[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 10910-10922]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  SMALL BUSINESS JOBS AND TAX RELIEF ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 10 
minutes of debate equally divided and controlled between the two 
leaders or their designees.
  The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  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the quorum call be rescinded.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.
  The clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

  We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the provisions of 
rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, hereby move to bring to 
a close debate on the motion to proceed to Calendar No. 341, S. 2237, 
the Small Business Jobs and Tax Relief Act.
         Harry Reid, Kent Conrad, Tom Harkin, Richard Blumenthal, 
           Jeff Bingaman, Carl Levin, Al Franken, Daniel K. 
           Inouye, Richard J. Durbin, Benjamin L. Cardin, Max 
           Baucus, Charles E. Schumer, Jeff Merkley, Patty Murray, 
           John D. Rockefeller IV, John F. Kerry.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
motion to proceed to S. 2237, a bill to provide temporary income tax 
credit for increased payroll and extend bonus depreciation for an 
additional year, and for other purposes, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) 
and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) are necessarily 
absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), the 
Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee), and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. 
Vitter).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 80, nays 14, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 174 Leg.]

                                YEAS--80

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Casey
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Corker
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johnson (SD)
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Paul
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--14

     Ayotte
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Graham
     Inhofe
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Manchin
     McCain
     Risch
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Cardin
     Chambliss
     Kirk
     Lee
     Rockefeller
     Vitter
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 80, the nays are 
14. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today we begin debate on a bill called the 
Small Business Jobs and Tax Relief Act. There are some positive 
elements to this legislation, but I remain amazed that the Democratic 
majority has decided to pursue this bill to support small businesses 
when looming tax increases threaten to crush these very same small 
businesses.
  Rather than address the expiration of the 2001 and 2003 tax relief, 
which is denying certainty to small businesses and holding back hiring 
and economic development, we are discussing this

[[Page 10911]]

legislation. The President and his allies who are pursuing this 
legislation are patting themselves on the back for supporting small 
businesses, but puffing their chest as the saviors of America's job 
creators while doing nothing to address the coming fiscal cliff is like 
a person asking for the keys to the city after throwing a water balloon 
at a house fire.
  Our small businesses and our economy face an existential threat with 
the coming tax hikes. Not only have Senate Democrats done nothing to 
bring some certainty to this situation, but President Obama actively 
undermined these businesses with his White House campaign event 
yesterday, during which he expressed his commitment to raising taxes on 
these small businesses.
  So as we debate this bill, we need to keep that backdrop in mind. As 
the President proposes with this bill to give with one hand to small 
businesses, with the other hand he is prepared to sock those same 
people in the jaw. Small businesses are just one facet of our economy 
that will be hit with the largest tax increase in history if Congress 
and the President fail to act before January 1, 2013. But given that 
small businesses are the engine of job creation in our economy, the 
impact of these tax increases will reach far and wide, undermining 
economic growth and hampering innovation and job creation. Taxpayers 
are on the edge of a fiscal cliff. Yet instead of leading them to 
safety, the President's campaign is telling us to march forward.
  The consequences will crush American taxpayers. In February, the 
Washington Post referred to this $4.5 trillion tax hike as 
``taxmageddon.'' Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke described it as 
a ``massive fiscal cliff'' when testifying before Congress. If these 
tax hikes are allowed to occur, it will raise taxes on virtually all 
flowthrough business income in the United States come January 1, 2013.
  This is especially harmful to small businesses because the vast 
majority of small businesses are organized as flowthrough business 
entities such as partnerships, S corporations, limited liability 
companies, and sole proprietorships.
  So unless the Congress acts to prevent these massive tax increases, 
the vast majority of small businesses in the United States will be hit 
with a massive tax increase next year. It is hard to conceive of a 
greater impediment to job creation. All of these tax increases and the 
economic uncertainty they cause are going into the investment and 
hiring decisions of business men and women today.
  Even President Obama agrees that two-thirds of the new jobs in our 
economy are created by small businesses. I do not know anybody who 
disagrees with that. With unemployment stuck at an unacceptably high 
level of 8.2 percent, we must not allow this tax increase to happen. 
America is slowly recovering from one of the greatest recessions in 
modern history. The Vice President rightly said that for millions of 
Americans it feels as if they are living through a depression. Paul 
Krugman recently stated we are in a depression.
  I just finished reading Robert Caro's recent book on Lyndon Johnson. 
He discusses in that book the tax cuts of President Kennedy and how 
important they were and how Lyndon Johnson handled it after the 
horrific death of our President.
  (Mr. FRANKEN assumed the chair.)
  Those tax cuts solved a lot of problems. One of the things, if I 
recall it correctly, President Johnson said was that without them we 
would not have been able to pull out of the difficulties we were in.
  Yet with a fragile recovery and a weak jobs market, President Obama 
seems content to sit idly by and allow this scheduled $4.5 trillion tax 
hike to occur.
  I believe Congress needs to act now in order to prevent this tax hike 
on America's families and job creators.
  As we can see on this chart, we have the tax legislation to-do list. 
It is critically important for our economy and the American people that 
we act now to extend the tax relief signed into law by President Bush 
and extended by President Obama.
  Notice we did have hearings on tax extenders and we did have hearings 
on the fourth item on the chart to prevent the 2013 tax hikes, but we 
have had neither a markup or a floor presentation on any of those 
four--tax extenders, the AMT patch, death tax reform, and preventing 
the 2013 tax hikes.
  The 2013 tax hikes is the most crucial piece of legislation Congress 
must address this year, if not during the entire 112th Congress. If we 
allow this tax relief to expire as scheduled at the end of the year, 
almost every Federal income taxpayer in America will see an increase in 
their rates. Some will see a rate increase of 9 percent, while others 
will see a rate increase of 87 percent.
  Because the vast majority of small businesses are flowthrough 
business entities, such as partnerships, the income from these 
businesses flows through the business directly onto the small business 
owners' individual tax returns. Therefore, any increase in individuals' 
tax rates means those small businesses get hit with a tax increase. 
This tax increase lands on these small business owners, even if they do 
not take one penny out of their business. Thus, even if a small 
business reinvests all its income from the business to hire more 
workers, pay the workers they already have or purchase equipment, they 
would still get hit with this looming tax hike.
  Our economy simply cannot afford to take on such a fiscal shock. 
President Obama promised that if we would just pass his $800 billion 
stimulus bill, unemployment would not go above 8 percent. It has now 
been 40 months in a row since the stimulus passed that unemployment has 
been above 8 percent.
  Looking at this problem more broadly, economists estimate that if 
these current tax policies are allowed to expire, the economy could 
contract by approximately 3 percentage points. That would be a large 
hit to an economy that is still weak and recovering from the fiscal 
crisis of 2008. Adding another fiscal crisis by neglecting to extend 
these tax policies may cause even further damage. For those on the 
other side of the aisle, including the President, who argue we should 
raise the top two tax rates because it is the fiscally responsible 
thing to do, I will point out a few things.
  First, according to the Congressional Budget Office, 80 percent of 
the revenue lost from extending the 2001 and 2003 tax relief provisions 
is found among those making less than $200,000 per year if single and 
$250,000 if married.
  Second, the nonpartisan official scorekeeper for Congress on tax 
issues, the Joint Committee on Taxation, tells us that 53 percent of 
all flowthrough business income would be subject to the President's 
proposed tax hikes. Because the vast majority of small businesses are 
organized as flowthrough business entities, as I mentioned above, this 
is especially harmful to small businesses. Given the agreed-upon 
importance of small businesses to our economic recovery, it is a 
mystery to me why the President and his Democratic allies would pursue 
tax increases on these very job creators. We simply cannot afford to 
raise taxes on over half this business income.
  This would take the marginal tax rate on small businesses from 33 
percent and 35 percent to 39.6 percent and 41 percent, respectively.
  Look at this particular chart and the increase in small business top 
marginal rates. Here, the blue line starts to go up in 2012. As we can 
see, the marginal rates will go to 40 percent and up to 41 percent.
  It seems clear what the agenda of the Senate should be. We should be 
focused like hawks on moving us back from the fiscal cliff and 
preventing ``taxmageddon.'' Yet at a time when we should be working to 
prevent a massive tax increase, President Obama and his Democratic 
allies are spinning their wheels trying to raise taxes on politically 
unpopular groups.
  These tax hikes are already scheduled to go into effect. Congress 
doesn't have to do anything, and everyone will pay more in taxes come 
2013. That is not a good sign, given that some people have called this 
a do-nothing Senate.
  Let me refer to the Senate Democratic leadership's tax legislation 
to-do list.

