Children, he will now focus exclusively on his new role as 
president and CEO of the International Center for Missing & Exploited 
Children.
  If there was some way for me to express the gratitude that literally 
thousands of American families have for Ernie and the National Center, 
I certainly would, but that seems impossible. Imagine the relief of 
just one family who fears the worst about a missing son or daughter and 
then, thanks to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, 
is reunited with their child safe and sound. Multiply that by tens of 
thousands, and you will only just begin to see the enormous difference 
Ernie has made during his career. I am honored to say that I have 
watched and admired his work for many years, and I am honored to call 
him a friend.
  Thank you, Ernie, for your great contribution to the cause of 
justice.
  I wrote Ernie a letter congratulating him on his career and wishing 
him well on his retirement, and I ask unanimous consent to have that 
letter printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                November 15, 2012.
     Ernie Allen,
     President & CEO, National Center for Missing & Exploited 
         Children, Prince Street, Alexandria, VA.
       Dear Ernie: It is an honor to express to you my gratitude 
     for your dedication to protecting America's children. You've 
     brought peace to thousands of families, and your retirement 
     from the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children 
     will be a great loss.
       When you took the reins at the National Center in 1989, it 
     was easier to track down a missing car than a missing child. 
     Now, thanks to your efforts, the National Center boasts a 
     97.7 percent recovery rate.
       As your friend of over 40 years, I've been inspired by your 
     career and character. Thank you, Ernie, for serving this 
     mission of justice.
       Sincerely,
                                                  Mitch McConnell,
                                            United States Senator.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Warner pertaining to the introduction of S. 3635 
are printed in todays Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and 
Joint Resolutions.'')
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, what is the parliamentary situation? Are 
we in morning business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are postcloture on S. 3525.
  Mr. LEAHY. I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer. I ask 
unanimous consent to proceed for no more than 5 minutes as in morning 
business and then resume in the regular order.

[[Page 15262]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


           Vermont Chamber of Commerce's Citizen of the Year

  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, Vermont is a small State, but it is 
filled with very big people. Perhaps none are better known or more well 
liked or more respected than Antonio Pomerleau. He is the Vermont 
Chamber of Commerce 2012 Vermont Citizen of the Year. Vermonters know 
Tony Pomerleau by many names. They either call him Mr. P or Tony. My 
wife Marcelle and I have the good fortune of calling him Uncle Tony. He 
is my wife's uncle. They have a family bond that I admire. But no 
matter what we call him, we all agree that the best term to describe 
Uncle Tony is ``generous.''
  This is not the first time I have come to the floor of the Senate to 
share stories of Tony Pomerleau's good deeds. Only 6 years ago, the 
Burlington Free Press named him the 2006 Vermonter of the Year. After 
that editorial, I came to the floor to tell the story of a successful 
real estate magnate turned philanthropist who touched the lives of 
thousands of Vermonters for the past several decades. At that time, he 
was 89 years old.
  This year Tony has undertaken a series of good deeds so substantial 
that it would be irresponsible if we Vermonters did not acknowledge him 
with additional recognition and praise. In addition to his unwavering 
philanthropic commitment to Vermont, this year Tony has demonstrated 
why he is seen as a pillar of our community--I might say a granite 
pillar of our community. When Tropical Storm Irene destroyed people's 
homes, Tony immediately donated $1 million to put them back together. 
When a decade-long struggle to save a mobile home park in Shelburne, 
VT, seemed destined to fail, Uncle Tony showed up to rebuild the 
neighborhood and donate it to the residents. And when his hometown, 
Newport--Marcelle's birthplace--began discussing plans to reinvigorate 
its beautiful waterfront, Tony offered to lead the way.
  Any one of these three activities over a lifetime would warrant a 
lifetime achievement award. But Tony Pomerleau did them all in 1 year--
at the age of 95.
  This year's very public good deeds go hand in hand with a lifetime of 
public and private philanthropy. His generosity has touched tens of 
thousands of Vermonters, from college students at St. Michael's 
College, where he has been a leading benefactor, to the struggling 
families who attend his community Christmas parties, to the families of 
our deployed Vermont National Guard members who are able to come 
together in celebrations with Tony's support.
  Perhaps the best gift Tony Pomerleau has given Vermont is the sense 
of community and work ethic he has instilled in his family and 
employees. He and his wife Rita had 10 children, 8 of whom remain with 
us today. And often one of his many grandchildren travels with him when 
he goes around the State.
  Vermont is a better place thanks to Tony and his good deeds. On 
behalf of all Vermonters, I thank the Vermont Chamber of Commerce for 
spotlighting Antonio Pomerleau's good works on behalf of his beloved 
fellow Vermonters.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cardin.) Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                            The Fiscal Cliff

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, the American people have spoken, and once 
again they have given us divided government. In that sense, we can say 
this was a status quo election. Before the election, just a week or so 
ago, we had President Obama in the White House, Democrats controlling 
the Senate, and Republicans controlling the House of Representatives.
  After the election, we have President Obama in the White House for 
another 4 years, Democrats controlling the Senate, and Republicans with 
the majority in the House. What that tells me is the American people do 
not completely trust either political party to come up with all the 
answers. They want those kinds of checks and balances that divided 
government brings; that is, conducive of consultation, deliberation, 
negotiation, and compromise, not the kind of compromise that violates 
one's most fundamental principles.
  That would be wrong. But as one of my colleagues had told me who 
actually--Senator Enzi, I will use his name, from Wyoming, one of the 
most conservative Members of the Senate on our side from Wyoming, he 
worked famously with that--I say this with all due respect--liberal 
lion of the Senate, Teddy Kennedy, worked very productively to produce 
a lot of legislation out of the HELP Committee.
  One time I asked Senator Enzi how was it that he and Teddy Kennedy--
in other words, one of the most conservative Republicans and one of the 
most liberal Democrats--how did they work together so productively to 
come together to pass legislation. He said it is easy. It is easy. He 
said it is the 80-20 rule. I know it sounds simplistic, but there is a 
lot of wisdom there. If two people are trying to work together in a 
bipartisan way to try to advance solutions to our Nation's problems, 
neither side is going to get all they want. The only way perhaps to 
come up with moving the ball down the road or advancing solutions is to 
say: You know what. Do not let the perfect become the enemy of the 
good, and let's take the 80 percent we can agree upon and leave the 20 
percent we cannot agree upon for another day and another battle.
  A lot of wisdom in that it strikes me. The fact is that divided 
government means that neither Democrats nor Republicans are going to 
get everything they want. No legislation can pass. It cannot pass, no 
legislation can, strictly along partisan lines. It means bipartisan 
compromise is the only avenue to avoid further gridlock.
  This Congress has kicked a lot of cans down the road. We have punted 
over into the lameduck session issues that we should have dealt with 
months ago in the regular order of things without the imminent pressure 
of the fiscal cliff or other things that threaten to put our country 
into a recession.
  But the fact is, divided government has yielded some very positive 
developments for the American people in the past. In 1986, it produced 
landmark tax reform when Democrats and Republicans--Ronald Reagan as 
President, worked together to make our Tax Code more logical, more 
equitable, and more efficient. Ten years later, divided government 
produced a sweeping overhaul of our welfare system under then-President 
Bill Clinton. Conservative Republicans joined with a Democratic 
President to help millions of lower income people break free of the 
cycle of dependency and despair.
  Of course, we know we have divided government. As I said earlier, we 
had a status quo election in that sense. We have had divided government 
since January 2011 when Republicans regained the majority in the House 
of Representatives. The result over the last 2 years sadly is it has 
produced legislative stalemates and bitter recriminations. Why should 
anybody think things will be different going forward?
  I think what is different now from then is that Republicans and 
Democrats alike recognize we are at a crossroads, that our current 
fiscal path is unsustainable, and that we are either going to send the 
economy back into a recession unless we deal with the fiscal cliff and 
the sequestration or the alternative is--and being an optimist by 
nature I think we have an opportunity to address some of our Nation's 
most challenging fiscal issues.
  But the fact is this. I would love to have someone tell me I am 
wrong. I would love to understand any reason they would disagree with 
this. But I would say it should be stipulated by Republicans and 
Democrats alike that we cannot continue to run trillion-dollar annual 
deficits. We cannot continue

[[Page 15263]]

to run the Federal Government borrowing 42 cents out of every $1 the 
Federal Government spends. We cannot do it.
  The only reason we can do it now is because interest rates are at 
historic lows. Because of what is happening in Europe, the American 
dollar is probably the only safe currency, safe harbor in the world now 
for people worried about protecting their savings. But we cannot 
continue along this path. If, for example, interest rates go up, the 
amount of money we must pay to our creditors such as China simply to 
keep buying our debt--if it were to go up to historic norms, our 
national debt would spiral out of control.
  Right now we see this on our savings, on money market accounts or 
savings accounts. If we want to save some money, about the best 
interest rate we can get is less than 1 percent return on our savings 
because the Federal Reserve has worked to keep interest rates very low 
in order to help juice the economy and, hopefully, keep us from going 
into recession again. But we cannot continue down this path. If 
interest rates were to return to their historic norms, we would spiral 
out of control and into a recession or worse.
  Secondly, we cannot continue to put off structural changes in Social 
Security and Medicare. I would think Republicans and Democrats alike 
would agree that we want to save and preserve Social Security and 
Medicare for our seniors. We may have different ideas about how to do 
that, but I would think we could agree on the goal. So far we have 
heard nothing from the President to deal with our broken programs such 
as Social Security and Medicare.
  Unless we are happy with the Tax Code that wastes economic resources, 
that stifles job creation, and promotes crony capitalism, we cannot 
delay genuine tax reform. So we have an opportunity. We do not have to 
speculate on what bipartisan tax reform looks like. We do not have to 
speculate. We do not have to start from scratch. That is because in 
2010 two separate bipartisan commissions recommended lowering the rates 
and broadening the base and eliminating a lot of tax expenditure 
deductions and credits which, in order to get the revenue the Federal 
Government needs to operate every time we grant a new tax expenditure, 
deduction or credit, what it means is we need to raise marginal tax 
rates, the percentage of tax people need to pay out of their net worth. 
Why is that important?
  Because the higher we raise marginal tax rates, it operates as a 
disincentive on small businesses and individuals whom we are depending 
upon to grow jobs. Many small businesses do not operate as a 
corporation, a big C corporation, they operate as a subchapter S 
corporation. They operate as a sole proprietorship or a partnership. 
The point is they pay business incomes, the people who run those small 
businesses, they pay flowthrough income on a personal tax return not on 
a corporate tax return.
  So higher marginal rates disincentivize these smaller businesses from 
spending money to hire new staff or to start or expand their existing 
business. That is why keeping marginal rates down low for as long as we 
can for everybody is so important. Yet before we get to this important 
point of dealing with our broken Tax Code, before we can implement 
this, support this sort of comprehensive tax reform that they did in 
1986 with President Reagan and Democrats in Congress, we need to stop 
America from driving off the fiscal cliff.

