[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 1850-1879]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




           MOVING AHEAD FOR PROGRESS IN THE 21ST CENTURY ACT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of S. 1813, which the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1813) to reauthorize Federal-aid highway and 
     highway safety construction programs, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Reid amendment No. 1633, of a perfecting nature.
       Reid amendment No. 1634 (to amendment No. 1633), to change 
     the enactment date.
       Reid motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on 
     Environment and Public Works, with instructions, Reid 
     amendment No. 1635, to change the enactment date.
       Reid amendment No. 1636 (to (the instructions) amendment 
     No. 1635), of a perfecting nature.
       Reid amendment No. 1637 (to amendment No. 1636), of a 
     perfecting nature.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant Republican leader is recognized.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for 10 minutes and that I be followed by the Senator 
from Texas, Mr. Alexander.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. From Tennessee.
  Mr. KYL. What did I say? From Tennessee. Whatever I said, I 
apologize. I said Texas. I apologize.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   The Budget and Our Nuclear Arsenal

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I need to speak for a few minutes this 
morning about two important news events of this week: the budget that 
was submitted by the President and the news reports that the President 
is considering reducing our nuclear arsenal to dramatically lower 
levels than they are today. Let me speak to both those subjects briefly 
this morning, and then I will have more to say about them as time goes 
on.
  In the President's budget, there is a specific part for the 
Department of Energy that funds the nuclear weapons program. Despite 
promises of the President that he would follow what is called the 1251 
study over the course of his Presidency and request in the budget the 
sums of money for the Department that is called the NNSA--part of the 
Department of Energy--he reduced that this year by $372 million less 
than the target. The net result of that over 5 years is going to be 
$4.3 billion.
  I know my colleague from Tennessee is very interested in this. Before 
the START treaty was debated, there was a big debate about whether the 
funding for the NNSA in the nuclear modernization program was adequate.
  On the Veterans Day recess, before we began the debate on START, 
General Chilton, former head of STRATCOM, and Dr. Miller, the Assistant 
Secretary of Defense, flew to Phoenix and said to me: You were right. 
We were wrong. We have underfunded this by over $4 billion. We are 
going to add that to our 5-year budget profile.
  This was the argument we had been making all along: You have 
underfunded the nuclear modernization program. You need to add between 
$4 billion and $5 billion to it. They agreed and that is what went into 
the revised 1251 report.
  As a result of the budget request this year, we are right back where 
we started from before the revision--$4.3 billion below--and that is 
where we were when the administration came forward and said: You were 
right. We were wrong. Our previous figure was not enough.
  So we have a problem, and it is going to cause some real disruptions.
  One of the things we have to do is extend the life of one of our old 
weapons called the B-61. This is a 2-year delay now on that, a 2-year 
delay on another warhead called the W-76, at least a 5-year delay in 
the construction of the plutonium processing facility at Los Alamos 
Laboratory called the CMRR facility.
  Why is that important? We knew prior to commitments the President 
made before the START treaty was debated that the CMRR was critical. We 
do not have a production capacity. Unlike Russia and China, for 
example, we cannot produce new nuclear weapons. We have to go back and 
revise the ones we have. One of the facilities that would enable us to 
do that is this CMRR facility. In fact, that is where a great deal of 
the work would be done.
  What we were told was that the President was fully committed to 
constructing this facility on a timetable set out in the 1251 report. 
Some of us were a little dubious. The President's representative said: 
We will put it to you in writing. So he did. What he said in his 
message on the New START treaty to the Senate with regard to this 
facility--I will quote it; the letter related to his intent to 
modernize and replace the triad:

       [To] accelerate to the extent possible, the design and 
     engineering phase of the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research 
     Replacement (CMRR) building and the Uranium Processing 
     Facility (UPF)--

  That is the facility for uranium processing at Oak Ridge, TN--

     [and to] request full funding, including on a multiyear basis 
     as appropriate, for the CMRR building and the UPF upon 
     completion of the design and engineering phase for such 
     facilities.

  We were concerned he would not request the funding in the outyears 
and that they would not accelerate the construction of these 
facilities. So he said he would. He would accelerate it to the extent 
possible and request full funding, including on a multiyear basis.
  The budget he submitted this year breaks that commitment to the 
Senate, and those Senators who voted for the treaty based upon these 
commitments are obviously going to be reevaluating their support for 
the treaty. There are things that can be done by the Congress, 
including our power of the purse, to deal with the issue, which I will 
hope to have time to speak to in a moment.

[[Page 1851]]

  Former Secretary Gates reflected on the Senate's reliance on these 
commitments when he said:

       This modernization program was very carefully worked out 
     between ourselves and the Department of Energy; and, frankly, 
     where we came out on that played a fairly significant role in 
     the willingness of the Senate to ratify the New START 
     agreement.

  For those who relied on the administration's commitment, they have 
been broken. We are right back to where we started from before the 
treaty was taken up.
  If you want to know specifically what the problems are, Dr. Charles 
McMillan, the Los Alamos Director said:

       Without CMRR, there is an identified path to meet the 
     Nation's requirement of 50 to 80 pits per year . . . the 
     budget reduction in FY13 compounds an already difficult set 
     of FY12 budget challenges and raises questions about whether 
     we can meet the pace of the modernization path outlined in 
     the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review.

  So we have a problem. Unless the President is willing to work with 
Members of Congress, and unless Members of Congress are willing to 
recognize that the Senate acted based upon some commitments the 
administration made and we have to keep our end of the bargain as well, 
we are going to find a huge problem with our modernization program, 
with our nuclear weapons program, and all that portends with respect to 
our deterrent capability.
  Now, let me turn to the other news of the week. The President's 
people confirmed that, yes, they are, in fact, studying whether we can 
reduce our nuclear warheads. Remember, we were at 1,500 for START, and 
an 80 percent reduction could take us down to 300. That is almost 
unthinkable, especially in today's environment where we have Russia and 
China with new production capacities. They are developing new nuclear 
weapons and producing them.
  We are not designing or developing any new nuclear weapons. We have 
no plans to do so, and we have no production capacity to make them, 
even if we did. The capacity to refurbish the old ones is now going to 
be delayed another 5 years. So why would we be thinking about reducing 
our warheads even further under these circumstances? Well, some people 
say, with a robust missile defense program, and by upgrading our 
conventional capabilities, we might think about this. The problem with 
these two assumptions is, this budget cuts both of them dramatically as 
well. We are not enhancing conventional capabilities, we are drawing 
them down, which, by the way, is what has caused the Russians to rely 
much more heavily on their nuclear program.
  What about the people who rely on our nuclear deterrence, the 32 
countries that rely on our nuclear umbrella? If they see this, my guess 
is they are going to look at what they might do to develop their own 
weapons: So much for nonproliferation. What about the idea that 
countries that now have close to 300 weapons could become peers of the 
United States? How is that for strategy, to have Pakistan, which will 
soon have more weapons than Britain does, to have as many nuclear 
weapons as the United States?
  That is not exactly the most stable place in the world today. Iran is 
developing its capability. North Korea already has it. The Chinese are 
already at roughly this level and improving their capability. Of 
course, Russia is much above it and talking about actually building 
more nuclear weapons, not fewer.
  The Deputy Defense Minister in Russia recently said, on February 6:

       I do not rule out that under certain circumstances, we will 
     have to boost, not cut our nuclear arsenal.

  Now we are talking about reducing ours. How are we going to convince 
the Russians to reduce theirs? I presume this is all going to be done 
in some kind of additional treaty with the Russians, not likely to 
occur.
  To me, what is most bothersome is that one of the arguments that 
nuclear opponents have always had is that we never want to get to a 
point where our doctrine, instead of holding hostage the military 
capability of any would-be adversary, would be to hold civilians 
hostage, innocent civilians. That is precisely what happens when 
instead of having enough nuclear weapons to cover all of the military 
targets of a potential adversary, we end up having only enough weapons 
to hold hostage the cities of our potential adversary and thus the 
civilian population of those countries.
  That is not a moral deterrent. As a result, I think we have to think 
very carefully about this prospect of reducing our nuclear weaponry. 
We, obviously, have to do a lot more work on this issue in the 
Congress. As I said, we have some means of expressing our views to the 
administration. I think it needs to think very carefully about this. To 
the extent that it thinks it is going to solve or going to help with 
our financial crisis, reducing the number of warheads, unfortunately, 
does not reduce a lot of expense. It is a little bit like the BRAC 
Commission. So that cannot be cited as a reason to do this.
  Finally, nor is there any prospect that we can serve as a moral 
example to other countries in the world by reducing our warheads to 
that level. The START treaty was supposed to be a new reset showing the 
world, through our moral example, the benefits of reducing warheads. 
Not a country in the world has reduced warheads since the signing of 
the New START treaty except the United States. Russia has not, China 
has not, Pakistan has not, our allies have not, and Iran and North 
Korea talk about expanding their programs.
  So this is based on a very shaky proposition of benefits which are 
very unlikely to occur, and it is fraught with dangers that we must 
debate in this country before the President simply unilaterally decides 
to make such a drastic change in American policy.
  We will have more time to discuss this in the future. Given the fact 
that these two events were kicked off this week--the President's budget 
and this latest announcement--I thought we should at least have a 
preliminary discussion of it on the floor of the Senate today.
  I yield to my colleague from Tennessee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          Marketplace Fairness

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I am here to talk about another 
subject, marketplace fairness. But before I do, I want to acknowledge 
the importance of what the Senator from Arizona has had to say and his 
leadership in the whole area of our nuclear doctrine, but especially in 
the area of nuclear weapons modernization.
  I think he is correct to say that the discussion about section 1251, 
which he described--which is the goal for the amount of money we need 
to modernize our nuclear weapons that we have in this country--may not 
have been the reason that the New START treaty passed. But I doubt the 
New START treaty would have been ratified without it. So it is an 
important part of that debate, and it is an important part of the 
debate today.
  I am one of those Senators who is right in the middle of the 
discussion. I worked with the Senator from Arizona on the last 
appropriations bill, and he worked harder than anyone to try to get the 
amount of appropriations closer to the 1251 number. We made some 
progress but still fell short. This represents a substantial challenge 
to us.
  I think he has put his finger on a very important problem. When we 
talk about reducing defense spending--or sequestering defense 
spending--this is the kind of thing that we end up having to deal with 
because, even in the last year, both the administration and the Senate 
Appropriations Committee moved some money from defense over to this 
account to try to increase the money for nuclear weapons modernization, 
and still there was not enough to meet the 1251 commitment that many of 
us agreed to at the time the New START treaty was announced.
  I thank him for his comments. I look forward to working with him on 
that important question.
  I would like to talk about marketplace fairness, which ought to be an

[[Page 1852]]

all-American subject in the Senate. It has turned out to be one that 
attracts strong bipartisan support. In November, Senator Enzi of 
Wyoming, the Democratic whip, Senator Durbin, and I introduced, along 
with seven other Senators--an equal number from both sides of the 
aisle--what we call the Marketplace Fairness Act to close a 20-year 
loophole that distorts the American marketplace by picking winners and 
losers, by subsidizing some businesses at the expense of other 
businesses, and subsidizing some taxpayers at the expense of other 
taxpayers.
  My colleagues and I keep talking about it because we strongly 
believe, as do many people across this country, that now is the time 
for Congress to act. Many Americans do not realize when they buy 
something online, which we increasingly do today, or order something 
through a catalog, which we have done for a long time, from a business 
outside of our own State that we still owe the State sales tax.
  So what we are talking about does not even rise to the dignity of a 
loophole. What we are talking about is a law that says you owe the 
State sales tax even if you buy it online and even if you buy it from a 
catalog from out of State. The law already says, if you buy it you owe 
it.
  This is not a problem only for big retailers such as Amazon and 
Walmart. It is a problem that is killing small businesses in Tennessee 
and across our country.
  Last month, Gov. Bill Haslam of Tennessee and I spoke with small 
business owners from Knoxville and Oak Ridge, Chattanooga, Johnson 
City, Nashville and Memphis about this problem. Every single one of 
those business owners shared personal stories about how this loophole 
has hurt their businesses.
  Basically, this is what they said happened. I remember the story of 
the Nashville Boot Company. I talked to the owner. The customer came 
into the store, tried on a boot, got advice from employees about the 
boot, and then went home to buy the product online in order to avoid 
paying the State sales tax, which the customer owes. The State law 
already says you owe the tax.
  The problem is, when you buy something at the Nashville Boot Company, 
or any other local store, the Nashville Boot Company collects the tax 
from you, adds it to your bill, and then sends the money to the State. 
That is how it has always worked. But if you buy the same boot or the 
same other item online or through a catalog, that business does not 
collect the State sales tax, even though you owe it. So the result is 
that similar businesses selling the same thing are being treated 
entirely different. That is not right, and it is not fair.
  Most Americans who have looked at the issue agree with that. So how 
did this happen? Well, in 1992, when most of us could not possibly have 
imagined how the Internet would have changed the way we shop for 
things, the Supreme Court said States could not require out-of-State 
catalogs or online sellers to do the same thing States require of 
stores up and down Main Street. What was the reason? It was too 
complicated for an online seller such as Amazon or a catalog seller to 
figure out what the sales tax would be in Tennessee, and then how much 
to add on Maryville, which is the town in which I live.
  Well, 20 years ago, I might have agreed with that. But today 
technology has made it easy for catalog sellers or online sellers to do 
the same thing Main Street sellers are required to do. Let me give an 
example.
  This morning I wanted to know what the weather was in my hometown of 
Maryville, TN. So I opened my computer, went to Google, I typed in my 
ZIP Code, I typed in ``weather.'' It told me the weather. The software 
now exists to provide to catalog sellers or online sellers the same 
sort of easy way to find out sales tax.
  If I were to buy a TV set online in Maryville, TN, I could just type 
in that city, the price, my name, and it would tell me the tax. I think 
it could even send the tax on to the State. In fact, it is about as 
easy--with this software that under our law is going to have to be 
provided by the State to out of state retailers--it is about as easy 
for them to find out what the tax is as it would be for the Nashville 
Boot Company when someone walks in and buys the boots in Nashville.
  Some people have asked why should Congress get involved because 
nothing is preventing States from going ahead and collecting those 
taxes. That is true. If I were to buy my boots online and not pay the 
sales tax, the Governor could come knocking on my door and add the 
sales tax onto the purchase price of the boots. But that is not going 
to happen in a practical world. I mean, the State cannot do that for 
millions of purchases that are made every year online; and no one wants 
the Governor and his agents knocking on their doors about that.
  So there is a simpler way to do it. Congress should make it easy for 
States to be able to do that because we should recognize the loophole 
is unfair, that it is anticompetitive, and it is distorting the 
marketplace.
  As a Republican Senator, I believe our party should oppose government 
policies that prefer some businesses over other businesses and some 
taxpayers over other taxpayers. I believe in States rights. Our bill 
gives States the right to make decisions for themselves. If Illinois or 
Tennessee or California wants to prefer some businesses over others, 
wants to prefer some taxpayers over others, they can do that. That is 
their State's right. But we ought to make it possible for them to make 
their own decision.
  A number of conservatives have been outspoken supporters for our 
legislation.
  At times, conservatives were reluctant to support it over the years, 
because it was complicated and because it ``sounded like a'' tax. Well, 
it is about a tax, but it is a tax that is already owed.
  Here is what Al Cardenas, chairman of the American Conservative 
Union, says. He supports our legislation and says:

       There is no more glaring example of misguided government 
     power than when taxes or regulations affect two similar 
     businesses completely differently.

  Former Governor Haley Barbour also supports our bill. He said:

       There is simply no longer a compelling reason for 
     government to continue giving online retailers special 
     treatment over small businesses.

  Governor Mitch Daniels of Indiana said a similar thing. Congressman 
Mike Pence of Indiana, a well-known conservative Congressman, said:

       I don't think Congress should be in the business of picking 
     winners and losers. Inaction by Congress today results in a 
     system that does pick winners and losers.

  That is what Congressman Mike Pence had to say.
  At CPAC this past weekend, in a gathering of conservative activists, 
there was a panel of leaders and industry experts talking about this 
issue. The general agreement was that Congress should act to solve the 
problem. The solution, the panelists said, should be fair, something 
people can understand, and meet the needs of States, consumers, and 
retailers.
  I believe our legislation accomplishes all these goals. In the first 
place, it is a rarity in Federal legislation, because it is only 10 
pages long. You can actually read it in a few minutes. It is fair 
because it gives States the right to decide for themselves how to 
enforce the States' own laws. It protects businesses and consumers by 
requiring States to adopt basic simplifications.
  It exempts small businesses that sell less than $500,000 in remote 
sales each year. That is very important. I used the example of the 
Nashville Boot Company. The owner sells online and he sells out the 
front door. He said never in his history has he sold more than $400,000 
worth of revenue from his boot sales online. And when he began, he was 
at least one of the larger online boot sellers. So the $500,000 
exemption for small businesses from this legislation should go a long 
way to meeting the concerns of those Senators on both sides who want to 
make sure we don't impose some sort of new rule on very small 
entrepreneurs.
  Another reason Congress should act now is that States and local 
governments will lose an estimated $23 billion

[[Page 1853]]

in uncollected sales tax revenue in 2012 because of this loophole. Here 
is what former Governor Jeb Bush had to say about that:

       It seems to me there has to be a way to tax sales done 
     online in the same way that sales are taxed in brick and 
     mortar establishments. My guess is that there would be 
     hundreds of millions of dollars that then could be used to 
     reduce taxes to fulfill campaign promises.

  Uncollected sales taxes could be used to pay for things our States 
need to pay for now. They could be used to reduce college tuition. They 
could be used to pay outstanding teachers. But they could also be used 
to reduce the sales tax rate or to reduce some other tax, or to avoid a 
tax altogether.
  In Tennessee, where we don't have a State income tax, we want to 
avoid one. ``State income tax'' are probably the three worst words in 
our vocabulary, and collecting tax on sales from everybody who owes it 
could not only reduce our sales tax but help us avoid a State income 
tax.
  Governor Haslam of Tennessee, who strongly supports our legislation, 
says:

       It's just too big of a piece of our economy now to treat it 
     like we did 20 years ago.

  Governor Haslam is right. Online sales set new records last year. And 
while the growth of e-commerce is very good news for our economy, our 
local businesses are getting hurt because they are not competing on a 
level playing field. That is why our legislation has the support of the 
National Governors Association, the National Conference of State 
Legislatures, the Conference of Mayors, and the National Association of 
Counties, to name a few.
  About the only ones left who are complaining about our legislation 
are taxpayers and businesses who are being subsidized by other 
taxpayers and businesses because the playing field isn't level.
  Amazon, a huge online seller, strongly supports our legislation. Over 
the years, they have opposed legislation like this. Now they believe we 
have solved the problem. Why? Because they say our bill makes it easy 
for consumers and easy for retailers to comply with State sales tax 
laws, and it helps States without raising taxes or new Federal 
spending.
  Some people will tell you we are talking about taxing the Internet. 
That is not true. Our legislation doesn't create a new tax. It doesn't 
tax the Internet. The Senate debated Internet access taxes several 
years ago. I was in the middle of the debate. It led to a moratorium on 
Internet access taxes. That moratorium is still in effect today.
  We are talking about State taxes that are already owed, and the 
moratorium on an Internet access tax will stay in place and not be 
altered.
  It is very hard to see how anyone can say with a straight face that 
giving States the right to collect taxes that are already owed is a tax 
increase.
  I have spent a lot of time talking with my colleagues about making 
the Senate work more effectively. One way to do that is to make sure 
Senators have an opportunity to thoroughly consider important 
legislation.
  On January 31, a few weeks ago, over 200 businesses and State and 
national trade associations sent a letter to the Senator from Montana, 
chairman of the Finance Committee, asking him to cosponsor our bill and 
to address the inequity this year. Senator Enzi and the bill's 
cosponsors have also urged the Senate Finance Committee to hold a 
hearing on our bill as soon as possible.
  The House Judiciary Committee has already held a hearing. Their 
hearing on November 30, gave House Members of both political parties 
the opportunity to learn more about the issue and express their support 
for it. I hope the Senate Finance Committee will seriously consider our 
request and soon find time so Senators can have the same opportunity 
that House Members have had.
  Ten years ago, the bills we considered to try to close this loophole 
simply weren't adequate to solve the problem. The legislation we 
introduced in November does solve the problem. It is simple, it is 
about States rights, it is about fairness, and it solves the problem. 
It doesn't cost the Federal Government a dime, it doesn't change 
Federal tax laws, and it doesn't require States to do anything. It 
simply gives States the right to decide for themselves how to enforce 
their own laws.
  This is a 20-year-old problem that only the Federal Government can 
solve. Unless we act, States will continue to be deprived of their 
right to enforce their own tax laws and businesses will not be allowed 
to compete on a level playing field.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
a letter to Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Hatch from the 12 Senate 
bipartisan cosponsors of this legislation of January 31 asking for a 
hearing on the Marketplace Fairness Act, quotes from conservatives on 
this issue, and another memo with quotes from the Conservative 
Political Action Conference.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                 Washington, DC, January 31, 2012.
     Hon. Max Baucus,
     Chairman, Committee on Finance, Dirksen Senate Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Orrin Hatch,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Finance, Dirksen Senate Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Hatch: We urge the 
     Finance Committee to hold a hearing on The Marketplace 
     Fairness Act (S. 1832), bipartisan legislation to allow 
     States to collect sales and use taxes on remote sales that 
     are already owed under State law. For the past 20 years, 
     States have been prohibited from enforcing their own sales 
     and use tax laws on sales by out-of-state, catalog and online 
     sellers due to the 1992 Supreme Court decision Quill 
     Corporation v. North Dakota. Congress has been debating 
     solutions for more than a decade, and some States have been 
     forced to take action on their own leading to greater 
     confusion and further distorting the marketplace.
       On November 9, 2011, five Democrats and five Republicans 
     introduced The Marketplace Fairness Act, which would give 
     states the right to decide for themselves whether to 
     collect--or not to collect--sales and use taxes on all remote 
     sales. Congressional action is necessary because the ruling 
     stated that the thousands of different state and local sales 
     tax rules were too complicated and onerous to require 
     businesses to collect sales taxes unless they have a physical 
     presence in the state.
       Today, if an out-of-state retailer refuses to collect sales 
     and use taxes, the burden is on the consumer to report the 
     tax on an annual income tax return or a separate state tax 
     form. However, most consumers are unaware of this legal 
     requirement and very few comply with the law. Consumers can 
     be audited and charged with penalties for failing to pay 
     sales and use taxes.
       Across the country, states and local governments are losing 
     billions in tax revenue already owed. On average, States 
     depend on sales and use taxes for 20% of their annual 
     revenue. According to the National Conference of State 
     Legislatures, this sales tax loophole will cost states and 
     local governments $23 billion in avoided taxes this year 
     alone. At a time when State budgets are under increasing 
     pressure, Congress should give States the ability to enforce 
     their own laws.
       The Quill decision also put millions of local retailers at 
     a competitive disadvantage by exempting remote retailers from 
     tax collection responsibility. Local retailers in our 
     communities are required to collect sales taxes, while online 
     and catalog retailers selling in the same state are not 
     required to collect any of these taxes. This creates a tax 
     loophole that subsidizes some taxpayers at the expense of 
     others and some businesses over others.
       State and local governments, retailers, and taxation 
     experts from across the country are urging Congress to pass 
     The Marketplace Fairness Act because it gives states the 
     right to decide what works best for their local governments, 
     residents, and businesses. Given our fiscal constraints, we 
     should allow states to enforce their own tax laws and make 
     sure that state and local governments and businesses are not 
     left behind in tax reform discussions. The House Judiciary 
     Committee's hearing on this single issue on November 30, 
     2011, demonstrated the growing demand to close this loophole, 
     and your committee would provide the best public forum for an 
     open debate in the Senate on the merits of this important 
     policy issue.
       The Finance Committee is in the best position to shape the 
     discussion on state and local taxation this year, 
     particularly on sales and use taxes on remote sales. We urge 
     the Committee to hold a hearing on the implications of The 
     Marketplace Fairness Act at the earliest date possible. Thank 
     you in advance for your consideration of this request.
           Sincerely,
         Michael B. Enzi; Lamar Alexander; John Boozman; Roy 
           Blunt; Bob Corker;