[[Page 10912]]

  I am sure some people are tired of the mantra among conservatives 
that Democrats want to raise taxes and Republicans don't, but we say it 
because it is true. At liberal think tanks, their employees go to work 
every morning and think about how they can raise taxes.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle, knowing their constituents 
already feel overtaxed, spend countless hours devising ways to raise 
taxes in a way that only hits politically unpopular groups or, in the 
case of ObamaCare, they worked tirelessly to hide the nature of the 
individual mandate tax and the true impact of the law's over $500 
billion in taxes.
  The President is now devoting his entire reelection campaign toward 
tax hiking in the name of fairness. In the Senate, we have already 
voted twice on the proposal of my colleague from New Jersey, Senator 
Menendez, to raise taxes on oil and gas companies. We voted twice on 
it.
  First, we had hearings in the Senate Finance Committee last year. As 
I said then, that was nothing more than a dog and pony show. Everybody 
knew it. Then the leadership brought the bill directly to the floor, 
skipping the process of a markup.
  A few months ago, we voted on the silly Buffett tax--the Buffett rule 
tax hike bill--without hearings and without a markup. This is not 
serious tax policy. The Buffett tax is a statutory talking point and 
not a very good one at that.
  First, the President said it was about deficit reduction. We pointed 
out to him it raised only $47 billion in revenue over 10 years, a drop 
in the bucket given the President's trillions in deficit spending. We 
pointed out that implementing the Buffett tax the way President Obama 
suggested in his most recent budget would lose nearly $1 trillion over 
the first 10 years alone. Specifically, President Obama proposed 
replacing the AMT with the Buffett tax.
  So the White House shifted gears. Now the Buffett tax was about 
fairness. But when we pointed out that his redistributionist scheme, if 
redirected to a lower tax bracket, would only yield an $11-per-family 
tax rebate, he criticized Republicans for demonizing him as a class 
warrior.
  The President needs to come clean about what the Buffett tax is. It 
is nothing less than a second and even more damaging alternative 
minimum tax, one that would force many small business owners and job 
creators to pay a minimum of 30 percent of their income in tax.
  As the Wall Street Journal said on April 10:

       The U.S. already has a Buffett rule. The Alternative 
     Minimum Tax that first became law in 1969 . . . . The surest 
     prediction in politics is that any tax that starts by hitting 
     the rich ends up hitting the middle class because that is 
     where the real money is.

  What is rich about the Buffett rule is that Mr. Buffett would be able 
to avoid his own Buffett tax. What is the President doing? Why, with 
``taxmageddon'' around the corner, are President Obama and his liberal 
allies dithering with these harmful tax increases?
  The answer is pure and simple: politics.
  Let's not forget that every minute Democrats spend playing politics 
is a minute we don't spend preventing the largest tax increase in 
American history.
  It is time for the Senate Democratic leadership to get serious and to 
focus on preventing this massive tax hike.
  Instead of focusing on preventing this massive tax hike on small 
business, however, the President and the congressional Democratic 
leadership have doubled down on their small business tax hike strategy. 
The President's speech yesterday was simply a rehash of the same old 
ineffective arguments about why we should raise taxes on small 
businesses. His claims that it is necessary to rein in the debt and 
deficit are not credible at all, considering he has added trillions of 
dollars to the debt since he has been in office. The Senate Democratic 
leadership will not even present a budget proposal of their own for the 
Senate to vote on.
  ``Taxmageddon'' is coming. The only good news is that Congress can 
prevent this historic tax increase. I have an amendment to this bill 
that will prevent this historic tax increase and will pave the way for 
significant tax reform in 2013.
  That is where my focus will be until this tax hike is prevented, and 
I hope my colleagues will join me in preventing this looming tax 
increase on the American people.
  Forty of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle voted to 
temporarily extend this tax relief in 2010. They should do so again.
  President Obama once said it would be foolish to raise taxes during 
an economic downturn, and he acted accordingly. I compliment him for 
doing so.
  Our economy remains weak today. The only thing that appears to have 
changed is that President Obama has apparently determined that his path 
is class warfare.
  My hope is my colleagues who have supported this tax relief in the 
past will put the President's shortsighted and self-interested 
partisanship aside and vote on behalf of their constituents to extend 
tax relief to America's families and small businesses.
  I finished reading this book about Lyndon Johnson and about his 
ascension to the Presidency of United States of America. For most of 
the time before President Kennedy's unfortunate death, Lyndon Johnson 
was kind of a fish out of water. He didn't know what to do. He wasn't 
utilized very well. He was totally loyal to the President. But once the 
murder of our President occurred, he was very sensitive to the feelings 
of the Kennedy family, the Kennedy widow and the Kennedy children. He 
was sensitive to the President's brothers. He didn't move into the 
White House until after everything was taken care of. But he decided he 
was going to make sure the President's tax cuts went through. 
Naturally, there was serious involvement with the civil rights bill at 
that time, something many of our southern Senators--most all 
Democrats--did not want to pass. He knew if they brought that up first, 
the tax bill would never pass. It is an extremely interesting book by 
Robert Caro as to how the President was able to get the tax cuts 
through ahead of bringing up the civil rights bill and then bringing up 
the civil rights bill and putting pressure on Republicans and Democrats 
to do what should have been done many years before.
  I pay tribute to President Johnson, who, of course, in the eyes of 
many Democrats and Republicans, had a mixed record, but he was a master 
in helping President Kennedy's tax bill go through. And because of 
that, we had a period of decent expansion.
  I don't think I will ever fully understand why my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle don't seem to understand the importance of 
cutting taxes during a time when we are in real difficulty. They still 
want to spend more by increasing taxes, which they never seem to use to 
pay down any deficits. We use them to spend more than ever before. They 
could take a page out of Lyndon Johnson's book and really out of the 
book of President John F. Kennedy, who was smart enough to know, 
intelligent enough to know, and caring enough to know that during times 
of great difficulty tax rate reductions are very important.
  Mr. President, I wish we could work together a little bit better. I 
wish both Democrats and Republicans would get off their high horses and 
start to band together and work on what is wrong with our country 
instead of what is wanted as far as political advantage goes. Taxing 
940,000 small businesses--which is what our bipartisan leaders in the 
Senate have said--is like asking to go into a deeper depression. It is 
like saying we don't care.
  What is really interesting is that a lot of these taxes are going to 
be socked onto the people who earn less than $120,000 a year through 
the health care bill. And further, with regard to the health care bill, 
which is now considered a tax, the bottom 10 percent of all wage 
earners or of all people in our society are going to pay a pretty 
whopping percentage of the taxes that are going to be assessed. They 
are the ones who are going to get hit harder than anybody else.
  I think our colleagues on the other side ought to really study this 
and figure it out. And the points I am making

[[Page 10913]]

are from many bodies who are supposed to be nonpartisan. We simply 
cannot allow tax Armageddon to occur. And by using this ploy, the 
President is just playing politics instead of doing what really ought 
to be done. I think more of him than that, and I hope that I am right 
and that he will get off his high horse, quit playing the class warfare 
game, and start doing what is right for America. He would be better off 
if he did, I guarantee that.
  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. ISAKSON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             United Nations

  Mr. ISAKSON. Madam President, I come today to share with the Senate a 
letter which I have written to Ambassador Susan Rice, the United States 
Permanent Representative to the United Nations. It is a letter I have 
written over a grave concern I have over actions that have taken place 
recently in the United Nations but also reflects back on some things 
that have happened in the last year or so that are very troubling to me 
and, quite frankly, very troubling to my constituents.
  As I know the Presiding Officer is aware and as all the Senate is 
aware, the U.N. convened this month in New York a conventional arms 
trade treaty, where they are looking at an international treaty on 
limitations and governance over small arms shipment and trade between 
countries.
  I have expressed my concern about the threat to the United States 
second amendment, our constitutional right to bear arms, and my concern 
over the U.N. subordinating U.S. law to itself. But I have never ever 
been as concerned as I am today to find out that Iran has been named, 
without objection, as a member of the conference that will lead this 
debate.
  I want to talk about it for a few minutes, because a lot of U.N. 
politics and U.N. governance and U.N. practices are not understood by 
the American people. But when the U.N. has one of these conferences 
working toward a treaty, they will appoint a general conference or a 
general bureau or a board which is made up of members of the U.N. who 
will work out the details on the conference and then submit the entire 
convention to the United Nations.
  There is a process in the United Nations where anyone can object to 
the appointment or to any other motion that may be made on the floor, 
because the U.N. operates under what is known as consensus, which is 
the absence of an objection. If there is an objection to a motion that 
is made, then a vote takes place.
  Iran has been seeking a position on this U.N. conference on small 
arms and arms trade treaty agreement for some time. That has been 
known.
  This is the same Iran the U.N. has sanctioned four times in the last 
3 years for its progress on its nuclear arms program and the enrichment 
of nuclear material. It is the same Iran that as recently as last week 
the U.N. sent its former chief head president to try to negotiate a 
settlement on the horrible things that happened in Syria. This is the 
same Iran that is accused of shipping arms to Syria and to the Assad 
regime, which has resulted in the killing of over 17,000 Syrians in the 
last year.
  How in anybody's right mind could they allow a country that is in the 
process of doing that and that has been sanctioned four times by the 
U.N. to ascend to a position to negotiate a conference on a treaty on 
small arms on behalf of the U.N.?
  I have written this letter to Secretary Rice because I have great 
respect for Ambassador Rice, and I know she is doing a great job. But I 
cannot understand for the life of me why the United States would not 
use its right to object to the appointment of a country such as Iran on 
any treaty, much less one on arms and the Arms Trade Treaty. It reminds 
me of what happened a year ago when North Korea went on the disarmament 
committee in the United Nations. Today, Syria is seeking a position on 
the Human Rights Commission. These types of appointments to people who 
are often serial violators of the governance of the committee they are 
trying to seek is laughable and puts the United Nations and the United 
States in an embarrassing position.
  I have written Secretary Rice to find out the answer to this 
question: Did we have the opportunity to object to Iran being named to 
the conference? If we did, why didn't we object to that? How in the 
world can we be expected to have any confidence in what comes out of 
the conference if, in fact, one of the worst perpetrators in the world 
is being appointed to the conference? I hope the Secretary will inform 
me so that I can inform my constituents because, frankly, I cannot 
explain it.
  I have great concern that any U.N. treaty on small arms would, 
intentionally or unintentionally, affect the second amendment rights of 
the American people. I am a great supporter of the second amendment, 
and I have had a concern all along. I signed a letter with Senator 
Moran from Kansas last week to the Secretary registering my objections 
and concerns about the threat of that treaty itself, but to find out 
now that one of the 15 members writing the treaty and negotiating it 
this month in New York City is the nation of Iran concerns me greater.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record my letter to 
the Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Susan E. Rice, of 
the United States and New York.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                    Washington, DC, July 10, 2012.
     Hon. Susan E. Rice,
     United States Permanent Representative to the United Nations, 
         United States Mission to the United Nations, United 
         Nations Plaza, New York, NY.
       Dear Ambassador Rice: I write today concerning the United 
     Nations (U.N.) Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty being held 
     this month in New York City. I have already expressed my 
     concerns and objections over the danger that the U.N. Arms 
     Trade Treaty poses to our sovereignty and to our Second 
     Amendment rights. I now write to voice my strong concern over 
     the recent inclusion of Iran as a member of the Conference's 
     Bureau/General Committee, and the failure of the United 
     States to exercise its right to block this action.
       On July 3, 2012, the members of the Conference unanimously 
     supported Iran's bid for membership on the Conference's 
     Bureau/General Committee. The Conference supported Iran's 
     inclusion in the Bureau/General Committee despite both Iran's 
     continued pursuit of a nuclear weapons program in defiance of 
     numerous U.N. Security Council Resolutions and a recent U.N. 
     report detailing Iran's central role in enabling the 
     continuing massacre of Syrian civilians by Bashar al-Assad's 
     regime.
       Situations such as these are not without precedent. Just 
     last year, North Korea ascended to the presidency of the 
     U.N.-backed Conference on Disarmament, and recent reports 
     have indicated that Syria is actively pursuing membership on 
     the U.N. Human Rights Council. Given this recent history, the 
     possibility of Syria joining such a body at a time when it is 
     slaughtering thousands of its own citizens does not appear as 
     implausible as it should.
       It is my understanding that the United States had the 
     opportunity to oppose Iran's membership. If this is true, it 
     is particularly troubling that Iran faced no opposition. As 
     Iran becomes increasingly isolated on the international stage 
     a unanimous vote in favor of its membership on an 
     international panel legitimizes the regime. The United States 
     must vocally lead the opposition to any attempt by Iran to 
     use an international body to further its aims. I am 
     requesting a full explanation as to why the United States did 
     not oppose Iran's membership on the Bureau/General Committee 
     of the U.N. Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty, and a 
     commitment that the United States will do all that it can to 
     oppose Syria's membership on the U.N. Human Rights Council.
       My constituents regularly voice their concerns that their 
     tax dollars go toward supporting the United Nations, an 
     organization that many of them see as operating in direct 
     opposition to U.S. interests. As a member of the United 
     Nations and as a permanent member of the Security Council, 
     our resolve