  If we do not act between now and the end of the year, Republicans and 
Democrats alike, we will see the single largest tax increase in 
American history. How is that possible? As you know, the so-called Bush 
tax provisions that were passed are getting ready to expire. Those only 
lasted for 10 years.
  In 2010, President Obama agreed with Republicans and our Democratic 
friends agreed with us. As a matter of fact, the extension of the so-
called Bush tax rates was passed with 81 votes in the Senate in 2010. 
At the time, President Obama made what I thought was a perfectly 
sensible observation. He said, in 2010, with the economy growing so 
slowly, with economic growth down around 3 percent, which was producing 
high unemployment because the economy was not growing fast enough, he 
said: It make no sense to raise taxes during that kind of fragile 
economic recovery. That makes me wonder what has changed between now 
and 2010, except for the fact that economic growth is even slower. The 
economy is even worse today than it was in 2010.
  President Obama has said--contrast what he said in 2010. He said: 
Raising taxes will help solve our long-term debt problems. He says: 
Raising taxes will help us solve our long-term debt problems. But it is 
hard to take that argument seriously if we look at it closely.
  First, according to the President's own Treasury Department, the tax 
increases he is advocating would generate about $85 billion a year in 
new net revenue. These tax increases would generate about $85 billion 
in new net revenue. By comparison, the monthly budget deficit in 
October was $120 billion. The President says raised taxes would 
generate $85 billion; Treasury is saying $85 billion doesn't close the 
gap to $120 billion, which is the current level of monthly deficits.
  As we know, the Federal Government has run annual deficits in excess 
of $1 trillion for at least each of the last 4 years, leading to a $16 
trillion national debt, roughly the size of our entire economy. These 
are dangerous waters we are navigating. The President has argued that 
we need to raise taxes, but he has not provided a prescription for 
closing the gap between what the Federal Government spends and what we 
take in, even with these tax increases. He has proposed nothing, 
absolutely nothing to deal with our unsustainable entitlement programs 
so we can keep the promise we have made to our seniors that when they 
qualify for Medicare and Social Security, those programs will be there 
for them.
  I don't believe we can tax our way back to budget surpluses and 
economic prosperity. I am not a Ph.D. in economics, but I do think it 
is a matter of common sense to say that we cannot tax our way back into 
prosperity without a major reining in of Federal spending and 
entitlement reforms, which will continue to run up huge deficits, which 
cumulatively will add to that $16 trillion of debt. That will happen 
regardless what we do on the revenue side, which is the only part of 
that equation the President has addressed so far.
  That brings me to my second point. Nearly 4 years after President 
Obama was sworn in--4 years after he was first sworn in--he has not yet 
given us a realistic plan for dealing with the deficit and debt 
reduction. You might say: Well, he was unwilling to stick his toe into 
those difficult waters knowing he was going to have to run for election 
again because all of this is controversial, no question about it, on 
both sides of the aisle.
  I would think now that the President has been reelected for another 4 
years and he doesn't have to stand before the voters again, he would 
feel flexibility, he would feel as though he has the political freedom 
to try to address this problem in a bipartisan way.
  Last February Secretary Geithner told the Republican chairman of the 
House Budget Committee, ``We're not coming before you to say we have a 
definitive solution to our long-term problem. What we do know is we 
don't like yours.'' That strikes me as a strange response given the 
responsibility we all have to protect the interests of our country and 
the American people when it comes to keeping us on a sound economic 
path and hopefully putting America back to work.
  It is easy in a campaign season for the President to talk about the 
need for a ``balanced approach'' when it comes to the budget. Of 
course, we all have our own ideas about how that balance should be 
struck, but a truly balanced approach would include reining in Federal 
spending and preserving and protecting Social Security and Medicare. As 
a matter of political reality, it should include revenue, and our side 
of the aisle has identified ways that additional revenue might be put 
on the

[[Page 15264]]

table, but that is simply not enough by itself to address the whole 
problem and is not a serious proposal in terms of solving the complex 
economic situation in which we find ourselves.
  There is nothing balanced, though, about continuing to spend money we 
don't have and piling up trillions of dollars in new debt. It is 
irresponsible for our generation to impose on the generation of these 
young people sitting in front of me the debt they are going to have to 
pay. We are kidding ourselves if we think there is not a price to be 
paid for spending money we don't have. We ought to be big enough, we 
ought to be responsible enough to these young people, to our 
constituents, and to the American people to deal with this in a 
responsible way. That doesn't mean threatening America with a recession 
and almost 1 million people being put out of work if we drive off the 
fiscal cliff. It strikes me as the height of irresponsibility for the 
President or anyone else to say: If I don't get what I want, we are 
going to put America into a recession.
  Can you believe that? It is completely irresponsible.
  If the President is going to claim a mandate for governing, then he 
has a responsibility to offer a genuine solution to America's fiscal 
challenges. I am not saying he is going to offer a plan that this side 
of the aisle is going to embrace, but what it does is it begins the 
negotiations we know we have to engage in between the different sides 
of the argument to try to come up with that 80/20 proposition, that we 
can actually address these problems and leave some of our other fights 
and differences for a future day.
  Unless the President offers a plan, his posturing over the national 
debt cannot be taken seriously. And if he threatens that ``if I don't 
get what I want, we are going to go off the cliff and put America in 
recession and Americans out of work,'' that is irresponsible and I 
submit it would be a violation of the oath of office.
  A few final thoughts.
  None of us came to Washington to try to play small ball. We came here 
to try to do important work. I accept the fact that 100 Senators from 
every part of the country, from all political philosophies came here 
because they wanted to do the right thing for their constituents and 
the American people. I would stipulate to that. Granted, we all have 
different philosophies of government and the role of government that 
might lead us in different directions. That is what our debate is all 
about. It is irresponsible for anyone to suggest that we should not 
tackle these problems in an open, transparent, and responsible sort of 
way.
  Why would we want to play small ball? Why would we want to refuse to 
tackle the Nation's most serious fiscal problems? Why would we want to 
continue to see 23 million Americans either out of work or 
underemployed, with people taking part-time jobs because they can't 
find full-time employment? Of course, more Americans back to work means 
more people who actually pay taxes, which is part of the solution to 
closing that gap between what we spend and what we bring in.
  I realize and I don't want to minimize the importance of the daunting 
challenges we face. We were sent here to face them, not go hide under 
our desk, not say: Well, I don't want to do that; I don't want to vote 
on that issue because I might get an opponent in the next election. I 
believe these enormous challenges are enormous opportunities in 
disguise. I admit I come from Texas and we are optimists by nature. We 
believe that for every challenge, every complication, every problem, 
somewhere in there is an opportunity for us to deal responsibly and in 
an accountable sort of way to our constituents to pass the long-overdue 
reforms that would balance our budget, revitalize our economy, restore 
American competitiveness, and put Americans back to work.
  None of us came here to play small ball. We now have a momentous 
opportunity to maybe swallow a little bit of our pride, to show a 
little humility, maybe. Something you don't think of when you think 
about politicians is humility. But I think we all have to realize the 
hand we have been dealt, not look back and keep pointing the finger of 
blame. We need to say that this is the hand we have been dealt, this is 
the job we have volunteered for and gotten a vote of confidence in the 
election that our constituents have enough confidence in us that we 
will act responsibly and not kick the can down the road and make the 
price for our inaction and irresponsibility paid for by the American 
people or these young people who sit here before me. I hope we seize 
that opportunity. I want to be part of the solution. I am willing to 
cast tough votes, and I am willing to stand before my constituents and 
say: You know what, we had to solve this problem. As long as people are 
still engaged in campaigning rather than governing, as long as we are 
playing to the television audiences and the peanut gallery rather than 
trying to solve these problems, we won't do it. But I hope we will 
seize it. I am optimistic we will.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            The Fiscal Cliff

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, in less then 2 months, American 
taxpayers are set to experience one of the largest tax increases in 
American history. With the elections behind us, it is time for us to 
work together to reach an agreement that can pass both chambers of 
Congress and be signed by the President.
  Reaching an agreement won't be easy, but it must be done to avoid 
going head first off the fiscal cliff. By this time we are all aware of 
the Congressional Budget Office warning that failing to come together 
threatens to send us into another recession.
  An agreement is certainly doable, but all we hear about is what 
revenues Republicans are willing to put on the table.
  We need to hear what the President and my colleagues on the other 
side are prepared to tackle in regard to reforming entitlements that 
are the long-term drivers of our fiscal problems.
  That being said, we will not be able to reach an agreement if the 
other side continues to insist on punishing entrepreneurs and small 
businesses in the name of raising taxes on the ``wealthy.''
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle seem to believe that tax 
increases, particularly on high-income individuals, do not matter. They 
argue that raising taxes on the so-called wealthy will return us to the 
economic growth experienced at the height of the 1990s.
  This defies common sense. If you ask a business owner if raising his 
taxes will hinder his ability to grow his business, he assuredly will 
tell you they will. He understands that the more the government takes 
from him, the less he has to put back into his business.
  This is in line with the general understanding around here that taxes 
can be used as both a carrot and a stick to affect behavior. If you 
want to discourage behavior you impose a tax. If you want to encourage 
behavior you provide a tax incentive.
  For example, the excise tax on cigarettes has been increased to 
reduce the number of people smoking. A tax has been imposed on 
individuals for not purchasing insurance, so more will. Our tax code is 
littered with tax incentives to get people to do more of the things we 
like and less of the things we don't like. Individuals and businesses 
have and do respond to these incentives.
  Yet, if we are to believe the other side, when it comes to marginal 
income tax rates the influence of taxes ceases to exist. According to 
them, we can raise income taxes on the wealthy as high as we want with 
no ill effects for jobs and the economy.
  Well I have news for my colleagues; high marginal tax rates influence 
many factors that contribute to economic growth. Capital accumulation