[[Page 1854]]

           Richard J. Durbin; Tim Johnson; Jack Reed; Sheldon 
           Whitehouse; Mark L. Pryor; Benjamin L. Cardin.
                                  ____


                   Conservative Voices on E-fairness

       ``The only complete answer to this problem is a federal 
     solution that treats all retailers and all states the same.''
       --Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, announcing that 
     Amazon.com will begin collecting sales tax in Indiana 
     beginning in 2014, January 9, 2012.
                                  ____

       ``I don't think Congress should be in the business of 
     picking winners and losers. Inaction by Congress today 
     results in a system today that does pick winners and 
     losers.''
       --Representative Mike Pence, House Judiciary Committee, 
     hearing on ``Constitutional Limitations on States' Authority 
     to Collect Sales Taxes in E-Commerce,'' November 30, 2011.
                                  ____

       ``. . . e-commerce has grown, and there is simply no longer 
     a compelling reason for government to continue giving online 
     retailers special treatment over small businesses who reside 
     on the Main Streets across Mississippi and the country. The 
     time to level the playing field is now . . .''
       --Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, letter to Sens. Enzi 
     and Alexander endorsing S. 1832, the Marketplace Fairness 
     Act, November 29, 2011.
                                  ____

       ``The National Governors Association applauds your efforts 
     to level the playing field between Main Street retailers and 
     online sellers by introducing S. 1832, the `Marketplace 
     Fairness Act.' This common sense approach will allow states 
     to collect the taxes they are owed, help businesses comply 
     with different state laws, and provide fair competition 
     between retailers that will benefit consumers.''
       --Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam and Washington Governor 
     Christine Gregoire, National Governors Association letter to 
     Sens. Durbin, Enzi, Tim Johnson and Alexander endorsing S. 
     1832, the Marketplace Fairness Act, November 28, 2011.
                                  ____

       ``When it comes to sales tax, it is time to address the 
     area where prejudice is most egregious--our policy towards 
     Internet sales. At issue is the federal government exempting 
     some Internet transactions from sales taxes while requiring 
     the remittance of sales taxes for identical sales made at 
     brick and mortar locations. It is an outdated set of policies 
     in today's super information age, when families every day 
     make decisions to purchase goods and services online or in 
     person. Moreover, it's unfair, punitive to some small 
     businesses and corporations and a boon for others.''
       --Al Cardenas, chairman of the American Conservative Union, 
     ``The Chief Threat to American Competitiveness: Our Tax 
     Code,'' National Review Online, November 8, 2011.
                                  ____

       ``It seems to me there has to be a way to tax sales done 
     online in the same way that sales are taxed in brick and 
     mortar establishments. My guess is that there would be 
     hundreds of millions of dollars that then could be used to 
     reduce taxes to fulfill campaign promises.''
       --Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, letter to Florida 
     Governor Rick Scott, January 2, 2011.
                                  ____

       ``The truth is, Amazon's unfair sales tax exemption has 
     seriously penalized its competition, which is mostly smaller, 
     locally owned retail shops. It has hurt job creation and 
     economic growth. It has resulted in government superseding 
     market and consumer preferences. And it has left Main Streets 
     across the country barren.''
       --Stephen DeMaura, Americans for Job Security, ``Amazon's 
     Argument Falls Apart,'' RedState.com, September 14, 2011.
                                  ____

       ``The mattress maker in Connecticut is willing to compete 
     with the company in Massachusetts, but does not like it if 
     out-of-state businesses are, in practical terms, subsidized; 
     that's what the non-tax amounts to. Local concerns are 
     complaining about traffic in mattresses and books and records 
     and computer equipment which, ordered through the Internet, 
     come in, so to speak, duty free.''
       --William F. Buckley, National Review Editor at Large, 
     ``Get that Internet Tax Right,'' National Review Online, 
     October 19, 2001.
                                  ____

       ``Current policy makes the sales tax a distortion. Current 
     policy gives remote sellers a price advantage, allowing them 
     to sell their goods and services without collecting the sales 
     tax owed by the purchaser. This price difference functions 
     like a subsidy. It distorts the allocation between the two 
     forms of selling. The subsidy from not collecting tax due 
     means a larger share of sales will take place remotely than 
     would occur in a free, undistorted market.''
       --Hanns Kuttner, Hudson Institute, report on e-fairness 
     entitled ``Future Marketplace: Free and Fair,'' November 29, 
     2011.
                                  ____

       ``Some opponents will argue against placing another burden 
     on businesses and especially on small business. 
     Unfortunately, today the burden is on those retailers who are 
     trying to compete against someone who isn't collecting the 
     tax. That 6-10% government mandated price advantage is the 
     real burden on small business. However, all of the bills 
     introduced in this Congress protect small businesses by 
     excluding the smallest, by requiring states to simplify their 
     laws and processes, and by requiring states to provide 
     software.''
       --Indiana State Senator Luke Kenley, testimony before the 
     House Judiciary Committee, hearing on ``Constitutional 
     Limitations on States' Authority to Collect Sales Taxes in E-
     Commerce,'' November 30, 2011.
                                  ____

       ``If action is not taken and Quill is allowed to remain the 
     law of the land, then are we not picking winners and losers 
     within the retail sector? How is a retailer, such as Bed, 
     Bath and Beyond, J.C. Penney or Wal-Mart supposed to compete 
     with Amazon.com, Blue Nile.com or Overstocked.com [sic] when 
     the latter enjoy anywhere from an 8-10% discount due to not 
     having to collect sales tax. This current law and policy 
     discourages the continued development of the very brick and 
     mortar establishments that support our state and local 
     communities in numerous ways. This issue of fairness should 
     be addressed and I believe that H.R. 3179 does that.''
       --Texas State Representative John Otto, testimony before 
     the House Judiciary Committee, hearing on ``Constitutional 
     Limitations on States' Authority to Collect Sales Taxes in E-
     Commerce,'' November 30, 2011.
                                  ____


              Support for Marketplace Fairness Act at CPAC

       Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) panel 
     demonstrates broad support among conservatives for 
     Congressional action on state sales tax policy choice.
       On Saturday, February 11, 2012, a panel of conservative 
     leaders and industry experts at the CPAC conference discussed 
     the issue of creating a Constitutional framework for 
     collecting sales tax online. The discussion demonstrated the 
     strong consensus that Congress should act to establish a 
     fair, national approach that will address the needs of 
     retailers, states and consumers. Conclusions from the 
     panelists:
       ``The principles that we agree to as conservatives is 
     generally: limited government, that taxes should be low, 
     spending should restrained, no infringement on personal 
     liberties and that elected officials certainly shouldn't be 
     picking winners and losers in the marketplace.
       ``When [conservatives] apply these principles to this issue 
     of e-fairness, we come up with the conclusion that the system 
     is antiquated, flawed and should be replaced.''
       --Steve DeMaura, President, Americans for Job Security.
                                  ____

       ``So, if we are going to change the system, we should make 
     sure that it's something simple, something understandable and 
     something fair across the board. Whatever burdens the system 
     puts on online businesses should also be put on brick and 
     mortar businesses. States should not be allowed to collect 
     until they accept basic rules about what gets taxed and 
     where.
       ``The bill before Congress now achieves this better than 
     previous bills.''
       --Joe Henchman, Vice-President of Legal and State Projects, 
     Tax Foundation.
                                  ____

       ``If a consumer changes their behavior because of 
     government policy, this is not a free market result. It's the 
     result of the government and the government's policy. That's 
     why you have to create a level playing field between the 
     seller who has to collect the sales tax. . . and those who 
     don't.''
       --Hanns Kuttner, Visiting Fellow, Hudson Institute.
                                  ____

       ``We think the Congress should act. The time is right to 
     act, for Congress to get this done and allow the states to 
     make fiscal policy choices on their own--as a matter of 
     fairness. As an added detail, there needs to be fairness not 
     only between offline and online, but among online sellers and 
     we certainly support that approach.''
       --Paul Misener--Vice President for Global Public Policy, 
     Amazon.
                                  ____



   why conservatives support passage of the marketplace fairness act

       The Marketplace Fairness Act protects states' rights to 
     make their own policy choices.
       The federal government should not prevent states from 
     collecting taxes that are already owed.
       Government should not pick winners and loses among various 
     businesses. A new federal framework will level the playing 
     field and make it easier for small businesses and consumers 
     to comply with the law.

  Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor, and I suggest 
the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page 1855]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, we have on the floor of the Senate the 
Transportation bill. You might wonder why a bill that is the No. 1 jobs 
bill that we can do here is moving so slowly. You might wonder. Any 
normal person would wonder why a bill that is so popular that it has 
everyone from the AFL-CIO to the Chamber of Commerce supporting it is 
moving so slowly. You might wonder why it is moving so slowly, since 
the transportation authorization for all of our highway and transit 
projects expires in about 1 month. You might wonder why it is moving so 
slowly. Why isn't anyone here? What is going on?
  Yesterday, I came here and said I didn't see a clear path forward for 
this bill. It is very disturbing, and I will tell you why it is so 
disturbing. And that is that when you look at the construction area of 
our economy, it is still down. We have 1.5 million unemployed 
construction workers. If you think in your mind's eye what that is, I 
have a picture here of a stadium during the Super Bowl. You could see 
this stadium. I want you to picture everyone sitting in this stadium as 
an unemployed construction worker and think about 15 stadiums full. 
Yesterday, I said it was 10; that was incorrect. I stand corrected 
today. It is 15 stadiums full of unemployed construction workers 
praying that we pass this bill, because they are unemployed and this 
bill will create or save up to 2.8 million jobs. It will create or save 
1.8 million jobs and create up to 1 million jobs.
  Yesterday, I said I didn't see a clear path forward. Today, I see a 
path forward. I really do. There has been some progress overnight. But 
it isn't as clear as it should be. We asked both sides of the aisle, we 
said, Can you come up with amendments that you feel compelled to offer 
to this bill? And try to keep them related to transportation. Well, the 
bad news is there are a lot of extraneous amendments that were filed.
  First and foremost, birth control. The Blunt amendment. Not only does 
it say that any employer could say they have a moral objection, it 
doesn't even have to be a religious objection. Any employer. So if I am 
an employer and I employ 100 people, and let's say I believe in prayer 
over medicine, I can then deny health care to all my employees. This 
makes no sense at all. Senator Blunt says, well, you could take it to 
court. Oh, sure. Some low-paid employee is going to take it to court.
  So we have to deal with this birth control amendment and health care 
amendment on a highway bill. As I said yesterday, first when I saw the 
birth control amendment, I thought maybe it says you can't take your 
birth control pills when you are on a Federal highway. What is going on 
here? There is no relation. It is bizarre to offer these unrelated 
amendments.
  Then we have an amendment on Egypt. Now, frankly, I am ready to vote 
on the birth control. I am happy to vote on an Egypt amendment, 
although I believe--this is my own view as a member of the Foreign 
Relations Committee--that when we have such delicate negotiations going 
on over the safety of our citizens who are being held there, we have to 
be very careful not to interfere in that important backdoor diplomacy 
that is going on. But we have one Senator who is holding up everything 
because he insists that we have to take a stand on Egypt even though we 
have Americans in danger over there.
  My Republican friends have to understand what is at stake. The 
business community, the labor community, everyone is in favor of this 
transportation bill, and we are going to have to face votes that are 
unrelated.
  There is an idea to repeal a very important environmental regulation 
that will clean up the pollution from boilers, pollution that is 
dangerous. It is mercury. It causes brain damage. It is arsenic. It is 
lead. And as I said yesterday--and I don't know whether you have had 
this experience. I have never in the history of my electoral career, 
which spans a long time, had anyone come up to me and say, Please, 
Barbara, we really need more arsenic in our air, we need arsenic in our 
water, we need more lead, we need more mercury. People don't want it. 
Why on Earth would they now come forward in a highway bill and repeal a 
very important rule that will make our families healthier? That is what 
my Republican friends are putting out there. They want to drill off our 
coast, even though it might interfere with the fishing industry, the 
tourism industry, the recreation industry.
  I would say to my colleagues with a hand of friendship, we are happy 
to look at transportation-related amendments. We can work those 
through. My staff and Senator Inhofe's staff have a very close working 
relationship, and we can take these relevant amendments and sit down 
and work through them. But obviously, if there is going to be a series 
of amendments on birth control and foreign policy matters and 
extraneous matters, it makes it very difficult. It diverts our 
attention from what is at stake. The clock is ticking on us. This 
transportation authorization we have expires in March.
  Here is where we are: We are going to have a cloture vote on the 
various titles to the bill, the Finance title, the Banking title, the 
Commerce Committee title. I want to praise all of the committees. They 
have done their work. Four committees, including ours, the EPW, the 
Environment and Public Works Committee, we have all done our work. We 
have done our jobs. We did what we had to do. We passed out the 
legislation. Now let's marry all the pieces and get going with 
legitimate amendments and get this done. Get this done.
  I urge colleagues to vote yes on cloture. I know some have problems 
with one of the titles, and we can amend that. If you don't like 
something in that title, we can amend it. And if we don't make cloture 
on the first round, we will come up with a path forward after that. 
But, please, it won't work if we have all of these bizarre, extraneous 
amendments. I am not saying the amendments are bizarre. Some are. But 
they are extraneous and they don't belong on this bill.
  I want to take a minute to remind my colleagues how popular the 
transportation authorization is. We are going to show you the ad that 
is being run. But President Reagan was very clear on why it was so 
important to pass a transportation bill. Here is what he said:

       The state of our transportation system affects our 
     commerce, our economy, and our future.

  He said, clearly, this program is an investment in tomorrow that we 
must make today. And there is a very good coalition out there, a broad 
coalition taking out ads on the radio. After they quote Ronald Reagan, 
they say:

       It's time for leadership again, for new investments in 
     transportation, to keep America moving and jobs growing. Call 
     Congress. Tell them to pass the highway and transit bill and, 
     once again, make transportation job number one.

  This is out on the radio airwaves. I am very grateful that it is 
happening. I really, really am. Also, we have ads in the various 
newspapers. Then there is another one that marries up two Presidents' 
statements, President Reagan and President Clinton. They quote 
President Clinton by saying:

       By modernizing and building roads, bridges, transit 
     systems, and railroads, we can usher in two decades of 
     unparalleled growth.

  Then they also quote Ronald Reagan again. He says:

       A network of highways and mass transit has enabled our 
     commerce to thrive.

  At the end it says:

       Tell Congress to pass the highway and transit bill and make 
     transportation job number one.

  So here we sit--and I want to show you. I don't know if people can 
see this. I hope you can see this. This is an ad that is running all 
over today: President Reagan stood up for public transportation. Will 
you? Then they quote him and they say: A recovering economy is exactly 
the time to rebuild America. President Reagan knew it in 1983 when he 
signed into law dedicating motor fuel revenues to public transportation 
for years to come. But now the House--and they talk about the problem 
with the House bill and they tell

[[Page 1856]]

the House to fix their proposal, which we hope they are doing as we 
speak.
  This is a very important endeavor. Again, I have been around a long 
time. I have never seen the likes of the coalition we have seen. We 
have a coalition--it is the broadest coalition I have ever seen in my 
life in every single State, whether it is Ohio or California or New 
York or Alabama or Nevada or Kentucky. I am telling you, this is a 
strong coalition. And this is what they wrote to us:

       In 2011, political leaders--Republican and Democrat, House, 
     Senate, and the administration--stated a multi-year surface 
     transportation bill is important for job creation and 
     economic recovery. We urge you to follow words with action: 
     Make Transportation Job #1 and move legislation immediately 
     in the House and Senate to invest in the roads, bridges, and 
     transit systems that are the backbone of the U.S. economy, 
     its businesses large and small, and communities of all sizes.

  That is basically from the letter signed by over 1,000 organizations.
  I see my friend from California is here. She may be speaking on this 
topic or another topic, and I am going to yield to her momentarily.
  I think it is important to take a look at the organizations I talked 
about to give you a sense of it. First of all, every State in the Union 
is listed on this letter.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of the 
letter from over 1,000 organizations.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
                                                 January 25, 2012.
       To the Members of the U.S. House and Senate: As Congress 
     embarks on a new legislative session, we, the undersigned 
     companies and organizations, urge you to Make Transportation 
     Job #1 in 2012 and pass federal highway, transit and safety 
     legislation that, at a minimum, maintains investment levels 
     before the current law expires on March 31. The long-delayed 
     reauthorization of federal highway and public transportation 
     programs is a major piece of unfinished business that can 
     provide a meaningful boost to the U.S. economy and its 
     workers and already has broad-based support.
       To grow, the United States must invest. There are few 
     federal efforts that rival the potential of critical 
     transportation infrastructure investments for sustaining and 
     creating jobs and economic activity over the short term.
       Maintaining--and ideally increasing--federal funding for 
     road, bridge, public transportation and safety investments 
     can sustain and create jobs and economic activity in the 
     short-term, and improve America's export and travel 
     infrastructure, offer new economic growth opportunities, and 
     make the nation more competitive over the long-term. Program 
     reform would make the dollars stretch even further: reducing 
     the time it takes transportation projects to get from start 
     to finish, encouraging public-private partnerships and use of 
     private capital, increasing accountability for using federal 
     funds to address the highest priority needs, and spurring 
     innovation and technology deployment.
       We recognize there are challenges in finding the resources 
     necessary to adequately fund such a measure. However, with 
     the economic opportunities that a well-crafted measure could 
     afford and emerging political consensus for advancing such an 
     effort, we believe it is time for all involved parties to 
     come together and craft a final product.
       In 2011, political leaders--Republican and Democrat, House, 
     Senate and the Administration--stated a multi-year surface 
     transportation bill is important for job creation and 
     economic recovery. We urge you to follow words with action: 
     Make Transportation Job #1 and move legislation immediately 
     in the House and Senate to invest in the roads, bridges, 
     transit systems that are the backbone of the U.S. economy, 
     its businesses large and small, and communities of all sizes.
         From over 1,000 organizations, led by U.S. Chamber.

  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I am going to name a few of them: the 
American Composite Manufacturers Association, American Concrete 
Pavement Association, American Hotel and Lodging Association, American 
Nursery and Landscape Association, American Society of Civil Engineers, 
Associated General Contractors of America, National Society of 
Professional Engineers, National Resources Defense Council, North 
American Die Casting Association, Pacific Northwest Waterways 
Association, Reconnecting America, Retail Industry Leaders Association, 
Transportation for America, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, U.S. Travel 
Association, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners, Laborers 
International, International Bridge, Tunnel and Turnpike Association--
it goes on and on, a thousand groups representing Democrats, 
Republicans, Independents.
  I am so grateful to them. I speak to them, frankly, a couple of times 
a week to tell them what we are doing here to move this important bill 
forward. I told them yesterday they needed to contact every single 
Senator in this Chamber to let them know what is at stake in their 
State.
  In closing, I will say this: Sometimes when we act we not only do 
something good, which this bill will do--it is a reform bill, it is a 
great bill, and it adds to the TIFIA Program, an idea that came out of 
Los Angeles and is going to create up to 1 million new jobs while 
protecting 1.8 million jobs--we do many good things. But also when we 
do this, we stop bad things from happening. What will happen if we fail 
to act by March 31 and there is no action to fill that trust fund, 
which our bill does? There will be over 600,000 jobs lost.
  Later today, at a time when others are not here, I will go State by 
State. Here it is. ``Estimated jobs lost.'' There would be a 35-percent 
cut in transportation funding if we do not pass this bill and the 
finance title that raises the funds necessary. We will break this down. 
Let me tell you, it is an ugly picture for us to have to go home and 
face the music at home and tell construction workers that even though 
we have 1.5 million unemployed construction workers, that is going to 
go up by 600,000 jobs.
  We cannot afford to let this bill stop. I will not let this bill go 
away. I will assert every right I have as a Senator from California, 
where we have 63,000 of these jobs at stake. I am going to be here on 
the Senate floor. We are going to get this bill done one way or 
another. We stand ready to work with our colleagues, to work with our 
Republican friends, to go through these amendments that are relevant 
and urge them to backtrack on these very unrelated amendments.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). The Senator from California is 
recognized.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I thank my friend and colleague, the 
distinguished chair of the committee, for her work in managing this 
bill. This is a huge bill. It has many titles. It is a complex bill. It 
is a totally vital bill. Both on this floor and off this floor, she has 
been advocating and pushing and doing what is necessary. I want to say 
thank you very much to my friend and colleague, Senator Boxer.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator, and we are working on that too.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, let me describe what happened in 
2008 in Chatsworth, CA. On September 12, 2008, Metrolink commuter train 
111, carrying more than 200 people, departed the Chatsworth train 
station about 4:20 p.m. Heading west, the commuter train ran through a 
train signal at 44 miles per hour at about 4:22 p.m. and 2 seconds. The 
train signal showed red, for stop.
  At the same time, a Union Pacific freight train, weighing four times 
the weight of the commuter train, was heading east on the same track. 
It exited a tunnel with little time to react to the oncoming commuter 
train. Both trains were on the same track going in opposite directions, 
each going roughly 40 miles per hour. The trains collided head on.
  The carnage was unspeakable; 25 people died. Their bodies, many torn 
to pieces, had to be extracted from heaps of steel and wreckage.
  This is the scene. This is the commuter train. This is the freight 
train. This is the car that essentially chopped apart 25 people.
  As Superior Court Judge Peter Lichtman wrote:

       These were teachers, Federal, State, municipal employees, 
     business owners, executives, artists and students that were 
     all lost on that day.
       Many families were left without any provider, not to 
     mention the loss of a mom or dad.