[[Page 10914]]

     must be the catalyst for the United Nations to assert itself 
     as a positive force in unifying the world community against 
     tyranny, terrorism and totalitarianism. I look forward to 
     your response and look forward to sharing it with my 
     constituents.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Johnny Isakson,
                                                      U.S. Senate.

  Mr. ISAKSON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed 
in the Record a letter from the Members of the House of 
Representatives--over 100 of them--to the President and Secretary of 
State Clinton regarding the U.N. arms agreement.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                Congress of the United States,

                                    Washington, DC, June 29, 2012.
     President Barack Obama,
     Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC.
     Secretary of State Hillary Clinton,
     C St., NW, Washington, DC.
       Dear President Obama and Secretary Clinton: We write to 
     express our concerns regarding the negotiation of the United 
     Nations Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), the text of which is 
     expected to be finalized at a conference to be held in New 
     York during the month of July. Your administration has voted 
     in the U.N. General Assembly to participate in the 
     negotiation of this treaty. Yet the U.N.'s actions to date 
     indicate that the ATT is likely to pose significant threats 
     to our national security, foreign policy, and economic 
     interests as well as our constitutional rights. The U.S. must 
     establish firm red lines for the ATT and state unequivocally 
     that it will oppose the ATT if it infringes on our rights or 
     threatens our ability to defend our interests.
       The U.S. must not accept an ATT that infringes on our 
     constitutional rights, particularly the fundamental, 
     individual right to keep and to bear arms that is protected 
     by the Second Amendment, as well as the right of personal 
     self-defense on which the Second Amendment is based. 
     Accordingly, the ATT should not cover small arms, light 
     weapons, or related material, such as firearms ammunition. 
     Further, the ATT should expressly recognize the individual 
     right of personal self-defense, as well as the legitimacy of 
     hunting, sports shooting, and other lawful activities 
     pertaining to the private ownership of firearms and related 
     materials.
       The U.S. must also not accept an ATT that would interfere 
     with our nation's national security and foreign policy 
     interests. The ATT must not accept that free democracies and 
     totalitarian regimes have the same right to conduct arms 
     transfers: this is a dangerous piece of moral equivalence. 
     Moreover, the ATT must not impose criteria for determining 
     the permissibility of arms transfers that are vague, easily 
     politicized, and readily manipulated. Specifically, the ATT 
     must not hinder the U.S. from fulfilling strategic, legal, 
     and moral commitments to provide arms to allies such as the 
     Republic of China (Taiwan) and the State of Israel. Indeed, 
     the State Department acknowledged in June 2010 that the ATT 
     negotiations are expected to introduce such regional, 
     country-specific challenges. Finally, the ATT should not 
     contain any language that legitimizes the arming of 
     terrorists--for example, by recognizing any right of 
     resistance to ``foreign occupation''--or implies that 
     signatories must recognize the jurisdiction of the 
     International Criminal Court.
       Furthermore, the U.S. must not agree to an ATT that would 
     damage U.S. economic interests. The ATT must not create 
     costly regulatory burdens on law-abiding American businesses, 
     for example, by creating new onerous reporting requirements 
     that could damage the domestic defense manufacturing base and 
     related firms. Furthermore, the ATT must not pressure the 
     U.S. to alter either the criteria or the decision-making 
     system of its current arms export control system, which 
     Secretary Clinton has called the ``gold standard'' of export 
     controls. The ATT should not in any way skew domestic debate 
     on export control reforms, as the U.S. continues to modernize 
     export controls to increase U.S. global competitiveness, 
     create jobs for American workers, and strengthen our allies.
       Lastly, regardless of negotiated text, the Administration 
     must make clear in its reservations, understandings, and 
     declarations that the ATT places no new requirements for 
     action on the U.S., because U.S. law is already compliant 
     with the treaty regime or that the treaty cannot change the 
     Bill of Rights or the constitutional allocation of power 
     between the federal and state governments. Moreover, the U.S. 
     must not accept the creation of any international agency to 
     administer, interpret, or add to the ATT regime because it 
     might represent the delegation of federal legal authority to 
     a bureaucracy that is not accountable to the American people.
       We urge this Administration to uphold the principles 
     outlined above in the ATT negotiations at the July conference 
     and any future venues for discussion. Should the final ATT 
     text run counter to these principles or otherwise undermine 
     our rights and our interests, we urge this Administration to 
     break consensus and reject the treaty in New York. Further, 
     the Constitution gives the power to regulate international 
     commerce to Congress alone, and the ATT will be considered 
     non-self-executing until Congress enacts any legislation to 
     implement the agreement. As members of the House of 
     Representatives, we reserve and will maintain the power to 
     oppose the appropriation or authorization of any taxpayer 
     funds to implement a flawed ATT, or to conduct activities 
     relevant to any ATT that has been signed by the President but 
     has not received the advice and consent of the Senate.
           Sincerely,
                                              Members of Congress.

  Mr. ISAKSON. Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.


                          Affordable Care Act

  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, 2 weeks ago the Supreme Court did the 
right thing and settled once and for all the question of whether the 
Affordable Care Act is constitutional. As I said on the floor 2 weeks 
ago, the fight is over; the law is constitutional, and it will stand. 
Some have been saying this is a great win for the President or for 
Democrats. I don't see it that way. I believe this is a great victory 
for the American people, for small businesses, and for our economy.
  Now is the time to move past the political distractions and focus on 
the task before us: implementing the law to bring quality, affordable 
health coverage to every American.
  Unfortunately, tomorrow the House of Representatives will take a step 
in exactly the opposite direction. They have cracked open their old, 
tired playbook and will vote once again to repeal the Affordable Care 
Act. This is the second time the House has taken this vote to repeal 
the entire Affordable Care Act, and they have failed every time to pass 
it in the Senate. The House has voted 30 times to repeal all or part of 
the Affordable Care Act. Again, they have not been successful on any 
one of those in the Senate, in this Chamber. If you say there hasn't 
been a vote--yes, in this Chamber, the Senate, last year every Member 
of the Republican caucus voted to repeal health reform. That failed as 
well. This is just cynical politics.
  My Republican friends don't expect their bill to repeal the 
Affordable Care Act to actually become law; they just want to put on 
grand political theater. Their strategy, dreamed up by the same old 
cast of characters, such as Karl Rove, is to gin up the rumor mill, 
scare people with lies and distortions while offering no ideas of their 
own. They don't offer any new ideas because they don't have any.
  Neither the House nor Senate Republicans agree on any plan that 
controls costs, brings down premiums, or covers as many people as the 
Affordable Care Act. In fact, a Republican Senator was recently asked 
to describe his plan for the health care system if the Affordable Care 
Act were repealed. Here is his answer: ``What we need to do is have a 
lot of hearings.'' That is their plan? I don't think that qualifies as 
a plan. That won't help the millions of people who would lose access to 
affordable health insurance coverage.
  Republicans in Congress are pandering to the extreme rightwing--those 
who want to tear down everything this President has accomplished, 
regardless of the cost. Their strategy only makes sense if you are 
absolutely obsessed with two things: tearing down health reform and 
tearing down this President.
  What would repeal mean for average Americans? Well, I have looked at 
this a different way. People used to think of the Republicans as being 
against the Affordable Care Act, but I want to delineate what the 
Republicans would be for if they were to succeed in repealing the 
Affordable Care Act. If you vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act, 
here is what you are for:
  You are for putting dollar limits on insurance coverage of more than 
100 million Americans, which would allow insurance companies to stop 
paying benefits right when you get really sick. They will stop paying 
benefits. That is what you are for if you are for repealing the 
Affordable Care Act.
  If you are for repealing the Affordable Care Act, you are for kicking 
more than 3 million young people off of