[[Page 15265]]

and the availability of a well trained labor force are two important 
factors influenced by taxes. Just as an increase in the excise tax on 
cigarettes leads to fewer packs of cigarettes being purchased, 
increasing taxes on capital reduces capital accumulation. Likewise, the 
more you tax labor the fewer hours worked you will get. In other words, 
taxes matter.
  Some of my colleagues on the other side have pointed to a 
Congressional Research Service report they claim proves raising the top 
marginal tax rate does not impact economic growth. There has been ample 
criticism of this one analysis that I will not go into here.
  But, even if one gives any credence to this one analysis, it must be 
viewed in light of a larger body of economic research that indicates 
higher taxes do hinder economic growth.
  This research confirms that high marginal rates reduce the hours 
worked and are a disincentive to small business owners and 
entrepreneurs.
  Among this research is a 2007 study by Christina Romer that found 
that a tax increase of 1 percent of GDP reduces economic growth by as 
much as 3 percent. According to this study, tax increases have such a 
substantial effect on economic growth because of the ``powerful 
negative effect of tax increases on investment.''
  The last thing we need to do now is discourage business investment. 
Business investment has been stagnate. This has directly contributed to 
slower economic growth than in past economic recoveries. It has also 
contributed to weak job creation and wage growth.
  Raising marginal tax rates on entrepreneurs and business owners, 
thereby reducing their after-tax rate of return is not the answer.
  We need to give entrepreneurs and business owners the certainty they 
need to start investing again.
  The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development has issued 
several reports analyzing how different forms of taxation impact 
economic growth. This OECD research found that income taxes 
significantly impact economic growth.
  According to this research, the most damaging tax was the corporate 
income tax followed by the individual income tax. The study further 
noted that highly progressive individual income tax rates are 
negatively associated with economic growth.
  The United States of course relies extensively on both corporate and 
individual income taxes. Our corporate rate of 35 percent is the 
highest in OECD countries, which is bad in its own right. But a large 
number of American businesses are taxed at the individual rate, not the 
corporate rate. We also already have a highly progressive tax system. 
In fact, according to a 2008 OECD study we have ``the most progressive 
tax system and collect the largest share of taxes from the richest 10 
percent of the population.''
  Currently, the top individual rate of 35 percent is the same as the 
top corporate rate. Starting in 2013, if the President has his way, the 
top rate goes up to 39.6 percent with the second highest rate scheduled 
to go up to 36 percent from 33 percent. When you consider the effects 
of the personal exemption phase-out and limitation on itemized 
deductions, the marginal effective tax rate jumps to over 41 percent.
  These tax increases will hinder the growth of small businesses, and 
of course, slower business growth means slow job growth.
  Evidence of this is documented by a 2001 study available from the 
National Bureau of Economic Research. This study looked at how the 
marginal rate cuts in the 1986 tax reform affected the growth of small 
firms.
  The study showed that businesses that experienced the largest 
marginal rate cuts saw their businesses grow the fastest. Conversely, 
the study concluded that when marginal tax rates go up, the growth of 
small businesses goes down.
  Similarly, a 2005 study conducted by the Small Business 
Administration found that ``lower marginal rates on entrepreneurial 
income encourage more entrepreneurial entry and lower rates of exit, 
and lengthen the duration of spells of activity.'' This means that if 
my colleagues are successful in raising the top two marginal rates 
there will be less entrepreneurial activity. Fewer people will seek to 
start their own business and more current business owners will be 
looking to close up shop.
  Further research confirms that high marginal tax rates leads to fewer 
hours worked. A 2008 study that appeared in the Journal of Monetary 
Economics and a 2004 study conducted by the Federal Reserve Bank of 
Minneapolis examined how taxes impact the labor supply across time and 
across countries.
  Both of these studies found that countries with higher marginal tax 
rates generally worked fewer hours. Conversely, those with low marginal 
rates worked more hours. In fact, these studies, controlling for other 
variables, found that the marginal tax rate accounted for the ``vast 
majority'' or ``preponderance'' of the difference in hours worked.
  Research by economist Michael Keane has highlighted that high 
marginal rates have the biggest impact on labor over the long run. This 
is because of the effect of marginal rates on lifetime decisions.
  While a sudden increase in taxes may not lead to an immediate shift 
in current hours worked, it will impact future decisions.
  For instance, higher marginal rates will discourage the accumulation 
of human capital through work experience and training. His review of 
research in this area further concluded that the effect of high 
marginal tax rates is especially pronounced when it comes to women's 
participation in the workforce.
  There are many more examples of economic research that point to high 
tax rates hindering economic growth. For the sake of time, I am not 
going to go through all of them. Instead, I will ask unanimous consent 
to place a list of more than 20 studies in the Record. This is by no 
means an exhaustive list, but I believe these provide a good starting 
point for my colleagues who are interested in learning the truth about 
taxes.
  In sum, this research suggests that soaking the rich through an ever 
more progressive tax code will only reduce incentives for work and 
entrepreneurship thereby reducing economic growth. It means that for a 
couple deciding whether or not a spouse who left the workforce should 
go back to work, taxes matter;
  for an Individual who is considering investing in their own human 
capital through education or training to increase their earning 
potential, taxes matter;
  for a small business owner considering hiring employees, purchasing 
equipment, or expanding their business, taxes matter;
  for an entrepreneur deciding whether or not a business venture is 
worth pursuing, taxes matter.
  Let me turn to another argument used by my colleagues on the other 
side to support increasing taxes. This argument is that tax increases 
on the ``wealthy'' are necessary to reduce the deficit and balance the 
budget.
  The truth is there are not enough so-called rich people to make this 
happen. Based on 2009 tax returns, if you raised the top tax rate on 
income over $200,000 to 100 percent, you would still come short of 
covering the the $1.1 trillion budget deficit for fiscal year 2012.
  This back of the envelope calculation assumes that people will not 
work less or engage in tax planning or fraud to avoid such a 
confiscatory tax. I imagine my colleagues on the other side would even 
concede this would be the case with such a high rate.
  For people out there who think they don't have to worry about the 
President's proposals because you are not wealthy, my message to you is 
this: You should be worried, because in order to tackle the deficit and 
pay for all his proposed new spending; the President will have to 
increase taxes on individuals well under $200,000.
  The President of course claims that he wants a balanced approach to 
deficit reduction. He says we should do a combination of tax increases 
and spending

[[Page 15266]]

cuts. So far he has been rather specific about his tax increases. 
However, he has not said much about entitlements that are going to be 
the main drivers of our national debt over the coming years and 
decades.
  The President needs to lead in this area to get a serious discussion 
rolling. He needs to begin offering serious solutions, not just 
attacking those that have been offered up by Congressman Ryan in his 
budget proposal.
  Given my tenure in Congress, I have learned to be skeptical when 
people around here start saying we will reduce the deficit by raising 
taxes now and cutting spending later. Especially when no specifics are 
articulated regarding what programs can be cut or what reforms they 
will accept for addressing entitlements. It's been my experience in 
these situations, the taxes always go up, but the spending cuts never 
happen.
  Professor Vedder of Ohio University, who has studied tax increases 
and spending for more than two decades, confirms this in recent 
research. Professor Vedder looked at tax increases and spending 
spanning from the end of WW II through 2009 and discovered that ``each 
dollar of new tax revenue has been associated with $1.17 in new 
spending.''
  If we are ever going to get a handle on the deficit, we are going to 
need to learn to live within our means. Spending as a percent of GDP 
has averaged about 20.5 percent since 1970. From 1998-2001, when we did 
balance the budget, spending as a percent of GDP averaged 18.5 percent. 
In fact we have never balanced the budget with spending as percent of 
GDP exceeding 20 percent. Spending under President Obama has averaged 
24.5 percent of GDP. We must curtail our spending if we ever hope to 
balance the budget in the future.
  Some around here insist that cutting spending will be as damaging, if 
not more so, than increasing taxes. They use the rationale of spending 
multipliers pushed by some economists that suggest for every dollar of 
spending by the government we will get more than a dollar in economic 
activity.
  This theory is deeply flawed. Even if we assume the government spends 
money wisely with no fraud, waste or abuse--and that is a big if--it 
means one less dollar to be spent by the private sector.
  If this was solid economic theory our economy should be booming given 
all the money we have been spending around here. The truth is spending 
is not the solution to our problems, it is our problem. It is what got 
us into this mess in the first place.
  For my colleagues who are still wedded to the idea that tax increases 
are preferable to spending cuts, I recommend reading a recent study by 
Harvard Economist Alberto Alesina. Given the fiscal shape of many 
countries, Professor Alesina studied the impact of spending and tax 
policies put in place to address fiscal imbalances.
  His research concluded that ``fiscal adjustments based upon spending 
cuts are much less costly in terms of output losses than tax based 
ones. In particular, spending-based adjustments have been associated 
with mild and short-lived recessions, in many cases with no recession 
at all. Instead, tax-based adjustments have been followed by prolonged 
and deep recessions.''
  This research paper comes on the heels of a paper he released in 
2009. This paper similarly found that policies favoring spending cuts 
over tax increases are more likely to reduce the deficit.
  In the words of Professor Alesina, fiscal adjustments ``based upon 
spending cuts and no tax increases are more likely to reduce deficits 
and debt over Gross Domestic Product ratios than those based upon tax 
increases.''
  These studies confirm what through shear common sense Winston 
Churchill knew more than a half century ago, ``for a nation to try and 
tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and 
trying to lift himself up by the handle.''
  In the coming weeks, I hope to work with my colleagues and the 
President to reach a bipartisan agreement to help put our country back 
on sound fiscal footing. However, as I said in the beginning, it can't 
be just one side of the aisle that is expected to come to the table. My 
colleagues on the other side must be willing to put real reforms to 
address entitlements and our out of control spending on the table.
  I ask unanimous consent the list to which I referred be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       1. Alberto Alesina, Carlo Favero, and Francesco Giavazzi. 
     ``The Output Effect of Fiscal Consolidations.'' National 
     Bureau of Economic Research.
       2. Michael Keane and Richard Rogerson. 2012. ``Micro and 
     Macro Labor Supply Elasticities: A Reassessment of 
     Conventional Wisdom.'' Journal of Economic Literature.
       3. Michael Keane. 2011. ``Labor Supply and Taxes: A 
     Survey,'' Journal of Economic Literature.
       4. Christina D. Romer and David H. Romer. 2010. ``The 
     Macroeconomic Effects of Tax Changes: Estimates Based on a 
     New Measure of Fiscal Shocks,'' American Economic Review.
       5. Robert Barro and Charles Redlick. 2010. ``Macroeconomic 
     Effects from Government Purchases and Taxes,'' Mercatus 
     Working Paper.
       6. Andreas Bergh and Martin Karlsson. 2010. ``Government 
     Size and Growth: Accounting for Economic Freedom and 
     Globalization,'' Public Choice.
       7. Andrew Mountford and Harold Uhlig. 2009. ``What Are the 
     Effects of Fiscal Policy Shocks?'' Journal of Applied 
     Econometrics.
       8. Alberto Alesina and Silvia Ardagna. 2009. ``Large 
     Changes in Fiscal Policy: Taxes vs. Spending,'' NBER Working 
     Paper.
       9. Jens Arnold. 2008. ``Do Tax Structures Affect Aggregate 
     Economic Growth? Empirical Evidence From a Panel of OECD 
     Countries.'' Organisation for Economic Co-operation and 
     Development Working Paper.
       10. Lee Ohanian, Andrea Raffo, and Richard Rogerson. 2008. 
     ``Long-term Charges in Labor Supply and Taxes: Evidence from 
     OECD Countries, 1956-2004,'' Journal of Monetary Economics.
       11. Diego Romero-Avila and Rolf Strauch. 2008. ``Public 
     Finances and Long-Term Growth in Europe: Evidence from a 
     Panel Data Analysis,'' European Journal of Political Economy.
       12. Donald Bruce and Tami Gurley. 2005. ``Taxes and 
     Entrepreneurial Activity: An Empirical Investigation Using 
     Longitudinal Tax Return Data.'' Small Business Administration 
     Office of Advocacy.
       13. Edward Prescott. 2004. ``Why Do Americans Work So Much 
     More Than Europeans?'' Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis 
     Quarterly Review.
       14. Steven J. Davis and Magnus Henrekson. 2004. ``Tax 
     Effects on Work Activity, Industry Mix and Shadow Economy 
     Size: Evidence from Rich-Country Comparisons,'' National 
     Bureau of Economic Research.
       15. William M. Gentry and R. Glenn Hubbard. 2004. ``Success 
     Taxes, Entrepreneurial Entry, and Innovation,'' National 
     Bureau of Economic Research.
       16. Emanuela Cardia, Norma Kozhaya, and Francisco J. Ruge-
     Murcia. 2003. ``Distortionary Taxation and Labor Supply,'' 
     Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking.
       17. Olivier Blanchard and Roberto Perotti. 2002. ``An 
     Empirical Characterization of the Dynamic Effects of Changes 
     in Government Spending and Taxes on Output,'' Quarterly 
     Journal of Economics.
       18. Fabio Padovano and Emma Galli. 2002. ``Comparing the 
     Growth Effects of Marginal vs. Average Tax Rates and 
     Progressivity,'' European Journal of Political Economy.
       19. Fabio Padovano and Emma Galli. 2001. ``Tax Rates and 
     Economic Growth in the OECD Countries (1950-1990),'' Economic 
     Inquiry.
       20. Robert Carroll, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Mark Rider and 
     Harvey S. Rosen. 1998. ``Entrepreneurs, Income Taxes, and 
     Investment,'' National Bureau of Economic Research.
       21. Eric Engen and Jonathan Skinner. 1996. ``Taxation and 
     Economic Growth,'' National Tax Journal.
       22. Nada Elissa. 1995. ``Taxation and Labor Supply of 
     Married Women: The Tax Reform Act of 1986 as a Natural 
     Experiment,'' National Bureau of Economic Research.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that on Monday, 
November 26, it be in order for Senator Sessions or his designee to be 
recognized in order to raise a Budget Act point of order against the 
Reid for Tester amendment No. 2875 and that it be in order for Senator 
Reid or his designee to make a motion to waive the point of order; 
further, that at 5:30 p.m.

