Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 8 - Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 for June 29, 2012

[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 8]
[Issue]
[Pages 10722-10847]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

[[Page 10722]]

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES--Friday, June 29, 2012

The House met at 9 a.m. and was called to order by the Speaker.

____________________

PRAYER

The Chaplain, the Reverend Patrick J. Conroy, offered the following
prayer:
Eternal God, we give You thanks for giving us another day.
As this House adjourns in anticipation of Independence Day, we ask
Your special blessing upon our Nation. We have many things to be
thankful for, and ask that You send Your spirit, that we might continue
to live our freedoms with responsibility and integrity. Help us to be
truly grateful for what we have, and generous as well.
Bless the Members of this assembly and their families in the time
they have together at home so that when they return, they are rested
and energized to take on the important work that faces them concerning
our economy and national security in today's world.
These have been historic days. Issues of grave importance have been
decided, and much commentary and argument has ensued. Bless our Nation
and its citizens, especially those whose energy and emotions are
stirred, with equanimity, goodwill, and an abiding trust that, in time,
our Nation will emerge into an even greater future as it has so many
times before. Give us the faith to believe and increase our trust in
You.
May all that is done this day be for Your greater honor and glory.
Amen.

____________________

THE JOURNAL

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

____________________

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

The SPEAKER. Will the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Heck) come forward
and lead the House in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mr. HECK led the Pledge of Allegiance as follows:

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

____________________

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will entertain up to five requests
for 1-minute speeches on each side.

____________________

OBAMACARE DECISION DISCOURAGING FOR SMALL BUSINESSES

(Mr. WILSON of South Carolina asked and was given permission to
address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, yesterday's decision by
the Supreme Court to uphold ObamaCare is discouraging for America's
small businesses by destroying jobs and threatening families with the
loss of their insurance policies.
When the President lobbied for the passage of the 2,700-page health
care takeover, he promised Americans that the individual mandate was
not a tax increase. Chief Justice Roberts based his opinion on his view
that it is a tax increase, which contradicts the President as being
incorrect.
Chief Justice Roberts and the four liberals now confirm the President
has been inaccurate. Not only will this tax place more hardship on
small businesses to follow the law, but already 12,000 pages of
regulations have been issued with more than 150 new boards, agencies,
and programs destroying jobs.
On July 11, the House of Representatives, under the leadership of
John Boehner and Eric Cantor, will vote to repeal the Obama taxes. On
November 6, American citizens will have the opportunity to vote for
repeal and reform.
In conclusion, God bless our troops, and we will never forget
September the 11th in the global war on terrorism.

____________________

EXPRESSING THANKS TO KRISTIE JOHNSON GREGORY FOR EXEMPLARY SERVICE

(Mr. BARROW asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. BARROW. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my thanks to Kristie
Johnson Gregory, who is moving on from my staff after 7 years of
service to accept the position of special populations coordinator at
Augusta Technical College. Kristie started as an intern in my office
back in 2005, and she quickly rose up the ranks to serve as a senior
constituent services representative.
Every Congressman knows just how important it is to have good staff,
and Kristie is the kind of staffer that you need. Kristie and our
district staff recovered some $3.7 million in benefits wrongfully
withheld from families back home in just the last year alone, and
there's no telling how many homes she helped rescue from the brink of
foreclosure. When you add it all up, her record is reflected in the
thank you letters of grateful constituents and the appreciation of this
Congressman for a job well done.

____________________

STOLEN VALOR ACT OF 2011

(Mr. HECK asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. HECK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to join
with me in restoring the honor and valor of our military heroes by
cosponsoring my bill, H.R. 1775, the Stolen Valor Act of 2011.
While yesterday our attention was focused on the Supreme Court health
care ruling, lost in the media frenzy was the story of how the Court
also struck down the Stolen Valor Act of 2005, concluding that the
broad nature of the law infringed upon the guaranteed protection of
free speech provided by the First Amendment of our Constitution.
The Court determined that the act ``sought to control and suppress
all false statements on this one subject, without regard as to whether
the lie was made for the purpose of material gain.'' The Stolen Valor
Act of 2011 resolves these constitutional issues by clearly defining
that the objective of the law is to target and punish those who
misrepresent their service with the intent of profiting personally or
financially. Defining the intent helps ensure that this law will pass
constitutional scrutiny.
Mr. Speaker, the need to protect the honor, service, and sacrifice of
our veterans and military personnel is just as strong today as it was
in 2005. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor H.R. 1775 so that we can
restore the honor and protect the valor of our military heroes.

____________________

SRI LANKA

(Ms. SCHAKOWSKY asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute.)
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I rise today to mark the third anniversary of the end
of the civil war in Sri Lanka and to urge the U.S. Government to
continue to press for full accountability for all human rights abuses
committed during the conflict.
Over 70,000 Sri Lankans were killed in the course of the 26-year
civil war.

[[Page 10723]]

The United Nations found claims that both sides committed war crimes to
be credible, and although the war ended 3 years ago, human rights
violations are reportedly continuing. Reports suggest that over 50
people--mostly critics of the government--have been abducted in the
last 6 months. Human rights activists have been targeted for harassment
and labeled as traitors in the national media. Gender-based violence is
on the rise in the country's north.
Mr. Speaker, the international community must continue to call for
accountability for the crimes during the conflict, and we must urge the
Colombo government to uphold its international commitments and fully
respect the human rights of all Sri Lankans.

____________________

{time} 0910
SEQUESTRATION OF DEFENSE DOLLARS

(Mr. WITTMAN asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to share my frustration with
the Congress' inaction on looming cuts coming to the Nation's defense
budget.
In America's First District, we have a deep military history. Many of
my constituents have or continue to bravely serve their Nation in a
military uniform. Set to take effect in January 2013, sequestration
will cut billions of defense dollars at a time when we see so much
unrest across the world and American troops still deployed in harm's
way in Afghanistan.
I am adamantly opposed to these catastrophic cuts and believe
Congress must act now. Sequestration threatens the capability of our
military to adequately protect this Nation. The Bipartisan Policy
Center estimated that sequestration would result in a loss of about 1
million jobs in 2013 and 2014. This is not simply American job loss; it
is a loss of critical national security capability.
Congress must not choose failure over making tough choices for the
greater good of this country. Failure is an outcome we must not and
cannot accept.

____________________

INVESTING IN AMERICA

(Mr. LARSEN of Washington asked and was given permission to address
the House for 1 minute.)
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, later today the House will
take up a bill that is key for jobs now and for opportunity for the
future.
First, we cannot have a big league economy with little league
infrastructure. The transportation bill will do more to create jobs
through public investment than any other piece of legislation that this
House has passed in the last 18 months. It puts thousands to work
repairing roads, bridges and highways, and maintaining our transit
systems.
Second, this bill creates opportunity for the future by stopping a
devastating interest rate hike on loans students take to pay for
college. College affordability is a necessary step for creating
opportunity for the future. The bill sends a clear message to college
students everywhere that America will invest in you.

____________________

WHAT TEXANS THINK OF THE SUPREME COURT'S RULING ON OBAMACARE

(Mr. POE of Texas asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute.)
Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, here's what the people of Texas think
of the Supreme Court's ruling on ObamaCare.
Jason from Kingwood, Texas says this:
Now that the Supreme Court has deemed every action of Congress that
it does is acceptable so long as it's considered a tax, you can kiss it
all goodbye. Tax on gun ownership, boxes of ammunition, worship fees,
mission trip tax, Bible fee.
But don't worry. They won't take away your right to vote directly.
They'll just dilute it with multiple voting, illegal voting and fuzzy
counting. But it won't be through taxation.
Stacie from Texas also wrote me and says this:
This ruling sets up so much more of nanny taxes and government
telling us what we can do and cannot do. Don't buy the right car? It's
a tax. Don't buy the right vegetables? Tax. Don't buy the right
newspaper? Tax. Don't buy the right music? Another tax.
Mr. Speaker, the power to tax is the power to destroy. So what's the
next tax from Big Government?
Congress and the Supreme Court have both had their chance to voice
their opinion. Now it's time for the American people to voice theirs.
And that's just the way it is.

____________________

HIGHLIGHTS OF THE PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT

(Ms. HANABUSA asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Ms. HANABUSA. Mr. Speaker, I stood here 2 days ago addressing the
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and reviewing its benefits.
I stand here today after the landmark Supreme Court decision to make
people aware of the Republicans' efforts to repeal this historic piece
of legislation.
The stakeholders must remember: seniors, the benefits with the
prescription drugs already benefiting with $3.7 billion in savings;
young adults who stay on their parents' plan until the age of 26, 6.6
million of you; small businesses who will experience tax credits of up
to 50 percent by the year 2014; and women, women who suffered
discrimination in premiums and on preexisting conditions like
pregnancy. Imagine being defined a preexisting condition. 2014 they
will stop.
These are just highlights, and this is why we need to, again, focus
behind the Affordable Care Act and remember, it's the largest part of
our GDP that keeps growing; and we need to have it under control in
order to have our great economy.

____________________

CONGRATULATING DAVID BONNER FOR HIS 2011 PRESIDENTIAL AWARD FOR
EXCELLENCE IN MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE TEACHING

(Mrs. BIGGERT asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate David Bonner on
earning the 2011 Presidential Award for Excellence in Mathematics and
Science Teaching. Mr. Bonner is a physics teacher at Hinsdale South
High School in Illinois.
As a former school board member for Hinsdale District 86, as well as
a member of the Education and Science Committee, I have seen how
important STEM education is in preparing our students to succeed in the
21st century. And I also know how special it is to have a great teacher
who can inspire our students to get excited about a future in science,
physics, math, and engineering.
Mr. Bonner should be very proud to join the ranks of only 97 teachers
from across the country who have been selected for this award by a
panel of distinguished scientists, mathematicians, and educators. He is
a very important asset to our community, our children, and our future;
and I wish him the best of luck in the future.

____________________

READ THE LAW

(Mr. YARMUTH asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, during the debate on the health care reform
act, the Affordable Care Act, we continued to hear cries of ``read the
bill, read the bill, read the bill,'' as if those of us who had
supported the bill had not read it. As a matter of fact, I, among many,
had read it; and we were astounded at the misrepresentations that were
out in the public, foisted by our Republican opponents.
Well, I'm going to be generous today and assume that they just hadn't
read

[[Page 10724]]

that bill. But now that bill is unquestionably the law of the land. So
I implore my Republican colleagues, before they continue to mislead and
confuse their constituents, read the law. Read the law. Read the law.

____________________

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5856, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2013; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6020,
FINANCIAL SERVICES AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2013; AND
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 4348, MOVING
AHEAD FOR PROGRESS IN THE 21ST CENTURY ACT

Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 717 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 717

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 5856) making appropriations for the Department
of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, and
for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the
bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Appropriations. After general debate the bill
shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.
Points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to
comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived except for
section 8121. During consideration of the bill for amendment,
the chair of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority
in recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering an
amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the
Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8
of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as
read. When the committee rises and reports the bill back to
the House with a recommendation that the bill do pass, the
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Sec. 2. At any time after the adoption of this resolution
the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII,
declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole
House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill
(H.R. 6020) making appropriations for financial services and
general government for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2013, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill
shall be dispensed with. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be
confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Appropriations. After general
debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the
five-minute rule. Points of order against provisions in the
bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are
waived except as follows: beginning with ``: Provided'' on
page 95, line 9, through ``level'' on page 95, line 11. Where
points of order are waived against part of a paragraph,
points of order against a provision in another part of such
paragraph may be made only against such provision and not
against the entire paragraph. During consideration of the
bill for amendment, the chair of the Committee of the Whole
may accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether
the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed
in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for
that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed
shall be considered as read. When the committee rises and
reports the bill back to the House with a recommendation that
the bill do pass, the previous question shall be considered
as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final
passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 3. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider the conference report to accompany the bill
(H.R. 4348) to provide an extension of Federal-aid highway,
highway safety, motor carrier safety, transit, and other
programs funded out of the Highway Trust Fund pending
enactment of a multiyear law reauthorizing such programs, and
for other purposes. All points of order against the
conference report and against its consideration are waived.
The conference report shall be considered as read. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
conference report to its adoption without intervening motion
except: (1) one hour of debate; and (2) one motion to
recommit if applicable.
Sec. 4. It shall be in order at any time on the
legislative day of June 29, 2012, for the Speaker to
entertain motions that the House suspend the rules, as though
under clause 1(c) of rule XV, relating to the following: (a)
measures addressing expiring provisions of law; and (b) a
concurrent resolution correcting the enrollment of H.R. 4348.
Sec. 5. The requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a
two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on
Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is waived
with respect to any resolution reported on the legislative
day of June 29, 2012, providing for consideration or
disposition of the following: (a) measures addressing
expiring provisions of law; and (b) a concurrent resolution
correcting the enrollment of H.R. 4348.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Schock). The gentleman from Florida is
recognized for 1 hour.

{time} 0920

Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to my good friend and colleague, the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as
I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time
yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and
the underlying bills.
House Resolution 717 provides for a standard conference report rule
for the consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 4348,
the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2012, Part II, also known
simply as the ``highway bill.'' The conference report for the highway
bill represents a bipartisan and bicameral effort to address our aging
national infrastructure and chronic unemployment with a 2-year
authorization.
This long-term transportation bill, agreed to by both Houses and by
both parties in this conference report, provides much-needed certainty.
It provides certainty not only to States and to State governments but
also to the transportation and construction industries and to those
Americans whose livelihoods depend on them. Rather than another short-
term extension measuring mere weeks or months, this bill authorizes
transportation funding for 2 full years and allows businesses to plan
ahead, hire workers, and grow.
The conference report ensures taxpayer dollars are spent on high-
priority infrastructure projects that support jobs and economic
activity. The conference report also contains significant reforms: it
streamlines the lengthy bureaucratic approval process with reforms
aimed at cutting the permitting process in half; it consolidates and
eliminates duplicative Federal programs; and it embraces increased
private sector involvement by leveraging Federal, State, and local
dollars with private sector funding. As importantly, it does all of
this without any earmarks and without any spending increases.
The conference report also extends the current student loan rate of
3.4 percent for student loans for another year. This ensures that young
Americans have certainty when it comes to the terms of their student
loans for the coming year; and because it is paid for, the conference
report ensures that no further debt will be heaped upon the American
taxpayer.
Finally, the conference report reforms and reauthorizes for 5
additional years the Federal Flood Insurance Program. This program is
depended upon by so many in times of natural disaster.
House Resolution 717 also provides for an open rule both for the
Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2013 and the Financial
Services and General Government Appropriations Act of 2013.
The Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2013 includes funding
for critical national security needs,

[[Page 10725]]

and it provides the resources needed to continue the Nation's military
efforts abroad. In addition, the bill provides essential funding for
health and quality-of-life programs for the brave men and women of our
Armed Forces and their families.
The Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act of
2013 has jurisdiction over agencies responsible for regulating the
financial and telecommunications industries; collecting taxes and
providing taxpayer assistance; supporting the operations of the White
House, the Federal judiciary, and the District of Columbia; managing
Federal buildings; and overseeing Federal workers. The activities of
these agencies impact nearly every American and are an integral part of
the operations of our government.
So, once again, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the
underlying bills. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the
rule.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague
for yielding the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise to express my disappointment, not necessarily in this measure,
but in how it has come about. We are here considering a rule for five
unrelated measures the day before we recess for the 4th of July. Once
again, we are rushing to the floor with vital legislation that most
Members have hardly had the chance to read. This rule is the very
embodiment of congressional dysfunction.
While my colleagues are busy playing political games, our Nation's
infrastructure is crumbling, and we all know that. Tuition costs are
rising, and we all know that. The economy is struggling. Perhaps, if my
Republican friends weren't so preoccupied with appeasing their base, we
wouldn't find ourselves in this position yet again.
We could have taken care of student loans back in March when the
House first considered a measure to keep current rates. However,
instead of paying for it in a way that was amenable to both sides of
the aisle, the Republican leadership chose to pay for it by cutting
much-needed preventative health funding. The President said he would
veto the bill in this form, yet Republicans still chose to waste this
body's time and defer to the Senate to come up with an affordable pay-
for.
The transportation bill we are considering has been an even longer
time in coming--over 3 years to be exact. While the conference report
is not perfect, it is clear that we must pass a long-term
reauthorization so that construction projects all across the country
can move forward with repairing and improving our Nation's aging
transportation system and infrastructure. Yet, once again, we find
ourselves racing against the clock.
Without a long-term bill, opportunities to truly invest in our
Nation's infrastructure and economy will continue passing us by.
Without a long-term bill, construction projects all across the country
could shut down. Without a long-term bill, 3 million Americans will be
faced with not having a job after Saturday. We should not have to pass
nine extensions over 3 years' time to get to this point, and we would
be better served than this 27th-month extension if we did a 4- or a 5-
year bill.
Infrastructure investments are essential to our Nation's economic
growth and prosperity. This reauthorization should never have been held
hostage by political gamesmanship. There is simply too much at stake.
Short-term extensions put millions of jobs and the safety of our Nation
at risk by casting great uncertainty on long-term transportation and
infrastructure projects. This is unacceptable.

{time} 0930

While I'm not happy about every provision in the flood insurance
portion of this conference report, after 10 years since its last
reauthorization and countless short-term extensions, it's about time
that we get a long-term extension.
The National Flood Insurance Program insures 5.6 million properties
across every State in the Nation. Yet, one Senator from Kentucky
refused to allow the bill to go forward on the most specious of
reasons, a vote on abortion. I have yet to hear the Senator explain
what abortion has to do with flood insurance or why he would threaten
the security of the homes of all those Americans just to make a
political point. I guess I shouldn't be too surprised. Last night, I
read where he said just because two or more persons at the Supreme
Court make a decision, that doesn't mean that it's constitutional. I
hope this guy goes back to law school, if he ever went.
Finally, on today's underlying appropriations measures, I can only
say: here we go again. Once again, the Republicans refuse to provide
the necessary funds to reach the hardest-hit Americans. Once again, the
Republicans kowtow to corporate power rather than provide the resources
to keep rampant excesses at bay. And once again, my friends on the
other side of the aisle choose to undermine the long-term priorities of
this Nation in favor of partisan posturing.
I've said before and I maintain again and now that the Republicans
are living in a world of let's pretend. In ``Alice in Wonderland,''
Alice said that ``if she had a world of her own, everything would be
nonsense.'' In the Republican world, as Alice said, ``Nothing is what
it is, because everything is what it isn't.'' In the Republican world,
Mr. Speaker, the best way to rein in the most corrupt practices of Wall
Street is to underfund the SEC; the best way to close a $400 billion
tax gap is to force the IRS to fire thousands of taxpayer support
employees; and the best way to ensure our national defense is to
continue to pump in billions and billions of dollars into nuclear
weapons that serve no earthly purpose but to destroy our Earth. What
part of ``we have enough nuclear weapons to destroy every human being
25 times'' do we not understand?
In this world, increasing unemployment somehow improves our economy;
defunding essential government programs somehow helps the hardest-hit
Americans; and cutting domestic programs in health care, education,
infrastructure, and economic development while increasing Defense
Department funding somehow serves the long-term needs of this country.
Well, it doesn't. For months we've known that student loan rates were
set to rise; for months we've known that the highway bill was going to
expire; and for months we've done nothing but use the House floor as a
political playground.
Mr. Speaker, our country cannot prosper if every major piece of
legislation is held hostage to partisan interests. As Alice said--again
referring to ``Alice in Wonderland''--``of all the silly nonsense, this
is the stupidest tea party I've ever been to in all my life.''
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased at this time
to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Sacramento,
California, a former member of the Rules Committee, my good friend, Ms.
Matsui.
Ms. MATSUI. I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, this conference report includes a transportation bill
that will help put Americans back to work and rebuild our
infrastructure. It will also ensure that students will not see an
interest rate hike on their loans. This package also includes a much-
needed 5-year extension of the National Flood Insurance Program. This
comes after 17 short-term extensions.
Mr. Speaker, I represent Sacramento, which is the most at-risk
metropolitan area for major flooding, as it lies at the confluence of
the American and the Sacramento Rivers.
Since Hurricane Katrina, more than 25,000 homeowners in my district
have been remapped, and flood insurance is now mandatory for them. The
average homeowner in Sacramento that has been remapped currently pays
about $350 for a PRP policy. That's a preferred-rate policy. Beginning
in 2013, they were set to pay $1,350 once the PRP rate expired.
However, that is no longer the case.

[[Page 10726]]

This bill contains a number of important provisions, including a
flood insurance phase-in amendment offered during debate on the House
NFIP bill last July. Instead of overnight sticker shock for homeowners,
the provision allows for the price of flood insurance to be phased in
at 20 percent per year over 5 years to the full policy price, when
preferred-risk policies are no longer available in their community.
Specifically, it will effectively allow homeowners next year, in
2013, residing in Sacramento and the rest of the country, to pay close
to if not the same amount they're currently paying. Each year after
that, the price of flood insurance will continue to be both affordable
and predictable, only rising by 20 percent until it reaches full price
in year five. This provision will save the average policyholder in a
remapped area hundreds of dollars, if not a few thousand, over the next
5 years.
Mr. Speaker, this provision offers real savings, especially in these
trying economic times, whether it's for a senior citizen on a fixed
income or a family struggling to make ends meet.
Finally, I would like to commend Chairwoman Biggert and Ranking
Member Waters for working with me, for their continuous efforts to
preserve this amendment and work towards achieving this 5-year
extension.
Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my good friend from
Georgia (Mr. Woodall).
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Florida for
yielding.
It's not often that I find agreement with both of my friends from
Florida at the same time. When I listened to my friend from Florida, my
Democratic colleague on the Rules Committee, in his opening statement,
he's absolutely right. We're bringing five completely unrelated
provisions to the floor in this conference report today, and we're
bringing it in a rushed fashion so folks can get out of here and go
home for the 4th of July week.
I agree with my friend from the Republican side of the aisle, my
freshman colleague, who says this is just a standard conference report
rule. That's absolutely right. All of these things that the gentleman
from Florida, my Democratic colleague, finds troubling are just part of
the standard conference report process.
I've been watching this process for a long time. I may be a freshman,
but I've been watching it for a long time. And it's just the way things
go around here. We've done better. To be fair to this House leadership,
over the 18 months that I've been here in Congress, we've done better.
We've made a commitment to bring one idea to the floor at a time, and
99 percent of the bills I've voted on have been 10 pages or less, and I
could read them. I didn't have to staff it out. I could do it myself.
But something happens when we get to this conference report time. Mr.
Speaker, the question goes to our colleagues. I suspect if we put the
question to our colleagues--my friend from Florida knows it's true:
Would you rather rush these five unrelated bills to the floor today and
get home for all the commitments you've made over the weekend, or would
you rather stretch this thing out and do it right?
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WOODALL. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. You can't really believe that it should be
standard procedure for us to do a 600-page bill that CBO has not scored
until 10 minutes ago.
Mr. WOODALL. Reclaiming my time, I absolutely do not believe it
should be standard procedure, but it is. It has been the entire time my
friend from Florida has been serving here in this House.
Again, we've done better. To the credit of my freshmen colleagues,
we've done better over these last 18 months, and we will continue to do
better. But Chief Justice Roberts had it right yesterday: elections
have consequences. The American people are responsible for what goes on
here. Mr. Speaker, we keep this calendar for a reason. We do it out of
a need for service. You and I both have commitments to constituents
starting at dawn tomorrow morning.

{time} 0940

We have commitments to constituents to keep transportation bills
going, to work with student loans, to reauthorize flood insurance, on
and on and on. We have competing commitments to our constituents. I
would just hope, Mr. Speaker, that if you were asking your
constituents, that they would say, You know what; I would rather you
cancel on me this weekend and stay up there and get it right than rush
it through.
Now, with that said, it has not been partisan politics that's kept us
from getting it here until this point. We've been working hard on this.
To the credit of the folks on the transportation conferee committee,
they have been working hard. And this was just the best they could do,
getting it done today, for whatever reason. This town only operates in
crisis.
I say to my friend, if we can work towards regular order, I would
love to see regular order come to this institution. We have done
better. Eighteen months on the job since I have been here, you and I.
We have done better. My colleague from Florida and I. We have done
better. But we can still do better. But we're only going to do better
if the constituents demand it.
The Supreme Court had it right. You can throw out the folks who
aren't doing it right. Mr. Speaker, I encourage you to encourage all
voters to look at what we do, see when we're getting it right and tell
us, and see when we're getting it wrong and ask us to do better. We can
do better. We will do better.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2
minutes to my very good friend from the Virgin Islands, Dr.
Christensen.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
After 20 years of being fully and fairly included in the surface
transportation bills, what is being voted on today cuts funding to the
smaller territories by $10 million. And while I am glad our sister
territory of Puerto Rico as well as the States and District of Columbia
are level-funded, it just seems grossly unfair that only the United
States Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of
the Marianas are singled out for cuts.
Why cut $10 million? Or it could have been spread out across the
entire bill and not raised a blip in the 50 States, the District, or
Puerto Rico. But for us small economies, it's a big blow.
That being said, it could have been worse. This body would have made
our funding discretionary and, therefore, not secure. So while I decry
the cuts, I have to thank the Senate for hearing our pleas and keeping
our funding in the trust fund.
After all of the time, though, that we have waited for even this 2-
year, 3-month infrastructure and job-creating transportation bill and
knowing the need to keep college affordable and reauthorize flood
insurance, I cannot, in good conscience, oppose the bill before us
today.
But what is being done to the territories is unfair and
discriminatory. And since it makes so little difference in the overall
bill, it seems deliberately and unnecessarily punitive to us loyal
Americans who serve and shed our blood just like every other in the
defense and love of this, our country. Fairness would demand that it be
restored.
Mr. WEBSTER. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time
to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman, my good friend from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting
me to speak on this bill.
Mr. Speaker, there's no small amount of irony that we are having this
discussion today. It's on the anniversary of President Eisenhower
signing into law the National Defense Highway Act. This weekend will be
the 150th anniversary of the Transcontinental Railroad Act, signed into
law by Abraham Lincoln. There was an era when Republicans believed in
infrastructure and development.

[[Page 10727]]

In fact, for most of our history, actually, infrastructure has not
been partisan. It's been something that people on this House floor
could come together to work on. There would be differences, to be sure.
But for the 20 years that I've been involved with this issue, we've
been working to broaden our view of how to make transportation work
better, involve citizens, more flexibility, make the dollars stretch.
This came crashing to a halt with this Congress.
Now the bill that's going to come before us, I will very reluctantly
vote in favor of it in part because of what's not in it. Remember, our
Republican colleagues tried to force through a bill which, for the
first time in history, had never had bipartisan work that came out of
the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, that came out of Ways
and Means. In fact, it never even had a full committee hearing, rush-
to-work session. Mercifully, it collapsed before it came to the floor.
And one of the reasons I'll vote for this bill is because what the
Republicans wanted has been rejected. Remember, they wanted to take
away all the funding guarantees for transit. Working with the Senate,
we were able to resist that effort. They wanted to gut environmental
protections.
And while you're going to find that there are some problems with this
legislation, at least it's not as bad as what our Republican colleagues
wanted. They wanted to completely eliminate the guarantees for
transportation enhancements, for bikes and pedestrians. They were even
going to eliminate the wildly popular Safe Routes to School bill. Well,
most of that has been retained, although they were successful in
gutting the provisions, for some reason, for Safe Routes to School.
We have a bill that actually is a little higher in terms of the
funding level than what the Republicans wanted, and it is at least
going to be guaranteed for 2 years. It has some provisions that are
important to those of us who have rural schools, Oregon among them.
It's going to make a big difference. Putting this extraneous provision
in is going to help. A little help in terms of student loans. And we
worked in the finance title to be able to have the money come from
something that's actually going to make it more likely that we
stabilize some private pension programs.
So it's not without merit. There are important things here. But the
main reason to vote for it is because we've been able, working with the
Senate, to resist what the Republicans attempted to inflict on the
House and the American people.
But make no mistake, it is not a bill to be proud of. As I mentioned,
it dramatically reduces the funding for the transportation
enhancements. There is no rail title. There will be reductions in
citizen opportunities for environmental protection and participation.
It is, sadly, a missed opportunity that didn't need to happen. They
could have allowed the Senate bill, in its entirety, to be voted on,
and I'm confident that would have passed. Or wonder of wonders, they
actually could have worked, like we used to do, in a bipartisan
fashion. The last transportation bill under Republican control passed
with 412 votes.
Well, we've missed an opportunity. At precisely the time when America
needs more investment in renewing and rebuilding, for transit, for
roads, for rail, for water and sewer, there are a whole range of things
that we should be coming together to work on.
I hope that the American public looks very closely at what was
attempted here in the last 6 months, they look at what we managed to
stagger through, and that it is a wake-up call for people to be
engaged.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the gentleman an additional 30
seconds.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I have worked for 5 years with a broad coalition of
stakeholders that's not partisan, that are committed to working
together on a vision for how we're going to rebuild and renew the
country, how we're going to revitalize the economy, and how we make our
communities more livable, our families safer, healthier, and more
economically secure.
If we're able to use this flawed process and sadly inadequate bill as
a springboard, maybe in some ways it will have been worth it.
Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind everyone again, as I
said in my opening remarks, this bill has no earmarks. Yes, we know how
they did it in the past, with 6,000, 7,000, 8,000 earmarks, and
certainly there would be a lot of support among individual Members if
that were the case. This bill has no earmarks. It's good policy.

{time} 0950

The Federal Government says: We know all. We know everything that's
needed in every single community, and we can stamp out one of our famed
cookie-cutter approaches to funding transportation, as we used to do,
so that every single dollar has a little teeny category and every State
is brought into spending within those little teeny categories.
Yes, we could have done that, but that's the old way of doing it. We
did it a different way. We actually had a conference, no earmarks, and
we gave States flexibility. We sent to the States the opportunity to
decide. Did we take out any of those things that were mentioned?
Absolutely not. They're all options. So every single dollar we send to
the State, the State has an opportunity to say, Maybe we don't want to
do a sound barrier, whatever it is that's there. No, we can take the
flexibility that's given to us, we can use it. We can use it to our
benefit far better to build transportation from the ground up rather
than to build it from the top down, Washington, D.C. cookie-cutter
style.
I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).
Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues today
to support this bipartisan compromise to enact three of our top
economic priorities.
Some people have said, Well, we don't like the bundling; we don't
like putting three bills together. But I think this is the art of
compromise, and this is the art of the possible. Because all three of
these bills are very important to all of us, I think, and to have this
bipartisan way to do this, I think this is the way that we should go.
I started out with the flood insurance bill. And before we even had a
bill, we did a draft so that every group could look at it, so that
every Member could look at it and be a part of it and to have what they
thought was necessary or to talk about what they didn't think was
necessary. So we came up with a bill that came out of my Financial
Services Subcommittee by voice vote, but out of the Financial Services
Committee last June, 54-0. And people said, How did that happen? Well,
it happened because we got together and worked before we really just
said, Vote for my bill. And I think it's so important that we do this
and get back together to be able to work in a bipartisan way. The
gentlelady from California was my cosponsor. And everybody joined
together.
So I think it's really important. Actually, the student loan bill is
also my bill. So I really care about what is going on this morning and
that we can really get together and pass these. And the transportation
bill is so important to all of us. Several of us in Illinois had real
concerns about how the transit part of that bill was going to be in it
and really wanted to do something like what the Senate had done and
include that in the trust fund.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. WEBSTER. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 15 seconds.
Mrs. BIGGERT. So I really thank the gentleman, and I think that it
took a lot of compromise on both sides of the aisle. But this agreement
safeguards the things in all of the bills such as the suburban transit
options and funds critical road and bridge projects. So it's been a
long time, but I encourage my colleagues to look at the big picture and
lend this agreement their strong support.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to encourage my colleagues to support this
bipartisan compromise to enact three of our top economic

[[Page 10728]]

priorities: an extension of lower student loan rates, reform of the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), and a long-term transportation
bill.
All three face tight statutory deadlines. And this agreement gives us
the momentum to get all three over the finish line.
Reforming the NFIP will restore financial security to the flood
program, which yields savings for taxpayers and stability in the
housing market.
And extending affordable loan rates for our students will ensure that
our young graduates don't have to pay the price for gridlock in
Washington. Already, half of recent graduates are either unemployed or
underemployed, and now is not the time to burden them with more debt
and higher education costs.
Both of these proposals began here in the House with legislation I
sponsored. And both passed in the House with bipartisan support. Today,
we can send them to the President alongside a third critical economic
priority--a long-term transportation bill.
This agreement includes a two-year extension of federal
transportation funding, avoiding the need for another short-term bill.
In my home State of Illinois, transportation managers need a long-
term bill to invest in the road and rail projects that will keep
commerce and traffic moving--not to mention create jobs.
Mr. Speaker, it took a lot of compromise--on both sides of the
aisle--but this agreement safeguards suburban transit options and funds
critical road and bridge projects.
It's been a long, tough fight, but I encourage my colleagues to look
at the big picture and lend this agreement their strong support.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, would you be kind enough to
tell me the time remaining for both sides.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings)
has 13\1/2\ minutes, and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Webster) has
18\3/4\ minutes.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I am very pleased at this time to yield 4 minutes to my good friend,
the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Let me thank the distinguished gentleman
from Florida for his courtesies and his friendship. We've known each
other a long time, and his service has been one of great commendation,
and the manager as well.
We've gathered here on the floor this morning, and I want to
acknowledge that the legislative process is not always pretty, but
there are lives embedded in this legislation today. And though I have
concerns, I am more pointed toward this House doing things to improve
the quality of life for Americans who stand by the wayside and the
highways of despair waiting for us to provide jobs to improve the
conditions of infrastructure and their lives.
Over the past 2 years, we have seen tornadoes. We've even seen an
earthquake here in Washington, D.C. We've seen hurricanes on the
coastline where I come from in Texas. And in Florida, just recently,
Hurricane Debby has pierced the infrastructure. Obviously, this
legislation points to some of those needs.
As I stand here today, I do want to take note of a comment made by a
person in the other body and suggest to Attorney General Holder: Do not
resign. We have better things to do than to speak to a Cabinet officer
who is a commended public servant. So I want to make sure that that
does not occur.
But as I discuss this legislation, I think it is important to note
several things. One, there are young people that are facing the uphill
battle of getting a college education. Now we'll have a refuge. I held
a town hall meeting, and to hear the stories of $37,000, $50,000,
$90,000 in debt that these young people have. And they are first and
second year. They are sophomores and juniors. Or maybe the veteran who
does not fall into the schedule of veterans benefits with college and
that person has an enormous amount of debt.
And so I'm grateful that we have frozen that interest rate; and we
should say loudly to the students who are now studying that America
cares about them and this House will care about them.
Now, I am concerned. And I am reading language that indicates while
there's been significant progress regarding MWBEs--and this bill has
$13 billion in it for surface transportation and highways--there is
concern expressed in this report that we have not really met our goals
to help small businesses and minority-owned businesses and women-owned
businesses. And in actuality, they have an outreach goal of 10 percent.
Do we realize that there are some that are receiving Federal funds that
don't even meet that goal? And I'm going to cite Houston Metro, because
I was proud to have this body provide $900 million to Houston Metro;
but I'm disappointed in their lack of commitment to MWBEs.
And so this is an important statement. As I read the language, it is
adding women to this to create jobs. And we want to work together. We
don't want to be fighting against each other. But we create jobs and we
help small businesses. And that is crucial. Mass transit has been
helped. But I want to note the jobs that President Obama and Democrats
have been speaking of are now focused in this bill. Because as we begin
to fix the crumbling infrastructure and the $13 billion that we've
committed to mass transit, the highways, to the construction of
infrastructure and bridges that are crumbling and those that have now
been the subject of tornadoes, as I indicated, of hurricanes,
deteriorating infrastructure, it can now be revitalized and rebuilt.
So, Mr. Speaker, and to my colleagues, yes, I will be voting on this
conference report and acknowledge the work that has been done. But more
importantly, Mr. Speaker, to acknowledge that legislation sometimes,
when you have to pull things from people who are desperate, may not be
a process that one says is the ordinary process. But I like the fact
that ordinary people have done extraordinary things. And this is an
extraordinary legislative initiative with its problems, but with $13
billion going to the people of the United States and protecting our
young people and doing the business of the American people, as opposed
to other direction. I hope that we will move forward in serving the
American people.

{time} 1000

Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, and if I
could ask the gentleman how many more speakers he has.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Two more, possibly three, but we're moving
rapidly.
I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend and colleague, the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for yielding.
The seeds of this bipartisan agreement were sown in the other body 3
or 4 months ago; and, frankly, I wish these agreements had been brought
to this floor a lot sooner. They would have done a lot more good, but
I'm glad that these agreements are here today.
This is a bill that will help create jobs in the transportation
sector. It's overdue. It's a bill that will help our real estate
industry by resolving matters about the national flood insurance
program. That is overdue. And it's a bill that will avoid a dramatic
doubling of student loan interest rates on Sunday, which is long
overdue, so it's worth supporting.
I want to commend the negotiators on both sides for another provision
regarding pension law that helps offset and pay for the provisions in
this bill because it, I believe, will represent a significant
investment by businesses around the country in job creation and
purchasing of equipment and capital goods.
Under the terms of the pension pay-for in this bill, American
employers will have about $28 billion for the next year to spend on
something other than pension plan contributions. Now their pensions
will be safe and secure, but this is $28 billion that will be available
to these companies--private money--to hire people, to buy equipment, to
invest in their companies and to help their businesses grow. This is
businesses as large as some of the major companies in our country and
businesses that are quite small.
So one of the reasons to support this legislation is, in fact, it
includes for

[[Page 10729]]

this year alone a $28 billion opportunity for the private sector to
help put Americans back to work. This is a good idea. It was advanced
by both Republicans and Democrats in this body and the other body, and
I hope that we receive a ``yes'' vote for it here today.
Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased at this time
to yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Richardson).
Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference
report on H.R. 4348, the Surface Transportation Extension Act, which
provides funding for the Federal-aid highway program through fiscal
year 2014 at current funding levels.
Among other things, the conference report makes key investments in
our Nation's infrastructure critical to goods movement, which is
specifically very important to me in my district, and the additional
$500 million that is there for projects of national and regional
significance.
The conference report also calls for a national freight strategic
plan, and it encourages States to develop State freight plans to
incentivize those States to invest in freight projects, policies, and
to make sure that we can make progress in that area that has long
avoided us.
In recent days, some Members have come down and expressed a desire
for the Federal Government to adopt a national freight policy. As a
member of the Transportation Committee representing the 37th
Congressional District, I represent a very transportation-intensive
district, and that's why last March I introduced a bill, H.R. 1122, the
Freight Focus Act. That particular legislation was supported very much
across the aisle and included support of the American Association of
Port Authorities, the American Trucking Association, Operating
Engineers, and many more.
My Freight Focus Act was to establish an office of freight planning
within the office of the new assistant secretary, and many of those
ideas have been incorporated.
As we look forward at this bill, it certainly is not what we had
hoped for. We had hoped for something more like a 5-year
reauthorization. That would be helpful, but at this point, given our
limitations, the key thing I would like to see us focus on is to ensure
that there is a strong freight plan, and I look forward to working with
my colleagues to make sure that's implemented.
Further, my legislation created a goods movement trust fund. That is
something that is not addressed in this legislation but should be
considered as we go forward.
As you can see, there are sound freight policies. I have been a
leader of that in working with Chairman Mica and others, and I look
forward to us bringing forward not only this bill, but many more to
come which will put Americans back to work.
Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time to close.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield myself the balance of my time to
close.
Mr. Speaker, it's a shame that we are here today considering this
hodgepodge measure. For too long, my Republican colleagues have used
this House to further their partisan agenda rather than the interests
of the Nation.
So it is no surprise that, once again, we are rushing to the floor to
take care of business that should have been taken care of months ago.
Time and again, when given the choice between reasonable, bipartisan
measures and blatantly partisan policies, Republicans have chosen to
pander to the extreme wing of their conference. They have passed bills
they know will be dead on arrival in the Senate, pursued legislation
with no hope of being signed into law, and attached controversial
measures to otherwise innocuous matters.
While Republicans are busy playing politics, Americans have been
wondering how they're going to get a job, put a roof over their heads,
or afford to pay for college or food.
Though I'm glad these measures are finally being brought to the
floor, our constituents deserve better. On this measure, 600 pages, the
dead of night last night, five measures put together under one, and we
received a CBO score just a few minutes ago. Most Members in this body
don't have any idea what's in this bill or how much it costs.
This Republican tactic of saying ``no'' to everything is dragging
down our Nation, slowing our recovery, and threatening the survival of
important and necessary government programs. There's serious work to do
here in the House of Representatives, and my and your constituents
can't afford to sit around and watch this spectacle.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, as I have said during previous debates on
short-term transportation extensions, our national infrastructure is
aging, stable construction jobs are lacking, unemployment lingers about
8 percent nationally and a little over 9 percent in Florida.
Regrettably, that remains the case today, many short-term extensions
later. However, unlike the past, the House and Senate have come
together to offer a glimmer of certainty to try to address these
problems.
A long-term, multiyear highway reauthorization is critical to
rebuilding our Nation's infrastructure, reforming antiquated and
inefficient transportation programs, strengthening our economy, and
creating jobs. A long-term authorization also provides for certainty
and stability necessary for the transportation industry to contain
costs through long-term planning.
This agreement, while not perfect, is long overdue. It will begin to
chip away at the bloated bureaucracy which defines our Federal
transportation system. It will create jobs and it will promote economic
activity in our local communities, all without adding to the deficit.
For these reasons, I ask my colleagues to join me in favor of this
rule.
I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question
on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

____________________

RAISING A QUESTION OF THE PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I now rise to a question of
the privileges of the House and offer the resolution previously
noticed.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the resolution.
The Clerk read as follows:

H. Res. 718

Whereas the chair of the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform has interfered with the work of an
independent agency and pressured an administrative law judge
of the National Labor Relations Board by compelling the
production of documents related to an ongoing case, something
independent experts said ``could seriously undermine the
authority of those charged with enforcing the nation's labor
laws'' and which the House Ethics Manual discourages by
noting that ``Federal courts have nullified administrative
decisions on grounds of due process and fairness towards all
of the parties when congressional interference with ongoing
administrative proceedings may have unduly influenced the
outcome'';
Whereas the chair of the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform has politicized investigations by rolling
back longstanding bipartisan precedents, including by
authorizing subpoenas without the concurrence of the ranking
member or a committee vote, by refusing to share documents
and other information with the ranking member, and
restricting the minority's right to call witnesses at
hearings;
Whereas the chair of the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform has jeopardized an ongoing criminal
investigation by publicly releasing documents that his own
staff has admitted were under court seal;
Whereas the chair of the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform has unilaterally subpoenaed a witness who
was expected to testify at an upcoming Federal trial, despite
longstanding precedent and objections from the Department of
Justice that such a step could cause complications at a

[[Page 10730]]

trial and potentially jeopardize a criminal conviction;
Whereas the chair of the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform has engaged in a witch hunt, through the
use of repeated incorrect and uncorroborated statements in
the committee's ``Fast and Furious'' investigation; and
Whereas the chair of the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform has chosen to call the Attorney General of
the United States a liar on national television without
corroborating evidence and has exhibited unprofessional
behavior which could result in jeopardizing an ongoing
Committee investigation into Operation Fast and Furious: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives disapproves of
the behavior of the chair for interfering with ongoing
criminal investigations; insisting on a personal attack
against the Attorney General of the United States; and for
calling the Attorney General of the United States a liar on
national television without corroborating evidence thereby
discredit to the integrity of the House.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The resolution presents a question of
privilege.

Motion to Table

Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the resolution on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to table.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on the motion to table will be followed by a 5-minute vote
on the adoption of House Resolution 717.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 259,
nays 161, not voting 12, as follows:

[Roll No. 443]

YEAS--259

Adams
Aderholt
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Costa
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Hochul
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Kucinich
Labrador
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Watt
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NAYS--161

Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barber
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--12

Akin
Barton (TX)
Clyburn
Conyers
Crowley
Filner
Fortenberry
Jackson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Lamborn
Lewis (CA)
Platts

{time} 1035

Messrs. ELLISON and WELCH changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. CHAFFETZ, DUNCAN of Tennessee, McKINLEY, KIND, ALTMIRE,
COSTA, Mrs. LUMMIS, Mr. SCOTT of Virginia, Ms. HOCHUL, and Messrs.
NUGENT and NUNNELEE changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to table was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated against:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 443, I was away from the Capitol
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``nay.''

____________________

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the vote on
adoption of the resolution (H. Res. 717) providing for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 5856) making appropriations for the Department of
Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, and for other
purposes; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 6020) making
appropriations for financial services and general government for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, and for other purposes; and
providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany the
bill (H.R. 4348) to provide an extension of Federal-aid highway,
highway safety, motor carrier safety, transit, and other programs
funded out of the Highway Trust Fund pending enactment of a multiyear
law reauthorizing such programs, and for

[[Page 10731]]

other purposes, on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 244,
nays 176, not voting 12, as follows:

[Roll No. 444]

YEAS--244

Adams
Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Meeks
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Petri
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Richardson
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NAYS--176

Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barber
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McClintock
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pelosi
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Posey
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--12

Akin
Barton (TX)
Clyburn
Conyers
Filner
Gohmert
Harris
Jackson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Lamborn
Lewis (CA)
Platts

{time} 1043

So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated against:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 444, I was away from the Capitol
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``nay.''

Personal Explanation

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 443 and 444, I was delayed and
unable to vote. Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on
rollcall No. 443, and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 444.

Personal Explanation

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, on June 29, 2012, I regret that I was not
present to vote on the Motion to Table the Jackson Lee Privileged
Resolution and H. Res. 717.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on both bills.

____________________

CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 4348, MOVING AHEAD FOR PROGRESS IN THE 21ST
CENTURY ACT

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 717, I call up
the conference report on the bill (H.R. 4348) to provide an extension
of Federal-aid highway, highway safety, motor carrier safety, transit,
and other programs funded out of the Highway Trust Fund pending
enactment of a multiyear law reauthorizing such programs, and for other
purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 717, the
conference report is considered read.
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of
June 28, 2011, at page 10527.)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) and
the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) each will control 30
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.

General Leave

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include
extraneous materials on the conference report to accompany H.R. 4348.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, it has indeed been a very bumpy road
to get to this point where we could pass a transportation bill.
First, I have to thank my colleagues. I want to particularly thank
the Speaker of the House of Representatives who stuck by me, who
insisted that we pass this legislation that we worked on together in
the best interest of the people of the United States, particularly in a
time when people have lost their jobs, particularly at a time where the
construction industry is at its lowest point in probably our history,
and particularly at a time when it's important for Congress to act, not
just to talk about problems that we have, but to get things done in the
best interest of the people of the United States.

{time} 1050

So I want to thank first the Speaker. I want to thank my colleagues
who participated. I want to thank the staff who have been up almost
nonstop for 2

[[Page 10732]]

weeks day and night trying to help wrap this up.
I'm not particularly pleased with some of the twists and turns. Let
me say, first of all, my predecessor Mr. Oberstar, I regret that he was
not able to achieve what we've achieved. He was undermined,
unfortunately, by this administration to pass a bill. I tried to help
him to pass a bill, not for partisan reasons or political reasons, but,
again, for the people that we represent and trying to get this country,
the economy moving forward. They had to pass six extensions. I was
forced to pass three. But we're here today because so many people
worked so hard.
One of the funniest things that happened to me during the passage of
this bill--and you know that people have been kind of tough on me
during this process--is I came to the floor one morning after a
particularly tough time, and a staffer looked at me and he said, Mr.
Mica, your shirt is awfully clean. He looked at my shirt, opened my
coat, and he said, Your shirt is awfully clean.
I said, What do you mean?
He said, For someone that's been thrown under the bus so many times,
you don't have many tire tracks on you.
One of the light moments in this process.
But you know what you have to do is, when they throw you under the
bus, you get up, you right yourself, you dust yourself off, and then
you gain even more determination to win and get the job done. And
that's what we're doing today.
Today we're passing a bill, again, that the other side couldn't pass
when they had complete control of the White House, the Senate, and the
House of Representatives. We're passing this today, ironically, in the
week that they passed the first transportation bill in Congress, and it
was signed into law back in June of 1956.
This isn't the bill that exactly I would like, but this is a bill
that, first of all, has the most historic reforms in the Federal
participation in transportation programs in its history, since its
adoption back in 1956. Those reforms are included, and there is a
dramatic change in consolidation of some of the programs that
mushroomed. Government mushrooms. Nobody does anything about reining in
the size of government. This bill does something about that.
This bill takes the plea that we've heard from Beckley, West
Virginia, to the west coast, from sea to shining sea in an
unprecedented number of hearings across the country. And people said
the whole paperwork process, red tape of Federal Government involved in
transportation projects has to be changed. And we change it here for
the first time historically, dramatically reducing the time that it
takes to permit and go forward with a project, dramatically reducing
the cost, dramatically reducing the mandates, increasing the
flexibility for local government. So we have a streamlining process,
unprecedented.
Now, this wasn't easy to do because my previous chairmen--and one of
them that, at least, is here--they had a little thing called earmarks.
In fact, the last bill had 6,300 earmarks. And you see, my hands are
behind my back. I don't have them tied, but I didn't have the ability
to pass out earmarks and the other little goodies in this bill.
Instead, we had to focus on policy. And this is good policy. This is
good policy for transportation safety. This is good policy for, again,
reforms, and it's good policy for moving forward projects across the
country and putting people to work.
``Shovel-ready'' will no longer be a joke. The administration, when
they tried the stimulus dollars to throw that money out there, 35
percent was left in the Federal Treasury 2\1/2\ years after we passed
the bill because ``shovel-ready'' even made the President and others
cringe at the thought of how Federal red tape and paperwork stops
projects in their progress.
So those are some of the reforms.
I'm grateful, again, for all that helped us move in a positive
bipartisan direction.
I want to compliment Senator Boxer. She and I are probably like oil
and water when it comes to political philosophy, but we joined
together, like everyone should do, to get the people's work done and to
get people working in the United States and pass this long overdue
legislation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
As with health care in the aftermath of yesterday's landmark Supreme
Court decision, it's now time to move forward and put the divisiveness
which has plagued the enactment of a surface transportation
reauthorization bill for the first time in decades behind us and
coalesce in support of the pending conference agreement.
This bill makes a sound investment in America. Fifty-six years ago, a
Democratic Congress and a Republican President came together. And on
this day in 1956, President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed into law the
Federal-Aid Highway Act, which established the interstate system of
highways. This historic piece of legislation created a transportation
system in this country that awed the world. Yet in recent decades, our
roads, bridges, trains, and transit systems have slipped into decline
because we have failed to make the necessary investments to improve the
condition and performance of this network.
The pending legislation will not completely reverse the course of
this decline, but, at the very least, States will see no reduction in
the infrastructure investment funding that they desperately need to
tackle crumbling roadways, deficient bridges, and to secure rail-
highway grade crossings.
The States and transportation contractors will have the ability to
count on a stable source of funding through fiscal year 2014,
sustaining and creating jobs, and enhancing the mobility and safety of
American motorists.
Critical investments in transit will continue, reducing traffic
congestion. And alternative means of transportation will continue to be
a valued enterprise in which to invest, increasing the quality of life
and the health of the American people.
To be sure, there are some glaring shortcomings:
The transit privatization provisions threaten service, not enhance
it;
The environmental streamlining provisions shortchange public input
and could very well lead to greater delays in project delivery;
The Buy America provision is lethargic compared to the bold and
decisive strokes that I advocated;
The mandate to install black boxes on commercial motor vehicles will
come at great cost to struggling independent business people, without
any proven safety benefits; and
There's an ill-advised provision that has no business in this
legislation, which harms our maritime industry by weakening our cargo
preference laws.
When all is said and done, though, this bill is what it is.
As with so much legislation in this body, this conference agreement--
this one, in particular--means jobs, and it means that we will not have
further layoffs. It means that we will continue to move our economy.
And when all is said and done, I will choose to vote for American
jobs any day.
Mr. Speaker, before reserving the balance of my time, I ask unanimous
consent that time on this side be temporarily managed by Mr. DeFazio of
Oregon.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from Oregon
will control the time.
There was no objection.
Mr. RAHALL. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), who does a wonderful job
chairing and leading the Highways Subcommittee.
Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the
conference report on H.R. 4348, the surface transportation
reauthorization bill of 2012.
I first want to salute Chairman Mica for the tremendous job he has
done in bringing this bill to the floor today, and I want to thank him
for allowing

[[Page 10733]]

me to serve as chairman of the Highways and Transit Subcommittee. This
monumental reform package will be considered the signature jobs bill of
the 112th Congress, and I am pleased to have been a conferee on the
negotiations of the conference report.
States will have over 2 years of funding certainty with no tax
increases. By providing long-term funding stability to States, major
projects will be able to move forward to help create jobs and make
much-needed repairs to our Nation's critical transportation
infrastructure. These are jobs, Mr. Speaker, that will not be
outsourced to China or elsewhere.
Traffic congestion costs the U.S. economy over $100 billion a year,
approximately. With congestion expected to increase over the next
decade and beyond, the job creation from this bill will help reduce
congestion costs and boost the economy.
This conference report contains no earmarks.