[[Page 10915]]

their parents' insurance policy right now.
  If you vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act, you are for allowing 
insurance companies to cancel people's coverage when they are sickest--
just cancel the policy.
  You would be for allowing insurance companies to spend Americans' 
premium dollars on CEO buildings, marketing, or fancy buildings rather 
than health care. In the Affordable Care Act, we have a medical loss 
ratio requirement, and because of that, policyholders nationwide, this 
year, by August 1, will receive more than $1 billion in rebates from 
insurers. What that means in the future is that insurers will have to 
spend 80 to 85 percent of the premiums they get on health care--not 
advertising, corporate jets, or big CEO salaries--on health care. If 
you vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act, you will vote to just let 
them go back to their old ways, and they can spend 50 cents of every 
premium dollar on health care, and the rest they can spend on high 
salaries and fancy buildings and conventions in the Cayman Islands and 
places like that.
  If you vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act, you are for allowing 
insurance companies to deny people coverage or to increase their 
premiums if they have a preexisting condition. Nearly half of all 
Americans have some form of a preexisting condition. So I guess that is 
what you would be for if you vote to repeal the health care bill.
  If you want to repeal the bill, you are for taking affordable 
coverage away from more than 30 million people, and you are for making 
insured Americans pay for tens of billions of dollars of uncompensated 
care when uninsured people show up in the emergency room. This has been 
estimated to cost American families an average of $1,100 in extra 
premiums annually.
  If you vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act, you are for charging 
as much as $300 in copays for lifesaving, preventive services that 
Americans now get for free, services such as mammograms, colonoscopies, 
and other cancer screenings. More than 85 million people have already 
used these free services so they can stay healthy, get in charge of 
their illnesses, or catch something early on when it costs less.
  If you are for repealing the Affordable Care Act, you are for 
increasing prescription drug costs on seniors by an average of $600 a 
year. That is because in the Affordable Care Act we close this doughnut 
hole. More than 5.2 million seniors and people with disabilities, I 
might add, have saved a total of $3 billion already on prescription 
drug spending in the doughnut hole since we enacted the law. If you are 
for repealing this law, you are for making seniors pay more money for 
prescription drugs, pure and simple.
  If you vote to repeal this law, you are voting to deprive States and 
localities of vital funding to combat chronic diseases, such as cancer, 
diabetes, and heart disease, and to ensure that our kids have access to 
lifesaving vaccines. Why do I say that? Because in the health reform 
bill, there is a prevention and public health fund that is already 
saving lives, getting money out to communities for these very services, 
and cutting health care costs. So if you vote to repeal the Affordable 
Care Act, you are saying that we are not going to combat chronic 
diseases such as cancer and diabetes and heart disease.
  All of these protections I have enumerated have been enjoyed by a 
certain select group of Americans for decades. What select group of 
Americans do you suppose I am talking about who have had these 
protections for decades? I suggest that every Member of Congress, the 
Senate and House, look in the mirror. We have enjoyed these for a long 
time. How many times have we heard in the past when we were debating 
and having hearings on the Affordable Care Act before we voted on it--
how many times have we heard from our constituents that ``we need the 
same kind of health care coverage you guys have in Congress.'' That is 
what we did. We didn't have higher premiums because of preexisting 
conditions; there is no exclusion because of that. We have had no 
lifetime or annual limit on benefits, no cancellation of coverage when 
we got sick, and no copays for preventive services. In health reform, 
we basically gave the American people the same services we in Congress 
have enjoyed for a long time.
  When a Member of Congress votes to repeal the Affordable Care Act, he 
or she is saying that these consumer protections are great for us--we 
will keep them--but they are too good for you, the rest of the American 
people. That is the kind of cynicism that takes your breath away.
  Finally, let me point this out on the mandate that has gotten so much 
publicity lately. Quite frankly, the issue of this mandate--or, as I 
call it, a free rider penalty--has a long, bipartisan history. Seven 
current Republican Senators have previously endorsed a mandate. Many 
more Republican Senators had endorsed it, and they are no longer here 
because they either retired or were defeated. Former Massachusetts 
Governor Mitt Romney included a similar free rider penalty as the 
centerpiece of RomneyCare in Massachusetts. In fact, he said this: 
``No, no, I like mandates. Mandates work.''
  So we ought to stop these silly political games. The Republicans' 
obsession with repealing health reform is based strictly on ideology. 
They oppose the law's crackdown on abuses by health insurance companies 
and any serious effort by the Federal Government to secure health 
insurance coverage for tens of millions of Americans who currently have 
no coverage. It is really about giving control back to their good 
friends--the wealthy, powerful insurance companies--so they can raise 
your rates and hold on to your money by denying you benefits and making 
egregious profits.
  We all remember William Buckley's famous admonition to conservatives. 
He said that the role of conservatives is ``to stand athwart history, 
yelling stop.''
  William F. Buckley. Again, he said: The role of conservatives is to 
stand athwart history, yelling stop.
  Well, in 1935, President Roosevelt and the Congress passed Social 
Security, providing basic retirement security for every American. 
Republicans yelled stop. They fought it bitterly. Seventy-five years 
later they are still trying to undo Social Security.
  In 1965 President Johnson and the Congress passed Medicare, ensuring 
seniors had access to decent health care coverage. Republicans yelled 
stop. They fought it bitterly. Forty-five years later, they are still 
trying to undo Medicare.
  Well, here they go again. Here they go again, trying to undo the 
Affordable Care Act. As I have said before, they are on the wrong side 
of history.
  I think we should listen to the American people and leave our 
ideological obsessions behind and work together to make the law even 
better. The choice is to go forward or to be dragged backward. It is 
time to come together as a united American people to create a reformed 
health care system that works not just for the healthy and the wealthy 
but for all Americans.
  Mr. President, I think it is important also to put a human face on 
this matter. Let's just put a human face on what this bill does. I have 
shown some of these people before. Let's talk about Emily Schlichting.
  She testified before our committee. She suffers from a rare 
autoimmune disorder that would have made her uninsurable in the old 
days. But thanks to the Affordable Care Act, as a student, she is able 
to stay on her parents' policy until she is 26. Here is what she said 
at our hearing last year. She said:

       Young people are the future of this country and we are the 
     most affected by reform--we're the generation that is most 
     uninsured. We need the Affordable Care Act because it is 
     literally an investment in the future of this country.
       --Emily Schlichting, a student in Omaha.

  Then there is Sarah Posekany of Cedar Falls, IA. She was diagnosed 
with Crohn's disease when she was 15. During her first year in college 
she ran into complications from Crohn's disease and was forced to drop 
her classes in order to heal after multiple surgeries. Because she was 
no longer a full-time student, her parents' private health insurance 
company terminated her coverage. They stopped it. Four

[[Page 10916]]

years later, after many health care interventions, she found herself 
$180,000 in debt and forced to file for bankruptcy. She was able to 
complete one semester at Hawkeye Community College but could not afford 
to continue. Because of her earlier bankruptcy--because of her earlier 
bankruptcy due to her health--every bank she applied to for student 
loans turned her down. But now, thanks to the new law, people like 
Sarah will be able to stay on their parents' health insurance plan 
until they are age 26.
  Again, are we just going to say to people like Sarah and Emily: 
Tough. You got a bad break. Tough luck. Are we going to say that just 
to make some political point because of some ideological obsession?
  The Affordable Care Act protects children with preexisting conditions 
now. That protection will be expanded to all adults in 2014--in just a 
couple of years. Well, actually, now that I think about it, in about a 
year and a half, every adult American will have that coverage and be 
able to get affordable coverage even though they have a preexisting 
condition.
  That could mean a lot to Eleanor Pierce. She is from Cedar Falls, IA. 
Here is Eleanor Pierce. When her job with a local company was 
eliminated, she lost her health insurance. She could purchase the COBRA 
insurance, but it was completely unaffordable to her. So she searched 
for coverage on the private individual market but was denied access 
because of her preexisting condition of high blood pressure. The only 
plans that would cover her came with premiums she could never hope to 
afford without any income.
  So here is Eleanor, age 62, suffering from high blood pressure, and 
she had no choice but to go without insurance and hope for the best. 
But, Mr. President, hoping for the best is not a substitute for regular 
medical care. One year later, Eleanor Pierce suffered a massive heart 
attack. When all was said and done, she had racked up $60,000 in 
medical debt.
  So, again, are we going to leave people like Eleanor without 
coverage, with mounting debt and declining health just to make some 
political point? These are real people the Affordable Care Act is now 
helping.
  Well, as I have said before, the Affordable Care Act is for every 
American. But many of the benefits that are in place now, Republicans 
would take away by voting to repeal it. Many like Eleanor, who will be 
helped when it is fully implemented in 2014, will be denied the 
ability, the wherewithal to have affordable health care coverage so 
they can have good preventive health care measures, so they can get in 
to see a doctor and get medical care before they have to go to the 
emergency room.
  I am told that tomorrow the House of Representatives will once again 
vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act. But once again they are on the 
wrong side of history. It is time to come together. Let's work together 
now to implement the law. It is constitutional, it is the law, let's 
get it implemented, and let's make sure we don't go down the road of 
political theater--political theater--due to ideological obsessions.
  I know it is a campaign year. I have been in a lot of campaigns 
myself. They are tough, I know that. But there comes a point when we 
have to put politics aside for what is good for the American people. 
Now is the time to put aside the politics on the Affordable Care Act. 
Let's get to the business of implementing it.
  As I said, Governor Romney is the nominee of the Republican Party for 
President. I am sure they will do everything they can to elect him. I 
understand that, and that is fine. That is the American way. I wouldn't 
have it any other way. But just keep in mind, when he was Governor, he 
put in a health care system in Massachusetts that is very much like the 
Affordable Care Act, which included a mandate. Governor Romney himself 
said: No, no, I like mandates. Mandates work.
  Well, it is time to move ahead. Let's implement the bill, and let's 
get over this political theater the House is going to embark on 
tomorrow.
  Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor, and I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Restoring the Gulf of Mexico