[[Page 15267]]

on Monday, November 26, the Senate proceed to vote on the motion to 
waive, if raised; that if the motion to waive is successful, the Reid 
amendments Nos. 2876, 2877, 2878, and 2879 be withdrawn en bloc; the 
Reid for Tester substitute amendment No. 2875 be agreed to; that no 
further amendments or motions be in order prior to a vote on passage of 
S. 3525, as amended, with no intervening action or debate; and that if 
the motion to waive is not successful, Senator Harry Reid be 
recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Defense Authorization

  Mr. REID. Madam President, we have had a number of individuals come 
to the floor over the last several months and say they want to move to 
the Defense authorization bill. So yesterday I said: Fine, let's move 
to it. What Senator Levin and Senator McCain said they wanted are 
relevant amendments. I said: Fine, we will do it. But my friends can't 
take ``yes'' for an answer. So we will come back after a recess for 
Thanksgiving and look at it again, and maybe by then they will take 
``yes'' for an answer.
  If we are going to move to these bills and have amendments offered--
that is what they want, and that is what I said they could do, so I 
don't fully understand the problem. But I am not filing cloture on a 
motion to proceed. I am not going to do that. It is an important bill. 
But I want the record to be very clear. I am not the cause. We are not 
the cause of this Defense authorization bill not being brought to the 
floor. I have agreed to do it, as I was requested to do by both Senator 
Levin and Senator McCain.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Jersey.


                            Superstorm Sandy

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I rise to celebrate the people of New 
Jersey, many of whom lost everything in Superstorm Sandy but who came 
through one of the most devastating storms in our State's history 
battered but not broken.
  The storm struck New Jersey with extraordinary force. It was the 
entry point of Superstorm Sandy, and the surge came quickly, destroying 
whole communities, taking homes from their foundations, changing the 
topography of the coastline, devastating some of the most densely 
populated communities in the country, taking lives and taking property, 
leaving New Jerseyans without power but not powerless, without the 
personal possessions accumulated over a lifetime but with their 
families and their memories intact. Their memories are the foundation 
upon which New Jerseyans are recovering and rebuilding their lives and 
their communities. They are rebuilding with the help of FEMA and other 
Federal agencies, including the American Red Cross and countless 
volunteers from around the country, State and local officials,working 
overtime to help. New Jersey will come back stronger and better, and we 
are more determined than ever to rebuild and restore our communities to 
where they were.
  The people of New Jersey withstood the unbridled power of nature--the 
power of nature strengthened by manmade climate change--to create an 
unprecedented storm and unprecedented damage. I wish to share with my 
colleagues some of the photos showing the devastation and why New 
Jersey needs a strong Federal partner if we hope to rebuild.
  As my colleagues can see, Sandy mixed all forms of transportation 
with a force we haven't seen in many years. This is a shipping 
container and a large pleasure boat tossed onto the Morgan rail bridge 
on the North Jersey coastline along with tons of debris. The photo 
shows the container from the shipping lines and the boat on a bridge 
that obviously was a rail bridge.
  You can see, we have a lot of work to do with scenes like this up and 
down the coast.
  In this photograph, you can see the kind of damage that our rail 
lines have suffered--heaved from the railroad beds and buckled. This 
again is along the north Jersey coastline, which had miles of track 
damaged just like this, as shown in this photograph, and in need of 
millions of dollars in repairs.
  In fact, 40 percent of the Nation's transit riders from Washington to 
Boston had their service interrupted. Dozens and dozens of New Jersey 
Transit's locomotives and rail cars were damaged by flooding. So today 
I am proud to announce that we expedited $25 million in transportation 
funding to help ease that situation.
  But some commuters into New York, for example, from my home State of 
New Jersey are still suffering 4-hour commutes, with rail service only 
about half of what it normally is, largely because there still is not 
enough power for all the trains.
  In the meantime, New Jersey has added subsidized ferry service to 
make up the difference, with the Federal Department of Transportation 
providing over 300 buses to help serve those new ferry lines, including 
one out of Liberty State Park.
  Here is another photograph of the extraordinary power of Sandy's 
surge that lifted boats on to a rail bridge along the north Jersey 
coastline. Amazingly, through the hard work of New Jersey Transit 
workers, this devastated rail line might be able to resume limited 
service by the end of this week.
  But this line, like many other commuter lines in New Jersey, will 
need much more extensive work to get service levels back to normal and 
to make more permanent repairs to ensure long-term reliability.
  But beyond the transportation damage, it is important to remember 
that some lost everything in the storm and some lost their lives. Our 
thoughts and prayers go out to all the families who lost loved ones to 
Super Sandy.
  I toured some of the worst hit areas with President Obama and 
Governor Christie and spoke to New Jerseyans who suffered extraordinary 
loss and were hit the hardest.
  Some of these photos I am about to show now I took myself. They may 
not be the best photographs and I may not be the best photographer, but 
they show a small part of the overall destruction my State has 
suffered.
  You can see in this photograph from the Coast Guard plane I was 
aboard some of the destruction at Sandy Hook, NJ. These homes are 
deeply under water, many of them rendered impossible to return to for a 
significant period of time. There are other homes I will show you where 
people cannot return to what was their home.
  This is a photograph of the flooding in the Mantoloking area north of 
Seaside Heights that submerged cars and caused millions of dollars of 
damage and thousands to be displaced from their homes. This bridge 
actually collapsed at the end there, leaving this whole section in 
difficulty in terms of exit off the barrier islands.
  I took the next two photographs while touring northern New Jersey. I 
have shown most of the pictures from the shore area, which took the 
hardest hit, because that was the entry point largely for Superstorm 
Sandy, but it was not just along the shore. Here is an example of the 
type of flooding that took place in Hoboken, NJ. On the night of the 
storm, this flooding was just beginning, and it only got worse, so much 
so that it took the National Guard to rescue residents from their 
homes, days--days--after the storm. It filled the streets with overflow 
from sewage plants. Gasoline was reeking in the air--a danger to the 
health and well-being of residents. And it made the damage even worse 
than anyone had imagined possible.
  The next photograph I took is of Observer Highway. This is a major 
thoroughfare between two significant parts of the metropolitan area, 
between the city of Hoboken and the city of Jersey City, the second 
largest city in our State. I cannot remember ever seeing the area so 
expansively under water, and I hope to never see it again.
  All of these cars were floating, some of them crashing into each 
other, rendered largely useless, and, of course, stopping a major 
thoroughfare for days in terms of anybody being able to get through.
  And if the images do not give you a sense of the destruction and the 
loss