[[Page 1857]]


  Another 101 people were injured, many of them very seriously. 
Volunteers and rescue crews worked valiantly to pull them from the 
wreckage.
  You can see this overturned train here. You see the rescue crews. It 
was a terrible, terrible scene.
  Judge Peter Lichtman described many of these injuries. Passengers 
seated at table seats suffered ``horrible abdominal injuries that could 
not be medically resolved.'' ``All of the bench passengers were 
launched head [or] face first into a bulkhead.'' ``Almost all of these 
passengers suffered traumatic brain injuries to varying degrees.''
  Let me explain how and why this happened. Seconds before the crash, 
the train's engineer was text-messaging on his cell phone. He was the 
only personnel aboard that train when he looked down to send a text to 
a teenage boy. This was one of 21 text messages sent by this engineer 
this day. He received 20 secretaries messages and made four outgoing 
telephone calls, all while he was driving a large commuter train.
  According to the NTSB's comprehensive report on the crash, this 
behavior distracted the engineer and caused the collision. It led to 
the train running red signals. In fact, NTSB found the passenger 
train's engineer never even hit the brakes before impact. NTSB found 
that a crash avoidance system would have stopped the train and 
prevented this disaster, but, unfortunately, the tracks in Los Angeles 
had and have no such system nor do most tracks in the United States.
  As a result of this accident, 25 people died and 100 people were 
injured. The statistics about the Chatsworth disaster do not begin to 
tell the story. Perhaps I might be able to better put into words what 
is at stake in this debate in one of the votes we will be taking about 
positive train control by telling you a little bit about Kari Hsieh and 
Atul Vyas.
  Eighteen-year-old Kari did not want to trouble her father to drive 
her from the family's Newhall home to a restaurant in Simi Valley, so 
she took the train. In October 2008 she became one of many young people 
killed in this crash. She was just starting her senior year at Hart 
High School and looking forward to a career in medicine, according to 
her family. She played tennis for the school and was well liked by her 
classmates who described her as warm and caring. ``Anyone who knew her 
can remember her by her beaming smile and infectious laugh,'' one of 
her classmates told the Los Angeles Times.
  Here she is.
  ``She had such a positive outlook on life and always had something 
nice to say about everyone,'' wrote a parent of a varsity tennis 
player. ``I feel blessed to have been part of her life.''
  Then there is Atul Vyas, a student at Claremont McKenna College, who 
was studying to become a doctor. At 20 years old, he was in the process 
of applying to graduate programs at MIT, Duke, and Harvard. He scored 
in the top 1 percent of his medical school entry exams, but he was 
having trouble answering one question on applications: Describe a 
hardship you have overcome.
  ``He said `I have not had any.' I have had a blessed life,'' 
explained his father. Atul never finished that application nor did he 
reach his goal of medical school. He took Metrolink train 111 home to 
visit his family as he did every 2 to 3 weeks, but he never made it 
home because an engineer was texting.
  As the NTSB found, these young lives and the lives of 23 others could 
have been saved if crash avoidance technology, known as positive train 
control, had been in place. In 2008, Congress finally required 
railroads to deploy positive train control, which the National 
Transportation Safety Board had placed on its top 10 most wanted safety 
technologies listed since 1990. This body gave the railroad industry 7 
years to deploy positive train control crash avoidance systems 
nationwide. The leaders of Southern California's Metrolink, Union 
Pacific, and BNSF railroads each committed to deploy positive train 
control systems in Los Angeles years earlier than the national mandate. 
These railroads are still on track to deploy the system next year.
  I met yesterday with John Fenton, the new CEO of Metrolink, and Matt 
Rose, the CEO of BNSF. They both indicated their desire to make their 
highest priority positive train control, and I thank them. Metrolink is 
going to go ahead with it as soon as possible regardless. BNSF told us 
if they delay--if this bill delays it, they may take an additional 
year.
  I salute both of them for their support of this program. However, I 
am very alarmed that others in the railroad industry and in Congress 
diminish the value of positive train control.
  As a matter of fact, the bill we will most likely be voting on--in 
one of its titles, the commerce title--delays positive train control 
until 2018. The House bill delays it until 2020. When the technology is 
there, despite its complications of installation, when you have high-
risk lines, freight lines and commuter lines traveling in opposite 
directions on the same track, and when you have human frailty--in this 
case one engineer texting aboard a commuter train of a couple of 
hundred people--the only answer to assure the safety to the commuter 
trains of this Nation, in my view, is positive train control. I view it 
as an emergency need. The NTSB views it as an emergency need.
  According to them, scores of deadly accidents across the country 
since 1970 could have been prevented if positive train control in 
effect were installed. I agree strongly with the NTSB Chairman, Deborah 
Hersman, whom I happen to know, who recently wrote to the Congress 
that:

       The NTSB will be disappointed if installation of this vital 
     safety system to prevent fatalities and injuries is delayed.

  The need to extend the 2015 positive train control deployment 
deadline has not been demonstrated. The Senate Commerce Committee has 
held no hearings on this issue and no published reports investigating 
this question have recommended an extension, according to the NTSB 
experts.
  Furthermore, every railroad has submitted an approved plan to meet 
the 2015 deadline to the Federal Railroad Administration, and the 
administration is preparing a report to Congress on positive train 
control deployment progress this year, which should provide us guidance 
on that effort to date.
  I think Congress should consider the FRA's findings carefully before 
scaling back or delaying a system that can prevent crashes such as 
Chatsworth. And there have been three prior crashes that have taken 
lives on this Metrolink system. These are not isolated. They happen. We 
now have a technical system that can be 100 percent proof-positive to 
provide safety. So I am very concerned that without a national 
strategy, deployment of positive train control in southern California 
will become more difficult. There will be excuses, and there will be a 
lessening of effort. And both BNSF and Metrolink have made very strong 
efforts to comply with 2015. Why change it? The Los Angeles area is a 
huge commuter area, and when it is not necessary to change it, why do 
it? The national requirement to deploy the system by 2015 creates a 
substantial incentive for industry to develop new and cost-effective 
technology that lowers the deployment costs for everyone, including 
Metrolink.
  The national strategy, which will hopefully be presented in the FRA's 
2012 report to Congress, could play a significant role in addressing 
positive train control deployment barriers. This system can prevent 
human error from causing collisions, dangerous releases of hazardous 
materials, and passengers and train crews from being killed and 
injured.
  So I make these remarks today in the hopes that there will be support 
in this body for the 2015 deadline. And I really appeal to the 
committee that right now it is locked in at 2018--we have tried, we 
have talked to the staff, and we have been rejected--to understand that 
what they are delaying is a device that saves lives, and there is no 
excuse for so doing. The case has not been made to do so. The hearings 
have not taken place, there was no markup to add this, and I strongly 
believe it should not be delayed in this bill. I hope Members will 
listen. I hope they

[[Page 1858]]

will respond. Hundreds of thousands of commuters are at risk until this 
system is put into place.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. PAUL. Madam President, dependency often leads to indolence, 
lethargy, a sense of entitlement, and ultimately to a state of 
insolence. Egypt has been receiving welfare from the United States for 
nearly 40 years. America has lavished $60 billion on Egypt. They react 
with insolence and disregard by detaining 19 of our U.S. citizens. For 
several months now these citizens have been essentially held hostage, 
unable to leave Egypt. They are held on the pretense of trumped-up 
political charges, held in order to display them in show trials to 
placate the mob.
  The United States can respond in one of two ways: We can hang our 
head low; we can take the tack of Jimmy Carter; we can try to placate 
Egypt with concessions and offer them bribes in the form of more 
government aid; or America can respond with strength.
  Today the President should call the Egyptian Ambassador in and send 
him home with a message, a message that America will not tolerate any 
country holding U.S. citizens as political prisoners. Congress should 
act today to tell Egypt that we will no longer send our annual welfare 
check to them; that this year's $1.8 billion is not on the way. America 
could put Egyptian travelers on notice that the welcome sign in America 
will temporarily expire unless the Egyptian Government lets our people 
go; or America could hang her head, promise to continue the foreign aid 
to Egypt, and apologize for supporting democracy. Which will it be?
  So far, the signal sent to Egypt from the President and from the 
Senate has been weak or counterproductive. In late January the 
President's Under Secretary of State said to the administration that he 
wanted to provide more immediate benefits to Egypt; let's speed up the 
welfare checks. The President's budget this week still continues to 
include $1.8 billion for Egypt without a single word of rebuke or any 
demand that our U.S. citizens be released. The President went one step 
further when he actually increased foreign aid to the Middle East in 
his budget, and now the Senate refuses to hold a single vote to spend 
10 minutes discussing why U.S. citizens are being detained in Egypt.
  One might excuse the Egyptians for not believing we will cut their 
aid. You cannot lead from behind. Senate leadership appears unwilling 
to address this issue head-on, so the Senate won't act to help our 
citizens this week.
  I hope that when Senators return home and talk to their constituents 
in their States, their constituents will ask these questions: Senator, 
why do you continue to send our taxpayer money to Egypt? Why do you 
continue to send our money to Egypt when they detain our citizens? 
Senator, why do you continue to send billions of dollars to Egypt when 
12 million Americans are out of work? Senator, why do you continue to 
send welfare to foreign countries when our bridges are falling down and 
in desperate need of repair? Senator, how can you continue to flush our 
taxpayer money down a foreign drain when we are borrowing $40,000 a 
second? The money we send to Egypt we must first borrow from China. 
That is insanity, and it must end. Finally, Mr. Senator, I hope your 
constituents ask you this when you go home: When working families are 
suffering under rising food prices, when working families are suffering 
because gas prices have doubled, how can you justify sending our hard-
earned taxpayer dollars to Egypt, to countries that openly show their 
disdain for us?
  When will we learn? You can't buy friendship, and you can't convince 
authoritarians to love freedom with welfare checks.
  America needs to send a clear and unequivocal message to Egypt that 
we will not tolerate the detention of U.S. citizens on trumped-up 
political charges or otherwise and that we will not continue to send 
welfare checks to Egypt, to a country that commits an injustice to 
American citizens.
  I ask unanimous consent today to set aside the pending amendment and 
call up my amendment on Egypt that would end all foreign aid to Egypt 
if our U.S. citizens are not released within 30 days. I think this is 
an important amendment which deserves discussion, and Egypt deserves to 
hear a message from the Senate that we will not tolerate this.
  I ask unanimous consent to bring up amendment No. 1541.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I want to 
be very clear here that Members on both sides of the aisle, Republicans 
and Democrats, have very strong feelings that this amendment should not 
be brought up at this time. We need to be smart and strategic when we 
have people in harm's way in other countries.
  Further, I think it is important to note what Senator Leahy has said 
several times, which is already in law--we have certain conditions 
placed upon aid to Egypt, and I think that needs to be understood and 
explored.
  So because there is so much objection to this amendment being brought 
up at this time, I will object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. If it is appropriate, I would like to ask unanimous 
consent to speak as in morning business for about 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                               The Budget

  Mr. GRASSLEY. If a Republican like this Senator says that the 
President's 2013 budget doesn't pass the smell test, I would probably 
have half the country questioning my judgment. But I would like to 
quote the Washington Post's Dana Milbank's comments on the President's 
budget. This was recently in the Washington Post, these words by a 
columnist who I think is generally pretty favorable toward President 
Obama as a person and his administration, but there is great 
disagreement by this columnist about the President's budget.

       The White House budget for fiscal 2013 begins with a broken 
     promise, adds some phony policy assumptions, throws in a few 
     rosy forecasts, and omits all kinds of painful decisions . . 
     . the proposal would add $1 trillion more to the national 
     debt than Obama contemplated a few months ago.

  Dana Milbank added that the Obama budget ``is a nonstarter on Capitol 
Hill, where even Senate Democrats have no plans to take it up. It is, 
in other words, exactly what it was supposed to be: a campaign 
document.''
  So with that background from somebody who is not a Member of 
Congress, not a Republican or Democrat--I don't know how he might be 
registered--I would like to give my views on the President's budget, 
but just so that people know it isn't just Republicans who disagree 
with the President's budget.
  I think you could sum up the President's budget with three words that 
might say you are giving it a D grade, and probably most people would 
give it an F grade, but they would be debt, deficit, distrust, and 
disaster--too much spending, too much taxing, and too much debt. This 
comes from the fact that earlier this week the President submitted--as 
he has to every year--a budget proposal, and this budget proposal was 
all too predictable. It was predictable because it follows the same 
path as his previous three budgets. With breathtaking irresponsibility, 
the President's 2013 budget would expand the scope of government by 
spending more money, increase taxes on job creators, particularly small 
business, and continue on the path of enormous deficits and record 
debt--deja vu.
  The President's budget proposal is supposed to be a serious document, 
a document that lays out the President's priorities along with the 
President's ideas on how to address our national fiscal and economic 
challenges. This budget fails those goals miserably.
  As a member of the Budget Committee, I have heard from numerous 
experts who come before that committee about the need for Congress and 
the President to get serious about the fiscal cliff we are approaching. 
We have

[[Page 1859]]

had deficit commissions--you remember Simpson-Bowles, as an example--we 
have had task forces, and we have had what we call gangs, the Gang of 
6, six Senators trying to work things out, and other Members of 
Congress. All have put forward deficit reduction plans. It is going to 
take more than a commission, and the President didn't even back the 
recommendations of his own commission a year ago. It is going to take 
more than task forces, and it is going to take more than gangs of 
Senators because the single most important political and moral leader 
in America is whoever holds the Presidency of the United States. In 
this particular instance of this executive budget, that person and that 
document has failed to lead on this critical issue. It does not matter 
how many commissions, how many tasks forces, and how many gangs of 
Senators we have, without Presidential participation a problem as big 
as this country's national debt is never going to be solved.
  What President Obama put forward on Monday of this week is not a 
serious budget. As I said before, it is a political statement. The fact 
is Americans are going to pay a heavy price for the President's 
unwillingness and inability to lead.
  While President Obama claims his budget will create an America built 
to last, his budget builds higher deficits and debt, a bigger, more 
intrusive government, and economic decline for future generations.
  We want to remember that more important than the economic points of a 
budget is, when we get a more intrusive government, the less economic 
and social freedom people have.
  By nearly every fiscal measure, President Obama's budget makes 
matters much worse. Not only has the President chosen to ignore the 
looming fiscal catastrophe, he has chosen to continue the course and 
even step on the accelerator.
  This year, the Federal Government will spend $3.8 trillion--equal to 
24.1 percent of our GDP. During the past 60 years, we have averaged 
about 21 percent of GDP. So we quantify government growing dramatically 
from taking 21 percent out of the economy--that government spends, 535 
Members of Congress spend; instead of 300 million Americans--and that 
is raised to 24.3 percent.
  Alarmingly, over the 10-year period ahead, in the 2013 budget, in 
this budget, spending never gets below 22 percent. So forever they are 
growing government and detracting from individual freedom.
  The President intends to lock in historically high levels of 
spending. Do not take it from me, but it is right here in these budget 
documents we have all been given this week. He is a big spender of 
other people's money.
  In dollar terms, spending goes up from $3.8 trillion this year to 
$5.8 trillion 2022. Over a 10-year period of time, this budget spends 
about $47 trillion, and during that period of time, it increases the 
national debt by $11 trillion. So it is clear this document the 
President gives to Congress under law is built to spend.
  President Obama's budget is also harmful to our fragile economy 
because it would impose a $1.9 trillion tax increase.
  I always go back to what I thought was a very wise decision President 
Obama made about 2 or 3 weeks before he actually took the oath of 
office. During the campaign, he reminded everybody he wanted to raise 
taxes. But when he got to being sworn in, he looked at how bad the 
economy was, and he clearly said it is not too wise to raise taxes when 
we are in recession.
  Maybe technically we are not in a recession, but for the 8.3 percent 
of the American people who are unemployed, it is not just a recession, 
it is also a depression for each one of them.
  So since the unemployment rate stands at 8.3 percent, and the 
President seems to be just fine this year, compared to 3 years ago when 
he was sworn in, that hiking taxes is not going to be harmful to the 
economy, it is not going to be harmful to those 8.3 percent of the 
people who are unemployed and looking for jobs, it is going to be. So 
why has the President flip-flopped on this issue of whether you ought 
to increase taxes when people have such high unemployment rates?
  This tax increase will harm the economy and result in fewer job 
opportunities, particularly among the small businesspeople who create 
or provide for 25 percent of the jobs in America and generally create 
70 percent of the new jobs in our economy. That is where it is going to 
be very harmful.
  I recently asked Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke about the 
prospects of a tax increase and the impact it would have on our 
economy. He indicated a significant tax hike could slow the economy, 
slow the recovery. In my question to him before the Budget Committee, I 
quoted the Congressional Budget Office that says unemployment would go 
up and the economy would grow less if we had this big tax increase the 
President wants.
  The President has spent many hours speaking about helping our 
economy, investing in our future, and increasing economic opportunities 
for all Americans. While he is saying all those things that he is 
probably sincere about, at the same time he does not put his actions 
where his words are because he does not allow a pipeline to be built 
that will create 20,000 jobs right now and 110,000 indirect jobs 
connected with it.
  If he gets his wish to hike taxes by $1.9 trillion, it will harm all 
Americans, further prolong this already 3-year slowdown, while growing 
an even larger, more intrusive Federal Government impinging upon 
personal liberties to a greater extent.
  Maybe the President's purpose in imposing this huge tax increase is 
an effort to reduce the Nation's debt and that is probably what he 
would tell us, and he may truly believe that. Unfortunately, that is 
not what he has planned. He wants to spend every dollar. His budget 
leads to an additional, as I said before, $11 trillion increase in 
debt--national debt--over the next 10 years. Debt held by the public 
increases from 74 percent of our economy today to 76 percent of our 
economy by the year 2022, at the end of this 10-year budget window.
  We have to compare that to the historic average since World War II, 
and that was just 43 percent, compared to where it is right now: 74.2 
percent, going up to 76 percent.
  If people believe President Obama is putting us on a path to fiscal 
sustainability by taxing increases, I would suggest they look at the 
annual deficits over the next 10 years. These deficits never drop below 
$575 billion, and actually go up toward the end of his budget, rising 
to $704 billion by 2022. This budget puts America on the course of 
deficits and debt as far as the eye can see into the future.
  Additionally, the President took a pass on proposing any real changes 
to our entitlement programs, which are the real driver of future 
deficits and debt. That is only part of it. The main part of it is, do 
we want to preserve Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid for future 
generations? Because if we do not do something about it, it is not 
going to be preserved. Again, he is absent from the discussion when 
Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid comes up.
  He has offered no solution in this budget, even though the Simpson-
Bowles Commission he appointed--he never endorsed their recommendations 
1 year ago; and why he did not endorse and trust the people he put in 
place to get a solution to these problems I do not know, but even the 
Simpson-Bowles Commission has solutions for Social Security, Medicare, 
and Medicaid. That is further evidence that the President has chosen 
not to lead on these very difficult issues.
  President Obama has spoken a lot lately about the issue of fairness. 
President Obama believes this type of budget, with higher taxes, more 
borrowing, and enormous deficits and debt will bring about fairness.
  If the President is referring to sharing in our Nation's economic 
decline, he is right. If he is talking about sharing in a Japanese-like 
prolonged period of stagflation, he is right. If he is talking about 
sharing in an economic collapse such as the one going on in Greece, he 
is right. It may not be tomorrow, but all signs point down the

[[Page 1860]]

road in those directions because based upon the national debts of those 
particular countries, that is where we are headed.
  The budget proposed by President Obama will have all Americans 
sharing in higher taxes, a larger, more intrusive government, less 
freedom, and deficits and debt that will lead to economic decline for 
future generations.
  We all know a large budget deficit reduces national savings, leading 
to higher interest rates, more borrowing from abroad, and less domestic 
investment, which, in turn, would lower income growth in our country.
  This will hurt the lower and middle class the most. The gains 
President Obama touts in his budget that he is delivering to the middle 
class will be dwarfed by the loss of economic activity caused by 
deficits and debt.
  This is not a serious document. It is a political document. As 
evidence of how out of touch this budget is, few of my Democratic 
colleagues have even acknowledged President Obama submitted a budget, 
much less defend it.
  I hope the Senate will have an opportunity to debate and vote upon 
President Obama's budget. Last year, we had such a vote. Last year, the 
President's budget was defeated in the Senate by a vote of 97 to 0. Not 
a single member of the President's party supported his budget.
  So when constituents ask me why we cannot do something in a 
bipartisan way in Congress--and we do a lot in a bipartisan way that 
does not get the attention of the press, so people are cynical about 
Congress being bipartisan--I quote a 97-to-0 vote about whether there 
is bipartisanship, and that was a vote against the President's budget. 
Every Republican and every Democrat agreed. Once again this year, if we 
ever get this to a vote, I predict that very few, if any, will support 
this budget.
  Quite frankly, it would be humorous if the consequences of inaction 
were not so serious. We have a moral obligation to offer serious 
solutions for today and for future generations. The President's budget 
fails in this responsibility. He has chosen a politically expedient 
path rather than a responsible, forthright path.
  Our grandchildren and great-grandchildren will suffer as a result of 
this failure, and that suffering comes from this fact: that for nine 
generations of Americans, each succeeding generation has lived better 
than the previous generation, and a lot of Americans feel that is not 
going to happen with the next generation. That would be a sad 
commentary.
  I yield the floor.
  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. BROWN of Ohio. 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. BROWN of Ohio. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak 
as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              China Trade

  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam President, I was presiding earlier today 
before the Senator from North Carolina. I listened to Senator Boxer 
talk about the importance of this Transportation bill, this highway 
bill, which I underscore.
  This week we have seen movement on extension of the payroll tax and 
tax cuts and unemployment benefits, two very important things--with the 
doctors fix too--very important things to keep our economy moving. It 
made me think back what has happened in the last couple of years.
  In 2009, when Senator Obama became President Obama, we were losing 
800,000 jobs a month in the United States. We know what was happening, 
especially to manufacturing and especially in States such as the 
Presiding Officer's, North Carolina, and my State of Ohio. In fact, we 
had for 12 years-- every single year for 12 years--from 1997 to 2009, 
we had lost manufacturing jobs every single year in Ohio and in the 
United States.
  But after President Obama took office, we passed the Recovery Act, we 
did some other things, the health care bill, all of that. We have begun 
to see, month after month after month, job growth. Not job growth that 
we want yet, not the kind of strong job growth we want. But for 21, 22 
consecutive months we have seen more manufacturing jobs than the month 
before, including my State of Ohio--more manufacturing jobs every 
single month than the preceding month for 20, 21, 22 months in a row.
  Why is that? There are a lot of reasons. No. 1 is we have begun to 
put the economy on track--no longer losing 800,000 jobs a month; 
instead, gaining manufacturing jobs every month.
  The auto rescue has made a huge difference in States such as Ohio, 
but really across the country as we have seen manufacturing take off.
  Coming out of every recession, what leads out of the recession? 
Typically it is the auto industry. And in the Midwest and throughout 
the country, people are making cars, they are buying cars, all the 
economic activities generated from making a car and buying a car and 
running a car.
  One of the untold stories, in Toledo, OH, in northwest Ohio, near the 
Michigan border, the Jeep plant, the Chrysler-Jeep plant--Chrysler, a 
company that was saved by the auto rescue. They went into bankruptcy. 
The restructuring and the financing by U.S. taxpayers got that company 
back on its feet, back into business making cars. But prior to the auto 
rescue in 2008, the Jeep plant in Toledo--only 50 percent of the 
products going into a Jeep, the components assembled in Toledo, only 50 
percent were American made. Do you know what happened after the auto 
rescue? Now 75 percent of those products are American made, those 
components. That is exactly the point. Because it is not just the 
companies you hear about--Honda has a big operation in Ohio, Chrysler, 
GM, Ford, all big operations in Ohio, all expanding, all investing--
just in the last 6 months, each of those four companies has announced 
major investment dollars going into Ohio operations.
  It is not just those auto plants, it is the supply chain. So if a 
Chrysler Jeep is made out of 75-percent American parts rather than 50-
percent American parts, think of the jobs that creates: tires, steering 
wheels, blocks, transmissions, the engine, the fenders, all of the 
steel, all of the electronics, all of the products that go into those 
automobiles and trucks. That is in many ways the untold story.
  The problem, though, with that is we are still seeing China, the 
People's Republic of China, Communist China, cheating when it comes to 
auto parts. The auto parts trade deficit a decade ago was about $1 
billion, meaning that the U.S. companies bought $1 billion in Chinese-
made auto parts more than we sold to China--auto parts made in this 
country. We had a $1 billion deficit in auto parts. Today, that deficit 
is about 800 percent bigger than that. It is around $10 billion, that 
auto parts trade deficit. So the point of that is if we can turn that 
around, if we can force the Chinese to play fair and stand up and 
practice trade according to our national interests, not according to 
some economic textbook that is 20 years out of print, if we can do 
that, it will mean way more American jobs making auto components in 
steel, in rubber, and all of those things that go into the creation of 
an automobile, the assembly of an automobile and a truck.
  Yesterday, 100 feet from here, a group of us met with the Vice 
President of China, who will soon be the leader of that country, people 
who know China well predict. I asked him a question about that, that 
China does not play fair, they do not play fair on currency, they do 
not play fair when it comes to subsidizing energy and water and capital 
and land. Of course, he deflected the question. He did not answer. I 
did not expect him to. But I wanted him to know as eight or nine of us 
were sitting around the table, I was the only one who directly brought 
up the issue of jobs and this economic relationship, leveling the 
playing field.
  But that is why it is so important that the House of Representatives 
pass