{time} 1100

Funding is distributed based on formulas which go directly to State
Departments of Transportation, which will prioritize the highway and
transit projects that are the most needed and most important in their
State.
The number of Federal programs has been greatly reduced, which will
give the States greater flexibility on how they spend their limited
Federal resources. The conference report doubles the funding for the
Highway Safety Improvement Program, which gives States resources for
improvements to dangerous and unsafe sections on our Nation's highways
and will save lives. A more robust Highway Safety Improvement Program
will help continue the downward trend of highway fatalities and serious
injuries that we have seen in the last several years.
The House included several streamlining provisions that will have a
dramatic effect on the project delivery process. Federal agencies will
be given deadlines to review burdensome environmental requirements, and
it requires concurrent instead of consecutive project reviews. Projects
that are in the footprint of an existing highway will not be required
to go through this process. According to the last study of the Federal
Highway Administration, the project delivery process can take up to 15
years from conception to completion. This is government at its worst.
These reforms will help cut project delivery times in half and save
taxpayers a great deal of money.
The Senate bill also includes a wide spectrum of additional
government bureaucracy and red tape for small business that would have
severely hurt their bottom line. We were successful in removing most of
these over-burdensome regulations.
This, Madam Speaker, is the most conservative highway bill ever, both
from a fiscal standpoint and from a policy standpoint. I would
especially like to praise the staff that has worked so hard, led by Jim
Tymon, one of the most competent and capable people this Congress has
ever had, from a staff standpoint.
I look forward to passing this reform bill and putting Americans back
to work, and I urge passage of this bill.
Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield myself 2 minutes.
This is 27 months of certainty for the States. That's good. They'll
be able to plan major projects. That will mean there will be some
equipment acquisitions by contractors and others, unlike the short-term
miniscule amount of money spent during the so-called ``stimulus'' bill,
which I opposed. That's good. But this is not enough.
Ten years ago, the United States of America was rated as having the
fifth-best transportation infrastructure in the world. Not great, but
not that bad. Today, we are 25th in the world. Most Third World
countries are spending a much larger percentage of their gross domestic
product on transportation infrastructure than we are.
The Eisenhower legacy is crumbling. We have 150,000 bridges that need
repair or replacement. Forty percent of the pavement on the national
highway system needs to be totally redone, not just surfaced. And we
have a $70 billion backlog in transit, and we have Buy America rules,
which guarantee that all the products that go into those jobs, that
investment we need, would be kept here at home. So we did not get to
that point with this bill.
This is essentially a little decline from what we just spent last
year on transportation infrastructure. And what we spent last year,
according to two blue ribbon panels commissioned during the Bush
administration, is about half of what we need to begin to bring this up
to a world-class system to compete with the rest of the world and deal
with the deficiencies. Build a 21st century transportation system. This
money in this bill for 27 months will be enough to put a few more Band-
Aids on the 20th century, and the 19th century infrastructure, in some
places, that we're still utilizing.
There are good things. It builds on the ideas that Chairman Oberstar
and I offered 2 years ago to dramatically consolidate the bureaucracy
downtown at the Department of Transportation. We don't need to be
spending money on 106 different programs that are so complicated that
no one knows how to apply, and how to apply the rules, and all that.
That's good. We're going to consolidate that. It does some streamlining
so projects will get done more quickly.
There are a number of salutary aspects of this bill. But we need to
do better by the American people the next time we address that issue.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). Without objection, the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) will control the time.
There was no objection.
Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a former
chairman of our committee, a great Member of this body, the gentleman
from Alaska (Mr. Young).
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, Members of this body, I want to
congratulate the staff, primarily. We mentioned some of them before.
The work that they put in this bill is awesome, when they're dealing
with the dark side. And you did such a good job of getting things done
that we tried to get done in H.R. 7.
I will agree with the gentleman from Oregon about the future and what
we have not done in this body because the public still does not believe
we need to do what should be done, and that is to pay for the
infrastructure through a system that's fair to everyone and quit
thinking there's a magic wand to get this job done to build our
infrastructure as it should be. We are declining each year.
I would like to thank the chairman also, Mr. Mica. He's absolutely
right. When I was chairman, we had a $289 billion, 5-year bill. It's
been in place now 8 years. And I'm quite proud of TEA-LU. But the
chairman was, yes, with his hands tied, because we did not and have not
in the Congress retained what I think is a constitutional right of
every Congressman: direct money in directions that they know best,
without costing the budget one dime. Now we've transferred this money
to the State Departments of Transportation, and I think that's really a
wrong way to do it, because they're not elected. They don't know what's
best for a State.
But Mr. Mica did an outstanding job. Mr. Duncan did an outstanding
job. And the staff did an outstanding job to make really a small silk
purse out of a sow's ear. But now we have to go forth and do another
legislative bill in the very near future and explain it to the public:
you don't like those potholes, you don't like that wobbly bridge, then
you better support the concept of a user's fee or some way to raise the
money, because you won't take it out of the general fund.
We have to do this for America if you want a sound economy. Our
economy is based upon energy and the ability to move product to and
from. If you don't do that, you don't have the America I know.
Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr.
Boswell).
Mr. BOSWELL. I would just like to give my appreciation to you, Mr.
Chairman, to Mr. Rahall, and to you, Peter, and everybody that's worked
so hard on this.
Just one comment. We're moving forward. We're going to have jobs.
We've

[[Page 10734]]

done the right thing. It's a good first step. We've got more to do, as
was just said. Everybody gives up something.
We've got this control box, if you want to call it, the black box;
the recorder that's going to be in all trucks. The Mexican trucks get
theirs paid for.
This happens to be a commercial driver's license. I don't know how
many of you have got one, but if you want to see one, come look at it
sometime. It's a little doing to get one. Owner-operators have to pay
for their own. They're making $50,000, $60,000 a year if they're doing
a good operation. That's prevalent in trucks running across this
country. They're doing a good job. They're keeping commerce moving. We
ought to just keep in mind we ought to give those middle class,
hardworking, patriotic Americans the consideration they deserve.
But I'm glad we got the bill. I will go out there and work with all
of you to try to get it better and get more done, but we've got a good
first step.
Mr. DeFAZIO. I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from West
Virginia (Mr. Rahall) be permitted to control the balance of the time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from West
Virginia will control the time.
There was no objection.
Mr. MICA. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished chair of the Science, Space and Technology Committee, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall).
Mr. HALL of Texas. Madam Speaker, I, of course, rise in support of
the conference report accompanying H.R. 4348, a bicameral effort that
provides States flexibility and eliminates duplication of effort. I
want to thank Chairman Mica for his leadership in this conference and
for his outstanding work in negotiating a strong surface transportation
reauthorization. The conferees' commitment to reforming Federal surface
transportation programs has ensured hardworking taxpayers' dollars are
being used more effectively and efficiently.

{time} 1110

Chairman Mica actually visited most areas of this country. At a time
when we were at home in our districts, he could have been at his home
in his district, but he was seeking to empower a bill that sought the
greatest good for the greatest number. He worked hard at it. I don't
believe in my 32 years here I've ever seen a chairman work so hard to
get a bill that was very difficult to start with.
At the outset of the conference, many of us committed to ensuring
that surface transportation and restoration funding is used for its
intended purpose. As chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space
and Technology, I'm pleased that the transportation research programs
in the reauthorization are focused on enhancing safety, reducing
congestion, and improving quality in the transportation system.
The reauthorization before us provides, among other things, greater
flexibility to keep research programs focused, and eliminates a number
of unnecessary programs.
The inclusion of language contained in the RESTORE Act illustrates
our commitment to the revitalization of those areas harmed by the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The addition of certain transparency
requirements and the ability for the gulf States to dedicate funding to
research and development and undertaking projects and programs using
the best available science ensure the area most impacted will benefit.
I would also like to thank my colleague from Science, Space, and
Technology, Mr. Cravaack. He worked hard to protect the interest of his
constituents in Minnesota, and he was committed to ensuring that we
come away with a strong research title. I believe we've done that.
Finally, I'd like to thank the Speaker for the opportunity to work
with the Senate to complete a conference report that will provide more
certainty to the States and the localities for infrastructure planning
purposes.
I believe this bill helps to create jobs for the American people,
which is vital in this troubled economy.
Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, I'm happy to yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the
ranking member of the Education and Workforce Committee, who has
jurisdiction over the student loan section of this conference
agreement.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today in
support of this conference agreement.
Without it, transportation projects would dry up, countless American
workers would be thrown out of work, and a college education would cost
an additional $1,000 for more than 7 million students and their
families.
The benefits of this legislation for millions of Americans will be
felt immediately. In my home State of California, this legislation will
save or create nearly 180,000 construction jobs rebuilding our highways
and bridges and bike paths; and it will save 570,000 California
students from going deeper into debt this next academic year. With this
conference report, 7 million students across this country will get
another year of interest rate relief as they take out their student
loans for the coming college year. More than 4.5 million of those will
be women, more than 1.5 million of those will be African American,
nearly 1 million are Hispanic students, all who are struggling to stay
in college. This interest rate relief that we are providing today will
help them.
What is happening today, though, is a rare thing in this Congress.
It's a victory for college students. It's a victory for low-income
families. It's a victory for the middle class. It's a victory that
should not be as rare as it is in the Congress today. The American
people should thank this win, and we should make sure that we continue
to cooperate in this Congress. And we should also make sure that we
heed the words of Mr. Young and Mr. DeFazio that we have to do more on
our infrastructure to make this country a first-rate country going
forward in the future.
Thank you very much for yielding me this time, Mr. Rahall, and for
all of your work on this legislation.
Mr. MICA. Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), the distinguished chair of the
Financial Services Committee.
Mr. BACHUS. Madam Speaker, first let me commend Chairman Mica on
behalf of this Congress and the American people for the fine work that
you and your committee have done on this bill. We'll build more roads
with less money and cut through red tape and expedite projects.
I also want to associate myself with the words of Don Young, our
former chairman, and of Mr. Miller from California. You cannot have--
the leading country in the world cannot have a Third World
infrastructure. And unless we find new funding sources, we will
continue to fall behind, and we will continue to have those potholes
and bottlenecks.
Now, I want to move to the National Flood Insurance program which is
a part of this bill. It also is a win for the American people. This
House over a year ago approved comprehensive flood insurance, risk
based, that would reduce the cost and bring many benefits to the
program. Last week, the Senate sent us a bill which is essentially the
bill we sent them over a year ago. It's a bipartisan bill. It was a lot
of hard work and input from Members. We passed it overwhelmingly in the
Financial Services Committee and overwhelmingly on the floor of this
House. I would like to commend Chairwoman Biggert for her fine work.
Her name is on this bill, and there's a reason for that. She worked
harder than anyone in this Congress to deliver a good bill. It's a 5-
year bill, and it will begin to make up for the deficit of $17.5
billion that this program has as a result of those hurricanes back in
2005.
I would like to commend the Illinois delegation and the California
delegation under Mr. Shimkus and Mr. Costa who, sadly, is retiring this
year. This bill takes care to balance costs and communities that use
their own funds. I urge Members to pass this bill. It's a good bill. It
includes many good provisions, and I'm proud to say that the Financial
Services Committee and its

[[Page 10735]]

members have been a part of this effort.
As the legislation to reauthorize and reform the National Flood
Insurance Program heads to the President's desk, I would like to
acknowledge the time, effort, and wisdom that four members of the
Financial Services Committee staff provided to create this positive
outcome. These staff members were able to reconcile the differences
between the House and Senate bills--working through a host of complex,
highly technical issues--in less than one week. The efforts of Clinton
Jones, Tallman Johnson, Ed Skala, and Nicole Austin helped all of us to
achieve this very beneficial outcome for the American taxpayer, and I
thank them for their service to the U.S. House of Representatives.
Madam Speaker, first I want to commend Transportation Committee
Chairman Mica, Subcommittee Chairman Duncan, Ranking Member Rahall and
others for their hard work on the needed transportation and
infrastructure improvements in this bill.
I also want to take the time to comment on provisions in this bill
regarding reauthorization and reform of the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP).
Today we're doing something we haven't done since 2004: provide a
long-term reauthorization with meaningful reforms for the National
Flood Insurance Program. Since September 2008, the NFIP has been
extended 17 times and the program has lapsed four times during that
same time period, creating needless uncertainty in the residential and
commercial real estate sectors in communities across the country.
Over a year ago the Financial Services Committee and then the House,
in a bipartisan display of cooperation, overwhelmingly passed a five-
year flood insurance bill with comprehensive reforms and savings for
the taxpayers. This week the Senate approved our legislation.
This bipartisan bill represents the hard work and input of many
members, and I especially want to thank Housing Subcommittee Chairwoman
Biggert for her leadership in getting us to this point.
This bill takes great care to balance the need to make the NFIP more
actuarially sound with the need to recognize the hard work and
difficult decisions many communities are making to build or
rehabilitate their dams and levees. I particularly want to thank Mr.
Shimkus for working with us to address those concerns in a responsible
way.
Many of us have been calling for fundamental reforms of the NFIP for
several years. The hurricanes of 2005 led to massive flooding and
overwhelmed the program, which now carries a debt to the Treasury of
$17.5 billion as a result.
The NFIP is facing serious financial challenges and cannot afford to
continue on its current trajectory, which is why today's bill is vital.
The reforms in this bill end the decades-old subsidies for about
355,000 policyholders and reduce the program's need to borrow
additional funds from the Treasury, which will help reduce the
program's shortfall and protect American taxpayers.
Congress has a responsibility to ensure that the taxpayers are not
left holding the bag. This bill puts us on the path to reforming the
program with risk-based premiums, and provisions to better protect both
taxpayers and homeowners while encouraging greater private sector
participation.
Since January of 2011, I have held as a goal of this Congress to
achieve fundamental reform of the NFIP. The bill we have before us
today accomplishes that in a fair and responsible manner. I urge all
Members to support it.
Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, I'm happy to yield 1 minute to the
gentlelady from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), a distinguished
member of our conference on this agreement.
Ms. NORTON. I thank Chairman Mica and Ranking Member Rahall for
working together on this bill. This year's transportation bill could be
named the Jobs Act of 2012 because it is the only bill from the 112th
Congress that will create a significant number of jobs.
A word on a couple of significant provisions. Seldom has a
pioneering, landmark bill found its way into a transportation
reauthorization bill, but in today's bill is the first bill to set
national standards for subway safety, bringing subways in line with all
other modes of transportation, which have long had national standards.
This is probably the most significant provision of this bill.
The DBE language is tailored to ensure that the government is
equipped with the tools it must have to address the compelling need for
the government to meet its responsibility to continue to address
discrimination in small business contracting.
With all of its shortcomings, and there are many, the American people
finally will have a jobs bill from this Congress.
Mr. MICA. Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), one of the
leaders of our committee and the chair of the Rail Subcommittee.
Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. I first
would like to thank Chairman Mica and Chairman Duncan for their hard
work in producing what I believe is a very solid bill with historic
reforms in it. The chairman was a tough negotiator, and he came away
with something that I believe we can all be very proud of.
We need to act on this bill. If we don't act, if we fail to act, the
trust fund will default. We'd have to figure out a way to bail it out.
And yet, here we are with a 2-year bill that is fully funded and has
some significant reforms in it.
Those reforms include, first of all, the fact that it is a 2-year
bill which puts certainty out there to the States and the companies and
people who build roads and highways and supply them with the products
that they need. That is extremely important.
Second, it consolidates nearly two-thirds of the programs, which is
important in reducing red tape and in streamlining project delivery.
That is significant. We believe that will reduce the amount of time it
takes to build a significant highway project in half. That's a
tremendous savings. When you look at a project I recently visited in
Oklahoma City, the Crosstown Expressway, a $680 million job, it took 15
years. If you cut that in half, it saves somewhere between $60 million
to $80 million just on the inflation alone. So that's a significant
savings, and that's why I believe this bill has great reforms in it. It
is something that we all need to get behind and pass.
Again, I want to congratulate the chairman for his great work, and
also the staff, all of the staff on the committee, both sides of the
aisle. Both sides of the Capitol worked hard, but a special thanks to
Jim Coon, Amy Smith, Jennifer Hall, and Jim Tymon for their tireless
effort. There were a lot of late nights, but they did a great job, and
we owe them a great deal of thanks for what they did.
Again, I encourage all of my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, I'm happy to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), another valued conferee on our
side.

{time} 1120

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the transportation
reauthorization conference report with mixed feelings. The conference
report provides $105 billion over the next 27 months for highway and
transit programs and will put about 2 million people to work at a time
when we desperately need jobs. These funding levels, although far from
adequate, are a great improvement from the original House bill and will
allow transportation agencies to plan and construct projects important
to the economy. The conference report also prevents student loan
interest rates from doubling, which is critical to more than 7 million
students.
The transit funding formulas are focused on regions with the highest
need and will provide essential resources for the MTA to maintain a
state of good repair and to make capacity improvements to New York
City's subway system. It is unfortunate, however, that the ability of
transit agencies to flex funding for operating assistance has been
dropped from the final bill.
Also, unfortunately, the Transportation Enhancements program, which
includes bicycle, pedestrian, and safe routes to schools, is reduced by
several hundred million dollars. And the Projects of National Regional
Significance account, which provides for essential freight projects, is
substantially watered down.
Thankfully, the Keystone pipeline and coal ash provisions are out of
the bill. And although the 270-day deeming

[[Page 10736]]

provision is no longer in the bill, there are other environmental
streamlining provisions of concern, such as the expansion of NEPA
categorical exclusions for any project within an existing right-of-way.
Massive highway projects could occur within an existing right-of-way,
but would no longer be subject to NEPA environmental review
requirements.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. RAHALL. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. NADLER. The final package is a combination of hard-fought
victories and losses. Overall, this legislation is essential for
creating jobs, preventing interest rates from increasing for millions
of students, and putting us on a path toward economic recovery.
Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support this conference report.
Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the transportation
reauthorization conference report, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the
21st Century Act or ``MAP-21'' (H.R. 4348).
Madam Speaker, I was honored to be appointed as a member of the
conference committee, and I was ready to negotiate in good faith to
craft a bill that we could all be proud to support. Unfortunately, the
process by which this conference was conducted over the last couple of
weeks is a cause for concern and was tarnished by a lack of
transparency and bipartisan collaboration. House Democratic conferees
were shut out of the final negotiations. Our committee staff was not
even allowed in the room. The bill text wasn't made available until 4
a.m. yesterday morning, so we have had a very limited amount of time to
review the details of this legislation. Yesterday morning, I declined
to sign the conference report simply because I could not endorse a
product without an adequate understanding of all of its contents, and
of the full impact to New York. Our Senate counterparts appear to have
struck a compromise including some important victories, as well as
concessions of concern. The final package will provide at least $105
billion over the next two years for highway and transit programs,
putting thousands of people to work at a time when we desperately need
jobs. These funding levels are an improvement from the original House
bill, and will allow transportation agencies to plan and construct
projects important to the economy. The conference report also prevents
student loan interest rates from doubling, which is critical for over 7
million students. As such, I will vote for this conference report, but
with a number of reservations.
The highway program appears to retain the funding structure from the
Senate bill and essentially preserves current funding levels to the
states. There were efforts to revise the formula, which could have
resulted in cuts to many states, including, potentially, to New York.
It should be considered a victory that all states are essentially held
harmless and will benefit from this economic recovery and jobs package.
The transit funding formulas are also focused on regions with the
highest need, and will provide essential resources for the MTA to
maintain a state of good repair and to make capacity improvements to
New York City's subway system. The transit title requires a report on
transit agencies' compliance with existing civil rights laws, and
includes an enhanced workforce development grant program, although not
as comprehensive as the Transportation Job Corps Act, which I
introduced to establish a career ladder apprenticeship program. These
are important and positive aspects of the conference agreement. I am
extremely disappointed, however, that the Senate bill's temporary and
targeted ability for transit agencies to flex funding for operating
assistance has been dropped from the final agreement.
The bill retains the Projects of National and Regional Significance
Account as a competitive grant program that we first established in
SAFETEA-LU, but the provision is greatly watered down and is rendered
largely symbolic. The authorization level is scaled back to $500
million for one year in FY13, and the funding is not guaranteed, but
subject to general fund appropriations. The Transportation
Appropriations bill for FY13 has already been considered in the House.
It passed just yesterday, and there was no funding for this program
contained in it. Perhaps we will get lucky and secure funding for it
when the appropriations bill is conferenced with the Senate later this
year, but the spending levels in that bill are already much too low and
resources are strained. It's hard to see how any significant funding
will be dedicated over the life of this bill to these projects that are
essential to freight movement, economic growth, and global
competitiveness. There is a requirement that DOT prepare a report on
potential projects that would be funded under the program, so some work
in this area will continue, but it is wholly inadequate.
The National Freight Program originally in the Senate bill is not in
the conference report, but the designation of a primary freight network
and development of a national freight strategic plan is retained. For
too long, freight has been too low of a priority, and this must be
changed. We must make the efficient movement of freight a national
priority. There is no greater transportation issue in the federal
interest, and I hope that the measures contained in the conference
report will be a stepping stone to a greater federal emphasis on
freight policy and funding--and not an end result.
The Transportation Enhancements program, which is now called
Transportation Alternatives and includes bicycle, pedestrian, and safe
routes to schools, is still in the conference report, but the program
is weakened from current law and from the Senate bill. These projects
have bipartisan support, as evidenced by the Cardin-Cochran amendment
to the Senate bill, and the Petri amendment to the House bill. Despite
the broad support for transportation enhancements, the conference
report lowers the overall amount of funding for these projects by
several hundred million, and expands the ability for states to use this
funding for other purposes, including for projects already eligible
under other highway programs.
The Senate should be commended for keeping the Keystone Pipeline out
of the bill, as well as the provisions limiting EPA authority to
regulate coal ash. These are important concessions that were
undoubtedly difficult to secure. The RESTORE Act, which would dedicate
80% of the fines levied on BP to Gulf Coast oil spill restoration, is
still in the bill, but it is unfortunate that the provision directing
funding through the Land and Water Conservation Fund did not survive.
There are problematic environmental streamlining provisions. Although
the 270 day ``deeming'' provision is no longer in the bill, there are
several changes to the NEPA process that will undercut environmental
reviews and public participation. The bill sets accelerated, hard
deadlines for environmental reviews, with penalties for failure to
comply, but ignores the fact that many agencies are too understaffed
and underfunded to be able to meet these deadlines. Or perhaps that's
the point--to deplete these agencies of resources, and make it
virtually impossible for them to effectively do their job. The bill
also expands NEPA categorical exclusions, which are typically reserved
for smaller-scale projects that will not have a significant impact and
therefore no EIS is required. One provision allows categorical
exclusions for any project within an existing operational right of way.
Massive highway projects could occur within an existing right-of-way,
but would no longer be subject to NEPA requirements. I find it curious
that many of the Members who espouse local control pushed this
provision that will severely limit the ability of communities directly
impacted to have a voice in proposed projects. There is bipartisan
support for environmental streamlining. I believe there are common
sense things we could do to shorten project delivery time, but this
conference agreement goes too far in this regard.
The conference agreement includes several important safety incentive
grant programs, including those targeting distracted and impaired
driving. The bill includes additional incentive grants for states that
adopt mandatory alcohol ignition interlock laws for individuals
convicted of a DUI. Ignition interlocks are a key feature of Leandra's
Law, a New York statute named for one of my constituents, a 9 year old
girl who was killed in a drunk driving incident. I am thankful that the
conference report contains this important provision. The conference
report also does not include any increases to truck size or weight
requirements and it includes a study which could provide useful
information on truck size and weight safety impacts. The bill also
includes improvements to motorcoach safety, requiring seat belts and
establishing roof strength and crush resistance standards. However,
these standards apply only to newly-manufactured motorcoaches, and
there is no mandate to retrofit existing buses.
This final package is a combination of hard fought victories and
losses. There are several aspects of it that I do not support, and the
process by which this conference report was developed was, at times,
regrettable. But the funding levels and distributions to the states and
transit agencies should be considered a victory, especially given the
position of House Republicans, and the bill will put a lot of people
back to a work at a time when we need it most. Because of the positive
aspects of the transportation bill, and the extension of lower

[[Page 10737]]

student loan interest rates, I will vote for the conference report.
Mr. MICA. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to one of
the distinguished leaders in the House, the gentlelady from Illinois
(Mrs. Biggert), who had a great deal to do with the flood insurance
provisions--worked tirelessly.
Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the chairman for giving me this time.
Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report and wish
to address particularly title II, which would reauthorize for 5 years
the National Flood Insurance Program, or NFIP.
There are six important reforms included in this bill: It improves
NFIP's financial stability; it will reduce the burden on taxpayers; it
restores integrity to the FEMA mapping system; it will help bring
certainty to the housing market through a 5-year reauthorization; and
last, it explores ways to increase private market participation.
Many of us in Congress would like for the private sector, instead of
taxpayers, to shoulder the risk of the National Flood Insurance
Program. Market participants have signaled that they can assume the
risk of flood insurance. And with the appropriate data from FEMA, the
reinsurance industry has indicated that within weeks it can price this
risk. That's why, for the first time in the NFIP's existence, this
flood reform measure will require FEMA to solicit bids to determine the
cost to the private sector, not to the taxpayer, of bearing the risk of
flood insurance.
Finally, I'd just like to say that this bill is proof that
bipartisanship is possible, particularly when it comes to an issue of
national significance, such as the most frequently occurring national
disaster in the United States, flooding. When a flood occurs, it does
not choose an area that has Republican or Democrat leanings or elected
officials. Floods affect most of the country and people of all walks of
life. Today's flood reform measure demonstrates the democratic process,
where reforms are publicly vetted, reflect input from interested
stakeholders, and are realized.
Let me just thank the bill's cosponsor, Ms. Waters, as well as
Chairman Bachus and the Financial Services Insurance Subcommittee and
full committee staffs on both sides of the aisle. Let me just say also
that I'd like to thank the Senate and House leadership, including
Speaker Boehner and Leader Cantor, as well as the thousands of
constituents and groups who gave their valuable time and input to
making this a very good bill.
I rise in support of this Conference Report, and I wish to address in
particular Title II, which would reauthorize for five years the
National Flood Insurance Program or NFIP.
There are six important reforms included in this bill:
It improves NFIP's financial stability; it will reduce the burden on
taxpayers; it restores integrity to the FEMA mapping system; it will
help bring certainty to the housing market through a 5-year
reauthorization; and last, it explores ways to increase private market
participation.
Many of us in Congress would like for the private-sector--instead of
taxpayers--to shoulder the risk of the National Flood Insurance
Program. Market participants have signaled that they can assume the
risk of flood insurance, and with the appropriate data from FEMA, the
reinsurance industry has indicated that--within weeks--it can price
this risk.
That's why, for the first time in the NFIP's existence, this flood
reform measure will require FEMA to solicit bids to determine the cost
to the private sector, not to the taxpayer, of bearing the risk of
flood insurance.
It brings an end to the decades-old, chicken-and-egg game that has
characterized the program by finally answering the question ``how-do-
we-get-the-government-out?''
Flood policyholders also now will have the option to choose private
flood insurance over government flood insurance without the risk of
lender rejection. Taxpayer-subsidized rates are eliminated, so that the
private sector can offer consumers increasingly competitive rates as
compared to the NFIP.
Finally, I would like to simply say that this bill is proof that
bipartisanship is possible, particularly when it comes to an issue of
national significance, such as the most frequently occurring natural
disaster in the United States, flooding. When a flood occurs, it does
not choose an area due to its Republican or Democrat leanings or
elected representatives. Floods affect most of the country and people
of all walks of life. Today's flood reform measure demonstrates a true,
democratic process, where reforms are publically vetted, reflect input
from interested stakeholders, and are realized.
With that, I will note that this conference report includes the first
significant reform to the NFIP in nearly a decade. After 17 extensions
since 2008, multiple lapses in the program, and months of inaction,
this flood insurance reform measure is a major bipartisan
accomplishment. As I've said from the beginning, the NFIP is too
important to let lapse and too in debt to continue without reform. I
urge my House--and Senate--colleagues to support the conference report
so that we can send this agreement to the President's desk and put the
nation's flood insurance program back on a sound financial footing.
In closing, let me thank the bill's cosponsor, Mrs. Waters, as well
as Chairman Baucus, Financial Services Insurance Subcommittee and full
committee staffs on both sides of the aisle, Senate and House
Leadership, including Speaker Boehner and Leader Cantor, as well as the
thousands of constituents and groups who gave their valuable time and
input to making this a very good bill.
I would also like to thank the following:
My constituents in the 13th Congressional District of Illinois who
provided advice to us throughout the development of this bill;
Illinois floodplain managers, Paul Osman and Sally McConkey;
Mrs. Waters, Chairman Bachus, and all of the 54 Members of the House
Financial Services Committee who voted unanimously to pass out of
Committee a flood reform bill last May (2011);
All of the Members of the House who contributed to the development of
this bill, and the 406 Members of the House who voted for H.R. 1309
last July (2011);
Republican House Financial Services Committee staff: my designee,
Nicole Austin, as well as Clinton Jones, Ed Skala, Tallman Johnson, Jim
Clinger, and Eric Thompson;
Democrat House Financial Services Committee staff: Charla Ouertatani,
Dom McCoy, and Kelly Larkin;
House Republican and Democrat leadership, particularly Speaker
Boehner and Majority Leader Cantor, and their staff;
Members and staff on the Science, Judiciary, and Rules Committees;
Senators and Senate Banking Committee staff;
Dan Hoople with the Congressional Budget Office;
Paul Callen and his colleagues at the House Office of the Legislative
Counsel;
FEMA staff, including technical experts, congressional affairs, and
Vince Fabrizio;
Witnesses who testified during our hearings on flood reform; and
All of the various financial services organizations, consumer groups,
as well as the Smarter Safer Coalition, which includes groups from the
National Wildlife Federation to the International Code Council to
Americans for Tax Reform.
Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, I'm happy to yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished ranking member on our Railroads Subcommittee and a valued
member of our conference, the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Brown).
Ms. BROWN of Florida. I had much higher hopes for this transportation
reauthorization bill and long for the days that our committee worked
together in a bipartisan manner, but this is a good day for the
traveling public and for the American economy. This transportation bill
will strengthen our infrastructure, provide quality jobs, and serve as
a tool to put the American people back to work.
Although I would have preferred a long-term bill with much more
funding for infrastructure, and I'm disappointed that we did not
include a rail title or give our local transit agencies the flexibility
they asked for during these economic times, this bill will give States,
local governments, and other transportation stakeholders some stability
to plan and build critical transportation projects.
This bill provides steady funding for both highway and transit
programs, maintains the 80-20 split between highway and transit, speeds
up the permitting process for projects, includes important safety
measures that will save lives, and maintains OSHA oversight of
hazardous materials.
I am also pleased that this legislation includes the RESTORE Act,
which will help gulf States like my State of Florida recover damages
and plan for and prevent future oil spills. Florida's

[[Page 10738]]

economy is based on tourism and would be destroyed overnight if an oil
spill reached our beaches.
This isn't a perfect bill, but I am going to vote for it. I want to
thank the Senate, and I want to thank Senator Boxer, Mr. Mica and Mr.
Rahall, and all for working together. My understanding is that this is
a clean bill and we can vote for it. No riders are included is my
understanding. So I will vote for it, and I will recommend my
colleagues vote for it too.
Mr. MICA. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to one
of the leaders of transportation, new on the committee, but a conferee;
did an outstanding job, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Bucshon).
Mr. BUCSHON. Madam Speaker, as a member of the House transportation
conference committee, I join my colleagues in proudly supporting this
legislation.
My House colleagues and I attended many of the conference
negotiations, and we fought hard for commonsense transportation
reforms. This bill streamlines the environmental review process,
consolidates and eliminates duplicative programs, and provides more
flexibility to the States. Passing this legislation will provide job
security for millions of Americans.
I'm grateful to my House and Senate colleagues that stood with me in
opposing an amendment that was in the Senate bill. This amendment
unfairly punished the State of Indiana for pursuing a public-private
partnership. Not only would it have cost Indiana millions in
transportation funding, but it would have set our country backwards in
innovative transportation policy. This type of thinking is not where we
need to be headed in transportation policy. We need to put taxpayers
first and continue to engage the private sector in transportation
projects.
I would like to thank the House and Senate staff, who have been
working tirelessly on the legislation. I thank Chairman Mica, Senator
Boxer, and Senator Inhofe for their leadership on this issue. Thanks to
everybody's work, 25,000 Hoosiers will have job security for the next 2
years.
I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation, and let's
put millions of Americans back to work.
Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, I'm happy to yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished ranking member on our Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform, as well as a valued member of our conference on
transportation, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).
Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you, Ranking Member Rahall, and thank you for
your leadership. I also thank Chairman Mica and all of my colleagues.
This bill provides certainty for our States, but overall funding for
highways is reduced relative to fiscal year 2011. To ensure our
Nation's mobility, we need expanded investments in all modes.
Critically, this bill finds that discrimination and related barriers
continue to pose obstacles for minority and women-owned business in the
transportation industry. My colleagues and I have considered the
extensive evidence provided to us in testimony in the Transportation
Committee and detailed disparity studies documenting ongoing
discrimination in transportation contracting. We've concluded there is
a compelling national interest in reauthorizing our DBE programs. I
thank Senator Boxer for her leadership on this issue.
That said, I'm disappointed that House Democrats' participation in
the conference was so limited. And as I have had the chance to review
the final report, several of its provisions deeply concern me--perhaps
none more so than section 100124, which would reduce by one-third the
percent of food aid shipped on U.S. vessels.
There are fewer than 100 U.S.-flagged vessels in the foreign trade
now, and they carry less than 2 percent of U.S. cargos. Without the MSP
and cargo preference programs, we would have no domestic merchant
marine, leaving our military, and indeed, our economy, completely
dependent on foreign vessels.

{time} 1130

The effect of section 100124 will be to speed the continuing decline
of our fleet. It should never have been included in this bill, and it
should be immediately repealed.
With that, I am going to support the bill and urge my colleagues to
support it.
Mr. MICA. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), who has
worked very hard for a provision, and she's going to explaining the
situation that brings her here at this point.
Mrs. CAPITO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and ranking member and the
conference committee, for what I think is a victory today. I think this
reauthorization bill is one of the most important responsibilities we
have. It's a jobs bill. It will bring efficiencies to our funding
stream for very important projects, and it will remove a lot of
uncertainty.
As a member of this committee, I'm really, really pleased that we
were able to come to a compromise. The efficiencies and the
streamlining, when the chairman brought the committee to Yeager
Airport, that was one of the resounding complaints about current
funding in the transportation sector is it takes too long, it's too
expensive, and time is money. And we can do a lot better job with more
efficiencies and make our dollars go farther. And with hard deadlines
and some exemptions, I think that this bill will do that.
There are a couple of provisions in here that I regret were not
included, and most specifically, the provision on the coal ash
provision. I mean, we're looking at a time where we have scant
resources. We have to make smart decisions about how to weave the
balance between our environment and our economy; and the coal ash
provision would have provided, I think, the certainty to the
construction industry and to those surrounding, also, the coal industry
that smart use and responsible use of coal ash would be in our future.
Unfortunately--and I believe it occurred in the Senate that that
provision was not included in our bill, and I'm deeply disappointed by
that. But we will, as an energy State and as energy representatives,
we'll live to fight another day.
Additionally, I would like to say, as a member of the Financial
Services Committee as well, the reason that the flood bill is on this
bill is extremely important, again, to lend the certainty to lenders,
Realtors, homebuilders, and really, the consumer that we can get that
housing market moving again; and the certainty provided by the
reauthorization of the flood bill in here will provide us with that.
But I simply want to say that I think that in a bicameral, bipartisan
way we moved together to show folks in West Virginia and across this
Nation that we can work together to create the jobs that we need in the
sectors that we need, and I look forward to supporting the bill.
Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), who has higher jurisdiction
over the flood insurance portion.
Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I'm pleased that we could work in a
bipartisan fashion to not only extend our expiring transportation and
student loan interest rate programs, but to also reform the Federal
flood insurance program.
I'd like to thank Representative Judy Biggert for her leadership and
commitment to reforming flood insurance. Representative Biggert and I
both worked together to meet the needs of our respective caucuses, and
the result is a bill that puts the flood insurance program on a solid
footing.
The flood insurance program provides insurance for over 5 million
Americans. However, due to massive losses from Hurricane Katrina and an
inefficient mapping system, the flood insurance program has faced
challenges in serving homeowners and taxpayers.
The Biggert-Waters bill will reauthorize the National Flood Insurance
Program for 5 years and make critical improvements to the flood
insurance program. The reforms in this bill will make flood insurance
more affordable,

[[Page 10739]]

give communities more input into flood maps, and strengthen the
financial position of the flood insurance program.
With that, I would urge an ``aye'' vote.
Mr. MICA. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Herrera Beutler), another conferee and
a young leader in the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Thank you, Chairman Mica. And I'd like to thank
you and your staff for working tirelessly on this issue.
For the past several months, both House and Senate Members and staff
have been working around the clock, and through tough negotiations we
were able to work in a bipartisan, bicameral way to produce something
that has direct impact on the lives of the folks I serve in southwest
Washington.
I'm well aware the perception that this Congress is having difficulty
getting things done, and I fought for us to stay at the table to keep
working to push through for solutions to demonstrate our ability to put
America's needs ahead of politics; and today, Madam Speaker, we were
successful.
Particularly folks in my home district in southwest Washington State
are excited that the House fought for vital reforms that are going to
allow us to cut project delivery times down, even by half in some
instances. That means dollars are going to go further, more projects
are going to get done, and more money will be available for additional
projects. That sets us up for more jobs.
We're also giving rural communities the necessary support to fund
schools, emergency services, and roads while we come up with a more
permanent solution that allows for increased and better forest
management. My thanks to Chairman Hastings and his committee for their
tireless work on this issue.
We also have projects of national and regional significance: the
Recreational Trails Program that benefits trail riders, hikers, outdoor
enthusiasts, all in my beautiful district down in southwest Washington.
We've supported using the Harbor and Maintenance Trust Fund for its
intended purposes: improving our waterways that are economic arteries
for places like Washington State and around the country.
Mr. Chairman, this bill is not perfect, no bill ever is. However,
this is a symbol of how Congress is supposed to operate and why we're
here.
With that, I urge its passage.
Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire), a valued member of our Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
Mr. ALTMIRE. Madam Speaker, it's been 7 years since the Congress
enacted a long-term highway authorization; and since that law expired
in 2009, State transportation agencies across America have had to deal
with the uncertainty of looming funding expirations, construction
workers have not known whether there would be jobs available to them,
and motorists, retailers, and manufacturers have watched our
infrastructure continue to crumble as this body continually failed to
act. We cannot wait any longer. That's why I'm pleased today Congress
will finally pass a long-term authorization that will provide certainty
that has been lacking for years.
I'm also pleased that the final conference report includes a
provision I authored to make America's roads safer for older drivers.
By improving the safety of our roads and highways and making older
drivers' travel as safe as possible, we increase road safety for every
American.
This bill is an example of the success Congress can achieve when we
work together. I thank my colleagues for their dedication to our
Nation's infrastructure, and I'm proud to support this bill.
Mr. MICA. Madam Speaker, I'd like to inquire as to how much time
remains on both sides.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 5 minutes
remaining, and the gentleman from West Virginia has 14\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. MICA. I will continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RAHALL. I reserve the balance of my time, Madam Speaker.
Mr. MICA. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman from West Virginia is ready
to close, I am ready to close, also.
Mr. RAHALL. Okay. I'm ready to close, and I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Madam Speaker, first I want to extend my deep appreciation to all
conferees on this legislation, some 47, I believe.
I'd like to pay particular word of commendation to the chair of the
conference committee, the gentlelady from California, Senator Barbara
Boxer. She worked extremely hard on this legislation. She worked
tirelessly to resist many, many, many extreme proposals that were
lobbed at her by Republican House conferees. She worked to ensure that
policies and investment levels of this legislation will serve America,
and she did work in a bipartisan fashion.
I'd also like to thank my counterpart and the chair of our House
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Mr. Mica, for his
leadership. He has already spoken, and has many times, of the
bipartisan nature in which we started this journey in my hometown of
Beckley, West Virginia, and I deeply appreciate the hearings that he
started there and his continued outreach across the country.

{time} 1140

As this hard road progressed, there were some diversions along the
way. There were efforts to sidetrack what we were trying to do in
providing long-term funding for this Nation's infrastructure, yet we're
here today to hail not the perfect bill--we've heard that many times in
this body, and we're not considering the perfect bill. Yet we are, out
of necessity, finding ourselves working together to extend our
transportation program so that millions more American workers are not
laid off the job.
I also want to thank my senior Senator, Jay Rockefeller, the chairman
of the Senate Commerce Committee, for his great contribution to this
pending measure. Again, efforts were fought. Efforts on his part
prevented the further degradation of any safety measures that were
proposed in this conference agreement. We have a strong measure in
regards to safety issues thanks to Senator Rockefeller.
This legislation will preserve American jobs. As I said in the
opening of this conference committee, it's time that we quit taking
those political jabs at one another and, rather, provide jobs for our
people. That's what we're doing in this legislation. The contracting
season is late, especially in many of our northern States, and our
contractors need this legislation in order to have the certainty to
sign those contracts that put Americans to work this summer repairing
our infrastructure. We have put aside, I guess you'll say, our hard
heads--I'm happy to say--in exchange for hard hats doing the work
that's necessary to get our economy back on.
As with any piece of legislation, we've compromised in this bill--all
sides have--which is part of the legislative process. I've always said
that. There are some things in this bill we don't like and some things
we like. There are probably 435 different ways this bill could have
been written if each of us had had his own way to write a bill, but
that's not the way the process works. With the process being what it
is, we are where we are today, so I am here to support the pending
legislation.
As I sit down, I want to also thank the staff for their hard work on
both the majority's side in the House and on the minority's side, on
our side, and the staff on both sides of the other body as well.
I want to thank our conferees on the House side: Peter DeFazio, Jerry
Costello, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Jerry Nadler, Corrine Brown, Elijah
Cummings, Leonard Boswell, and Tim Bishop. These individuals stuck with
us every part of the way, and they truly had their hearts in improving
our infrastructure and providing jobs for America.

[[Page 10740]]

So this is a jobs bill. I'm happy to support it, and I urge my
colleagues to support this conference agreement.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MICA. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, it is good to be at this point in the completion of a
long overdue, major transportation reform bill for the Congress and for
the American people.
First, I will take a moment and thank our staff:
Jim Tymon, who is next to me here, is the tireless staff director of
the Highway Subcommittee. He is day and night helping to sort things
out, looking out for the people and making certain this bill has the
very best provisions; Dan Veoni; Shant Boyajian; Geoff Strobeck; Joyce
Rose; Fred Miller; Steve Martinko; Justin Harclerode, who is my press
secretary, or assistant. He has always had to explain what I've said or
at least clarify; Jason Rosa; my sidekick, Clint Hines, who has
followed me on the floor with so many member requests; Jennifer Hall,
our outstanding legal counsel; Amy Smith has some real firepower for
good policy for the country and for transportation for the Nation; and
then our untiring leader of the committee, Jim Coon, our staff
director, who day and night neglected his beautiful family for the
benefit of the people of this country;
Then we even retired Jimmy Miller in the process, who headed this up
for many, many years in the service to our Nation and the committee. He
retired in the process, hopefully not as a result of all the hard work.
He is a great American;
Then there is Stephanie Kopelousos, who was on our team for a while.
She is the former Secretary of Transportation from Florida, and she
organized the Secretaries around the United States--I think the
forward-thinking ones--to help us go through the laws and all the mess
that we've created and redline it and get rid of the bureaucracy, the
duplication, the costly red tape.
So our hats are off to all of them and to so many more and to all of
our distinguished colleagues who were conferees who worked on this.
We actually engaged members in discussion, which is a new approach to
a conference committee. We did that, but I'm sorry the other side was
thrown under the bus, some by the administration, and particularly Mr.
Oberstar, for whom I feel so bad because he waited so long and could
never see this day. Then, in the process, we did not draft the
legislation; Ms. Boxer's staff did. So, again, if there was anyone who
felt that he didn't participate enough, I tried not to be responsible
for that approach in having started, as I said, the first hearing in
Beckley, West Virginia, Mr. Rahall's hometown, going all the way to the
west coast to have an unprecedented, historic bipartisan and bicameral
hearing in California with Barbara Boxer, who chaired the conference
committee.
So this is where we are. Tomorrow would actually close down thousands
of transportation projects. Departments of Transportation around the
country were on the verge of actually giving sort of IOUs or of giving
notification to close down, and probably millions would have been put
out of work if we hadn't acted. So this is very important for the
American people, particularly at this time when we're on the cusp of
not knowing which way the economy is going to go, but it has to go
forward.
There are some things in here that are also great: the RESTORE Act;
student loans from which our students will benefit; national flood
insurance from which people in my States and others will see
reductions; transportation safety was paramount; there was a
consolidation of some of the programs, streamlining, cutting red tape.
We were able to do more with less and move transportation forward for
the Nation.
Again, I thank everyone for their cooperation. I am pleased that
we've reached this point. It doesn't have everything, and a lot of
people said it couldn't be done. As my son often says--and I'll close
with his remarks, and he likes the Cable Guy--``Dad, git-r-done.''
Son, we got-r-done today.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COSTELLO. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the conference
agreement on H.R. 4348, the Surface Transportation Extension Act of
2012.
As a conferee on the surface transportation bill, I am glad an
agreement was reached and the bill is before us today.
I am pleased that Illinois' share of federal highway formula funding
increased to 3.67%, the highest level that our state has received in
over 15 years.
In addition, the conference report does not include language that
would allow bigger and heavier trucks on our roads and bridges, but
instead requires the U.S. DOT to conduct a comprehensive, national
study.
While the surface transportation conference report is not perfect, it
does provide certainty to State DOTs, transit agencies, and contractors
that will help create and sustain jobs for out-of-work Americans and
keeps construction workers on the job for the rest of the season.
I commend Chairman Mica, Ranking Member Rahall, Subcommittee Chairman
Duncan and Ranking Member DeFazio for their leadership in helping to
bring this conference report before us today.
Finally, this legislation does not include residual risk provisions
in the National Flood Insurance program that would have required the
purchase of flood insurance for communities behind certified levees. A
strong bi-partisan effort prevailed to remove these provisions from
this legislation, and I commend Congressman Shimkus, Senator Durbin,
and Senator Kirk for working with me on this matter.
I urge my colleagues to support the conference report and yield back
the balance of my time.
Ms. BORDALLO. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to
H.R. 4348, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-
21). This bill significantly cuts critical federal investment in
surface transportation projects for the territories. The authorized
funds for the next two fiscal years would severely undermine my
district's ability to improve and upgrade road systems on Guam and put
current projects at risk.
MAP-21 cuts 20 percent from the Territorial Highway Program (THP),
which was established to assist Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands,
American Samoa and the U.S. Virgin Islands build and improve main and
secondary highway systems. The program is critical to ensuring that our
districts have a quality highway system that facilitates commerce in
the territories. The territories have received funding that does match
their current upgrade and modernization requirements. The cuts to the
THP will hinder our district's ability to meet these requirements over
the next two years. The proposed cut to this program, about $8 million
for Guam over the next two years, could jeopardize financiering for
larger projects utilizing GARVEE financing. The GARVEE financing
mechanism and current bonds assumed level funding of the THP over the
next several years. Ultimately, this bill may lead to project
cancellations and job losses.
Even at current funding levels, the THP is inadequate in addressing
the needs of the territories, and the governments in the territories do
not have access to many programs available to the 50 states and Puerto
Rico. I introduced legislation that would put the territories on equal
footing when competing for federal highway discretionary grant
programs. Further, I offered the text of my bill for consideration as
Conference Committee commenced but the text of this legislation was not
included in the final bill. On top of crippling cuts to the THP, the
territories are not even afforded opportunities to compete for other
discretionary programs like the Innovative Bridge Research and
Deployment program. My bill, H.R. 2734 would permit the Secretary of
Transportation to make the territories eligible for this competitive
funding to the territories and remedies a disparity where our
governments are unable to even compete for this program.
Madam Speaker, H.R. 4348 will likely have a detrimental effect on my
constituents and would significantly undercut our ability to improve
our roadways and invest in critical infrastructure improvements. Guam
is being asked to support one of the largest military realignments in
our nation's history and our island is in critical need of assistance
to improve our roadways to support the military buildup. Cutting 20
percent from the THP would provide nominal short-term savings but it
would cost significantly more in the long-term.
However, I am very supportive of the efforts of House and Senate
leaders who reached agreement to freeze student loan rates for an
additional year. Increases in student loan rates would have had a
significant negative impact on a generation that is already competing
with the most difficult job market in generations.