[[Page 15268]]

families have suffered, then this next photograph encapsulates the 
power of the storm to take away all that people had worked for all of 
their lives. It is in the faces of the people I met.
  Here in Pleasantville, NJ, which is right outside Atlantic City along 
a section there, the mayor of Pleasantville took me to meet a series of 
residents whose homes had been ripped apart.
  In this picture, I am standing outside of the person's home, almost 
as if it were a dollhouse, looking in. I would love to have said that 
it was only this poor gentleman, but it was an entire community where 
homes had been ripped apart and you could see into their homes. It 
shows the nature of, the breadth and scope of, the devastation.
  It is not that this gentleman lost a shingle, it is that he lost the 
whole side of his home, now exposed to the elements and, of course, 
everything ripped apart.
  The other aspect about this picture, in addition to the incredible 
destruction, is the resiliency. When I went to share my sentiments and 
my concern with this gentleman, he asked me: How are you doing, 
Senator? I said: Well, sir, what is more important is, how are you 
doing? He said: I'm doing fine. I'm here, I'm alive, and I still have 
part of my home.
  So sometimes when we think about how difficult our lives might be at 
any given moment, I think about this gentleman and the extraordinary 
resiliency he has had in the midst of probably one of the most 
difficult times in his life. And there are so many other New Jerseyans 
whom I met like that.
  I met a young woman in Hoboken whose entire basement apartment was 
flooded--totally gone. She lost everything she had worked for in her 
young professional life. In the midst of that tragedy for her, she was 
at a shelter, running the shelter, helping everybody else who had been 
displaced--some not as badly as her, not thinking about her tomorrow, 
but thinking about her fellow citizens in Hoboken, NJ.
  I met some poor families who were not badly affected by the storm who 
opened their homes and their kitchen tables to individuals who were 
their neighbors who were hurt very badly. And even though they did not 
have a lot to put around the kitchen table, they were sharing what they 
had.
  I saw citizens risk their own lives to save their neighbors' lives in 
the rushing water and heard their accounts. So I saw the better angels 
of people in the midst of a storm.
  The fact is, despite the damage and displacement, the human suffering 
and loss of property, possessions, personal photographs and family 
memories, the people of New Jersey held together.
  Neighbors came together to help one another. As much as they were 
shaken and mourned their own loss, they worked together to help each 
other, to save each other, to begin the recovery, to get New Jersey 
back on its feet, and Federal, State, and local governments were there 
to help.
  The Federal response was quick, and it was effective, but there is 
still so much more that we need to do, and still more that we can do to 
help those families who are still without shelter, still without a 
place to return to, to call home, and without a clear picture of what 
the future holds.
  The storm was unprecedented in the breadth of its devastation. While 
our shoreline was hard hit, that does not begin to describe the full 
impact. Some of our Nation's most densely populated communities were 
also hit very hard, requiring one of the biggest rescue and recovery 
efforts we have seen. A response that size, obviously, takes time, but 
we acted quickly and will continue to do what needs to be done.
  After surveying Sandy's damage with President Obama and Governor 
Christie on October 31, Senator Lautenberg and I called for increased 
support from the Federal Government to deal with the cost of response 
efforts.
  In a letter to the President, we asked that the Federal share for 
disaster response be increased from the standard 75 percent to a much 
higher possibly 100 percent because of the devastating impact of what 
meteorologists have called a perfect storm.
  The President initially issued a disaster declaration for eight New 
Jersey counties and, along with Senator Lautenberg, we requested 
additional counties be included, and they were.
  Before walking with the President and the Governor through 
Brigantine, NJ, I had an opportunity to tour the destruction in 
Pleasantville, Hoboken, Jersey City, and communities in Bergen County. 
What I saw was unlike anything I had ever seen in my lifetime in those 
communities.
  I am very grateful that the President came to New Jersey with the 
full force of the Federal Government to see and to respond firsthand to 
the devastation the hurricane left in its wake.
  I have proudly lived in New Jersey all of my life, and seeing the 
Garden State in ruin is heartbreaking. The shore of my youth is gone. 
Much of it lies in the ocean for the ages. But it made me realize that, 
in times of tragedy, in times of storms like Sandy, we need government 
at all levels to come together, all of us rolling up our sleeves to 
help our neighbors recover and rebuild and reclaim their lives. We need 
to make certain that we secure all of the resources necessary to help 
New Jersey, and every community affected by this horrible storm, to 
rebuild and emerge stronger than before.
  Since the storm, I have requested emergency funding for New Jersey's 
transportation network--highways, rail lines, ports, and airports--that 
was devastated by the storm.
  I asked the President and Secretary LaHood for emergency funds to 
repair highways and bridges and to expedite assistance to all impacted 
modes of transportation.
  I called on the President to dispatch emergency fuel and power 
supplies to New Jersey to ease the fuel shortage and to keep emergency 
vehicles running in the immediate aftermath of the storm.
  To ensure critical infrastructure--water treatment and sanitation 
facilities--we received the help of the Army Corps of Engineers to have 
these facilities remain operable.
  The Federal Government also responded with $10 million in emergency 
funding, with some of those critical transportation needs, freed up 2 
million gallons of fuel from the Northeast Oil Reserve, and the EPA 
took action that rerouted this fuel to New Jersey when it needed it the 
most.
  The Federal response also included a grant for New Jersey to hire 
1,000 workers to help communities clean up from the storm.
  But, despite all of that, many families in my State are still 
suffering. They have lost much, and many are displaced, some 
permanently, from their homes. That is why I have called for the 
immediate suspension of foreclosures and evictions for all New Jersey 
homeowners who faced financial difficulties before the storm and now 
are suffering additional difficulties in the wake of it; and for swift 
action to expand emergency mortgage payment relief to all New Jersey 
homeowners who have lost income as a result of Hurricane Sandy.
  That is why we must work to give them certainty of what the Federal 
Government will do to help them rebuild their lives so they can make 
critical decisions as to their futures.
  What I take away from this experience is the fact that we are all in 
this together, one community, each of us dependent on the other--each 
of us working to rebuild and recover for the benefit of all of us in 
New Jersey, but I believe all of us in the country.
  That is what community is all about. It is the heart of our motto: E 
Pluribus Unum; From Many, One. We have just gone through an election at 
the heart of which we debated the role of government in our lives. I 
would submit we need to focus on what government does to rebuild the 
spirit of community that we have seen in action in the aftermath of 
this devastating storm.
  Americans across the country were riveted by the stories of the 
immediate aftermath of the storm--the pictures of communities under 
water, homes moved blocks down the road, homes and trains blocking 
Federal highways, hospitals closed, gas lines miles long, people 
waiting hours for fuel to run generators and keep their homes heated, 
weeks of fuel rationing, and no

[[Page 15269]]

transit or Amtrak service for the entire region for people to get to 
work or visit their families.
  Without a doubt, those have been trying times for New Jersey. But 
now, just because those scenes may no longer be showing in living rooms 
across the country does not mean that the recovery is over.
  Thousands of families are still displaced from their homes and will 
be for months to come.
  Transit lines are still out. Community infrastructure still has to be 
rebuilt. Now is not the time for the Federal Government to walk away. 
It is more crucial now than ever for the Federal Government to help 
devastated communities rebuild, help families get the assistance they 
need to repair their homes, and put their lives back together.
  I for one will not rest until the rebuilding is done. This is one 
country, the United States of America. That is why, when there was 
destruction in New Orleans with Katrina, in Florida, in Joplin, or crop 
destruction in the Midwest, I came along with other colleagues to 
support those communities. I viewed it as my time to stand with my 
fellow Americans in distress.
  Now it is time for my fellow Americans to stand with New Jersey. New 
Jersey has been battered, but we are not broken. We are stronger and 
more united in our efforts to work together to recover, rebuild, and 
recommit ourselves to uniting around our common concerns and shared 
values rather than divided by our differences. That is the lesson we 
learned. And together we will rebuild and the Garden State will bloom 
once again.
  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. DURBIN. Mr. 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.