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, last week, we passed some 
significant legislation, and it was one little glimpse of a bright 
shining moment of bipartisanship. The overall Transportation bill 
passed overwhelmingly. The magnificent leadership of the chairman of 
the committee, Senator Boxer, and the ranking member, Senator Inhofe, 
was a good example of how government, in general, and this institution, 
the Senate, should operate to get things done. We went through the 
amendatory process, and I noticed the two leaders of the Environment 
and Public Works Committee fought off all the amendments that would 
have been killer amendments. They accepted some they believed 
strengthened the bill, and then we passed the bill seventy-four to 
nineteen. So it was overwhelming and it was bipartisan.
  As a part of the process of that bill, several months ago, when the 
Transportation bill was on the Senate floor, I had the privilege of 
offering an amendment--again, bipartisan--to restore the Gulf of Mexico 
after the effects of the BP oilspill. That emanated from the fact that 
we have a fine that will be levied by a Federal judge in New Orleans. 
The law allows for the judge to assess a fine per barrel of oil spilled 
in the Gulf of Mexico.
  In this case, we are talking about some real money. We are talking 
about almost 5 million barrels spilled in the Gulf of Mexico. The fine 
could be anywhere from a $5 billion fine all the way up to a $20 
billion fine. So the question became: Once the fine is determined and 
approved by the court, where is that money going to go? The Gulf State 
Senators argued we should be able to have this come back to help the 
people and the environment of the gulf who were harmed.
  There are so many effects, and we do not know what is going to be the 
ultimate result of all of this, particularly on the health of the gulf.
  Five million barrels in the gulf is a lot of oil. The question is, 
the natural processes of the bacteria in the water that consume oil 
that naturally leak through the ocean floor--is the gulf so overwhelmed 
with all that oil that the bacteria are not able to consume it? Since 
this came from a ruptured well 5,000 feet below the surface of the 
water, how much oil is still down there, where it is hard to get any 
kind of research done because of the depth and the pressure.
  That is what we need to know. We need to know for the future and we 
need to know for all the people who have their livelihood by the gulf, 
be it the seafood industry--but that not only affects the gulf. The 
gulf provides seafood for the entire country.
  I am coming here to say we have an incredible success in a bipartisan 
way. I remind the Presiding Officer that we passed that amendment on to 
the Transportation bill, the RESTORE the Gulf of Mexico Act, in this 
Chamber 76 to 22. It was a huge bipartisan vote. Last week was a time 
to celebrate, and it was a time to celebrate for our whole country for 
a lot of reasons.
  Yesterday, I went back to the shores of the gulf to share with the 
people what the specifics are of the legislation we passed and, once 
the court decides what the fine is, how that money is going to flow and 
what it is going to do for our people to improve their economies and 
the environment and for the long-term outlook of the health of the 
gulf. I wish to bring this to the attention of the Senate because the 
gulf doesn't just belong to the gulf coast counties of five Gulf 
States; it belongs to all Americans, and the President signed it into 
law last Friday.
  I wish to thank those people in the Senate, in the House, and the 
President for signing it, a wide array of staff and

[[Page 10917]]

stakeholders, the cities and the counties whose tireless efforts led to 
the enactment of the RESTORE Act. It aims to make sure the gulf does 
recover.
  The chorus of support behind the success of this bill is enormous, 
and it would take me until the next Congress to thank everyone. But in 
addition to Senator Boxer and Senator Inhofe, I wish to mention the 
spark plug behind this whole effort was Senator Mary Landrieu of 
Louisiana, whose State has suffered mightily. Senator Shelby and 
Senator Baucus, the chairman of the Finance Committee, who helped us 
come up with sources of revenue that we had to have to satisfy the 
General Accounting Office, Senator Whitehouse, all these Senators were 
involved. Indeed, when we filed the bill 1 year ago, we had Senators 
from all 5 Gulf States as cosponsors, another display of bipartisan 
cooperation.
  Think back to 2 years ago when this disaster began. It was about 10 
at night on April 20, 2010, 52 miles off the coast of Louisiana. The 
Macondo 252 oil well suddenly kicked, leading to an explosive blowout 
that claimed the lives of 11 Americans. For the next 87 days, almost 5 
million barrels of crude oil gushed into the gulf.
  Fishermen pulled the gear off their boats and replaced it with booms 
and skimmers, tourists canceled their vacations, waiters came to work 
to find that there were no customers, and the oil continued to coat the 
marshes that are the nursery habitat for juvenile shrimp and so many of 
the other critters that spawn in and around the marshes. Some of the 
beaches that draw tourists every summer were coated. Even for those 
beaches that did not have oil, the perception was that there was oil on 
our beaches and the tourists did not come and it killed an entire 
tourist season.
  That is why, in addition to Louisiana being affected with their 
environment and their shrimping industry and their fishing industry, 
the economy of Florida, where oil got onto the westernmost beaches--as 
a matter of fact, there was that famous photograph of Pensacola Beach 
with the white sugary sand beaches, and it looked like the entire beach 
was covered. That shot around the world and people started canceling 
vacations.
  Only a few tar balls got as far east as Panama City Beach, and the 
rest of the gulf coast beaches all the way down to the southern tip of 
Florida, no oil, but the tourists stopped coming. When the tourists 
stop coming, there is nobody in the hotels and the hotel workers can't 
work, there is nobody in the restaurants and all those workers aren't 
working and all the ancillary businesses that depend on that major 
component of the economy. Then, of course, the seafood industry--the 
source of one-third of our domestic seafood in this country, the Gulf 
of Mexico. Of course, the fishing industry was devastated, even those 
who could fish outside the danger zone of where the oil was lurking. 
People stopped buying gulf seafood because they were afraid it was 
tainted. Even when the oil was finally shut off after 3 months, the 
gulf was left with this public perception that the gulf was tainted.
  If we remember back, the President asked the Secretary of the Navy, 
Ray Mabus, to recommend a strategy to restore the gulf. Why Ray Mabus? 
Because he had been a Gulf State Governor, Governor of Mississippi. 
After he did his first tour, Secretary Mabus labeled the gulf a 
national treasure, and he recommended that a significant portion of the 
Clean Water Act fines to be levied against BP be sent back to the 
region for environmental and economic recovery. Over the last couple 
weeks, the President, the Congress, stakeholder groups from across the 
country and across the political spectrum have made this commitment to 
restore this national treasure, and the result is that we passed the 
RESTORE Act.
  Over the next 6 months, the Department of Treasury is going to 
develop procedures in which to implement the RESTORE Act. The Ecosystem 
Restoration Council, established by the act, will build on the 
recommendations of Secretary Mabus, the task force, and others to 
develop a draft comprehensive plan to address the environmental needs 
of the gulf. It is a Federal-State council. Once we know the outcome of 
the Justice Department's lawsuit against BP--and there are rumors that 
there is a settlement in the works. If that settlement were to be true 
and the judge approves it, the money will be ready to flow under the 
procedures being set up under this Federal-State council as initially 
determined by the Department of the Treasury.
  The reason I wish to speak is not only to thank the many people who 
helped us accomplish this major milestone, but I also want to put into 
the Congressional Record why certain provisions in the RESTORE Act are 
there.
  As the sponsor of the amendment, I want this legislative intent to be 
understood as the law is implemented. Certainly, I want understood from 
my perspective, as one of Florida's two Senators, what we have done. 
But it is important to flesh it out, if it hasn't been said already in 
testimony in committee as well as testimony as given in the speeches on 
the floor.
  The RESTORE Act sends 80 percent of all the Clean Water Act fines 
back to the gulf through four mechanisms. The first is to direct equal 
allocation among the five Gulf States.
  In the spring of 2011, in our State, the Florida legislature passed 
and the Governor signed legislation to ensure that the most affected 
counties receive the bulk of any oil spill funding that comes to the 
State. This is different in the allocation of this first pot of money 
in the State of Florida from what was indicated in the other four Gulf 
States. In the case of Florida, it is memorialized in law that 75 
percent of the funds for Florida in this first pot of money would be 
spent in the eight disproportionately affected counties in the Florida 
Panhandle--so from the west, Escambia County all the way to the east to 
Wakulla County--while the remaining 25 percent would be spent in other 
counties. That allocation of funding is mirrored in the RESTORE Act and 
it is now law. This is important. Because while there are places across 
the State that suffered from the misperception of oil, the panhandle 
counties were some of the hardest hit. So when it comes to the first 
allocation, the intent was to have those eight counties receive 75 
percent of the funds in that first pot and for the other counties along 
the gulf coast of Florida to receive the remaining 25 percent.
  If that State law is changed in the future, I want it clearly known 
that the legislative intent of the sponsor of this bill was what was 
just said: the 75-25 allocation--not to be squirreled off into some 
other purposes in the State government but to go to the counties that 
were affected by the spill.
  The Senate-passed version of the RESTORE Act included impact 
allocation formulas for disproportionately affected counties and for 
other gulf coast counties that took into account things such as 
population and proximity to the oil spill. These impact allocations 
were meant to provide a reasonable and transparent method for 
accounting for impacts between gulf coast counties in Florida. The 
Florida Association of Counties convened working groups of the 
disproportionately affected counties to determine such a method.
  When we got into the conference committee with the House, the House 
didn't go along with that particular internal approach so that language 
was not included in the final public law. But I want the record stated 
that was the intent of the Senate-passed bill, and as I have just come 
from the gulf coast yesterday, I understand from the county commissions 
all up and down the gulf that they intend to work with the cities and 
the other affected parties to try to follow that method they had 
recommended to us that we put into the Senate-passed bill.
  The eight panhandle counties worked hard to reach a consensus, and it 
is my expectation they are going to continue to honor those collective 
decisions to come up with a fair and reasonable method of allocating 
the money. Throughout the spill and for the recovery efforts that are 
moving forward, the gulf region worked as one gulf, with Louisiana 
shrimpers standing shoulder to shoulder with Florida county commissions 
because, together,