[[Page 10741]]

Keeping student loan interest loans for an additional year keeps our
commitment to our younger generations.
It is unfortunate that this compromise on student loans is attached
to the transportation reauthorization as I strongly opposed to the cuts
to the THP and, as such, urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Madam Speaker, the Conference Agreement on H.R.
4348, Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2012 unfairly places the
financial burden on the smaller territories--American Samoa, the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), Guam, and the U.S.
Virgin Island (USVI). Specifically, the agreement would result in a 20-
percent reduction for each of the smaller territories under the
Territorial and Puerto Rico highway program (Div A, Title 1, Subtitle
A, Section 1114) for FY 2013 and FY 2014.
The territorial highway program underscores federal commitments to
sustain economic development in the territories as well as to ensure
safe highways in our communities. Funding from the territorial highway
program has provided for the construction and improvement of highways
and roads, critical infrastructure for commerce and transportation in
the territories.
Mr. Speaker, any cuts to these critical funding could prove
devastating to the economies of the smaller territories, yet we face
the same challenges--the high cost of energy and transportation--as
everyone else across the country.
Similarly, the initial version of the Highway Reauthorization bill
that the House passed earlier this year would have replaced the Highway
Trust Fund as the funding source for the Territorial Highway Program,
with a less stable source.
For these reasons, the territorial delegates wrote a joint letter to
the Conference Committee on April 26. We specifically highlighted the
need to maintain the current funding levels for the territorial
program. In addition, we asked that the territories be made eligible
for certain discretionary grants and planning grants programs.
I am pleased that the conference agreement would keep the Highway
Trust Fund as the funding source for the Territorial Highway Program.
While I am disappointed to know that the smaller territories are given
the brunt of the budgetary cuts to bear, I am hopeful however that the
territories would be made eligible for certain discretionary grants and
planning grants programs. These additional grants could help mitigate
some of the financial issues as a result of the proposed reduction.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Speaker, a rare thing has happened today.
Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate have reached a
compromise for the greater good of the American people. Today we will
vote on three critical measures: a long-term transportation extension,
a long-term flood insurance extension, and a one-year continuation of
current rates for need-based student loans.
Each of these is of critical importance to our nation's economic
recovery. This legislation will create or save more than 2 million
jobs, including approximately 9,000 in Rhode Island, by authorizing
highway and transit programs through 2014.
Unfortunately, in order to secure an agreement, the conferees
included some provisions in this bill with which I disagree. I am
disappointed that the legislation threatens critical environmental
funding and protections and fails to expand funding for the Land and
Water Conservation Fund, which provides matching grants for our state
to acquire land and water for the benefit of all Rhode Islanders. I
will work to restore these resources in the future, but on balance this
is a good agreement that will benefit communities and workers across
our state.
I am also pleased that this measure prevents the Stafford loan
interest rate from doubling to 6.8 percent on July 1 for 7 million
college students, saving them $1,000 over the life of their loans.
However, I am concerned that the bill cuts the student loan program by
limiting the amount of time a student qualifies for a loan to 150
percent of the program's length and eliminates the six-month interest
subsidy grace period after a student has graduated. Too many students--
especially those from low-income families--face unnecessary barriers to
pursuing a college degree, and it is our responsibility to empower them
by investing in their education.
Thousands of jobs in Rhode Island have been on hold, waiting for
Congress to act. This delay was needless, and this legislation is long
overdue. Nowhere is our nation's fragile recovery more apparent than in
my home state of Rhode Island, with an unemployment rate of 11 percent.
I applaud the Conferees for their tireless efforts to craft this
compromise, which will bring loan relief to our students, provide flood
insurance to our homeowners, and allow our states and cities to move
forward on the path to rebuilding our roads, our communities, and our
economy.
Mr. HINOJOSA. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the
underlying bill, the Conference Report to H.R. 4348, legislation that
will keep student loans affordable for more than 7 million students:
4.5 million of whom are women, 1.5 million of whom are African-
American, and nearly one million of whom are Latino.
This legislation will prevent interest rates on need-based student
loans from doubling on July 1st, from 3.4 to 6.8 percent and provide
much-needed relief to students and families.
This will save students an average of $1,000 over the life of their
loan. In my home state of Texas, approximately 461,533 borrowers will
benefit from this congressional action.
As you know, student debt is skyrocketing, with the average borrower
graduating with loan debt of $25,000. According to the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau, total outstanding student loan debt
surpassed $1 trillion late last year.
As Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Higher Education and
Workforce Training, I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill and to
work in a bipartisan manner to reaffirm Congress' strong commitment to
accessibility and affordability in higher education.
Together, we must address the rising cost of higher education and the
ever-increasing amount of debt that students are being burdened with.
Young people in our communities must know that Congress is working
hard to ensure that they have a bright future and access to an
affordable, high-quality education--one that prepares them to lead
healthy and prosperous lives.
With that, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote
for this bill.
Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I rise today in reluctant support of the
Transportation and Student Loan Agreement (H.R. 4348). We must prevent
interest rates on student loans from doubling as they are set to do
tomorrow. We must reauthorize our transportation programs and get
people to work rebuilding our infrastructure. This legislation, while
far from ideal, accomplishes both of those worthy goals.
The bill does leave much to be desired. It invests far too little in
the infrastructure investments we need, it restricts the ability of
part-time students to afford college, underfunds transit, biking, and
pedestrian projects, its ``Buy America'' provision is weak, and it
includes a pay-for that could further weaken our pension system.
However, given the situation we are in, passing it today is the
responsible thing to do.
Continuing their trend of governing through hostage taking and
brinksmanship, the Republican Majority has once again brought the
nation to the edge of a vital program--in this case, Surface
Transportation--expiring. More than three months ago, the Senate
overwhelmingly passed a bipartisan, job-creating transportation bill
with 74 votes. Instead of taking up that bill, as myself and many of my
colleagues and the President urged, Republicans brought up a hyper-
partisan bill that included numerous anti-environmental riders, gutted
mass transit, and ended investments in pedestrian and bicycle
infrastructure. Compared to that debacle, today's legislation is a vast
improvement. It does not contain provisions mandating that the tar
sands pipeline be built or that EPA rules on safe disposal of coal ash
be undermined. Instead of slashing mass transit, it maintains funding.
Most importantly, it will support more than 2 million American jobs,
including 180,000 in California, rebuilding our nation and providing
some certainty for California and other states to move forward with
much needed infrastructure projects.
The student loan issue is another example, much like the payroll tax
cut at the end of last year, of Republicans refusing to act in the
interest of the American people until their hand is forced by
overwhelmingly public opinion. On March 29th, House Republicans voted
to allow student loan interest rates to double when they passed the
Ryan Budget. They voted to increase rates on 7 million students,
including 570,000 California students--the equivalent of a $1,000
education tax on these students and their families. After hearing an
outcry from the public and feeling political pressure to act, the
majority finally changed their tune. I wish that the interest rate fix
we are voting on today was for longer than a year and I also wish we
were not paying for it, in part, by punishing part-time students by
taking away interest deferment for those students. But compared to
allowing the interest rate hike staring millions of students in the
face to go into effect, passing this legislation is the right thing to
do.
Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Highway
Conference Report.

[[Page 10742]]

This bill helps to provide the funding that cities and towns depend on
to develop and maintain the infrastructure they need to attract
businesses to locate in their communities and create jobs. However,
given the current fiscal challenges facing our country, we must ensure
that meeting those obligations does not further hamper an already weak
economic recovery.
This legislation reflects that effort and serves as a reminder that
Washington must learn to live within its means. To that end, House
Republicans ensured that the provisions in this conference report
promote job creation and do not add to the national debt.
First and foremost, the Conference Report rejects nearly $7 billion
in tax hikes included in the Senate bill. From higher taxes on private
investment in infrastructure to redundant and ineffective tax
enforcement measures, House Republicans were able to prevent $7 billion
in costly tax hikes on the nation's families and businesses during a
time when our economy is still struggling to get back on its feet.
In addition to preventing these job-killing tax hikes, the Conference
Report also adopts necessary reforms to the Pension Benefit Guaranty
Corporation--or PBGC--resulting in greater accountability to taxpayers,
the pension plans who participate in PBGC's insurance program, and
workers who depend on PBGC to insure their retirement needs.
Importantly, these reforms will also protect taxpayers from being on
the hook for potential bailouts in the future.
Along with these critical reforms, this legislation provides
companies who sponsor pension plans with some important funding relief
made necessary by the stagnant economy, while also requiring greater
accountability and transparency so that resources are correctly
accounted for and used in a way that puts workers first.
Specifically, to address the failed policies of the Obama
Administration that are squeezing employers and pension plans, there
has long been bipartisan support for some form of pension funding
relief. Liabilities in pension plans are often calculated by using an
average of interest rates on corporate bonds over the prior two years.
In response to an extremely weak Obama economy, the Federal Reserve has
driven interest rates to historic lows and kept them there. Combined
with plan investment policies, this has substantially increased the
value of plan liabilities, resulting in ``a rising tide'' of required
pension contributions (to quote a report by the Society of Actuaries).
The pension funding relief provided in this conference report will
allow companies to spread these skyrocketing required contributions
over a long period of time, rather than forcing employers to divert
resources in the near term from other business activities such as
hiring, expansion or pay increases.
Pension funding relief is necessary, but so too are reforms that
provide greater protection, accountability and transparency to the
workers who depend on the PBGC, and taxpayers who should not be called
upon to bailout PBGC. That is why this Conference Report includes
several necessary PBGC reforms that were not included in the Senate
bill to protect against a taxpayer-funded bailout. Those reforms
include:
Disclosure requirements so participants in pension plans know of any
shortfalls;
Adjustments to PBGC fees, including for multiemployer plans, which
currently pose the greatest risk to PBGC;
Reforms to PBGC's governance structure;
The establishment of a new PBGC Risk Management Officer;
A required annual peer review of PBGC's insurance modeling systems;
and
The termination of PBGC's unsecured $100 million line of credit from
the U.S. Treasury.
Madam Speaker, we have passed nine extensions of the highway bill.
Today we have an opportunity to put an end to the ``stop and start''
and take more significant steps toward a longer-term set of solutions.
I urge my colleagues to join me in passing this Conference Report.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I commend the Speaker, Chairman
Mica, Chairman Camp, the conferees and their staffs for their work on
this surface transportation reauthorization conference bill. With a
history of short-term extensions and bailouts of the highway trust fund
since the last highway bill was enacted, to the credit of Chairman Mica
and the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, they acted at the
beginning of this year to report legislation to fundamentally reform
this program to put it on a sustainable basis. While H.R. 4348 does not
ultimately achieve that goal, it makes progress and the Chairman, the
Committee, and the leadership are to be commended for that effort. For
the first time, it offsets general fund transfers to the highway
programs to keep the program operating through September, 2014. The
bill also is at current level funding, earmark free, reduces the
federal bureaucracy by consolidating transportation programs, and cuts
red tape to institute significant reforms to complete major
infrastructure projects. Relative to the Senate highway bill that
irresponsibly relied on taxpayer bailouts for highway spending and past
funding practices, the conference bill before us today is an
improvement.
Despite this bill's progress, it does not address the structural
problems in our transportation programs and I have some concerns with
some aspects of the legislation.
First, though the Highway Trust Fund was intended to be financed at
the level of gas tax revenues, Congress has increased spending for the
program well beyond gas tax revenue levels. As a result, the fund has
increasingly operated in the red by relying on general fund transfers
to pay for annual funding shortfalls. The trust fund has required three
large general fund transfers, or taxpayer contributions, totaling $35
billion since 2008. Over the next decade, the Congressional Budget
Office (CBO) anticipates the Highway Trust Fund to run cash deficits in
total of $105 billion, even upon enactment of today's bill. Through a
budgetary loophole, these transfers of general taxpayer revenues are
not captured for budgetary effects, allowing Congress to bail out the
program without being recorded as a net increase in spending or
deficits.
The FY 2013 House budget resolution, H. Con. Res. 112, included a
reform to close the budget loophole for general fund transfers to
ensure future transfers are fully offset and assumed potential funding
streams in the form of new oil and gas revenues for the Highway Trust
Fund. Congress needs to continue to reform the critical highway program
to put it on sound financial footing without further bailouts with
borrowed money. H.R. 4348 makes an important effort to offset the $18.8
billion in general fund transfers contained in the bill. But, instead
of continuing to rely on general fund transfers going forward, we need
to address the systemic factors that have been driving the trust fund's
bankruptcy.
In terms of the bill's cost estimate, according to CBO, the unified
budget impact of the entire bill is $16 billion in net deficit
reduction over ten years. However, under traditional budget scoring,
this does not include the cost of general transfers to the highway fund
nor the flood insurance reforms' net income. When considering the bill
under House budget enforcement per its budget resolution, if we include
the costs of higher spending under scored general fund transfers and
the flood insurance income, it leads to a small deficit reduction over
ten-years.
Second, I am concerned with H.R. 4348's use often-year savings to
finance two years of spending. We need to be reducing spending and
deficits and when we increase spending, we should be offsetting the
cost in as short a timeframe as possible.
Based on CBO scoring, the bill produces ten-year savings from pension
law changes, but some of these changes come with long-term costs. It
appears possible that any savings gained in the ten-year window may be
offset by greater federal obligations in the future. I expressed my
concern over a similar `smoothing' provision when used in past
legislation.
Finally, this bill extends the current interest rate on certain
student loans for another year. This is another example where Congress
established a temporary subsidy with sudden expiration dates and no
plans for next steps. I believe it is imperative that we work toward
responsible, long-term reform in this area. Congress must stop playing
games with students' interest rates to score political points. A well-
educated population is critical to higher incomes and stronger economic
growth, but our current education programs have serious problems. The
right question is not should the interest rate be 3.4 or 6.8 percent.
The focus should instead be on how developing an effective, fair and
sustainable process for providing capital to students one that ensures
access to higher education without fueling tuition inflation and
exposing the taxpayer to unacceptable levels of risk. I look forward to
working with my colleagues to achieve such reforms.
Mrs. CAPITO. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to see that H.R. 4348
includes pension reform provisions that will allow businesses to invest
more to create jobs, while generating over $9 billion in Treasury
revenue over the next 10 years. H.R. 4348's pension reforms are
critical to help businesses create jobs in a struggling economy.
However, I am concerned these vital reforms will be incomplete if
financial reporting requirements known as Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles do not conform to H.R. 4348's changes in law. H.R. 4348 does
not provide a deadline to adjust these financial reporting requirements
to match the bill's pension reforms.
We should expect prompt harmonization between the law and how pension
obligations

[[Page 10743]]

are reported on companies' financial statements. If there is not
harmonization many company balance sheets will be required to show
inflated liabilities that H.R. 4348's pension reforms seek to address.
The clear policy of H.R. 4348 is that pension funding be calculated
by a more stable, long-term method. I expect, and Congress should
expect, that financial reporting requirements conform with Congress's
clear intent on this issue. Financial statements should be consistent
with the rate stabilization set forth in this legislation.
Mr. PALAZZO. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the Chairman for bringing
this bill to the floor, and for all the hard work of our conferees in
getting us to this point.
Today, I rise before you to remind this body one last time of the
importance of Gulf Coast recovery and the importance of passing the
RESTORE Act.
Less than a year ago, a small group of Gulf Coast legislators came
together with big support from their communities, and a mission to make
the Gulf Coast whole.
This was no small effort. But it is the least we could do to show our
support once more to all those affected by the single largest manmade
disaster in our history.
I am proud to have been a part of this landmark legislation. I want
to thank all those who worked so hard with us to make this happen--from
my Gulf Coast colleagues to local leaders, business interests to
conservation groups.
There were many who said this could not be done in an election year,
with so much competing for time on the legislative calendar. But we
knew how important it was to pass this bill.
We did not give up because we knew that restoring and replenishing
the Gulf Coast is more than just a responsible decision; it is the
right thing to do.
Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4348.
While this is not a perfect bill, it will fund important transportation
projects while creating well-paying jobs across this country.
H.R. 4348 will reauthorize through the end of fiscal year 2014 our
highway and transit programs at current levels--$105 billion. While I
am disappointed in this short-term reauthorization, I do believe this
authorization will provide some stability to our state and local
governments. We know that for every $1 billion of federal funds
invested in our highway and transit infrastructure nearly 39,000 jobs
are created or sustained. This investment will give our transportation
industry the ability to continue to create thousands of jobs across our
country.
I am also extremely pleased that all states will be guaranteed a
minimum rate of return of 95 percent on their payments into the Highway
Trust Fund. During the last reauthorization I worked hard with my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to increase Michigan's rate of
return to 92 percent, and I am pleased to be able to support increasing
it once again. This bill will continue the Safe Routes to School
program, and the transportation enhancement activities such as bike
paths, bike lanes, and trails. This program has been critical to
helping communities in my district, like Ann Arbor, to make their
communities more livable and attractive to families and businesses,
while also greening our environment by providing alternatives for their
commute. Furthermore, I am pleased that H.R. 4348 will continue to fund
our mass-transit program, providing funding to critical projects that
will bring our transit infrastructure into the 21st Century.
I am disappointed that H.R. 4348 did not reauthorize the Coordinated
Border Infrastructure program. Michigan was one of the leaders in
creating CBIP given its critical relationship with Canada and it has
been instrumental in addressing border congestion. It is my hope that
we can reauthorize this program in the coming months. Unfortunately,
this bill does not include any provisions directing the Department of
Transportation to develop a long-term national rail plan. I passed one
of the first pieces of legislation authorizing investment in high-speed
rail, but there has never been a strong commitment to bringing our rail
program into the 21st Century until this Administration. This
Administration has wisely invested billions of dollars into bringing
highspeed rail travel across the country and to corridors outside the
Northeast. By ignoring this goal we are halting the progress of high-
speed rail and falling further behind our neighbors abroad.
I would have liked for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, or LWCF,
reauthorization and funding to be included in the final bill. LWCF was
included in the Senate language with overwhelming bipartisan support
and I joined with 145 of my House colleagues requesting the conference
committee to include the reauthorization and funding. LWCF develops
local partnerships to conserve critical wildlife habitat, hunting and
fishing access, state and local parks, productive forests, and
important lands to be protected for future generations. I hope the
House will give serious consideration to reauthorizing and funding LWCF
in the coming weeks.
This bill includes a one-year extension of the 3.4 percent interest
rate for subsidized Stafford student loans. I am happy that this is
finally being authorized because as we continue to recover
economically, we must ensure that students can afford a higher
education. There were nearly 48,000 students attending a university or
college in my district last year who received one of these loans and
doubling the interest rate would have a significant impact on students
as they get ready to start the new school year. Our children, 25
percent of our population, are 100 percent of our future. They are
counting on us and I am pleased we are now standing up for the future
to make higher education and job training affordable.
While we are taking a step forward today, we must start thinking
towards next July when this one-year extension will expire. We cannot
wait until the last minute to address this issue as we did this year.
We must start thinking now about how to deal with this problem. This is
not just a campaign talking point, this affects students and families
and can be the difference between achieving your goals or being priced
out of your dreams.
The Flood Insurance extension is a much needed part of this
compromise. As we continue to experience extreme weather across the
country, we need to ensure that homeowners with flooded homes can get
the help they need to put their lives back together. However, as FEMA
works on implementing new floodplain maps, we must ensure that the maps
make sense. Homeowners and small businesses in my district are being
driven out of the homes and stores due to the high cost of flood
insurance that they've never had to pay before. I urge FEMA to continue
to work with local governments to address these concerns and keep
families in their homes and small businesses open.
I applaud this bill, and I hope my colleagues keep working together
in this manner--actually passing bills that make a difference and take
action instead of playing political football on issues that do not
impact the majority of Americans.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of
H.R. 4348 the ``Surface Transportation Conference Agreement.'' More
than 100 days ago, the Senate passed a bipartisan, job-creating
transportation bill to rebuild America--that is similar to the bill we
are taking up today.
This bill will create or save more than 2 million jobs, authorize
highway and transit programs for more than two years at current levels,
make key reforms consolidating transportation programs, and leverage
federal resources to expand public-private partnerships in
transportation.
However, regarding the education of our Nation in making college more
affordable has always been a top priority of Democrats. In 2007, the
Democratic-led Congress enacted legislation that cut the interest rate
on need-based student loans in half--to 3.4 percent--over five years.
Unfortunately, under current law, that reduced rate expires and
doubles to 6.8 percent on July 1.
This Congress cannot sit by and let students suffer and be denied a
chance at making a better future and a brighter tomorrow because we
failed to act. I am determined to see that students have a chance to
learn, to aspire, and to dream.
If we don't pass this bill with common-sense pay-fors, we are setting
up a roadblock to dreamers, in essence telling them that education can
be foreclosed on because we did not do our jobs.
If the current rates expire the average student faces an increase of
$1,000 each. In doing nothing, House Republicans are, putting more
barriers in the way of millions of Americans already struggling to pay
for a higher education. It is time for Republicans in Congress to stop
playing politics with students' futures and come to the negotiating
table.
Minority and Women Contractors. Regarding set-asides to ensure that
minority, women and other disadvantaged businesses are able to compete
for transit and highway contracts, the conference report continues the
program and includes key findings regarding discrimination in
transportation contracts to ensure that these important provisions are
upheld if ever challenged. These provisions are not expanded to rail,
which is not authorized in the bill.
Although I am disappointed the bill does not include rail, it is
important that as we move forward, transportation contracts, whether it
be for airlines, bus, rail, or even little red wagons, women and
minorities are able to compete on equal footing with the old boy's
network.
I have supported this reauthorization at least 16 times since 2008.
The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) has been invaluable

[[Page 10744]]

for victims and potential victims of flooding in Texas.
Congress must extend authority for the NFIP to write or renew flood
insurance policies, which are required in order to obtain a mortgage in
the 100-year floodplain. This is an issue of importance to not just the
coastal states but in nearly every state.
Just a month ago the Houston Association of Realtors was in town and
came to advocate for a reauthorization but as a practical matter would
prefer--like many Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle--a
long-term, 5-year reauthorization for this important measure.
The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) was established in 1968
in response to increasing federal government spending for disaster
relief. Standard homeowners insurance does not cover flooding and
therefore offers no protection from floods associated with hurricanes,
tropical storms, heavy rains and other conditions. The NFIP mandates
that federally regulated or insured lenders require flood insurance on
properties that are located in areas that have a high risk of flooding.
As Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Transportation Security and
Infrastructure Protection of the Committee on Homeland Security, I
understand as well as anyone that supporting and securing our Nation's
transportation systems are critical to ensuring the free movement of
people and commercial goods. But I also know that, in the strained
economic circumstances that we currently face, it is equally imperative
that we allocate limited resources in a way that maximizes their
capacity to improve the lives of as many Americans as possible.
I am pleased that the Conference Agreement measure includes
provisions to strengthen highway and motor carrier safety programs. The
legislation consolidates National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
incentive grant programs, and increases funding flexibility for states
that qualify for safety incentive grants. The measure also improves
motor carrier safety in a balanced manner.
As the Representative of 18th Congressional District of Houston,
Texas, I am keenly aware of our transportation needs. Houston needs
infrastructure to relieve congestion and provide adequate public
transportation, but it also needs this because an investment in
Houston's New Start Transit Project means jobs for Houston's
constituents through the transportation sector in its communities and
around the Nation.
However, I must balance the needs of my constituents. This funding is
critical for funding existing and pending surface transportation and
infrastructure projects while we pursue longer term solutions in the
face of a misplaced focus on spending cuts. We must work together to
forge a bipartisan long-term solution to our Nation's transportation
and infrastructure needs.
Economic experts universally agree that funding the critical and
necessary infrastructure projects nationwide creates jobs for America
and increases our level of global competitiveness. There is an intense
competition between fiscal responsibility and investment in job growth
& infrastructure.
We must make investments in job creating infrastructure projects in
order to grow the US economy. We must be winners in contest for
economic change now and for our children's future. We cannot be the
losers. We must catch the wave of economic growth or be crushed by it.
China, India and Europe understand this because they have committed to
greater investments in their infrastructure.
As I think of my home District, the 18th Congressional District in
Houston, Texas and its busy ports, much like the other ports around
this great nation, I am compelled to urge my colleagues to consider the
pressing national necessity of decongesting the surface transportation,
both rail and highway, that moves the goods in and out of those ports.
We must improve this surface transportation system in order to
accommodate national economic health, global competitiveness, and to
avoid harm to agriculture industry, maritime jobs and manufacturing
jobs. Maritime jobs and construction jobs for infrastructure provide a
good middle class wage, allow workers to get educations at night, and
lower crime rates in our cities.
We must invest in High Speed Rail. We have about 500 miles of high
speed rail in process, but China has about 10,000 miles being built! We
need to have a domestic talent pool with the required knowledge, skills
and trained workers to do projects like high speed rail or we will be
paying for skilled Chinese companies to do it for us.
Infrastructure Investment is a Non-Partisan Issue: If the AFL-CIO and
U.S. Chamber of Commerce have teamed up to promote infrastructure
investment, then surely the Democrats and Republicans in this Congress
can do the same. Moreover, now is the time for us to consider the
creation of a long overdue National Infrastructure Bank and Public-
Private partnerships to shift our infrastructure improvement into full
gear. We should not shy away from this issue when a nation is waiting
for us to do our part to restore our economy through fortification of
our infrastructure. It is time for another large, bold, national
forward thinking infrastructure project like interstate highway system.
Governors and Mayors at ground level around this nation will quickly
confirm that Infrastructure investments create jobs, help balance
budgets, and grow both state and national economies. We must listen to
our local elected officials who must fix the potholes, repair the
crumbling bridges and tunnels or be held directly accountable by their
constituents on every street corner. Our local elected officials will
quickly tell us that infrastructure investment creates jobs, because it
attracts business!
The American Association of Civil Engineers (ASCE) gives U.S.
Infrastructure the Grade of ``D'' in its 2009 Report Card.
Infrastructure Investment equals Jobs! But, the U.S. is falling behind
its competitors in infrastructure development (especially China, India
& Europe). The bottom line is that Transportation and Infrastructure
Investment is needed for a Strong Economy.
So, I say to my colleagues that we weight this measure carefully. A
delay in enactment of this Conference Agreement will shut down more
than $800 million next month in highway reimbursements and transit
grants to States and urban areas, endangering more than 28,000 jobs and
multi-million dollar construction projects across the country.
As Ranking Member of the Transportation Security Subcommittee at the
House Committee on Homeland Security, I have continuously supported the
increase in adequate resources aimed at enhancing the efficiency,
safety and security of our rail and mass transit systems.
This Congress, I introduced the ``Surface Transportation and Mass
Transit Security Act of 2011'' which seeks to authorize adequate
resources and program attention to surface and mass transit security
programs at the Transportation Security Administration.
To this end, the bill authorizes additional surface inspectors needed
to validate security programs impacting our surface and mass transit
security. The bill also creates mechanisms to strengthen stakeholder
outreach, makes key revisions to the public transportation security
assistance grants program and increases canine teams and resources for
surface and mass transit modes.
I must say that I am pleased today that our colleagues have come
together in a bipartisan and bicameral manner to create a Conference
Agreement that will put Americans back to work.
Mr. TIBERI. Madam Speaker, many employers have reassured me that the
pension stabilization language included in the Surface Transportation
Extension Act of 2012 will allow them to invest more to create jobs and
will prohibit a reduction in their workforce. I hope this is the case
and that these pension reforms will help businesses create jobs in a
struggling economy.
However, H.R. 4348 does not make changes to the financial reporting
requirements known as Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP)
to allow companies to reflect the reforms on their balance sheets. The
end result of this is that many company balance sheets will be required
to show inflated pension liabilities that the reforms seek to address.
There is also no guidance provided to the overseeing entities of GAAP
on how to conform these reforms and accounting requirements.
The pension stabilization language is meant to allow companies to
calculate their pension funding status through a more stable, long-term
method. There should be consistency between the law and how pension
obligations are reported on companies' financial statements.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I would like to
voice my support for the transportation reauthorization conference
report. While I was disappointed in how House Republicans broke with
the tradition of working in a bipartisan fashion on transportation
policy, I appreciate the Senate's bipartisan approach, which is
responsible in large part for the bill we have today. In addition to
the transportation reauthorization, we have been able to come together
to prevent student loan interest rates from increasing, and secure a
five-year reauthorization of the Flood Insurance program. It is my hope
that moving forward we can look at this conference agreement as a model
of what can be accomplished legislatively by seeking bipartisan,
bicameral common ground.

[[Page 10745]]

But as with all legislation, there were many compromises, and there
were several aspects of the report which I believe could further be
improved. On balance, however, the conference report contains needed
policy direction and authorizations that warrant support.
Most importantly, transportation reauthorization will provide much
needed stimulus to local economies, and get those in the construction
and manufacturing industries back to work. This bill will create or
save more than 2 million jobs, and authorize highway and transit
programs for more than two years. The bill will also make key reforms
in consolidating transportation programs, cut red tape, and leverage
federal resources to expand public-private partnerships in
transportation.
This is also a good bill for Texas. Under this agreement, Texas is
slated to receive more than $3 billion annually in highway formula
funds. Unlike the original House legislation, H.R. 7, this conference
agreement preserves mass transit funding through the Highway Trust
Fund. Funding for mass transit is critical for my district, and Texas
as a whole, as we work to develop solutions to alleviate congestion and
alternative modes of transportation to accommodate a growing
population. Texas has also been very successful in utilizing
Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act, TIFIA,
funding, and will continue to benefit under the conference agreement,
which increases funding for the TIFIA program to $750 million for FY
2013 and to $1 billion for FY 2014. It also increases the maximum share
of project costs that can be funded through the TIFIA program from 33
percent to 49 percent. This agreement will give the Texas Department of
Transportation, local transit agencies, and contractors some much-
needed certainty as they plan transportation projects.
This agreement will also give 461,533 Texas students relief from the
impending student loan interest increase. I am very pleased that
provisions blocking the rate hike are included in the conference
report. In Texas and all across the country, students and recent
college graduates are now facing the highest unemployment rate of any
other group. Without action, the loan rates for 7.4 million college
students would have doubled, adding $6.3 billion to students' debt
burden in one year alone.
As the Ranking Member of the Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, I recognize that the long-term viability of our
transportation system requires a continued commitment to quality
research and the development of new transportation technologies and
materials that will make our transportation infrastructure--and the
vehicles traveling on that infrastructure--safer, stronger, and more
sustainable. I am pleased that the conference report acknowledges the
important role of research and development across the Department of
Transportation.
Specifically, we cannot deny that our current transportation system
places an enormous burden on the environment and public health, and
therefore, I am pleased that the conference report authorizes a
separate environmental research program within the Federal Highway
Administration. At a time when many metropolitan regions are still
struggling to meet basic health standards for air pollution, we cannot
afford to stop research that will lead to a cleaner, safer, and more
efficient highway system. The research conducted under this program
will ensure that State and local transportation officials have the
tools they need to make informed and effective decisions about local
transportation projects and the environment.
I also want to express my satisfaction that the conference report
provides the framework and guidance necessary to allow us to begin to
really understand and, more importantly, mitigate the long-term impacts
of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill on the Gulf Coast States. Regardless
of whether you live in the coastal communities of Texas, Alabama,
Louisiana, Mississippi, or Florida, the Gulf of Mexico provides a
wealth of products and services that benefit the entire nation. The
Gulf Coast Restoration Trust Fund will provide the resources necessary
to restore the health of this unique ecosystem and revitalize the
region's economy.
Finally, I would like to thank my colleagues for working with me to
fix a technical error in the authorization levels for the research
programs under the Federal Highway Administration. In the conference
committee's haste to put together the report, it appears that the
authorization levels in the Research and Education Division were not
updated accordingly, but thankfully this oversight has been addressed.
Mr. MICA. Madam Speaker, I would like to extend my personal
appreciation to the dedicated staff in the Office of Legislative
Counsel here in the House of Representatives for helping us to write
important legislation reauthorizing surface transportation programs. In
addition, I would like to thank the staff of the Federal Highway
Administration and the Federal Transit Administration for providing us
with their technical assistance and expertise. In particular, I would
like to thank the following individuals for their work on this
legislation:

From the Office of Legislative Counsel

Transportation and Infrastructure Attorneys

Curt Haensel
Rosemary Gallagher
Tom Dillon
Kakuti Lin
Tim Brown

Clerks

Nancy McNeillie
Debra Birch

Ramseyer Team

Craig Sterkx
Thomas Meryweather
Pamela Griffiths

From the Federal Highway Administration

Tim Arnade
Andrew Wishnia
Jennifer Steinhoff
Steven Frankel
Carolyn Edwards
Todd Kohr
Kimberly Monaco

From the Federal Transit Administration

Rich Steinmann
Kate Webb
Bonnie Graves
Rita Maristch

Thanks to the dedication of these experts we have achieved a major
accomplishment in the passage of H.R. 4348.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Moving
Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act. After nearly two years of
Republican control, there is finally a true jobs bill on the floor of
the House.
MAP-21 will protect and create 3 million American jobs. This two year
transportation authorization will also provide much-needed certainty
for state departments of transportation, construction companies and
construction workers after nearly three years without a long term
authorization.
Passage of this bill was inexcusably delayed by House Republicans for
four months--first due to their refusal to negotiate with the Senate
and then, due to a long list of misguided policy riders. I am pleased
that a prohibition against coal ash regulation and many other unrelated
riders were stripped from the final bill.
While I support the underlying legislation, I am concerned about
reduced support for bicycle and pedestrian projects such as Safe Routes
to School. This funding is necessary to create a modern, multimodal
transportation system that gives commuters and families more choices.
Under MAP-21 funding for these programs is cut by 34 percent. This is a
disappointing step backwards at a time when Americans are seeing their
budgets' under pressure from high gas prices. Moreover, the
authorization timeframe should be longer, and the overall funding level
for this bill should be higher in order to meet the country's mounting
infrastructure needs.
This legislation represents a compromise between the House and Senate
that is far worse than the original Senate bill. It is long overdue and
far from perfect. Still, despite these shortcomings, I will vote for
H.R. 4348. I refuse to gamble with the 3 million jobs that are at stake
in this bill. Our country needs these jobs and our communities need the
predictable funding this bill provides.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 4348.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 717, the previous question is ordered.
The question is on the conference report.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

____________________

TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2013

General Leave

Mr. LATHAM. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material on the further consideration of H.R.
5972, and

[[Page 10746]]

that I may include tabular material on the same.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Iowa?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 697 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 5972.
Will the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Bucshon) kindly take the chair.

{time} 1150

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 5972) making appropriations for the Departments of
Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, and for other purposes,
with Mr. Bucshon (Acting Chair) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday,
June 27, 2012, an amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana
(Mr. Scalise) had been disposed of and the bill had been read through
page 150, line 9.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Landry

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to vacate the
request for a recorded vote on the Landry amendment to the end that the
Chair put the question de novo.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Iowa?
Without objection, the request for a recorded vote on the amendment
is vacated and the Chair will put the question de novo.
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Landry).
The amendment was agreed to.

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were
postponed, in the following order:
An amendment by Mrs. Blackburn of Tennessee.
Amendment No. 13 by Mr. McClintock of California.
An amendment by Mr. Lankford of Oklahoma.
Amendment No. 9 by Mr. Denham of California.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.

Amendment Offered by Mrs. Blackburn of Tennessee

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) on which further proceedings were postponed
and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 166,
noes 254, not voting 12, as follows:

[Roll No. 445]

AYES--166

Adams
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Benishek
Biggert
Bilirakis
Black
Blackburn
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Conaway
Cooper
Crawford
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
DesJarlais
Donnelly (IN)
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gardner
Garrett
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Guinta
Guthrie
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herger
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
King (IA)
Kingston
Kline
Labrador
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latta
Long
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Price (GA)
Quayle
Ribble
Rigell
Roe (TN)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shuster
Smith (NE)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Woodall
Yoder
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOES--254

Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Bachus
Baldwin
Barber
Barletta
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Berg
Berkley
Berman
Bilbray
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Bonner
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Bucshon
Butterfield
Calvert
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson (IN)
Carter
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Cohen
Cole
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cravaack
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Denham
Dent
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Doyle
Dreier
Edwards
Ellison
Ellmers
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gonzalez
Granger
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Grimm
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly
Kildee
Kind
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lujan
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKeon
McKinley
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Noem
Nugent
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pearce
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Platts
Polis
Posey
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rivera
Roby
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schilling
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Simpson
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner (OH)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Webster
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Wolf
Womack
Woolsey
Yarmuth
Young (AK)

NOT VOTING--12

Akin
Cantor
Carney
Clyburn
Duncan (TN)
Filner
Graves (GA)
Jackson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Lamborn
Lewis (CA)
Neal

{time} 1217

Mr. CARTER changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. MARCHANT, HARRIS, CASSIDY, ROSKAM, ROYCE, HARPER, HERGER, and
KINGSTON changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.

[[Page 10747]]

The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 445, I was away from the Capitol
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``no.''

Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. McClintock

The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Thornberry). The unfinished business is the
demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from California (Mr. McClintock) on which further proceedings were
postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 235,
noes 186, not voting 11, as follows:

[Roll No. 446]

AYES--235

Adams
Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOES--186

Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barber
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson (IN)
Carter
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gibson
Gonzalez
Granger
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Grimm
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hanna
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--11

Akin
Carney
Clyburn
Duncan (TN)
Filner
Jackson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Lamborn
Lewis (CA)
Neal
Sullivan

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 1221

Mr. DOLD changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 446, I was away from the Capitol
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``no.''
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Doyle was allowed to speak out of order.)

Charities Real Winners from Congressional Baseball Game

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, you all know that last night was the 51st
annual Congressional Quarterly-Roll Call baseball game for charity, and
I'm pleased to inform the House this morning that the Democratic team
won 18-5 last night.
Mr. Chairman, there are 21 outs in the game we play because we only
play seven innings. Cedric Richmond struck out 16 batters, so he didn't
leave much work for our infield. It's my understanding that if the
Republicans should win the Presidency, that Cedric is going to be
offered a Cabinet position just to get him out of here. Other notables,
Cedric also came within about 3 feet of hitting one out of the park at
Nationals Field, too. Ben Chandler also had a fantastic game for our
team as co-MVP.
But, Mr. Chairman, the real winner last night was the Boys and Girls
Club of Washington, D.C. and the Washington Literacy Council. This was
a record year for the congressional baseball game. We came close to
raising, for the first time ever, almost a quarter of a million dollars
for the charities.
I want to congratulate my good friend and Republican manager, Joe
Barton, on a hard-fought game. I can tell you, as someone who has
played in the game for 18 years now, I've been part of the highs and
part of the lows. I know what it's like to be on both ends of a winning
and losing ball game. But the Republicans were game opponents. They
came out there, and they did their best last night; but we were just a
little bit better than them. And now I yield to my good friend, Joe
Barton.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Thank you, Congressman Doyle. There are a few
things you said, like most Democrats, stretching the truth a little
bit. You know, you said that there are only 21 outs in the game. Well,
we being very generous and open-hearted Republicans, we play a game
where you got

[[Page 10748]]

about 31 outs because we were so friendly with the way we didn't catch
the ball.
For my Republican colleagues, there is good news and bad news. The
good news is we got nine times as many hits this year. We got 500
percent more runs this year. So in some ways, we did a lot better. But
the bad news is that the Democrats doubled the number of runs. And as
my 6-year-old son Jack told me on the way home after the game--he's a
T-ball expert--he said, Those guys didn't let up on you.
Mr. DOYLE. It's not in my nature, Joe.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. As some of you who actually went to the game
noticed, at about the fourth inning, Pete Sessions, our first base
coach, and Tim Scott, one of our pitchers, who are both on the Rules
Committee, had to leave to go back to Rules. Now, there's no truth to
the rumor that I had asked for an emergency rule asking Cedric Richmond
be declared ineligible for that game. There is no truth to that rumor.
Our guys played well. Our MVP, Pat Meehan of Pennsylvania, pitched in
relief real well. John Shimkus got two hits. Jeff Flake got a double
and knocked in two runs. Sam Graves stole several bases and played very
well out in the field. So as my 6-year-old son Jack also said, Mr.
Doyle, enjoy it while you can because it won't last forever; you can't
win every game.
But congratulations, and a job well done on both sides.
Mr. DOYLE. I think it is also notable that our House Chaplain, Father
Conroy, did get a chance to play in the game last night. We put him in
as a pinch runner. I think it's notable to say Father Conroy stole
home.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. He did, but that means that God owes us one.
Congratulations.
Mr. DOYLE. We want to give a round of applause to our Chaplain, too,
for playing in the game.
One final look: here's the trophy, guys.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Lankford

The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, 2-minute voting will continue.
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma
(Mr. Lankford) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 447]

AYES--234

Adams
Aderholt
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Benishek
Berg
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Holden
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOES--191

Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barber
Bartlett
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Fitzpatrick
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gerlach
Gibson
Gonzalez
Granger
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Woodall
Woolsey
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--7

Akin
Clyburn
Filner
Jackson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Lamborn
Lewis (CA)

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 1231

Mr. WHITFIELD changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 447, I was away from the Capitol
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``no.''

Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Denham

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. Denham) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.

[[Page 10749]]

The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 448]

AYES--239

Adams
Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOES--185

Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barber
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Grimm
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--8

Akin
Clyburn
Filner
Fitzpatrick
Jackson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Lamborn
Lewis (CA)

{time} 1235

So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 448, I was away from the Capitol
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``no.''
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

This Act may be cited as the ``Transportation, Housing and
Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act,
2013''.

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise and
report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments, with the
recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as
amended, do pass.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Bishop of Utah) having assumed the chair, Mr. Thornberry, Acting Chair
of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R.
5972) making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation, and
Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2013, and for other purposes, directed him to
report the bill, as amended by House Resolution 697, back to the House
with sundry further amendments adopted in the Committee of the Whole,
with the recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the
bill, as amended, do pass.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any further amendment reported from
the Committee of the Whole? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
The amendments were agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.

Motion to Recommit

Mr. BARBER. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. BARBER. I am opposed to the bill in its current form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Barber moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 5972, to the
Committee on Appropriations with instructions to report the
same back to the House forthwith with the following
amendment:
Page 71, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $34,000,000)''.
Page 72, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $34,000,000)''.
Page 74, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $13,000,000)''.
Page 74, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $7,000,000)''.
Page 74, line 12, after the first dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $26,000,000)''.
Page 74, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $1,000,000)''.
Page 74, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.
Page 74, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $100,000)''.
Page 75, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $75,000,000)''.
Page 82, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $75,000,000)''.

[[Page 10750]]

{time} 1240

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. BARBER. Mr. Speaker, I'm offering this final amendment to assist
our veterans.
Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, I came before you last week to be
sworn in, and I spoke then about working together, working across the
aisle to ensure that my constituents and all of our constituents are
served by our very best work, rather than our partisan ambitions.
So I rise today in that same spirit. I rise today to ask that we come
together on an amendment to help those who most deserve our gratitude
and our assistance, the veterans who have bravely served to defend our
homeland. Today, we have an opportunity to take care of the veterans of
our military who, much to our collective shame, are homeless.
I remember the Vietnam War, and I remember how it divided our Nation.
But most of all, I remember the men and women who were sent to fight in
Vietnam, who often bore the brunt of the anger over the war itself.
Derision that should have been directed towards policymakers was,
instead, directed to those who had put their lives on the line for the
country we love. And we let them down.
We failed them when they came home, and now they, and other veterans,
a total estimated 70,000 of our Nation's homeless population--70,000.
That is, I'm sure we all agree, completely unacceptable. I don't
believe that anyone on either side of the aisle thinks that we should
allow 70,000 men and women who wore our Nation's uniform to continue to
go without a home.
With my amendment, we will ensure that we have enough housing
vouchers to assist every one of those veterans. I submit, Mr. Speaker,
and esteemed colleagues, that this is the least we owe to our veterans.
There are over 100,000 veterans in my southern Arizona district. Let
me tell you about one of them. Christopher Murray, a disabled Operation
Desert Storm medic and combat veteran, came to our office to seek our
help when I served as Congresswoman Gifford's district director. A bank
was foreclosing on his home, and he had recently been diagnosed with
terminal cancer. Our staff was able to work to rescind the foreclosure
and allow Mr. Murray to stay in his own home. The simple dignity of
being in your own home during your final days is something we all too
often take for granted. We must not deny that dignity to those who
have, like Mr. Murray, served our country so well.
My amendment offers every one of us a chance to do what our office
did then: to ensure that our veterans get our help and have the simple
dignity of a roof above their heads. And my amendment does that while
reducing the deficit.
The passage of this amendment will not prevent passage of this
underlying bill. If the amendment is adopted, it will be incorporated
into the bill, and the bill will be immediately voted upon. And so,
though we may disagree on parts of the bill today, we have the
opportunity to speak up for the men and women who have fought for our
country.
And let us all be able to go home and look every veteran we represent
in the eye and know that we did the right thing by them and by their
homeless brothers and sisters.
I urge everyone to vote ``yes'' on this final amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Iowa is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to
recommit.
The veterans homeless program is a very good program. We all
understand that. In this bill--and everybody should listen--we provide
$75 million for 10,000 new vouchers already. So there's no question
that we are meeting the need. This is the same as last year, and what
we have in the bill is the President's request. Let me say that again.
What we have in the bill for veterans vouchers is what the President
asked for.
I will also say, it's interesting at this time to bring this motion.
We have been through subcommittee markup, we have gone through full
committee markup, we have been on the floor of this House for 2 days,
and no one's ever raised this issue because everyone understood that we
had fully met the funding requirements for the veterans homeless
vouchers. So now it's an interesting time to bring this amendment or
this motion.
And I will tell the folks, if, in fact, we find out there is an
additional need before we get to conference, there isn't anybody in
this House that won't support it. But we have fully funded the needs.
This has been a full vetting process, and now, at the last moment you
come up with a motion that is not necessary because everyone supports
these vouchers.
This is a good, balanced bill, and I urge a ``no'' vote on the motion
to recommit.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. BARBER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by
5-minute votes on passage of H.R. 5972 and adoption of the conference
report on H.R. 4348.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 188,
noes 233, not voting 11, as follows:

[Roll No. 449]

AYES--188

Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barber
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth

NOES--233

Adams
Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)

[[Page 10751]]

Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--11

Akin
Castor (FL)
Clyburn
Filner
Jackson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Lamborn
Lewis (CA)
Pelosi
Schock
Young (IN)

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.

{time} 1301

Mr. SERRANO changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 449, I was away from the Capitol
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``aye.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
Under clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 261,
nays 163, not voting 8, as follows:

[Roll No. 450]

YEAS--261

Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Altmire
Amodei
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Berkley
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carter
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Clarke (MI)
Clay
Cleaver
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Costa
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (CA)
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Himes
Hinojosa
Hochul
Holden
Hoyer
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Israel
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly
Kildee
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Levin
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Maloney
Manzullo
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McCotter
McDermott
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moran
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Olver
Owens
Palazzo
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Pence
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Platts
Poe (TX)
Polis
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Richardson
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schock
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Sessions
Sewell
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Stark
Stivers
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden
Walz (MN)
Webster
West
Whitfield
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NAYS--163

Adams
Amash
Bachmann
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Burgess
Butterfield
Campbell
Capps
Capuano
Carson (IN)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (NY)
Cohen
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Doyle
Duncan (SC)
Edwards
Ellison
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Fincher
Flake
Fleming
Flores
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gardner
Gohmert
Gosar
Gowdy
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Hinchey
Hirono
Holt
Honda
Huelskamp
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Jordan
Kind
Kucinich
Labrador
Langevin
Larson (CT)
Latta
Lee (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lummis
Mack
Marchant
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McClintock
McCollum
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Miller (FL)
Miller (NC)
Moore
Mulvaney
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neugebauer
Pallone
Pascrell
Paul
Pearce
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Quigley
Reyes
Richmond
Ross (FL)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Southerland
Speier
Stearns
Stutzman
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tipton
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Walsh (IL)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Westmoreland
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Woolsey
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--8

Akin
Clyburn
Filner
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Lamborn
Lewis (CA)

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.

{time} 1309

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated against:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 450, I was away from the Capitol
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``nay.''
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, on June 29, 2012, I
inadvertently

[[Page 10752]]

voted ``aye'' on rollcall no. 450. I intended to vote ``nay,'' and that
reflects that I oppose H.R. 5972.

____________________

CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 4348, MOVING AHEAD FOR PROGRESS IN THE 21ST
CENTURY ACT

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the question on
adoption of the conference report on the bill (H.R. 4348) to provide an
extension of Federal-aid highway, highway safety, motor carrier safety,
transit, and other programs funded out of the Highway Trust Fund
pending enactment of a multiyear law reauthorizing such programs, and
for other purposes, on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 373,
nays 52, not voting 7, as follows:

[Roll No. 451]

YEAS--373

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

NAYS--52

Adams
Amash
Bachmann
Black
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Burgess
Campbell
Chabot
Conaway
Duncan (SC)
Flake
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Garrett
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Harris
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hurt
Jenkins
Jordan
Labrador
Lummis
Mack
McClintock
McHenry
Mulvaney
Neugebauer
Nugent
Olson
Paul
Pompeo
Posey
Quayle
Ross (FL)
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Thornberry
Walberg
Walsh (IL)
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)
Woodall
Yoder

NOT VOTING--7

Akin
Clyburn
Filner
Jackson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Lamborn
Lewis (CA)

{time} 1322

Ms. JENKINS changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. ROHRABACHER changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the conference report was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 451, I was away from the Capitol
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``yea.''

____________________

STUDENT LOAN INTEREST RATES

(Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to
address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, today, the House passed a
bipartisan 1-year extension of the current interest rate for Federally
subsidized student loans. This is a good thing for students across the
country. But as we celebrate this accomplishment, let's keep our eye on
the larger picture. We wouldn't be worried about these interest rates
if not for the fact that the economy is so weak and the cost of
education is so high. According to the Department of Education, the
savings will be $7 a month for the average Stafford loan borrower.
While that might not seem like a lot, each dollar counts for a college
graduate still searching for a good-paying job.
We can have a larger effect for students by working to repeal Federal
unfunded mandates that drive up the cost of college tuition and by
working to put the wheels back on the economy. As a member of the
Subcommittee for Higher Education and Workforce Training, I'm committed
to making that happen. Let's work together to ensure that students can
achieve a quality education at a reasonable cost and get great jobs
when they graduate. There's no better social program than a good-paying
job.

____________________

LET'S CONTINUE THE GREAT WORK

(Mr. COURTNEY asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, with a few minutes to spare, we just voted
to make sure that the interest rate for the Stafford student loan
program was going to stay at 3.4 and avoid the doubling of rates, which
would have happened Saturday night if we had not acted. This is an
issue which took months to get to. President Obama challenged Congress
back at the State of the Union in January, telling us that

[[Page 10753]]

we must act. It took months to get any response. And I want to
congratulate the 130,000 college students all across America who
submitted a petition to the Speaker's office saying it was time to get
moving.
We started the countdown clock on that day at Day 110, and now we are
officially defusing the time bomb that would have exploded with a
higher interest rate if we had not acted. We have a lot more work to do
with the high cost of college and student loan debt, which now exceeds
credit card debt and consumer loan debt. But having said that, we saw
today an honest compromise; people coming together to make sure that
that lower rate was going to be extended. Let's use that example to
move forward and solve this problem for middle class families all
across America.
Again, to those students who worked so hard to have their voices
heard, congratulations. Let's roll up our sleeves and continue the
great work.

____________________

IN SUPPORT OF THE RESTORE ACT

(Mr. PALAZZO asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. PALAZZO. Mr. Speaker, today is a good day for the people of
Mississippi's Fourth Congressional District and it's a good day for all
the people of the Gulf State. Because today, with passage of the
RESTORE Act, we give these States the tools they need to continue vital
economic and environmental recovery.
Less than a year ago, a small group of Gulf Coast legislators came
together with big support from their communities and a mission to make
the Gulf Coast whole. This was no small effort, but it is the least we
can do to show our support once more to all those affected by the
single largest man-made disaster in our history. I am proud to have
been a part of this landmark legislation. I want to thank all those who
worked so hard with us to make this happen, from my Gulf Coast
colleagues and House leadership to local leaders, business, and
conservation groups. There were so many who said this could not be done
in an election year with so much competing for time on the legislative
calendar. But we know how important it was to pass this bill. We did
not give up because we knew that restoring and replenishing the Gulf
Coast is more than just a responsible decision: It is the right thing
to do.