                       Oversight on Energy Drinks

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, over the past few years we have seen a 
dramatic increase in the sale of energy drinks in America. Energy 
drinks are now common fixtures in grocery stores, vending machines, gas 
stations, convenience stores, and everywhere we turn. They target young 
people with flashy ads and names such as Monster and Rock Star and with 
claims to increase attention stamina and even to help with weight loss. 
According to one study, 30 to 50 percent of adolescents, teenagers, 
consume energy drinks.
  Sadly, as the sale of energy drinks has grown, so has the alarming 
evidence that these energy drinks pose a potential threat to our 
Nation's health. Yesterday, the New York Times featured an article that 
found that the Food and Drug Administration has received 13 adverse 
event reports for people who died--who died--after consuming 5-hour 
ENERGY drinks. Just last month, news reports found that five people 
died--five--after consuming Monster Energy drinks.
  This last May, I met the mother and family of 14-year-old Anais 
Fournier from Maryland. This lovely young teenager lost her life last 
December when she went into cardiac arrest--caused by caffeine 
toxicity--after she drank two--two--24-ounce Monster Energy drinks in 
less than 24 hours. Anais was an honor student. She was a good student 
and a great writer, and she used to watch movies with her mom.
  An American Academy of Pediatrics study recommends adolescents 
consume no more than 100 milligrams of caffeine each day. Remember the 
number--100 milligrams a day. According to Consumer Reports, a 24-ounce 
can of Monster Energy drink contains 276 milligrams of caffeine, almost 
three times the amount this academy recommends as the limit an 
adolescent would consume in a day--276 milligrams in less than 24 
hours. Anais Fournier consumed 552 milligrams of caffeine by drinking 
two Monster Energy drinks within 24 hours. That is the equivalent of 
drinking 16 12-ounce Coca-Cola sodas.
  Mounting evidence shows that tragic stories such as the one involving 
Anais Fournier are becoming more common. A recent report by SAMHSA 
shows that energy drinks pose potentially serious health risks. 
Emergency room visits due to energy drinks have increased tenfold 
between 2005 and 2009--1,128 ER visits in 2005 to 13,114 emergency room 
visits in 2009 linked to energy drinks in America.
  There are serious health concerns about ingesting high levels of 
caffeine in energy drinks and, I might also add, many added ingredients 
that are also stimulants and contain even additional caffeine that is 
added to the drinks. The Food and Drug Administration currently limits 
the level of caffeine in soda--the kind you would buy over the 
counter--to no more than 71 milligrams in a 12-ounce can. Remember the 
number for the 24-ounce can of Monster--276? That is almost four times 
the limit of what can be sold legally as a beverage regulated by the 
FDA in America.
  Let me show this 5-hour ENERGY picture. I really don't have to show 
it. Everyone is pretty familiar with it because they are everywhere--
literally everywhere. I watched on television last week when they were 
advertising promotions of 5-hour ENERGY drinks saying, in the 
commercials, that some of the sales would go to promote research for 
breast cancer. There is almost the suggestion there is something 
healthy about this product.
  Well, let's talk about that for a moment. Compare that limit of 71 
milligrams of caffeine in a 12-ounce can of soda or pop to the 215 to 
242 milligrams of caffeine in the small 2-ounce bottle of 5-hour ENERGY 
or the 135 milligrams in a 12-ounce can of Monster Energy. Some energy 
drinks contain 300 milligrams of caffeine in a 12-ounce serving. As we 
all know, most energy drinks are not sold in 12-ounce cans. They are 
sold in 16-, 24-, and 32-ounce cans. Two 24-ounce Monster Energy drinks 
took the life of Anais Fournier.
  These drinks, of course, contain more than caffeine. We don't know 
all the products included, but they include many other stimulants, such 
as guarana and ginseng. The FDA has the authority to regulate caffeine 
levels in beverages and to require beverage manufacturers, such as soda 
pop, to prove additives are safe. But most energy drinks, such as 5-
hour ENERGY, avoid the FDA's regulation and oversight by marketing 
their products not as beverages but as dietary supplements.
  We will not see it on the front of this little container. We have to 
flip it around and look down at the bottom, and in the tiniest 
lettering we see dietary supplement. Why? Because as a dietary 
supplement they are not regulated. They can sell what they like. And, 
unfortunately, they sell products that contain so much caffeine they 
are dangerous.
  Now, my colleague, Senator Blumenthal of Connecticut, who is on the 
Senate floor tonight, and I have sent the Food and Drug Administration 
letters three times calling on this agency to take action to ensure 
caffeine levels and ingredients in energy drinks are safe, particularly 
for kids. We have urged the agency to issue final guidance 
distinguishing beverages and liquid dietary substances to close the 
loopholes that allow some energy drinks to avoid FDA oversight. We have 
called on that agency to regulate energy drinks that have caffeine 
levels well above the 71 milligrams per 12-ounce threshold in soft 
drinks.
  Today, Senator Blumenthal and I asked FDA Commissioner Margaret 
Hamburg to personally meet with us after Thanksgiving to discuss the 
steps the FDA is taking to ensure the safety of energy drinks. Every 
other week we are seeing mounting evidence that energy drinks pose 
safety risks. We learn about young people hospitalized or seriously 
hurt after consuming what they are marketing as innocent little energy 
pick-me-ups.
  We look forward to working with Commissioner Hamburg to discuss the 
Food and Drug Administration's strategy to protect our children and to 
protect everyone in America from these dietary supplements, whether it 
is 5-Hour Energy or the Monster Energy drink that led to the death of 
this 14-year-old girl in Maryland.

[[Page 15270]]

  It has been many years since I came to this floor and argued about 
dietary supplements. We all know what is involved. I always preface my 
remarks by saying: When I got up this morning, I took my vitamin pill, 
and I took my fish oil pill. I believe I should have the right to do 
that. I don't know if it helps, but I think it does, and I shouldn't 
have to have a prescription to have a vitamin pill. Enough said. But 
when it comes to dietary supplements that go beyond that type of 
supplement, things that include dramatic increases in caffeine, we have 
to take the next step.
  I managed a few years ago to pass a law--over some objection--that 
requires the makers of dietary supplements to report adverse events. In 
other words, if people call from getting sick--or worse--from your 
product, you have to tell the FDA so we can gather this together and 
pick up any trends that are alarming or worrisome. Well, they have been 
doing it but not as vigilantly as they should, and the companies have 
not been reporting them as often as they should. But now we know, as I 
said at the outset of my remarks, that young people and others are 
dying from these energy drinks, 5-Hour Energy drinks and Monster Energy 
drinks. They died after they ingested these, and it has raised serious 
questions as to whether there was causation between them.
  To find there were 13 adverse-event reports for people who died after 
consuming 5-Hour Energy drinks and 5 people who died after consuming 
these Monster Energy drinks--for goodness' sakes, these are for sale to 
kids across America. We wouldn't sell these kids alcohol over the 
counter without asking how old they were, whether they reached an age 
where they are eligible to buy alcohol products, but we are selling 
products that could be more lethal than alcohol to these young kids 
without the necessary oversight and supervision.
  I thank the Senator from Connecticut for joining me in this effort. 
We have to continue it. The New York Times yesterday made a report that 
I think puts us on notice. There is a lot more to be done.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am very honored to stand with my 
distinguished colleague from Illinois on this vitally important issue. 
I thank him for his leadership, and I am very proud to work with him on 
a problem that really shows dramatically that neglect and disregard by 
government regulators and enforcers can have real-life consequences.
  The FDA has, very simply, failed to address this issue, and I believe 
it has failed even to respond to the alarms Senator Durbin and I have 
sounded on this issue.
  Yesterday the New York Times featured an article reporting that the 
Food and Drug Administration received 13 adverse-event reports of 
fatalities following the consumption of 5-Hour Energy, which is a 
highly caffeinated energy shot. But this report is really only the 
latest of a series of reports that two popular energy drinks--Monster 
Energy and 5-Hour Energy--have been cited in deaths and injury. These 
drinks have been cited in reports of dozens of serious adverse events 
such as heart attacks and convulsions. And these events are not the 
only concern that has been raised about energy drinks. I will cite a 
few.
  A report by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 
Administration found that the number of emergency room visits due to 
energy drinks increased tenfold between 2005 and 2009, from 1,128 to 
13,114 visits.
  More recently, a study of energy drinks by Consumer Reports found 
that some energy drinks contain high levels of caffeine--in some cases, 
twice as much as a cup of coffee.
  The Consumer Reports study found that labels of many energy drinks 
completely failed to disclose how much caffeine is contained, and, even 
worse, 5 of the 16 drinks Consumer Reports studied contained more than 
20 percent more caffeine than what was stated on the label.
  These reports are profoundly and deeply troubling, and the FDA--the 
agency in charge of regulating the safety of these products--needs to 
determine whether energy drinks are safe and, if necessary, take action 
about their safety.
  Senator Durbin and I have written two letters--one on September 11, 
the other on October 26 of this year--calling on the agency to take 
action addressing the rising public health concerns around energy 
drinks and to protect consumers. Have we heard anything back? Nothing. 
No response.
  In today's letter, we reiterate our request for the FDA to 
investigate the interactions between caffeine and stimulants in energy 
drinks, to assess the health risks associated with caffeine consumption 
by children and adolescents, and to finalize and issue guidance that 
clearly distinguishes liquid dietary supplements from beverages. This 
issue is as profoundly and deeply important as the combination of 
caffeine and alcohol, which Attorneys General addressed during the time 
I held that job in the State of Connecticut. Alcohol makers, to their 
credit, did the right thing and addressed it on their own. Here, the 
industry has failed in that obligation. The FDA has not just an 
opportunity but an obligation to address this issue.
  I also believe the FDA has failed to consider the shifting trends in 
caffeine consumption more generally and broadly that is shown by the 
energy drink industry, particularly shifting trends in consumption 
among adolescents. The industry has marketed relentlessly and 
repeatedly, which accounts for that dramatic statistic Senator Durbin 
cited that 30 to 50 percent of adolescents are known and reported to be 
using these drinks. Marketing and that trend have a clear connection. 
It is no accident that caffeine consumption and the consumption of 
these energy drinks is increasing.
  But the FDA's determination of safe levels of caffeine seems to be 
based on what is safe for adult consumption, not adolescent. It does 
not consider consumption patterns among young people or take into 
account safe levels of caffeine consumption among children. And these 
energy drinks are marketed to young people, including children. As an 
example, although the FDA states that adults can safely consume up to 
400 milligrams of caffeine per day, the American Academy of Pediatrics 
recommends that adolescents consume no more than 100 milligrams per 
day--less than what is contained in one dose of an energy drink. And 
Consumer Reports recommends that children consume no more than 45 to 85 
milligrams per day, depending on their weight.
  I wish to associate myself with the very persuasive and compelling 
remarks made by Senator Durbin today. Again, his leadership on this 
issue has been so valuable.
  I would close by making this point. There is a lot of rhetoric that 
is purportedly based on principle and conviction that somehow 
government rules and consumer protections are a frivolous nuisance or a 
burden without a benefit or an unwarranted intrusion in the free 
market. The experience that was dramatically portrayed in the hearing 
of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee today offers a 
tragic lesson on how compounding pharmacies and the failure of 
government regulators to act dispositively and promptly led to injuries 
and deaths across the country.
  My colleague Senator Alexander was present and very perceptively 
asked some of the most pointed questions this morning of the witnesses 
who came before us from the FDA and other government agencies, 
including the Massachusetts Board of Pharmacy. That lesson this morning 
ought to sound an alarm for us here because the New England compounding 
pharmacy in that instance was a known risk to both Federal and State 
regulators--the FDA and the Massachusetts Board of Pharmacy--and both 
failed to take effective action to protect the public.
  The FDA in this instance has an obligation to protect the public and 
take action that will safeguard the health of our children and 
adolescents--the health of everyone--in light of the potential dangers 
posed by these energy drinks.

[[Page 15271]]

  I close by again thanking my colleague from Illinois for being such a 
strong advocate of consumer interests and health in this area. I hope 
we will have a meeting soon, as we have requested, so that we can work 
together to make sure these products are labeled accurately and 
truthfully, marketed responsibly, and consumed safely.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.