[[Page 1861]]

my China currency bill. This is legislation the Senator from North 
Carolina, Mrs. Hagan, has cosponsored. It is legislation that Lindsey 
Graham from South Carolina, a Republican, has cosponsored. It is 
legislation that Chuck Schumer of New York, a Democrat, has 
cosponsored, along with Olympia Snowe, a Republican from Maine, and 
Debbie Stabenow, a Democrat from Michigan, and Senator Sessions, a 
Republican from Alabama, all of us who have come together.
  My currency bill was the largest bipartisan jobs bill that the Senate 
passed in 2011. Unfortunately, Speaker Boehner in the House of 
Representatives is blocking it. It is important that he move on that. 
It will have a strong bipartisan vote out of the House of 
Representatives, as it did--far in excess of 60 votes in the Senate.
  It works like this, briefly: With China cheating on currency, it 
means that a product made in Cleveland, OH, and sold in Wuhan, China 
has a minimum 25 percent--some former Reagan administration officials 
say 40 or 50 percent--but at least a 25-percent currency tariff or tax, 
that every one of our products is taxed that way. That cost is added to 
it when it is sold in China.
  Conversely, if the Chinese make something and sell it into Akron or 
Lima or Mansfield, OH, that product is 25 percent less expensive, which 
means that American companies cannot compete. There was a company in 
Brunswick. I was talking to two brothers who run this company. They 
were about to make a million-dollar sale. All of a sudden the Chinese 
competitor came in, with that 25-percent bonus that they get because 
China games and cheats on the currency system, and they were 
underpriced by 20 percent. So that clearly does not work.
  That is why I said that to the Vice President of China about the 
importance of currency. That is why the House of Representatives needs 
to pass my legislation. It will mean we can keep this recovery going. 
The 21 months in a row of manufacturing job growth, coupled with the 
extension of the payroll tax cut, coupled with the extension of 
unemployment benefits, coupled with the Transportation bill, the 
highway bill that Senator Boxer and Senator Inhofe bipartisanly are 
working on, coupled with standing up to the Chinese on trade 
enforcement and on this currency bill, will mean we are going to get 
this recovery, we are going to sustain it, we are going to grow it. It 
is going to mean significant new jobs in my State of Ohio and across 
the country.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MANCHIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                         Fiscal Responsibility

  Mr. MANCHIN. Madam President, I rise today to speak about the dire 
finances of this great Nation and the policies and laws of this 
government that are only weakening our fiscal standing for future 
generations.
  A year ago, I was in a Senate Armed Services Committee meeting and 
then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff ADM Mike Mullen was asked: 
What is the greatest threat to our Nation and our national security? I 
would have thought he would have said terrorism, the terrorists, al-
Qaida, North Africa, could have been Iran, it could have been another 
rising military power, but he didn't hesitate in responding that the 
national debt is the greatest threat to our country.
  That was one of the most sobering moments I have experienced since 
becoming a Senator. I thought more people would hear what he said and 
take this situation more seriously, but things have only gotten worse 
since then. Our debt ceiling is at a record here, $16.4 trillion. By 
2022, according to the President's newly proposed budget, we will be 
$25.9 trillion in debt. That means every man, woman, and child will be 
responsible for more than $79,000 of debt. Our children and 
grandchildren will be paying more in interest on that debt than we 
spend on education, energy, and defense--combined. Our elected leaders 
should be negotiating solutions but instead everyone is cooking up 
short-term Band-Aids that create long-term obligations that will take 
years for future generations to repay. They are trying to figure out 
how to point fingers at the other side.
  There is not a person in West Virginia who can understand why 
politics is trumping our future fiscal stability. I don't think there 
is a person in America who understands why in Washington we cannot come 
together on a long-term fix to the problems we have. And for the life 
of me, I cannot imagine why our elected leaders from both sides of the 
aisle continue to play political football with our spending, our debt, 
and our children's future. This isn't how we reach a solution.
  When I was Governor of the State of West Virginia, I didn't blame 
previous administrations for our problems. I took the responsibility 
for fixing them. And I didn't come here to blame anyone for our 
problems either. I came here to fix them. I didn't come here to put the 
next generation into more debt; I came here to get them out of it. I 
came here to serve my State and Washington because my parents and 
grandparents left me a country that was in very sound fiscal shape and 
I want to do the same for the next generation. I came here because in 
West Virginia, even during a recession, we lived within our means and 
had a surplus every year that I was Governor. The people of my State 
are proud of what our little State accomplished, and I know Americans 
can again feel that same pride in this great Nation of ours. I know we 
can put our fiscal house back in order.
  I had those priorities in mind when I looked at the President's 
proposed budget, the projected deficits, the accumulated debt over the 
next decade and wondered, what in the world are we doing? This budget 
claims to be balanced, but only if we don't count the exploding 
interest we must pay on our ever-increasing debt. Including interest, 
there is not a single year that this budget is balanced. At the end of 
the decade, this budget puts an additional $6.7 trillion more on the 
debt. And I would ask anybody, how does that make sense?
  This is not the first time I have shared my concerns about this 
country going down the wrong fiscal track, and I can already hear some 
folks saying: Oh, there goes Joe Manchin again blaming President Obama. 
Well, let me tell you, I am a proud Democrat, but I am a proud West 
Virginian and American first, and I will stand and speak my mind 
whether our President is a Democrat or Republican. I am trying to be as 
understanding and respectful as possible in my critique, but what we 
are doing doesn't make any sense at all to me, and I certainly cannot 
in good conscience tell the people of West Virginia any differently. 
And if we don't do anything to address this fiscal mess, the priorities 
of both Democrats and Republicans will face the consequences.
  Standing here, I tell my Democratic friends that we must face the 
truth that the very programs we care so dearly about and fight so hard 
for will be destroyed unless we do something about this exploding debt. 
Standing here, I also tell my Republican friends that they too must 
face the truth or not only will the programs they care about be 
destroyed, they may be forced to one day support a massive tax increase 
to simply keep this country solvent. Both scenarios are unacceptable 
and preventable.
  There is a commonsense solution to our Nation's dire fiscal woes 
within our grasp. We already have a template with substantial 
bipartisan support, split evenly between Democrats and Republicans in 
both the House and the Senate, that gives us a starting point with 
which to move forward. As I have said before, the Bowles-Simpson 
framework might not be perfect, but it has more support from both sides 
of the aisle than anything else I have seen since I came here. Not only 
that, it withstood the test of time better than any other

[[Page 1862]]

proposal I have seen. It is a framework that cuts trillions from our 
debt, makes our tax system more fair, and raises revenue without 
raising tax rates. The only problem is that our country's leaders from 
both parties won't move forward with the recommendations of the Bowles-
Simpson Commission. So instead of real solutions where we choose our 
priorities based on our values, we see political proposals that will 
only send this country further into a death spiral of debt.
  Take for example the fact that this body will soon debate extending 
the so-called payroll tax cut for the remainder of this year, 10 more 
months. Let's call that what it really is: It truly is cutting funding 
to Social Security. This Congress has voted twice since I have been 
here to tell Americans that they don't have to pay their share as far 
as their obligation to Social Security. I voted for the idea the first 
time around because I thought, as it was proposed to me, it might 
create jobs or save jobs. But I don't think we have seen much evidence 
that that happened, so I decided to stop throwing good money after bad 
and stop jeopardizing Social Security. But, as I warned this fall, 
along with my dear friend Senator Mark Kirk, whom all of our prayers 
are with, now we are talking about extending this policy indefinitely 
because once something like this is enacted, even an act of Congress 
can't reverse it. It might take an act of God to reverse it.
  I know going back home and saying we voted for tax cuts is popular. 
Everyone wants to be popular in this arena. But this is not a tax cut, 
this is a Social Security cut, plain and simple, and you cannot make it 
look any different. Knowing that we are adding 10,000 beneficiaries 
turning 65 years of age every day--and when you look at last year, 
Social Security was the first time we paid out more than we took in--it 
doesn't make any sense. Just what exactly will continuing this policy 
do to the long-term solvency of Social Security? The answer is very 
simple: It will be a disaster.
  The so-called experts will tell you that everything will be right 
because we will backfill those contributions with revenue from the 
general fund. Let me remind you that this is the fourth straight year 
the general fund has operated with a deficit of more than $4 trillion. 
That has never happened in the life of this great country. We have 
accumulated $15.36 trillion of debt as of today, and the President just 
allowed that to grow to $16.4 trillion with a new debt ceiling. These 
are the same experts who tell us we can balance a budget if we simply 
ignore the fundamentals of math. Does that make sense?
  When this body votes on whether to extend the so-called payroll tax 
cut or, as it should be more accurately described, the defunding of 
Social Security's revenue stream, I cannot in good conscience vote to 
undermine Social Security. I have taken this position because at the 
end of the day the people of West Virginia and this Nation must be told 
the truth, which is why the budget proposal the President offered this 
week is so disappointing and maddening.
  Let's be clear. Both Republicans and Democrats are responsible for 
our budget problems. Everybody is responsible for where we are today. 
In fairness, this administration inherited a tremendous debt, falling 
revenues, and a terrible economy. Everyone was at fault, and the public 
spoke loudly and clearly. They changed things with the 2008 election, 
and they said: Fix it. But we haven't done it, and this budget doesn't 
do it either.
  If we are going to address our fiscal nightmare and stop digging a 
deeper debt hole, we must have meaningful tax reform that not only 
ensures that everybody pays their fair share but that also strengthens 
our economy and creates jobs--good jobs. Instead, this budget is not 
balanced even once. Over the next decade, it would actually add an 
additional $6.7 trillion more debt on top of the $16.4 trillion debt 
ceiling we have now that the President just authorized. That is more 
than $23 trillion of debt by 2022. That is simply unsustainable.
  This proposed budget relies too much on phantom accounting from so-
called war savings from a war that should have been over when its 
purpose changed to what I call nation building.
  In terms of energy investment--one area that business and labor both 
believe is critical to not only creating more jobs but keeping the good 
jobs we have--this administration continues to pick winners and losers. 
Take the role of coal, for example. As I just pointed out in the Energy 
and Natural Resources Committee, the administration's own Department of 
Energy forecasts that coal will play a major role in the energy 
portfolio well into the coming decades, up through 2035. But this 
budget slashes funding for the research that would allow us to use coal 
more efficiently and cleanly with environmental standards for which we 
must be responsible. This doesn't make sense, and it puts the 
livelihoods of an awful lot of West Virginians and Americans in 
jeopardy. Those priorities defy common sense, especially when millions 
of people rely on coal for their jobs and the affordable, reliable 
electricity it produces.
  We are spending more where we don't need to and less where we do. We 
are extending programs that do not work and going into debt to pay for 
them, and then we wonder why this great Nation faces such a dire fiscal 
future. So if and when the President's budget proposal comes up for a 
vote, I simply cannot support it. As always, though, I will continue to 
work diligently with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to push 
for a more commonsense fiscal approach based on the bipartisan Bowles-
Simpson template so we can finally and responsibly address the fiscal 
problems our Nation and our families face. I urge the President and my 
colleagues to do the same.
  Madam President, allow me to close by saying I do travel my State, 
like most of my colleagues, and I am sure you do in Missouri. I meet 
with my constituents, as you do also, and I can tell you what I find 
out from them. There are a lot of issues they are worried about. There 
are some places where they disagree, but there is one issue that gets 
universal agreement and brings everybody together when they tell us, to 
a person, they are concerned that those of us in Washington are not 
listening to their cries to put the country ahead of our politics. They 
urge all of us to stand and do what is right for this country.
  We must not let selfish ambitions about the next election cloud what 
must be done for the Nation that I know we all love. The challenge 
before us is a simple one. Over the course of our history, this Nation 
has succeeded because our parents and grandparents left our country 
better off than what they inherited from their parents and 
grandparents. We cannot be the first generation to fail to leave the 
United States in better shape for the next generation. I don't want to 
be a part of that. I do not intend to stand by and let a party or 
politics destroy the hopes of the next generation for this great 
country, and I urge all of our congressional leaders and our President 
to put politics aside and realize one simple fact: Whether we are 
Democrats or Republicans or Independents, we all belong to the same 
party, and that party is called America, and we will rise or fall 
together.
  I thank the Chair.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, we voted 85 to 11 to start work on the 
highway bill, which is an essential piece of legislation to reauthorize 
our highway and transit programs.
  Eight hundred sixty-eight days have passed since our last Federal 
Transportation bill expired. If you cannot do the math very fast, just 
to put a little more emphasis on that, that is 2 years, 4 months, and 
18 days since the last Federal Transportation bill expired.

[[Page 1863]]

  We need new legislation to help streamline Federal programs, spur job 
creation, and move our transportation system into the 21st century.
  This Transportation bill before us is about infrastructure. We call 
it infrastructure because ``infra'' means ``below.'' So it is the 
foundation beneath everything else on which our civilized country is 
built. As we think about the buildings and operating our municipalities 
and our States and our Federal Government, our country, it is about 
making sure we have a sound infrastructure.
  Our businesses, our workers, our innovators, all of them rely on a 
system of quality infrastructure to succeed. More funding for 
transportation in this bill means we can do critical roads and bridges, 
and we can do repairs to the existing roads and bridges. It means we 
have more transit for buses and railroads, and it means we can put 
people back to work. More jobs for construction and manufacturing 
workers, more jobs for workers means more consumer spending and a 
stronger overall economy.
  The Federal Highway Administration estimates that for every $1 we 
spend on highways, that spending supports more than 27,000 jobs. 
Economists at Moody's estimate that for every $1 we invest in 
infrastructure, our gross domestic product goes up by $1.59. That is 
because of the ripple effect those investments have on our economy.
  The bill before us would help create about 1 million American jobs, 
many of them in the construction industry, which has been one of the 
hardest hit by the recession. In New Hampshire, the number of people 
who were working in the construction industry in 2010 was the lowest it 
had been in a decade--25 percent lower than it was in 2006, 5 years 
ago. We need to pass this bill to help put those people back to work.
  One of the most important efforts we have in New Hampshire right now 
is the long overdue and badly needed widening of Interstate 93, which 
is in the southern part of New Hampshire. I-93 is our State's most 
important highway. It connects New Hampshire citizens to their jobs, 
businesses to global markets, and communities to each other.
  Right now this vital artery is badly clogged. Every day 100,000 cars 
travel on a road designed for 60,000. This congestion wastes time and 
wastes money. Crowding so many vehicles on Interstate 93 is not only an 
inconvenience to the thousands who use it every day, but it also 
compromises the safety of drivers traveling at regular highway speed in 
heavy traffic.
  The Interstate 93 project was budgeted and planned based on the idea 
that the Federal Government would provide a consistent level of 
funding. But the uncertainty created by the lack of a long-term highway 
bill has made the project difficult to finance. Right now New Hampshire 
transportation officials have $115 million worth of bonding for this 
project that is sitting on the sidelines until the Federal Government 
makes good on its commitment. We need to move these Federal funds off 
the sidelines and get this project going.
  Laura Scott, who is the economic development director for the town of 
Windham, near the Massachusetts border, summed it up best:

       The I-93 project is critical to the future economic 
     vitality of Windham and all of southern New Hampshire. Our 
     businesses want it, our citizens want it, and we need to get 
     it done.

  The bill before us today can help complete this vital project and 
others like it. We need to work on this bill in a bipartisan fashion 
just as it has come out of the Environment and Public Works Committee. 
There was strong bipartisan support coming out of that committee. We 
need to set aside the partisanship now, the election year comments, and 
come together to do what is right for our economy and our country. I 
hope in the end all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will 
support that.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORKER. 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. CORKER. Mr. President, I have come to the floor to talk about a 
topic I spoke a little bit about yesterday.
  I know all the focus right now is working on a solution to some of 
the things going on between the House and the Senate. I know that is 
what people are focused on today. I understand that probably sometime 
tomorrow there will be a vote on the highway bill, which is expected to 
fail, and then it is my understanding there will be some amendments 
brought forth to bring a finance bill, an EPW bill, a commerce bill, 
and a banking bill together that will actually be debated and, it is my 
sense, will ultimately pass, but that after the recess is over we will 
come back and deal with that.
  I wish to speak to that topic now. I know I am beginning to sound a 
little bit like a broken record on this, but we have had so many people 
down here on both sides of the aisle who have actually worked together, 
for a year and a half after the Bowles-Simpson report came out, on 
long-term deficit reduction, progrowth tax reform, and entitlement 
reform, and there seems to be a real seriousness about that issue. I 
think all those who have signed letters in support of it were very 
sincere. Yet I think what we are finding with this highway bill, in 
spite of the changes that are likely to take place with the finance 
component, is that what we are ending up with is a situation where we 
have 2 years' worth of spending that is taking place and we are using 
10 years' worth of pay-fors.
  I can tell you there is no one in this body who likes infrastructure 
more than me or has spent more time on the back of a paving machine or 
on a screed. Those are the kind of things I love to see happening. I 
know they create jobs and tremendous economic growth over the long 
haul. But I know the Presiding Officer remembers the debate we had for 
a long time in this body over health care, and I know he remembers the 
tremendous discussions that took place on the floor over the financing 
mechanisms. I don't think there is any question that people on my side 
of the aisle railed strongly--I might say as they should have--over the 
fact we had a pay-for formula where basically we were spending money 
over a 6-year period and paying for it over 10.
  Ultimately, the bill passed, but there was tremendous divide in this 
body over mostly just the budget gimmickry that took place. Yet what I 
see getting ready to happen, in a large bipartisan way, is we are going 
to vote for a highway bill, possibly--I am not going to do that--that 
spends money over a 2-year period and recoups it over 10.
  I am actually stunned by this. We talk about all the things we need 
to do in this body regarding Medicare and how we need to focus on 
reforms that make sure seniors in Vermont and seniors in Tennessee have 
these programs down the road, and we talk about Medicare in the same 
light. I think all of us want to make sure Social Security is here for 
future generations--for these young people in front of us. All of us 
know we have to figure out a way to solve that problem. The highway 
bill is simple. It is just math. It is unlike Medicare, it is unlike 
Medicaid, and it is unlike so many of the things we deal with around 
here that are so complex to get it just right. We have a highway bill 
that is not complicated. It is just math. There aren't all kinds of 
moving parts, as far as people providing health care and the incentives 
that are in place. But it feels to me like what we are getting ready to 
do as a body--and I hope this is not the case--is to pass a highway 
bill where we are going to do exactly what we have done with the 
sustainable growth rate for physicians in Medicare.
  Back in 1997, we passed a bill here--I wasn't here at the time--that 
basically created a mechanism for paying physicians who dealt with 
seniors, and the formula was flawed. So what we have done every 18 
months or every year is cause the medical community to be panicked and 
seniors to be panicked over whether this is going to be extended 
because the sustainable

[[Page 1864]]

growth rate, as it was put forth, was going to call for huge reductions 
in payments to physicians.
  We are actually dealing with that right now. It is one of the issues 
we are trying to work out with the House. What we did was to create a 
cliff. So every time we deal with this issue it gets more and more 
difficult to deal with it because we will not just sit down and do the 
long-term reforms on that one component that need to happen. We keep 
taking from Peter to pay Paul. We keep wrestling with this issue but we 
will not deal with it.
  What we are getting ready to do with the highway bill is basically 
inject that same poisonous formula into the highway bill. What we are 
getting ready to do is to pass a highway bill that will fund highways 
through 2013, but at the end of that period of time we will have the 
same kind of cliff that we deal with regarding the SGR. We will have a 
$10 billion shortfall, instead of just dealing with a funding formula. 
If we don't think we are spending enough on infrastructure and people 
want to offer that in some way, now is the time to do it. Otherwise, if 
people don't want to go into a deficit situation, what we ought to do 
is spend the amount of money that is coming in.
  But it feels to me as if we are getting ready, in a very bipartisan 
way, when we get back from recess, to show the country it is ridiculous 
to think this Congress will deal with the kind of reforms to Medicare 
to make it solvent, to do the kinds of things we need to do with Social 
Security--both of which are more complex--because this Congress will 
not even deal with this little program. It is a very important program, 
very important to my State and I am sure to Vermont. But we will not 
even deal with the reforms to it, in this time of great concern about 
our fiscal situation.
  Again, I strongly support infrastructure funding. But I think what we 
will show the country, if we pass a bill like this, in a strong 
bipartisan way, is that there is very little hope Congress will ever 
deal with the more complex issues that challenge this country and which 
cause many seniors in our country to be concerned, which cause 
taxpayers to be very concerned, and certainly cause future generations 
to wonder whether this body is ever going to deal with the issues they 
know will haunt them down the road.
  I came down to speak on this. I have done it daily in the lunch 
meetings we have with our own side. I just hope that sometime over the 
recess period, prior to coming to the floor, the Finance Committee will 
come up with a different package that actually either pays for this 
bill by offering funding formulas--which, by the way, is just math, it 
is not very difficult--or where we spend the amount of money that is 
actually coming in.
  I will say that if we spent just the base moneys that are coming in, 
States such as Vermont and Tennessee and other places have the ability, 
if they choose, to generate gasoline taxes in their own States and do 
things with road money. Candidly, the way this program works, I think 
most people know that citizens send up $1 and they get back 98 cents. 
So it actually could be a more efficient way for this to work than 
sending it up to us and letting us get our hands on part of the money 
and figuring out what we are going to do with it.
  I do believe this is one of the most irresponsible things we can do, 
especially when there may have been some criticisms over the 
President's budget. I haven't heard a lot of people speak on it because 
I don't think it has been taken up as a document that we will debate on 
this floor in a real way. But it is difficult to criticize the 
President's budget. I know the vote on last year's budget was 97 to 0 
against it. But it is very difficult for people on either side of the 
aisle to criticize the President's budget if, in fact, there is a large 
bipartisan desire to pass a highway bill that does exactly the same 
thing.
  I hope the Finance Committee will meet again and come up with a 
solution to this. It is not urgent. We have a recess period that is 
coming up. Surely, this Congress, this Senate, can show the ability to 
deal with an issue such as this, which, again, is so simple, and 
demonstrate to the American people, in a bipartisan way, that we have 
the ability to begin looking at these programs that are so important to 
people across our country in a way that doesn't take us down the fiscal 
tube.
  I thank the Chair for listening. I know it is tough when there is not 
much happening down here.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Elizabeth Peratrovich Day

  Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize a great civil 
rights leader in Alaska and to join all Alaskans in celebrating 
Elizabeth Peratrovich Day.
  Almost 25 years ago, the Alaska State legislature designated today as 
Elizabeth Peratrovich Day to commemorate the signing of the Alaska 
Anti-Discrimination Act of 1945, and to honor Ms. Peratrovich.
  Elizabeth Peratrovich is a Tlingit Alaska Native who fought for equal 
rights for all Alaskans long before her now famous address to the 
Alaska legislature. She was grand president of the Alaska Native 
Sisterhood and fought against the very public discrimination taking 
place against the first people of Alaska.
  In many places in southeast Alaska just 60 years ago, public signs 
read: No Dogs, No Natives or Filipinos. Others simply said: No Natives 
Allowed.
  There were separate drinking fountains and separate doors in public 
buildings. As Tlingits, the Peratrovichs could only purchase property 
in Native neighborhoods, could only be seated in segregated portions of 
the theater, and could only send their children to missionary schools--
not the public schools for which they paid a school tax. In the face of 
this discrimination, Ms. Peratrovich demonstrated courage in her 
convictions--a courage which changed the course of civil rights 
treatment for Alaska Natives.
  In 1941, Elizabeth and her husband Roy wrote a joint letter to 
Territorial Governor Ernest Gruening about their concerns. In part, 
they wrote:

       My attention has been called to a business establishment . 
     . . which has a sign on the door which reads, ``No Natives 
     Allowed.'' In view of the present emergency when unity is 
     being stressed, don't you think that it is very un-American?
       We have always contended that we are entitled to every 
     benefit that is accorded our so-called White Brothers. We pay 
     the required taxes, taxes in some instances that we feel are 
     unjust, such as the School tax. Our Native people pay the 
     school tax each year to educate the White Children, yet they 
     try to exclude our children from these schools. Although 
     antidiscrimination legislation had been floating around the 
     territorial legislature for years, it had not gained any 
     traction.