____________________

LET'S NOT DECEIVE OURSELVES ON WHAT THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD SEEKS

(Mr. DOLD asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. DOLD. Mr. Speaker, as people in the United States evaluate what
happened this past weekend in the Presidential election in Egypt, I
have a simple message: we shouldn't deceive ourselves.
At a time when we are focused on stopping Iran's nuclear weapons
program and on isolating the Iranian regime, the incoming Egyptian
President vows to expand ties with Iran. At a time when families in
southern Israel constantly live in fear of Qassam rocket attacks from
Hamas-controlled Gaza, the incoming Egyptian President vows to expand
ties with Hamas. As for relations with Israel, we should not paper over
the most obvious reason for alarm. While the incoming President has
recently pledged to honor the Camp David Accords, it is our
responsibility to ensure that the U.S. goodwill is not taken advantage
of and painfully looked upon as naive.
We must understand that the Muslim Brotherhood has a very clear
history of opposing the peace treaty. Six weeks ago, incoming President
Mohammed Morsi stated: ``Jihad is our path, and death for the sake of
Allah is our most lofty aspiration.''
While we welcome the democratic process, Mr. Speaker, this result is
nothing to cheer. We must not be in denial of what the Muslim
Brotherhood really wants.

____________________

{time} 1330
TRIBUTE TO WENDY WAYNE

(Mr. McCARTHY of California asked and was given permission to address
the House for 1 minute.)
Mr. McCARTHY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor
longtime Bakersfield icon, Wendy Wayne, who passed away on June 17
after a 4-year struggle with cancer. Wendy was the type of person who
would go out of the way for those in need, personally taking action to
make sure that those in need were helped. She was instrumental in
leading the Community Connection for Child Care in Bakersfield, and
later the First 5 Kern organization which served the youth of our
community.
One of my fondest memories is from just 2 years ago when Wendy joined
me in this House. She was my guest for the State of the Union.
Sometimes we had philosophical differences, but it never changed our
friendship.
Wendy will forever be known as the Mother Teresa of Bakersfield. She
will be missed, but her deeds and her life will not be forgotten.

____________________

HONORING KYLE R. SCHNEIDER

(Ms. BUERKLE asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Ms. BUERKLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Corporal Kyle R.
Schneider. Kyle R. Schneider was born on January 8, 1988, to Richard
and Lorie Schneider. He was raised in the Baldwinsville, New York, area
with his brother, Kevin. Kyle was a graduate of Baker High School in
Baldwinsville and attended Onondaga Community College for 1 year in the
criminal justice program. While at Baker High School, he played
baseball, football, and ran track. He loved the outdoors and was an
avid hunter and fisherman.
In March 2008, Kyle joined the United States Marine Corps and in
January of 2011 was assigned to the 3rd Platoon and deployed to
Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. In defense of our
Nation, Kyle was killed in the Helmand province, Afghanistan, on June
30, 2011, by an improvised explosive device. Kyle Schneider was 23
years old.
As we commemorate the first anniversary of his death, let us honor
the service and sacrifice of Corporal Kyle R. Schneider. He is an
American hero. He was a proud and valiant marine. He was also a son, a
brother, a grandson, a fiancee, friend, and comrade. Kyle is greatly
missed, and no words will diminish the grief of those who knew and
loved him. In his death, Kyle R. Schneider has earned the thanks of a
grateful Nation.

____________________

STUDENT LOAN INTEREST RATES

(Mr. CLARKE of Michigan asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, today this House voted to extend
the cap on student loan interest rates, or at least certain student
loans, for an additional year. That's fine, but it's only a Band-Aid.
Over 1 million Americans, and this is just one box of many that
contains petition signatures, say that they want more relief. They want
their student loan debt cut, reduced, and excessive debt forgiven.
So let's listen to more than 1 million Americans who want the student
loan debt forgiven in this country so we can give people hope and
create jobs.

____________________

TEMPORARY SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EXTENSION ACT OF 2012

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committees
on Transportation and Infrastructure; Ways and Means; Natural
Resources; Energy and Commerce; Science, Space, and Technology; and
Education and the Workforce be discharged from further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 6064) to provide an extension of Federal-aid highway,
highway safety, motor carrier safety, transit, and other programs
funded out of the Highway Trust Fund pending enactment of a multiyear
law reauthorizing

[[Page 10754]]

such programs, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fleischmann). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
The text of the bill is as follows:

H.R. 6064

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; RECONCILIATION OF FUNDS; SPECIAL RULE
FOR EXECUTION OF AMENDMENTS IN MAP-21; TABLE OF
CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Temporary
Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2012''.
(b) Reconciliation of Funds.--The Secretary of
Transportation shall reduce the amount apportioned or
allocated for a program, project, or activity under this Act
in fiscal year 2012 by amounts apportioned or allocated for
the program, project, or activity pursuant to the Surface
Transportation Extension Act of 2012 (Public Law 112-102) for
the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on June
30, 2012.
(c) Special Rule for Execution of Amendments in MAP-21.--On
the date of enactment of the MAP-21--
(1) this Act and the amendments made by this Act shall
cease to be effective;
(2) the text of the laws amended by this Act shall revert
back so as to read as the text read on the day before the
date of enactment of this Act; and
(3) the amendments made by the MAP-21 shall be executed as
if this Act had not been enacted.
(d) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; reconciliation of funds; special rule
for execution of amendments in MAP-21; table of
contents.

TITLE I--FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS

Sec. 101. Extension of Federal-aid highway programs.

TITLE II--EXTENSION OF HIGHWAY SAFETY PROGRAMS

Sec. 201. Extension of National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration highway safety programs.
Sec. 202. Extension of Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration programs.
Sec. 203. Additional programs.

TITLE III--PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS

Sec. 301. Allocation of funds for planning programs.
Sec. 302. Special rule for urbanized area formula grants.
Sec. 303. Allocating amounts for capital investment grants.
Sec. 304. Apportionment of formula grants for other than
urbanized areas.
Sec. 305. Apportionment based on fixed guideway factors.
Sec. 306. Authorizations for public transportation.
Sec. 307. Amendments to SAFETEA-LU.

TITLE IV--HIGHWAY TRUST FUND EXTENSION

Sec. 401. Extension of trust fund expenditure authority.
Sec. 402. Extension of highway-related taxes.

TITLE V--STUDENT LOANS

Sec. 501. Temporary authority.

TITLE I--FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS

SEC. 101. EXTENSION OF FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY PROGRAMS.

(a) In General.--Section 111 of the Surface Transportation
Extension Act of 2011, Part II (Public Law 112-30; 125 Stat.
343) is amended--
(1) by striking ``the period beginning on October 1, 2011,
and ending on June 30, 2012,'' each place it appears and
inserting ``the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and
ending on July 6, 2012,'';
(2) by striking ``\3/4\'' each place it appears and
inserting ``\280/366\''; and
(3) in subsection (a) by striking ``June 30, 2012'' and
inserting ``July 6, 2012''.
(b) Use of Funds.--Section 111(c)(3)(B)(ii) of the Surface
Transportation Extension Act of 2011, Part II (125 Stat. 343)
is amended by striking ``$479,250,000'' and inserting
``$485,640,000''.
(c) Extension of Authorizations Under Title V of SAFETEA-
LU.--Section 111(e)(2) of the Surface Transportation
Extension Act of 2011, Part II (125 Stat. 343) is amended by
striking ``the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and
ending on June 30, 2012.'' and inserting ``the period
beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on July 6, 2012.''.
(d) Administrative Expenses.--Section 112(a) of the Surface
Transportation Extension Act of 2011, Part II (125 Stat. 346)
is amended by striking ``$294,641,438 for the period
beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on June 30, 2012.''
and inserting ``$314,493,723 for the period beginning on
October 1, 2011, and ending on July 6, 2012.''.
(e) Surface Transportation Project Delivery Pilot
Program.--
(1) In general.--Section 327(i)(1) of title 23, United
States Code, is amended by striking ``the date that is 7
years after the date of enactment of this section'' and
inserting ``September 30, 2012''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1)
shall take effect as if included in section 101 of the
Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2012 and shall not be
subject to the special rule in section 1(c) of this Act.

TITLE II--EXTENSION OF HIGHWAY SAFETY PROGRAMS

SEC. 201. EXTENSION OF NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY
ADMINISTRATION HIGHWAY SAFETY PROGRAMS.

(a) Chapter 4 Highway Safety Programs.--Section 2001(a)(1)
of SAFETEA-LU (119 Stat. 1519) is amended by striking
``$235,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2009 through 2011,
and $176,250,000 for the period beginning on October 1, 2011,
and ending on June 30, 2012.'' and inserting ``$235,000,000
for each of fiscal years 2009 through 2011, and $178,600,000
for the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on
July 6, 2012.''.
(b) Highway Safety Research and Development.--Section
2001(a)(2) of SAFETEA-LU (119 Stat. 1519) is amended by
striking ``$108,244,000 for fiscal year 2011, and $81,183,000
for the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on
June 30, 2012.'' and inserting ``$108,244,000 for fiscal year
2011, and $82,265,440 for the period beginning on October 1,
2011, and ending on July 6, 2012.''.
(c) Occupant Protection Incentive Grants.--Section
2001(a)(3) of SAFETEA-LU (119 Stat. 1519) is amended by
striking ``$25,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 through
2011, and $18,750,000 for the period beginning on October 1,
2011, and ending on June 30, 2012.'' and inserting
``$25,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2011, and
$19,000,000 for the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and
ending on July 6, 2012.''.
(d) Safety Belt Performance Grants.--Section 2001(a)(4) of
SAFETEA-LU (119 Stat. 1519) is amended by striking
``$124,500,000 for fiscal year 2011, and $36,375,000 for the
period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on June 30,
2012.'' and inserting ``$124,500,000 for fiscal year 2011,
and $36,860,000 for the period beginning on October 1, 2011,
and ending on July 6, 2012.''.
(e) State Traffic Safety Information System Improvements.--
Section 2001(a)(5) of SAFETEA-LU (119 Stat. 1519) is amended
by striking ``$34,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2006
through 2011 and $25,875,000 for the period beginning on
October 1, 2011, and ending on June 30, 2012.'' and inserting
``$34,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2011 and
$26,220,000 for the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and
ending on July 6, 2012.''.
(f) Alcohol-Impaired Driving Countermeasures Incentive
Grant Program.--Section 2001(a)(6) of SAFETEA-LU (119 Stat.
1519) is amended by striking ``$139,000,000 for each of
fiscal years fiscal years 2009 through 2011, and $104,250,000
for the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on
June 30, 2012.'' and inserting ``$139,000,000 for each of
fiscal years 2009 through 2011, and $105,640,000 for the
period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on July 6,
2012.''.
(g) National Driver Register.--Section 2001(a)(7) of
SAFETEA-LU (119 Stat. 1520) is amended by striking
``$4,116,000 for fiscal year 2011, and $3,087,000 for the
period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on June 30,
2012.'' and inserting ``$4,116,000 for fiscal year 2011, and
$3,128,160 for the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and
ending on July 6, 2012.''.
(h) High Visibility Enforcement Program.--Section
2001(a)(8) of SAFETEA-LU (119 Stat. 1520) is amended by
striking ``$29,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 through
2011 and $21,750,000 for the period beginning on October 1,
2011, and ending on June 30, 2012.'' and inserting
``$29,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2011 and
$22,040,000 for the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and
ending on July 6, 2012.''.
(i) Motorcyclist Safety.--Section 2001(a)(9) of SAFETEA-LU
(119 Stat. 1520) is amended by striking ``$7,000,000 for each
of fiscal years 2009 through 2011, and $5,250,000 for the
period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on June 30,
2012.'' and inserting ``$7,000,000 for each of fiscal years
2009 through 2011, and $5,320,000 for the period beginning on
October 1, 2011, and ending on July 6, 2012.''.
(j) Child Safety and Child Booster Seat Safety Incentive
Grants.--Section 2001(a)(10) of SAFETEA-LU (119 Stat. 1520)
is amended by striking ``$7,000,000 for each of fiscal years
2009 through 2011, and $5,250,000 for the period beginning on
October 1, 2011, and ending on June 30, 2012.'' and inserting
``$7,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2009 through 2011, and
$5,320,000 for the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and
ending on July 6, 2012.''.
(k) Administrative Expenses.--Section 2001(a)(11) of
SAFETEA-LU (119 Stat. 1520) is amended by striking
``$25,328,000 for fiscal year 2011, and $18,996,000 for the
period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on June 30,
2012.'' and inserting ``$25,328,000 for fiscal

[[Page 10755]]

year 2011, and $19,249,280 for the period beginning on
October 1, 2011, and ending on July 6, 2012.''.

SEC. 202. EXTENSION OF FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY
ADMINISTRATION PROGRAMS.

(a) Motor Carrier Safety Grants.--Section 31104(a)(8) of
title 49, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(8) $161,120,000 for the period beginning on October 1,
2011, and ending on July 6, 2012.''.
(b) Administrative Expenses.--Section 31104(i)(1)(H) of
title 49, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(H) $185,549,440 for the period beginning on October 1,
2011, and ending on July 6, 2012.''.
(c) Grant Programs.--Section 4101(c) of SAFETEA-LU (119
Stat. 1715) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1) by striking ``2011 and $22,500,000 for
the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on June
30, 2012.'' and inserting ``2011 and $22,800,000 for the
period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on July 6,
2012.'';
(2) in paragraph (2) by striking ``2011 and $24,000,000 for
the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on June
30, 2012.'' and inserting ``2011 and $24,320,000 for the
period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on July 6,
2012.'';
(3) in paragraph (3) by striking ``2011 and $3,750,000 for
the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on June
30, 2012.'' and inserting ``2011 and $3,800,000 for the
period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on July 6,
2012.'';
(4) in paragraph (4) by striking ``2011 and $18,750,000 for
the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on June
30, 2012.'' and inserting ``2011 and $19,000,000 for the
period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on July 6,
2012.''; and
(5) in paragraph (5)--
(A) by striking ``2006 and'' and inserting ``2006,''; and
(B) by striking ``2011 and $2,250,000 for the period
beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on June 30, 2012.''
and inserting ``2011, and $2,280,000 for the period beginning
on October 1, 2011, and ending on July 6, 2012.''.
(d) High-Priority Activities.--Section 31104(k)(2) of title
49, United States Code, is amended by striking ``2011 and
$11,250,000 for the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and
ending on June 30, 2012,'' and inserting ``2011 and
$11,400,000 for the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and
ending on July 6, 2012,''.
(e) New Entrant Audits.--Section 31144(g)(5)(B) of title
49, United States Code, is amended by striking ``and up to
$21,750,000 for the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and
ending on June 30, 2012,'' and inserting ``and up to
$22,040,000 for the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and
ending on July 6, 2012,''.
(f) Outreach and Education.--Section 4127(e) of SAFETEA-LU
(119 Stat. 1741) is amended by striking ``and 2011 (and
$750,000 to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration,
and $2,250,000 to the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, for the period beginning on October 1, 2011,
and ending on June 30, 2012)'' and inserting ``and 2011 (and
$760,000 to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration,
and $2,280,000 to the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, for the period beginning on October 1, 2011,
and ending on July 6, 2012)''.
(g) Grant Program for Commercial Motor Vehicle Operators.--
Section 4134(c) of SAFETEA-LU (119 Stat. 1744) is amended by
striking ``2011 and $750,000 for the period beginning on
October 1, 2011, and ending on June 30, 2012,'' and inserting
``2011 and $760,000 for the period beginning on October 1,
2011, and ending on July 6, 2012,''.
(h) Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee.--Section
4144(d) of SAFETEA-LU (119 Stat. 1748) is amended by striking
``June 30, 2012'' and inserting ``July 6, 2012''.
(i) Working Group for Development of Practices and
Procedures To Enhance Federal-State Relations.--Section
4213(d) of SAFETEA-LU (49 U.S.C. 14710 note; 119 Stat. 1759)
is amended by striking ``June 30, 2012'' and inserting ``July
6, 2012''.

SEC. 203. ADDITIONAL PROGRAMS.

(a) Hazardous Materials Research Projects.--Section 7131(c)
of SAFETEA-LU (119 Stat. 1910) is amended by striking ``2011
and $870,000 for the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and
ending on June 30, 2012,'' and inserting ``2011 and $881,600
for the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on
July 6, 2012,''.
(b) Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act.--Section 4
of the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act (16 U.S.C.
777c) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a) by striking ``2011 and for the period
beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on June 30, 2012,''
and inserting ``2011 and for the period beginning on October
1, 2011, and ending on July 6, 2012,''; and
(2) in the first sentence of subsection (b)(1)(A) by
striking ``2011 and for the period beginning on October 1,
2011, and ending on June 30, 2012,'' and inserting ``2011 and
for the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on
July 6, 2012,''.

TITLE III--PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS

SEC. 301. ALLOCATION OF FUNDS FOR PLANNING PROGRAMS.

Section 5305(g) of title 49, United States Code, is amended
by striking ``2011 and for the period beginning on October 1,
2011, and ending on June 30, 2012'' and inserting ``2011 and
for the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on
July 6, 2012''.

SEC. 302. SPECIAL RULE FOR URBANIZED AREA FORMULA GRANTS.

Section 5307(b)(2) of title 49, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by striking the paragraph heading and inserting
``Special rule for fiscal years 2005 through 2011 and the
period beginning on october 1, 2011, and ending on july 6,
2012.--'';
(2) in subparagraph (A) by striking ``2011 and the period
beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on June 30, 2012,''
and inserting ``2011 and the period beginning on October 1,
2011, and ending on July 6, 2012,''; and
(3) in subparagraph (E)--
(A) by striking the subparagraph heading and inserting
``Maximum amounts in fiscal years 2008 through 2011 and the
period beginning on october 1, 2011, and ending on july 6,
2012.--''; and
(B) in the matter preceding clause (i) by striking ``2011
and during the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and
ending on June 30, 2012'' and inserting ``2011 and during the
period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on July 6,
2012''.

SEC. 303. ALLOCATING AMOUNTS FOR CAPITAL INVESTMENT GRANTS.

Section 5309(m) of title 49, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (2)--
(A) by striking the paragraph heading and inserting
``Fiscal years 2006 through 2011 and the period beginning on
october 1, 2011, and ending on july 6, 2012.--'';
(B) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A) by striking
``2011 and the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and
ending on June 30, 2012,'' and inserting ``2011 and the
period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on July 6,
2012,''; and
(C) in subparagraph (A)(i) by striking ``2011 and
$150,000,000 for the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and
ending on June 30, 2012,'' and inserting ``2011 and
$152,000,000 for the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and
ending on July 6, 2012,'';
(2) in paragraph (6)--
(A) in subparagraph (B) by striking ``2011 and $11,250,000
shall be available for the period beginning on October 1,
2011, and ending on June 30, 2012,'' and inserting ``2011 and
$11,400,000 shall be available for the period beginning on
October 1, 2011, and ending on July 6, 2012,''; and
(B) in subparagraph (C) by striking ``though 2011 and
$3,750,000 shall be available for the period beginning on
October 1, 2011, and ending on June 30, 2012,'' and inserting
``through 2011 and $3,800,000 shall be available for the
period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on July 6,
2012,''; and
(3) in paragraph (7)--
(A) in subparagraph (A)--
(i) in the matter preceding clause (i)--

(I) in the first sentence by striking ``2011 and $7,500,000
shall be available for the period beginning on October 1,
2011, and ending on June 30, 2012,'' and inserting ``2011 and
$7,600,000 shall be available for the period beginning on
October 1, 2011, and ending on July 6, 2012,''; and
(II) in the second sentence by striking ``shall be set
aside for:'' and inserting ``shall be set aside:'';

(ii) in clause (i) by striking ``for each fiscal year and
$1,875,000 for the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and
ending on June 30, 2012,'' and inserting ``for each fiscal
year and $1,900,000 for the period beginning on October 1,
2011, and ending on July 6, 2012,'';
(iii) in clause (ii) by striking ``for each fiscal year and
$1,875,000 for the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and
ending on June 30, 2012,'' and inserting ``for each fiscal
year and $1,900,000 for the period beginning on October 1,
2011, and ending on July 6, 2012,'';
(iv) in clause (iii) by striking ``for each fiscal year and
$750,000 for the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and
ending on June 30, 2012,'' and inserting ``for each fiscal
year and $760,000 for the period beginning on October 1,
2011, and ending on July 6, 2012,'';
(v) in clause (iv) by striking ``for each fiscal year and
$750,000 for the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and
ending on June 30, 2012,'' and inserting ``for each fiscal
year and $760,000 for the period beginning on October 1,
2011, and ending on July 6, 2012,'';
(vi) in clause (v) by striking ``for each fiscal year and
$750,000 for the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and
ending on June 30, 2012,'' and inserting ``for each fiscal
year and $760,000 for the period beginning on October 1,
2011, and ending on July 6, 2012,'';
(vii) in clause (vi) by striking ``for each fiscal year and
$750,000 for the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and
ending on June 30, 2012,'' and inserting ``for each fiscal
year and $760,000 for the period beginning on October 1,
2011, and ending on July 6, 2012,'';
(viii) in clause (vii) by striking ``for each fiscal year
and $487,500 for the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and
ending on June 30, 2012,'' and inserting ``for each fiscal
year and $494,000 for the period beginning on October 1,
2011, and ending on July 6, 2012,''; and
(ix) in clause (viii) by striking ``for each fiscal year
and $262,500 for the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and
ending on June 30, 2012,'' and inserting ``for each fiscal
year

[[Page 10756]]

and $266,000 for the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and
ending on July 6, 2012,'';
(B) in subparagraph (B) by striking clause (vii) and
inserting the following:
``(vii) $10,260,000 for the period beginning on October 1,
2011, and ending on July 6, 2012.'';
(C) in subparagraph (C) by striking ``and during the period
beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on June 30, 2012,''
and inserting ``and during the period beginning on October 1,
2011, and ending on July 6, 2012,'';
(D) in subparagraph (D) by striking ``and not less than
$26,250,000 shall be available for the period beginning on
October 1, 2011, and ending on June 30, 2012,'' and inserting
``and not less than $26,600,000 shall be available for the
period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on July 6,
2012,''; and
(E) in subparagraph (E) by striking ``and $2,250,000 shall
be available for the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and
ending on June 30, 2012,'' and inserting ``and $2,280,000
shall be available for the period beginning on October 1,
2011, and ending on July 6, 2012,''.

SEC. 304. APPORTIONMENT OF FORMULA GRANTS FOR OTHER THAN
URBANIZED AREAS.

Section 5311(c)(1)(G) of title 49, United States Code, is
amended to read as follows:
``(G) $11,400,000 for the period beginning on October 1,
2011, and ending on July 6, 2012.''.

SEC. 305. APPORTIONMENT BASED ON FIXED GUIDEWAY FACTORS.

Section 5337(g) of title 49, United States Code, is amended
to read as follows:
``(g) Special Rule for October 1, 2011, Through July 6,
2012.--The Secretary shall apportion amounts made available
for fixed guideway modernization under section 5309 for the
period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on July 6,
2012, in accordance with subsection (a), except that the
Secretary shall apportion 76 percent of each dollar amount
specified in subsection (a).''.

SEC. 306. AUTHORIZATIONS FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION.

(a) Formula and Bus Grants.--Section 5338(b) of title 49,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1) by striking subparagraph (G) and
inserting the following:
``(G) $6,354,029,400 for the period beginning on October 1,
2011, and ending on July 6, 2012.''; and
(2) in paragraph (2)--
(A) in subparagraph (A) by striking ``$113,500,000 for each
of fiscal years 2009 through 2011, and $85,125,000 for the
period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on June 30,
2012,'' and inserting ``$113,500,000 for each of fiscal years
2009 through 2011, and $86,260,000 for the period beginning
on October 1, 2011, and ending on July 6, 2012,'';
(B) in subparagraph (B) by striking ``$4,160,365,000 for
each of fiscal years 2009 through 2011, and $3,120,273,750
for the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on
June 30, 2012,'' and inserting ``$4,160,365,000 for each of
fiscal years 2009 through 2011, and $3,161,877,400 for the
period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on July 6,
2012,'';
(C) in subparagraph (C) by striking ``$51,500,000 for each
of fiscal years 2009 through 2011, and $38,625,000 for the
period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on June 30,
2012,'' and inserting ``$51,500,000 for each of fiscal years
2009 through 2011, and $39,140,000 for the period beginning
on October 1, 2011, and ending on July 6, 2012,'';
(D) in subparagraph (D) by striking ``$1,666,500,000 for
each of fiscal years 2009 through 2011, and $1,249,875,000
for the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on
June 30, 2012,'' and inserting ``$1,666,500,000 for each of
fiscal years 2009 through 2011, and $1,266,540,000 for the
period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on July 6,
2012,'';
(E) in subparagraph (E) by striking ``$984,000,000 for each
of fiscal years 2009 through 2011, and $738,000,000 for the
period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on June 30,
2012,'' and inserting ``$984,000,000 for each of fiscal years
2009 through 2011, and $747,840,000 for the period beginning
on October 1, 2011, and ending on July 6, 2012,'';
(F) in subparagraph (F) by striking ``$133,500,000 for each
of fiscal years 2009 through 2011, and $100,125,000 for the
period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on June 30,
2012,'' and inserting ``$133,500,000 for each of fiscal years
2009 through 2011, and $101,460,000 for the period beginning
on October 1, 2011, and ending on July 6, 2012,'';
(G) in subparagraph (G) by striking ``$465,000,000 for each
of fiscal years 2009 through 2011, and $348,750,000 for the
period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on June 30,
2012,'' and inserting ``$465,000,000 for each of fiscal years
2009 through 2011, and $353,400,000 for the period beginning
on October 1, 2011, and ending on July 6, 2012,'';
(H) in subparagraph (H) by striking ``$164,500,000 for each
of fiscal years 2009 through 2011, and $123,375,000 for the
period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on June 30,
2012,'' and inserting ``$164,500,000 for each of fiscal years
2009 through 2011, and $125,020,000 for the period beginning
on October 1, 2011, and ending on July 6, 2012,'';
(I) in subparagraph (I) by striking ``$92,500,000 for each
of fiscal years 2009 through 2011, and $69,375,000 for the
period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on June 30,
2012,'' and inserting ``$92,500,000 for each of fiscal years
2009 through 2011, and $70,300,000 for the period beginning
on October 1, 2011, and ending on July 6, 2012,'';
(J) in subparagraph (J) by striking ``$26,900,000 for each
of fiscal years 2009 through 2011, and $20,175,000 for the
period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on June 30,
2012,'' and inserting ``$26,900,000 for each of fiscal years
2009 through 2011, and $20,444,000 for the period beginning
on October 1, 2011, and ending on July 6, 2012,'';
(K) in subparagraph (K) by striking ``$3,500,000 for each
of fiscal years 2006 through 2011 and $2,625,000 for the
period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on June 30,
2012,'' and inserting ``$3,500,000 for each of fiscal years
2006 through 2011 and $2,660,000 for the period beginning on
October 1, 2011, and ending on July 6, 2012,'';
(L) in subparagraph (L) by striking ``$25,000,000 for each
of fiscal years 2006 through 2011 and $18,750,000 for the
period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on June 30,
2012,'' and inserting ``$25,000,000 for each of fiscal years
2006 through 2011 and $19,000,000 for the period beginning on
October 1, 2011, and ending on July 6, 2012,'';
(M) in subparagraph (M) by striking ``$465,000,000 for each
of fiscal years 2009 through 2011, and $348,750,000 for the
period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on June 30,
2012,'' and inserting ``$465,000,000 for each of fiscal years
2009 through 2011, and $353,400,000 for the period beginning
on October 1, 2011, and ending on July 6, 2012,''; and
(N) in subparagraph (N) by striking ``$8,800,000 for each
of fiscal years 2009 through 2011, and $6,600,000 for the
period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on June 30,
2012,'' and inserting ``$8,800,000 for each of fiscal years
2009 through 2011, and $6,688,000 for the period beginning on
October 1, 2011, and ending on July 6, 2012,''.
(b) Capital Investment Grants.--Section 5338(c)(7) of title
49, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(7) $1,485,800,000 for the period beginning on October 1,
2011, and ending on July 6, 2012.''.
(c) Research and University Research Centers.--Section
5338(d) of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), in the matter preceding subparagraph
(A), by striking ``2011, and $33,000,000 for the period
beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on June 30, 2012,''
and inserting ``2011, and $33,440,000 for the period
beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on July 6, 2012,'';
and
(2) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following:
``(3) Additional authorizations.--
``(A) Research.--Of amounts authorized to be appropriated
under paragraph (1) for the period beginning on October 1,
2011, and ending on July 6, 2012, the Secretary shall
allocate for each of the activities and projects described in
subparagraphs (A) through (F) of paragraph (1) an amount
equal to 48 percent of the amount allocated for fiscal year
2009 under each such subparagraph.
``(B) University centers program.--
``(i) October 1, 2011, through july 6, 2012.--Of the
amounts allocated under subparagraph (A) for the university
centers program under section 5506 for the period beginning
on October 1, 2011, and ending on July 6, 2012, the Secretary
shall allocate for each program described in clauses (i)
through (iii) and (v) through (viii) of paragraph (2)(A) an
amount equal to 48 percent of the amount allocated for fiscal
year 2009 under each such clause.
``(ii) Funding.--If the Secretary determines that a project
or activity described in paragraph (2) received sufficient
funds in fiscal year 2011, or a previous fiscal year, to
carry out the purpose for which the project or activity was
authorized, the Secretary may not allocate any amounts under
clause (i) for the project or activity for fiscal year 2012
or any subsequent fiscal year.''.
(d) Administration.--Section 5338(e)(7) of title 49, United
States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(7) $75,021,880 for the period beginning on October 1,
2011, and ending on July 6, 2012.''.

SEC. 307. AMENDMENTS TO SAFETEA-LU.

(a) Contracted Paratransit Pilot.--Section 3009(i)(1) of
SAFETEA-LU (119 Stat. 1572) is amended by striking ``2011 and
the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on June
30, 2012,'' and inserting ``2011 and the period beginning on
October 1, 2011, and ending on July 6, 2012,''.
(b) Public-Private Partnership Pilot Program.--Section 3011
of SAFETEA-LU (119 Stat. 1573) is amended--
(1) in subsection (c)(5) by striking ``2011 and the period
beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on June 30, 2012''
and inserting ``2011 and the period beginning on October 1,
2011, and ending on July 6, 2012''; and
(2) in the second sentence of subsection (d) by striking
``2011 and the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and
ending on June 30, 2012,'' and inserting ``2011 and the
period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on July 6,
2012,''.
(c) Elderly Individuals and Individuals With Disabilities
Pilot Program.--Section 3012(b)(8) of SAFETEA-LU (49 U.S.C.
5310 note; 119 Stat. 1593) is amended by striking ``June 30,
2012'' and inserting ``July 6, 2012''.
(d) Obligation Ceiling.--Section 3040(8) of SAFETEA-LU (119
Stat. 1639) is amended to read as follows:

[[Page 10757]]

``(8) $7,948,291,280 for the period beginning on October 1,
2011, and ending on July 6, 2012, of which not more than
$6,354,029,400 shall be from the Mass Transit Account.''.
(e) Project Authorizations for New Fixed Guideway Capital
Projects.--Section 3043 of SAFETEA-LU (119 Stat. 1640) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (b), in the matter preceding paragraph
(1), by striking ``2011 and the period beginning on October
1, 2011, and ending on June 30, 2012,'' and inserting ``2011
and the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on
July 6, 2012,''; and
(2) in subsection (c), in the matter preceding paragraph
(1), by striking ``2011 and the period beginning on October
1, 2011, and ending on June 30, 2012,'' and inserting ``2011
and the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on
July 6, 2012,''.
(f) Allocations for National Research and Technology
Programs.--Section 3046(c)(2) of SAFETEA-LU (49 U.S.C. 5338
note; 119 Stat. 1706) is amended to read as follows:
``(2) for the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and
ending on July 6, 2012, in amounts equal to 48 percent of the
amounts allocated for fiscal year 2009 under each of
paragraphs (2), (3), (5), and (8) through (25) of subsection
(a).''.

TITLE IV--HIGHWAY TRUST FUND EXTENSION

SEC. 401. EXTENSION OF TRUST FUND EXPENDITURE AUTHORITY.

(a) Highway Trust Fund.--Section 9503 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
(1) by striking ``July 1, 2012'' in subsections (b)(6)(B),
(c)(1), and (e)(3) and inserting ``July 7, 2012''; and
(2) by striking ``Surface Transportation Extension Act of
2012'' in subsections (c)(1) and (e)(3) and inserting
``Temporary Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2012''.
(b) Sport Fish Restoration and Boating Trust Fund.--Section
9504 of such Code is amended--
(1) by striking ``Surface Transportation Extension Act of
2012'' each place it appears in subsection (b)(2) and
inserting ``Temporary Surface Transportation Extension Act of
2012''; and
(2) by striking ``July 1, 2012'' in subsection (d)(2) and
inserting ``July 7, 2012''.
(c) Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund.--Paragraph
(2) of section 9508(e) of such Code is amended by striking
``July 1, 2012'' and inserting ``July 7, 2012''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on July 1, 2012.

SEC. 402. EXTENSION OF HIGHWAY-RELATED TAXES.

(a) In General.--
(1) Each of the following provisions of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``June 30, 2012''
and inserting ``July 6, 2012'':
(A) Section 4041(a)(1)(C)(iii)(I).
(B) Section 4041(m)(1)(B).
(C) Section 4081(d)(1).
(2) Each of the following provisions of such Code is
amended by striking ``July 1, 2012'' and inserting ``July 7,
2012'':
(A) Section 4041(m)(1)(A).
(B) Section 4051(c).
(C) Section 4071(d).
(D) Section 4081(d)(3).
(b) Floor Stocks Refunds.--Section 6412(a)(1) of such Code
is amended--
(1) by striking ``July 1, 2012'' each place it appears and
inserting ``July 7, 2012'';
(2) by striking ``December 31, 2012'' each place it appears
and inserting ``January 6, 2013''; and
(3) by striking ``October 1, 2012'' and inserting ``October
7, 2012''.
(c) Extension of Certain Exemptions.--Sections 4221(a) and
4483(i) of such Code are each amended by striking ``July 1,
2012'' and inserting ``July 7, 2012''.
(d) Extension of Transfers of Certain Taxes.--
(1) In general.--Section 9503 of such Code is amended--
(A) in subsection (b)--
(i) by striking ``July 1, 2012'' each place it appears in
paragraphs (1) and (2) and inserting ``July 7, 2012'';
(ii) by striking ``July 1, 2012'' in the heading of
paragraph (2) and inserting ``July 7, 2012'';
(iii) by striking ``June 30, 2012'' in paragraph (2) and
inserting ``July 6, 2012''; and
(iv) by striking ``April 1, 2013'' in paragraph (2) and
inserting ``April 7, 2013''; and
(B) in subsection (c)(2), by striking ``April 1, 2013'' and
inserting ``April 7, 2013''.
(2) Motorboat and small-engine fuel tax transfers.--
(A) In general.--Paragraphs (3)(A)(i) and (4)(A) of section
9503(c) of such Code are each amended by striking ``July 1,
2012'' and inserting ``July 7, 2012''.
(B) Conforming amendments to land and water conservation
fund.--Section 201(b) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund
Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-11(b)) is amended--
(i) by striking ``July 1, 2013'' each place it appears and
inserting ``July 7, 2013''; and
(ii) by striking ``July 1, 2012'' and inserting ``July 7,
2012''.
(e) Technical Correction.--Paragraph (4) of section 4482(c)
of such Code is amended to read as follows:
``(4) Taxable period.--The term `taxable period' means any
year beginning before July 1, 2013, and the period which
begins on July 1, 2013, and ends at the close of September
30, 2013.''.
(f) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
amendments made by this section shall take effect on July 1,
2012.
(2) Technical correction.--The amendment made by subsection
(e) shall take effect as if included in section 402 of the
Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2012.

TITLE V--STUDENT LOANS

SEC. 501. TEMPORARY AUTHORITY.

(a) Temporary Authority.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the Secretary of Education is authorized to
delay the origination and disbursement of Federal Direct
Stafford loans made to undergraduate students under part D of
the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087a et seq.)
until the date of enactment of the MAP-21, except that the
Secretary may only delay the origination and disbursement of
such loans until July 6, 2012.
(b) Special Rule Does Not Apply.--Subsection (a) shall not
be subject to the special rule in section 1(c) of this Act.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read
the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.

____________________

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will recognize Members for Special
Order speeches without prejudice to the possible resumption of
legislative business.

____________________

PRESIDENT OBAMA'S TOXIC REGULATION REGIME

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 5, 2011, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. West) is recognized
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. WEST. Mr. Speaker, I rise today not only as a Member of Congress,
but as a citizen of the great State of Florida.
My fellow Floridians are frustrated with the Federal Government for
imposing more and more burdensome regulations that continue to hurt our
already struggling State and Nation. The President's policies have
failed and are making this economy worse. While the President continues
to give speeches on the principles of job growth, his administration
continues to pursue job-killing policies that threaten this country's
economic recovery. In fact, since President Obama took office, we've
seen a 52 percent increase in completed regulations deemed economically
significant. These regulations are costing the economy at least $100
million each year.
Mr. Speaker, this is worth repeating so the American people clearly
understand: since January of 2009, this President has increased by more
than 50 percent the regulations costing at least $100 million annually.
The President cannot stand on his record of the last 3\1/2\ years, so
he has regrettably turned to the politics of envy and division.
We cannot create a fair system for job creators when the Federal
Government keeps changing the rules. We can't help the job seeker by
punishing the job creator with more government red tape. According to a
September 2010 report from the Small Business Administration, total
regulatory costs amount to $1.75 trillion annually.
Put another way, this $1.75 trillion of regulatory burden is enough
money for businesses to provide 35 million private sector jobs with an
average salary of $50,000. According to the same report:
Small businesses which have created 64 percent of all new jobs in the
past 15 years face an annual regulatory cost of $10,585 per employee,
which is 36 percent higher than the regulatory costs facing large
firms.
Yet rather than provide incentives for these businesses to expand and
create jobs, the Obama administration raises taxes and imposes
unnecessary, burdensome layers of red tape that impede private sector
investment and destroy jobs.
In the last few months, we've heard a lot about fairness from the
President, especially when it comes to the so-called rich. Accompanying
President

[[Page 10758]]

Obama's budget for fiscal year 2013 was a simple message to the
American people: everyone must shoulder their fair share.
Mr. President, the free market is not about fairness. This is not
Little League baseball where everyone gets a trophy. There is nothing
fair about the Federal Government telling you what kind of lightbulbs
you can use to light your home, how many gallons of water you can use
to flush your toilet, and which kinds of food your children have to
consume.
While the President continues his ``Kansas City shuffle'' trying to
get the American people to look right while he goes left, he continues
to try and turn the attention of the American people away from his
policies that continue to drag the economy down.
The facts speak for themselves. Today, there are more Federal
regulations on the books than in any other time in the history of our
Nation. The Obama administration currently has proposed 3,118
regulations with 167 considered economically significant.

{time} 1340

In 2011 alone, Mr. Speaker, there were 79,000 new pages printed in
the Federal Register. The same year, the Obama administration issued
$231.4 billion in regulatory burdens from proposed or final rules.
Today, there are 291,676 unelected Federal regulatory agency
employees surrounding the United States Capitol. According to the
Financial Services Roundtable, it will take 24,503 employees just to
comply with the flood of regulations emanating from the Dodd-Frank
banking regulations.
According to a February 15, 2012, Gallup poll, 48 percent of small
businesses said they were not hiring due to concerns about possible
rising health care costs, while 46 percent said they were worried about
new government regulations.
A 2010 study by The Heritage Foundation found that an unprecedented
43 major regulations were imposed in fiscal year 2010, with a total
economic cost of $26.5 billion, the highest total since at least 1981.
A recent report from The Heritage Foundation also found that during
the 3 years of the Obama administration, a total of 106 new major
regulations have been imposed at a cost of more than $46 billion
annually and nearly $11 billion in one-time implementation costs. This
amount is about five times the cost imposed by the prior administration
of President George W. Bush.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is essential the American people understand
just a few proposed Obama administration regulations that will cost
each of us billions of dollars:
Reconsideration of the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standards. Estimated cost: $19 billion to $90 billion. It was withdrawn
in September 2011.
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Coal and
Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units. Estimated cost: $10
billion.
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Major
Source Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Boilers and Process
Heaters. Estimated cost: $3 billion.
Standards for the Management of Coal Combustion Residuals Generated
by Commercial Electric Power Producers. Estimated cost: $6 million to
$1.5 billion.
Require motor carriers operating commercial motor vehicles in
interstate commerce to use electronic onboard recorders to document
their drivers' hours. Estimated cost: $2 billion.
Hours of service on commercial motor vehicle drivers. Estimated cost:
$1 billion.
A Consumer Product Safety Commission rule deeming children's books
printed prior to 1986 to be potentially toxic due to the possibility of
excessive lead in the ink, even though the actual risk of the lead
exposure from older books ranks only about 0.5 on a scale of one to 10,
according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Nonetheless, the Consumer Product Safety Commission has urged libraries
to put older children's books in storage until they can be tested for
lead toxicity--at a cost of $300 to $500 for each book.
The Federal Government's attempt to regulate the precise moisture,
temperature, and chemical standards of compost for use in producing
certified organic foods.
The Department of Energy's desire to rewrite water efficiency
standards for the Nation's urinals--yes, rewrite water efficiency
standards for the Nation's urinals, that's correct, Mr. Speaker.
An Equal Employment Opportunity Commission declaration that requiring
a high school diploma as a job certification has a disparate impact on
certain individuals that failed to meet such a standard.
A Department of Justice regulation requiring enhanced access for
disabled individuals at public and private facilities such as swimming
pools.
And of course Numeric Nutrient Criteria, which I will discuss later.
It's no surprise why entrepreneurship in the United States of America
is at a 17-year low. In 2010, the Obama administration published 82,480
pages of regulations. Two comprehensive legislative packages--the
Affordable Care Act and the Dodd-Frank banking regulations--were passed
and scheduled to regulate greenhouse gases as well for the first time
ever in the history of this country.
In 2011, agencies finalized $187 million in deregulatory actions, and
proposed more than $1.1 billion in rescissions. However, these
deregulatory measures were dwarfed by the new regulations that the
administration published just this year.
For proposed or final rules, the Obama administration published
$231.4 billion in regulatory burdens and 133 million paperwork burden
hours. Assuming a 2,000-hour work year, it would take 66,730 employees
just to file the Federal paperwork.
On average, Mr. Speaker, eliminating the job of a single regulator
would grow the American economy by $6.2 million and nearly 100 private
sector jobs annually. The reverse is true as well: each million-dollar
increase in the regulatory budget costs the economy 420 private sector
jobs.
A recent article in The Economist highlighted the increased
complexity caused by ObamaCare, citing that ``every hour spent treating
a patient in America creates at least 30 minutes of paperwork, and
often a whole hour.''
Next year, the number of Federally mandated categories of illness and
injury for which hospitals must claim reimbursement will rise from
18,000 to 140,000.
There are nine codes, Mr. Speaker, relating to injuries caused by
parrots--yes, parrots--and three relating to burns emanating from
flaming water skis.
Let's be real clear at this point of time: The only jobs created by
regulations are jobs for regulators and more regulators. What I notice
when I ride up and down Federal and Dixie Highways in south Florida are
the numbers of closed storefronts, the numbers of vacant spaces.
However, when I fly into Washington, D.C., Mr. Speaker, I see the
number of sky cranes building more housing and office space for these
regulators.
The number of Federal workers employed in regulatory activities--
excluding the TSA--has jumped 20 percent since 2008 while total
workforce participation in the United States of America is at a 30-year
low.
Our Nation has faced 3 years of unemployment at or above 8 percent.
Mr. Speaker, do you want to guess what the employment rate is in
Washington, D.C.? In May, the unemployment in the Washington, D.C.,
metro area was 5.3 percent.
Of course, the environment is only one area of regulatory overreach
by the Obama administration. In its review of overregulated America,
The Economist magazine noted that the Dodd-Frank banking law, at 848
pages, is 23 times longer than the preceding Glass-Steagall Act. These
regulations are choking off the oxygen of growth in this country,
especially in our area of south Florida.
Mr. Speaker, let me take a moment to talk about an example which is
taking place in our congressional district.

[[Page 10759]]

In 2006, Rybovich Yachts became the only company in the United States
capable of repairing mega-yachts with the opening of its facility in
West Palm Beach. The company took a dilapidated boatyard and turned it
into the finest repair facility in the world. This facility now employs
230 workers directly and as many as 300 subcontractors each and every
day. The facility quickly exceeded all business expectations,
attracting commerce from around the globe and cementing south Florida's
leadership position in the marine industry.

{time} 1350

Last year, this facility generated $5.5 million in local and State
tax revenue. Consider the regulatory hurdles Rybovich had to leap
through, the mountains of paperwork in order to get a permit issued,
and the burdensome red tape they endured every step of the way.
Mr. Speaker, it is remarkable that any U.S. company chooses to do
business on its own shores. To satisfy the environmental regulations
and requirements for the first facility, Rybovich was required to
inspect and analyze every other possible location in the area to see if
there was an alternate site that would have less impact on local sea
grass beds.
Once the location was chosen, the environmental impact had to be
measured and mitigated one for one. In the case of Rybovich, 5 acres of
sea grass needed to be replaced. Since there are limited areas where
sea grass could be replanted in the vicinity, the company, Rybovich, a
private sector company, had to buy an island, construct a wall around
it, and plant sea grass. The island alone cost the company $4 million.
In 2008, Rybovich realized there was market potential for a second
facility to service even larger yachts. Construction for this new
facility is estimated to create over 600 jobs. The total economic
impact from the first 5 years of operations is estimated to be $630
million in Palm Beach County and $111 million in the city of Riviera
Beach.
One would think, after going through the permitting process and
jumping through all the environmental hurdles to open the first
facility, the second would go more smoothly. One would think.
One would think, given the state of our local economy, a new project
of this scope would be welcomed with open arms. But, Mr. Speaker, 4
years later, Rybovich still hasn't received a permit for its proposed
project in Riviera Beach.
And did I mention the 600 jobs that would be created? That's correct.
I did. However, the Federal regulators don't seem to care about that
fact.
What is happening to Rybovich is not an isolated incident. This is
happening all over the United States. Rybovich is merely a whiff of the
toxic bureaucratic fumes emanating from the Obama administration that
regulators are using to go choke off job and economic growth with
excessive environmental regulation.
Another case in point is the numeric nutrient criteria. The
Environmental Protection Agency has proposed ludicrous standards for
Florida's nitrogen and phosphorus levels for the State's lakes, rivers,
streams, and springs.
Until 2009, the State of Florida was working cooperatively with the
EPA to improve our water quality standards. However, in 2009, in an
attempt to settle a lawsuit brought by environmental groups, the EPA
decided to abandon that cooperative approach, federally preempt our
water quality State standards, and impose new criteria on our State.
Like all Floridians, I want clean and safe water. For several years
now, Florida has been working to improve its water quality, and in many
respects, the State's efforts have been a model for other States
throughout this country.
As Florida Wildlife Commissioner Ron Bergeron explains, ``A water
standard of 10 parts per billion required by numeric nutrient criteria,
is more stringent,'' Mr. Speaker, ``than rainwater which is 15 parts
per billion, and is a quality of water that is humanly impossible to
achieve.''
Even the EPA's own Science Advisory Board has expressed serious
concerns about the science used to support the regulation, and the EPA
has repeatedly refused to allow a third-party review of the proposal.
But there is no doubt about one thing, Mr. Speaker. This mandate is
poisonous to the economy. These regulations are not about whether we
want clean water for Florida. These regulations are about how we reach
that goal and at what cost.
This EPA mandate, which singles out the State of Florida, will drive
up the cost of doing business, double water bills for all Florida
families, and will destroy jobs. The Florida Department of
Environmental Protection estimates this Federal mandate may force
municipal wastewater and storm water utilities to spend as much as $26
billion in capital improvements to upgrade their facilities. This $26
billion will eventually be paid by each Floridian who uses water, and
that means every resident.
A study by the University of Florida and the Florida Department of
Agriculture and Consumer Services concluded that the EPA's numeric
nutrient criteria regulations would directly cost Florida's
agricultural community roughly $1 billion each year, with additional
indirect costs also exceeding $1 billion. This billion dollar cost
eventually will be paid by every American who wants to enjoy an orange,
a grapefruit, or other produce that comes from our State.
The study goes on to say that implementation of the EPA regulations
could put more than 14,000 agricultural workers out of a job and would
cost the average household up to $990 in higher sewer rates. That is
per year, per family, $990 more in higher water bills.
Can our already stagnant economy in Florida take that? Will families
move to Florida and choose to buy homes in our already depressed
housing market if they're going to have to pay nearly $1,000 more in
their annual water bills for years to come?
The EPA has repeatedly refused to allow any third-party review of the
science behind the proposed mandate of numeric nutrient criteria. The
EPA has also failed to complete an economic analysis.
In a disturbing article in The New York Times on February 16, 2011,
an EPA official said they have no plans to implement this regulation in
any other State except for the State of Florida.
Excessive EPA regulations hamper business expansion and job growth in
nearly every industry. They hurt farmers. They hurt utility workers,
pipe fitters, construction workers, coal miners, factory workers, truck
drivers, and machinists.
Sixty national companies and dozens of Florida-based companies and
organizations, including the United States Chamber of Commerce and the
American Farm Bureau, have sent letters to the United States Congress
to oppose these burdensome regulations.
Mr. Speaker, we must reduce the regulatory burden on our Nation's
businesses and help put Americans back to work. We must get the Federal
Government out of the way of our small businesses and entrepreneurs so
that they can succeed and prosper.
When there is a need for regulations, they should be developed in
concert with the private sector and, of course, done with common sense.
Over the last few months, the United States House of Representatives
has passed more than two dozen bills designed to do just that--staunch
the toxic regulatory flow coming from the Federal agencies.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, they're all still sitting on Senate
Majority Leader Harry Reid's desk, which really does stink.
John Engler, the President of the Business Roundtable, recently
stated that:

Regulations are hidden taxes that strangle job creation. We
need action by government agencies to clear out obsolete
rules and streamline permitting to reduce delays and
impediments for companies to invest and grow.

The private sector is the only hope for future job creation. We need
to recognize this and work together to let businesses, small and large,
invest in people.
Mr. Speaker, I could not have said that any better.

[[Page 10760]]

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the remainder of my time.