[[Page 10918]]

the gulf would be stronger and better. I urge all the stakeholders to 
continue this unified, consensus-driven process. Any one city, any one 
county or State restoration effort will only help the region if you 
look at it as a whole.
  I said there were four pots and each of the pots has a specified 
amount, a percentage of the total fine money. Each of them has certain 
criteria. The first pot I described will be divvied up among the five 
Gulf States, equal parts to each State, and distributed according to 
the formulas I mentioned.
  The second pot is an amount of money specified to be directed under a 
Federal-State council. It will be for the purposes of restoration of 
the environment of the gulf.
  A third pot will be according to State plans, operating under the 
criteria put together by all of the stakeholders, including a 
representative from all the gulf coast counties in Florida, and 
ultimately approved by the State-Federal council.
  The last pot, the final 5 percent of the allocation of the moneys, is 
to be an investment in the long-term science and monitoring of the gulf 
ecosystem. When the oil began to spill we immediately realized how 
little we knew about the gulf. Many commercially and recreationally 
important fish stocks in the gulf have never had a stock assessment. We 
did not know what the fisheries were. We knew organizations were 
closing down certain fish stocks to protect the species, but it was 
never done with up-to-date data. To know how to restore a whole 
ecosystem we have to know what has been harmed and how we go about 
straightening it out. So half of the science funding is going toward a 
grant program to collect data, observe and monitor the fish, the 
wildlife, and the ecosystem of the gulf in the long term.
  From the beginning this program has been a priority of mine because 
our fishing industry is so important--commercial fishing, recreational 
fishing, and charter fishing.
  By the way, the protection of these fisheries is not just for the 
fish in the gulf because so many of these critters that are spawned in 
the marshes and bayous of the gulf, in the near-shore habitats of the 
gulf, are species that migrate to all the oceans of the world. I want 
to reiterate that this program is intended to provide a long-term 
investment in gulf science.
  Years ago, in Alaska, after the Exxon-Valdez spill, it took 5 years 
for the herring population to collapse and it has not recovered in the 
19 years since. We do not want this to happen in the Gulf of Mexico 
fisheries. If this gulf science program looks only at the short term we 
may not be able to adequately assess the real impacts.
  This funding is also meant to supplement existing efforts and not to 
supplant them. I want that clear in the legislative intent. The health 
of the gulf, the fishing industry, and the tourism industry all rely on 
accurate, up-to-date science--which is lacking, by the way, not just in 
the gulf but in all our fisheries.
  There is a strict cap on the administrative expenses of 3 percent so 
that the RESTORE funds produce on-the-ground results rather than 
plugging budgetary shortfalls.
  The science pot, the fourth pot, is divided in two. I have described 
the long-term science looking at the fisheries. The remaining half of 
the science pot will go to centers of excellence to be established in 
each of the five Gulf States. University and research institutions in 
Florida have been a vital part of the response to the Deepwater Horizon 
incident. Since the 1960s, Florida research institutions have worked 
together to benefit oceanographic science in the State. This 
coordinated effort is called the Florida Institute of Oceanography. 
This institute is essentially Florida's marine science brain trust and 
its members have done excellent science work, particularly since the 
oil spill.
  This model has produced excellent results that avoid the duplication 
and make the most effective use of the resources in the State. That is 
why the RESTORE Act includes language that specifies that in our State 
of Florida, a consortium of public and private research institutions in 
the State--a total of 20 with 7 associate additional members, including 
the two State resource agencies--is going to be the ones named to carry 
out the center of excellence in our State. This language is intended to 
provide for the Florida Institute of Oceanography to carry out this 
program as the centralized voice of the ocean science in Florida.
  I want that clearly understood for any who read about this 
legislation in the future. That was the legislative intent with regard 
to the center of excellence in the State of Florida. Each of the other 
States has their own procedures.
  This past week I have been on the gulf coast quite a bit to tell 
folks about what I am sharing here today. This new law is going to 
provide some of the necessary resources and a framework to restore the 
gulf coast and the waters of the Gulf of Mexico. Just like plugging the 
Macondo well was a step in the right direction, this is another 
monumental step. But obviously our work is not done here.
  The Department of Justice is still negotiating with BP to ensure that 
they are held responsible for the damage done, and it is time to 
implement RESTORE, because we want to eat gulf seafood forever at 
Fourth of July barbecues. Parents want to see their children playing on 
the white sand beaches of the gulf. They want them to visit the Gulf 
Islands National Seashore and all up and down, from the Perdido River 
in the west all the way to the tip of the Florida Keys at Key West.
  I am going to continue to work with our colleagues to move this 
process forward in a way that adequately restores this national 
treasure of the Gulf of Mexico for many future generations.
  I appreciate the opportunity to share this and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Burr pertaining to the introduction of S. 3367 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. BURR. I yield the floor and 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. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The assistant majority leader.


                             Child Marriage

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a disturbing 
article which most of us saw on the front page of the Washington Post. 
It is entitled ``In Niger, hunger crisis raises fears of more child 
marriages.'' It was written by Sudarsan Raghavan. The article 
highlights child marriages around the world. It is a human rights 
atrocity that steals the future, the health, and the lives of little 
girls and even boys in many developing countries.
  In many of these countries girls are treated like chattel or 
commodities, sold into marriages with older men to settle debts or for 
dowries to help families survive. In Niger--the focus of the Post 
article--a famine is raising fears that more families will turn to that 
practice and marry off their little girls to gain economic security and 
even survival.
  Niger happens to have the highest prevalence of child marriage with 
one out of two girls marrying before the age of 15, and some are as 
young as 7.
  Can you imagine? Women, look around you. If you see another woman, 
know that in Niger one of you would have been married before you were 
15 years old. That is exactly what happened to Balki Souley.
  Balki Souley was married at 12 years of age. Let me show this poster 
of her. She is now 14. She recently lost her first child during 
childbirth at age 14. She almost died herself. Her small body was just 
too frail to handle the difficulty of facing labor. While Niger has the 
world's highest rate of child marriage, it is not the only place this

[[Page 10919]]