  Again, I want you to put your mind in this time. This was the 1940s. 
Many legislators believed Alaskan Natives were second-class citizens. 
Despite the fact they paid taxes and bore arms in defense of this 
Nation, they were not endowed with the same rights as others.
  In 1945, however, hope emerged. Antidiscrimination legislation had 
passed the Alaska statehouse but was stalled in the State senate. One 
senator made a speech stating that Natives had only recently emerged 
from savagery and were not fit for society. He argued that they had not 
had the experience of 5,000 years of civilization.
  With great courage and composure and poise, Elizabeth Peratrovich 
confronted the senator who had just belittled her and her people. Not 
only was she a Native addressing the mostly White Alaskan audience, she 
was also the first woman ever to address the Alaska State senate. In a 
quiet, steady, but bold voice, Elizabeth Peratrovich opened her 
testimony with the following words:

       I would not have expected that I, who am barely out of 
     savagery, would have to remind the gentlemen with 5,000 years 
     of recorded civilization behind them, of our Bill of Rights.


[[Page 1865]]


  She then recounted her experiences with discrimination--how she and 
her husband had not been allowed to lease a house in a White 
neighborhood; how she was prohibited from enrolling her children in the 
same schools as everyone else, the schools for which she paid a school 
tax. She talked about the embarrassment her children felt when they 
were not allowed to sit with their friends in the theater.
  Following Elizabeth Peratrovich's speech, the senate exploded in 
applause. Her plea had been effective. The opposition that had been so 
absolute shrank to a mere whisper.
  On February 8, 1945--again, I underline the date, thinking of our 
national history--on February 8, 1945, a bill to end discrimination in 
Alaska passed the senate by a vote of 11 to 5. Elizabeth Peratrovich 
had been instrumental in making Alaska the first organized government 
under the U.S. flag to condemn discrimination.
  Today in Alaska we celebrate Elizabeth Peratrovich Day and affirm our 
beliefs in equality. With each passing year we move closer to truly 
realizing the quote that all men are created equal and all are endowed 
with certain unalienable rights.
  Thank you for allowing me to embrace the memory of one woman who 
fought for those fundamental principles, Alaskan Elizabeth Peratrovich.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          Tribute to Ben Lujan

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I come to the floor, along with my 
colleague Senator Udall, to honor Ben Lujan, who is the longtime 
speaker of the New Mexico House of Representatives. After tirelessly 
representing District 46 in our State legislature for 37 years--the 
last 12 years of that 37 years as speaker of the house--Ben is 
retiring. He is doing so to pursue his fight against lung cancer. I am 
certain he will bring the same strength and tenacity and courage to 
that battle that he has brought to every other endeavor he has taken on 
throughout his life.
  Throughout his long career, he has fought fiercely to ensure that the 
needs of his fellow New Mexicans were being addressed. He has worked 
hard to improve the quality of New Mexico's school system. He has 
fought for the rights of our workers, and he has worked hard at 
strengthening our economy.
  I know I speak for all of his colleagues in our State legislature 
when I say that his service and strength throughout his recent personal 
difficulties have been an inspiration to all, and his fighting spirit 
will be missed once he leaves our legislature. His exemplary work ethic 
is something to which we should all aspire.
  He was born into a family of nine children, the son of a sheepherder 
in the small town of Nambe in northern New Mexico. In 1957 he began 
working as an ironworker at Los Alamos National Laboratory. It was from 
these experiences that he learned the importance of always striving to 
do better, to do more, not only for his family but for his community 
and for his beloved State. In 1970 he began his extraordinary public 
service when he was elected to Santa Fe's County Commission. He aspired 
to have a wider impact, and he ran for the New Mexico House of 
Representatives in 1975. After nearly a quarter of a century in the 
house, he was elected by his colleagues as the speaker of the house in 
2001.
  His devotion is a characteristic that is reflected in all aspects of 
his life, public and private. He and his wife Carmen have been married 
for 52 years. His children--Shirley, Jackie, Jerome, and Ben Ray--are a 
testament to the values with which they were raised. In fact, we are 
fortunate to have his son Ben Ray as a Member of the U.S. House of 
Representatives representing the Third District of New Mexico. Tom and 
I have had the good fortune to serve with Ben Ray in the New Mexico 
delegation, and he represents our State extremely well.
  All of us whose lives have been enriched by Ben Lujan's work in 
bettering our State owe him a debt of gratitude for his service. His 
illness has not hindered his dedication and hard work for our State, as 
he continued running the house of representatives in our State 
throughout the current session of our legislature, which is expected to 
end today.
  I am joined with all New Mexicans and Senator Udall in extending my 
gratitude to the speaker for his extraordinary work for the people of 
New Mexico. We are, indeed, fortunate to have had a man of his 
character serving our State in such an exemplary way and in such an 
important position for so many years.
  I thank the Chair.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Madam President, I also rise today to join 
New Mexico's senior Senator, who has served New Mexico so well. It is a 
real honor to join Senator Bingaman in paying tribute to one of our 
great New Mexico citizens, Speaker Ben Lujan. Ben, as Senator Bingaman 
said, is retiring this month. He is an esteemed colleague of ours, and 
he is also our friend--a good friend at that. Indeed, Ben Lujan is a 
friend to all New Mexicans. Ben recently said:

       Let us make our time on Earth . . . worthwhile, and do what 
     is right, and make a difference for the children, our working 
     families, and our elderly.

  He has lived up to that challenge throughout his career, fighting for 
education, for workers, for middle-class families, for Native 
Americans, for health care, and for jobs. In a world that grows ever 
more cynical, Ben Lujan has always been the real deal.
  Ben was born in 1935 in the small community of Nambe, NM, one of nine 
children. His family, like so many, struggled through the Great 
Depression. He used to relate tales of his father as a sheepherder 
herding sheep from the Valley Grande to the Chama in New Mexico. Ben 
still lives on the property that has been in his family for three 
generations.
  Ben is that rare combination--humble but tenacious in what he 
believes. He has never forgotten from where he came, and he has always 
been a champion for the less fortunate among us. Even in his youth, Ben 
showed a remarkable talent for teamwork, for playing by the rules, for 
just plain hard work, and for determination.
  He loves basketball. In high school he was the captain of his high 
school varsity basketball squad, and the gymnasium where the Pojoaque 
Elks play today is named in his honor. Ben Lujan has been leading teams 
ever since.
  He attended the College of Santa Fe but had to disenroll for lack of 
money. For the next couple of years, he sought work wherever he could 
find it in California and in New Mexico, wherever he had to go to get a 
job. He understands hard times. He knows what it is like to try to make 
ends meet. And in all of his years of public service, a sense of 
justice and fair play has always been at his core.
  Ben worked as an iron man in Los Alamos. He joined the International 
Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental, and Reinforcing Iron 
Workers. In 1959 Ben married his high school sweetheart, the love of 
his life, Carmen, his devoted partner for over half a century. They 
began a family that would grow to include four children: Shirley, 
Jackie, Jerome, and Congressman Ben Ray Lujan. As Jeff said, we are 
fortunate to have Ben Ray serving in our delegation, and we have worked 
with him on many occasions on a daily basis. Ben began his 
extraordinary career in public service when he was elected to the Santa 
Fe County Commission in 1970. Four years later he was elected to the 
New Mexico House of Representatives. After a quarter of a century of 
service in that body, he was elected speaker of the New Mexico House of 
Representatives.
  He has always called attention to the needs of others and not to 
himself. Ben is an inspiration not just to those who

[[Page 1866]]

aspire to a life of public service but also to a life of personal 
integrity. His word is his bond to his family and to the people of New 
Mexico. His principles have illuminated his life and brightened the 
lives of all who know him. I count myself among that number. I am proud 
to call Ben Lujan my friend.
  I was present at the opening of the New Mexico State Legislature last 
month when Ben informed us of his illness--an illness that left him 
weakened but not defeated. Like everyone in that room, I was deeply 
saddened at the news of Ben's illness, but that sorrow is tempered by 
admiration--admiration for Ben, for Carmen, for the entire Lujan family 
and for the incredible strength they have shown. He would not allow a 
terrible illness to distract from his duties as speaker of the house. 
He remains steadfast in his services to the people of New Mexico. Even 
while undergoing chemotherapy, he continued to work as speaker. Even a 
devastating illness could not deter Ben Lujan from the job he had 
committed to do, and his family supported him every step of the way. 
That is honor, that is integrity, and that is courage.
  None of us will ever forget Ben's brave words the day last month when 
he said, ``While this has taken a toll on me physically, it has not 
broken my spirit, my will, my faith and my commitment to New Mexico.''
  So to Ben, I want to say thank you. Thank you for your service, thank 
you for your sacrifice, and thank you for your friendship.
  As we celebrate this great son of New Mexico, I will close with these 
lines from the poet, Lord Alfred Tennyson:

       Though much is taken, much abides, and though we are not 
     now that strength which in the old days moved earth and 
     heaven, that which we are, we are--one equal temper of heroic 
     hearts, made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to 
     strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

  That, my friends, is Ben Lujan--to serve, to strive, and not to 
yield.
  It is a real honor to be on the floor with Senator Bingaman to talk 
about our good friend Ben Lujan.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Honoring our Armed Forces

                          Sergeant Adam J. Ray

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I have the sad and solemn task today 
to speak of one brave and honorable Kentuckian who was lost in the 
performance of his duties while wearing his country's uniform. SGT Adam 
J. Ray of Louisville, KY, was killed on February 9, 2010, in 
Afghanistan when an improvised explosive device set by the enemy 
detonated near his patrol. He was 23 years old.
  For his heroic service, Sergeant Ray received many medals, awards, 
and decorations, including the Bronze Star Medal, the Purple Heart, the 
Army Commendation Medal, the Army Achievement Medal, the Army Good 
Conduct Medal, the National Defense Service Medal, the Afghanistan 
Campaign Medal with Bronze Service Star, the Global War on Terrorism 
Service Medal, the Korean Defense Service Medal, the Army Service 
Ribbon, the Overseas Service Ribbon, the NATO Medal, the Combat 
Infantryman Badge, the Weapons Qualification Badge, and the Overseas 
Service Bar.
  Sergeant Ray knew the risks of Army service and faced them squarely 
without flinching. In fact, a reporter imbedded with Sergeant Ray's 
unit has written of how his patrol's assignment on the day he was 
killed was to find and deactivate explosives hidden by the enemy in 
culverts under the main road heading west from Kandahar connecting to 
major cities such as Kabul.
  ``People ask me if I regret letting Adam join,'' says his mother, 
Donna Ray.

       Well, I don't. Adam died doing what he loved more than 
     anything else in the world. No, Adam did not go into this 
     wanting to die for his country, but he was more than willing 
     to do it. I am so very honored to be his mother and to tell 
     everyone about him.

  Adam Ray was born March 9, 1986, to Jim and Donna Ray. When Adam was 
in the third grade, he went on a school field trip to a military 
museum. From that moment on, he wanted to be a soldier.
  ``He would play army with his little toy solders in the bath tub,'' 
remembers Donna.

       He lined them up around the edge of the tub and prepared 
     for the attack of his dinosaurs. At night, when I tucked him 
     in his bed, I would have to pry the toy soldiers out of his 
     clenched fist.

  Adam's father Jim attended West Point, and Adam wanted to follow in 
his footsteps and also go there. However, after the terrorist attacks 
of 9/11, Adam felt an urgency to serve his country that could not wait, 
so he entered military service in April of 2005 and graduated basic 
combat training at Fort Benning, GA.
  Adam then attended advanced individual training at Fort Sam Houston, 
TX, where he was trained as a patient administrative specialist. His 
first deployment was to Camp Casey, Korea. After 1 year in Korea, Adam 
reenlisted and was transferred to an infantry unit. By the time he was 
deployed to Afghanistan, he was assigned to C Company, 4th Battalion, 
23rd Infantry Regiment, 2nd Infantry Division based out of Joint Base 
Lewis-McChord, WA.
  In early 2009, Adam was deployed to Afghanistan. He visited his 
family while on leave in September of that year and returned to 
Afghanistan in October. By Christmas, his family was hearing less from 
him because he was preparing for a dangerous mission.
  ``The Friday before he was killed, he called about 2 a.m. our time--
he always forgot about the time difference,'' Donna remembers. ``He 
told me that his unit was moving and that I may not hear from him for a 
while, and not to worry.''
  A few days later came the fateful Tuesday that was February 9. Adam's 
unit was conducting ``culvert denial'' in an area where an Afghanistan 
soldier had recently been killed by a bomb hidden in a culvert 
underneath a road.
  At approximately 9:30 a.m., the explosion went off, and as one 
contemporary news report puts it, ``Adam Ray, the third of five 
children, beloved son of a minister and a devoted mother, a soccer 
player and a flirt, who tutored dyslexic kids and was known to ask less 
popular girls to dance at school events, died.''
  We are thinking of Sergeant Ray's loved ones today as I recount his 
story for my colleagues here in the Senate. We are thinking of his 
parents Jim and Donna Ray; his grandparents John and Doris Ray and 
Bobby and Marilyn Sumner; his brothers Zachary and Seth Ray; his 
sisters Betsy and Amanda Ray; his nephew Christopher Mitchem; and many 
other beloved family members and friends.
  I know my colleagues join me in extending the sincere and profound 
gratitude of the Senate to the family of SGT Adam J. Ray. We have set 
aside this moment to recognize his service, service proudly and freely 
given, for the country he so loved. And we pay tribute to his supreme 
sacrifice.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Manchin). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 
10 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     Payroll Tax Conference Report

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, let me rise today to speak about the 
conference report that it appears we will be voting on tomorrow 
regarding the issues of the payroll tax, unemployment benefits, and the 
so-called doc fix. Let me first of all acknowledge that I know that 
many of my colleagues have worked long hours on the payroll tax deal 
that was apparently reached late last night.
  I have been briefed on pieces of this deal and I've also seen many of 
the

[[Page 1867]]

press reports that have described this deal as a new sign of 
bipartisanship. As a new Member of the Senate, I know, like the 
Presiding Officer, we believe that we do our best work here in Congress 
when we can have bipartisan solutions, when we can find ways to reach 
common ground.
  All of those factors make it doubly difficult for me to now rise and 
say I will be voting against the conference report when it comes before 
this body tomorrow.
  Now, let me acknowledge on the front end that I think there are 
worthy reasons in this recovering economy we have got right now, it 
makes some sense to maintain some form of payroll tax holiday for a 
limited period of time.
  I know the Presiding Officer feels that one of the most important 
issues our country confronts right now--I would say the most important 
issue and the one that overhangs everything else we debate here--is our 
inability to come to grips with our debt and deficit.
  I know, as we try to nurture this growing recovery, one of the ways 
we take on that debt and deficit is by having a growing economy.
  But I also believe it is terribly important that we show progress on 
this issue. Our national debt now exceeds $15 trillion. Every day that 
we fail to act, we add $4 billion to that total. None of this becomes 
self-correcting. It will not correct itself until and unless we act.
  I, for one, believe there is no action this body could take that 
would be more stimulative to our economy, that would be a better jobs 
program, that would do more to restore the trust of the business 
community and the public than to show bipartisan collaboration and 
cooperation on a long-term debt and deficit deal. So let me share with 
my colleagues the five reasons I will be voting against the conference 
report tomorrow.
  First and foremost, the payroll tax cut that has been proposed isn't 
being paid for. It will add $100 billion to the debt.
  Second, I think the compromise that has been put together turns some 
of our traditional policies on their head. By taking this action of 
saying tax cuts somehow don't have to be paid for, we are advancing a 
policy I believe will come back to haunt us later this year when the 
Bush tax cuts expire.
  As a matter of fact, while I have only been a Member of this body for 
3 years, I know it has been a tradition that in moments of economic 
crisis, the Congress will sometimes extend unemployment benefits, 
particularly for those States that have been hardest hit. In those 
moments of crisis, the unemployment benefits sometimes go unpaid for. 
Well, in the compromise in this conference report, we turn that policy 
on its head in that there was a requirement to pay for the extension of 
unemployment benefits but no requirement to pay for the $100 billion of 
additional debt taken on by the payroll tax cut.
  I know in this body, as we have had debates about debt and deficits 
and economics, we have discussed the economic theories of a whole host 
of thinkers and economists--John Maynard Keynes, Frederick Von Hayek, 
Milton Friedman, Paul Krugman. I somehow feel as though this conference 
report we will be voting on tomorrow may reflect the thinking of a more 
obscure individual, but someone I recall as a child growing up, and 
that was Wimpy, who was a cartoon character--Popeye's hungry pal. Wimpy 
used to always say, ``I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger 
today.''
  Well, it seems on this economic policy we are talking about today, of 
deferring payment for this payroll tax policy, that Wimpy once again 
has won out.
  Let me cite the third reason I will be voting against the conference 
report tomorrow. As I acknowledged at the beginning of my comments, I 
believe extension of the payroll tax holiday makes sense in this 
recovery, but it just needs to be paid for. So I could have very easily 
supported a number of the proposals put forward by my colleagues on the 
Democratic side, including a 1-percent increase of the taxes on those 
of us who make more than $1 million a year--a defined benefit for the 
defined pay-for.
  If we couldn't breach the gap on that, I could have looked at means-
testing the payroll tax holiday.
  If we are trying to make sure these dollars get into the economy as 
quickly as possible over this coming year, then clearly a payroll tax 
holiday for folks who make less than $150,000 a year or $250,000 a year 
or $500,000 a year or $1 million or less a year--it didn't make sense 
to say that regardless of one's income. This payroll tax holiday--going 
to folks like me, who are doing pretty well--is not going to have a 
stimulative effect, I just don't think economic theory bears that out. 
So if we had paid for this or put some restraints on it, I would have 
been happy to support this conference report.
  The fourth reason I can't support the conference report is because I 
am concerned this payroll tax holiday--which goes into the Social 
Security trust fund, is supposed to end at the end of this year. But we 
have no metrics placed on it. It scares me greatly that we will 
approach the end of the year and there will be some other reason it 
needs to be extended again.
  I believe we should have put in place a requirement that this payroll 
tax holiday would start to ratchet back if we continued to see growth 
in the economy--perhaps ratcheted back one-third if we had seen GDP 
growth for the next 3 months or employment growth for the next 3 
months, ratcheted back another one-third, ratcheted back another one-
third--so we wouldn't have the cliff effect that is being proposed at 
the end of the year, again, a cliff effect that will come at the same 
time as the end of the Bush tax cuts, the imposition of the so-called 
$1.2 trillion sequester cuts, and the proverbial train wreck that is 
already being talked about.
  So while I believe this payroll tax holiday is important, the price, 
the fact we are not paying for it, the fact we have put no restrictions 
or parameters around it and the fact that there's no guarantee it will 
actually expire because we have no metrics of how much economic 
progress we need to have before it expires are reasons I will be voting 
no.
  Let me raise one other concern I have about the conference report. 
This is one more example of particularly our colleagues in the House 
saying the first place they go for any pay-for for any project seems to 
be our Federal workers--the same Federal workers, close to 2 million 
strong, who keep our streets safe, make sure we get those Social 
Security checks, try to take out terrorists, drug dealers, you name it. 
They are the same Federal workers who have had their pay frozen for the 
last 2 years and who have had to endure the prospects of two or three 
potential shutdowns over the last year and a half. To say we are going 
to come back to the well time after time on this group I don't think is 
fair or right.
  As someone who has looked at the Federal pay and benefits, when we 
get to that issue of a comprehensive tax reform, entitlement reform, 
big deficit deal, all these items will need to be reviewed. But the 
notion the first place to come back to for any pay-for is our Federal 
employees, to me, doesn't seem fair nor does it seem right. So for 
these five reasons, I will reluctantly be voting against the conference 
report tomorrow. I believe it was, again, in the context of the debt 
and deficit particularly, Will Rogers who said: When you find yourself 
in a hole and you want to get out, stop digging. Well, in some small 
way, by voting no tomorrow, I hope I will send a signal that I--and I 
hope others will join me--will stop digging.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator withhold his request for a 
quorum?
  Mr. WARNER. I will.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
  Mr. ENZI. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Enzi pertaining to the introduction of S.J. Res. 
36 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')

[[Page 1868]]


  Mr. BENNET. 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. BENNET. Mr. President, I am here on the floor today to talk a 
little bit about our economy and something that I think is very 
important that has been left unaddressed in this payroll tax compromise 
that I think is a real tragedy for our country and for my State, the 
State of Colorado, and, most importantly, for people who are suffering 
through this incredibly difficult economy.
  It is not well understood by people--I think maybe even in this 
Chamber--that our country's gross domestic product--the economic output 
of our country--is actually higher today than it was before we went 
into this recession. We saw it rising all the way in the 1990s and 
2000s, and then we had the worst recession since the Great Depression. 
Now we are seeing economic output that is actually at a level that is 
higher than it was before we went into the recession.
  Our productivity is higher today than it has been at any time in the 
history of the United States of America. It has become fashionable to 
talk about what has happened or not happened since the founding of our 
country. Since the founding of our country, our economy has never been 
more productive than it is today, and there are several reasons for 
that. Competition from abroad that has become a daily occurrence--
something we have to fight hard every day to stay ahead of--has driven 
productivity. That is a good result. Technology has driven 
productivity. That is a good result. And the recession itself drove 
productivity straight up. As our business men and women of this country 
did what they had to do to get through this incredibly tough economic 
time to keep their businesses alive, to keep their doors open, to keep 
a promise to the next generation of Americans, productivity went ever 
skyward. That is a good result. That is progress. And we are only going 
to become more productive over time as we face competitive threats from 
around the world.
  But we can see what else has happened over this period of time. 
Median family income has fallen over the last decade for the first time 
in our country's history. The middle class is earning less today in 
real dollars than in the early 1990s. And, as the President knows, we 
are producing this economic output with 23 or 24 million people who 
today are unemployed or underemployed in this economy. There are no 
jobs for these Americans in this economy even though our output is as 
high as it was before we went into this recession.
  There are a lot of people smarter than I am who could figure out the 
answers to this, but there are at least two big ones we have to keep in 
mind. The first one is education because the worst the unemployment 
rate ever got for people with a college degree during this recession 
was 4.5 percent. That is the worst it got for people who had a college 
degree, who could compete in the 21st century, even in the worst 
recession since the Great Depression.
  As I have said on the floor of this Chamber that has 100 seats, 100 
desks, if we were poor children living in the United States of America 
today, only 9 of these 100 seats would represent college graduates 
because 91 of 100 poor children in the United States in the 21st 
century cannot get access to a college degree. So that is job No. 1, to 
keep a promise to the next generation of Americans.
  I think job No. 2 needs to be driving innovation and job growth in 
this economy, which is what has brought me to the floor today because 
we are failing in this package, among other things, to extend the wind 
production tax credit which cuts right to the core of whether and how 
we want to compete in the 21st century in this global economy.
  For people here or elsewhere who think these jobs aren't real in the 
wind industry, I brought some pictures. I brought some pictures of a 
manufacturing plant made in America--made in America--in this case, in 
Brighton, CO--a manufacturing plant, the towers from which wind 
turbines are going to be hung, driving electricity and jobs in the 
United States. So we are not talking about some fly-by-night, 
experimental industry. This credit has triggered enormous economic 
growth in Colorado and across the country.
  Congressman Steve King, a Republican from Iowa, wrote today in an op-
ed that he published that ``the production tax credit has driven as 
much as $20 billion in private investing.'' This isn't some Bolshevik 
trick, some Socialist trick; it is $20 billion in private investment in 
real American manufacturing jobs.
  Wind power accounts for more than one-third of all new U.S. electric 
generation in recent years. In Colorado alone, I can tell you it has 
created 6,000 jobs in my State. It has moved our State toward a more 
diversified and cleaner energy portfolio, so that Colorado today is a 
leader among the 50 States in diversifying our portfolio.
  Let's be clear. We have oil and we have coal and we have natural gas. 
We have abundant wind and abundant sun and entrepreneurial horsepower 
all across the Front Range. What we don't have is Washington's 
cooperation. What we don't have is the decency of people coming 
together and doing better than just keeping the flickering lights on in 
this place.
  It is because they can't get any certainty out of Washington that 
developers and manufacturers are starting layoffs already in 
anticipation of the credit expiring at the end of this year. This is 
the result of nothing other than our political dysfunction in 
Washington.
  Vestas, which has a huge manufacturing footprint in Colorado--from 
Windsor all the way south to Pueblo--is poised to lay off 1,600 workers 
if we fail to act. Iberdrola Renewables, also doing business in 
Colorado, has already laid off 50 employees for no reason other than 
our inability to get our work done. Nationally, 37,000 jobs are at 
risk, not to mention the ones we could have created after 2012 but 
won't if we let this credit expire.
  I brought a couple of other pictures just to make sure people know 
this is distributed all over the United States.
  This is Pennsylvania and Texas.
  I know I sound like a broken record when I say this because I have 
said it over and over on this floor, but we should not be confused that 
the rest of the world is somehow waiting for us to get our act 
together, that they are somehow waiting for us to cure our politics and 
do something that will actually solve those curves that I mentioned 
earlier and put Americans back to work manufacturing in jobs that are 
actually driving middle-class family income up, rather than down, which 
is what we are doing today.
  Our largest single export from the United States of America is 
aircraft. We export $30 billion a year. China's export of solar panels 
last year was $15 billion--half our largest single export. They didn't 
export one solar panel 10 years ago, and we invented the technology 
here in the United States. In fact, some of us believe we invented that 
technology in the State of Colorado. I am sure the Chinese would love 
to have this business as well. And my concern is not that this is a 
temporary interruption in our wind industry but that this will become a 
permanent shutdown of our ability to drive economic growth across the 
United States. This is a perfect example of an industry that can move 
this employment level back up, an industry that we don't have today, 
one that is in its infancy but 50 years from now or 20 years from now 
may be driving significant employment growth across the United States 
of America. This is an industry that, by the way, would drive this 
curve up as well.
  I met a young man in Logan County not long ago. He was working--he 
was giving me a tour on the top of a wind turbine. I was standing on 
the very top of the box. It was about 10,000 feet in the air--or it 
felt that way to me. I was wearing the shoes I am wearing right now on 
the floor of the Senate, which is not what you should wear when you are 
on the top of a wind turbine, swaying in the wind. He told me he would 
be unable to live in his home community and raise his family in his