____________________

{time} 1400
BUDGET AUTONOMY FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 5, 2011, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms.
Norton) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority
leader.
Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Members may be aware that I come to the floor occasionally in order
to make certain that Members have the full background as they find
themselves in the perplexing situation of receiving legislation on a
local government and local residents.
We had a misunderstanding--I can only think it was a misunderstanding
this week--when Senator Rand Paul, who I know has been a student of
history when it comes to the Constitution, engaged in actions that had
the effect of compelling a bipartisan group of Senators to pull back
their budget autonomy bill for the District of Columbia.
First, recognize that the Framers didn't go to war with American
citizens, including citizens who live right in the very city in which
we are now meeting, the District of Columbia, only to leave them out of
the very franchise and local control that made the Framers commit what,
I'm sure, the British believed were acts of treason when they rebelled
against England for its refusal to recognize that taxes are a matter of
local control. Bear in mind that those who went to war included the
residents of this city and that the Framers in every respect showed
that they respected the fact that the citizens of this city were
included among those who went to war.
For example, in the transition period--10 years--as the District of
Columbia moved to become the Nation's Capital--the four Framers of the
Constitution from Maryland and from Virginia made sure through
legislation that their members lost nothing, in as much as Maryland and
Virginia had donated the land to the Nation for our Nation's Capital.
Maryland and Virginia citizens were allowed to vote in their
jurisdictions in Maryland and Virginia. They voted for Congress, and
they were treated in every way like other Americans at that time. In
1802, when full transition to become the Nation's capital occurred,
they lost what they had been promised. They lost their full rights as
American citizens.
The District got back some of those rights under a Republican
President 39 years ago when the District was granted home rule, the
right to govern itself, under the Home Rule Act.
Richard Nixon said at the time:
I share the chagrin that most Americans feel at the fact that
Congress continues to deny self-government to the Nation's Capital. I
would remind the Congress that the Founding Fathers did nothing of the
sort. Home rule was taken from the District only after more than 70
years of self-government, and this was done on grounds that were either
factually shaky or morally doubtful.
So the Congress returned to the District some measure of home rule in
1973. In returning a good measure of home rule, the Congress
nevertheless said to the District that, while it had authority over its
own budget, the budget had to come to the Congress of the United States
before it became final.
We are trying, as I speak, to make sure that that budget does not
become a vehicle for denying the very principles that the Framers
fought for and that every American stands for. This is not a country
where you can pay taxes and somebody else can have something to say
over how those taxes will be used. That would cause another rebellion.
When this matter was put to the American people in a recent poll, here
is what they said: more than seven in 10 believe that the District of
Columbia should control its own budget.
I suppose in America people are saying, Duh, of course. That's a
basic founding principle. Why do you need to tell us that?
We need to tell you that because there are attempts here--and there
was an attempt just this week in the Senate--that contradicted the
increasing bipartisan consensus for local control by the District of
its own local funds, funds that not one Member of this body has had
anything to do with raising. So when you put that to the American
people, you get a predictable answer: seven in 10 say yes to local
control by the District alone of its own local funds.
What does that mean in terms of Democrats and Republicans?
Seventy-one percent of Democrats and, by the way, 72 percent of
Republicans support it. I'm not surprised at those figures. Seventy-one
percent of Democrats--and slightly more--72 percent of Republicans
believe that the people who pay taxes and happen to live in their
Nation's Capital should be treated as full American citizens when it
comes to how they spend their own local funds.
That principle is not always recognized in this body, and that's why
I've come to the floor today, because I do not believe that the failure
to recognize this principle comes from venality. I think it comes
because there is turnover in the Congress and because people don't
focus on the anti-democratic bills that come before them, so they
simply do what they are told to do. They don't do much analysis of
their own about why they may be voting as a Member of Congress to
overturn local laws.
Last year, the District of Columbia government was almost shut down
three separate times. I don't think I could find a Member of this
body--in fact, I'm sure I can't--who would say that when the Federal
Government is engaged in a Federal fight over Federal spending that the
District of Columbia should have to shut down, too; but that was the
case because the District of Columbia local budget--its balanced budget
(unlike our own)--which had been approved by the Appropriations
Committee, was still here. Because it was still here and for no other
reason, the District of Columbia three different times had to prepare
for a shutdown of the city government, and had to prepare for the
consequences of the possible violation of contracts and other serious
consequences through no fault of their own.
It's important to note that a Senate appropriations bill this year
does contain my no-shutdown bill for the District of Columbia, which
simply says that the District of Columbia doesn't shut down if the
Federal Government shuts down; of course, if the city is spending only
its own local money, that's okay for the city to do.
When I refer to a bipartisan group of congressional leaders who
support budget autonomy, I'm speaking of leaders who have been in the
Congress, and have been in the District and have seen what the effects
of not treating the District as a full local-controlled jurisdiction
have been. In the House today, I am grateful to Chairman Darrell Issa,
chairman of the committee with some jurisdiction over the District of
Columbia, who is a leading proponent of budget autonomy for the
District of Columbia, so much so that he has his own bill for budget
autonomy, which is very much like my own.

{time} 1410

In the Senate, Senator Joe Lieberman and Senator Susan Collins had a
bipartisan bill in committee this week for budget autonomy for the
District of Columbia much like Chairman Issa's. Budget autonomy has
been supported by majority leader Eric Cantor. Budget autonomy has been
supported by the Republican Governor of the State of Virginia.
When we note what happened in the Senate on the bill, we cannot
believe that it came from animus or some sense that the District of
Columbia is not a city whose citizens should be treated as other
American citizens are treated. Yet, as the bill went to committee,
Senator Rand Paul appeared to have proposed any and every amendment he
could think of, amendments that no self-respecting American
jurisdiction could possibly abide, not because there is anything
inherently

[[Page 10761]]

wrong with these amendments, but because they violate what the voting
majority of taxpaying residents of the District of Columbia have
approved as local law.
The Senator did not say he disagrees with this or that policy and he
wants to make sure that the District does this or that thing. He said:
I think it's a good way to call attention to some issues that have
national implications. We don't have control over the States, but we do
for D.C.
Oh, really? What control do you have over our local funds? Do you
raise a cent of it?
This must be a misunderstanding. Since Senator Rand Paul founded the
Tea Party Caucus in the Senate and is the champion of small government
and local control there, I choose to believe that this freshman Senator
had not yet come to grips with the rather complicated history of the
Nation's capital. If he had, I don't think he would have put forward an
amendment that would require the city to allow conceal-and-carry
permits. We may not have a problem with conceal and carry in the United
States, but that's not what the people of the District of Columbia, who
pay taxes here, have written into their constitutional local laws.
Moreover, public safety is the essence of local control. If you look
to the two or three issues that nobody should have anything to say
about in another local jurisdiction, surely at the head of the list
would be local police power, when that power is consistent with the
Constitution.
Then a stream of other amendments came forward from Senator Paul on
abortion, one of them on licensed firearms dealer, one of them having
to do with labor organizations. It's as if the Senator went down a
checklist. He virtually said so himself. He said: What national issues
can I highlight using the District of Columbia?--as if the city were
nothing but a plaything and not a jurisdiction of 600,000 American
citizens who have fought and died in every war, including the war that
created the United States of America, of 600,000 citizens who pay the
second highest Federal taxes per capita in the United States. That's
600,000 citizens, one of whom was killed in Afghanistan last month. It
means 600,000 Americans who have every right to demand equal
citizenship.
Nevertheless, good news, from bipartisan support and from national
polls, continues to roll in. The Senate has just passed out of
committee the D.C. budget. The most the Senate and the most the House
should do is act as a pass-through as long as the D.C. budget does not
violate the Constitution. Of course, no local budget belongs in the
United States Congress. However, D.C. does not yet have budget
autonomy. Yet there is nothing, in American principle or American
history which says that once you have the local budget through here,
you can just do anything you want to do, overturn local laws or
restrict funds that Congress had nothing to do with raising.
I met Tea Party people for the first time when they came to Congress.
I thought local control was their most basic principle. In fact,
Senator Rand Paul would like to get the Federal Government out of
issues where the Constitution allows the Federal Government to be. But
what about hopping over Federal issues and trying to interfere in the
business of a local jurisdiction? That's against his principles; that's
against everything the Framers stood for.
Polls within the last few months show that the overwhelming majority
of Americans believe Congress should pass a D.C. budget without
changes. Who is this overwhelming majority? Seventy eight percent of
them are Democrats. Once again, Republicans lead the pack at 81
percent.
This is how the question was framed:
``Today, Members of Congress are withholding approval of Washington,
D.C.'s local budget unless the city agrees to a series of unrelated
provisions on issues ranging from guns to abortion. Do you think
Congress should or should not interfere in the city's local affairs and
budget in this way?''
If anything, the issue was framed against D.C. Because you can bet
your bottom dollar that of this 81 percent of Republicans who answered
that Congress should not interfere with D.C.'s local affairs and budget
were many who, in fact, oppose abortion and oppose any restrictions on
guns or gun owners. Yet this is how they responded when asked a base
question, a fundamental question regarding, if it is local money,
should a national body in Washington have any right, whatsoever, to
impose its will on a local budget.
Congress does lag occasionally behind the American people. This is a
big lag. But the lag does not include several leaders of this House and
of the Senate.

{time} 1420

Senator Joe Lieberman is retiring this year. He has been a champion
of equal citizenship for the residents of the District of Columbia,
whether it was voting rights or statehood or budget autonomy. Equal
citizeship rights for District of Columbia citizens, in many ways,
partially define his service.
Yet the first budget autonomy bill to pass at all in Congress came
from Senator Susan Collins, when democrats were in the minority. That
was in 2003. That bill went all the way to the floor and was passed in
a Republican Senate. It was the House that did not pass it or D.C.
budget autonomy would be law today.
So when I speak of first principles, I think there is great evidence
that those first principles resonate in the Senate and resonate in the
House. They resonate in the House when Representative Issa puts forward
a budget autonomy bill, it resonates in the House, when Majority Leader
Cantor, in fact, says he supports budget autonomy.
I don't believe that the average Member even desires the opportunity
to use 600,000 American citizens as playthings through a local budget.
We joust with one another. We disagree with one another. But I don't
believe when it comes to this serious matter that if we had an
opportunity, one on one, to speak with Members of this body they would
give you a justification for a federal body overturning the will of the
people of a local jurisdiction.
That is why I say this afternoon that by assuming that disparate
treatment of any American citizens, even those who live in the District
of Columbia, must reflect a misunderstanding that I hope, by coming to
the floor from time to time, I can help clear up. Unequal treatment of
American citizens flies in the face of the very principles that
particularly Members of this House have professed from the moment the
112th Congress convened: Get the Federal Government out of our lives,
even where the Federal Government has historically been in our lives;
get the Federal Government out of any opportunity to get involved in
our lives.
Witness the view of Republicans on the Affordable Health Care Act. Up
with local control, and when it comes to local money, hands off.
You might imagine that when the District raises $6 billion from local
citizens, they wouldn't want anybody telling them anything about how to
spend their local funds. The District spends that money on some matters
and in some ways that are different from the way the jurisdictions of
my colleagues spend their own money. Isn't tolerating these differences
what is most wonderful about America?
The Framers put together a nation that was very different, that has
kept us from going to war with one another over issues by above all
separating out local from Federal, meaning if you stay in your part, we
won't go there. We will only go where matters of national concern are
to be found. That was the promise.
I must say, to my colleagues, that's the promise that's been kept for
every American district, except my own. And that is why I have called
Senator Rand Paul. I have not been able to speak to him yet. I am going
to ask to sit down with him. I am going to walk over to the Senate to
see if I can have a good conversation with him about the District of
Columbia, because I have no reason to believe, given his own short
history in the Senate, that he means to

[[Page 10762]]

do anything but carry out his own originalist principles, his
principles that local control is different from Federal intervention.
Given a conversation, we can at least make some headway on what the
District means to our country and how the citizens of this city feel
when they are basically kicked around.
We're powerless to do anything about it. If a bill comes to the floor
which keeps us from spending our own money, every Member of this body
can vote on that bill except the Member that represents the District of
Columbia because, as of yet, the Congress has not, in fact, given the
District the voting rights that we have given to the people of
Afghanistan and Iraq, with citizens from the District of Columbia among
those fighting for their freedom. So I don't think anybody would blame
us for coming forward to ask for what every other American takes for
granted.
What is truly gratifying to me, even as I complain about the
withdrawal of a budget autonomy bill in committee, which Senator Joe
Lieberman and Senator Susan Collins had worked so hard to perfect, what
encourages me is, first, the leadership we have in the House for budget
autonomy, the leadership that continues to stand strong with us in the
Senate. But most of all, Mr. Speaker, what encourages me is what these
two charts tell us about our country, tell us about what the American
public believes, tells us what they overwhelmingly believe--that
American citizens have a right when it comes to their own funds raised
by them and them alone.
Yes, I take heart in the fact that while there are only small
differences between Democrats and Republicans on subject autonomy,
those who most favor control of the city's own budget by its own local
citizens are Republicans, who are, it seems to me, only confirming
their own principles.
And when it comes to whether or not the Congress, when the D.C.
budget comes here, should pass it clean, just as it was when it came,
or should in some way use it to profile national issues, you have even
greater majorities essentially sending Congress a message that it
should pass the D.C. local budget without changes. Seventy-eight
percent of Democrats and 81 percent of Americans regard this as
something of a truism. My colleagues represent the people included in
these massive majorities.
I don't expect my colleagues to spend a lot of time on the District
of Columbia. I ask only that when the budget of a local jurisdiction
comes here that there be some thought behind what you do when you have
the vote on that budget and I do not. In a real sense, I ask you to put
yourself in my position. I am a Member of the House of Representatives.
I have the same standing that all of you have, except I do not have a
vote.
I would be so bold as to ask my colleagues to put themselves in my
position when they see Members of this House or Members of the Senate
try to direct the District about how it ought to spend its own local
funds. I ask you to put yourself in my position because I think there
would be some genuine empathy with the position in which I find myself,
representing 600,000 citizens who have lived up to every obligation of
citizenship ever since the founding of the Republic of which they have
always been a part, but never with equal citizenship.
We will continue to come forward in good faith and in the spirit of
understanding and in the hope that, with greater highlighting of the
discrepancies between professed principles and how they are
occasionally carried out, change will come in a country which is always
striving to live up to its own ideals.
I yield back the balance of my time.

[From the Washington Post, June 27, 2012]

Rand Paul's Situational Principle

(By Editorial Board)

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) came to Washington on the wave of
the tea party movement to limit big government. ``I think a
lot of things could be handled locally . . . the more local
the better, and the more common sense the decisions are,
rather than having a federal government make those
decisions,'' he said during his 2010 campaign. So how to
explain his spoiling a move to give the District autonomy
over its own tax dollars by--and this is really rich--
injecting the federal government into local affairs?
We thought we could no longer be surprised by congressional
hypocrisy when it comes to the nation's capital, but Mr.
Paul's willingness to turn his back on his supposed
libertarian principles and devotion to local rule is truly
stunning.
A bill that would give D.C. officials the ability to spend
local dollars--we repeat, locally collected, locally paid tax
dollars--without congressional approval was pulled from
consideration this week after Mr. Paul introduced a set of
amendments that would dictate to the city policies on guns,
abortions and unions. ``The last senator I would expect it
from,'' said Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), telling us
that she has never seen so many amendments offered at one
time by a single member to restrict D.C. rights. Ironically,
Ilir Zherlca, head of the advocacy group DC Vote, said that
Mr. Paul initially had been seen as a potential ally for the
District because of his views on small government.
Mr. Paul told The Post's Ben Pershing, ``I think it's a
good way to call attention to some issues that have national
implications. We don't have [control] over the states, but we
do for D.C.'' In other words, ``I am doing this because I
can''--not exactly the argument one expects to hear from
someone who has railed about federal intrusion. As Mr. Zherka
pointed out, Mr. Paul's brief for small government is not
whether the federal government has the power but whether it
should use it.
A spokesman for Mr. Paul e-mailed us a reminder that the
District is not a state but a federal jurisdiction: ``Efforts
to change that have failed, and until it is changed it is not
only the prerogative but the duty of Congress to have
jurisdiction over the Federal District.'' What we don't get
is how someone who raises the banner of a movement inspired
by a time when Americans were ruled without representation
could be so unsympathetic to the rights of D.C. citizens who
are in the same position.

____________________

{time} 1430
SUPREME COURT HEALTH CARE DECISION

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 5, 2011, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Gohmert) for 30 minutes.
Mr. GOHMERT. It's always an honor to speak before the House of
Representatives, a great storied history here, just as the Supreme
Court has a great storied history. There's some moments in time with
regard to the United States Supreme Court which show it to have
consisted of a bastion of strong-willed, determined, principled,
constitutionally minded Justices. There are other times when the
Supreme Court has shown itself to consist of some great judges and some
who are more interested in politics, more interested in feathering
their friends' nests than they are in doing what was right under the
Constitution, even though it was easy enough for them to rationalize
that, gee, if they did what helped their friends, then obviously that
would make it better for the whole country.
I think we get some of that rationalization from this administration.
Gee, if they just throw billions or hundreds of billions of dollars at
friends, then their friends will do better. And if their friends are
doing better, surely the rest of the country would. We have also found
that to be true with regard to things like Solyndra and the massive
number of other cronies of the administration that have received
hundreds of billions of dollars over time and also at a time when this
country is sorely hurting from overspending and running up debt.
In fact, today we had a bill regarding transportation and a
conference report. I know my friend John Mica from Florida worked
exceedingly hard, as had other members of Transportation, trying to
reach an agreement with the conference report. It looked like the
Senate got the better end of the deal. But I know these people, I know
their hearts, and I know they try to do what is right for America when
it comes to Chairman Mica and those who are assisting him.
But, nonetheless, we heard our friends across the aisle over and over
today talk about how critically important infrastructure is, how we
ought to be spending money, and how just $1 billion added to the
transportation budget

[[Page 10763]]

could really make a tremendous difference. I hearken back to a year-
and-a-half ago when the President of the United States, Barack Obama,
had told people that if you will give me basically a trillion--whether
it's $800 billion, $900 billion, apparently it looked more like a
trillion dollars by the time it was finished--you just hand me over a
trillion bucks and we'll get this economy going. If you don't give it
to me, then it will turn out that we may see as high as 8.5 percent
unemployment. But if you do give it to me, we'll never see 8.
Of course, he was wrong that we would never see 8 percent
unemployment. We've gone for many months--I guess that was 3\1/2\ years
ago now--that he was telling us about his big stimulus. How quickly
time flies.
As the transportation proponents were pushing their bill today and
talking about what the good infrastructure will do, many of us believed
that was true back in January of 2009, that it would be good. If we're
going to spend money on anything, spend it on the things that we really
need to do: bridges, roads, all these things that need construction,
need renovation.
So the President sold America largely on his stimulus because we're
going to fix all the infrastructure in America. But the last 3\1/2\
years have borne out that the President did not spend $800 billion,
$900 billion on infrastructure. He spent maybe 6 percent of the largest
giveaway in American history. He surpassed the terrible mistake that
TARP was--$700 billion. And we haven't been able to get an exact
number, but of the $700 billion, it may be $450 billion-or-so that his
administration inherited. So when you get the $800 billion, $900
billion, trillion-dollar stimulus giveaway--porkulus, as some called
it--and you combine that with $400 billion, $450 billion, $500 billion
that he was able to inherit from the TARP fund, you think maybe a
trillion and a trillion-and-a-half dollars he had to give away.
And we hear debate over what difference $1 billion would make. He was
talking about a thousand times that for infrastructure. And he spent a
tiny fraction on infrastructure, preferring instead to have massive
grants and giveaways to programs that were his cronies, his pets, that
are now producing no dividends and in fact are increasing further debt.
So we hear those things, how wonderful infrastructure would be, and
yet we know when we as a Congress provided this administration with
massive amounts of money for infrastructure, they diverted it. They did
more damage to the country than they did good. And we look at the
people that this President has surrounded himself with. He had a
Solicitor General named Elena Kagan. The Solicitor General's job is to
assist the White House, assist the administration with potential
legislation that may come to litigation, assist them with litigation.
As I know from working 30 years ago in the private sector, you can't
advise people about existing litigation and do your job without
advising them about the way to avoid future litigation problems that
you run into.
So we know that the biggest legislative agenda item for this
administration was the complete takeover of health care. And as most
thinking people would understand, if you could control all health care,
you can pretty well control all people. You get to decide who gets what
treatments, who can have a new hip, who can have a new knee, who can
have radiation therapy, who can have the surgery. And as one secretary
in my hometown pointed out, her mother acquired breast cancer in
England, and since the English Government's wonderful health care
system decided how long you had to wait before you could get to have
diagnostic tests done, before you could have therapeutic activity
occur, her mother didn't get the diagnostic tests in time to find out
she had it for sure, didn't get the surgery in time, didn't get the
treatment in time and she said, My mother died of breast cancer because
she lived in England and the government was in charge of health care.

{time} 1440

She said I have been found to have cancer since I've been here in the
U.S., and because the government was not in charge of my health care, I
got it diagnosed in time. I got treatment in time. I didn't have to
live by any preconceived requirements of the government. So I'm alive
because I was in America. My mother is dead because her health care was
in England.
Some think the great panacea is government being charged with health
care. We've heard over and over again that this is for the good of the
children.
At this point I would be delighted to yield to my friend from
Michigan.

United Way Celebrates 125 Years

Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. I want to thank the gentleman from Texas for
yielding me some time.
Mr. Speaker, I'm very honored today to commend the United Way on 125
years of serving our country. In particular, the United Way of
Southeastern Michigan has done so much good for our region and for our
people. It has helped provide shelter to the homeless, provide
education to our young people and training to the unemployed.
So again, I want to thank the United Way of Southeastern Michigan for
its service, and also congratulate the United Way on its 125th
anniversary of outstanding work for our country.
I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me this time.
Mr. GOHMERT. I thank and greatly appreciate my friend, Mr. Clarke.
That is obviously an important announcement. I didn't realize that the
United Way had been around 125 years. They do great work, and I
appreciate my friend, and I do mean my friend, calling that to our
attention.
The Obama administration had an agenda item, getting ObamaCare
passed. Elena Kagan was Solicitor General, and she continued to be
Solicitor General even up until after the time when the first lawsuits
were filed against ObamaCare. Now, she gave testimony before the Senate
that satisfied them at the time that she was pure as the driven snow
and she would in no way compromise integrity. That was the feeling that
was gotten. She got the votes that she needed to be confirmed, and then
went on to the U.S. Supreme Court.
But since that time, more questions have arisen. Wait a minute, she
was there during this, that, and the other. When ObamaCare was being
drafted, when it was being prepared, and even after it passed and it
became law, she was the Solicitor General.
And so now that we see all of these things in perspective, we go,
wait a minute, could she have been the worst Solicitor General in
American history that she would never advise the President, her boss--
never advise him--on the litigation that would surely be coming when
his prize legislation got passed, if it got passed? Because a
legitimate lawyer, an adviser, a counselor, will tell the client--in
this case, the President--Look, if you want to have this pass
constitutional muster, here's what you need to do. Let's get this
verbiage in one place, let's get this in another.
Could she have foreseen that perhaps a weakness of the brilliant John
Roberts would be, if you call something a penalty in a bill and then
later call it a tax after it's passed, that maybe the Supreme Court
would buy it? I don't even think that Solicitor General Kagan could
have foreseen that John Roberts would totally abandon intellectual
consistency. No matter how intelligent, I don't think she could have
seen that coming. I certainly didn't.
But the law regarding judges, Federal judges, is not just a matter of
ethics--gee, you can have an ethics complaint filed against you as you
can if you're a practicing attorney or a judge. The law is 28 U.S.C.,
section 455, and it says:
Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall
disqualify himself--that's generic for him and her--in any proceeding
in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
Well, it is absolutely clear that her impartiality is certainly
questionable in her boss's most prized legislation: ObamaCare.
My friend from Alabama, one of the great Senators over at the other
end of

[[Page 10764]]

the hall, Jeff Sessions, had extended eight questions to Attorney
General Holder asking for answers, and they were submitted timely under
the rules so they were part of the hearing and would require answers
from our Attorney General Holder. And three of them in particular were
these. These were questions for Attorney General Holder, because as 28
U.S.C., section 455 is the law and Justice Kagan's impartiality has
reasonably been questioned, there is potential here for a law violation
by Justice Kagan, and we need to know more. Since this is with regard
to the law that the Attorney General is supposed to uphold, fair
questions. From Jeff Sessions to Attorney General Holder:

Are you aware of any instances during Justice Kagan's
tenure as Solicitor General of the United States in which
information related to the Patient Protection and Affordable
Care Act and/or litigation related thereto was relayed or
provided to her?

Another question from U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions to Attorney General
Holder that required an answer:

When did your staff begin ``removing'' Solicitor General
Kagan from meetings in this matter? On what basis did you
take this action? In what other matters was such action
taken?

Clearly, Solicitor General Kagan was on the email list for people who
were talking about the laws that were coming up that the administration
wanted to get passed, including ObamaCare, so it's a legitimate
question to know at what point did she stop getting emails regarding
ObamaCare.
It's also important to know what she said in those emails, because
the one email they slipped and let us get a glimpse of was when
ObamaCare passed. She sent an email something along the lines of: Can
you believe they got the votes? Sounds like an excited utterance.
And it's worth noting that under 28 U.S.C., section 455 the law is
very clear, this is the law. It's not an ethics, an encouraged rule.
This is the law.

{time} 1450

``Where he or she has served in government employment''--as Solicitor
General Kagan had--``and in such capacity participated as counsel,
adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an
opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy,
she shall disqualify herself.''
So, clearly, she is already disqualified because her impartiality is
certainly reasonably being questioned. But is there even another law--
not rule, but law--in which her impartiality can be questioned? But it
makes it very clear, if she ever, ever expressed an opinion concerning
the merits of ObamaCare, she should not have been allowed to sit on
this case.
I think history is going to judge this case in a way that Justice
Roberts never dreamed. He is so brilliant. There's no question that he
was able to rationalize that coming as part of the majority as he did
was the thing to do. He has gotten accolades, just as Chief Justice
Taney did when he came out with the Dred Scott decision. Justice Taney
got accolades from people, you know, wow. Yes, he got criticism, just
as Chief Justice Roberts has, but he got some of the same accolades
he's got: wow, what a brilliant man. He has removed politics from the
Supreme Court when the truth is just the opposite of what occurred.
The politics of the White House prevailed. It was pure politics; it
was nothing but politics. And anyone who honestly reads this opinion
from an entirely objective standpoint will not be able to say this is a
beautiful piece of well-reasoned legal logic because it is not. It is a
hodgepodge of poorly written, poorly thought-out, poorly pieced-
together opinion; and it's an embarrassment. And one day, history will
record that this Court was possessed of four individuals who had
political agendas and could not set them aside, and that a Chief
Justice, who knew better, decided he would try to make the Court look
less than political, and in doing so became very political.
We need answers to these questions.
The third one was:

Did you ever have a conversation with Justice Kagan
regarding her recusal from the matters before the Supreme
Court related to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care
Act? If so, please describe the circumstances and substance
of those conversations.

Real easy. Now, we know that this Attorney General has significant
recollection problems. He recalled, under penalty of perjury before our
Judiciary Committee that he had only learned about Fast and Furious a
few weeks, he said, a few weeks before the hearing. Within months, we
found documentation showing that that was a lie. It had been months
before, at a minimum, that he had learned. Then, when he had that
presented to him, he said a few weeks, months, what's the difference?
Highest Justice official in America sees no difference between a few
weeks and months.
These questions need to be answered. It's already embarrassing enough
that a Justice hid behind the refusal to answer questions, the
avoidance of questions, to be able to sit on this case and participate
in one of the worst thought-out and thought-through and expressed
opinions that I've read from the U.S. Supreme Court.
And it's worth looking at some of them. If you go to the opinion
itself, first of all, the Supreme Court has to deal with the issue of
whether the Supreme Court can consider the case because the Anti-
Injunction Act basically, in essence, says: if Congress passes a tax,
then the Supreme Court does not have any jurisdiction to consider the
case. No one can file such case in Federal court until the tax is
actually levied and the individual filing suit has actually had it
levied on them. Then that individual has standing, can file a lawsuit,
and the Supreme Court can consider it. But until the Supreme Court
could decide and determine whether or not the penalty for not buying
health care insurance was a penalty or a tax--even though the language
in the act clearly said it was a penalty--well, the Court couldn't go
forward. So that was the first thing they had to wrestle with. You see
it particularly highlighted from pages 11 through 15.
But it's worth noting--this is page 11--the Court says: before
turning to the merits, we need to be sure we have authority to do so.
That's Justice Roberts, before turning to the merits, we've got to be
sure we have authority. He said the Anti-Injunction Act provides:

No suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or
collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any
person, whether or not such person is the person against whom
such tax was assessed.

Can't bring the lawsuit, the Supreme Court can't consider it if it's
a tax, because it won't be 2014 or so before that happens.
So you look at this decision, page 12, our brilliant Chief Justice--
and he really is brilliant, he just compromised it here:

Congress's decision to label this exaction a ``penalty''
rather than a ``tax'' is significant because the Affordable
Care Act describes many other exactions it creates as
``taxes.''

Because there are taxes. There are, clearly. There's the medical
device tax that ObamaCare adds. All these other taxes, they call
themselves taxes. This doesn't. And Justice Roberts points out, it's a
penalty. They call it that.
Justice Roberts says, and this is page 13 of his opinion:

The Anti-Injunction Act and the Affordable Care Act,
however, are creatures of Congress's own creation. How they
relate to each other is up to Congress and the best evidence
of Congress's intent.

Get that: best evidence of Congress's intent is the statutory text.
That's why he goes through and says the text calls it a penalty. On
page 15, he says:

The Affordable Care Act does not require that the penalty
for failing to comply with the individual mandate be treated
as a tax for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act. The Anti-
Injunction Act therefore does not apply to this suit, and we
may proceed to the merits.

It's not a tax; it's a penalty. All right. So, page 15, all this
legal reasoning, it's not a tax, it's a penalty, best evidence of what
it is is what Congress calls it, Congress calls it a penalty, ergo it's
a penalty and we can move on. And now we're entitled to consider the
merits.
Now, he also adds--this is over at page 39:

[[Page 10765]]

The joint dissenters argue that we cannot uphold section
5000A as a tax because Congress did not frame it as such.

Now, in fact, the four intellectually honest dissenters have pointed
out to the Chief Justice--they called it a penalty. You said the best
evidence of what it was was what Congress called it. Congress calls it
a penalty, they treat it as a penalty, and that's the best evidence. So
you can't uphold 5000A as a tax because it was not intended to be one.
If you look, page 39 is where--and the full sentence says: ``An
example may illustrate why labels should not control here.'' This is
the Chief Justice saying these lines. Labels should not control here.
He just said, in page 11 through 15, labels should control. Congress
puts the label on what they mean it to be: that should control. Now
he's saying labels don't control here.
He goes on to say, and this is at page 44:

The Affordable Care Act's requirement that certain
individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health
insurance may reasonably be characterized as a ``tax.''

{time} 1500

I called it a penalty so I'd have jurisdiction to write this opinion,
but now that I have jurisdiction to write this opinion, now, page 44,
I'm calling it a tax. Also on 44 he says:

The statute reads more naturally as a command to buy
insurance than as a tax, and I would uphold it as a command
if the Constitution allowed it.

Well, that is the point I guess, that is really strange in an opinion
because that's in a paragraph marked Capital D that starts with:

Justice Ginsberg questions the necessity of rejecting the
government's commerce power.

You never put that in, you're not supposed to. In good writing of
judicial opinions, you don't put that in a majority opinion. You don't
attack another co-majority signer, and yet he does that a few times in
his majority opinion.
But then to add first person, the first person pronoun ``I'' and then
follow that with a conditional future tense verb ``would'' uphold it as
a command if the Constitution allowed it, why is that there?
That looks like that should have been part of a dissenting opinion,
not, for heaven's sake, the majority opinion by one of the smartest
lawyers in the country. He sacrificed not only his intellectual
consistency, he sacrificed his intellectual ability to write as one of
the best writers we ever had. It's really tragic.
But the statute reads more naturally as a command to buy insurance. I
would have allowed it. It makes no sense there in that context.
One other quote we have down here, it's found at page 57. He says:

We are confident that Congress would have wanted to
preserve the rest of the Act.

He knows that's not true. He knows that the House version of
ObamaCare had the severability clause. And the severability clause,
every good lawyer, even every bad lawyer knows, if you want the whole
document to be preserved, even if one line is struck out, you better
put that Mother Hubbard clause in there so that it's all protected. You
lose one line, you don't lose the whole document.
And that was in the House version, but the Senate chose to strike it
out. They didn't want it in there to say, if any of these parts get
struck down by the Court, it all has to fall. They didn't want that.
They wanted the bill without the severability clause because if
anything got struck, everything had to go. That's the way they looked
at it.
In fact, that debate was even made. If we don't get this part, we
don't get that part, then there's no sense even having any of it.
Well, it's pretty tragic, pretty tragic. But there's been so much
sacrifice.
I'm very grateful to Justice Kennedy, Justice Scalia, Justice Thomas,
Justice Alito for maintaining their consistency. The dissent is very
well-written, very consistent. They not only didn't sacrifice their
intellectual integrity, they did not compromise their writing ability.
It's a dangerous time, and now we know, because of this Supreme Court
decision, talking to my friend, Allen West this morning, he brought
this up. I didn't know he'd brought it up already in an interview. But
since we now know that bringing down the cost of government function is
a legitimate interest that justifies intrusive legislation, and you can
now have a tax on people if they don't participate, then we know
everywhere that concealed guns have been made legal, the crime rates
have gone down. When the crime rates go down, the costs go down. So we
need a bill that will require everybody in America to buy a gun, and if
you don't, you'll be taxed.
And this Supreme Court, in their intellectual lack of integrity, will
sustain that bill.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

____________________

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

A message from the Senate by Ms. Curtis, one of its clerks, announced
that the Senate has passed a bill of the following title in which the
concurrence of the House is requested:

S. 1335. An act to amend title 49, United States Code, to
provide rights for pilots, and for other purposes.

The message also announced that the Senate agrees to the report of
the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses
on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 4348) ``An Act to
authorize funds for Federal-aid highways, highway safety programs, and
transit programs, and for other purposes.''.

____________________

GLOBAL WARMING AND AMERICAN FREEDOM

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 5, 2011, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from California
(Mr. Rohrabacher) for 30 minutes.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I have a policy in my office that every
time anyone from my district actually comes to the Capitol, they have a
right to see me and talk to me, especially young people. And I have,
over the years, seen hundreds and hundreds, maybe thousands of young
people from my home district in southern California. And I let them
talk to me and ask any questions that they would like to ask.
And I have a question that I always ask them, and I thought it would
be interesting for my colleagues and perhaps any of those who are
watching C-SPAN or reading this in the Congressional Record to know the
answer that I get when I ask a question of the young high school
students from my district.
Mr. Speaker, when our kids come in to my office and are talking to
me, I note that I was actually in high school in southern California 47
years ago. And I always ask the kids, is the air better quality today,
or is it worse today than when I was going to high school in southern
California 47 years ago?
And 90 percent of the students, over the years, whom I've asked that
question to have had exactly the wrong answer. Their answer is, oh, you
were so lucky to live at a time when the air quality in southern
California and around the Nation was so good, and it's so terrible that
we have to put up today with air quality that's killing us.
They've been told that the air quality when I was in high school was
so much better than it is today, which is 180 degrees wrong. But this
is a general attitude among today's young people because our young
people are being lied to. They are intentionally being given
misinformation.
Now, their teachers may not be intentionally lying to them, but their
teachers maybe are given information from scientists and other sources
that is an exact lie from people who know that, yes, the air quality
back when I went to school, and I go into description about how the air
quality was so bad at times we couldn't even go out on the playground.
They wouldn't even let us out of the classroom on to the sports field
because the air was so bad. Today that happens maybe once a year or
twice a year in southern California. Back then it happened once a week
at times during the summer and during the school year.

[[Page 10766]]

So our kids have this view that their generation is being poisoned,
and they're willing to accept stringent measures in order to protect
the environment that take away a great deal of the opportunity that
they should have in their lives in order to correct this horrible
problem that they're told that they've got.
Well, when I tell them it's just the opposite, they're so surprised.
Well, the truth is, our Nation's environment is no longer the disaster
that it was 50 years ago. And 50 years ago we did have a problem. Fifty
years ago I remember that when my dad was a Marine down in Quantico,
when I was a child I came up here several times and my dad would say,
whatever you do, don't put your finger in the Potomac River or your
finger will fall off. Well, it wasn't quite that bad, but it was really
bad.
We've made tremendous progress over the years on the Potomac River. I
can't help but notice there are people water-skiing and sailing and
fishing in the Potomac now.
Well, we don't live in the same time of 50 years ago. The air today
has never been cleaner than at any time in my lifetime. The water has
never been cleaner in any time in my lifetime than it is today. And I
am hopeful that my children will never have to experience the pollution
that was rampant when I was their age.
So, let's take a look and give credit where credit's due. That
progress is, in large part, because of the efforts of the government,
well, and the EPA, yes, which came in under President Nixon, and others
who have used science to fight for environmental reforms and to improve
the quality of life of our people.
And while I am thankful, I also would like to heed the warning that
President Eisenhower left with us in his farewell address. And I quote,
``that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific
technological elite.''
He was warning us about government-funded research becoming so
intertwined with public policy and the creation of regulations it would
compromise the integrity of both.
Well, in recent years, we've seen political agendas being driven by
scientific-sounding claims being used to frighten the general public
again and again and again.

{time} 1510

An unjustified fear has been used, for example, to ban DDT. I
remember when I was a kid, and I used to run through these clouds of
DDT--again, when my father was in the military down in North Carolina.
Yes, it was killing millions of mosquitos in North Carolina, but when
they banned that DDT, I seem to remember it had something to do with
the thickness of shells of certain birds. Well, they banned DDT, and
because of that we have had millions of deaths due to malaria in
Africa. Millions of young African children, because they don't have a
good diet, succumb to a disease like malaria and die because of it.
These children are dead--make no mistake about it--because we were
frightened into an irrational position on DDT, banning that and thus
destroying the lives of millions of children in the Third World.
We've seen alarmism with ``The Population Bomb.'' Do you remember
that in 1968? It was a book claiming that increasing populations and
decreasing agricultural yield would lead to cannibalism and global
warfare over scarce resources by the mid-1970s. Here we are a long way
from the 1970s, and I'm afraid Malthus, who 150 years ago started this
type of scarism, was wrong, wrong, wrong. Right now, there are a lot of
scientists, unfortunately, who are molding themselves after the Malthus
mistakes that were made 150 years ago.
Today's environmental alarmists use faulty and, in some cases,
deceitful computer models to ``prove'' that the world is being
destroyed one way or the other, quite often, in the ones they've been
using in the last 10 years, of course, was that the world was being
destroyed by manmade carbon emissions. This is proven by their computer
models, even though the Earth has seen significantly higher atmospheric
carbon levels many times before. Those were not necessarily bad times
for this planet, but those computer models were suggesting, because of
carbon emissions, we were going to face a catastrophe. In fact, I
remember very well the predictions of 10 and 15 years ago that, by now,
we would have reached a tipping point in the temperature of the world--
that we'd have reached a temperature of about now--and then it would go
up 5 to 10 degrees, which is a big jump, but we haven't seen that big
jump.
The alarmists, of course, are not interested when they make mistakes,
and they're not really interested in solving real problems. They are
part of a coalition that wants to change our way of life--that's their
goal--with their computerizations showing that just horrible times are
ahead of us unless we change. The idea isn't to stop those horrible
times, because those horrible times are just a product of what they put
into their computers. Of course we all know what ``garbage in, garbage
out'' means. If you put into a computer that you're going to have some
kind of disaster, that's what you're going to get out of your computer,
but what they have in mind, of course, and what they want to do is to
change the way of life--our life--which requires us to acquiesce, or
better yet, they frighten us into submission.
Make no mistake: manmade global warming, as a theory, is being pushed
by people who believe in global government. They have been looking for
an excuse for an incredible freedom-busting centralization of power,
and this global warming is just the latest in a long line of such
scares.
This was recently acknowledged by the godfather of the global warming
theory, a man who over the years has been given such credit for laying
the intellectual foundation and the scientific foundation for the
theory of manmade global warming. His name is James Lovelock. James
Lovelock, however, has changed his mind. James Lovelock now concedes--
and after a longtime dialogue with Burt Rutan, one of the great
engineers of our day--has come around to understand that he was not
being totally honest about things when he was accepting information
that bolstered his position, and was rejecting the consideration of
other information. He has changed his mind about the real threat that
global warming poses to the Earth--not that there wouldn't be any
global warming but that it has been totally exaggerated by the
scientific community, and that he, himself, played a major role in that
exaggeration.
Dr. James Lovelock is in an article in the Toronto Sun, which is
entitled, ``Green 'drivel' exposed: The godfather of global warming
lowers the boom on climate change hysteria,'' which is what we have
been hearing over these last few years.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce for the Record this article
that was just recently in the Toronto Sun, and I would like to put this
in the Record at this point.

[From the Toronto Sun, June 23, 2012]

Green `Drivel' Exposed

The godfather of global warming lowers the boom on climate change
hysteria

(By Lorrie Goldstein)

Two months ago, James Lovelock, the godfather of global
warming, gave a startling interview to msnbc.com in which he
acknowledged he had been unduly ``alarmist'' about climate
change.
The implications were extraordinary.
Lovelock is a world-renowned scientist and environmentalist
whose Gaia theory--that the Earth operates as a single,
living organism--has had a profound impact on the development
of global warming theory.
Unlike many ``environmentalists,'' who have degrees in
political science, Lovelock, until his recent retirement at
age 92, was a much-honoured working scientist and academic.
His inventions have been used by NASA, among many other
scientific organizations.
Lovelock's invention of the electron capture detector in
1957 first enabled scientists to measure CFCs
(chlorofluorocarbons) and other pollutants in the atmosphere,
leading, in many ways, to the birth of the modern
environmental movement.
Having observed that global temperatures since the turn of
the millennium have not gone up in the way computer-based
climate models predicted, Lovelock acknowledged, ``the
problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We
thought we knew 20 years

[[Page 10767]]

ago.'' Now, Lovelock has given a follow-up interview to the
UK's Guardian newspaper in which he delivers more bombshells
sure to anger the global green movement, which for years
worshipped his Gaia theory and apocalyptic predictions that
billions would die from man-made climate change by the end of
this century.
Lovelock still believes anthropogenic global warming is
occurring and that mankind must lower its greenhouse gas
emissions, but says it's now clear the doomsday predictions,
including his own (and Al Gore's) were incorrect.
He responds to attacks on his revised views by noting that,
unlike many climate scientists who fear a loss of government
funding if they admit error, as a freelance scientist, he's
never been afraid to revise his theories in the face of new
evidence. Indeed, that's how science advances.
Among his observations to the Guardian:
(1) A long-time supporter of nuclear power as a way to
lower greenhouse gas emissions, which has made him unpopular
with environmentalists, Lovelock has now come out in favour
of natural gas fracking (which environmentalists also
oppose), as a low-polluting alternative to coal.
As Lovelock observes, ``Gas is almost a give-away in the
U.S. at the moment. They've gone for fracking in a big way.
This is what makes me very cross with the greens for trying
to knock it . . . Let's be pragmatic and sensible and get
Britain to switch everything to methane. We should be going
mad on it.'' (Kandeh Yumkella, co-head of a major United
Nations program on sustainable energy, made similar arguments
last week at a UN environmental conference in Rio de Janeiro,
advocating the development of conventional and unconventional
natural gas resources as a way to reduce deforestation and
save millions of lives in the Third World.)
(2) Lovelock blasted greens for treating global warming
like a religion.
``It just so happens that the green religion is now taking
over from the Christian religion,'' Lovelock observed. ``I
don't think people have noticed that, but it's got all the
sort of terms that religions use . . . The greens use guilt.
That just shows how religious greens are. You can't win
people round by saying they are guilty for putting (carbon
dioxide) in the air.''
(3) Lovelock mocks the idea modern economies can be powered
by wind turbines.
As he puts it, ``so-called 'sustainable development' . . .
is meaningless drivel . . . We rushed into renewable energy
without any thought. The schemes are largely hopelessly
inefficient and unpleasant. I personally can't stand
windmills at any price.''
(4) Finally, about claims ``the science is settled'' on
global warming: ``One thing that being a scientist has taught
me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never
know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a
bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth.
You don't know it.''

For those who are listening or who are reading this specifically in
the Congressional Record, I would like to quote from that article now.
That article reads:

Having observed that global temperatures since the turn of
the millennium have not gone up in the way computer-based
climate models predicted, Lovelock acknowledged, ``The
problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We
thought we knew 20 years ago.''

The sign of a very intelligent person, really, is to admit the things
that he doesn't know. I mean I've always said I'm not the smartest guy
on the block, but I know what I don't know. Thus, when I'm talking to
people, I can have an honest discussion to try to expand my knowledge.
We've had too many people claiming that they know it all and that we
have to give up our freedom because they know it, and they don't even
have to engage in a debate with us over the details of something like
global warming.
Let me know who has heard the words ``case closed.'' I mean, 3 years
ago, that's what they were saying here. What does that mean? When you
hear people in government and when you hear scientists saying, ``the
case is closed,'' well, that must mean there is going to be no further
debate on this issue.
I've been here as a Member of Congress for 24 years. Before that, I
served in the White House for 7 years under President Reagan. I have
never seen a time when there was such an effort made to cut off debate
on an important subject than has been done on global warming. Never
have I heard over and over again people being told to shut up and that
the case is closed. Never have I seen so many research projects
canceled because they in some way challenged the theory of global
warming. Never have I seen so many scientists fired from their
positions because they believe that the global warming theory may not
be accurate.
So what we need to do is to make sure that we have an honest
discussion of the issue, when even some of the promoters--some of the
people who have been the strongest advocates, like the individual, the
doctor, I just quoted--have changed their positions, if not totally
reversed them. At least they've been open to have said, We really don't
know what we've been advocating for these last few years.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce into the Record a letter from
an esteemed physicist, Gordon Fulks. This is a letter and some
communication between this physicist and aerospace pioneer legend Burt
Rutan. I would like to put that into the Record at this point.

June 23, 2012.
Re Bravo on your courage!

Dear Burt: I think you deserve much of the credit for
helping James Lovelock understand the AGW phenomenon. You
patiently provided him with the pertinent data and logic. As
with most of us, it took some time to digest the enormity of
the necessary shift in perspective. He had to give up a faith
in the honesty of government agencies and most of the
scientists they are supporting.
For Jim Lovelock the transition apparently involved two
steps. That lessened the need for a complete about face. He
first figured out the Chlorofluorocarbon-Ozone Hole scam by
discovering that some scientists were cheating on the data,
apparently to further their careers. He probably also knew
that the chemists who received the Nobel Prize for their work
had overestimated the effect by a large factor. It was not
such a huge step to then realize that climate scientists
might be doing the same. But Lovelock, to his credit, wanted
to be sure and took his time examining the information that
you and others sent to him.
My own recognition of what was going on was likewise a two
step process. During the ``Nuclear Winter'' scare about 25
years ago, we redid Carl Sagan's original calculations to
discover that he had carefully chosen the inputs to his
climate code to produce the result he wanted. When we
realized that a highly respected physicist would prostitute
himself to support his politics, his stature, and his income,
we, in principle, understood all the other scams of the post
World War Two era.
From 1946 Nobel Laureate Hermann Joseph Muller hiding
evidence of a threshold phenomenon in human radiation
exposure to Rachael Carson promoting half truths about DDT,
to unfounded scares about Acid Rain, Ozone Depletion,
Magnetic Fields, Global Warming, Ocean Acidification, Diesel
Particulates, and more, we have been victimized by continuous
hysteria that has led to disastrous public policies. Far too
many scientists and their fellow travelers have supported a
grand bilking of American taxpayers for their own selfish and
political interests.
Many thanks for your efforts to convince one very important
individual to re-examine the logic and evidence. Now we need
to figure out how to avoid falling victim to these scams in
the first place. As you know, that must involve fundamental
reform of the reward process that funnels vast amounts of
money to those who play along.
Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics),
Corbett, Oregon USA.

Now let me read, in part, what that letter says:

During the ``Nuclear Winter'' scare about 25 years ago, we
redid Carl Sagan's original calculations to discover that he
had carefully chosen the inputs to his climate code to
produce the result he wanted. When we realized that a highly
respected physicist would prostitute himself to support his
politics, his stature and his income, we, in principle,
understood all the other scams of the post World War II era.

{time} 1520

Whoever looked up to Carl Sagan, and when they realized he was
cheating on the information and the analysis, they realized that this
was so widespread it was something to be concerned about. And I
continue:

From 1946 Nobel Laureate Hermann Joseph Muller hiding
evidence of a threshold phenomenon in human radiation
exposure to Rachel Carson promoting half-truths about DDT, to
unfounded scares about acid rain, ozone depletion, magnetic
fields, global warming, ocean acidification, diesel
particulates, and more, we have been victimized by continuous
hysteria that has led to disastrous public policies. Far too
many scientists and their fellow travelers have supported a
grand bilking of American taxpayers for their own selfish and
political interests.

That is the end of that quotation from that letter to Burt Rutan from
this world famous physicist.
It's clear that our current system, fueled by the horrific waste of
borrowed money, isn't working. Perhaps

[[Page 10768]]

it's time that we acted on President Eisenhower's warning and find a
better way to separate research and the creation of regulations.
Otherwise, we will find ourselves held truly captive with no access to
inexpensive energy, reduced access to food and water, and we might find
ourselves also with none of our basic freedoms because we've given them
away because someone has frightened us into giving away our freedom and
giving away the opportunity for a better life for our children.
Mr. Speaker, I am someone who is very optimistic about the future. We
have great possibilities. There are other people who look to the future
and think that the technological revolutions that we have faced are
actually a detriment to humankind. People did not live good lives 100
years ago. As I mentioned, my father was a marine. Before that, he grew
up on a dirt-poor farm in North Dakota, as did my mother. In those
days, ordinary Americans did not live well. It was a struggle. The
longevity of these people was not that long because of the struggle
they were in.
We need to make sure that we continue our technological development
so that we can have, yes, a clean environment, which I have indicated
was a product of the good technology and, yes, the research that came
from honest and hardworking scientists and engineers, quite often on a
government contract. But we need to make sure that we don't back off,
because we know there is a group of people in our society, and perhaps
around the world, who for some reason believe that back before the
industrial age that people lived better than they live today. Some of
them have tried their best to fight modernism. They have declared war,
for example, on the internal combustion engine. This global warming
thing, that was the motive here. The internal combustion engine is
supposedly putting out carbon dioxide, and carbon dioxide they believe
is changing the climate of the planet.
I told you what I have asked young students who come into my office.
I asked: Is the air better or worse than it was 50 years ago? I even
ask Members of Congress and I ask people all the time, the ones who buy
into global warming, who are saying they're advocates of global warming
caused by mankind--basically the internal combustion engine--what
percentage of the Earth's atmosphere is carbon dioxide, is
CO2. I hope that everyone who is focusing on these comments
now ask themselves how much CO2 there is, because
CO2 is being blamed for changing the entire climate of the
planet. It would be an enormous undertaking to change the climate of
the whole planet, so it must be a pretty good part of our atmosphere.
With that question, Members of Congress tell me that they believe
it's 25 percent. Some people say 10 percent. Others say 20 percent. I
have never had a Member of Congress come anywhere close to what it
really is. It's not 10 percent or 20 percent. It's not 5 percent. It's
not 1 percent. It's less than one-half of one-tenth of 1 percent. Have
you got that? It's not just 1 percent. It's less than one-half of one-
tenth of 1 percent. Of that, humankind is only responsible for 10
percent of that CO2. That makes it so minuscule that it
would be like putting a string across a football field and believing
that was going to create changes in the entire football field.
The fact that people are unaware, even at this level, of how small
the CO2 impact is causes them to buy onto these scare
tactics. This is a challenge for those of us here because that
threatens our freedom. It threatens us and our children in being able
to have the opportunities that we had and that we hope that all
Americans and all people throughout the world will have.
Let us go back on one thing. I am planning a trip this year across
the country, even though the gas prices are pretty high. I'm hopefully
going to drive across the country with my children. It's a wonderful
thing. What a wonderful vacation. We're going to have 2 weeks to do it.
I'm really looking forward to that. We're going to go in an automobile,
and it will cost us. The price of gas is up and I'm not a wealthy man,
but we do have this opportunity, and it's a wonderful thing.
What about 150 years ago? Did people have an opportunity like this?
No. What was the biggest challenge that we faced to the health and
safety of the people of this country 150 years ago? Or, let's say just
at the beginning of the last century, when we turned from the 19th to
the 20th century. Do you know what it was? It was horse manure. Horse
manure and horse urine was enveloping our cities and the water and
created health hazards for people. And the flies and the stench and the
internal combustion engine came along, and it has been a great factor
in providing health for human beings. All over the world we got rid of
the massive animal droppings that were a threat to our health.
Also, there is the fact that we couldn't produce a lot of wealth
based on animal strength and we couldn't go on long trips with our
families and we didn't have a good quality of life, but the internal
combustion engine provided that for people of the United States and
humankind. There is no doubt that we have needed to improve the
efficiency of the internal combustion engine, and we have.
Here's the thought we'll leave with. In southern California, when I
was a kid, there was so much pollution--although our young people don't
know about that today. But today, when they think the air is polluted
in southern California, we have twice as many cars on the road and
we've reduced pollution into the 90s. It's probably 95 percent. This is
a tremendous accomplishment. And yes, some of the regulations that we
have had from the Federal Government have motivated this change. We
need to accept that. But we need to also accept that it is our
technological advances, and it has been not cancelling out technology
for fear of things like CO2, which are not a threat to our
health. That's how we have kept America on an upward course, even
though we've been dragged down scare after scare after scare.