scourge occurs. It can be found all over the world and is most 
prevalent in Africa and southern Asia.
  Recently the Senate acted to ensure that the U.S. government is 
adequately addressing this global human rights tragedy by passing the 
International Protecting Girls by Preventing Child Marriage Act. 
Senator Olympia Snowe and I were joined by a bipartisan group of 34 
Senators in introducing this legislation. We have now passed this 
legislation in the Senate not once but twice.
  Unfortunately, despite the bipartisan support for this bill in the 
Senate, the Republican leadership in the House refuses to act on this 
legislation. With every day that failure in the House continues, more 
and more little girls around the world, such as Balki are forced into 
early marriage.
  This means more girls in developing countries will lose their 
freedom, have their childhood innocence stolen, and may, in fact, lose 
their lives. It means more young girls will be forced into sexual 
relationships with men two or three times their age, and it means more 
girls will suffer the devastating and often deadly health consequences 
that accompany forced child marriage such as sexually transmitted 
diseases and birth complications for the child and mother.
  That is not what America stands for. I am calling on Speaker Boehner, 
Majority Leader Cantor, and House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman 
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen to bring this bill to a vote in the House 
immediately.
  Read the article, consider the photographs in the Post and other 
places. The lives of these girls in developing countries across the 
world are literally in your hands.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, Mother Teresa once said, ``Be faithful in 
small things because it is in them that your strength lies.''
  Small businesses matter; they are the store fronts in our main 
streets; they are the idea creators in our technology sector; and they 
are the employers of our people.
  In Montana small businesses matter even more, since small firms make 
up 97.6 percent of our employers and create almost 70 percent of the 
private-sector jobs.
  We know small businesses are hurting because we see the job numbers. 
True, unemployment rates are holding steady, but we need to do better.
  Monthly job growth hit its highest point in 20 months in January, 
creating 275,000 new jobs. But job growth slowed substantially to 
77,000 in April and 69,000 in May--its lowest point since May of last 
year--and 80,000 in June.
  Similarly, U.S. GDP grew by 3.0 percent in the fourth quarter of 2011 
but has slowed to 2.2 percent for the first quarter of 2012.
  We need to give businesses the boost they need to take the risk in 
hiring that additional employee or investing in that additional piece 
of equipment. The Small Business Jobs and Tax Relief Act introduced by 
Senator Reid does just that. It gives businesses a 10-percent tax 
credit for increased payroll, allows businesses to write-off 100 
percent of their business purchases made this year, and expands the 
ability of businesses to claim an AMT credit in lieu of bonus 
depreciation.
  The hiring credit makes it cheaper for small businesses to employ 
workers or raise wages. The extension of bonus depreciation would help 
small businesses that purchase equipment to write off those purchases 
more quickly. The proposal would also help the businesses that sell the 
equipment. Bonus depreciation sparks investment, increases cash flows, 
and creates jobs.
  These measures work because they provide incentives. They require 
companies to do something beneficial in order to obtain the 
corresponding tax benefit--either to hire American workers or invest in 
capital in the United States.
  The Reid bill is in stark contrast to that offered by Representative 
Cantor. His small business jobs bill is a mere giveaway. It gives 
businesses a 20 percent deduction for simply earning income. The Cantor 
bill allows businesses to avoid paying taxes on one-fifth of their 
profits as long as they employ fewer than 500 people and pay twice the 
amount of the deduction in wages. But rather than creating jobs or 
investing in business, the Cantor bill incentivizes the opposite. 
Because it provides a temporary reduced rate, the Cantor bill 
incentivizes businesses to defer making investments, hiring new 
employees or increasing wages in 2012 in order to increase profits. 
That is because, the larger the profits, the larger the tax deduction 
under the Cantor bill.
  That does not make sense for what we need as a Nation. Those 
businesses that need the boost are those that may be struggling to make 
a profit right now. Indeed, this could be a risk-taking retailer or 
technology start-up that may not have any income at all this year. 
Those businesses would not be helped by Representative Cantor's 
proposal. Nor does it make sense to spend $46 billion for only 1 year 
of the provision as proposed by Representative Cantor.
  We should be working to create certainty for our small businesses--
reducing tax rates for all businesses without magnifying budget 
deficits or exacerbating our long-term fiscal challenges.
  We should oppose the Cantor bill and support the Reid bill.
  I yield the floor and 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. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, so ordered.
  The assistant majority leader.


                             The DREAM Act

  Mr. DURBIN. Eleven years ago, I introduced the DREAM Act. It was 
legislation to allow a select group of young immigrant students with 
great potential to be a bigger part of America. The DREAM Act gave the 
students a chance to earn their way into legal status. It wasn't 
automatic. They had to come to the United States as children, be long-
term residents, have good moral character, graduate from high school, 
and complete at least 2 years of college or military service.
  It has had a strong history of bipartisan support over 11 years. I 
first introduced it with my Republican lead sponsor, Senator Orrin 
Hatch of Utah, when it was first introduced. When the Republicans last 
controlled the Congress, the DREAM Act passed the Senate in a 62-to-36 
vote with 23 Republicans voting yes. It was part of comprehensive 
immigration reform. Unfortunately, that bill didn't pass.
  The Republican support for the DREAM Act diminished for political 
reasons. The vast majority of Democrats, despite our support, can't 
stop a Republican filibuster when the bill has been called for 
consideration. I am still committed to the DREAM Act. I am committed to 
work with any Republican or any Democrat who wants to help me pass this 
important legislation.
  Even though we have to wait on Congress to act, these young people 
who would benefit from the DREAM Act can't wait any longer. 
Unfortunately, many are now being deported or at least they were. They 
don't remember the places they are being deported to, and certainly in 
many instances they don't speak the language. Those still here are at 
risk of deportation themselves. They can't get a job and find it 
difficult to go to school. They have no support from the government in 
terms of their education.
  That is why President Obama and Homeland Security Secretary Janet 
Napolitano decided the Obama administration would no longer deport 
young people who are eligible for the DREAM Act. Instead, the 
administration said they would permit these students to apply for a 
form of relief known as ``deferred action'' which puts on hold 
deportations and allows them--on a temporary, renewable basis--to live 
and work in America. I strongly support this decision. I think it will 
go down in history as one of the more significant civil rights 
decisions of our era, and I salute President Obama for his courage in 
reaching this conclusion.
  Remember that the students we are talking about didn't come to this 
country because of a family decision. They were brought here as babies 
and as children. As Secretary Napolitano said,

[[Page 10920]]

immigrants who are brought here illegally as children ``lack the intent 
to violate the law.'' It is not the American way to punish kids for 
their parents' wrongdoing.
  The Obama administration's new policy will make America a stronger 
country by giving these talented immigrants a chance to contribute more 
fully to the economy. Studies have found that DREAM Act students can 
contribute literally trillions of dollars to the U.S. economy during 
their working lives. They will be our future doctors and engineers and 
soldiers and teachers. They will make us a stronger Nation.
  Let me be very clear: The Obama administration's new policy is 
clearly lawful and appropriate. Throughout our history, the government 
has decided who they will prosecute and who they will not based on law 
enforcement priorities and available resources. Previous 
administrations in both political parties have made those decisions on 
deportations, and the Supreme Court recognizes the right of a President 
to decide what agency will make a decision to prosecute or not 
prosecute. Listen to what the Supreme Court said in a recent opinion on 
Arizona's immigration law:

       A principal feature of the removal system is the broad 
     discretion exercised by immigration officials . . . 
     Discretion in the enforcement of immigration law embraces 
     immediate human concerns.

  The administration's policy isn't just legal; it is smart and 
realistic. There are millions of undocumented immigrants in the 
country. It would take literally billions of dollars to deport all of 
them. It will never happen. So the Department of Homeland Security has 
to set priorities. The Obama administration has established a 
deportation policy that makes it a high priority to deport those who 
have committed serious crimes or who may be a threat to public safety. 
The administration said it is not a high priority to deport DREAM Act 
students. I think the administration has its priorities right.
  This isn't amnesty. It is simply a decision to focus limited 
government resources on those who have committed serious crimes and to 
basically say to DREAM Act students: You have an opportunity to remain 
here in a legally recognized, temporary, and renewable status.
  That policy has strong support in Congress. It was Richard Lugar, a 
Republican from Indiana, who joined me 2 years ago in writing to 
President Obama to ask him to do this. Last year Senator Lugar and I 
were joined by 20 other Senators who stood together with us, including 
majority leader Harry Reid, Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy, 
and Senator Bob Menendez.
  According to recent polls, the American people think the President 
made the right decision. For example, a Bloomberg poll found that 64 
percent of likely voters, including 66 percent of Independents, support 
the President's policy on DREAM Act students compared to 30 percent--
less than half--who oppose it.
  Some Republicans outside Congress have also expressed support. For 
example, Mark Shurtleff, the attorney general of Utah, said:

       This is clearly within the president's power. I was pleased 
     when the president announced it . . . until Congress acts, 
     we'll be left with too many people to deport. The 
     administration is saying, Here is a group we can be spending 
     our resources going after, but why? They're Americans, they 
     see themselves as Americans, they love this country!

  Mark Shurtleff, Attorney General of Utah.
  It is easy to criticize the President's policy on the DREAM Act in 
the abstract. What I have tried to do on a regular basis is to 
introduce those who follow the Senate proceedings to the actual 
students who are affected by this.
  One of them is Kelsey Burke. Kelsey was brought to the United States 
from Honduras at the age of 10. Her family settled in Lake Worth, FL, 
where she started school in the sixth grade. By the time she was in 
eighth grade, she was taking advanced placement classes. She was 
accepted into the Criminal Justice Magnet Program at Lake Worth High 
School. She developed a passion for the law and started to dream about 
becoming an attorney. She continued to take honors classes and then 
enrolled in college at Palm Beach State College. She graduated from 
high school with a 3.4 GPA, a criminal justice certificate, and already 
15 college credits.
  In 2008, Kelsey was granted temporary protected status which allows 
immigrants to remain in the United States temporarily because it is 
unsafe for them to return to their home country. With temporary 
protected status, Kelsey is able to work legally, although she is still 
not eligible to stay here permanently or to become a citizen. After she 
began working, Kelsey was able to afford college. Keep in mind Kelsey 
and other DREAM Act students are not eligible for Federal student loans 
or any other Federal financial aid. Going to college for them is harder 
than it is for most kids.
  While working full-time, Kelsey went to Florida Atlantic University, 
graduating with a major in public communications and a minor in 
sociology. She was indeed the first member of her family to graduate 
from high school and college. She now works as a paralegal at a law 
firm in Palm Beach County. She is very active in her community. She 
serves on the board of the Hispanic Bar Association, volunteers at the 
neighborhood community center, and coaches youth soccer. Her dream is 
to become a U.S. citizen, and she wants to be an attorney. Of course, 
not being a citizen is an obstacle to her ever becoming a member of the 
legal profession in this country. Here is what she said when she wrote 
to me:

       I desire to help others pursue their passion, to fight for 
     their dreams, and to make a positive difference . . . Others 
     forgot where they came from and how their ancestors got here; 
     and what coming to America represents. I have been blessed 
     and want to use my knowledge and experience to help other 
     immigrant families.