[[Page 1869]]

home community if it had not been for that job, a job he could not even 
have imagined there being 5 years ago. And there it is today.
  These are high-quality, high-paying jobs in the United States of 
America. It would seem to me the Congress ought to figure out a way to 
support these industries. I actually do not believe any of these kinds 
of credits should be permanent. I want to be clear about that. I think 
we would be doing ourselves and the country a service if we designed 
them in a way that phased them out over time, because at a certain 
point every business has to sink or swim based on its merits. We are 
``this close'' to being there with wind production and we are ``this 
close'' to turning it over to the rest of the world.
  This is not a partisan issue. This is not a partisan issue. Last week 
Republicans and Democrats from the Colorado delegation came together in 
the House and the Senate to urge a quick extension as part of the 
payroll deal. I know my colleagues Senators Harkin and Grassley did the 
same with the delegation from Iowa.
  I ask unanimous consent to have those letters printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                Congress of the United States,

                                 Washington, DC, February 7, 2012.
     Hon. Max Baucus,
     Chairman, Senate Finance Committee, Dirksen Building, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Dave Camp,
     Chairman, House Ways and Means Committee, Longworth House 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Baucus and Chairman Camp: The undersigned 
     Members of the Colorado delegation urgently request inclusion 
     of a provision to extend the wind energy production tax 
     credit (PTC) as your conference negotiates the payroll tax 
     reduction package. In passing this extension, we would urge 
     the conference committee to include a pay for as well.
       The PTC has been very effective in facilitating new market 
     penetration of wind energy and moving us toward a more 
     diversified and cleaner energy portfolio. A delay in this 
     extension would do enormous damage to that progress. Since 
     its inception, the wind PTC has driven economic growth across 
     the nation, including substantial growth in Colorado. Our 
     state is a wind energy leader, currently generating the third 
     highest percentage of power from wind of any state in the 
     nation. Colorado is home to several major wind energy 
     developers and wind turbine manufacturing facilities, 
     employing upwards of 6,000 workers statewide. We're also home 
     to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), a 
     critical government lab and the world's premier renewable 
     energy research facility.
       Unless the wind PTC is renewed in the first quarter of this 
     year, new wind energy development projects and the thousands 
     of jobs associated with those projects are predicted to drop 
     off precipitously after 2012. This dire situation will be 
     especially pronounced in Colorado, where we manufacture many 
     of the components for wind turbines. Wind-related 
     manufacturing workers will be the first to lose their jobs as 
     developers stop ordering turbines for installation after the 
     PTC ends. Companies with a footprint in Colorado have already 
     started layoffs and several thousand Colorado jobs could be 
     lost if the PTC isn't extended in the near future.
       While the PTC is vital to the near-term future of wind 
     energy production in Colorado and across the nation, the 
     credit should not exist in perpetuity, particularly as the 
     wind industry matures. Following a prompt extension, we 
     believe that Congress should engage in a broader conversation 
     about an incremental phase-down of the credit over the long-
     term.
       In a difficult economy, with thousands of high-quality jobs 
     at stake across our state and the entire country, we urge the 
     Conference Committee to extend the wind PTC as part of your 
     upcoming package.
           Sincerely,
     Michael F. Bennet.
     Mark Udall.
     Diana DeGette.
     Ed Perlmutter.
     Jared Polis.
     Cory Gardner.
     Scott R. Tipton.
     Mike Coffman.
                                  ____



                                Congress of the United States,

                                 Washington, DC, February 8, 2012.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Speaker John Boehner,
     Majority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. David Camp,
     Chairman, Conference Committee on H.R. 3630, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Max Baucus,
     Co-Chairman, Conference Committee on H.R. 3630, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Leader Reid, Leader McConnell, Speaker Boehner, 
     Representative Pelosi, Representative Camp, Senator Baucus, 
     and Members of the Conference Committee on H.R. 3630: The 
     undersigned Members of the Iowa delegation respectfully urge 
     you to include a short term Production Tax Credit (PTC) 
     extension for wind energy as part of any payroll tax cut 
     extension you are currently negotiating.
       Our state and the whole nation have benefited tremendously 
     from the economic development, new manufacturing jobs, and 
     increased domestic energy supply that wind energy has 
     provided. And the PIC has been a major factor behind this 
     success. Iowa is now receiving 20% of our electricity from 
     wind at stable and dependable rates. There are over 215 wind 
     related businesses operating in 55 counties across our state, 
     employing over 5000 people. While Iowa has been a leader, we 
     are seeing these results multiplying across the country.
       However, with the PTC for wind due to expire at the end of 
     2012, the expansion, jobs and manufacturing of the industry 
     is put in serious jeopardy--not just in Iowa, but across the 
     country. We must provide some certainty to allow this 
     industry to keep growing. If the PTC is not extended 
     immediately, our communities back home stand to lose 
     thousands of jobs, manufacturing, infrastructure and private 
     investment. The manufacturing workers, in particular, are the 
     first to lose their jobs as developers have already stopped 
     ordering turbines for installation after 2012 because of 
     uncertainty about the continuation of the credit.
       Clearly, no energy incentive should be in place forever, 
     but now is not the time to pull the rug out from under the 
     wind energy industry, as it is putting in place the domestic 
     manufacturing, the private investment and the technological 
     advancements that will allow it to prosper without the PTC in 
     the near future. We appreciate your consideration of our 
     request to include language in the upcoming payroll tax cut 
     legislation to immediately extend the wind energy PTC.
           Sincerely,
     Senator Tom Harkin.
     Senator Charles Grassley.
     Representative Bruce Braley.
     Representative Tom Latham.
     Representative Dave Loebsack.
     Representative Leonard Boswell.
     Representative Steve King.

  Mr. BENNET. As I recall, Senator Grassley actually was the one who 
wrote this to begin with. We have also recently filed an amendment, a 
bipartisan, fully paid for, 1-year extension of the credit to the 
surface transportation bill. I thank Senator Moran, a Republican from 
Kansas, for joining me to lead on that amendment.
  There is plenty of support out there for us to get this done. More 
important than that, if we do not act, there are thousands of people 
who are going to have to go home to their families and say they were 
laid off from their job for no reason other than the political 
dysfunction here in Washington, DC.
  I think enough is enough. I cannot tell you how much I look forward 
to a time when we have a thoughtful, bipartisan, fact-based tax reform 
in this country; when we are thinking about our Tax Code and our 
regulatory code and asking ourselves: Are we driving job growth here in 
the United States with these policies? Are we driving up middle-class 
family income with these policies? Are we addressing the income 
inequality gap by having an economy that truly does lift all ships and, 
as the President would make the point, are we dealing with the fiscal 
challenges this country faces so we do not strap our kids with this 
mountain of debt?
  I know there are people on both sides of the aisle who are anxious to 
work on this, but we have failed that test in this compromise measure. 
It is my hope that at some point in the near future we can get a vote 
on this amendment, Senator Moran's amendment, and we can put Americans 
back to work in these industries before we lose them forever.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about an important 
reimbursement issue that impacts the lives of millions of Medicare 
beneficiaries and providers. The sustainable growth rate, SGR, 
originally implemented in 1997 through the Balanced

[[Page 1870]]

Budget Act, was intended to constrain overall Medicare spending growth 
in physician services. However, since 2002, actual expenditures for 
physician services have exceeded allowed targets, yielding negative 
updates in prospective years. As a result, Congress intervened 13 times 
to preempt a physician payment cut. In doing so, they failed to address 
the underlying issue and sustained a flawed reimbursement mechanism. 
With each year that passes, the cost of `fixing' the SGR grows, 
amounting to an albatross of several hundred billion dollars. 
Consequently, on March 1, 2012, Medicare physicians will face a 27.4 
percent cut to their reimbursement. Our budget baseline perpetuates an 
illusory premise that these cuts will occur. However, it's widely 
acknowledged that if implemented, these cuts would have a debilitative 
effect on medical practices and Medicare beneficiaries.
  As Congress looks to yet again preempt a physician payment cut, I 
believe it is imperative that we identify a viable pathway to replacing 
the SGR. We can begin by utilizing Overseas Contingency Operations, 
OCO, funding to pay for the $195 billion in accrued SGR retrospective 
debt. OCO funds, deemed to be budgetary savings from the drawdown of 
military engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan, can be appropriately 
reallocated against accrued SGR debt that will not be collected. This 
would not constitute new spending, but rather amount to a down payment 
on an SGR fix. I urge conferees to give strong consideration to 
utilizing OCO funding to offset SGR's retrospective debt. It's time 
that Congress use honest budgeting and provide Pennsylvania's 2.2 
million Medicare beneficiaries and 155,776 employees of medical 
practices, with some certainty.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi is recognized.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, are we in morning business or do I have to 
ask consent to speak as in morning business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is on the bill.
  Mr. WICKER. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          Recess Appointments

  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I came to the floor previously to speak 
about President Obama's unconstitutional appointments of Richard 
Cordray as Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and of 
three new members to the National Labor Relations Board. I spoke about 
why this blatant overstep of executive authority violates the 
President's right to make recess appointments under article II, section 
2 of the Constitution. I described its unequivocal reversal of years of 
precedent which the Obama Justice Department's Office of Legal Council 
has since defended, essentially stating that pro forma sessions no 
longer matter.
  This issue is far from over. We cannot allow it simply to go away and 
the illegal appointments must eventually be set aside.
  The 23-page Justice Department opinion, written by Assistant Attorney 
General Virginia A. Seitz, wrongly advises that, despite the convening 
of pro forma sessions, the President ``has discretion to conclude that 
the Senate is unavailable to perform its advise-and-consent function 
and to exercise his power to make recess appointments.'' Under this 
misguided opinion, the Obama administration is suggesting that the 
executive branch--not Congress--can determine when the legislative 
branch is in session. The egregious overreach undermines the checks and 
balances at the very heart of our Constitution.
  I am deeply concerned that this presumptuous action by the President 
poses profound and dangerous implications. As others have suggested, 
President Obama's abuse of his recess appointment power could lead to 
unilateral ``recess'' appointments anytime, such as during lunch or in 
the middle of the night. This is not that far fetched.
  As I said before, it is my hope that both parties will rise to defend 
the separated powers our Founders put in place to prevent tyranny and 
the misuse of authority.
  It is worth repeating that the controversy surrounding the 
President's non-recess appointments has nothing to do with the personal 
character of Mr. Cordray or of those named to the National Labor 
Relations Board. Nor is the debate over appointments when the Senate is 
in recess. What the President has done transcends party issues and 
ideological divides.
  A day after the appointments were made, former attorney general Edwin 
Meese III and former Office of Legal Counsel lawyer Todd Gaziano wrote 
in the Washington Post that President Obama's move is ``a 
constitutional abuse of a high order.'' It challenges 225 years of 
executive practice.
  The Constitution is very clear in its delegation of powers. It 
explicitly grants the Senate the exclusive responsibility to give 
``advice and consent'' on treaties and nominations. It endows the 
President with the right to fill vacancies when the Senate is not in 
session--a provision conceived by the Framers as a way to keep the 
government operational when the ability of Senators to communicate with 
the executive branch and travel back to the Capitol took much longer 
than today.
  Of course, it is disappointing that President Obama has dismissed the 
will of the Senate, which rejected Mr. Cordray's nomination in 
December.
  But never before has a President assumed the authority to issue 
recess appointments when the Senate is not in recess. In doing so, the 
President is violating the Constitution plain and simple, and 
invalidating the legitimacy of his appointees. It stands to reason that 
any decisions of the CFPB or NLRB will be subject to the same shroud of 
unconstitutionality and legal contest.
  The Constitution and nearly a century of legal opinion provide a 
solid basis for determining the parameters of what qualifies as a 
legislative ``recess,'' which is required for the President to invoke 
his appointment privileges.
  Under Article section 5, clause 4 of the Constitution, the House of 
Representatives must grant its consent in order for the Senate to 
adjourn longer than 3 days. The Senate must do the same for the House.
  It is an undisputed fact that the House of Representatives did not 
give this chamber that consent and, in keeping with the Constitution, 
this Senate did not adjourn for more than 3 days.
  The President's claim that a brief adjournment can be called a 
``recess'' goes against 90 years of legal opinion. In 1921, President 
Harding's Attorney General Harry M. Daugherty had this to say about 
what defines a recess: ``[N]o one, I venture to say, would for a moment 
contend that the Senate is not in session when an adjournment [of two 
days] is taken. Nor do I think an adjournment for 5 or even 10 days can 
be said to constitute the recess intended by the Constitution.''
  Since then, Attorneys General and Presidents of both parties have 
agreed that at least 10 days should pass before a recess is 
acknowledged.
  And yet, as we are aware, there were not 10 days of adjournment when 
President Obama made his four appointments. We were holding pro forma 
sessions--proceeding just as the Senate did in 2007, when Majority 
Leader Reid wanted to block President Bush from making recess 
appointments--and succeeded in doing so. As Edwin Meese and Todd 
Gaziano acknowledged in their op-ed, ``Reid was right, whether or not 
his tactics were justified.''
  Michael McConnell, a former Federal judge and director of the 
Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School, came to the same 
conclusion. Last month, he wrote in the Wall Street Journal:

       Several years ago--under the leadership of Harry Reid and 
     with the vote of then-Sen. Obama--the Senate adopted a 
     practice of holding pro forma sessions every three days 
     during its holidays with the expressed purpose of preventing 
     President George W. Bush from making recess appointments 
     during intrasession adjournments. This administration must 
     think the rules made to hamstring President Bush do not apply 
     to President Obama. But an essential bedrock of any 
     functioning democratic republic is that the

[[Page 1871]]

     same rules apply regardless of who holds office.

  It is appalling that the Obama administration would call into 
question the entire legitimacy of pro forma sessions when, less than 
two weeks before the appointments, the President signed into law the 
payroll tax extension that the Senate had passed in such a session.
  What makes the business conducted during the pro forma session on 
Dec. 23 any different from the pro forma sessions that came just days 
after? Based on this case, it appears the validity of a Senate session 
is subject to the President's whim. He signs legislation passed in one 
pro forma session. He concludes that another pro forma session did not 
exist at all.
  In the same op-ed to the Washington Post, Edwin Meese and Todd 
Gaziano concluded:

       If Congress does not resist, the injury is not just to its 
     branch but ultimately to the people. [And that is what is 
     important.] James Madison made clear that the separation of 
     powers was not to protect government officials' power for 
     their sake but as a vital check on behalf of individual 
     liberty.

  Indeed, the forefathers of this country were candid about the crucial 
link between the separation of powers and freedom itself.
  As Madison wrote in essay No. 48 of The Federalist:

       It is agreed on all sides, that the powers properly 
     belonging to one of the departments ought not to be directly 
     and completely administered by either of the other 
     departments. It is equally evident, that none of them ought 
     to possess, directly or indirectly, an overruling influence 
     over the others, in the administration of their respective 
     powers. It will not be denied, that power is of an 
     encroaching nature, and that it ought to be effectually 
     restrained from passing the limits assigned to it.

  As elected public servants, we are bound by our oath of office to 
uphold and preserve the principles of the Constitution.
  To do that, we must guard the sanctity of the decisions made and 
privileges held by this chamber. Our government's separation of powers 
is not an antiquated idea but a timeless safeguard to liberty.
  In 1985, Sen. Byrd, the Democratic Majority Leader from West 
Virginia, wrote in a letter to President Reagan:

       Recess appointments should be limited to circumstances when 
     the Senate, by reason of a protracted recess, is incapable of 
     confirming a vitally needed public officer. Any other 
     interpretation of the Recess Appointments clause could be 
     seen as a deliberate effort to circumvent the Constitutional 
     responsibility of the Senate to advise and consent to such 
     appointments.

  Where are the Robert Byrds today?
  Those who served before us provided precedent and wisdom to address 
our problems today. They defended the constitutional duties we are now 
entrusted to protect. Is there not one Democratic Senator who will step 
forward to defend the constitutional principle of separation of powers?
  The President has made no secret of his contempt for Congress in 
recent months. His campaign rhetoric is heavy with ``do-nothing'' 
accusations.
  The President is certainly free to engage in election-year hyperbole. 
But he is not free to overstep the constitutional limits of his office. 
I can think of a number of other priorities demanding our undivided 
attention right now--fixing the economy and putting Americans back to 
work are top among them. Yet in order to address these challenges, we 
need a working relationship between the legislative and executive 
branches. The President's power grab undermines the very constitutional 
foundation of this relationship.
  I urge Members from both sides of the aisle to call for President 
Obama to rescind these appointments. Regardless of our party 
allegiances, we are united by a pledge to serve the American people. 
That is what motivated Robert Byrd earlier, and it is what ought to 
motivate us today. Keeping that promise means standing for the sanctity 
of our country's founding document and the integrity of this 
institution.
  I thank the Chair.
  I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Blumenthal). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CARDIN. 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. CARDIN. Mr. President, I wish to take the time now to talk about 
the conference report that has been filed in regard to the extension of 
the payroll tax holiday, the Medicare physician issues so our seniors 
can continue to have access to their doctors, and the extension of the 
unemployment insurance.
  I was appointed to that conference, and the conference has been 
meeting now for the better part of the last 6 to 8 weeks. We were able 
to reach an agreement that was filed. I first wish to compliment 
Senator Baucus, the Senate chair of the conference committee. There was 
a real effort made that this conference would operate the way a 
conference should operate; that is, the House and Senate Members 
meeting, discussing the differences between the two bodies and trying 
to reconcile their differences in a somewhat open process. We had 
several open discussions where we talked about some of the issues.
  Each Member of the conference had a chance to express themselves on 
the issues, and we had a good exchange. I think during that exchange we 
were able to reach some consensus. Almost immediately we reached a 
consensus that all of us wanted to make sure the payroll tax holiday 
was extended. The payroll tax holiday provides tax relief for 160 
million Americans. This is not the time for paychecks to actually go 
down for American workers. We are trying to build a confidence in the 
workplace, in the marketplace. The more money in the paychecks allows 
people the opportunity to be better consumers, helping to create jobs.
  There was general consensus that we needed to extend the unemployment 
insurance, that we are still in the recovery where unemployment rates 
are so high that it is important we use this countercyclical program to 
help people but to also build our economy. It helps create jobs, again 
having more money available for the consumers to help our small 
businesses and to help our economy.
  Lastly, we all understood we could not allow a 27-percent cut in 
Medicare rates for physicians, that that would deny many of our seniors 
access to health care. So very early in the conference process we 
reached consensus that those three issues should be extended, at least 
through the end of this calendar year. For the payroll tax holiday, 
that was our understanding, to extend it through the end of the year.
  We know the Medicare issues need to be extended for a longer period 
of time. We worked together. I thought it was very important that we 
allow the full Senate, the full House to consider that conference 
report. We have had too much gridlock. We have had too much of 
individual Members trying to block the consideration of important 
legislation, particularly in the Senate. So I think it is very 
important that we were able to bring this issue to the full Senate, and 
we are going to have, I hope, a good debate, and sometime tomorrow we 
are going to have a chance to vote on whether to accept the conference 
report.
  There is some good news. I do applaud again Senator Baucus and my 
colleagues Senator Casey and Senator Reed on the work that was done by 
the Democrats on the committee. We took a very strong position against 
adding these extraneous positions that came over from the House, the 
so-called Boiler MACT, which was a provision that would have affected 
the health of people in our community. There is no question that if we 
would have accepted the House position, it would have weakened our 
Clean Air Act, it would have led to more premature deaths, more 
hospital admissions, more lost days from work. The cost-benefit ratio 
of this rule is well documented, that it will help our economy, help 
save the health and workdays for American workers.
  We also removed a provision from the House bill that dealt with the 
Keystone issue. This has to go through a regular