{time} 1530

I remember when we had Meryl Streep come to this Congress and testify
about Alar in apples. What happened was, for 2 years apple farmers went
broke throughout the United States. There were thousands of families
who suffered because their product was not being bought because they
were afraid of Alar. What happened to that? Alar, it was found 2 years
later that it was all a scare. There was nothing to it. The same thing
with cranberries. When I was a kid, we couldn't eat cranberries for
Thanksgiving.
The gentleman that I quoted here, that I mentioned, who is the
godfather of the global warming theory, James Lovelock, he is also the
man who discovered fluoro hydrocarbons, which gave people the analysis
of the ozone hole. Well, guess what? The ozone hole, as we have found
out--and as it was mentioned in passing there--the ozone hole was
overrated as a threat. In fact, it went away, and it's a natural cycle.
What we have had on this planet is a natural cycle of weather, of
temperatures, and that will continue. But what's happened is, we've had
people step forward, trying to create hysteria for their own political
ends, trying to frighten people into accepting policies they otherwise
would never accept.
So today, I'm hoping that as we celebrate the Fourth of July, we,
again, reaffirm that we will never give up our liberty. We will never
be frightened out of our liberty by foreigners who threaten us with
weapons, and we will not be frightened out of our liberty by people who
do not believe in the same type of freedom that we believe in but are
using scare tactics to create hysteria among our people that are phony
scare tactics to try to frighten us into giving up our freedom.
So on this Fourth of July, I hope we all reconfirm that guarantee of
our commitment in this Nation to freedom, to opportunity for ordinary
people so that ordinary people can live decent lives with liberty and
justice, prosperity for all.
I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page 10769]]

____________________

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would inform the House that,
pursuant to House Resolution 711, the Speaker has certified to the
United States Attorney for the District of Columbia the refusal of Eric
H. Holder, Jr., to produce certain papers before the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform.

____________________

RECESS

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 12(a) of rule I, the
Chair declares the House in recess subject to the call of the Chair.
Accordingly (at 3 o'clock and 34 minutes p.m.), the House stood in
recess.

____________________

{time} 1605
AFTER RECESS

The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the
Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Fleischmann) at 4 o'clock and 5 minutes p.m.

____________________

FURTHER MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

A further message from the Senate by Mr. Curtis, one of its clerks,
announced that the Senate has passed a concurrent resolution of the
following title in which the concurrence of the House is requested:

S. Con. Res. 51. Concurrent resolution providing for a
conditional adjournment or recess of the Senate and an
adjournment of the House of Representatives.

____________________

PROVIDING FOR A CONDITIONAL ADJOURNMENT OR RECESS OF THE SENATE AND AN
ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
privileged concurrent resolution:

S. Con. Res. 51

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives
concurring), That when the Senate recesses or adjourns on any
day from Friday, June 29, 2012, through Monday, July 2, 2012,
on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by
its Majority Leader or his designee, it stand recessed or
adjourned until 12:00 noon on Monday, July 9, 2012, or such
other time on that day as may be specified by its Majority
Leader or his designee in the motion to recess or adjourn, or
until the time of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of
this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first; and that
when the House adjourns on any legislative day from Friday,
June 29, 2012, through Friday, July 6, 2012, on a motion
offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its
majority leader or his designee, it stand adjourned until
2:00 p.m. on Monday, July 9, 2012, or until time of any
reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent
resolution, whichever occurs first.
Sec. 2. The Majority Leader of the Senate and the Speaker
of the House, or their respective designees, acting jointly
after consultation with the Minority Leader of the Senate and
the Minority Leader of the House, shall notify the Members of
the Senate and House, respectively, to reassemble at such
place and time as they may designate if, in their opinion,
the public interest shall warrant it.

The concurrent resolution was concurred in.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________

MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT

Message in writing from the President of the United States were
communicated to the House by Mr. Edwin Thomas, one of his secretaries.

____________________

EXTENDING LEAST-DEVELOPED BENEFICIARY DEVELOPING COUNTRY BENEFITS TO
SENEGAL--MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES (H. DOC. NO.
112-120)

The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following message
from the President of the United States; which was read and referred to
the Committee on Ways and Means and ordered to be printed:

To the Congress of the United States:
In accordance with section 502(f)(1)(B) of the Trade Act of 1974, as
amended (the ``1974 Act'') (19 U.S.C. 2462(f)(1)(B)), I am notifying
the Congress of my intent to add the Republic of Senegal (Senegal) to
the list of least-developed beneficiary developing countries under the
Generalized System of Preferences program. After considering the
criteria set forth in section 502(c) of the 1974 Act (19 U.S.C.
2462(c)), I have determined that it is appropriate to extend least-
developed beneficiary developing country benefits to Senegal.
Barack Obama.
The White House, June 29, 2012.

____________________

TERMINATING DESIGNATIONS OF GIBRALTAR AND THE TURKS AND CAICOS ISLANDS
AS BENEFICIARY DEVELOPING COUNTRIES--MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES (H. DOC. NO. 112-121)

The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following message
from the President of the United States; which was read and referred to
the Committee on Ways and Means and ordered to be printed:

To the Congress of the United States:
In accordance with section 502(f)(2) of the Trade Act of 1974, as
amended (the ``1974 Act'') (19 U.S.C. 2462(f)(2)), I am providing
notification of my intent to terminate the designations of Gibraltar
and the Turks and Caicos Islands as beneficiary developing countries
under the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) program. Section
502(e) of the 1974 Act (19 U.S.C. 2462(e)) provides that if the
President determines that a beneficiary developing country has become a
``high income'' country, as defined by the official statistics of the
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (i.e., the World
Bank), then the President shall terminate the designation of such
country as a beneficiary developing country for purposes of GSP,
effective on January 1 of the second year following the year in which
such determination is made.
Pursuant to section 502(e) of the 1974 Act, I have determined that it
is appropriate to terminate Gibraltar's designation as a beneficiary
developing country under the GSP program, because it has become a high
income country as defined by the World Bank. Accordingly, Gibraltar's
eligibility for trade benefits under the GSP program will end on
January 1, 2014.
In addition, pursuant to section 502(e) of the 1974 Act, I have
determined that it is appropriate to terminate Turks and Caicos
Islands' designation as a beneficiary developing country under the GSP
program, because it has become a high income country as defined by the
World Bank. Accordingly, Turks and Caicos Islands' eligibility for
trade benefits under the GSP program will end on January 1, 2014.
Barack Obama.
The White House, June 29, 2012.

____________________

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

By unanimous consent, leave of absence was granted to:
Mr. Clyburn (at the request of Ms. Pelosi) for today on account of
attending a funeral.

____________________

SENATE BILL REFERRED

A bill of the Senate of the following title was taken from the
Speaker's table and, under the rule, referred as follows:

S. 1335. An act to amend title 49, United States Code, to
provide rights for pilots, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

____________________

BILLS PRESENTED TO THE PRESIDENT

Karen L. Haas, Clerk of the House, reported that on June 11, 2012,
she presented to the President of the United States, for his approval,
the following bills.

H.R. 5883. To make a technical correction in Public Law
112-108.
H.R. 5890. To correct a technical error in Public Law 112-
122.

____________________

ADJOURNMENT

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, pursuant to Senate
Concurrent Resolution 51, 112th Congress, the

[[Page 10770]]

House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Monday, July 9, 2012.
There was no objection.
Accordingly (at 4 o'clock and 12 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned
until Monday, July 9, 2012, at 2 p.m.

____________________

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC.

Under clause 2 of rule XIV, executive communications were taken from
the Speaker's table and referred as follows:
6722. A letter from the Chief Counsel, Department of
Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's final rule
-- Changes in Flood Elevation Determinations, Sumter County,
Florida, et al. [Docket ID: FEMA-2012-0003] [Internal Agency
Docket No.: FEMA-B-1253] received May 29, 2012, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Financial Services.

6723. A letter from the Chief Counsel, Department of
Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's final rule
-- Changes in Flood Elevation Determinations, Mobile, AL et
al., [Docket ID: FEMA-2012-0003] received June 4, 2012,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Financial Services.

6724. A letter from the Acting Director, Office of
Legislative Affairs, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation,
transmitting the Corporation's final rule -- Mutual Insurance
Holding Company Treated as Insurance Company (RIN: 3064-AD89)
received June 4, 2012, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to
the Committee on Financial Services.

6725. A letter from the Deputy Secretary, Securities and
Exchange Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule
-- Political Contributions by Certain Investment Advisers:
Ban on Third-Party Solicitation; Extension of Compliance Date
(RIN: 3235-AK39) received June 12, 2012, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Financial Services.

6726. A letter from the Assistant General Counsel for
Regulatory Services, Office of the General Counsel,
Department of Education, transmitting the Department's final
rule -- Implementation of OMB Guidance on Nonprocurement
Debarment and Suspension [Docket ID: ED-2012-OS-0007] (RIN:
1890-AA17) received June 8, 2012, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Education and the
Workforce.

6727. A letter from the Deputy Director for Policy, Pension
Benefit Guaranty Corporation, transmitting the Corporation's
final rule -- Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer
Plans; Interest Assumptions for Paying Benefits received June
8, 2012, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Education and the Workforce.

6728. A letter from the Program Manager, Department of
Health and Human Services, transmitting the Department's
final rule -- Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance
Programs; Disallowance of Claims for FFP and Technical
Corrections [CMS-2292-F] (RIN: 0938-AQ32) received May 29,
2012, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce.

6729. A letter from the Associate Division Chief Policy
Division, PSHSB, Federal Communications Commission,
transmitting the Commission's final rule -- Amendment of
Parts 12 and 90 of the Commission's Rules Regarding
Redundancy of Communications Systems: Backup Power Private
Land Mobile Radio Services: Selection and Assignment of
Frequencies, and Transition of the Upper 200 Channels in the
800 MHz Band to EA Licensing received May 29, 2012, pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce.

6730. A letter from the Director, Office of Congressional
Affairs, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, transmitting the
Commission's final rule -- Health Physics Surveys During
Enriched Uranium-235 Processing and Fuel Fabrication
Regulatory Guide 8.24 Revision 2 received June 8, 2012,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy
and Commerce.

6731. A letter from the Director, Office of Congressional
Affairs, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, transmitting the
Commission's final rule -- Withdrawal of Regulatory Guide
8.33, ``Quality Management Program'' received June 8, 2012,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy
and Commerce.

6732. A letter from the Director, Office of Congressional
Affairs, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, transmitting the
Commission's final rule -- Endorsement of Nuclear Energy
Institute (NEI) 12-07, ``Guidelines For Performing
Verification Walkdowns of Plant Flood Protection Features''
received June 8, 2012, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to
the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

6733. A letter from the Director, Office of Congressional
Affairs, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, transmitting the
Commission's final rule -- Endorsement of Electric Power
Research Institute (EPRI) Draft Report 1025286, ``Seismic
Walkdown Guidance'' received June 8, 2012, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

6734. A letter from the Chief, Branch of Foreign Species,
Endangered Species Program, Department of the Interior,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule To Remove the
Morelet's Crocodile From the Federal List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife [Docket No.: FWS-R9-ES-2010-0030] (RIN:
1018-AV22) received May 25, 2012, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Natural Resources.

6735. A letter from the Assistant Regional Director, USFWS;
Acting Chair, Federal Subsistence Board, Department of the
Interior, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Subsistence Management Regulations for Public Lands in Alaska
-- Subpart C -- Board Determinations; Rural Determinations
[Docket No.: FWS-R7-SM-2011-0068] (RIN: 1018-AX95) received
May 25, 2012, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Natural Resources.

6736. A letter from the Chief, Branch of Delisting and
Recovery, Department of the Interior, transmitting the
Department's final rule -- Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental
Population of American Burying Beetle in Southwestern
Missouri [Docket No.: FWS-R3-ES-2011-0034] (RIN: 1018-AX79)
received May 25, 2012, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to
the Committee on Natural Resources.

6737. A letter from the Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Operations, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule
-- Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South
Atlantic; Snapper-Grouper Fishery Off the Southern Atlantic
States; Snapper-Grouper Management Measures [Docket No.:
110511280-2424-02] (RIN: 0648-BB10) received June 8, 2012,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Natural Resources.

____________________

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ON PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to
the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as
follows:
Mr. BACHUS: Committee on Financial Services. Third
Semiannual Report on the Activity of the Committee on
Financial Services for the 112th Congress (Rept. 112-559).
Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan: Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence. Semi-Annual Report of the Activity of the House
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence for the 112th
Congress (Rept. 112-560). Referred to the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union.

Mr. UPTON: Committee on Energy and Commerce. Activity
Report of the Committee on Energy and Commerce (Rept. 112-
561). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union.

Mr. SMITH of Texas: Committee on the Judiciary. Third Semi-
annual Activity Report of the Committee on the Judiciary of
the United States House of Representatives for the Period
January 5, 2011 through May 31, 2012 (Rept. 112-562).
Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union.

Mr. UPTON: Committee on Energy and Commerce. H.R. 5892. A
bill to improve hydropower, and for other purposes (Rept.
112-563). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union.

Mr. UPTON: Committee on Energy and Commerce. House
Concurrent Resolution 127. Resolution expressing the sense of
Congress regarding actions to preserve and advance the
multistakeholder governance model under which the Internet
has thrived (Rept. 112-564). Referred to the House Calendar.

Mr. BACHUS: Committee on Financial Services. H.R. 1588. A
bill to amend the Consumer Credit Protection Act to assure
meaningful disclosures of the terms of rental-purchase
agreements, including disclosures of all costs to consumers
under such agreements, to provide certain substantive rights
to consumers under such agreements, and for other purposes;
with an amendment (Rept. 112-565). Referred to the Committee
of the Whole House on the state of the Union.

Mr. BACHUS: Committee on Financial Services. H.R. 3128. A
bill to amend the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer
Protection Act to adjust the date on which consolidated
assets are determined for purposes of exempting certain
instruments of smaller institutions from capital deductions
(Rept. 112-566). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union.

Mr. DREIER: Committee on Rules. Survey of Activities for
the House Committee on Rules For The Third Quarter of the
112th

[[Page 10771]]

Congress (Rept. 112-567). Referred to the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union.

Mr. ISSA: Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Third Semiannual Activities of the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform for the 112th Congress (Rept. 112-568).
Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union.

Mr. KLINE: Committee on Education and the Workforce. Report
on the Activities of the Committee on Education and the
Workforce (Rept. 112-569). Referred to the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky: Committee on Appropriations.
Committee on Appropriations House of Representatives
Semiannual Report of Committee Activities 112th Congress
(Rept. 112-570). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN: Committee on House Administration.
Third Semiannual Report on the Activities of the Committee on
House Administration During the 112th Congress (Rept. 112-
571). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington: Committee on Natural Resources.
Report on Legislative and Oversight Activities of the
Committee on Natural Resources During the 112th Congress
(Rept. 112-572). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union.

Mr. MICA: Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Summary on the Activities of the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure for the 112th Congress (Rept. 112-573).
Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union.

Mr. LUCAS: Committee on Agriculture. Third Semiannual
Report on Activities During the 112th Congress (Rept. 112-
574). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union.

Mr. McKEON: Committee on Armed Services. Third Semiannual
Report on the Activities of the Committee on Armed Services
for the 112th Congress (Rept. 112-575). Referred to the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.

Mr. BACHUS: Committee on Financial Services. H.R. 4367. A
bill to amend the Electronic Fund Transfer Act to limit the
fee disclosure requirement for an automatic teller machine to
the screen of that machine (Rept. 112-576). Referred to the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.

____________________

TIME LIMITATION OF REFERRED BILL

Pursuant to clause 2 of rule XII, the following action was taken by
the Speaker:

H.R. 940. Referral to the Committee on Ways and Means
extended for a period ending not later than September 14,
2012.

____________________

PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

Under clause 2 of rule XII, public bills and resolutions of the
following titles were introduced and severally referred, as follows:
By Mr. McGOVERN (for himself and Mr. Jones):
H.R. 6059. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social
Security Act to protect Medicare beneficiaries' access to
home health services under the Medicare Program; to the
Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee
on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently
determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of
such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the
committee concerned.

By Mr. BISHOP of Utah (for himself, Mrs. Lummis, Mr.
Pearce, Mr. Gosar, Mr. Chaffetz, Mr. Tipton, Mr.
Lujan, Mr. Matheson, Mr. Gardner, Ms. DeGette, Mr.
Perlmutter, Mr. Coffman of Colorado, and Mr. Polis):
H.R. 6060. A bill to amend Public Law 106-392 to maintain
annual base funding for the Upper Colorado and San Juan fish
recovery programs through fiscal year 2019; to the Committee
on Natural Resources.

By Mr. BECERRA (for himself, Mr. Levin, Mr. Stark, Ms.
Pingree of Maine, Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. Grijalva, Mr.
Davis of Illinois, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Crowley, Mr.
Michaud, Mr. Welch, Mr. McDermott, Mr. Thompson of
California, Mr. Doggett, Mr. Kind, Mr. Lewis of
Georgia, and Ms. DeLauro):

H.R. 6061. A bill to amend the Social Security Act to
ensure the continuation of services under the Work Incentives
Planning and Assistance program and the Protection and
Advocacy for Beneficiaries of Social Security program; to the
Committee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. MARINO (for himself, Mr. Smith of Texas, Mr.
Conyers, Mr. Coble, Mr. Scott of Virginia, Mr.
Gallegly, Mr. Pierluisi, Mr. King of Iowa, and Ms.
Wasserman Schultz):

H.R. 6062. A bill to reauthorize the Edward Byrne Memorial
Justice Assistance Grant Program through fiscal year 2017; to
the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. SMITH of Texas (for himself, Ms. Wasserman
Schultz, Mr. Coble, Mr. Berman, Mr. Gallegly, Ms.
Jackson Lee of Texas, Mr. Daniel E. Lungren of
California, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Chabot, Mr. Pierluisi, Mr.
Chaffetz, Mr. Marino, Mr. Gowdy, Mrs. Adams, Ms.
Buerkle, Ms. Norton, Mr. Grimm, Mr. Rangel, Mr.
Meehan, Mr. Markey, Mr. Towns, Ms. Slaughter, Mr.
Moran, Mrs. Maloney, Mr. Boswell, Mr. McGovern, Mr.
Sherman, Mr. Clay, Mr. Honda, Ms. Richardson, Ms.
Bass of California, and Mr. Forbes):

H.R. 6063. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code,
with respect to child pornography and child exploitation
offenses; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. MICA:
H.R. 6064. A bill to provide an extension of Federal-aid
highway, highway safety, motor carrier safety, transit, and
other programs funded out of the Highway Trust Fund pending
enactment of a multiyear law reauthorizing such programs; to
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in
addition to the Committees on Ways and Means, Natural
Resources, Energy and Commerce, Science, Space, and
Technology, and Education and the Workforce, for a period to
be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned. considered and
passed.

By Mr. COLE (for himself, Mr. Boren, and Mr. Long):
H.R. 6065. A bill to make improvements to the Children's
Gasoline Burn Prevention Act; to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce.
By Ms. HAYWORTH (for herself, Mr. Dold, and Mr. King of
New York):
H.R. 6066. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to extend the parity between the exclusion from income
for employer-provided mass transit and parking benefits; to
the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.

By Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN (for herself, Mr. McKeon, Mr.
Chabot, Mr. Mack, Mr. Burton of Indiana, Mr. Rivera,
Mr. Diaz-Balart, Mr. McCaul, Mrs. Schmidt, Mr. Duncan
of South Carolina, Mr. Turner of New York, and Mr.
Bilirakis):

H.R. 6067. A bill to enhance the security of the Western
Hemisphere and bolster regional capacity and cooperation to
counter current and emerging threats, to promote cooperation
in the Western Hemisphere to prevent the proliferation of
nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, to secure
universal adherence to agreements regarding nuclear
nonproliferation, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committees on the
Judiciary, Financial Services, and Oversight and Government
Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined by the
Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as
fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.

By Mr. VAN HOLLEN (for himself, Mr. Wittman, Mr. Scott
of Virginia, Mr. Harris, Mr. Hoyer, Mr. Bartlett, Mr.
Cummings, Mr. Ruppersberger, Mr. Sarbanes, Ms.
Edwards, Mr. Wolf, Mr. Moran, Mr. Connolly of
Virginia, Mr. Rigell, Mr. Platts, Mr. Hinchey, and
Ms. Norton):

H.R. 6068. A bill to provide for continued conservation
efforts in the Chesapeake Bay watershed; to the Committee on
Agriculture.
By Mr. BARLETTA:
H.R. 6069. A bill to provide protection for certain Federal
employees with respect to implementation of the June 15,
2012, memorandum from Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Homeland
Security, regarding the exercise of prosecutorial discretion
with respect to individuals who came to the United States as
children; to the Committee on Homeland Security.

By Mr. BARLETTA (for himself, Mr. Schweikert, Mr.
Murphy of Pennsylvania, Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania,
Mr. Burton of Indiana, Mr. Platts, Mr. Ross of
Florida, Mr. Lance, Mr. Kelly, and Mr. Marino):
H.R. 6070. A bill to require the Comptroller General of the
United States to conduct a study to determine the impact on
the United States of the policy announced by the Secretary of
Homeland Security on June 15, 2012, concerning the exercise
of prosecutorial discretion with respect to individuals who
came to the United States illegally as children, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. BARROW:
H.R. 6071. A bill to make supplemental appropriations for
medical and prosthetic research of the Department of Veterans
Affairs for fiscal year 2012; to the Committee on
Appropriations.

[[Page 10772]]

By Ms. BERKLEY:
H.R. 6072. A bill to provide for certain land conveyances
in the State of Nevada, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Natural Resources.

By Mr. BILIRAKIS (for himself, Mr. Miller of Florida,
Mr. Nugent, Mr. Young of Florida, Mr. Mack, Mr. Ross
of Florida, and Ms. Castor of Florida):
H.R. 6073. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to
ensure that deceased veterans with no known next of kin can
receive a dignified burial, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
By Mr. BILIRAKIS:
H.R. 6074. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to deny the refundable portion of the child tax credit
to individuals who are not authorized to be employed in the
United States and to terminate the use of certifying
acceptance agents to facilitate the application process for
ITINs; to the Committee on Ways and Means.

By Ms. BUERKLE (for herself, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Broun
of Georgia, Mrs. Hartzler, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Roe of
Tennessee, and Mr. Westmoreland):
H.R. 6075. A bill to permit the chief executive of a State
to create an exemption from certain requirements of Federal
environmental laws for producers of agricultural commodities,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently
determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of
such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the
committee concerned.

By Mr. AL GREEN of Texas:
H.R. 6076. A bill to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act to
provide for the calculation of the minimum wage based on the
Federal poverty threshold for a family of 2, as determined by
the Bureau of the Census; to the Committee on Education and
the Workforce.

By Ms. NORTON:
H.R. 6077. A bill to designate the Rachel Carson Nature
Trail, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Natural
Resources.

By Mr. PETERS (for himself, Ms. Hahn, Mr. Schrader, Mr.
Cicilline, and Mr. Owens):
H.R. 6078. A bill to amend the Small Business Act to
provide for higher goals for procurement contracts awarded to
small business concerns, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Small Business.

By Mr. QUAYLE:
H.J. Res. 114. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to
the Constitution of the United States relative to construing
provisions of law as having been enacted pursuant to the
power of Congress to lay and collect taxes; to the Committee
on the Judiciary.

By Mr. AL GREEN of Texas (for himself, Ms. Bass of
California, Mr. Bishop of Georgia, Ms. Bordallo, Ms.
Brown of Florida, Mr. Butterfield, Mr. Carson of
Indiana, Mrs. Christensen, Mr. Clarke of Michigan,
Ms. Clarke of New York, Mr. Clay, Mr. Cleaver, Mr.
Cohen, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Davis of Illinois, Mr.
Fattah, Ms. Fudge, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Cummings, Ms.
Edwards, Mr. Ellison, Mr. Hastings of Florida, Ms.
Jackson Lee of Texas, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of
Texas, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, Ms. Lee of California,
Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Ms. McCollum, Ms. Moore, Ms.
Norton, Mr. Rangel, Ms. Richardson, Mr. Richmond, Mr.
Rush, Mr. Scott of Virginia, Mr. Serrano, Mr.
Thompson of Mississippi, Mr. Towns, Ms. Waters, Mr.
Watt, Ms. Wilson of Florida, Ms. Sewell, and Mr.
Meeks):
H. Con. Res. 130. Concurrent resolution honoring and
praising the National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People on the occasion of its 103rd anniversary; to
the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. DREIER (for himself, Mr. Meeks, and Mr.
Paulsen):
H. Res. 719. A resolution expressing the sense of the House
of Representatives that the United States should initiate
negotiations to enter into a free trade agreement with
Tunisia; to the Committee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. LOEBSACK (for himself and Mr. Schilling):
H. Res. 720. A resolution recognizing the 150th anniversary
of the Rock Island Arsenal and the men and women who
currently and have previously worked on Arsenal Island; to
the Committee on Armed Services.

By Mr. CLARKE of Michigan (for himself and Mr. Scott of
South Carolina):
H. Res. 721. A resolution expressing the sense of the House
of Representatives that bolstering literacy among African-
American and Hispanic men is an urgent national priority; to
the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

By Ms. CASTOR of Florida:
H. Res. 722. A resolution expressing support for
designation of July as National Sarcoma Awareness Month; to
the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

By Mr. ROHRABACHER:
H. Res. 723. A resolution expressing the sense of the House
of Representatives regarding the classification of Dr. Shakil
Afridi as a refugee of special humanitarian concern to the
United States; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

____________________

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

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

By Mr. McGOVERN:
H.R. 6059.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3
Article I, Section 8, Clause 18
By Mr. BISHOP of Utah:
H.R. 6060.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article I, Section VIII, Clause 18 of the Constitution.
By Mr. BECERRA:
H.R. 6061.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article II, Section 8.
By Mr. MARINO:
H.R. 6062.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
The authority to enact this bill is derived from, but may
not be limited to, Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 and Clause
3 of the United States Constitution.

By Mr. SMITH of Texas:
H.R. 6063.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
The authority to enact this bill is derived from, but may
not be limited to, Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the
United States Constitution.
By Mr. MICA:
H.R. 6064.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution,
specifically Clause 1, Clause 3, Clause 7, and Clause 18.
By Mr. COLE:
H.R. 6065.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 which allows Congress to
``fix the Standard of Weights and Measures.'' This
legislation would set the standards of portable fuel
containers.

Additionally, Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 allows
Congress to ``regulate Commerce . . . among the several
states.'' As portable fuel containers are objects of
interstate commerce, it is appropriate for Federal standards
to be set.
By Ms. HAYWORTH:
H.R. 6066.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
The Congress enacts this bill pursuant to Clause 1 of
Section 8 of Article I of the United States Constitution and
Amendment XVI of the United States Constitution.

By Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN:
H.R. 6067.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
This bill is enacted pursuant to the power granted to
Congress under Article I, Section 8.

By Mr. VAN HOLLEN:
H.R. 6068.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
This bill is enacted pursuant to Clause 1 of Section 8 of
Article I of the United States Constitution.

By Mr. BARLETTA:
H.R. 6069.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
This bill makes changes to existing law relating to
``Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution Clause 18.''
By Mr. BARLETTA:
H.R. 6070.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
This bill makes changes to existing law relating to
``Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution Clause 18.''
By Mr. BARROW:
H.R. 6071.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article I Section I of the U.S. Constitution
By Ms. BERKLEY:
H.R. 6072.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article IV, Section 3.
By Mr. BILIRAKIS:
H.R. 6073.

[[Page 10773]]

Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article I, section 8 of the United States Constitution
(clauses 12, 13, 14, and 16), which grants Congress the power
to raise and support an Army; to provide and maintain a Navy;
to make rules for the government and regulation of the land
and naval forces; and to provide for organizing, arming, and
disciplining the militia.

By Mr. BILIRAKIS:
H.R. 6074.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
The constitutional authority on which this bill rests is
the power of Congress To lay and collect Taxes, Duties,
Imposts and Excises as enumerated in Article 1, Section 8,
Clause 1 of the United States Constitution.
By Ms. BUERKLE:
H.R. 6075.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3--
The Congress shall have Power to regulate Commerce with
Foreign Nations, and among several States, and with Indian
Tribes.
Also, the Tenth Amendment--
The powers not Delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are
reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
By Mr. AL GREEN of Texas:
H.R. 6076.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
The Constitutional authority to enact this legislation can
be found in:
Commerce Clause (Art. 1 sec. 8 cl. 3)
Necessary and Proper Clause (Art. 1 sec. 8 cl. 18)
Constitutional analysis is a rigorous discipline which goes
far beyond the text of the Constitution, and requires
knowledge of case law, history, and the tools of
constitutional interpretation. While the scope of Congress'
powers is an appropriate matter for House debate, the listing
of specific textual authorities for routine Congressional
legislation about which there is no legitimate constitutional
concern is a diminishment of the majesty of our Founding
Fathers' vision for our national legislature.
By Ms. NORTON:
H.R. 6077.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Clause 2 of section 3 of article IV of the Constitution.
By Mr. PETERS:
H.R. 6078.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution of the
United States.
By Mr. QUAYLE:
H.J. Res. 114.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article V of the U.S. Constitution.

____________________

ADDITIONAL SPONSORS

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

H.R. 21: Mr. Turner of Ohio.
H.R. 178: Mr. Himes.
H.R. 181: Mr. Himes and Mr. Langevin.
H.R. 192: Mr. Polis.
H.R. 273: Mr. Canseco and Mr. Costa.
H.R. 361: Mr. Womack.
H.R. 371: Mr. Turner of Ohio.
H.R. 420: Mr. Dingell.
H.R. 657: Mr. Scalise.
H.R. 718: Ms. Roybal-Allard.
H.R. 831: Ms. Lee of California and Mr. Heinrich.
H.R. 854: Mr. Lujan.
H.R. 941: Mr. Bishop of Georgia.
H.R. 942: Mr. Tonko and Mr. Ross of Arkansas.
H.R. 998: Mr. Perlmutter.
H.R. 1063: Mr. Nunes.
H.R. 1195: Mr. Long.
H.R. 1236: Mrs. Bachmann.
H.R. 1259: Mr. LoBiondo, Mr. Rogers of Alabama, and Mr.
Burgess.
H.R. 1265: Mr. Gibbs.
H.R. 1370: Mr. Landry.
H.R. 1381: Mr. Ellison and Mr. Cicilline.
H.R. 1464: Mr. Rivera and Ms. Schwartz.
H.R. 1475: Mr. Rivera.
H.R. 1489: Mr. Reyes.
H.R. 1543: Mr. Tonko.
H.R. 1546: Mr. Bartlett.
H.R. 1639: Mr. Johnson of Georgia.
H.R. 1653: Mr. Walberg and Mr. Coble.
H.R. 1704: Mr. Turner of New York.
H.R. 1775: Mr. Crenshaw, Mrs. Black, Mr. Amodei, Ms.
Berkley, Mr. Renacci, Mrs. Noem, Mr. Bilirakis, Mr. Thompson
of Pennsylvania, Mr. Jones, Mr. Cole, and Mr. Roe of
Tennessee.
H.R. 1867: Mr. Lance.
H.R. 1878: Ms. Roybal-Allard and Ms. Richardson.
H.R. 1897: Mr. Frelinghuysen.
H.R. 1936: Mr. David Scott of Georgia.
H.R. 1971: Mr. Loebsack.
H.R. 2033: Ms. Zoe Lofgren of California.
H.R. 2040: Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania and Mr. Scalise.
H.R. 2104: Mr. Berg.
H.R. 2139: Mr. Ellison, Mrs. Adams, Mr. Fattah, and Mr.
Berg.
H.R. 2140: Ms. Roybal-Allard.
H.R. 2305: Mr. Jones.
H.R. 2382: Mr. Himes.
H.R. 2479: Mr. Berg.
H.R. 2497: Mr. Broun of Georgia.
H.R. 2554: Mr. Schiff.
H.R. 2563: Mr. Connolly of Virginia.
H.R. 2569: Mr. Aderholt.
H.R. 2672: Mr. Schrader.
H.R. 2794: Mr. Blumenauer.
H.R. 2874: Mr. Scalise.
H.R. 2978: Mr. King of Iowa, Mr. Jordan, and Mr. Huizenga
of Michigan.
H.R. 2985: Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. LoBiondo, and Ms. Norton.
H.R. 2989: Mr. Van Hollen and Mr. Sessions.
H.R. 2992: Mr. Jones.
H.R. 3053: Mr. McDermott.
H.R. 3057: Mr. Ryan of Ohio.
H.R. 3165: Mr. Clay.
H.R. 3187: Mr. Fincher, Mr. Boswell, Mr. Gardner, Mr.
Nugent, Mrs. Myrick, Mr. Cole, and Mr. Griffith of Virginia.
H.R. 3337: Mrs. Black and Mr. Cohen.
H.R. 3405: Mr. Baca.
H.R. 3423: Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania and Mr. Dreier.
H.R. 3458: Mr. Rogers of Kentucky.
H.R. 3461: Mr. Johnson of Ohio, Mr. Sherman, Mr. Graves of
Missouri, and Mr. Donnelly of Indiana.
H.R. 3489: Mr. Frelinghuysen.
H.R. 3586: Mrs. Ellmers.
H.R. 3627: Mr. Scalise.
H.R. 3709: Mr. Smith of Washington.
H.R. 3798: Mr. Dicks, Mr. Clay, and Mr. Markey.
H.R. 3803: Mr. Walsh of Illinois, Mr. Barton of Texas, and
Mr. Rohrabacher.
H.R. 3861: Mrs. Miller of Michigan.
H.R. 3875: Mr. Holt and Mr. Lipinski.
H.R. 4057: Mr. Calvert.
H.R. 4103: Mr. Blumenauer.
H.R. 4104: Mr. Cooper, Mr. Richmond, Mr. Fattah, and Ms.
Brown of Florida.
H.R. 4154: Mr. Moran and Mr. Filner.
H.R. 4169: Mr. Bishop of Georgia.
H.R. 4190: Mr. Farr and Mrs. Maloney.
H.R. 4215: Mr. Loebsack.
H.R. 4243: Mr. McKeon.
H.R. 4259: Mr. Stark.
H.R. 4277: Mr. Welch.
H.R. 4350: Mr. Michaud and Ms. Schakowsky.
H.R. 4367: Mr. Rehberg, Mr. Bilirakis, Mr. Cravaack, Mr.
King of New York, Mr. Cuellar, and Mr. Palazzo.
H.R. 4373: Mr. Platts.
H.R. 4385: Mr. Guinta, Mr. Cassidy, Mr. Miller of Florida,
Mrs. Hartzler, and Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia.
H.R. 4402: Mr. Stivers.
H.R. 4454: Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia.
H.R. 5542: Ms. Kaptur, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Mr. Hastings
of Florida, Mr. Sarbanes, Ms. McCollum, and Mr. Peters.
H.R. 5647: Mr. Tierney, Ms. Velazquez, and Mr. Cohen.
H.R. 5684: Mr. Cohen, Mr. DeFazio, Mr. Schrader, and Mr.
Connolly of Virginia.
H.R. 5749: Mr. McGovern.
H.R. 5796: Ms. Pingree of Maine.
H.R. 5806: Mr. Bilirakis.
H.R. 5839: Mr. Yoder.
H.R. 5840: Mr. King of New York, Mr. Quigley, Mr. Kind, and
Ms. Slaughter.
H.R. 5850: Ms. Schakowsky.
H.R. 5865: Mr. Wolf.
H.R. 5872: Mr. Forbes and Mr. Scalise.
H.R. 5893: Mr. Schock.
H.R. 5910: Mr. Stivers, Mr. Polis, Mr. Manzullo, and Mr.
Himes.
H.R. 5931: Mr. Ross of Arkansas.
H.R. 5954: Mr. Murphy of Pennsylvania, Mr. Holden, Mr.
Meehan, Ms. Schwartz, Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania, Mr.
Kelly, Mr. Doyle, Mr. Critz, Mr. Shuster, Mr. Barletta, Mr.
Marino, Mr. Dent, Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania, Mr. Fattah, Mr.
Fitzpatrick, Mr. Platts, and Mr. Pitts.
H.R. 5969: Mr. Kelly and Mr. Bucshon.
H.R. 5970: Mr. Kelly and Mr. Bucshon.
H.R. 5987: Mr. Dicks.
H.R. 5991: Mr. Polis.
H.R. 6000: Mr. Long, Mr. Miller of Florida, Mr. Wilson of
South Carolina, Mr. Walberg, Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia, Mr.
Pitts, Mr. Gohmert, Mr. Mulvaney, Mr. Roe of Tennessee, Mr.
Bishop of Utah, Mr. Stutzman, and Mr. Fleming.
H.R. 6003: Ms. Norton.
H.R. 6019: Mr. Honda.
H.R. 6048: Mr. Griffin of Arkansas, Mr. Fleming, Mr. Davis
of Kentucky, Mr. Boustany, Mr. Jordan, Mr. Tipton, Mr.
Fincher, and Mr. DesJarlais.
H.J. Res. 47: Mr. Capuano.
H.J. Res. 90: Mr. Sarbanes.
H.J. Res. 103: Mr. Scalise.
H.J. Res. 110: Mr. McCotter and Mr. King of Iowa.
H.J. Res. 111: Mr. Keating, Ms. Eshoo, Mr. Welch, Ms.
Norton, Mr. Jackson of Illinois, Mr. Farr, and Ms. Lee of
California.
H. Res. 216: Mr. Clay.
H. Res. 298: Mr. Frelinghuysen.
H. Res. 484: Mr. Rohrabacher.
H. Res. 521: Mr. Blumenauer.
H. Res. 583: Mr. Gardner.
H. Res. 618: Mr. Bass of New Hampshire and Mr. Forbes.
H. Res. 695: Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia.
H. Res. 701: Mr. Long.
H. Res. 702: Mr. Long.

[[Page 10774]]

H. Res. 704: Mr. Ellison and Mr. Critz.
H. Res. 705: Mr. Grimm, Mr. Turner of New York, Mr.
Guthrie, Mr. Lipinski, and Mr. Conyers.
H. Res. 709: Mr. Capuano.
H. Res. 716: Mr. Welch, Mr. Akin, Mr. Harper, Mrs. McMorris
Rodgers, Mr. Turner of New York, Mrs. Adams, Mr. Markey, and
Mr. Turner of Ohio.

[[Page 10775]]

SENATE--Friday, June 29, 2012

The Senate met at 10 a.m. and was called to order by the Honorable
Christopher A. Coons, a Senator from the State of Delaware.
______

prayer

The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, offered the following prayer:
Let us pray.
Eternal God, the light of our lives, we lift our hearts to You in
praise. May Your presence be felt today on Capitol Hill. There is no
one like You, for You protect the weak from the strong and the poor
from the oppressor. Give our Senators strength for today's journey.
Deepen their trust in You, as You guide them by Your wisdom. As we
anticipate the Fourth of July, remind us that true freedom comes from
You. And, Lord, we ask Your special blessing upon our outgoing Senate
page class.
We pray in Your liberating Name. Amen.

____________________

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

The Honorable Christopher A. Coons led the Pledge of Allegiance, as
follows:

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

____________________

APPOINTMENT OF ACTING PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will please read a communication to
the Senate from the President pro tempore (Mr. Inouye).
The legislative clerk read the following letter:

U.S. Senate,

President pro tempore,

Washington, DC, June 29, 2012.
To the Senate:
Under the provisions of rule I, paragraph 3, of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby appoint the Honorable
Christopher A. Coons, a Senator from the State of Delaware,
to perform the duties of the Chair.
Daniel K. Inouye,
President pro tempore.

Mr. COONS thereupon assumed the chair as Acting President pro
tempore.

____________________

RECOGNITION OF THE MAJORITY LEADER

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

____________________

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

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 341, S.
2237.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the motion.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 341, S. 2237, a bill to
provide a temporary income tax credit for increased payroll
and bonus depreciation for an additional year, and for other
purposes.

Schedule

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I know Senators are anxious as to what is
going to happen here today. The Republican leader and I have been in
close contact the last several days. We are fortunate that we are now
in a position to complete work today. We should be able to do it
quickly. It all depends on the cooperation of Senators.
We actually know the House is planning to vote around 12:30 today.
They could do it more quickly. They could do it as late as 1 o'clock.
We have the ability, now that the papers have been filed over in the
House, to act before they do, as we have done before. So we will have
to see how the morning moves on.
We are working on a consent to have votes in relation to the
transportation conference report this morning. I know Senators have
called me and, I am sure, the Republican leader on a number of
occasions. As soon as we have something firmed up, we will let everyone
know.

Health Care Decision

Mr. REID. Mr. President, yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed
that no family should live one illness or one accident away from
bankruptcy. The Court decision is not a victory for Democrats or
President Obama, it is a true victory for the American people. Let me
give you a few reasons why that is the case, and just a few.
Since the act was signed by President Obama, more than 6 million
young people have signed up for their parents' health plan. Why is that
important? As most people know--in the Senate, at least--I am from
Searchlight, NV. It is a very small community. Someone I care a great
deal about was the assistant postmistress there. Her husband has been
around town. They have been together for many years. They have a boy
named Jeff. I can remember, when we first had our home in Searchlight,
he would help us as a young boy, climbing up into a Joshua tree and
putting up Christmas tree lights.
Well, he has grown past that. He was in college and doing quite well.
He started getting sick. He had just turned 23. As embarrassing as it
was, he had to go to a doctor to find out what was wrong. He had
testicular cancer. That happened a matter of weeks after he was no
longer on the insurance plan of his parents. They had no money. They
were desperate to help their boy, and they did everything they could to
help him.
He had two or three surgeries. His life was saved. It really put a
dent in what limited savings they had. She worked part time in the post
office. He had worked down at the Mohave generating facility, which
closed. So they had limited means. It was very difficult on what
savings they had been able to accumulate.
That will not happen anymore. He would have been able to complete
college because the magic age is not 22 anymore, it is 27. So that is
one thing, and 6 million young Americans have taken advantage of that.
They will not have to have the problems Jeff Hill had. He is doing OK
now. He recently married. But it was a struggle for a long time,
physically and emotionally. Because children can now stay on their
parents' insurance until they are 26, no young person will have to
defer his or her dreams to take a job that offers insurance.
Since health reform took effect, 5 million seniors have already saved
about $600 each on prescription drugs. The doughnut hole is being
filled. Maybe people watching this presentation here today do not know
what the doughnut hole is, but every senior citizen knows what it is
because it costs them lots of money.
Because of this law now no longer being debatable as far as whether
it is going to stand--it is the law of the country--millions have
gotten free wellness checks and cancer screenings. They could never
have done that before. Millions--free wellness checks and cancer
screenings. That means millions of seniors have more money in their
pockets for food, gas, and the electric bill. Frankly, a lot of them
would not have spent that money anyway; they would have just worried
about whether they had cancer or whether they should wait a while to go
see the doctor for their annual physical which was way overdue. It
means millions of seniors, if, in fact, they are spending for this
wellness check, will not have to anymore, and they can use this money
for food, gas, and electric bills.
Hundreds of thousands of businesses already offer their employees
health insurance using tax credits. They are doing the right thing.
Since Congress passed the law, insurance companies can no longer put
profits ahead of people.
It is no secret that the insurance companies have been lobbying for a

[[Page 10776]]

long time. Now 17, 18 years ago, they lobbied against the Clinton
health care plan. They were very effective. ``Harry and Louise'' ads
defeated that legislation. They spent millions of dollars. They tried
to defeat this legislation, and they have been lobbying hard. I do not
know how they expected to affect the Supreme Court, but maybe they have
ways none of us understand. I think they wasted their money.
In the future, insurance companies will no longer be able to put
profits ahead of people. They can no longer discriminate against
children with preexisting conditions.
I served in Congress with a man named James Bilbray, and we have been
friends since I was going to law school back here--Jimmy Bilbray. He
has had a wonderful career in politics in Nevada. But he and I as young
men back here were raising our little kids together. We were going to
law school. We both worked here on Capitol Hill. His little boy Kevin
got so sick. He was just a baby--just a baby. He didn't know what was
wrong. He had a diabetic coma. This little baby had diabetes. Kevin
lived to be about 20 years old. He had a diabetic reaction when he was
taking a shower, fell over the stop on the bathtub where the shower was
and drowned--it killed him. He died. Kevin Bilbray. He had diabetes.
Of course, getting insurance was always a problem for that family. No
longer. No longer. If a child like the Bilbrays', like little Kevin,
has diabetes, they will not have to worry about, can I get insurance?
And not only will it apply in the future--it applies right now to
people under age 18, but in the future everybody who has a preexisting
disability will be entitled to insurance. They cannot be denied because
of a preexisting disability.
It is not only diabetes, it is heart defects. I know he never talks
about this, but I know about it. Senator Durbin had a child who from
the time she was a baby had a heart defect. She was sick her whole
life. Dick and Loretta lost their girl a couple of years ago. She was
40 years old, thereabouts. Her whole life, she had a heart defect. In
the future, people like that will be able to get insurance. They cannot
be denied.
Right over in the LBJ Room yesterday morning, at my ``Welcome to
Washington,'' there were a number of people there. The granddaughter of
someone with whom my oldest brother went to school--Teddy Vasquez's
grandchild--was there. Why? Because she was there representing her
brother, who has cystic fibrosis.
I do not know if the Presiding Officer has ever before been around
anyone with cystic fibrosis, but, as I explained to them over there
yesterday morning, one of my son's coaches had a son who had cystic
fibrosis. They would have to beat on his chest. They had this process
to try to loosen the stuff that accumulates in the lungs because of
this disease. Kids used to not live very long with this. We are doing a
lot better now. We have some medicines. But in the future, anyone with
cystic fibrosis will not be denied insurance because of this dread
disease. Now, if you are under 18, you cannot be denied insurance
because you have this dread disease.
Insurance companies can no longer raise your rates for no reason. How
many times have we heard stories about insurance companies raising
rates for no reason other than they wanted to? And there was no way to
stop it. They can no longer drop coverage if you get sick. They did
that. They can no longer do that. That is now against the law of this
country.
Millions of Americans are already seeing the benefit of this law, and
soon 35 million more who cannot afford health insurance will have
access to reasonably priced insurance and quality care. Here is how it
works. Each State will set up its own health insurance marketplace
called an exchange, which will offer a menu of private insurance plans
from which people can choose.
The Presiding Officer is a relatively new Senator here. I have been
in Congress now for a long time. Every year, we get a menu of options,
like all Federal employees. Senators do not get treated any differently
than any other Federal employees. We get a number of options as to what
we want to buy, the price of one up here or down here. That is what we
want for everybody in America, something just like the millions of
Federal employees have. That is what we will have.
We will offer a menu of private insurance plans from which people can
choose what they want. Once these exchanges are in place, insurance
companies will no longer be able to discriminate against any American
with a preexisting health condition, just as I have talked about. They
will not be able to deny you insurance because you are sick. They will
not be able to charge you more just because you are a woman. That is a
fact. They will not be able to do it anymore or because you do not
already have insurance. If you cannot afford the premiums, you will get
a tax credit to help pay for them.
But what if you are one of the 250 million Americans who already have
insurance? Nothing will change--nothing. Nothing will change except you
will no longer have to worry that if you lose your job, you will lose
your insurance. Nothing will change except that if you get cancer or
have a stroke, your insurance company will not be able to deny you
lifesaving care because you have reached some arbitrary lifetime cap.
These are not theoretical. A man in Las Vegas was a car racer. He was
not racing a car, but somebody hurt him. He became a paraplegic. He got
along pretty well. He needed a lot of care. He arrived at some lifetime
cap. He had an insurance policy. He had his own insurance. They cannot
do that anymore. That provision on this lifetime cap will help untold
hundreds of thousands of people.
Nothing will change, except when one gets a checkup and preventive
will be free--a provision that has already helped 54 million Americans
with private insurance.
You will be able to keep your plan and keep your doctor. But now
you--not the insurance company--will be in control.
By August, almost 13 million people will get a rebate check from
their insurance company because it spent too much on administrative
costs and not enough on health care. They can't any longer put all the
profits into these multimillion dollar bonuses and salaries people got.
They cannot do that; 80 percent of what they get has to be put into
helping people get well.
It is so very important to explain to people what is in this bill.
Are these things people want to take away? I don't think so. They can
yell and scream about ObamaCare but explain these individual
provisions. This money will come back in August. I was listening to
public radio this morning, and they interviewed someone who ran an
insurance exchange, I think they called it. He was waiting by the phone
for this decision to come out yesterday. He was so happy because CNN
and FOX announced the case had been overruled. He was so happy. But
when he learned it was actually still in effect, he was very sad. Why?
He said: We will not be able to pay our salaries as much as we had.
He was paying a lot for salaries for the bosses and not enough money
into taking care of people.
The Affordable Care Act is already helping millions of Americans--
seniors on Medicare, children with heart conditions, and students
following their dreams.
In the coming months, millions more will benefit from this law. That
doesn't mean the law is perfect. We all know that. We are willing to
work next year, and if there are problems to work out, we are happy to
work with our colleagues to do that.
But now the Supreme Court has spoken; it is time to renew our focus
on the most pressing challenge facing America: the high unemployment
rate we have. Too many Americans are struggling, and Congress cannot
afford to waste time refighting old battles. We need to work together
to put Americans back to work.
As a side note, these people who talk about repeal, it would cause
the loss of 400,000 jobs. If we look at all the job statistics in the
past year, some of the

[[Page 10777]]

most significant growth is taking place in health care. I don't think
we want to lose 400,000 jobs right off the bat.
Thanks to cooperation on both sides, I am glad to say the Senate will
vote sometime today on the Transportation bill conference report. It is
a wonderful piece of legislation that includes student loans and the
problems we have had with flood insurance. These things will be
completed fairly early today. The Flood Insurance Program being
extended will allow millions of home closings to go forward at a time
when our real estate market is beginning to rebound. Preventing
interest rates from doubling on 7 million students was a major priority
for all of us.
Passing the 2-year, 3 months Transportation bill will create or save
2.8 million American jobs--many of them in the hard-hit construction
industry. It will also restore millions of miles of crumbling roadways,
railways, and bridges. It is very important. It streamlines the process
and gets rid of a lot of the ability for entities to stall the
construction of these much needed roads. I had an experience similar to
this in Nevada. That is why it was important to Senators Boxer and
Inhofe.
This has been a very productive week. It has been a fruitful session
that we have had. We have passed a bipartisan farm bill and have taken
a hard look at how we are going to make the Postal Service better. The
farm bill was very difficult and took a long time to get done.
I am optimistic the Senate will remain in the spirit of cooperation
during the next work period, when we consider a number of other
important job creation measures and other things we need to do.
I hope my colleagues have a constructive week at home. We have a lot
of work to do, and I understand that. I hope everybody is safe and
happy, and I certainly extend my recognition to the State of Colorado,
which has had devastating fires, and the West is having real problems.
They have about 200 fires burning as we speak. Eleven of them are major
fires. We have to make sure we give the firefighting people the
resources to do this. I was happy, within the past month, to be part of
a program to advance the purchase of these tankers to fight these
fires. We were able to do that.
When we come back to work in 10 days or so, everybody has to
understand we have a lot to do to ensure this country's economic
future. I look forward to taking up the challenge together.