  I am a child of one of those immigrants. My mother was an immigrant 
to this country. I now have been honored to serve in the U.S. Senate, a 
first-generation American. I am proud of my mother's immigrant heritage 
and my heritage as well. In my office behind my desk is my mother's 
naturalization certificate. At about age 23 she became a citizen. I 
keep that certificate there as a reminder of my family roots and a 
reminder of this great country. It is the immigrant contribution to 
America that adds to our diversity, gives us strength, and I think 
brings a lot of special people to our shores who are willing to make 
great sacrifices to be part of this great Nation.
  These young people affected by the DREAM Act were too young to make 
that conscious decision, but the parents who brought them here weren't, 
and they were making that decision for them. Now we want these young 
people to have a chance for their generation to make this a stronger 
Nation. I ask my colleagues: Would we be better off if Kelsey were 
asked to leave? I don't think so. I think her having grown up in this 
country and overcome so many obstacles is an indication of what a 
strong-willed and talented young woman she is. We need so many more 
just like her.
  The President has given Kelsey and others some breathing space here 
with his decision on the DREAM Act. Now it is time for us to accept the 
responsibility not only to deal with the DREAM Act but also to deal 
with the immigration question. We cannot run away from the fact that it 
is unresolved and has been for years. We need to work together on a 
bipartisan basis to make certain we have an immigration system that is 
fair, reasonable, and will continue to build this great Nation of 
immigrants, bringing to the shores of this country those who have made 
such a difference in the past and will in the future.
  I thank all of my colleagues, including the Presiding Officer, for 
his strong support of the DREAM Act. The President's decision has given 
us a new opportunity to introduce these young people to America in a 
legal, protected status on a renewable basis.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor for my colleague from Ohio.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.

[[Page 10921]]




                           Ohio Manufacturing

  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I so appreciate the leadership of 
Senator Durbin on the DREAM Act. Nobody has kept the DREAM Act alive 
more than he, and nobody has spoken more passionately or cares more 
about young people. The point of so much of what he is talking about is 
giving people an opportunity. If they work hard and play by the rules, 
they can get ahead in this country. While I do not come to the floor 
today to talk about immigration and the DREAM Act, I support what 
Senator Durbin is doing.
  I come to speak about something else that is related to allowing 
people to have the opportunity to get ahead, and that is Ohio 
manufacturing and why it is so important to our country.
  The best ticket to the middle class in the last 100 years in the 
State of Ohio and all over the country has been people making things. 
The way to create wealth is to either mine it or grow it or make it. 
The Presiding Officer in his State of Colorado understands all three of 
those. In Colorado they mine ore, they grow crops, they make products, 
as they do in Ohio. Ohio is increasingly becoming an energy State in 
many ways and a leading farm State. Our biggest industry in a sense in 
Ohio is agriculture. We are also the No. 3 manufacturing State in the 
United States of America. Only Texas and Colorado produce more than 
Ohio does. They are States two and three times our size in population 
and, in area, more than that.
  We know that from 2000 to 2010, we lost one-third of the 
manufacturing jobs in this country. We lost more than 5 million 
manufacturing jobs, which disappeared, suffered tens of thousands of 
plant closings, thousands of communities abandoned or crippled, 
teachers laid off, librarians laid off, police and firemen laid off, 
families broken because of these manufacturing job losses. More than 
15,000 manufacturing jobs were lost between 2000 and 2010. Since early 
2010, we now have 500,000 more jobs than we had in the early 2000s. In 
other words, for the first time in a decade, we are actually seeing 
manufacturing job gains. A big part of that is what has happened to the 
auto industry.
  I spent much of last week all over my State but especially visiting 
places in northern Ohio where manufacturing and especially auto 
manufacturing is so important. I talked to business owners who are 
grateful and enthusiastic about what happened with the auto rescue. The 
auto industry was literally dying in Ohio and across the country. At 
this point 4 years ago, in late 2008 and early 2009, if the U.S. 
Congress, the President--the House and Senate--hadn't stepped in, my 
State would be in a depression. Since then, we are seeing major 
investments--in many cases hundreds of millions of dollars of 
investment--tens of millions spent on major investments in Toledo, OH, 
by Chrysler; major investments in Ohio by GM, major investments in Ohio 
by Ford, and major investments in Ohio by Honda. We all understand the 
auto industry is alive and well and coming back.
  But many of these auto suppliers--companies that make brackets or 
bolts or wheel covers or glass or a number of other products that all 
go into auto assembly--many of these manufacturers, including component 
manufacturers of parts for the auto industry, talk about competing 
against China. For too long, they tell me--and I recognize--China has 
been manipulating its currency to give Chinese exports an unfair 
advantage. The Chinese Government also gives illegal subsidies to their 
domestic industries for the purpose of exporting and dumping products 
in the American market. The term ``dumping'' simply means they 
subsidize it so the product itself is priced under the cost of 
producing it. It is called dumping it in our market.
  If that weren't enough, China skirted trade volume even further with 
illegal duties that affected more than 80 percent of U.S. auto exports 
to China, including Ohio-made vehicles such as Jeep, assembled in 
Toledo, and Acura, assembled in Marysville. We can't afford to let 
China take the wind out of our sails.
  Last week, the day after Independence Day, the administration 
announced it would stand with American workers and fight back against 
China's discriminatory tariffs on American automobiles. When they use 
illegal international trade law--when they put illegal tariffs on 
American products--it means the Chinese keep prices so high for 
American-made autos--artificially high--the Chinese simply won't buy 
them. Chinese motorists won't buy them. So they, in effect, by using 
these tariffs, have kept American products made by American workers in 
the United States of America, out of China. We buy so much from China. 
We can buy products in almost any store in America that were made in 
China. We buy so many of their products, but they do all they can--
illegally in many cases--to keep our products out.
  Now is the time to stand for American workers, to stand for suppliers 
in Dayton who provide aluminum and zinc for casting, workers in 
Defiance, OH, who specialize in heavy-gauge steel for our domestic 
automobile industry. That is why the President's decision, the United 
States Trade Representative's decision, aimed at defending American 
jobs was so important. We know what rescuing the auto industry meant 
for us. It was not only about preventing crises, but it could have been 
an economic depression, especially in the industrial Midwest. Hundreds 
of thousands of Ohioans depend on the auto industry: workers, 
suppliers, manufacturers, drivers, truckers, sales representatives, 
dealerships.
  For those of us in Congress who supported rescuing the auto industry, 
doing so meant standing for the hundreds of thousands of Ohioans and 
hundreds and hundreds of thousands of Americans, as much as it was 
about supporting the Big Three.
  Today the domestic auto industry is back on course. GM is the leading 
car company in the world. It is earning significant profits. As I said, 
plants in Toledo and Lordstown and Defiance are hiring workers. Honda, 
Chrysler, Ford, GM, have all announced those various multimillion 
dollar investments in Ohio alone, not to mention many other States I 
named earlier.
  We have to continue making the investments in manufacturing that 
matter for our recovery and our economic competitiveness. I was just on 
a conference call with rural housing advocates in Ohio. We know 
historically in this country what leads us out of depression: 
manufacturing and housing. We are doing significantly better in 
manufacturing. Remember earlier in my short little talk, that we lost 5 
million manufacturing jobs from 2000 to 2010. We have gained 500,000 
since then, including in Ohio almost every single month over the last 
30 months or so. Manufacturing is doing its part to pull us out of this 
recession. We have got to do better in housing. That is a subject for 
another discussion. But the manufacturing part is so important.
  One place we must remain vigilant is the enforcement of trade laws. 
That is what the President is doing. We know that enforcing trade law 
is not just right for manufacturing, it is right for job creation. The 
International Trade Commission's ruling in December 2009 led to a 
broader measure on imports to support domestic producers of steel pipe, 
such as V&M Star Steel in Youngstown. By addressing illegal Chinese 
trade practices, this decision helped increase demand for domestic 
production. It played a significant role in V&M Star's decision to do 
something that people did not expect would happen anytime soon. V&M 
Star Steel made a decision to build a new $650 million seamless pipe 
mill in Youngstown, OH, bringing, I believe, about 1,000 building 
trades jobs, building the structure of the plant, and now several 
hundred jobs as they begin production--a new steel plant in Youngstown, 
OH, one of the major steel-producing centers in the country that had 
come on hard times, particularly in steel; a new steel mile in 
Youngstown, OH, because the President of the United States, because the 
International Trade Commission, because the Department of Commerce, 
because Congress pushed for it, actually enforced trade rules, and look 
what happened. So trade enforcement matters.

[[Page 10922]]

  We also need to be vigilant in currency manipulation. Our trade 
deficit in auto parts with China grew from about $1 billion 10 years 
ago to almost $10 billion today. These massive illegal subsidies the 
Chinese are engaging in are worsened by indirect predatory subsidies 
such as currency manipulation. That is why my legislation, the Currency 
Exchange and Oversight Reform Act, the largest bipartisan jobs bill 
that has passed the Senate in the last 2 years, is so important. It got 
more than 70 votes in the Senate. Both parties supported it. The House 
of Representatives had passed a similar measure one other time. Now we 
are simply asking Speaker Boehner to schedule this bill for a vote. If 
it is scheduled for a vote, if the House votes on it, they will pass 
it, I would predict, with at least 300 votes, because large numbers of 
Members of both parties want to see the House of Representatives move. 
They voted for it before. We need Speaker Boehner to actually bring it 
to a vote.
  It means standing for American jobs when China cheats. Without 
aggressive enforcement of trade laws, this unlevel playing field will 
cost hundreds of thousands of American jobs. It is born from the 
realization that stakes are too high for our workers, our 
manufacturers, our economy if we do not fight back. We need an all-
hands-on-deck approach, at the U.S. Trade Rep, at the Department of 
State, at the Department of Commerce, to be involved and more 
aggressive, especially by initiating more trade actions.
  We know our trade actions stabilized the auto industry. We know 
enforcement of trade law translates into steel jobs and paper jobs and 
tire jobs and other jobs. We know it is time to continue fighting for 
and investing in American manufacturing.
  I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennet). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________