            Character Attacks Against Ambassador Susan Rice

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I wish to say a word about the tragedy 
that occurred in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 where we lost a 
dedicated ambassador and three other American lives. It was awful. It 
has been nearly a decade since we lost an ambassador in service to our 
country, and it is something we are looking at with a great deal of 
sadness and sorrow that these individuals who dedicated their lives to 
America were killed in the course of duty. But this has gone from a 
tragedy in Benghazi to a major political debate in America.
  Part of it was explainable because it was in the closing days and 
weeks of a Presidential campaign when many times issues that don't 
reach national prominence become prominent because of the attention 
being paid to the candidates. And a lot has been said back and forth, 
and I have tried, as have other Members of Congress, to understand 
exactly what happened on September 11 in Benghazi. It is difficult 
because there wasn't a gathering of evidence immediately. 
Investigations were undertaken. It was chaotic at the scene that 
evening, and, sadly, many of the witnesses who could help us understand 
have disappeared into the night. But the effort has been undertaken to 
find out what occurred, to find out whether there was adequate 
protection for the Ambassador and his staff and, if not, what we should 
have done. I understand these tragedies require careful examination.
  I was a Member of the U.S. House of Representatives when 235 U.S. 
marines died in a Marine Corps barracks bombing in Beirut, Lebanon. You 
bet we asked questions of the Reagan administration, as we should when 
we lose innocent American lives overseas as we did in Lebanon and as we 
did in Libya. What troubles me is the level the debate has reached. It 
has now reached a level of vilification and accusation which is 
unwarranted by the evidence.
  This week we met in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in a 
closed, classified setting and went through meticulously the timeline 
that led up to the death of the Ambassador and staff as well as what 
followed. It is being reported as it is being gathered, and there are 
additional reports that will be forthcoming.
  Early next month we are expecting the Accountability Review Board of 
the Department of State to issue its report. We know, following that, 
other committees of jurisdiction--the Intelligence Committee, Foreign 
Relations Committee, and others--will certainly call in witnesses and 
ask questions, as they should, as they must.
  What troubles me is that on the floor of the Senate during the course 
of this week, there have been accusations made of individuals that have 
gone far beyond anything the evidence could suggest.
  We owe it to the cause of justice and to the lives that were lost to 
do this professionally and honestly, without political rancor. The 
President was right yesterday when he said of our U.N. Ambassador Susan 
Rice, she ``has done exemplary work. She has represented the United 
States and our interests in the United Nations with skill and 
professionalism, with toughness and grace.'' And ``to go after the U.N. 
ambassador,'' he said, ``who had nothing to do with Benghazi, and was 
simply making a presentation based on intelligence she had received, 
and to besmirch her reputation is outrageous.''
  I agree with him. We owe it to her and to everyone involved in every 
Federal agency to get the facts before us before we point a finger of 
blame. If there is blame, let us make certain it is apportioned to 
those who deserve it rather than to make wild charges against many 
others.
  My good friend Senator John McCain--and he really is my friend; he 
and I debated on the floor many times--but he said something I want to 
quote from 2005, when there were criticisms of Condoleezza Rice who was 
being considered for the office of Secretary of State. He said, ``So I 
wonder why we are starting this new Congress with a protracted debate 
about a foregone conclusion. . . . I can only conclude we are doing 
this for no other reason than lingering bitterness at the outcome of 
the elections. . . . We all have varying policy views, but the 
President, in my view, has a clear right to put in place the team he 
believed would serve him best.''
  I agree with Senator McCain's statement. Let's get the facts 
together. Let us find out what truly occurred. Before we point the 
finger of blame on any person in our government, let's make certain we 
do so with the knowledge of the facts and the evidence that we can 
gather. We owe it to the Ambassador, his family, and all the others who 
were either injured or lost their lives in this occurrence.
  I urge my colleagues to focus on the report due in December from the 
Accountability Review Board and to attend the hearings that will 
undoubtedly follow on this issue. We need a constructive discussion on 
how we can ensure that our brave diplomats can work effectively in some 
of the most dangerous parts of the world.
  Susan Rice is a dedicated public servant who has tirelessly pursued 
the interests of the United States at the United Nations, ranging from 
sanctions on Iran to advancing the actual effort in the Security 
Council to oust former Libyan strongman Muammar Qaddafi. She deserves 
fair treatment, as everyone does in our government.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I see the Senator from Louisiana. I 
know she expects to speak about 5:30. I want to say to her through the 
Chair I will be finished by then.


                           Fungal Meningitis

  I see the Senator from Connecticut I believe is still here. I 
compliment him on his participation this morning in a hearing in which 
we both participated. It was a sad hearing, really. It was about the 
fungal meningitis--the Senator from Minnesota was there as well--the 
fungal meningitis outbreak that in our State, Tennessee, has become a 
nightmare. It has claimed thirteen lives, 81 very ill in many cases, 
and a thousand others who worry they might become ill.
  It became obvious as we went through the discussion that something, 
incredibly, slipped through the cracks. We have more than 60,000 what I 
would call drugstores, pharmacies in the country; maybe more than a 
thousand in Tennessee. Many of them are doing this pharmaceutical 
compounding. You go in and get a prescription filled. They might adjust 
the prescription, or an FDA-approved drug based upon your prescription. 
That is normal and necessary. Then over here on the other side are the 
big manufacturers of drugs. As the Senator from Connecticut has pointed 
out, they are regulated by the Food and Drug Administration.
  But then there are these entities in the middle, and there was one in 
Massachusetts that was apparently masquerading as a compounding 
pharmacy--it was really a drug manufacturer, but it was not complying 
with the rules of a drug manufacturer. As a result, it provided tainted 
medicine all over the country. Had it not been for remarkable work by 
the Tennessee Public Health Department in conjunction with Vanderbilt 
University and the Centers for Disease Control, there could have been 
many more deaths and many more injuries.
  We saw an example of government. We saw an incompetent State Board of 
Pharmacy in Massachusetts, a confused Food and Drug Administration, and 
we saw a textbook model of what ought to be done by the Centers for 
Disease Control and the Tennessee Department of Health.

[[Page 15272]]

  I am committed to work with Senator Harkin, the chairman of our 
committee, and other members of our committee throughout the rest of 
this year on this issue. I hope the Senator from Minnesota and I, and 
the Senator from Connecticut, and Senators Burr and Roberts, who have 
been working on this for some time, can begin the new year with a 
bipartisan bill that can put somebody on the flagpole for this so we 
can continue, when we go to the hospital or go to the pharmacy or 
outpatient clinic, to not worry about whether the medicines we are 
receiving are tainted or unsafe.
  I thought it was an excellent hearing. I look forward to working on 
it. I have some ideas about a model for this regulation.
  I found as Governor years ago, if you give a committee responsibility 
for getting something done they often end up pointing fingers at each 
other. If you put somebody on the flagpole, it often gets done because 
you will know what happened. I think that is why Admiral Rickover 
created such a good system with nuclear submarines. We have never had a 
nuclear related death on a nuclear Navy submarine since the 1950s. I 
think I know why. It is because the Admiral interviewed every one of 
those captains of the submarines and the Navy made it clear to them if 
there was a problem with a nuclear reactor that went unfound or unfixed 
on their submarines their career was in deep trouble, and so we have 
never had any trouble.


                               Wind Power

  If I may move to another subject, there's been a lot of talk this 
week about the fiscal cliff. The President and Congressional leaders 
are meeting tomorrow, as they should, about how we can reduce our debt. 
That will require, in my judgment, reform of our entitlement programs. 
Saving our Medicare Program, for example. The average couple who is 65 
years of age when they retire pays $119,000 into the Medicare Program. 
They will take out $357,000. That kind of program is not sustainable. 
For the next generation of older Americans there will not be a Medicare 
Program unless we work on that.
  We need to work together to find a way to restrain entitlements, 
produce revenues if that is what is necessary, and come to a result. In 
the meantime we have to be saving money--42 cents out of every dollar 
we spend is borrowed--so that is what brings me to the floor today.
  Supporters of wind power have used this week to proclaim it ``Wind 
Week'' in Washington, DC, launching an event to try to persuade us to 
extend one more time--this would be the eighth time--the Wind 
Production Tax Credit which, if we were to do so, just for 1 year, 
would cost another $12.1 billion over 10 years.
  I want to suggest a different name for this week. Let's call it the 
``Wind Down Wind Week.'' It is time to end a 20-year-old temporary 
subsidy that has already been renewed seven times. The reason is very 
simple. We can't afford it. The Joint Tax Committee says the 1-year 
extension will cost that $12.1 billion--but it is not just a 1-year 
extension. The developers of wind power will get the tax credit for 10 
years. That is a lot of money. It is one-third of the Tennessee State 
budget. It is 2 times what we spend each year on energy research. This 
money could be used to help reduce the debt instead of fund this 
subsidy. The cost $12.1 billion is on top of the $16 billion in Federal 
subsidies and grants already given to wind developers and their Wall 
Street backers between 2009 and 2013, according to the Joint Tax 
Committee and the Unites States Treasury.
  How can we justify this? We hear a lot about big oil. What about big 
wind? Big wind received, according to the Energy Information Agency, an 
$18.82 federal subsidy per megawatt hour--25 times per megawatt hour as 
all other forms of electricity production combined. Given our fiscal 
crisis we should eliminate special tax breaks for big oil and big wind.
  The big wind tax break was put in place in 1992. It was to be a 
temporary measure. It was intended to boost a new technology. Now, 20 
years later, President Obama's respected Energy Secretary says wind is 
a mature technology. What do we have after 20 years and billions of 
dollars of subsidies? A puny amount of unreliable electricity. Our 
country uses nearly 25 percent of all the electricity in the world. 
Wind produces 3 percent of that. And of course it only produces 
electricity when the wind blows and it is not easy to store it. So it 
is of limited use in a country that needs huge amounts of low-cost, 
clean, reliable electricity. Relying on wind power is the energy 
equivalent of going to war in a sailboat when nuclear submarines are 
available.
  The wind subsidy is so large that wind developers are now paying 
distributors to take their wind power, undercutting the baseload energy 
plants that are necessary to provide the reliable, low-cost electricity 
our country needs. On top of that, there are better ways to produce 
clean electricity, better ways than subsidizing a technology that 
destroys the environment in the name of saving the environment.
  For example, it would take a row of 50-story wind turbines along the 
entire length of the Appalachian Trail from Georgia to Maine, 2,178 
miles, to equal the energy production of 4 nuclear reactors. The best 
way to produce cheap, clean energy in the United States is to let the 
marketplace do it. Let the marketplace produce large amounts of clean, 
reliable energy for all businesses and households--not to just 
subsidize jobs for a technology that can stand on its own and produces 
only a small amount of unreliable electricity.
  Let's use this week to celebrate. But let's celebrate the end of the 
temporary 20-year-old wind production tax credit and use the $12.1 
billion saved to reduce the Federal debt.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.