[[Page 1872]]

regulatory process. It should have no place in this conference. We were 
able to remove that provision.
  On the unemployment insurance front, let me mention that we were able 
to reserve the extension of unemployment insurance benefits. Under the 
current law, there is a maximum available of 99 weeks. Let me remind my 
colleagues that because of the way the extended benefit program is 
calculated, that at least in my State by April, those 20 weeks are 
likely to be not available for new people who become unemployed, and 
throughout the rest of our Nation, we are finding that extended benefit 
program will not be providing those extra weeks.
  So the conference committee recommendation is to try to use better 
triggers as it relates to the different tiers of benefits in the 
extended benefit program, so the high unemployment States have a 
greater number of weeks than those States that are doing better and to 
transition us to a more regular unemployment system as we go through 
the year.
  In regard to the Medicare provisions in this bill, we were able not 
only to extend the sustainable growth rate, the SGR system, so we do 
not get the automatic cuts that would occur against physicians, we were 
able to extend that through the end of the year. But we also extended 
the therapy caps. If we did not do that, those who are the victims of 
stroke or who have had a hip replacement would have run into an 
arbitrary cap which would provide them the therapy they need for their 
recovery. We were able to get that done.
  On the payroll tax, as I said earlier, there was an agreement we 
would extend that. The payroll tax is all about helping 160 million 
Americans. It is about creating jobs.
  That is where we were able to come to an agreement that I think was 
in the best interest of the conference. Let me talk about some serious 
problems I have with the conference report. It deals with how we 
decided to fund or offset the cost of unemployment insurance 
extensions. Let me remind my colleagues that this is a short-term 
extension, where we are phasing out the extra benefits through the end 
of this year. It is calculated to cost about $30 billion. Historically, 
we have extended unemployment insurance benefits during tough economic 
times without having offsets.
  Why? Because unemployment insurance is countercyclical. It is there 
to help people during tough times. During good times we pay money into 
the system. We are trying to put more money into the economy. It does 
not make sense to take money out of the economy when we are trying to 
create jobs and get our economy back on track.
  Unfortunately, that principle was violated in this conference report. 
The $30 billion is offset. Let me compare that to the payroll tax 
holiday, which is $100 billion, which many of us think should be 
offset, which is not offset. As you know, we came in with 
recommendations where we could fairly offset the extension of the 
payroll tax holiday without adversely affecting our economy. We had 
suggested we would have a surtax on income, exempting $1 million of 
taxable income from the surtax--a little bit of fairness in our Tax 
Code--in order to make sure we do not add to the deficit, do not hurt 
the economy but allow middle-income taxpayers to continue to get their 
tax relief.
  To me, that would have been the responsible thing for us to do. But 
we do not do that in this conference. Instead, we did not pay for the 
$100 billion for extending the payroll tax, but we paid for the 
unemployment insurance benefits, $30 billion, which I would suggest is 
an emergency. That truly is a matter that historically we have not paid 
for.
  All right. Here is the problem. In order to pay for that $30 billion, 
we picked on our Federal workforce. I tell you, I find that wrong. We 
put a provision in this bill that will require new Federal employees, 
those who start work after January of 2013, to pay more for their 
defined retirement benefit. That is how we funded about half the cost 
of extending the unemployment insurance. I think that is wrong.
  Let me also say that the extension of the unemployment benefits is 
temporary--only until the end of this year. The extra costs for the 
retirement benefits are permanent. It stays in the law. That doesn't 
seem like a good deal for what we are trying to do.
  We also are saying that one group of workers, and only one group, 
makes a contribution toward this. These are middle-income workers who 
will be paying for this, a large part of the unemployment insurance 
cost. I don't think that is right. I don't think we should have done 
that.
  Let me also point out, as we talk about the Federal workforce, that 
the additional cost the new workers will pay will be 2.3 percent of 
their payroll, which will go to a retirement trust fund that is already 
fully funded. So this is not to address a problem with the funding of 
the retirement plans for our Federal employees; I think this is 
strictly a punitive hit at the Federal workforce.
  Public servants have already given $60 billion toward deficit 
reduction in the form of a 2-year pay freeze and will give at least 
another $30 billion if the base pay adjustment for 2013 is .5 percent 
instead of the 1.2 percent, which is what the adjustment should be 
under the Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act. Add it all together, 
and present and future Federal workers are providing over $100 billion 
in deficit reduction. That is $100 billion in deficit reduction coming 
out of our Federal workforce. Yet the Republicans continue to defend 
the most affluent Americans who won't pay one extra penny for funding 
this payroll tax package. I don't think that is right, I don't think 
that is fair, and I don't think we should have done it in that manner.
  Now, I want to say some positive things. You can always look at 
things and say it could have been a lot worse. And that is true, it 
could have been a lot worse. When you look at the House bill that 
included these provisions, it included a pay freeze for our Federal 
workers. That is not in this. We got that out.
  I worked very hard with my colleague, Congressman Chris Van Hollen 
from Maryland. We worked together. In the original package, all Federal 
workers would have had to pay more, including current Federal workers. 
This package does not affect current Federal workers. They will not 
have to pay extra for their pension plans. That is fair. When they 
signed up as a Federal employee, they knew what the ground rules were 
and they knew what the pension contributions would have to be and what 
the benefits were. It is right that we live up to that commitment. So 
this agreement will not affect current workers. Their pension 
contributions will remain the same.
  The bill that came over to us from the House also reduced pension 
benefits. We took that out of the bill. That is not in the bill. And 
the rate they would have had new hires pay is higher than what we 
agreed to in this package.
  Congressman Van Hollen and I worked very hard to try to accommodate 
the parameters of the conference and what was being required of our 
Federal workforce in a way that it would not penalize our existing 
workers and would not be anywhere near as punitive as the provisions 
that were put in the House bill. So we are at least grateful that the 
conference includes that, but I can't help but be disappointed that the 
unemployment insurance is being financed at least in half by a 
permanent change in the contribution rates to defined benefit plans by 
those who join the Federal workforce after January 1, 2013. They are 
the only ones who are affected by that proposal.
  Let me conclude by saying that we all should be pleased that the 
conference worked, that we took a difficult issue in which there are 
strong fundamental differences between the House and the Senate and we 
were able to come to an agreement to at least be presented to the 
Members of the House and Senate for an up-or-down vote where each of us 
can make our own judgment as to whether we think this is the right 
package for the American

[[Page 1873]]

people. I might have a different view than the Presiding Officer, and 
we will both be able to express our views by our votes tomorrow.
  I hope that process will be used to get more work done for the 
American people. They want us to work together. They want Democrats and 
Republicans to say: OK, we know we differ on issues. Now let's get 
together and get things done.
  We have the Transportation bill that is on the floor and that we are 
talking about today. That Transportation bill should end up on the 
President's desk. That Transportation bill came out of our committees 
with bipartisan votes. So now let's not clutter that bill with issues 
that will divide us. Let's work in the spirit the conference committee 
did--a committee on which I was privileged to serve--and try to keep it 
relevant to the issues at hand so that at the end of the day we can not 
only pass the Transportation bill in the Senate, but we can get it 
passed in the House of Representatives--or work out our differences--
and get it to the President for his signature. That bill will create 
jobs.
  By the way, I think the American people will applaud us for moving 
forward with the people's business. That is what we need to do. If we 
could get that bill done, maybe--just maybe--we can get other issues 
done.
  I have talked to my Republican colleagues, and they all agree we 
can't allow sequestration to take place. That is these automatic cuts, 
if we can't do another $1.2 trillion of deficit reduction over the 10 
years. We should be able to get that done. We shouldn't have to wait 
until after the November elections. Let's take a lesson from the 
conference committee on which I served. Let's sit down and work out our 
differences and not just say ``it has to be my way or it is not going 
to get done.'' That is what is in the best interests of the Senate, and 
that is in the best interests of our Nation.
  I hope we will have a robust debate on the conference report. I hope 
each Member will have an opportunity to review it, and at the end of 
the day we will have a chance to see how the votes turn out. Again, I 
am sorry I have certain reservations about it, and I needed to express 
them, but, quite frankly, I think we need to stand for our Federal 
workforce out there every day providing services to our people. Whether 
it is guarding our borders, whether it is finding the answers to the 
most dread diseases, whether it is helping us develop the technology 
that will make America competitive, or providing public safety as a 
correctional officer or helping us make sure we get our Social Security 
checks or get our disability checks, these are the people on the front 
lines. We are asking them to do more with less, and they deserve not 
just the respect of this body but they deserve our support.
  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. INHOFE. 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. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Inhofe pertaining to the introduction of S.J. 
Res. 37 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. INHOFE. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. 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. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business and would also ask unanimous consent that following my 
remarks, my colleague in this effort to fund transportation projects, 
Senator Hoeven, follow me.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, we all understand that our country faces an 
array of major economic challenges, and I made the judgment quite some 
time ago that it was simply impossible to have big league economic 
wealth with little league transportation systems. All across the 
country--I know the distinguished Presiding Officer has seen this in 
Minnesota, where he has been doing good work on infrastructure and 
bridges--we have seen this in every corner.
  When the Senator from North Dakota came to the Senate, I had the good 
fortune to begin to have discussions with him with respect to some new 
ways to address the question of how to generate funds for the critical 
transportation work that needs to be done and to generate those funds 
in a fashion that would be acceptable to the American people.
  I think we all understand that with this kind of an economy and with 
skyrocketing gasoline prices, it is not very likely that folks will be 
marching outside our Senate offices anytime soon carrying signs saying: 
Senator, please raise the gas tax; that is what I hope you will spend 
your time doing. So we have this challenge given the fact that the 
traditional system of funding transportation--user fees--of course, in 
a tough economy, is going to be hard to suggest as a route to generate 
additional funds.
  So for quite some time I have been devoted to the cause of trying to 
find a way to secure the possibility of getting additional funds 
through transportation bonds. They, of course, have been used at a 
variety of levels of government, particularly State and local, over the 
years.
  About 8 years ago, I put forward the first proposal for looking at 
paying for transportation projects with our former colleague, Senator 
Jim Talent, a Republican from Missouri, and we called them Build 
America Bonds. Senator Talent and I thought at that time that this was 
an opportunity to come up with a fresh and attractive way to pay for 
transportation projects. We sought to work with the private sector to 
find some way to use Federal tax credit bonding for these projects, and 
over the years Senator Talent and I were able to attract a number of 
Senators on both sides of the aisle for this cause. To give an idea of 
just how bipartisan this effort has been over the years, Senator Thune, 
Senator Vitter, our former colleague Senator Dole, Senator Collins, 
Senator Wicker, and our former colleague Senator Coleman are just a few 
on the Republican side who were part of the effort. And on the 
Democratic side, Senator Klobuchar, our former colleague Senator 
Dayton, Senator Cardin, and Senator Rockefeller have been just a few of 
those who have supported the bonding efforts.
  In 2009 the Congress decided to test a version of Build America 
Bonds. In effect, as a member of the Senate Finance Committee, I had 
brought it up so many times with Chairman Baucus and Senator Grassley, 
who was then the ranking member, I think the two of them said: Well, 
let's give this a try as part of the Recovery Act. In effect, it would 
essentially go from the middle of 2009 until the end of 2010.
  Late in the evening, as Chairman Baucus and Senator Grassley were 
working to put together the details on the Recovery Act, I was asked 
what I thought might be the results of the Build America Bonds program, 
and I said: Well, it is not going to last all that long. It is going to 
take the Internal Revenue Service a period of time to put together the 
rules. And I said: I am just making this up, but why don't we just 
estimate that it might generate $6 billion to $10 billion worth of 
transportation and infrastructure investments.
  Everybody said: It is an experimental program, sounds promising, go 
ahead. Let's give it a try.
  Well, between April 2009 and the end of the program at the end of 
2010, there was more than $181 billion worth of Build America Bonds 
issued. It was

[[Page 1874]]

just a little bit more than 18 times what was predicted.
  You don't often have this kind of challenge, but, in effect, one of 
the issues we had to deal with was Build America Bonds became so 
popular that there was an effort to use them for a variety of other 
kinds of projects, many of them very laudable but they were not 
projects that focused specifically on transportation, and, of course, 
that was the original intent of Build America Bonds. Also, there was no 
cap on them. Nobody realized they would be so popular.
  So there was a concern that this was more than colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle had bargained for.
  We do want to note that the Treasury Department issued their final 
report on Build America Bonds earlier this year, and they said that 
Build America Bonds issuers saved well over $20 billion in borrowing 
costs on a present value basis as compared to tax-exempt bonds.
  So clearly there was something to work with in terms of trying to 
take the next step, and when the Senator from North Dakota arrived 
here, I said: It would be great to have an opportunity to work with a 
partner and look specifically at trying to rebuild the concept of 
focusing specifically on transportation in a way that would generate a 
substantial amount of new revenue and would be acceptable to colleagues 
across the political spectrum and those who follow these issues.
  As the Senator from North Dakota knows, we have now come up with a 
new approach called Transportation and Regional Infrastructure Project 
Bonds. Chairman Baucus and Senator Hatch have been good enough to 
include them in the finance title of this year's Transportation Funding 
Program, and we wanted to take a few minutes to talk a little bit about 
how this would work.
  Given the fact that we have been able to attract a number of folks on 
the progressive side of the political spectrum--folks in labor, for 
example--Doug Holtz-Eakin has issued a very helpful paper that I hope 
will also bring conservatives to this cause. We have shared that paper 
with Senators on both sides of the aisle.
  The way the TRIP bonds would work is, first, they are tax credit 
bonds created specifically for transportation projects. We would allow 
infrastructure banks that already exist in nearly every State to issue 
these bonds. This time we are looking to really focus on the States. 
The States are the primary vehicle for ensuring that these projects 
would have local support and would really meet the long-term needs the 
States have identified.
  We would pay for the bonds with a sinking fund comprised of State 
matching contributions and Customs user fees. In the proposal that was 
accepted by the Finance Committee, we would cap the total amount of 
bonds issued at $50 billion, giving each State 2 percent of the total. 
In effect, what the Finance Committee has done is put a placeholder in 
their bill for us to go forward with this effort.
  Each State would get at least $1 billion in bonds to issue on 
projects at their discretion. States can also band together to bond for 
larger projects or ones that would have the benefit of addressing a 
concern of States in a region. This would give the States the incentive 
and the ability to invest in their own transportation and does so in a 
way that leverages private investment and costs little to our 
government in lost revenue.
  We would give private investors who show a willingness to help build 
our roads, bridges, and rail systems a tax credit for their commitment. 
What Build America Bonds taught us is that there is a real market out 
there, and what we would like to do is look at a different approach 
now, focusing on the States, focusing on an approach that would drive 
these projects, not in Washington, DC but at the local level.
  The Joint Committee on Taxation has told us this is an approach that 
would produce a particularly good deal for American taxpayers.
  We can get a transportation bill done. We can put folks back to work. 
But we are going to have to find a way to come up with more creative 
approaches to generate additional revenue. If we do not, I think we are 
going to continue to see, in every corner of the country, critically 
needed projects simply go unaddressed. We are going to continue to see 
traffic jams in areas of the country nobody could have even dreamt a 
traffic jam would be.
  I hope Senators, as we go forward with this debate, particularly 
after the President's Day break, will join my colleagues. Senator 
Begich has been very supportive of this approach as well. We think this 
is an approach with a proven track record given what we saw with Build 
America Bonds. We believe this is a chance to take the lessons we 
learned from that experience and, by changing the focus so it zeros in 
more directly, one, on transportation, two, on the States, and looks to 
some creative features--it is possible, for example, for someone to 
strip the credit from the underlying bond and to sell the credit--so 
this provides a lot more flexibility in terms of finding a way to get 
the private sector into the transportation area.
  I hope my colleagues, when we come back, will be supportive of this 
effort. It has won, as I have indicated, support from across the 
political spectrum.
  I want to thank my partner from the State of North Dakota. I have 
very much enjoyed working with him both on the Energy Committee and on 
this issue. As a former Governor, I think he understands particularly 
well the role of the States in terms of infrastructure.
  We will be talking to colleagues between now and the time the 
Transportation bill comes up, and I thank my friend from North Dakota 
for his support.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I thank my esteemed colleague from the 
great State of Oregon, Senator Wyden, for his leadership on this 
important issue, for his work on the highway bill, and specifically for 
his work on the TRIP bonds, as he said, the Transportation and Regional 
Infrastructure Project bonds. It is a creative concept, and I think it 
is very timely.
  Senator Wyden approached me and said: As we are working on this 
highway bill, can we work together on this concept of something like a 
TRIP bond concept? I expressed my appreciation for his creativity and 
the offer to work together and said, one, I absolutely wanted to do it 
because it is so important to our country right now--we need the jobs, 
we need the economic activity, we need the infrastructure, that is 
clear--and, as the good Senator said, we have to be creative in 
figuring out how to do this.
  I said: We are going to have to do it within the framework of making 
sure it is paid for and making sure it does not add to the deficit or 
the debt. He said: Agreed. And we went to work on it.
  So this truly is bipartisan, and I thank him for taking the 
initiative and for all the work both and he his staff have put into 
what I think is a very creative idea and a real opportunity for us, as 
I say, in infrastructure and in job creation and economic activity for 
our country.
  I also extend my thanks to two Members of the House of 
Representatives as well, both Ed Whitfield, Congressman from Kentucky, 
Republican, and Congressman Leonard Boswell, Democrat from the State of 
Iowa.
  So in both the Senate and the House this has been a bipartisan 
effort. That is important because at the end of the day, if we are 
going to get this passed, that is what it is going to take, bipartisan 
support. So this is about addressing something that is vitally 
important: our infrastructure needs, job creation. It is something we 
pay for, so it does not increase the deficit or the debt, and it is 
absolutely bipartisan.
  Again, as my esteemed colleague just mentioned, I bring a perspective 
as a Governor. We are talking about $25 billion in addition to the 
normal highway funding. So this is for projects in infrastructure that 
State departments of transportation and Governors--people at the State 
level, at the local level--

[[Page 1875]]

decide what infrastructure projects need to be done, and they can then 
use these funds accordingly. That is of tremendous value to them. 
Without exception, go across the States, ask any of the Governors or 
directors of transportation, and they will tell you: That is exactly 
the kind of funding we want and need to do the very best job for the 
people we serve in our respective States.
  Mr. President, $25 billion--$10 billion the first year, $15 billion 
in year 2--will make an incredible difference for every single State in 
the country.
  Now, the other thing to keep in mind is--Senator Wyden went through 
for just a minute how we have structured the bonds--essentially, it 
results in a 4-to-1 leveraging of funds for every State. They put their 
dollars into the sinking fund. They select the projects. Then, on a 
project-by-project basis, they put forward dollars in the sinking fund, 
and we provide them a 4-to-1 match.
  So, for example, $\1/2\ billion goes to a State. As they select 
projects, that $\1/2\ billion funds those projects. They put up $100 
million as they select and advance those projects. For their $100 
million, they are doing $500 million in projects.
  Again, this is exactly what the States are looking for. This is 
exactly what they need to meet their infrastructure needs. Anyone 
driving around the country--whether it is in the District or anywhere 
else--is going to tell you: Look, we have to address our infrastructure 
needs. And this is absolutely something that will make a big difference 
in doing that.
  Again, in addition to being truly a bipartisan effort, and a 
bicameral effort, at this point we have received tremendous support and 
encouragement from across the country and from truly a diverse range of 
groups--from labor, from business, from mayors, from county 
commissioners. It truly has not only bipartisan support but incredibly 
strong support across the country.
  Just some of the various groups that have come out and already 
endorsed the project include the American Association of Road and 
Transportation Builders, the American Association of State Highway and 
Transportation Officials, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American 
Highway Users Alliance, the Associated General Contractors of America, 
the International Union of Operating Engineers, the Labors' 
International Union of North America, the National Association of 
Manufacturers, and the American Society of Civil Engineers.
  Again, mayors, commissioners--this truly has broad, strong support at 
the grassroots level. That is reflective of the fact that it is exactly 
the kind of project we need to advance.
  So as we work on this highway bill, I see this as a tremendous 
opportunity--really an opportunity, and not just in terms of the 
infrastructure we so badly need but to put people to work in good jobs, 
in good-paying jobs. Think of the ramifications that has, the secondary 
ramifications that has for our economy right now. It is incredibly 
important. It makes a huge difference, and then we have the lasting 
infrastructure, we are meeting the lasting infrastructure needs of this 
country.
  Before I yield the floor, just a final comment and that is to ask our 
colleagues to join us in this effort. If they have good ideas, we are 
absolutely open to those ideas. But this is a concept whose time has 
come. We need to make sure, as we work forward on this highway bill, we 
include the TRIP bonds as part of that package.
  With that, I yield the floor back to my esteemed colleague.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for just 
2 additional minutes. I see our friend from Iowa is in the Chamber.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from North Dakota for 
his statement. This is bipartisan. It is a bicameral effort. My 
colleague's point at the end, in terms of our being open to additional 
ideas and suggestions, is particularly appropriate.
  What the challenge is going to be on this transportation issue for 
years to come is to try to find a way to generate the additional money 
for the work that needs to be done in a fashion that is acceptable to 
the American people. If it was so easy, everybody would be just ripping 
through one idea after another.
  The two of us have spent many months trying to take the lessons we 
have learned from the Build America bonds effort to try to come up with 
a fresh approach, a fresh bipartisan approach, that would be acceptable 
to colleagues on both sides of the aisle. We think we have done it. We 
do not think this is the only way. We are certainly open to ideas and 
suggestions. But the model of trying to focus on the States, to build 
on the support we have from folks in business and labor unions, and a 
whole host of groups at the local level--mayors and county 
commissioners--strikes us as the way to go.
  We are open to additional ideas and suggestions. Our staffs will be 
working all through this week, the period of the President's Day 
recess, to refine our proposal, to deal with the various issues related 
to scoring. But this is a genuinely new approach to generating revenue. 
It is bipartisan; it is bicameral, with the support of folks in labor 
and business. We hope colleagues will be supportive, and we are 
interested in their ideas and suggestions over this period between now 
and when we start voting on the Transportation bill.
  So, again, I thank my friend from North Dakota. It has been great to 
work with him.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. 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. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Order of Procedure

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be 
determined by the majority leader, after consultation with the 
Republican leader, the Senate proceed to the cloture vote with respect 
to the Reid amendment No. 1633; that if cloture is invoked on the Reid 
amendment, the second-degree amendment be withdrawn, the Reid amendment 
be agreed to and the bill, as amended, be considered original text for 
the purposes of further amendment; that if cloture is not invoked, the 
motion to recommit and the Reid amendment No. 1633 be withdrawn; that 
immediately following the cloture vote and the actions listed above, 
depending on the result of the cloture vote, the Senate then proceed to 
executive session and the cloture motion on the Furman nomination be 
vitiated; that there be 2 minutes equally divided between the chair and 
ranking members of the Judiciary Committee prior to a vote on the 
confirmation of the Furman nomination; that if the nomination is 
confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon 
the table, with no intervening action or debate; that no further 
motions be in order; that any related statements be printed in the 
Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's 
action; that following the vote on confirmation of the Furman 
nomination, the Senate then resume legislative session and the majority 
leader be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Iowa is recognized.