____________________

PILOT'S BILL OF RIGHTS

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Commerce be discharged from further consideration of S. 1335 and the
Senate now proceed to that matter.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk will report the bill
by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 1335) to amend title 49, United States Code, to
provide rights for pilots, and for other purposes.

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.

Pilot's Bill of Rights

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, S. 1335, the Pilot's Bill of Rights,
takes several steps to protect the rights of pilots, including
modifications to the appeals process, and improvements to the Federal
Aviation Administration's Notice to Airman System and medical
certification process.
Most importantly, it preserves the FAA's authority to take actions to
maintain the safety of the air transportation system, and we want to be
clear about the Congressional intent regarding one particular section
of the bill.
Three provisions of the bill eliminate language in current statute
governing the National Transportation Safety Board's (NTSB)
adjudication of appeals of FAA orders that deny, amend, modify,
suspend, or revoke an airman's certificate. Specifically, language in
49 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 44703(d)(2), 44709(d)(3), and 44710(d)(1), which
expressly binds the NTSB to ``all validly adopted interpretations of
laws and regulations the Administrator carries out and of written
agency policy guidance available to the public related to sanctions to
be imposed . . . unless the Board finds an interpretation to be
arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not according to law.''
It is not the intention of the Senate to eliminate the NTSB's
practice to observe the principles of judicial deference to the FAA
Administrator when reviewing airmen appeals. The Senate only finds that
this language is redundant of what is already provided for under the
law and it is not the intent of the Senate to prevent the NTSB from
applying the principles of judicial deference in adjudicating Federal
Aviation Administration cases.
The purpose of these changes is simply to make the statute consistent
with the laws governing all other Federal agencies. Thus, it is the
intention of the Senate that the NTSB, in reviewing FAA cases, will
apply principles of judicial deference to the interpretations of laws,
regulations, and policies that the Administrator carries out in
accordance with the Supreme Court's ruling in Martin v. OSHRC, 449 U.S.
114 (1991).
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I concur.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Hutchison-
Inhofe amendment at the desk be agreed to; that the bill, as amended,
be read the third time and passed; that the motion to reconsider be
laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the measure be
printed in the Record.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The amendment (No. 2489) was agreed to, as follows:

(Purpose: In the nature of a substitute)

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Pilot's Bill of Rights''.

SEC. 2. FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION ENFORCEMENT
PROCEEDINGS AND ELIMINATION OF DEFERENCE.

(a) In General.--Any proceeding conducted under subpart C,
D, or F of part 821 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations,
relating to denial, amendment, modification, suspension, or
revocation of an airman certificate, shall be conducted, to
the extent practicable, in accordance with the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and the Federal Rules of Evidence.
(b) Access to Information.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided under paragraph (3),
the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration
(referred to in this section as the ``Administrator'') shall
provide timely, written notification to an individual who is
the subject of an investigation relating to the approval,
denial, suspension, modification, or revocation of an airman
certificate under chapter 447 of title 49, United States
Code.
(2) Information required.--The notification required under
paragraph (1) shall inform the individual--
(A) of the nature of the investigation;
(B) that an oral or written response to a Letter of
Investigation from the Administrator is not required;
(C) that no action or adverse inference can be taken
against the individual for declining to respond to a Letter
of Investigation from the Administrator;
(D) that any response to a Letter of Investigation from the
Administrator or to an inquiry made by a representative of
the Administrator by the individual may be used as evidence
against the individual;
(E) that the releasable portions of the Administrator's
investigative report will be available to the individual; and
(F) that the individual is entitled to access or otherwise
obtain air traffic data described in paragraph (4).
(3) Exception.--The Administrator may delay timely
notification under paragraph (1) if the Administrator
determines that such notification may threaten the integrity
of the investigation.
(4) Access to air traffic data.--
(A) FAA air traffic data.--The Administrator shall provide
an individual described in paragraph (1) with timely access
to any air traffic data in the possession of the Federal
Aviation Administration that would facilitate the
individual's ability to productively participate in a
proceeding relating to an investigation described in such
paragraph.
(B) Air traffic data defined.--As used in subparagraph (A),
the term ``air traffic data'' includes--
(i) relevant air traffic communication tapes;
(ii) radar information;
(iii) air traffic controller statements;
(iv) flight data;
(v) investigative reports; and

[[Page 10778]]

(vi) any other air traffic or flight data in the Federal
Aviation Administration's possession that would facilitate
the individual's ability to productively participate in the
proceeding.
(C) Government contractor air traffic data.--
(i) In general.--Any individual described in paragraph (1)
is entitled to obtain any air traffic data that would
facilitate the individual's ability to productively
participate in a proceeding relating to an investigation
described in such paragraph from a government contractor that
provides operational services to the Federal Aviation
Administration, including control towers and flight service
stations.
(ii) Required information from individual.--The individual
may obtain the information described in clause (i) by
submitting a request to the Administrator that--

(I) describes the facility at which such information is
located; and
(II) identifies the date on which such information was
generated.

(iii) Provision of information to individual.--If the
Administrator receives a request under this subparagraph, the
Administrator shall--

(I) request the contractor to provide the requested
information; and
(II) upon receiving such information, transmitting the
information to the requesting individual in a timely manner.

(5) Timing.--Except when the Administrator determines that
an emergency exists under section 44709(c)(2) or 46105(c),
the Administrator may not proceed against an individual that
is the subject of an investigation described in paragraph (1)
during the 30-day period beginning on the date on which the
air traffic data required under paragraph (4) is made
available to the individual.
(c) Amendments to Title 49.--
(1) Airman certificates.--Section 44703(d)(2) of title 49,
United States Code, is amended by striking ``but is bound by
all validly adopted interpretations of laws and regulations
the Administrator carries out unless the Board finds an
interpretation is arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not
according to law''.
(2) Amendments, modifications, suspensions, and revocations
of certificates.--Section 44709(d)(3) of such title is
amended by striking ``but is bound by all validly adopted
interpretations of laws and regulations the Administrator
carries out and of written agency policy guidance available
to the public related to sanctions to be imposed under this
section unless the Board finds an interpretation is
arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not according to law''.
(3) Revocation of airman certificates for controlled
substance violations.--Section 44710(d)(1) of such title is
amended by striking ``but shall be bound by all validly
adopted interpretations of laws and regulations the
Administrator carries out and of written agency policy
guidance available to the public related to sanctions to be
imposed under this section unless the Board finds an
interpretation is arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not
according to law''.
(d) Appeal From Certificate Actions.--
(1) In general.--Upon a decision by the National
Transportation Safety Board upholding an order or a final
decision by the Administrator denying an airman certificate
under section 44703(d) of title 49, United States Code, or
imposing a punitive civil action or an emergency order of
revocation under subsections (d) and (e) of section 44709 of
such title, an individual substantially affected by an order
of the Board may, at the individual's election, file an
appeal in the United States district court in which the
individual resides or in which the action in question
occurred, or in the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia. If the individual substantially
affected by an order of the Board elects not to file an
appeal in a United States district court, the individual may
file an appeal in an appropriate United States court of
appeals.
(2) Emergency order pending judicial review.--Subsequent to
a decision by the Board to uphold an Administrator's
emergency order under section 44709(e)(2) of title 49, United
States Code, and absent a stay of the enforcement of that
order by the Board, the emergency order of amendment,
modification, suspension, or revocation of a certificate
shall remain in effect, pending the exhaustion of an appeal
to a Federal district court as provided in this Act.
(e) Standard of Review.--
(1) In general.--In an appeal filed under subsection (d) in
a United States district court, the district court shall give
full independent review of a denial, suspension, or
revocation ordered by the Administrator, including
substantive independent and expedited review of any decision
by the Administrator to make such order effective
immediately.
(2) Evidence.--A United States district court's review
under paragraph (1) shall include in evidence any record of
the proceeding before the Administrator and any record of the
proceeding before the National Transportation Safety Board,
including hearing testimony, transcripts, exhibits,
decisions, and briefs submitted by the parties.

SEC. 3. NOTICES TO AIRMEN.

(a) In General.--
(1) Definition.--In this section, the term ``NOTAM'' means
Notices to Airmen.
(2) Improvements.--Not later than 180 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the
Federal Aviation Administration shall begin a Notice to
Airmen Improvement Program (in this section referred to as
the ``NOTAM Improvement Program'')--
(A) to improve the system of providing airmen with
pertinent and timely information regarding the national
airspace system;
(B) to archive, in a public central location, all NOTAMs,
including the original content and form of the notices, the
original date of publication, and any amendments to such
notices with the date of each amendment; and
(C) to apply filters so that pilots can prioritize critical
flight safety information from other airspace system
information.
(b) Goals of Program.--The goals of the NOTAM Improvement
Program are--
(1) to decrease the overwhelming volume of NOTAMs an airman
receives when retrieving airman information prior to a flight
in the national airspace system;
(2) make the NOTAMs more specific and relevant to the
airman's route and in a format that is more useable to the
airman;
(3) to provide a full set of NOTAM results in addition to
specific information requested by airmen;
(4) to provide a document that is easily searchable; and
(5) to provide a filtering mechanism similar to that
provided by the Department of Defense Notices to Airmen.
(c) Advice From Private Sector Groups.--The Administrator
shall establish a NOTAM Improvement Panel, which shall be
comprised of representatives of relevant nonprofit and not-
for-profit general aviation pilot groups, to advise the
Administrator in carrying out the goals of the NOTAM
Improvement Program under this section.
(d) Phase-in and Completion.--The improvements required by
this section shall be phased in as quickly as practicable and
shall be completed not later than the date that is 1 year
after the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 4. MEDICAL CERTIFICATION.

(a) Assessment.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the
United States shall initiate an assessment of the Federal
Aviation Administration's medical certification process and
the associated medical standards and forms.
(2) Report.--The Comptroller General shall submit a report
to Congress based on the assessment required under paragraph
(1) that examines--
(A) revisions to the medical application form that would
provide greater clarity and guidance to applicants;
(B) the alignment of medical qualification policies with
present-day qualified medical judgment and practices, as
applied to an individual's medically relevant circumstances;
and
(C) steps that could be taken to promote the public's
understanding of the medical requirements that determine an
airman's medical certificate eligibility.
(b) Goals of the Federal Aviation Administration's Medical
Certification Process.--The goals of the Federal Aviation
Administration's medical certification process are--
(1) to provide questions in the medical application form
that--
(A) are appropriate without being overly broad;
(B) are subject to a minimum amount of misinterpretation
and mistaken responses;
(C) allow for consistent treatment and responses during the
medical application process; and
(D) avoid unnecessary allegations that an individual has
intentionally falsified answers on the form;
(2) to provide questions that elicit information that is
relevant to making a determination of an individual's medical
qualifications within the standards identified in the
Administrator's regulations;
(3) to give medical standards greater meaning by ensuring
the information requested aligns with present-day medical
judgment and practices; and
(4) to ensure that--
(A) the application of such medical standards provides an
appropriate and fair evaluation of an individual's
qualifications; and
(B) the individual understands the basis for determining
medical qualifications.
(c) Advice From Private Sector Groups.--The Administrator
shall establish a panel, which shall be comprised of
representatives of relevant nonprofit and not-for-profit
general aviation pilot groups, aviation medical examiners,
and other qualified medical experts, to advise the
Administrator in carrying out the goals of the assessment
required under this section.
(d) Federal Aviation Administration Response.--Not later
than 1 year after the issuance of the report by the
Comptroller General pursuant to subsection (a)(2), the
Administrator shall take appropriate actions to respond to
such report.

[[Page 10779]]

The bill (S. 1335), as amended, was ordered to be engrossed for a
third reading, was read the third time, and passed.
Mr. REID. I thank the Chair.

____________________

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

Recognition of the Minority Leader

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

Surface Transportation Conference Report

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I will address two issues. I commend,
in particular, the senior Senator from Oklahoma for the extraordinary
work he has done to produce a transportation bill that has significant
reforms in it. He has been tenacious and effective. He has tugged on
our sleeves and pointed out to us repeatedly the importance of getting
this job done. I congratulate him for an extraordinary accomplishment.
With regard to the bill, the highway conference report contains
significant reforms to the surface transportation program. Projects
will now be completed in a more timely manner because, for the first
time, there are hard deadlines on agencies to complete environmental
reviews.
Also, States are given maximum flexibility to use their
transportation dollars the way they choose, rather than how Washington
dictates. This bill is fully paid for with a package of offsets mostly
included in the Senate-passed highway bill.
The conference report also contains important legislation to reform
the National Flood Insurance Program and prevent the interest on
college student loans from doubling.
The flood insurance bill is a model of reform: It moves this long-
failing program closer to where it should be--the private sector. These
reforms actually cut subsidies, save the taxpayers money, and greatly
improve the program's financial position. It was negotiated and
reported out of committee on a bipartisan basis.
On the student loan issue, Republicans and Democrats worked hard to
find common ground. The agreement we have reached will ensure that
college students who are already facing enormous challenges in the
Obama economy will not be paying higher interest rates next month.
Students can't wait for the President to get off the campaign trail
and actually work with Congress to prevent student loan interest rates
from rising this year. So while the President continues to ignore the
bipartisan proposals sent more than 3 weeks ago, Senate Democrats
dropped their demand for job-killing tax hikes and worked with
Republicans to find solutions.
It is nice to finally see the Senate actually work as the Senate used
to. It proves that if this body ignores the campaign attacks from the
President and if our Democratic friends stop pushing job-killing tax
hikes, we can actually get a lot done around here. I, once again, thank
my colleagues for all their hard work on these important measures.

Health Care Decision

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the most important issue brought to the
front page in the last 2 days is the state of the new ObamaCare law.
Two and a half years ago, President Obama teamed up with Democrats
right here in Congress to pass a health care bill they knew most
Americans didn't want. Americans have been very clear about what they
thought of this bill. So Democrats settled on a deeply dishonest sales
pitch aimed at convincing them otherwise.
Nearly every day since then, the promises that formed the very heart
of that sales pitch have been exposed for the false promises they were.
Americans were promised lower health care costs. But, of course, they
are going up. Americans were promised lower premiums, and they are
going up. Seniors were promised Medicare would be protected; it was
raided to pay for a new entitlement instead. We were promised it would
create jobs; CBO predicts it will lead to 800,000 fewer jobs because of
ObamaCare. People were promised they could keep the plans they liked;
millions have now learned they cannot.
For 2 years, the list of broken promises has grown longer and longer
and longer.
But yesterday morning, we got powerful confirmation of what may have
been the biggest deception of all. For years, the President and his
Democratic allies in Congress have sworn up and down--sworn up and
down--that failing to comply with the individual mandate did not result
in a tax on individuals or families. ``It is not a tax,'' they said.
The reason was obvious. If Americans knew that failure to comply
resulted in a tax hike, of course, the bill would never have passed. If
our friends on the other side had conceded the obvious--that it was, in
fact, a tax hike--we all know it never would have passed. The President
would not be able to claim his health care bill didn't raise taxes on
the middle class, as he did again and again and again.
Yesterday, the Court blew the President's cover. In a narrowly upheld
case on one basis only--that the penalty associated with the individual
mandate is a tax--the Court spoke. It said Congress doesn't have the
constitutional authority to mandate insurance coverage under the
commerce clause. Congress doesn't have the authority to mandate
individual insurance coverage under the commerce clause, but it
obviously does have the power to tax. So they upheld the central
provision of the bill on the fact that the penalty for failing to
comply with it was a tax.
In the eyes of the Court, that is all the penalty tied to the
individual mandate ever was: a tax imposed by a Democratic Congress--
without a single Republican vote--primarily, interestingly enough, on
the middle class. It is a tax on the middle class. Let's be very clear
about that. The tax connected to the individual mandate is not
primarily a tax on the rich but on the middle-class Americans who will
bear the brunt of it.
Listen to this, colleagues. According to the CBO, at least 77 percent
of the people paying this tax will meet the President's own definition
of the middle class; 77 percent of the people paying this tax will meet
the President's own definition of the middle class.
Those who have to pay the tax will pay an average tax of $1,200. Even
if they pay it every year, they still will not have insurance.
Yesterday's decision turns the President's campaign rhetoric on its
head. Those who will end up paying the heaviest burden for not buying
government-mandated insurance are not going to be the wealthiest
Americans--oh, no--but the very middle-class families the President
claims to defend.
That is the truth the Court unmasked yesterday.
Most Americans thought the process Democrats used to pass the health
care bill was unseemly, secretive, partisan, even antidemocratic. They
also thought it was unconstitutional for the government to create
commerce in order to regulate it--for the government to create commerce
in order to regulate it.
All of that is still true. But what many Americans may not have
appreciated when this bill passed was how empty all of the promises
were--how completely empty all the promises were. And at the center of
them all was the claim that failing to buy health insurance did not
result in a tax. That was the central claim: Failing to buy health
insurance did not result in a tax.
But the Court has now spoken: It is a tax--largely on the middle
class. This is just one more reason this law needs to be repealed in
its entirety. With every passing day we learn something new about this
terrible law. Not only does it make the problems in our health care
system worse, it leads to a tax on middle-class families who are either
unable or unwilling to purchase health insurance. What a terrible idea.
So it is time for Democrats to stop trying to defend the indefensible
and join Republicans in wiping this colossal legislative mistake clear
off the books. Yesterday's decision gives us the clearest proof yet
this bill has to go. It

[[Page 10780]]

needs to be repealed to clear the way for commonsense, step-by-step
reforms that protect Americans' access to the care they need from the
doctor they choose at a lower cost. That is precisely what Republicans
intend to do.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Reservation of Leader Time

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
leadership time is reserved.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, Senators
are permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes.
The Senator from Iowa.

Health Care Decision

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, yesterday the Supreme Court overturned
the mandatory Medicaid expansion in the Affordable Care Act. As of
yesterday, the States now have a choice to expand or not expand
coverage to the poorest people in society without being subjected to
harsh Federal penalties.
I would like to draw attention to a speech I gave on the Senate floor
in December 2011 on the subject of the constitutionality of the
Medicaid expansion. I expressed my concerns then about the potential
impact of a Supreme Court decision on Medicaid expansion.
I said on the floor that day:

A Supreme Court ruling in favor of the States in this case
could not only jeopardize the mandated Medicaid expansion in
the Affordable Care Act but could challenge the fundamental
structure of Medicaid and have broader implications outside
of health care.

The concerns I expressed then have, to a degree, come true.
Reading from a Washington Post editorial this morning about the Court
ruling on Medicaid:

This restriction of federal authority may have greater
ramifications than the court's limiting of the Commerce
Clause. One can imagine challenges to federal conditions
across a wide spectrum of programs, including but not limited
to the environment, education and transportation.

This decision overturns the mandatory expansion of the Medicaid
Program. While I realize most of the focus is on the decision related
to the tax mandate, we should spend a moment talking about the
consequence of the Medicaid decision.
Mr. President, one of the goals of the health care reform was to
provide coverage for people in need. I would argue the people most in
need of coverage are people without a job, people without an income,
and the poorest of the poor. The Affordable Care Act required States to
cover people below poverty through Medicaid. States were mandated to
expand to cover people below poverty. Yesterday, the Supreme Court
ruled that mandatory expansion unconstitutional.
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts said:

Nothing in our opinion precludes Congress from offering
funds under the Affordable Care Act to expand the
availability of health care, and requiring the States
accepting such funds to comply with the conditions on their
use. What Congress is not free to do is to penalize States
that choose not to participate in that new program by taking
away their existing Medicaid funding.

With this decision, States now have the option to expand Medicaid to
cover people below poverty. Mr. President, the States had that option
even before the Affordable Care Act was passed. So what does this
decision mean in real terms?
It will be up to the States to determine if they will cover the
poorest of the poor. The Federal Government cannot guarantee coverage.
So now people with jobs will have to purchase insurance under the tax
mandate. People without an income, people who are below poverty, are
dependent upon the State in which they reside.
I know some people will believe the choice is perfunctory, that
Medicaid expansion will move forward because the Federal Government has
offered to pay for more than 90 percent of the expansion. But if you
were a State, would you really trust a promise from a Federal
Government that is $15 trillion in debt? If you were a State, would you
really trust an Obama administration that proposed eliminating that
special Federal payment rate through a proposal known as the blended
rate?
States will very reasonably be risk averse. States can now expand if
they choose to or not at all. No one should assume for a second all
States will expand to cover as much as was mandated under the
Affordable Care Act.
Of course, one might think people below poverty could still get
health care through tax credits, but the people who wrote this bill
made people below poverty ineligible for tax credits. That is right--
ineligible. It is all or nothing for the poor with Medicaid. With
today's ruling, the answer is, nothing.
On December 15, 2011, I said on the Senate floor that the expansion
of Medicaid and the coverage of poor people was in jeopardy because
``the White House and the Democratic majority put their partisan goals
ahead of collaboration with Republicans and States to build legitimate
public policy.''
Today, that is the outcome. When people with income, people with jobs
are mandated to purchase health insurance and face a tax penalty if
they do not, while the poorest people in society, those without a job
or without income have a guarantee of nothing, I think victory laps are
premature.
After this decision, a person in a family with an income of more than
$80,000 a year would be guaranteed access to a subsidy to buy private
insurance, while a person in a family with no income would be
guaranteed nothing. When people below poverty, the people who can least
afford coverage or the consequence of not having coverage are left with
nothing, it sounds like failure to me.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, regarding yesterday's Supreme Court decision,
there have been a variety of very interesting editorials, op-ed pieces,
and blogs--many of them erudite and very useful for the analysis of the
Court's opinion. Of course, it will take a long time for us to know
precisely how all of this will work out over time. I thought I might
refer to a couple of these opinions and op-eds and put them in the
Record for people to see what a sampling might look like so they can
more thoroughly analyze the opinion and then pose a question at the
end.
I start with one of my friends, and I think one of the best
columnists, even nationally, that I know. He writes for my local paper,
the Arizona Republic. His name is Bob Robb, and he writes in his column
on June 29:

Roberts' decision controlled the outcome, even though it
was fully joined by no other justice. Here's what he
concluded:
The federal government has no power under the
Constitution's Commerce Clause to require individuals to
purchase health insurance, as Obamacare does. However, the
federal government does have the power to impose a financial
penalty on people for not complying with the mandate the
federal government has no authority to impose. That's because
the penalty is actually a tax under Congress' constitutional
taxing authority.
However, the penalty is not a tax for purposes of the Anti-
Injunction Act, which would preclude the court from
considering the legality until someone actually pays it.

Obviously, Mr. President, these dilemmas require some explanation. It
may be--and this is my phrasing, not Bob Robb's--this is a good example
of where the phrase of ``legal legerdemain'' comes into play.
Robb continues:

If Congress has no authority to require people to do
something, such as purchase health insurance, how can it
penalize them for not doing it?
And how can money owed exclusively because of failing to
comply with an unconstitutional mandate be regarded as a tax
and not a penalty?

He goes on to say:

The purpose of the constitutional taxing power is to raise
the money to operate the government. The clause reads:
``Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes . .
. to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and
general welfare of the United States.''
The purpose of the penalty for not buying health insurance,
however, isn't to raise revenue. The government would prefer
not to get any money from it at all. The purpose is to compel
compliance with the mandate that Roberts says the government
has no power to impose.
There is nothing in the Constitution that can remotely be
construed as giving Congress the power to tax people, not to
raise revenue but to punish them for failing to do what
Congress would like them to do.

And Robb concludes:

[[Page 10781]]

If Congress cannot do something directly, it shouldn't be
able to do it indirectly through taxation.

Mr. President, this raises a very important question. If the taxing
power can be used to institute mandates such as ObamaCare, the real
question is, What limits are there on such taxing power? I believe this
may be one of the most important unanswered questions in Justice
Roberts' opinion.
One attempt to square the circle, in effect, was by a writer named
Joshua Hawley in the Daily Caller in his column entitled ``What's
behind Roberts' surprising decision?'' I note that Hawley comes to this
with some credentials, being described as a former law clerk to Chief
Justice Roberts as well as an associate law professor at the University
of Missouri. In effect, as I read Hawley's piece, he said Justice
Roberts actually constrained Congress's power dramatically by, first of
all, drawing a clear line on the reasonable and proper extension of the
commerce clause power. But he also said the taxing authority Roberts
uses to justify Congress's action in ObamaCare is actually very
limited.
In fact, he says that Roberts attempted to make this case sui
generis--that is the Latin phrase for ``one of a kind''--and that only
in this particular case would the taxing authority be permissibly used
for Congress to require the people to do something.
I hope Hawley's analysis is correct. I am not so sure it is. Roberts'
opinion certainly will make it more politically difficult for Congress
to pass things that extend its authority because it will have to be
clothed in the cloak of a tax, and Congress doesn't generally like to
pass new taxes on people. But Congress and the lawyers who advise us
are pretty clever about phrasing legislation in such a way that it
would meet constitutional challenges.
Now that we have a new example of a power that we might exercise--
namely, this expanded taxing power--I suspect we will see efforts in
the future to clothe our legislation under the guise of that taxing
power. If so, the constraints in Chief Justice Roberts' opinion would
be no constraints at all.
There is an old saying that hard cases make bad law. I don't know
that this was all that hard of a case, but it clearly resulted in a lot
of different points of view from the Justices, from which one could
conclude that at least they saw it as a hard case. I just hope the end
result is not bad law, as I have suggested it could be here today.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at the
conclusion of my remarks the following pieces: first, the Robert Robb
column dated June 29 from the Arizona Republic; second, the Wall Street
Journal editorial of June 28, ``ObamaCare and the Power to Tax''; a
Rich Lowry piece in National Review Online dated June 29, ``The Umpire
Blinks''; a National View Online piece by The Editors dated June 28,
``Chief Justice Roberts's Folly''; and the Joshua Hawley piece dated
June 28 from the Daily Caller.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the Arizona Republic, June 29, 2012]

False Premise Lets `Obamacare' Go On

(By Robert Robb)

For whatever reason, Chief Justice John Roberts decided to
rescue ``Obamacare'' from the constitutional trash heap.
His reasoning in doing so should be an embarrassment to
him. It certainly tossed more dirt on the burial site of the
Founders' vision of a federal government with limited,
enumerated powers.
Roberts' decision controlled the outcome, even though it
was fully joined by no other justice. Here's what he
concluded:
The federal government has no power under the
Constitution's Commerce Clause to require individuals to
purchase health insurance, as Obamacare does.
However, the federal government does have the power to
impose a financial penalty on people for not complying with
the mandate the federal government has no authority to
impose. That's because the penalty is actually a tax under
Congress' constitutional taxing authority.
However, the penalty is not a tax for purposes of the Anti-
Injunction Act, which would preclude the court from
considering its legality until someone actually pays it.
Where to begin?
If Congress has no authority to require people to do
something, such as purchase health insurance, how can it
penalize them for not doing it?
And how can money owed exclusively because of failing to
comply with an unconstitutional mandate be regarded as a tax
and not a penalty?
The purpose of the constitutional taxing power is to raise
the money to operate the government. The clause reads:
``Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes . .
. to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and
general welfare of the United States.''
The purpose of the penalty for not buying health insurance,
however, isn't to raise revenue. The government would prefer
not to get any money from it at all. The purpose is to compel
compliance with the mandate that Roberts says the government
has no power to impose.
There is nothing in the Constitution that can remotely be
construed as giving Congress the power to tax people, not to
raise revenue but to punish them for failing to do what
Congress would like them to do.
If Congress cannot do something directly, it shouldn't be
able to do it indirectly through taxation.
Congress, unlike Roberts, understood that it was enacting a
penalty, not a tax. The law repeatedly calls the money owed
for failing to comply with the individual mandate a penalty.
Roberts says that what Congress calls it isn't dispositive
regarding whether it is a tax under the Constitution. But it
is dispositive for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act.
The Anti-Injunction Act prevents those who are subject to
federal taxes from challenging their legality until after
they have been paid.
If the penalty is a tax, then no one could challenge its
legality until after someone pays it, which won't happen
until 2014. The case wouldn't properly have been before the
court.
So, Roberts declared that the money owed for failing to
comply with the individual mandate is a tax for purposes of
the Constitution because he says so. But it's a penalty for
purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act because Congress says so.
In Robertsworld, an unconstitutional mandate becomes not a
mandate if the money owed for not complying is dubbed a tax
and not a penalty. But the same money can be both a penalty
and a tax depending on who is asking and why.
It's as though Roberts were channeling Lewis Carroll in
writing the opinion.
This decision is hardly the end of the Obamacare saga.
Obamacare will implode as it is implemented.
The country will have to readdress the question of how to
most cost-effectively subsidize the care of the seriously and
chronically sick.
But for today, let's mourn the death of reasoning and
something more important.
In Federalist No. 45, James Madison wrote: ``The powers
delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal
government are few and defined.''
That's not the federal government we have today. Roberts'
pettifogging on Obamacare can be seen as its final interment.
____

[From the Wall Street Journal, June 28, 2012]

ObamaCare and the Power To Tax

(Opinion)

`Judicial tax-writing is particularly troubling. Taxes have
never been popular, see, e.g., Stamp Act of 1765.'
Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy,
Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissenting from the majority
opinion that upheld most provisions of the Affordable Care
Act on Thursday:
The provision challenged under the Constitution is either a
penalty or else a tax. Of course in many cases what was a
regulatory mandate enforced by a penalty could have been
imposed as a tax upon permissible action; or what was imposed
as a tax upon permissible action could have been a regulatory
mandate enforced by a penalty. But we know of no case, and
the Government cites none, in which the imposition was, for
constitutional purposes, both. The two are mutually
exclusive. Thus, what the Government's caption should have
read was ``ALTERNATIVELY, THE MINIMUM COVERAGE PROVISION IS
NOT A MANDATE-WITH-PENALTY BUT A TAX.'' It is important to
bear this in mind in evaluating the tax argument of the
Government and of those who support it: The issue is not
whether Congress had the power to frame the minimum-coverage
provision as a tax, but whether it did so.
In answering that question we must, if ``fairly possible,''
construe the provision to be a tax rather than a mandate-
with-penalty, since that would render it constitutional
rather than unconstitutional (ut res magis valeat quam
pereat). But we cannot rewrite the statute to be what it is
not. ``[A]lthough this Court will often strain to construe
legislation so as to save it against constitutional attack,
it must not and will not carry this to the point of
perverting the purpose of a statute . . . or judicially
rewriting it.'' In this case, there is simply no way,
``without doing violence to the fair meaning of the words
used,'' to escape what Congress enacted: a mandate that
individuals maintain minimum essential coverage, enforced by
a penalty.

[[Page 10782]]

Our cases establish a clear line between a tax and a
penalty: ``[A] tax is an enforced contribution to provide for
the support of government; a penalty . . . is an exaction
imposed by statute as punishment for an unlawful act.'' In a
few cases, this Court has held that a ``tax'' imposed upon
private conduct was so onerous as to be in effect a penalty.
But we have never held--never--that a penalty imposed for
violation of the law was so trivial as to be in effect a tax.
We have never held that any exaction imposed for violation of
the law is an exercise of Congress' taxing power--even when
the statute calls it a tax, much less when (as here) the
statute repeatedly calls it a penalty. When an act ``adopt[s]
the criteria of wrongdoing'' and then imposes a monetary
penalty as the ``principal consequence on those who
transgress its standard,'' it creates a regulatory penalty,
not a tax.
So the question is, quite simply, whether the exaction here
is imposed for violation of the law. It unquestionably is.
The minimum-coverage provision is found in [the Affordable
Care Act's individual-mandate provision], Sec. 5000A,
entitled ``Requirement to maintain minimum essential
coverage.'' (Emphasis added.) It commands that every
``applicable individual shall . . . ensure that the
individual . . . is covered under minimum essential
coverage.'' (emphasis added). And the immediately following
provision states that, ``[i]f . . . an applicable individual
. . . fails to meet the requirement of subsection (a) . . .
there is hereby imposed . . . a penalty.'' (emphasis added).
And several of Congress' legislative ``findings'' with regard
to Sec. 5000A confirm that it sets forth a legal requirement
and constitutes the assertion of regulatory power, not mere
taxing power. . . .
We never have classified as a tax an exaction imposed for
violation of the law, and so too, we never have classified as
a tax an exaction described in the legislation itself as a
penalty. To be sure, we have sometimes treated as a tax a
statutory exaction (imposed for something other than a
violation of law) which bore an agnostic label that does not
entail the significant constitutional consequences of a
penalty--such as ``license'' or ``surcharge.'' But we have
never--never--treated as a tax an exaction which faces up to
the critical difference between a tax and a penalty, and
explicitly denominates the exaction a ``penalty.'' Eighteen
times in Sec. 5000A itself and elsewhere throughout the Act,
Congress called the exaction in Sec. 5000A(b) a ``penalty.''
Judicial tax-writing is particularly troubling. Taxes have
never been popular, see, e.g., Stamp Act of 1765, and in part
for that reason, the Constitution requires tax increases to
originate in the House of Representatives. That is to say,
they must originate in the legislative body most accountable
to the people, where legislators must weigh the need for the
tax against the terrible price they might pay at their next
election, which is never more than two years off. The
Federalist No. 58 ``defend[ed] the decision to give the
origination power to the House on the ground that the Chamber
that is more accountable to the people should have the
primary role in raising revenue.'' We have no doubt that
Congress knew precisely what it was doing when it rejected an
earlier version of this legislation that imposed a tax
instead of a requirement-with-penalty. Imposing a tax through
judicial legislation inverts the constitutional scheme, and
places the power to tax in the branch of government least
accountable to the citizenry.
Finally, we must observe that rewriting Sec. 5000A as a tax
in order to sustain its constitutionality would force us to
confront a difficult constitutional question: whether this is
a direct tax that must be apportioned among the States
according to their population. Perhaps it is not (we have no
need to address the point); but the meaning of the Direct Tax
Clause is famously unclear, and its application here is a
question of first impression that deserves more thoughtful
consideration than the lick-and-a-promise accorded by the
Government and its supporters. The Government's opening brief
did not even address the question--perhaps because, until
today, no federal court has accepted the implausible argument
that Sec. 5000A is an exercise of the tax power. And once
respondents raised the issue, the Government devoted a mere
21 lines of its reply brief to the issue. At oral argument,
the most prolonged statement about the issue was just over 50
words. One would expect this Court to demand more than fly-
by-night briefing and argument before deciding a difficult
constitutional question of first impression.
____

[From the National Review Online, June 29, 2012]

The Umpire Blinks

(By Rich Lowry)

Chief Justice John Roberts famously defined himself as an
umpire in his confirmation hearings. But an umpire is willing
to make the toughest calls.
In his Obamacare decision, Roberts the umpire blinked. By
issuing a decision that forestalled the tsunami of criticism
that would have come his way had he struck down the law (as
an activist, a partisan, and an altogether rotten human
being), Roberts effectively rewrote the constitutionally
problematic portions of it. He overstepped his bounds. The
umpire called a balk, but gave the pitcher a do-over. The ref
called a foul, but didn't interrupt the play.
As a result, there's Obamacare as passed by Congress. Then
there's Obamacare as passed by the Supreme Court.
Obamacare as passed by Congress had a mandate to buy health
insurance and a penalty for failing to comply. Obamacare as
passed by the Supreme Court has an optional tax for those
without health insurance. Obamacare as passed by Congress
required states to participate in a massive expansion of
Medicaid, or lose all their federal Medicaid funds. Obamacare
as passed by the Supreme Court makes state participation in
the Medicaid expansion optional.
In pursuit of a judicial modesty deferential to Congress,
Roberts usurped its role. Obamacare as passed by Congress
didn't pass constitutional muster. Obamacare as passed by the
Supreme Court didn't pass Congress--and might not have passed
Congress had it been presented for an up-or-down vote
festooned with yet another tax.
Roberts vindicated the core of the constitutional argument
against the individual mandate that had been sneered at by
the legal establishment and pronounced preposterous by the
likes of Nancy Pelosi. The mandate is unprecedented in that
it doesn't regulate existing activity; it compels people to
undertake an activity--namely, buying insurance--that
Congress then regulates under the Interstate Commerce Clause.
This stretches the Commerce Clause beyond the breaking point.
The chief even reverted to the widely derided broccoli
argument: If the federal government can make you buy
insurance, it can make you eat vegetables. The government's
logic, Roberts wrote, ``authorizes Congress to use its
commerce power to compel citizens to act as the Government
would have them act. That is not the country the Framers of
our Constitution envisioned.''
Then, Roberts went out in search of some way, any way, to
find the mandate constitutional. He alighted on the argument
that the mandate isn't a mandate at all, but a tax. Never
mind that the tax argument was an afterthought in the
administration's defense of the law. Never mind that
administration officials, from the president on down,
vociferously denied that it was a tax during the debate over
the bill. Never mind that the law itself never defines it as
a tax and includes the mandate (and its penalty) in a
different title of the act from the revenue provisions. ``To
say that the Individual Mandate merely imposes a tax is not
to interpret the statute, but to re-write it,'' the four
conservative dissenters from the Roberts opinion write. The
chief was willing to take out his rewrite pen to avoid
striking down the mandate. He did the same to keep from
throwing out the Medicaid expansion. He considers it, too, an
offense against the constitutional order. Wherever exactly
the line for impermissible coercion of the states falls, he
noted, ``this statute is surely beyond it.''
Roberts gets points for cleverness. He set clear
constitutional boundaries without striking down the law. He
largely sided with the critics of Obamacare without enraging
its supporters. He came up with the only 54 decision that
wouldn't subject his court to the calumny of the Obama
administration and law-school deans everywhere. All the op-
eds that had been drafted trashing the legitimacy of the
court have been filed away for now.
As chief justice, Roberts has competing priorities, of
course. But it's not his job to redraft laws under the guise
of judicial restraint. On Obamacare, the umpire struck out.
____

[From the National Review Online, June 28, 2012]

Chief Justice Roberts's Folly

(By the Editors)

In today's deeply disappointing decision on Obamacare, a
majority of the Supreme Court actually got the Constitution
mostly right. The Commerce Clause--the part of the
Constitution that grants Congress the authority to regulate
commerce among the states--does not authorize the federal
government to force Americans to buy health insurance. The
Court, by a 5-4 margin, refused to join all the august legal
experts who insisted that of course it granted that
authorization, that only yahoos and Republican partisans
could possibly doubt it. It then pretended that this
requirement is constitutional anyway, because it is merely an
application of the taxing authority. Rarely has the maxim
that the power to tax is the power to destroy been so apt, a
portion of liberty being the direct object in this case.
What the Court has done is not so much to declare the
mandate constitutional as to declare that it is not a mandate
at all, any more than the mortgage-interest deduction in the
tax code is a mandate to buy a house. Congress would almost
surely have been within its constitutional powers to tax the
uninsured more than the insured. Very few people doubt that
it could, for example, create a tax credit for the purchase
of insurance, which would have precisely that effect. But
Obamacare, as written, does more than that. The law
repeatedly speaks in terms of a ``requirement'' to buy
insurance, it says

[[Page 10783]]

that individuals ``shall'' buy it, and it levies a
``penalty'' on those who refuse. As the conservative dissent
points out, these are the hallmarks of a ``regulatory
penalty, not a tax.''
The law as written also cuts off all federal Medicaid funds
for states that decline to expand the program in the ways the
lawmakers sought. A majority of the Court, including two of
the liberals, found this cut-off unconstitutionally coercive
on the states. The Court's solution was not to invalidate the
law or the Medicaid expansion, but to rule that only the
extra federal funds devoted to the expansion could be cut
off. As the dissenters rightly point out, this solution
rewrites the law--and arbitrarily, since Congress could have
avoided the constitutional problem in many other ways.
The dissent acknowledges that if an ambiguous law can be
read in a way that renders it constitutional, it should be.
It distinguishes, though, between construing a law charitably
and rewriting it. The latter is what Chief Justice John
Roberts has done. If Roberts believes that this tactic avoids
damage to the Constitution because it does not stretch the
Commerce Clause to justify a mandate, he is mistaken. The
Constitution does not give the Court the power to rewrite
statutes, and Roberts and his colleagues have therefore done
violence to it. If the law has been rendered less
constitutionally obnoxious, the Court has rendered itself
more so. Chief Justice Roberts cannot justly take pride in
this legacy.
The Court has failed to do its duty. Conservatives should
not follow its example--which is what they would do if they
now gave up the fight against Obamacare. The law, as
rewritten by judges, remains incompatible with the country's
tradition of limited government, the future strength of our
health-care system, and the nation's solvency. We are not
among those who are convinced that we will be stuck with it
forever if the next election goes wrong: The law is also so
poorly structured that we think it may well unravel even if
put fully into effect. But we would prefer not to take the
risk.
It now falls to the Republicans, and especially to Mitt
Romney, to make the case for the repeal of the law and for
its replacement by something better than either it or the
health-care policies that preceded it. Instead of trusting
experts to use the federal government's purchasing power to
drive efficiency throughout the health sector--the vain hope
of Obamacare's Medicare-cutting board--they should replace
Medicare with a new system in which individuals have
incentives to get value for their dollar. Instead of having
Washington establish a cartel for the insurance industry,
they should give individuals tax credits and the ability to
purchase insurance across state lines. Instead of further
centralizing the health-care system, in short, they should
give individuals more control over their insurance.
Opponents should take heart: The law remains unpopular. Let
the president and his partisans ring their bells today, and
let us work to make sure that they are wringing their hands
come November.
____

[From the Daily Caller, June 28, 2012]

What's Behind Roberts' Surprising Decision?

(By Joshua Hawley)

Say this for the lead opinion in the health care case the
Supreme Court handed down Thursday: nobody saw that coming.
Chief Justice Roberts joins with the court's more liberal
wing to uphold the Affordable Care Act . . . as a tax? The
result is, to put it mildly, counterintuitive. Scribes have
been busily dissecting the chief justice's doctrinal analysis
from the instant the opinion went viral, but here's a
different thought: doctrine may not be the key to this
judgment. As Leo Strauss once made a point of telling his
students, a text can be read in many different ways, and will
mean different things depending on the lens with which one
reads it. The text the chief justice published on Thursday
may or may not make good sense read as constitutional
doctrine. But read it as constitutional politics and things
get more interesting.
Not politics in the way the Washington punditry means, of
course. Roberts' opinion has nothing to do with helping or
hurting President Obama's re-election chances this fall. The
truth is, Supreme Court justices are rarely interested in
that sort of thing. They see themselves as above partisan
allegiances and the grand questions of law they decide as
more important than run-of-the-mill partisan disputes.
No, I mean politics in the constitutional sense, concerning
the Supreme Court's role in the Constitution's structure. The
danger this case held for the court from the beginning was
the possibility--indeed, high likelihood--that it would draw
the institution into an acute confrontation with the
executive branch in the middle of an election year, and at
the same time force the justices into the thick of a policy
debate where they have no genuine expertise. The chief
justice's opinion can be fruitfully read as a sort of
maneuver, an effort to avoid these evils while simultaneously
blocking the federal government's attempted power grab.
Consider: Roberts begins with the Commerce Clause question,
where the Obama administration placed nearly all the weight
of its argument. According to the administration, the
Commerce Clause permits Congress to regulate any behavior (or
non-behavior) that has some incidental effect on commerce.
Roberts rejects that contention root and branch. Indeed, for
the first time in the Supreme Court's modern Commerce Clause
jurisprudence, he announces a clear and decisive limit to
what the federal government may do with its commerce
authority: it may regulate only actual economic activity, and
then only if the activity has a substantial effect on
interstate commerce. It may not regulate a person's choice
not to enter the stream of commerce in the first place.
Had this been the sum and substance of the opinion,
liberals would have bewailed it as the constitutional
apocalypse they feared. But of course it is not the end;
Roberts goes on to the administration's secondary argument.
Yet by placing the Commerce Clause discussion where he does,
by holding unequivocally that the individual mandate cannot
survive on commerce grounds, Roberts makes the Commerce
Clause holding necessary to the final judgment. That means
the limits on the commerce authority he announced (and with
which the four dissenting justices agree) will control in
future cases.
This is a significant, even major, development, but one
that is largely concealed by the opinion's ultimate judgment.
Yet even that judgment turns out to be rather less a victory
for the government than it first seems.
The key move in Roberts' opinion is his conclusion that the
individual mandate is actually a sort of tax, and therefore
constitutional by virtue of Congress' unquestioned power to
tax. That allows the mandate to stand, yes--but effectively
makes the mandate sui generis, and thereby denies the
government a new source of regulatory power.
This is why: Roberts does not say that the government may
now regulate anything it likes by calling the regulation a
tax. He says this mandate can be read as a tax in these
circumstances--that is, in light of the fact that it would be
unconstitutional on any other ground and the court is
supposed to avoid finding statutes unconstitutional if it
can--and on these grounds: because it is administered by the
IRS through the tax code and operates in many respects like a
normal tax. Only if future regulatory schemes can meet all
these criteria would they be valid under the taxing power.
Yet Roberts does not give a single example of any such
scheme--and we know for a fact, because they have told us
repeatedly, that members of Congress would never have voted
for this regulation if they had believed it was a tax.
Making the mandate a tax has at least one other effect. It
makes repeal easier. Now that the mandate has been deemed
taxation, it can likely be jettisoned through use of the
reconciliation process--meaning the Senate will need to
muster only a bare majority for repeal, not 60 votes.
By converting the mandate to a tax, then, Roberts limits
the ability of the government to do the same sort of thing in
the future and underlines the political unpopularity of the
law, all while allowing the law to stand. And because it does
stand, the court is spared a nasty turn at center stage in
the November elections.
Whether the chief justice's stratagem actually works is a
different question. Suffice it to say, I have my doubts. The
text and structure of the law seem overwhelmingly to indicate
that the mandate is a legal requirement--namely, to buy
insurance--enforced with a fine. The mandate does not qualify
as a tax under the Supreme Court's settled rules for
identifying taxes, and both the text of the law and those who
wrote it said it was not.
But then, Roberts' aim may be less to apply tax doctrine
than to shift the law's fate from the court to the voters. At
the beginning of his opinion, the chief justice pointedly
notes that the court ``do[es] not consider whether the Act
embodies sound policies. That judgment is entrusted to the
Nation's elected leaders.'' He repeats this sentiment at the
opinion's close, but with a subtle variation. ``[T]he Court
does not express any opinion on the wisdom of the Affordable
Care Act, he writes, for ``[u]nder the Constitution, that
judgment is reserved to the people.'' Could it be that the
chief justice is asking the people to render a verdict on the
leaders who wrote the law in the first place? In all events,
they should take him up on it.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I also refer people to an excellent piece in
the Wall Street Journal, ``A Triumph and Tragedy for the Law,'' by
David Rivkin, Jr., and Lee Casey, both fine lawyers who frequently
opine on matters of this sort.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page 10784]]

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.

125th Anniversary of the United Way of West Virginia

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, to lighten the mood a little bit today, I
rise to recognize West Virginia's United Way as this special
organization celebrates its 125th anniversary.
The United Way was founded in 1887 by community leaders in Denver,
CO. The renowned organization originated through a group of individuals
who came together with the drive to improve community conditions. Since
then, the organization has grown to 1,800 community-based United Ways
in 41 countries and remains the world's largest privately supported
nonprofit, raising nearly $5 billion annually.
In our little State of West Virginia, United Way has touched the
lives of so many. United Way volunteers have clocked thousands of hours
of community service through health services, senior assistance
programs, student tutoring, nutrition sites, job skills training, and
financial literacy services.
United Way has enthusiastically embraced local institutions
throughout our State. This wonderful organization has provided for at-
risk teens at residential treatment centers, such as the Daymark around
Kanawha Valley. It has supported comprehensive medical and health
services at establishments such as the West Virginia Chapter of the
Alzheimer's Association, West Virginia Health Right, Cabell Huntington
Children's Hospital, Thomas Memorial Hospital, and the Putnam County
Dental Health Council. United Way has supported family counseling at
the Kanawha Valley Fellowship Home and at Family Counseling Connection.
It has also benefited emergency assistance facilities, such as the
Boone County Community Organization and Madison Baptist Church,
Mountain Mission, and Nitro-St. Alban's Care and Share.
In 2011 alone, 68,337 individuals were served by United Way-supported
programs in West Virginia alone. More than 13,162 children and youth
benefited from the services of United Way partner agencies, and more
than 26,997 people received financial assistance from a United Way
partner agency. In addition, nearly 28,000 people received health-
related assistance from a United Way partner agency.
I have always been an avid supporter of United Way and their
community service efforts. My wife Gayle also served as chairwoman of
Marion County's United Way. I applaud the organization's ability to
inspire members in their communities to work together and improve all
aspects of their neighborhoods.
United Way has so many laudable goals. The organization is working to
promote a healthier society by working with families to develop healthy
lifestyles. While Americans continue to struggle in tough economic
times, United Way has worked with families to help them achieve
financial stability. For example, United Way launched the Financial
Stability Partnership, which aims to halve the approximately 40 million
Americans who are working in low-paying jobs without basic health
benefits. United Way has also targeted key areas of education,
addressing problems such as the student dropout rate and preparing
children for success at an early age.
United Way also has identified community health care needs and
focuses efforts on changing health policies and practices for Americans
of all ages. About 47 million Americans don't have health care
coverage, and more than 80 percent are working families. The
organization tackles tough health problems, such as health insurance
coverage, along with the obesity epidemic and prescription drug abuse.
These are tough issues that oftentimes have no easy solutions.
I applaud United Way and all of its staff members, its volunteers,
and community leaders for their efforts to improve the quality of life
in all of our communities. Today the United Way has every reason to
celebrate its success as they face this impressive milestone. I once
again congratulate their achievements, and I look forward to seeing
what this great organization will accomplish in the next 125 years and
beyond.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma.