                        National Adoption Month

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I have come to the floor to speak 
briefly about a very exciting opportunity and occurrence that we 
celebrate and honor every November and that is the opportunity to adopt 
children. There are so many children--Mr. President, you know, not only 
in Minnesota but in my State, Louisiana--the Senator from Tennessee is 
here, in his State of Tennessee--children all over our country and the 
world who are in desperate need of a family to call their own. There 
are millions of parents and adults who want to be parents who are 
waiting and hoping for an opportunity to have a family of their own. So 
it would make sense for us to do the very best job we can to try to 
build the bridges to make these unions, these really extraordinary 
unions possible.
  That is what November is about, a month we are getting ready for 
Thanksgiving, in anticipation of Christmas and Hanukah, some of the 
other holidays that occur around this time. As families gather, our 
hearts and minds automatically turn to family-related events. So the 
great coalition that tries to help educate and encourage people on the 
subject has chosen November as National Adoption Month. You might 
know--many people go home at night and turn on their televisions. There 
are any number of television series by Hallmark and Home for the 
Holidays--lots of networks and cable companies are joining in with the 
idea of promoting it because it is so right. It is so natural for every 
child to need and want a family.
  I first want to say thank you to Senators who have joined me in this 
effort: Senator Blumenthal, Senator Grassley, Senator Graham, Senator 
Blunt, Senator Johnson, Senator Levin, Senator Murray, and Senator 
Moran, have cosponsored this resolution recognizing and supporting the 
goals of National Adoption Month and in a variety of different ways, 
not only by passing this resolution, which we hope will be hotlined 
sometime in the very near future, to go through the Senate and the 
House, but by participating in a variety of different events at home 
and here in Washington to raise awareness and call attention to the 
needs of so many.
  First of all, call attention and raise the awareness that there are 
in fact orphans in America, children whose parental rights have been 
terminated, or

[[Page 15273]]

children who literally lost both parents and do not have an able or 
willing relative and are in great need of a family. The Presiding 
Officer knows these children as he has been very active in the issue of 
child welfare.
  So we have several events throughout this month. One of them is 
National Adoption Day. That is going to take place this month, always 
the Saturday before Thanksgiving, where, happily, thousands of 
children--I think last year we had over 4,000, and since 2000, when it 
started, over 40,000 children have moved from foster care to a forever 
family on adoption day, which is quite a happy celebration. I have 
attended several of them myself with my local judges. There is nothing 
more exciting than a packed room of parents and grandparents and aunts 
and uncles and sometimes siblings waiting to receive these young 
children in some cases, and teenagers in some cases, and even young 
adults in some cases being adopted.
  I like to say one is never too old to need a family. There are 
holidays that happen every year. With whom do we celebrate those? There 
are joys and setbacks in life that occur throughout every decade of a 
person's life. A person needs a family there with them. I am of the 
opinion that a person is never too old to be adopted. In fact, I have 
known individuals adopted in their twenties and thirties. I actually 
met a woman from California, as crazy as this might sound, who was 
adopted in her forties because she was reunited with a woman who used 
to care for her when she was very young. She grew up in foster care, 
amazingly became very successful, but when they were reunited, they 
loved each other as they had 40 years earlier and decided to become a 
family. It is a bonding of love through adoption.
  My husband Frank and I are proud to be the parents of extraordinary 
children who happen to be adopted. We built our family through 
adoption. My husband was adopted out of an orphanage from Ireland when 
he was 5 years old. He still remembers the day when the matron of this 
little Protestant home for children came up to him and said: Ernest--
that was his name--pack your bags. Your mom and dad are here to take 
you home. He walked to the front of the orphanage and saw his adoptive 
mother and father, brother and sister, and the rest is history. He came 
to America, received an excellent education, and has gone on to be a 
wonderful citizen and, of course, a great father and a loving husband. 
I am so grateful for that opportunity for him.
  I think about the millions of children in orphanages where no one 
ever knocks on their door to say your mother and father are here to 
take you home. No one ever comes to call for them. No one ever provides 
them an opportunity for loving arms and a comforting and safe place.
  That is why we fight. That is why we debate. Happily, we never fight 
about this among ourselves because there is so much unity in the Senate 
and in this Congress about promoting adoption. It is one of the issues 
where there is virtually no partisan view.
  I wish to thank my colleagues for joining me in the resolution. We 
want to recognize this day, the Saturday before Thanksgiving, as 
National Adoption Day. I thank the hundreds of cities and hundreds of 
organizations, hundreds of communities that are going to be celebrating 
National Adoption Day, where groups of children--sometimes dozens, 
sometimes hundreds of children--will, in fact, be adopted on National 
Adoption Day, and I thank those who started this day many years ago.
  We want to remember November as the month. It began in 1995 under 
President Clinton and his then-First Lady Hillary Clinton, both of whom 
put such an emphasis on adoption. This is one of their initiatives that 
has gone on and on and has become bigger and bigger and we are excited 
about it.
  Let me say for the record again that there are over 400,000 children 
in foster care in America today, and over 100,000 of them are, in fact, 
orphans. Their parents are either deceased or the parental rights were 
terminated. Many of these children have siblings who are still looking 
and hoping to be matched with families. The great thing people might 
not realize since our efforts of almost 15 years ago is that we have 
increased the number of adoptions in America out of foster care from 
14,000 children a year out of 100,000 15 years ago, and from 500,000 to 
700,000 in foster care currently. We have reduced the number of 
children in foster care which overall is very good but, most 
importantly, we have substantially increased the number of children 
adopted from 14,000 to 50,000 a year. So we are moving in the right 
direction, but we will not rest until we have placed every child with a 
responsible and loving family to call their own forever.
  The sad news--and I have to unfortunately have a little sad point of 
this speech--is that internationally the numbers are going in the wrong 
direction. America used to adopt about 20,000 children a year from 
around the world. We are the largest receiving country on Earth. 
Americans feel strongly, Americans of all races and backgrounds and 
religious affiliations feel strongly that children should be raised in 
families. Americans have such open hearts and room in their hearts and 
in their homes for children and through many of our faith-based 
organizations have stepped up to adopt. Unfortunately, policies within 
our own executive branch of government and decisions that are being 
made are constricting the number of children who are eligible for 
adoption or who are being adopted by Americans, and that number has 
fallen dramatically, unfortunately, from about 20,000 children down to 
9,000 children. I am going to redouble my efforts every year to find 
the problem areas and identify them, whether something has to be 
changed legislatively or whether some additional funding can be found 
to increase efforts not just by the Federal Government but States and 
local governments and nonprofits. We are going to turn the corner and 
accelerate this situation.
  Let me conclude by showing some wonderful examples of families who 
have stepped up. First, this is the Morrison family. Fran is from 
Louisiana. She has fostered over 22 children. She is a professional. 
This is what she does in her professional life. She has fostered 22 
children. But these five she has adopted out of the dozens of children 
whom she has fostered. This one little baby, the latest one whom she 
adopted, has a very special need. He was shaken as an infant. He was 
born completely healthy, but because an adult lost their temper and 
didn't know what to do--adults sometimes may shake infants because they 
are angry, because children cry when they are hungry or they are cold 
or they are tired, and sometimes adults don't like to hear that crying. 
Sometimes babies get shaken or thrown against walls, and that is what 
happened to this little child. This child is seriously disabled but has 
now been adopted by Fran Morrison, and she says she has been blessed. 
The Lord led her to become a foster parent and then, just one step at a 
time, she became an adoptive mom. As we can see, she has her hands very 
full, but she has a great heart and she, similar to so many other 
Americans, is trying to make a way for these children and give them a 
place.
  The next family is the Roberts family. Former foster youth Marchelle 
Roberts was one of my interns in my office just last year, so this is 
such a personal and touching story. She was a former participant in our 
foster youth intern program. Her parent is Lisa Roberts from Camden, 
NJ. She is adopted. Marchelle is now 22 years old and is attending 
Temple University studying broadcast journalism. Besides Marchelle, her 
mother has adopted four other children out of foster care. What an 
extraordinary family, built by a mom who just had a great heart, had 
the will and the opportunity to adopt these four beautiful girls, and 
they are now a wonderful family, truly loving the children to help them 
succeed in a world they were born into that had a very sad beginning 
but a very happy ending.
  The third family I wish to share with my colleagues is the Johnson 
family. This is Senator Thune's 2012 Angel. The parents are Ryan and 
Amber Johnson from Sioux Falls, SD. Two boys

[[Page 15274]]

were adopted out of foster care. They have one biological child, a 
little girl. These two little boys were adopted out of foster care. 
What a beautiful family and what a way to build a family. That is what 
I am saying; that I wish we could eliminate every barrier. There are 
cultural barriers. There are financial barriers. There are legal 
barriers. If we could just eliminate those barriers and let Americans 
do what they do best, which is to love children, we would be a lot 
better off. So this is a beautiful family from Sioux Falls, SD.
  Our next family is the Duhon family. The parents, Troy and Tracy 
Duhon, are from New Orleans. I know this family well and I am very 
proud of them. Their little adopted child Annahstasia Grace was born in 
China last year. They have three biological children, but they traveled 
to China just last month to pick up this little baby girl. They have 
waited for her for quite some time. We are very grateful that the 
Chinese Government has been cooperative. China is placing more children 
domestically, which is good, because many years ago they didn't have 
any process for domestic adoption. Of course, with their one-child 
policy, there were literally millions of children in orphanages, many 
little girls because they weren't as valued as little boys. But now 
that is changing. China is doing more domestic adoptions, but there are 
still children who need to have loving parents and many of them are 
finding them in the United States.
  Then, finally, the last family is Jake and Amy Glover from Hays, KS. 
They have four adopted children, three from Haiti and one from China. 
What a cute holiday card this is going to be for all their friends who 
will receive it. Since adopting three children from Haiti, the Glovers 
are committed to raising awareness about the many daily challenges 
faced by the Haitians post-earthquake. So not only did these 
individuals turn out to be great parents for these children, but they 
also--I know because I talk to so many of them--help these children 
understand and appreciate and respect the culture from which they came, 
and it builds awareness in America about the greatness of our whole 
planet. Of course, we are proud of America, but there are many other 
countries where these children come from, and I know the adoptive 
parents are very respectful of the sending countries.
  So on behalf of the children who are still waiting, I hope people who 
have heard this can respond in some way. There are many opportunities 
for people to reach out to our national organizations, nonprofits, 
churches in communities, and people can always go to our Web site and 
we have some additional information about how to connect if people are 
thinking about how to adopt or people who want to support the work of 
adoption and preservation of families such as these.
  Again, I urge my colleagues to pass S. Res. 595 as quickly as 
possible. I thank those colleagues who have joined with me in 
cosponsoring this. We wish everybody a great day on Saturday for 
National Adoption Day, and we look forward to the continued work to 
promote laws and policies that help every child find a forever family.
  Thank you. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________