                     Payroll Tax Conference Report

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor to state my vehement 
opposition to the agreement to extend the payroll tax cut and to slash 
the Public Health and Prevention Fund to help pay for the continuation 
of unemployment benefits.
  Let me preface my remarks by stressing that the No. 1 priority in 
Washington today must be creating jobs, growing the economy, and 
restoring the middle class. In recent months,

[[Page 1876]]

we have seen modestly good news on the jobs front, including the 
manufacturing sector, and we must do everything possible to keep our 
economy moving in the right direction.
  To this end, nothing is more effective than continuing unemployment 
insurance benefits for those hardest hit by the great recession. 
Details on the unemployment insurance portion of this agreement are not 
available. But what I am hearing sounds less and less like a good or 
fair deal for workers.
  Federal unemployment benefits will be dramatically scaled back over 
the year, especially in Iowa, my own State, and some other States in 
the Midwest. I do not understand that. It seems to me, if you are 
unemployed, you are unemployed. If you are out of work and your family 
needs help, I do not care whether you live in Iowa or Minnesota or New 
York or New Jersey or anywhere else.
  The payroll tax provisions are also seriously flawed. This Congress 
will be making a grave mistake--a grave mistake--and reinforcing a 
dangerous precedent by extending the payroll tax cuts and adding 
another negative, without paying for it. I am dismayed that Democrats, 
including a Democratic President and a Democratic Vice President, have 
proposed this and are willing to sign off on a deal that could begin 
the unraveling of Social Security.
  Two of the critical strengths of Social Security are that it is 
universal and it is self-funded. Not one dollar in benefits ever came 
from any source other than the payroll tax on future Social Security 
beneficiaries. Moreover, the program has never contributed even one 
dime to the deficit or the national debt. How often have we, those who 
support Social Security in its entirety--how many times have we come to 
this floor and argued against those who would invade Social Security 
and say, well, we have to reduce the deficit, so we will cut Social 
Security. What do we say, with all honesty, with all the evidence 
backing us up? Social Security has never contributed one dime to the 
deficit.
  So cutting Social Security will never reduce the deficit. With this 
bill, we can no longer say that. We can no longer say Social Security 
does not contribute to the deficit. This argument, this fact, that 
Social Security has never contributed a dime to the deficit has given 
Social Security a unique, even an almost sacrosanct, status in our 
society.
  It was one of the strongest arguments, I repeat, for those of us 
defending Social Security from misguided attempts to cut it in the name 
of deficit reduction. Some might say, well, people are out of work; 
with the fragile economy, we need to put some spending in the pockets 
of our middle-class Americans.
  I could not agree more. The biggest job creator in America is not 
someone who is rich and has billions of dollars. The biggest job 
creator in America is a working American with money in his or her 
pocket to spend. That is the biggest job creator.
  So, yes, we have to get money in the pockets of working Americans, 
and we have done that in the past in a good way. In the 2009 Recovery 
Act, working Americans received a 6.2-percent credit of their taxes, 
refundable up to $400, to increase their spending power and boost the 
economy. This in no way impacted the Social Security trust fund. I 
supported that, wholeheartedly supported that.
  However, in late 2010, Congress voted to replace that tax credit with 
a 2-percent reduction in payroll taxes which are dedicated to the 
Social Security trust fund. This was done on a temporary basis to 
provide added income for working families, and it was not offset. It 
was not paid for. So for the first time--for the first time--general 
revenues were transferred to the Social Security trust fund to replace 
lost revenue.
  While this ensured that no financial harm was done to the trust fund 
itself, what it did is it created a dangerous precedent by calling into 
question Social Security's dedicated funding. I voted against that 
bill. So in late 2010, we transferred general revenues to replace lost 
revenue.
  In December of 2011, just a couple months ago, we were persuaded to 
support the 2-month extension of the payroll tax cut. Some may look at 
the record and say: Harkin, you voted for that. I did with misgivings. 
But a critical factor was that it was at least fully paid for and would 
not negatively impact the Social Security trust fund.
  However, we are being offered an agreement that extends the payroll 
tax cut through the end of this calendar year. Bad enough, doubly 
negative, it does not pay for it. This is terrible public policy, with 
grave consequences for Social Security. With this new agreement, we 
will be taking $100 billion from the general fund, which is in deficit, 
by the way. So we are going to add $100 billion to the deficit, to 
substitute for the $100 billion in revenues lost due to the payroll tax 
cut. As I said and I repeat, we will be adding $100 billion to the 
deficit and the debt.
  This compounds the mistake Congress made in late 2010 by passing the 
original payroll tax cut without paying for it. No longer--no longer--
can we say Social Security is a program that pays for itself without 
adding to the deficit. Mixing general revenues into the system will 
make it easier for those who have long wished to dismantle Social 
Security to do so in the future.
  Worse--worse--since this tax cut is not being paid for, there is a 
much greater likelihood it will be extended yet again in the future 
because, you see, there is another precedent here: Tax cuts do not have 
to be paid for. Only spending has to be paid for, not tax cuts.
  Does this not open the door to even further extending payroll tax 
cuts because we do not have to pay for it? I choose my words carefully. 
Make no mistake about it, American people, make no mistake about it. 
This is the beginning of the end of the sanctity of Social Security. 
The very real risk is that Social Security will become just another 
program to be paid for with deficit spending and then in the future 
perhaps raided to help reduce the deficit.
  I never thought I would live to see the day when a Democratic 
President and a Democratic Vice President would agree to put Social 
Security in this kind of jeopardy. Never did I ever imagine a 
Democratic President beginning the unraveling of Social Security. I 
warn my colleagues to consider the long-term ramifications of these 
actions.
  While we need to maintain temporary supports for middle-class 
families in these tough economic times, this assistance should not come 
at the expense of American's retirement security. As traditional 
pensions have fallen by the wayside, as the value of peoples' 
retirements in 401(k)s has plummeted, Social Security remains the one 
essential program preventing millions of seniors from plunging into 
poverty in their retirement years, a program started by a Democratic 
President and a Democratic Congress, further enhanced by future 
Democratic Presidents, others, Truman, Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, of 
course, the Great Society.
  This, I believe, has been the hallmark and the underpinning of the 
party I have been proud to belong to. Now this party--this party--the 
Democratic Party, with a Democratic President, is now beginning the 
unraveling of Social Security. That is what is happening, the 
unraveling of Social Security. Never again can any one of us come to 
the floor and say: No. No, we cannot cut Social Security to reduce the 
deficit because it does not add to the deficit.
  With this agreement, Social Security will add to the deficit by $100 
billion. Think about it. I urge my colleagues to look at excellent 
alternative ways of providing temporary support to our middle class. 
One proven approach would be to enlarge the Making Work Pay tax credit 
I talked about that was in the Recovery Act. Again, this tax credit, as 
I said, put an additional $800 in both 2009 and 2010. It could be 
enlarged to provide the similar level of benefits to median-income 
working families as compared to the payroll tax cut.

[[Page 1877]]

  So instead of cutting the payroll tax, let's do the tax credit that 
we had in 2009 and 2010, just bump it up a little bit. How do we pay 
for it? The same way we are paying for the cut in the Social Security 
taxes. Put it on the deficit. Put it on the deficit. But at least we 
are not invading the Social Security trust fund. Cutting the payroll 
tax is a bad idea, a terrible idea. I am embarrassed it is being 
proposed by a Democratic President and a Democratic Vice President.
  We could fully pay for a tax credit, a refundable tax credit, do it 
over a 10-year period of time so it does not negatively impact the 
fragile economic recovery. It would support middle-class families, give 
them the support they need and deserve, but it would not harm Social 
Security.
  I said there were a couple reasons I am opposed to this. That is one. 
That is a big one, what we are doing to the Social Security trust fund. 
But I must also state my strenuous opposition to the cuts in this 
agreement to the Public Health and Prevention Fund that is in the 
Affordable Care Act.
  My Republican friends and colleagues have been trying to get at the 
health care reform bill ever since we passed it: Cut it here, nick it 
there. We have fought that off. The health care act is now making a big 
impact in Americans' lives. Need I mention the fact that kids are 
covered now, even though they may have a preexisting condition. Young 
people can stay on their parents' policy until they are age 26. But we 
put into that affordable care act a Prevention and Public Health Fund, 
with the aim of transforming America's sick care system into a true 
health care system, emphasizing wellness and prevention and public 
health, keeping people out of the hospital in the first place.
  So this last October things started kicking into effect. Beginning 
last October, for example, women over age 40 could get a mammogram 
every year with no copays, no deductibles, no cost. It has to be 
absorbed in the insurance program. Seniors on Medicare get a free 
screening of their health and a health assessment every year so they 
know what to do in the future to keep themselves healthy. No copays, no 
deductibles. Colonoscopies over age 50, no copays, no deductibles. We 
also started investing in proven programs to promote health and 
wellness, decreasing obesity, for example, across the country, through 
this fund.
  Earlier this month, the Trust for America's Health released a 
remarkable study showing that a 5-percent reduction in the obesity rate 
could yield more than $600 billion in savings on health care in the 
next 20 years. This study is the latest confirmation of what common 
sense tells us: Prevention is the best medicine both for our bodies and 
for our budgets.
  Now think about it. We currently spend more than $2 trillion on 
health care each year. An estimated 75 percent of that is accounted for 
by preventable chronic diseases and conditions. Chronic disease is a 
prime culprit in the relentless rise in health insurance premiums, and 
it contributes to the overall poor health that places our Nation's 
economic security and competitiveness in jeopardy.
  This is shameful and, frankly, exasperating because we know how to 
prevent many of these diseases and conditions from developing in the 
first place. We know a lot about the power of prevention through the 
kinds of evidence-based clinical and community prevention programs and 
things that are funded by the Prevention and Public Health Fund. For 
example, for every $1 we spend on the full course of childhood 
vaccines, we can save $16.60 in future health care costs. Not a bad 
return on a dollar, not to mention the quality of the lives of kids who 
don't get measles, mumps, rubella, polio, and a whole bunch of other 
diseases.
  Given the relentless rise in health care costs, it is a classic case 
of penny wise and pound foolish to take money from the Prevention and 
Public Health Fund. Americans get it. Americans get it when it comes to 
disease prevention. They understand that prevention saves lives, saves 
money, and is the commonsense thing to do. In this bill--again, for the 
first time--$5 billion is taken out of the Prevention and Public Health 
Fund--$5 billion. This is outrageous and unacceptable.
  As I said, Americans get it. Here is a letter from the American 
College of Preventive Medicine urging us to oppose taking any money, to 
diverting any money from the Prevention and Public Health Fund. Here is 
the Coalition for Health Funding, opposed to taking money from the 
prevention fund. The American Heart Association is opposed taking money 
from the prevention fund; the Campaign to End Obesity Action Fund, 
opposed to taking money from that fund; the Center for Science in the 
Public Interest, opposed to taking money from the prevention fund; the 
Heartland Alliance, opposed to taking money from the prevention fund; 
the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, opposed to 
taking money from this fund; the Prevention Institute, opposed to 
taking money from the Prevention and Public Health Fund; the American 
Heart Association, the National Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS 
Directors, the American Public City Health Officials, the American Lung 
Association, the National Viral Hepatitis Roundtable, the Association 
of Maternal & Child Health Programs, the American Association of 
Colleges of Pharmacy--722 groups across this country--opposed to taking 
money from the Prevention and Public Health Fund.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
at the end of my remarks some letters in opposition to this taking. 
There are over 700 organizations in opposition to this.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. HARKIN. So who do we listen to, Mr. President? Do we listen to 
public health officials--the American Heart Association, the American 
Lung Association, people all across America saying don't do this?
  This is what is going to save us in the future. Yet they are taking 
$5 billion out of it. It is totally unacceptable and it is outrageous--
outrageous--outrageous. And again, this wasn't in either the House or 
the Senate bill. If I'm not mistaken, maybe a point of order lies 
against things in a conference report that were not considered either 
in the House or the Senate.
  This agreement is being presented as a done deal, nothing we can do 
about it. Well, I urge Senators to think about the dangerous 
consequences and precedence of passing this bill in its current form. 
This bill ends Social Security's historic status as a program that pays 
for itself. Think about it. The bill validates the absurd idea that tax 
cuts have a special status--they do not need to be offset, but spending 
does. Think about it. And this bill foolishly slashes funding for the 
Prevention and Public Health Fund, cuts that will significantly add to 
the deficit in future years.
  I repeat: We need to continue to bolster the economy and boost the 
income of ordinary Americans. This bill is not the way to do it. It is 
a devil's deal. It is a bad deal. There are better ways to accomplish 
these goals. I urge my colleagues to vote against this terribly 
misguided bill in its current form.

                               Exhibit 1

                                               American College of


                                          Preventive Medicine,

                                                 February 9, 2012.
       On behalf of the American College of Preventive Medicine 
     (ACPM), I urge you to oppose any effort to divert funds from 
     the Prevention and Public Health Fund to finance an extended 
     ``doc fix'' in the Medicare physician fee schedule as part of 
     the negotiations on H.R. 3630, the Temporary Payroll Tax Cut 
     Continuation Act of 2011. ACPM is the national professional 
     society for over 2,500 physicians who dedicate their careers 
     to prevention and health promotion at the individual and 
     population levels. As such, ACPM has a primary interest in 
     expanding our nation's investment in prevention to improve 
     the health of communities across the country while adding 
     greater value to our health care system.
       While ACPM has been a staunch supporter of efforts to fix 
     the broken sustainable growth rate formula used to calculate 
     Medicare physician reimbursement levels, the College will not 
     support any proposal that diverts funds away from disease 
     prevention programs in order to increase payments for

[[Page 1878]]

     disease treatment. The Prevention and Public Health Fund, 
     established through the Affordable Care Act, represents a 
     critical investment in public health and a historic 
     commitment towards efforts that will help shift the focus of 
     our health care system from disease treatment to disease 
     prevention and health promotion.
       Already, states are using Prevention Fund dollars to 
     bolster our public health infrastructure and to build a 
     stronger foundation for prevention in communities and 
     neighborhoods that are most in need. To drain the fund of its 
     important resources just when communities are now putting 
     prevention to work represents a shortsighted approach to fund 
     increased reimbursements for Medicare providers.
       There has long been strong bipartisan support for efforts 
     that improve health, reduce costs, and enhance the value of 
     our health care system. Now is not the time to abandon these 
     goals. ACPM will continue to strongly oppose any efforts to 
     decrease the federal commitment to prevention and public 
     health and we ask that you join us in these efforts.
           Sincerely,

                                          Miriam A. Alexander,

                                                          MD, MPH,
     ACPM President.
                                  ____



                                 Coalition for Health Funding,

                                Washington, DC, February 15, 2012.
       Dear Member of Congress: The Coalition for Health Funding 
     is gravely concerned and deeply disappointed that Congress--
     in negotiating a compromise on the ``extenders'' package--
     plans to raid the Prevention and Public Health Fund to 
     partially offset the costs of a temporary patch to Medicare 
     physician fee schedule. The Coalition's 75 national 
     organizations--representing more than 100 million patients 
     and families, health care providers, public health 
     professionals, and scientists--feels strongly that it is 
     penny-wise and pound foolish to cut public health and 
     prevention funding. We urge you to oppose these proposed cuts 
     to the Fund, and instead consider the return on investment 
     the Fund will show in the long-term by keeping people 
     healthy.
       Prevention and public health are vital to securing 
     America's position as a global leader in prosperity, 
     discovery, and military capability. The Prevention and Public 
     Health Fund, established through the Affordable Care Act, 
     represents a critical investment and an unprecedented 
     commitment to improving America's health.
       Already, states and communities are using the Fund to 
     combat chronic diseases, which account for 70 percent of all 
     deaths and 75 percent of all Medicare spending. Specifically, 
     the Fund is bringing communities together to reverse the 
     obesity epidemic. A new analysis by Trust for America's 
     Health shows that reducing the average body mass index by 
     just five percent could lead to nearly $30 billion in health 
     care savings in just five years.
       Evidence abounds--from the Department of Defense to the 
     U.S. Chamber of Commerce--that healthy Americans are stronger 
     on the battlefield, have higher academic achievement, and are 
     more productive in school and on the job. Healthy Americans 
     drive our economic engine, and cost our nation less in health 
     care spending. It is shortsighted to drain the Fund just as 
     communities are now putting prevention to work. We need to 
     improve health, reign in health care spending, and reduce our 
     nation's deficit and debt. The Fund will help us achieve 
     these goals.
       There has long been strong bipartisan support for efforts 
     that improve health, reduce costs, and enhance the value of 
     our health care system. Now is not the time to abandon these 
     goals by ``robbing Peter to pay Paul.'' The Coalition 
     strongly opposes any efforts to reduce the federal commitment 
     to prevention and public health. We hope you will join us in 
     our opposition.
           Sincerely,
     Judy Sherman,
       President.
     Emily J. Holubowich,
       Executive Director.
                                  ____



                                   American Heart Association,

                                Washington, DC, February 15, 2012.
     Hon. Max Baucus,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Baucus: The American Heart Association (AHA), 
     on behalf of its more than 22 million volunteers and 
     supporters, urges you to protect the Prevention and Public 
     Health Fund (Fund) and oppose any efforts to reduce, 
     eliminate, or divert its funding as you consider options for 
     paying for an extension of the payroll tax reduction, for 
     unemployment insurance benefits, and for Medicare payments to 
     physicians.
       The programs supported by the Fund are essential if we are 
     to reduce the growth of chronic diseases, such as heart 
     disease and obesity, and decrease tobacco use rates, which 
     are primary drivers of rising health care costs. 
     Cardiovascular disease (CVD), including heart disease and 
     stroke, is the leading cause of death and disability in the 
     United States and our nation's costliest illness. Based on 
     recent projections, prevalence and costs of CVD will increase 
     dramatically in the next two decades, leaving 40 percent of 
     the population with some form of the disease.
       We know that prevention works and is one of the best ways 
     to avert this cardiovascular crisis. In a 2008 study, the AHA 
     used a model to evaluate the impact of 11 widely recognized 
     measures for cardiovascular prevention. We found that if all 
     11 measures were addressed, heart attacks would be reduced by 
     36 percent and strokes by 20 percent. These measures could 
     add 200 million life-years over the next three decades and 
     increase life expectancy by 1.3 years.
       However, only 18 percent of U.S. adults follow three 
     important measures recommended by the AHA for optimal health: 
     not smoking, maintaining a healthy body weight, and 
     exercising at moderate-vigorous intensity for at least 30 
     minutes, five days per week. Programs supported by the Fund 
     can help Americans adopt healthier lifestyles and we know 
     that the earlier in life they develop these habits, the 
     better. Studies estimate that when people practice these 
     healthy habits reach middle age, they have only a six to 
     eight percent chance of developing CVD in their lifetimes.
       Investing in prevention is a smart move during these 
     fiscally challenging times to maintain both a healthy economy 
     and a healthy society. We urge you to protect the Fund.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Nancy A. Brown,
     Chief Executive Officer.
                                  ____


   President's Budget Presents Dangerous, Costly Setback to Obesity 
                        Epidemic, Campaign Warns

       Washington, DC.--In the face of staggering costs--both in 
     lives and in billions of taxpayer dollars spent because of 
     the nation's obesity epidemic--the President's budget cuts 
     vital obesity prevention programs by $4 billion over the next 
     ten years, the Campaign to End Obesity Action Fund warned 
     today.
       The President's budget recommends drastic reductions to 
     programs that the White House championed a little more than 
     18 months ago designed to promote prevention and wellness 
     through ``an unprecedented funding commitment to these 
     areas.'' At that time, the President specifically proposed 
     ``the creation of a national prevention and health promotion 
     strategy that incorporates the most effective and achievable 
     methods to improve the health status of Americans and reduce 
     the incidence of preventable illness and disability in the 
     United States.''
       These programs were largely contained in the Affordable 
     Care Act, which established the Prevention and Public Health 
     Fund in significant part to reverse the obesity epidemic and 
     help the nation secure a healthier future. The Fund--the 
     whose budget the President now proposes to cut by more than 
     20 percent over the next 10 years--enables work by state and 
     local governmental agencies and community organizations to 
     increase healthy food options in schools, create physical 
     activity programs and promote incentives for workplace 
     wellness.
       In a statement, Stephanie Silverman, cofounder of the 
     Campaign to End Obesity Action Fund, said:
       ``The President must know that there is little good news 
     about obesity--the epidemic continues, and with it the long 
     term costs to our nation increase. The First Lady has done 
     exemplary work highlighting some of the successes of 
     prevention efforts, but obesity remains one of the country's 
     costliest medical conditions. We respectfully urge the 
     President to reconsider his recommendation, which would 
     undermine vital obesity prevention and reversal initiatives 
     already in place around the country.''
       ``The initiatives supported by the Prevention Fund can help 
     our communities to get on track to a healthy weight and 
     achieve more manageable long-term health care costs. Standing 
     pat will not get us there. If we are serious about reigning 
     in health care costs, we must have strategies to change our 
     nation's current course. No easy fixes exist to balancing our 
     budget, but failing to put all of our muscle behind tackling 
     the obesity epidemic will only lead to greater illness for 
     patients and greater expenses for taxpayers in the long run. 
     Reducing the Prevention and Public Health Fund is 
     economically backwards.''
       Ultimately, slashing obesity prevention programs will not 
     help the U.S. to reduce its deficit, particularly in light of 
     a recent study from the Trust for America's Health, which 
     finds that if obesity rates were reduced by five percent in 
     the U.S. the country could save $29.8 billion in five years, 
     $158.1 billion in 10 years and $611.7 billion in 20 years in 
     health care costs.
       Currently, the annual health costs related to obesity in 
     the U.S. are as high as $168 billion and obesity drives 
     nearly 17 percent of U.S. medical costs, according to 
     research released by the National Bureau of Economic 
     Research. By 2018--just six years from now, researchers at 
     Emory University estimate that obesity could account for 21 
     percent of all health care spending. Employers alone 
     experience a more than $73 billion loss each year due to 
     losses in productivity, absenteeism and medical costs 
     attributed to obesity, according to researchers at Duke 
     University.

[[Page 1879]]

     
                                  ____
                                                Center for Science


                                       in the Public Interest,

                                Washington, DC, February 13, 2012.
     Hon. Senator Max Baucus,
     Chairman, Finance Committee, U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Baucus: On behalf of the Center for Science 
     in the Public Interest, I urge you to support the Prevention 
     and Public Health Fund and oppose any efforts to reduce, 
     eliminate, or divert its funding. At a time when today's 
     children are in danger of becoming the first generation in 
     American history to live shorter, less healthy lives than 
     their parents, we need to do more--not less--to reduce the 
     burden of heart disease, cancer, and other preventable 
     diseases.
       The Prevention Fund, supported by nearly 720 organizations, 
     is a much-needed investment in national, state, and local 
     efforts to prevent disease, save lives, and reduce long-term 
     health costs. Due to the growing burden of chronic disease, 
     our country faces exploding health-care costs that diminish 
     our economic productivity and limit businesses' ability to 
     compete in a global economy. Right now, 75 percent of all 
     health care costs are spent on the treatment of chronic 
     diseases, many of which could be prevented.
       States are also using Prevention Fund dollars to mount 
     campaigns to reduce obesity and tobacco use, promote healthy 
     eating and physical activity, expand mental health services, 
     provide flu and other immunizations, and fight infectious 
     diseases. If we are serious about reducing health care costs 
     and the deficit, decreasing funding for prevention would be 
     counterproductive. With your support, we can ensure that 
     vital programs aimed at preventing illness and promoting 
     health and wellness continue through the next decade. Please 
     let me know what you will do to protect this important health 
     funding.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Margo G. Wootan,
     Director of Nutrition Policy.
                                  ____

                                                February 13, 2012.
     Hon. Richard J. Durbin,
     U.S. Senate, State of Illinois, Hart Senate Office Building, 
         Washington DC.
       Dear Senator Durbin: Your support is needed to maintain 
     funding for critical preventive health work made possible by 
     the Prevention and Public Health Fund. Recent proposals to 
     reduce, eliminate or divert its funding ignore the long-term 
     fiscal and health benefits of investing in prevention.
       We urge you to oppose any reduction in funding to the 
     Prevention Fund. The fund is an unprecedented investment in 
     national, state and local efforts to prevent disease, save 
     lives and reduce long-term health costs. More than 700 
     national, state and local organizations support the 
     Prevention Fund.
       Last year, Illinois received almost $21 million to invest 
     in effective and proven prevention efforts. That money is 
     going to communities making changes to improve long-term 
     health, the state's public health infrastructure and training 
     centers, HIV prevention efforts, tobacco prevention, and 
     primary care and behavioral health services.
       Overall, the Prevention Fund will provide communities 
     across the U.S. with more than $16 billion over the next 10 
     years. Slashing this funding would be an enormous step 
     backward in our progress on cost containment, public health 
     modernization and wellness promotion.
       By and large, our health care system is based on treating 
     illness rather than preventing it: Billions of dollars are 
     spent each year through Medicare, Medicaid, and other federal 
     health care programs to pay for health care services once 
     patients get sick. Before the Prevention Fund, there was no 
     corresponding, reliable investment in efforts to promote 
     wellness, prevent disease, and protect against public health 
     or bioterrorism emergencies.
       Prevention is the key to lowering health care costs and 
     creating a long-term path to a healthier and economically 
     sound America. I urge you to continue our investment in the 
     Prevention and Public Health Fund.
           Sincerely,

                                            Joseph A. Antolin,

                                                   Vice President,
                                               Heartland Alliance;
                                               Executive Director,
                               Heartland Human Care Services, Inc.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I have submitted an amendment to 
the pending surface transportation reauthorization bill.
  Community colleges are a critical source of education and job 
training for many individuals. Nationwide, we have 1,655 community 
colleges, which enroll nearly 6 million students. These community 
colleges will play a big role in helping Americans develop the skills 
to be competitive in our 21st century economy.
  In light of the President's call for job training assistance, it is 
imperative that we support programs that help workers meet the new 
demands of our economy. My amendment does just that.
  This amendment ensures that transit agencies that partner with 
community colleges on job training programs are eligible for Federal 
grants.
  By supporting collaborative job-training programs between community 
colleges and transit agencies, we support our workforce in gaining 
valuable technical skills, while also supporting industries that are 
facing a workforce shortage.
  I will urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment to ensure that 
we are supporting our workers in getting a valuable education and 
supporting an industry that is facing a critical workforce shortage.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

                          ____________________