Pilot's Bill of Rights

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, before the Senator from West Virginia
leaves, I would like to publicly thank him for all his support in
something that just happened a few minutes ago; that is, passage of the
Pilot's Bill of Rights.
Several--certainly Senator Begich--have been working hard, including
Senator Pryor and Senator Manchin, as well as many on the Republican
side. But it is a reality now.
This is kind of a strange day for me because I have been working on
two bills for 1\1/2\ years, and both will become a reality on the same
day: the highway bill that everyone knows about and then the Pilot's
Bill of Rights that only pilots know about.
I have been a pilot for 55 years, and I get the calls and complaints
that come in. But pilots are really the only ones in our society who
are denied access to justice like every other citizen has, and this
corrects it. So I just want to say to my friend that I very much
appreciate his support in making this a reality.
Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, if I may say I appreciate the leadership
of my good friend from Oklahoma and his unwavering support in bringing
this to all of our attention. I have been a pilot for not quite 55
years, but 45 years, and I understand completely. Senator Inhofe
brought it to the attention of all of us, even the nonpilots here. His
steadfast leadership in support of this action and also his ability to
work across the aisle with those on our side of the aisle, Democrats, I
appreciate so much.
I know Senator Boxer feels very compelled about this and the
Senator's leadership in working with her on the Transportation bill and
both of them bringing that to the forefront for all of us. We are all
going to benefit from that.
I thank the Senator and look forward to continuing to work with him.
Mr. INHOFE. I appreciate the comments of the Senator from West
Virginia.
Mr. President, I will make a couple comments and be more detailed
later. I know a lot of people will want to talk about the bill that
will most likely pass today in both the House and the Senate.
A lot of people are not aware of the fact that a general aviation
pilot doesn't have the same access to remedies as everybody else does.
What makes this a little bit more compelling to do something about is
that if you are not a pilot, you may not appreciate the fact that a lot
of them are single-issue people.
I had an experience where my license was in jeopardy for something
that we found out I didn't do. I thought about all these complaints I
have had over the years about abusive treatment by some of the
enforcement people, and I never appreciated it until it happened to me.
I know more people in the FAA who do a great job. They are very
conscientious. These are career people. The problem is that every once
in a while you have someone in the field with enforcement powers who
just can't handle that kind of power.
I was mayor of Tulsa for several years a number of years back. We had
a great police force, but every now and then you had someone on the
force who couldn't handle the power. They would abuse that power, and
you would have to seek them out. And that is what this is all about--
you hear from these people when abuses take place.
So what we have done is we have corrected that. We have a system set
up in this legislation that if someone is accused of or cited for doing
something that was wrong or that might be a violation of one of the
FARs, that person will now have access to the evidence that would be
used against that person.
People might say: Well, wasn't that happening anyway? No, it wasn't.
When this happened to me, I can remember very well--and I say to the
Presiding Officer because we are very close and he knows I have been
active in aviation for a long time--one year ago in October, I went to
land at one of the southernmost airports in America, in South

[[Page 10785]]

Texas, one at which I have landed more than 200 times. I know every
square foot of it. It is a noncontrolled field.
When I came in--there is a thing called NOTEM, Notice to Airmen. You
are supposed to and you should find out what the NOTEMs are on the
runway you will be landing on so if there is work on the runway--any
towers going up, construction going on--you will know that in advance.
That is your obligation.
The problem is there has never been a central location where that can
be found. In this case there was no NOTEM that had been published.
There I go in, with the controller in the valley down there who has
actually cleared me to land. Here I am, a United States Senator. It
took me 4 months to get the voice recorder and I never did find out,
early on, what the evidence was against me. It turned out fine, but
nevertheless 4 months to get a voice recording that you were cleared to
land, that is unreasonable.
I see my friend from Indiana is on the floor. I do not want to take
any more time on this, but on the NOTEM situation we will have a
central location for that.
The other problem we are having right now is medical certification. I
have case after case. In fact, at the AOPA, Aircraft Owners and Pilots
Association--we are talking about 400,000 pilots out there--they have
as their No. 1 concern the lack of consistency and uniformity in
medical certification. A person could be a pilot and have a condition,
could be a light heart attack or something, temporarily lose his
license, then go back and have it reinstated. However, if he lives in
another town, has a different doctor, that may not happen. So we have
people out there who have lost their licenses. We are going to have a
panel set up that is going to include the general aviation, include the
medical community, and try to get uniformity. So those are three of the
reforms we have in this legislation.
I yield the floor. I will be talking about that later and also
talking about the upcoming highway bill. I want to remind people, my
good conservative friends, people who are trying to say this is not a
conservative bill--it is. The worst thing we can do is continue to
operate our roadbuilding and our construction in this country on
extensions. When you do an extension you lose about 30 percent of the
money. Obviously, the conservative position is to do this.
We have reforms, incredible reforms, enhancement reforms. We will be
talking about that during the course of the day.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Indiana.

Order of Procedure

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, can I ask what the procedure is regarding
time?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Senators are permitted to speak for
10 minutes each.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be permitted to
speak up to 20 minutes. I do not intend to take that much time, I do
not think I will take that much time, but I think I will probably go
over the 10-minute limit.
Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, and I will
not object, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to have 20
minutes following my friend from Indiana.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Surface Transportation

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I rise here today to express my deep
concern with this transportation conference report; in particular,
about a provision that was slipped into the transportation conference
report literally in the dark of night earlier this week.
This provision, which I will describe, could have a devastating
effect on my State as well as the State of Illinois. The Greater
Chicago metropolitan region--whether it is northwest Indiana or
northeast Illinois--is a region that works together. It is part of the
expanded metropolitan area. A critical part of this is a waterway,
which allows goods to be transferred up and down all the way to the
delta and the Mississippi and all the way out to the St. Lawrence
Seaway. It is the middle-west access to commerce that centers around
the Chicago-northwest Indiana area.
This provision, which was slipped in without debate, without
consideration--it did not appear in the Senate bill, the transportation
bill, and it did not appear in the House transportation bill and
therefore is a blatant violation of rule XXVIII, which simply states
you cannot do this kind of thing--but it was done anyway. I will at the
proper point here raise an objection to that in a procedural way.
Let me first talk, if I could, about the way in which we do business
around here. Throughout my campaign in 2010 to return to the Senate, I
continually heard from people as to how frustrated they were with the
process by which laws are passed. We come home and people say why did
you vote against that? You say I voted against that because it included
this over here which was not relevant to it, and even though I liked
the rest of the bill I did not like this part--or vice versa. I voted
for this even though I did not like what it included because they
packaged it all together and therefore there is nothing on record as to
where I stand. They say to us where do you stand? We don't know whether
your yes is a yes or your no is a no because it is so confusing the way
you mix the whole thing together.
That is exactly what is happening here today. We have taken a
transportation bill, which was adeptly led by the Senator from
California and the Senator from Oklahoma, they did a marvelous job
putting a transportation package together, and now it is merged with
two other major provisions. So we get one vote on this. People say: I
have a real problem with the student loan bill or I have a real problem
with the flood insurance bill, but I wanted to vote for the
transportation bill. Now I am stuck in the position of having to vote
yes on the whole thing, except what I have a problem with, another bill
over here, or no, even though I want parts of the other bills to pass.
Then we go home and explain this to the people we represent and they
say: Why can't you guys and ladies take up one thing, vote yes or vote
no, come home, defend your vote, but we at least know where you stand?
Instead of this gobbledygook, throw everything in one big pot and vote
your yes or vote your no. The way we package bills here, it is no
wonder people are skeptical. It is no wonder our approval rating is
where it is. This gobbledygook, so-called magic dust that we use around
here to obscure what we stand for and stand against, is very
frustrating for the American people. I can't tell you how much that has
been expressed to me when I can go home and talk to them and try to
explain certain votes and procedures. They say be straight up, be
transparent. Pick out something; you are either for it or against it.
We will evaluate whether we want to support you or not support you in
the next election on the basis of your voting, but when you cloud over
the whole thing we do not know what is going on. That is one thing,
packaging bills.
Second, we have a problem here, a major problem with our debt. We
have known that. We spent the first 6 months of 2011 trying to come up
with a long-term solution which would restructure some of our spending
and put a lid on some of our spending. Finally, by August of 2011,
Congress reached an agreement called the Budget Control Act which
basically put caps on how much we would spend, trying to hold down this
plunge into debt.
By the way, just before I came over here I checked the debt clock
which I have on my Web site. The numbers of course turn faster than you
can write them down because that is how fast we are plunging into more
debt, but as of probably minutes or so ago, our national debt stood at
$15 trillion, nearly $16 trillion.
None of us can comprehend what $1 trillion is. It is impossible.
There have been all kinds of examples--if you stack dollars on top of
each other you can go to the Moon and back and so forth--but I think it
is important that we understand the gravity of our situation in terms
of our plunge into debt

[[Page 10786]]

and what impact it is going to have on the future for this country and
what a debt burden it is going to be on future generations now getting
ever closer to--$15,935,594,616,879 was what our debt was. That is 14
digits; 15,935,594,616,879.
We took a little bit of a step in August, a mini step in August,
saying we are going to cap this spending so we do not spend more than
that going forward. That will at least slow down the rate of plunging
into debt. It does not begin to do what we need to do to address this,
but it will slow it down.
What have we done since? What we have done is bring a number of bills
to this floor, all of which continue to spend beyond our means. I did
not vote for the Budget Control Act because I had a lot of skepticism
about it. First of all, I felt it was woefully short of what we needed
and, second, I believe that, having served here before and seen how
this process works, I thought we are going to waive points of order
time after time.
We congratulate each other by voting for spending controls. ``This is
an important step to dealing with our budget crisis. We have committed
now not to spend more than the budget we deemed allows.''
The postal reform bill violated budget rules; the student loan
interest rate extension, it looks as though we have the score now, and
we are going to violate agreed to levels; the Senate version that went
over on the transportation bill violated budget rules; the payroll tax
extension and the Violence Against Women Act--all violated what we
promised we would do. And we wonder why the American people are
skeptical? We wonder why our approval rating is in the low double
digits? I mean really low, almost into single digits--why people are
frustrated and upset with us? Because we tell them we have made this
promise to be fiscally responsible and virtually every bill we bring up
here is irresponsible and we waive what we had agreed to do. We can
hardly blame them for their skepticism here.
Let me talk about this middle-of-the-night stuff. Another problem you
have--you go home and what you simply can't explain is the fact that,
no, this was not talked about in the Senate; no, this was not talked
about in the House; there was no process--yet somebody, as we tried to
merge the two bills, in the dark of the night, unnamed, no process,
slipped in a provision and there it is. Usually we find out about this
later.
In this case we had a process. Senator Coats from Indiana worked with
Senator Durbin, a Democrat from Illinois, and worked with another
Democrat, the senior Senator from Ohio, to come to an agreement on a
provision that impacted our area, the Great Lakes area, in a
significant way. That was part of the Senate Energy and Water
Appropriations bill.
In the dark of the night, during the conference deliberations,
another provision was added, not the bipartisan provision by Senators
looking out for the economic interests of their State. And by the way,
the economic interests of this country--because what was dropped in, in
the middle of the night, is something that could potentially cost our
Government and therefore cost our taxpayers hundreds of billions of
dollars.
We were fortunate enough to have discovered that because bringing
those bills to the floor was delayed and we had time to dig into it and
all of a sudden find out that this was done. What is egregious here is
that this is not a partisan issue. We all know the House is controlled
by my party. I don't know who put this in. I don't know exactly the
motives as to why they put this in. But here it is, a dark-of-the-night
slip it into the bill and overturn something that was processed through
the appropriations committee, deliberated, discussed, and voted on.
So what are the consequences of all that? What does this have to do
with what I am talking about here? It sounds minuscule. We are talking
about Asian carp. Why is the Senator from Indiana talking about Asian
carp and hundreds and billions of dollars of costs? Let me tell you
why. Asian carp is a generic term for four species of nonnative fish:
grass, bighead, black, and silverhead carp. These fish were introduced
to the United States in the 1970s to assist agricultural interests in
the southern States.
At some point--probably through flooding--the carp escaped into the
Mississippi River system, and they have since spread throughout the
whole watershed. They are voracious eaters, which make them beneficial,
and we can see why they were imported. They were beneficial for
controlled agricultural settings, fish farms, and so forth, but they
create serious ecological challenges when competing for food with
native species.
I agree wholeheartedly that the spread of Asian carp throughout the
Mississippi River and potentially into the Great Lakes is a serious and
pressing problem, and I am committed to addressing this, as is Senator
Durbin and Senator Brown from Ohio. We worked out a compromise
agreement in terms of how we should go forward with this.
A number of steps have already been taken by the Corps of Engineers.
In 2002, the Army Corps of Engineers installed the first of a series of
electric barriers along the lower reach of the Chicago area waterway
system. In doing so, they believe, to date, they have successfully
prevented the migration of carp into the Great Lakes.
In 2009, the Corps began DNA testing to detect Asian carp in
locations upstream in the barrier system. The testing showed these
barriers have been very effective--to use the Corps' words--in
preventing Asian carp from entering the waterway. In fact, when the
Illinois Department of Natural Resources wanted to check this out, they
purposefully dumped a bunch of toxins into the Chicago waterway to
discover the extent of the Asian carp infestation. Those toxins killed
tens of thousands of fish, but only one Asian carp was found among
them. Since that time, the Army Corps has firmly held that the electric
barriers are working as designated.
Furthermore, in 2010, the Indiana Department of Natural Resources
constructed barriers in the watershed. No State has gone further or
gone to greater lengths to address this question than my State of
Indiana, as well as the State of Illinois, in terms of preventing the
introduction of Asian carp in the Great Lakes system. It is
economically devastating for us if this happens and it is economically
devastating for us and for Illinois if what was proposed in this bill
in the dark of the night by the House of Representatives goes forward.
Currently, the Army Corps of Engineers is undergoing an extensive
study. Despite all the attempts to take these steps, which so far have
proven to be successful, this provision that was incorporated in there
could result in the closing of the locks of this waterway system, and
it would endanger about $14 billion per year of economic activity and
over 100,000 jobs in this area that I described that rely on the
Chicago area waterway system.
Closing the locks also may cost up to an additional $100 billion
because it would require completely overhauling Chicago's underground
water and sewage system. Closing the locks would also render worthless
the billions of dollars that have already been invested to complete the
Corps of Engineers flood control projects along the entire Mississippi
watershed, and they may not even solve the problem.
While the Chicago waterway system is the only direct continuous
connection between the Great Lakes system, other potential pathways
could allow carp immigration in times of flooding. So while it is clear
that closing the Chicago locks is not an economically viable solution
for stopping Asian carp--and I do understand the concerns the Great
Lakes States have on this issue and I share those concerns--as a result
of all that, we worked out a bipartisan compromise solution to
addressing this area. We would allow a study to go forward, allow an
economic assessment of the various options that had been presented, and
then give Congress the information so it can make a decision as to
which solution was best needed to go forward.
What this provision does in this bill is simply give the agency
responsible

[[Page 10787]]

the authority to go ahead with the project and what they think the
solution is without Congress having anything to say about it
whatsoever. It is a preauthorization on a new project which could
include closing of the locks, and if it does, it would have hundreds of
billions of dollars of financial implications for the taxpayers and for
this Congress but also have enormous negative economic impact on
northwest Indiana, northeast Illinois and the entire Chicago region and
all that commerce that flows up and down the Mississippi and up and
down the St. Lawrence Seaway. The other problem with this is the new
language also expedites the study, even though the Corps says they need
more time to do so.
I guess, in conclusion, there are two things: One is the egregious
procedures that continue to give the public such a negative slant on
how we do business--this bundling of bills, where we are forced to vote
yes or no on the whole bundling, up or down, and we can't let our yes
stand for one purposeful interest or another or a no stand due to
bundling; second, we need to address these midnight procedures, this
issue of ``slip it in there,'' without going through the regular
process. This body of Congress, both the House and the Senate, need to
return to regular process, where we bring an idea forward, it is worked
through the committee, it is transparent to all who are looking at it,
we give our yea or nay, and we move it through the system, rather than
simply changing things in the dark of the night at the last minute,
where we have no opportunity to amend it and no opportunity to address
it.
As we go forward with this, I am going to object on the basis of rule
XXVIII. I don't know how it will all turn out, but I hope my colleagues
will understand this is more than something that just affects Indiana,
Illinois, and the Great Lakes. This is something that affects the way
we do business here. If we cannot enforce these rules, we will continue
to follow these practices the American people have come to absolutely
hate and think they have a dysfunctional Congress. We deserve better
than this. I hope my colleagues will agree with that.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Before the Senator from Indiana leaves the floor, I wish
for him to know I listened very carefully and I know his concern. I
have spoken with Senator Durbin about it, and I hope we can work
together. I do want to say this process where sometimes bills are put
together is frustrating to everybody, and we do need to take a look at
the way we do things. However, I do have some measure of sympathy for
the leadership around here because it takes so long to get any one
piece done.
So I do agree. I don't like the fact that we cast one vote and there
are three subjects. It is very difficult for the people at home to
understand it. I also want to say to my friend--before I yield 3
minutes of my time to Senator Sanders--to feel proud of the way we put
together the Transportation bill. I think in that case, which is a huge
policy bill, it was transparent and that what my friend complained
about was something that was put in by the other body and said it is a
must have.
The truth is, up to that point, everything we have done was very much
in the open, and I am very sorry my friend feels so negatively toward
what we are about to do because in his State it is tens of thousands of
jobs and in my State it is hundreds of thousands of jobs. It is
thousands of businesses. It is going to mean a boost to this economy
and a boost to the private sector. I wish to say to my friend, I
understand his frustration, and I will do everything I can to help him
on this issue.
Mr. COATS. If the Senator would yield, I appreciate very much her
saying that. I did commend, and I will again, the work the Senator from
California and Senator Inhofe have done in bringing this bill forward
in the right way. I know my friend is as sorry as I am that someone in
the other body decided to violate the rule, injecting into all the hard
work that has been done. I regret that. I hope in the future we can
avoid this.
I thank the Senator for her good words.
Mrs. BOXER. I definitely share the frustration. At this time, I would
like to yield 3 minutes of the remainder of my time to Senator Sanders.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I thank the Chair for yielding. As a
member of the Transportation Committee, I would like to congratulate
Senator Boxer for her extraordinary efforts in pushing this bill
forward. This is an enormously important bill that took a lot of hard
work, and I commend her for the work she and her staff have done.
Senator Inhofe and I have very little in common politically, but I also
wish to applaud him and his staff for coming together on this issue and
doing something that is extremely important and doing it in a
bipartisan way.
Anyone who drives in the State of Vermont or, for that matter, drives
around America, understands, to a significant degree, our
infrastructure is collapsing. In Vermont, we have dozens and dozens of
bridges that are in need of repair. We have many hundreds of miles of
roads that need repair. Our public transit system needs help. What this
bill is about is a start toward rebuilding our crumbling
infrastructure, our roads, our bridges, our public transit and, in the
process, putting a significant number of people back to work.
It is estimated this bill will save more than 1.8 million jobs
nationwide in each of the next 3 years, and it will create 1 million
new jobs through an expanded infrastructure financing program. What
that means in the State of Vermont are thousands and thousands of
decent-paying construction and other types of jobs, something we sorely
need. So this bill is an excellent start. Does it go as far as it
should? No, it does not. Compared to China, compared to Europe, our
investments in infrastructure are minimal. When we invest in
infrastructure, we make our country more productive, we put people back
to work, and we make ourselves more internationally competitive. So I
just want to say this is an important step forward, but we have more to
do.
Today, we are focused on roads, bridges, public transit--very
important--but that is not the entire infrastructure. We have to pick
up the issue on rail. We are falling further and further behind China,
Japan, and Europe in terms of high-speed rail. We have to invest in
rail and there are great jobs in doing that. We have to invest in our
water systems and in our wastewater plants. We have to make sure every
community in America has high-quality broadband as well as cell phone
service. That is what infrastructure is about. We have not invested
anywhere near the degree we should, and now is the time to get started.
So this bill, which focuses on roads, on bridges, and public transit
is an important step forward, and I wish to congratulate Senator Boxer
and her staff, Senator Inhofe and his staff for their important work.
With that, I would yield the floor.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 14 minutes.
The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I wish to thank my friend, Senator
Sanders. He is a very active member of the Environmental and Public
Works Committee. He is focused on jobs, jobs, jobs. He has looked at
the green job sector. He has looked at the effect of what we do on the
construction industry. I am ever so grateful to him. He also has been a
very clear voice for the way to move this country forward by having a
clean energy policy, which we are definitely going to be looking at in
the days and weeks ahead. We are now at the moment where we are waiting
to see whether our friends on the other side of the aisle will allow us
to proceed to finish our work on three issues: One is flood control,
one is helping to make sure student loan interest rates

[[Page 10788]]

do not double, and the third and biggest one involves the
transportation sector.
We all know, whether we are Republicans or Democrats, our focus is on
boosting this economy. This bill will do that like no other. In this
Transportation bill we are talking about protecting 2 million jobs that
are currently in place in this country in the construction sector and
the transit sector. So these are the jobs that construction workers do
on the highways, the freeways, the bridges, making sure our roads are
in good shape and our bridges are not going to collapse because we have
70,000 bridges that are deficient, and we know what happens when there
is a horrible failure of a bridge.
I know my ranking Member, Senator Inhofe, feels very strongly about
this because he had an incident in his State where one of his
constituents was actually killed by a bridge failing. We cannot sit by
and allow the highway program and the transit program in this country
to disappear. We have taken it up to the line.
I am very grateful to Ranking Member Inhofe. I am very grateful to
Chairman Mica and to Ranking Member Rahall for the work we have done in
this conference. This is a bill that everyone can be proud of, whether
they are Republican or Democrat.
CBO has scored this, and it actually returns money to the Treasury.
We have support from people who don't agree on most matters. I am not
only talking about Senator Inhofe and myself, who do not see eye to eye
on many issues; we have come together on this. Besides that, we see the
AFL-CIO and the Chamber of Commerce walking hand in hand asking us to
please pass this bill. So we have a few little holdups now, but I am
very hopeful we can work through them.
The highlights of this bill: Overall, jobs, jobs, jobs. Jobs in the
private sector, businesses in the private sector. We are talking about
leveraging a Federal program called TIFIA, which is going to mean,
frankly, hundreds of millions of dollars that will go out the door to
leverage funds at the local level as well as the private sector.
As we look at our bill, we see a reform bill. We see project
deliveries speeded up from 15 years to 8 years without giving up the
health and safety laws people deserve. We have not done away with any
environmental law; we have just put deadlines in the law. We have put
milestones in the law, and we have stated if people have a problem, let
us know the problem and get on with it. If there is anything new--a new
factor--we will look at that, but we cannot sit around and wait an
average of 13, 12, 14, 15 years to get a project done.
There are no riders in this bill. There are no environmental riders
in this bill. I think that sends a good message to the public that we
are focused on transportation. These other issues are going to be
addressed, but they don't have to be addressed on this bill and become
a target of a veto or a standoff between the parties.
What did we do on bike paths? We have had a lot of controversy.
People are saying we did away with the money for alternative
transportation routes, or bike paths, called safe routes to school,
called pedestrian walkways. No, we saved the same level of funding, the
same percentage of funding, but we gave more flexibility to the States
with their 50-percent share so if they have another pressing need they
can use it for something else. Frankly, if the grassroots people at
home are not happy with the State, they can let the State know that.
For the first time, the other 50 percent goes to the local people. This
is very important.
We also have the RESTORE Act. This means those Gulf States that got
hit so hard from the BP spill will be able to restore their areas. If
they had economic damage, environmental damage, this will help. The
money will come from the court settlement, and BP will then make those
funds available. So it does not add a dime to the deficit.
So we have a bill that doesn't add to the deficit. We have a bill
that will boost this economy. We have a bill that is supported by
conservatives and liberals, progressives and moderates. I think it is a
great day. I am sorry there are a few issues that got added on that are
disappointing to certain colleagues. Believe me, I want to work with
them to help resolve those problems. But I have to tell my colleagues,
when we write a bill of this scope, of this nature, we are going to
have some of these issues. We will work on them.
For my remaining time--how much time do I have remaining?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 7 minutes
remaining.
Mrs. BOXER. I wish to discuss the Supreme Court ruling. In a very
fascinating ruling, the Chief Justice decided that the Affordable Care
Act is constitutional. I am not going to spend a lot of time discussing
why he said it and why they decided it. What I am going to talk about
is what will happen if the Republicans have their way and this law is
repealed.
I want the American people to know--and I say this with no animosity
at all--I am going to do everything I can to stop them from repealing
it for a reason: The reason is the families in my State and all over
the country who are getting the benefits of this law.
Governor Romney says it is going to be something he is going to do on
the first day--he is going to repeal the health care law, if he gets
elected, day one. Let me tell my colleagues very clearly what will
happen.
There are 54 million Americans who are now getting access to free
preventive services such as mammograms and immunizations, if they have
private insurance. That is most of our people. They would no longer get
free mammograms, free checkups--over and out. Fifty-four million
Americans lose if Governor Romney and the Republicans repeal this
bill--6 million of my people in California.
My seniors, over 300,000, would no longer get help with their
prescription drug benefits. Now they are getting help. They will then
go back to choosing between taking their prescription drugs or eating
dinner. I am sorry, I am going to stand in the way, if I can.
Under Medicare, millions of seniors would lose access to free
preventive services. Thirty-two million Medicare patients get these
services for free, including cancer screenings and flu shots. Why on
Earth would somebody or some party want to get up and say: I am
repealing that?
There are 105 million Americans who will once again face lifetime
limits on their health insurance plans. If someone is diagnosed with
cancer and they look at their plan, it says they are covered up to
$250,000. That sounds like a lot of money. I can tell my colleagues
now, that is not a lot of money for someone who is battling cancer.
Now, suddenly, in a person's worst moments, when they are facing
radiation and chemo, they have hit up against their lifetime limit.
That will be gone.
More than 6 million young adults, including 300,000 in my State,
would lose their health insurance because now they have a guarantee.
Because of the health care bill, they can stay on their parents'
coverage until they are 26. Why would anyone want to repeal that? Ask
them. They do.
Insurance companies would no longer owe rebates to customers if those
insurance companies spent too much on premiums and paid the CEOs
exorbitant bonuses and paid hardly anything to help people with their
health care. We are going to see 12 million Americans get back $1
billion in rebate checks in August. They will stop that. They want to
stop that.
How about millions of children who are now getting coverage because
they have a preexisting condition. Before this law, they couldn't. So
if a child was born with a heart defect, even if it was something that
could be controlled, they couldn't get insurance. We pity those
families. I have had reports of people in my State crying tears of joy
when the Supreme Court acted because they could not get insurance
because the woman--this particular one--had a preexisting condition,
and now she can get insurance.
Because of the work of Senator Sanders--and I helped him with it--we
have community health care centers across the country getting funding.
So if a

[[Page 10789]]

person has no insurance--or even if they have insurance--they can go to
a community health center and, based on their ability to pay, get
health care. That would be repealed.
School-based health centers would be repealed. Training of our health
care workers would be repealed.
I will tell my colleagues, that is just what the benefits are today.
In 2014, there will be a slew of new benefits. This bill, while not
perfect--and we can fix the problems--is a good bill.
Just remember that everyone in our country gets health care, but the
difference is some of them walk into an emergency room having paid
nothing for a premium, even if they are wealthy, and they expect us to
pay the bill in the emergency room. With the approach that
Massachusetts Governor Romney took, he said if a person is responsible
and can afford it, that person has to buy a minimal health insurance
plan. President Obama got the idea from Governor Romney. I call it a
personal responsibility premium. Some people call it a tax. Some people
call it a fee. I call it a personal responsibility premium because most
of the people I represent buy health care coverage, and a few just say:
You know what. I feel terrific. I will wait until something bad happens
to me and then I will go to the emergency room. And they can all pay.
That is what we have. We have the people who are responsible paying
for the free riders. The idea that President Obama got was from then-
Governor Romney.
So this is going to be a long election season, and there are going to
be a lot of battles over health care.
I hope we will pass the bill that is in front of us and take care of
the construction sector and transportation. I hope we will take care of
flood insurance and student loan interest rates. We can do that with
one vote on a bill shortly, if we get permission to move forward. If we
don't, we will be here all weekend or whatever it takes to get it done.
I am not going to go home until this is done.
I will also tell my colleagues--as we look at this health care
battle, the lines are pretty clear. There are millions and millions of
Americans who are getting benefits today. Why would anyone want to take
away those benefits? Yet that is where we are in the debate. So I hope
cooler heads will prevail.
Let's get on with bringing this economy back. Let's allow this bill--
with a few corrections because we can always fix things that don't
work--go forward. Let's stop the heated name calling. Let's make sure
we work together, just as we did on the Transportation bill. I believe
this is a good moment for this Senate today. I hope we can get our work
done, and then we can actually celebrate something before we start
battling over health care.
Let's celebrate and say to the construction sector: We need you to
rebuild those broken roads, those broken bridges. We need you to make
sure we get those transit systems up and running. Then, I honestly
believe, the rest of these problems we will take up one at a time.
Thank you very much, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. GRAHAM. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Honoring our Armed Forces

Sergeant First Class Brad Thomas, Lieutenant Ryan Davis Rawl, and
Sergeant John ``J.D.'' David Meador, II

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to three fallen
National Guard members from South Carolina who were killed in
Afghanistan on June 20, 2012, in Khost Province. They were members of
the 133rd Military Police Company who were serving on this duty. There
are now 16 members of the South Carolina National Guard who have died
in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2003.
With the July 4 weekend coming up, we are preceding one of our
biggest holidays in America, and people rightfully will take some time
off, I hope, to enjoy their families and friends and get away from work
and have some family time. It marks a special event in our Nation's
history: The founding of our Nation through a declaration of
independence that was not just words but resulted in men and women
fighting to achieve our independence.
Here we are a couple hundred years later and we are still fighting.
My belief is, as to the radical Islamists who would kill us all if they
could, it is better to fight them over there so we do not have to fight
them here.
Afghanistan was the place the Taliban took over after the Russians
left and invited al-Qaida into the country, with bin Laden as their
honored guest. He had sanctuary there and was able to plan the attacks
of 9/11 from sanctuary provided to him in Afghanistan.
Our goal is to never let Afghanistan become a sanctuary for al-Qaida
or other terrorist groups. Thus, we are in a long struggle. It has been
10 years. It has been hard, but we are making progress. The Afghan Army
is getting better and stronger. The police are getting more proficient
at their job. We are going to be winding the war down in 2014. But I
think we can do it in a fashion to make sure Afghanistan remains stable
and our national security interests are protected.
But to make all those things possible--the weekend we are going to
enjoy, and the holiday season, and denying terrorists safe havens--some
of us have to leave our families and go off and fight this war.
SFC Brad Thomas of Easley, SC, was killed in an attack on June 20. He
was a graduate of Travelers Rest High School and attended Greenville
Technical College. He was a member of the 133rd Military Police Company
of the South Carolina Army National Guard.
He is survived by his wife Jana and a son Cayden, a brother and two
sisters. I know the family is devastated. You are in our prayers, and
God bless you and give you the healing and understanding during this
tough time.
To SFC Brad Thomas, you died in the service of your country, and you
will be missed.
LT Ryan Davis Rawl of Lexington, SC, was killed in the same attack.
He was a first lieutenant in the 133rd MP Company. He graduated from
Lexington High School. He was a graduate of the Citadel. He is survived
by his wife Katherine and their daughter Callie and their son Caleb.
I just want to acknowledge to Katherine, who interned in our office,
that you are certainly in our prayers. You did a great job for us, and
anything we can do for any of these families in South Carolina, we
will. We very much pray for you and your family.
Sgt John ``J.D.'' David Meador, II, graduated from Lexington High
School. He was a member of the wrestling team and was a wrestling
coach. He was a member of the same MP Company. He is survived by his
wife Christy and three daughters: Olivia, Brianna, and Elana. To
Christy and her family, you will be in our prayers.
This will be a tough weekend in South Carolina. We are going to have
three funerals.
To General Livingston and the National Guard family, you are
certainly in our prayers. This is a tough blow for an MP company to
have three people killed in one attack. So to all the members of that
company, we will do our best to take care of your families while you
are gone.
We have had a big argument about health care and about
transportation, and that is great--democracy in action. What is the
right decision for the Court to have made in the health care case? Is
this a good transportation bill? I appreciate in a bipartisan fashion
trying to find a solution.
But I just wanted to take a few minutes before going to the holiday
weekend and remind us of one thing we do have in common: Our freedom
depends on people willing to fight for it, and the one thing about this
war--whether you agree with the war in Afghanistan or not--virtually
every American, regardless of political persuasion, has shown an
appreciation for the troops and their families. I cannot thank Members
of Congress enough for never losing sight. No matter how they feel

[[Page 10790]]

about this war, we all appreciate those who fight it, and we all suffer
and mourn for those who lose their lives in this cause.
I believe this is a just cause. I believe these men who joined the
military voluntarily and left their families to go to Afghanistan were
doing so in the most noble tradition of the country--that they were
trying to make our families safer, my family safer, and they died in
the service of their country. And that is a life well lived. They died
far too soon. They left behind young children, but they will never be
forgotten.
May God grant them eternal rest and peace. May God bless and provide
understanding and healing to the families left behind. And may, as
Americans, we never forget that our freedom is dependent upon a few of
us being willing to go to faraway places, with strange sounding names,
and risk never coming back.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, first of all, I
thank the Senator for his eloquent statement on behalf of those who
have served and sacrificed.
Since we will all be spread around at different places over the
Fourth of July and celebrating our independence, I think those are very
appropriate and moving words.
I am reminded of the saying at the battlefield, written:

They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for a brief colloquy with the
Senator from South Carolina.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Sequestration

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, we are also facing another crisis as far
as the military is concerned; that is, the looming prospect of
sequestration. The Secretary of Defense has stated that sequestration
would have a ``devastating impact'' on our national security. We are
talking about layoffs, and some estimates are of as many as 1 million
workers in the defense industry. We are looking at unknown effects of
the strategic thinking that goes on as we plan to defend our Nation's
security--for example, our shift in emphasis from Europe to Asia
Pacific, which requires significant air and naval assets amongst other
things.
I would ask my colleague--I am not sure the American people are fully
aware of the effects of something that is supposed to take effect, as I
understand it, at the beginning of the next fiscal year, which would be
the beginning of October 2012. Is that a correct statement, I would ask
my colleague?
Mr. GRAHAM. Yes, it is.
Mr. McCAIN. So we are asking the Defense Department to plan on what
our force structure will be, what our mission will be, what our
capabilities will be, beginning the first of October, and all I can see
so far is total gridlock on this issue.
Now, if somebody wants to say it is our fault because we refused to
``raise revenues'' or because of the other side's insistence on that
and a resistance to spending cuts, I say to my colleague, I do not
think people understand we still live in a very dangerous world. The
Senator just talked about those who have already sacrificed. Don't we
owe it to them and their families to stop something that all of us
agree would have a catastrophic impact on our ability to defend this
Nation?
Isn't it true--would the Senator agree--that it is time we sat down
and started having serious negotiations, because there is no greater
responsibility the Congress and the people's representatives have than
to defend the security of this Nation?
I know the Senator from South Carolina--before I ask him to answer--
traveled around his State, which I intend to do, to the various
military installations and talked about what would happen with this
sequestration. We are talking about a very limited period of time. We
are about to go out of session. We will be in during the month of
July--most of the month of July--and probably the month of September.
End of story.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, might I ask my colleague to yield, if I could
add one other question to his very important question for my colleague
from South Carolina.
I have a recollection that during one of the hearings the Senator
from South Carolina specifically asked the Secretary of Defense what
the consequence would be, and I recall he had a very dramatic response.
I wonder if the Senator might share that with us as well.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Kyl
be included in the colloquy.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. GRAHAM. Well, one, I hope my colleagues will stay around for a
minute or two because this is an important topic to be talking about.
Let me put this in the perspective of what we are trying to do and
what we are trying to avoid. We are about $16 trillion in debt. There
is probably no stronger defense supporters in the Congress than Jon Kyl
and John McCain.
The Senator just spoke of war. John McCain has seen his fair share of
war. I think he understands as well as anybody in this body--probably
better than most--what happens in war. People get hurt and people get
killed and anybody who has been in the military is no fan of war. But
the goal sometimes is to make sure those who are asked to fight a
particular war can fight it quickly, overwhelmingly, win, and come
home.
What we are doing is trying to get out of debt. The three of us are
pretty big defense hawks, but we have all agreed the Pentagon has to
reduce their spending too. I think all of us--particularly Senator
McCain--believe there is a lot of waste in the Pentagon and that we
could achieve $50 billion in savings over the next decade by reforming
the way the Pentagon does business and, quite frankly, do more with
less. So count us all in--the three of us--for reducing defense
spending to help get us out of debt.
But here is what has us all upset. The supercommittee that was formed
by the Budget Control Act had a mission of cutting $1.2 trillion over a
decade to help get us out of debt. That is a pretty small number given
what we are going to spend over the next 10 years. But the committee--
Republicans and Democrats--could not find common ground as to how to
cut $1.2 trillion over the next decade. There was a penalty provision
in the law, and it said that in the event the supercommittee failed, we
would cut $1.2 trillion over the next decade as follows: $600 billion
out of the Defense Department, $600 billion out of the rest of the
government.
If that penalty kicks in, then we will have cut $1 trillion out of
the Defense Department over the next decade, blindly, across the board.
Every account gets affected.
What did Secretary Panetta say? He said: Sign me up for $450 billion.
I think we can get there. We will lose some capability, but we will be
OK as a nation. We could fight Iran and win if we had to.
Then I asked him: What if we did $1 trillion over the next decade--if
we overdoubled what you are trying to cut? He said: We would be
shooting ourselves in the head as a nation. We would not have the
ability to go in and take out the nuclear program in Iran because the
weapons we need we could not maintain and afford.
When it comes to personnel costs, we are reducing the Army by 80,000
people under the $450 billion plan. If we do sequestration on top of
that, I say to Senator McCain, we are taking another 100,000 people out
of the Army. Under sequestration, the Navy would be down to a little
over 200 ships. We would have the smallest Navy since 1915, the
smallest Air Force in the history of the country, and the Army would go
back to 1940 levels.
To my colleagues, do you believe the world has gotten that much safer
that we do not need a Navy bigger than in 1915, given the threats we
are facing from Iran, China, North Korea? Do you think now is a good
time for the country to basically disarm, given the

[[Page 10791]]

threats we face from radical terrorism throughout the whole globe?
So here is what we are going to do, and our congressional leaders
need to be on notice. About 1 million people would lose their jobs if
we put these cuts in place, and we would destroy the defense industrial
base that provides good jobs to the economy and keeps us free and safe
by giving our people technology better than the enemy has.
Three National Guardsmen were killed in June in Afghanistan. We have
improved the National Guard. But when we first started this war,
National Guard units were leaving to go to the fight with inferior
equipment. They did not have armor. So if we do sequestration on top of
what we are already trying to cut in the Defense Department, we will
destroy the finest military in the history of the world at a time we
need it the most.
This is a body known for doing some pretty dumb things. This would be
the prize. So what Senators McCain, Kyl, and myself are trying to do is
avoid sequestration before the first of the year so our defense people
can plan. If we do not set this aside before the election, that is
political malpractice. I thank Senator McCain and Senator Kyl for their
leadership.
Mr. McCAIN. I wish to add--I note the presence of the Senator from
New Hampshire who has also played a very key leadership role, including
working with the mayors of every city in America, who have issued a
resolution about their concern about this issue.
I wish also to state to my friends and colleagues that I know the
chairman of the Armed Services Committee, whom I have had the
opportunity of working with for 25 years, the Senator from Michigan,
also shares our concern.
I hope we could at least get some of us together who have been
involved with these issues of national security for so many years on
both sides of the aisle, that we could reach some kind of an agreement.
We know additional sacrifices have to be made when we are facing a $16
trillion deficit. But to take the overwhelming majority--well over 50
percent of these reductions--out of what is about, I believe, 12
percent of our spending is obviously not appropriate.
One other point. If the President of the United States shares the
concern that the Secretary of Defense shares--catastrophic, impossible
to plan on, so draconian that it would cripple our ability to defend
this Nation; all of those are statements which the Secretary of Defense
has made--I would argue that it would be appropriate, and I would
sincerely ask that perhaps the President of the United States also be
involved and members of his administration or charter members of the
administration to sit down with us to see how we could resolve this.
So far the executive branch has not been involved in these efforts,
with the exception of the Secretary of Defense, who has told us in the
most graphic terms the devastating consequences. Again, I want to point
out to my colleagues: You have to plan, especially in national defense,
what weapons you are going to procure, the number of people you are
going to maintain in the military, what those missions are going to be.
All of those right now, if held in abeyance in the Pentagon as far as
planning is concerned, cannot have a great deal of validity if we are
staring at sequestration and these draconian reductions.
Mr. GRAHAM. Would the Senator yield?
Mr. McCAIN. Yes. And I know our most eloquent member has arrived on
the floor, not to mention other attributes we are lacking.
Mr. GRAHAM. I would like all three Senators to comment on this
proposition. You have just challenged the President, who is the
Commander in Chief, by the way, to fix the problem that your Secretary
of Defense has said would be most devastating to our ability to defend
ourselves. He said it would be catastrophic, it would be draconian,
there is no way to plan for it, we would be shooting ourselves in the
head. Mr. President, you are the Commander in Chief. When your
Secretary of Defense and every general under your command is telling
you and the Congress, you need to fix this before it gets out of hand,
why are you not asking us, as Republicans and Democrats, to answer the
call of the Secretary of Defense? You are the Commander in Chief, my
friend. It is your job to make sure our military has what it needs to
go fight wars that we send them to fight and protect our Nation.
But that is not enough. It is also our job as Members of Congress to
take care of those who serve. So to our Republican and Democratic
leader: Why do you not convene a group of Senators? And to our leaders
in the House: Why do you not get a group of House Members, and ask us
to come up with a plan to do at least one thing, avoid the consequence
of sequestration for 1 year in 2013, to take the monkey off their back?
I am willing to meet our Democratic friends in the middle to find a
way to offset the $110 billion in defense and nondefense spending. But
to our leaders and to the President, if you think the rest of us are
going to sit on the sideline and let this matter be taken up in
lameduck when it becomes a nightmare for the country, you can forget
it. So we are challenging our leaders and the President to get a group
together to fix this.
I ask Senator McCain, do you think that is a good idea?
Mr. McCAIN. I know it is the only way we are going to solve this. I
ask unanimous consent that the Senator from New Hampshire be included.
I know the Senator from Tennessee, our friend Senator Corker, is
waiting. But I think my friend from South Carolina, as usual, has
stated the problem and a solution here. The problem is, we face a
devastating impact on our national security. The solution is for our
leaders and the President--if possible--to convene a group of Senators,
whether it includes us or not is immaterial, on both sides of the
aisle, on both sides of the Capitol, to sit down and work this out so
we can avoid the sequester.
I will take responsibility for sequester if that is what is
necessary. But I also say that without concrete, significant, and
meaningful action to cause this sequester to be prevented, we are
risking the lives of our young men and women who are serving in the
military. I do not know of a greater responsibility that we have.
I ask the Senator from New Hampshire if she agrees.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Blumenthal.) The Senator from New
Hampshire is recognized.
Ms. AYOTTE. I join with my colleagues over the concern, deep concern
that keeps me up at night about sequestration, because we cannot do
this to our national security. Both sides of the aisle have to come
together. We need leadership from our Commander in Chief on this issue.
To put it in perspective, I asked the Assistant Commandant of the
Marine Corps what the impact of sequestration would be on the Marines.
Do you know what he told me? That the Marine Corps of the United States
of America would be unable to respond to one major contingency. Talk
about putting our country at risk and putting ourselves in a situation
where unfortunately there are still so many risks around the world that
our country needs to be protected from. To think that our Marine Corps
would not be able to respond to one major contingency. It is
outrageous. It cries for bipartisan leadership on this issue,
particularly leadership from our Commander in Chief.
To put it in perspective, it is not just an issue of our national
security. You would think that would be enough to bring people to the
table. But we are talking about jobs across this country. The National
Association of Manufacturers has estimated it would be nearly 1 million
jobs; George Mason University, the same.
To my colleagues, looking around here, polling some States in terms
of the estimate of job losses: 24,000 for Alabama. When we look at a
State like Missouri, 31,000, when we look at a State, for example, like
Florida, 39,000 for Florida. This is an issue that will hit every State
in this Nation.
But, most importantly, what I am concerned about is it is going to
hit our military in a way that we break

[[Page 10792]]

faith with our troops. In fact, General Odienero of our Army has said
he would have to cut an additional 100,000 troops from our Army on top
of the reductions we are making right now, approximately 72,000, and 50
percent of it would have to come from the Guard and Reserve.
You think about the important function not only of protecting our
country, we could not have fought in Afghanistan or Iraq without our
Guard and Reserve. I am the proud wife of someone who served in the
Iraq war. I can tell you, it is not only the function that our Guard
and Reserve play in terms of protecting us overseas, but they also
perform a very important homeland function. Every Governor in this
country will be deeply concerned if we are going to diminish our Guard
and Reserve. So this is an issue that cries out for leadership from
both sides of the aisle. I look forward to working with my colleagues
on this now. It cannot wait until a lameduck session. We cannot put our
national security in the balance, and nearly 1 million jobs at issue,
to a lameduck session. This is something we should resolve right now.
I appreciate that my colleagues have come to the floor to talk about
this issue today. We must get this done on behalf of the American
people and our men and women in uniform.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I think Senator Corker from Tennessee was
on the floor before me. I do not know if we are going back and forth or
how long he expects to speak. I wish to yield to him to see what his
plans are.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Illinois. I am
going to speak for about 2\1/2\ to 3 minutes if that is okay.
Mr. DURBIN. I would be happy to yield to the Senator from Tennessee.
I ask unanimous consent that I follow him.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Budget Control Act

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of my friends
from New Hampshire and Arizona and South Carolina regarding the
sequestration. I will say the reason we are in this sequestration mode
is that six Republicans and six Democrats could not figure out a way,
over a 10-year period, to cut $1.2 trillion in spending out of $45
trillion that is going to be spent by the Federal Government during
that period of time. So I do hope there is a way to resolve that. But I
am here to speak about something related, but in some ways very
different.
Today we are getting ready to vote on some legislation dealing with
flood insurance, dealing with student lending, dealing with highways.
And these are all very popular programs.
What people who are listening, who may be paying attention to what
the Senate is doing today, what they may not know is that for the third
time, in a bipartisan way, this body is getting ready to spend more
money than was deemed by the budget that was ultimately created by the
Budget Control Act last year when the country almost shut down trying
to save a mere $900 billion over the next 10 years. So a vote today for
this piece of legislation is basically a vote to say the Senate cannot
be entrusted to carry out what it laid out last August to keep us from
spending money we do not have. I know there are going to be some budget
points of order that will be brought forth at some point later today.
I want to say as one Senator from Tennessee, it continues to be
unbelievable to me that this body does not have the courage, does not
have the will, does not have the discipline to even live within a very
modest budget that was laid out last August. Today I am certain we are
going to pass legislation that spends billions of dollars more than we
agreed to in the Budget Control Act and especially the deemed budget
that came after that, the deemed budget that was put in place as a
result of what we passed last August.
I would say all those who vote for this today are basically saying we
do not have the discipline to live within our means. The problems our
Nation faces fiscally are only going to get worse. I think this is a
very sad day for our country if that, in fact, is what happens within
the next 2 or 3 hours on the Senate floor.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.

Sequestration

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Tennessee for his
comments. I share his concern about our deficit. I was a member of the
Simpson-Bowles Commission, voted for the commission report, bipartisan
effort to reduce the deficit by $4\1/2\ trillion over 10 years. I think
we set in place a description, maybe a guidepost for how we can do
this.
I would agree with him that we need to take care in the money that we
spend now which will add to the deficit, though I have to say my
understanding is this transportation bill is paid for. There are
revenue sources that are part of this. I know the student loan
continued decrease in interest rates to 3.4 percent for student loans
is paid for. I believe the changes within the Flood Insurance Program,
which is part of this package as well, the Republican leader spoke to
that this morning, reforms in that program will move it closer to
sustainability and solvency. It is not where it needs to be, but it is
moving closer.
But I want to address, if I can, for a minute what has been a topic
on the floor this morning about the planned cuts in the Department of
Defense. Let me say at the outset what we all agree upon. No. 1, we
never, ever want to shortchange America's security, never shortchange
our men and women in uniform.
A nephew of mine who serves as a doorman in the gallery recently
returned from 1 year in Afghanistan. We were sending packages and were
worried about Michael every day. He got home safely. That is happening
over and over across America. I wanted my nephew to have all he needed
to come home safely. I think everybody feels the same when it comes to
the Department of Defense.
Let's step back and look at this deficit debate. Allow me to put it
into perspective for a moment. The last time we balanced the Federal
budget was not in the 19th century, it was about 11 years ago. It was a
time when William Jefferson Clinton was President, and for 3 years we
had a balanced budget under a Democratic President--3 years.
When we reach a balanced budget, if you said, ``What do you have in
terms of spending and revenue?''--they are the same--here is what we
found: Revenue and spending both equaled 19.5 percent of America's
gross domestic product. The gross domestic product is the sum total of
the goods and services produced in America every year. It changes and
grows. The last year we were in balance, taxes equaled 19.5 percent of
our GDP and Federal spending equaled 19.5 percent. We had a balanced
budget.
Now we are in deep water. We saw the accumulated debt of the United
States more than double under President George W. Bush, and it
continues to grow, because of the recession, under this President. Our
annual deficits are over $1 trillion and are unsustainable. We borrow
40 cents for every dollar we spend, whether we are buying military
equipment or paying for food stamps. That is unsustainable.
But now that we know there was a time when we were in balance, it is
fair to say: What happened to spending since this budget was in
balance? If you do it in constant dollars so there is no monkeying
around with numbers, here is what happened since we were last in
balance in our budget: Domestic discretionary spending equals student
loans, medical research, transportation--all of the different things
that don't fit into the Department of Defense. The spending in those
areas since we were last in balance has been flat, with no increase.
What about spending for entitlement programs--Medicare, Medicaid,
programs such as those--and veterans' care? What has happened to that
since we were last in balance? Since we were

[[Page 10793]]

last in balance, the spending on entitlement programs has gone up 30
percent. Why? The baby boomers have arrived; 10,000 people a day reach
the age of 65. They paid into Social Security and Medicare their whole
life, and they show up now and say: It is our turn. Because of that,
entitlement spending has gone up.
Let's look at the third part of the budget, which was addressed by my
Republican colleague this morning--defense spending. What has happened
to defense spending since the budget was in balance? Domestic
discretionary flat; entitlements 30 percent. As of this year's budget,
defense spending will have risen 73 percent since the budget was last
in balance.
We created a supercommittee, and Senator Kerry of Massachusetts, who
is here, was a member. They said: Let's find ways to reduce the deficit
by $1.2 trillion over 10 years. They tried. I am sure Senator Kerry
will speak to that effort. At the end of the day, they could not reach
a bipartisan agreement on how it would be done. The law we passed said:
If you cannot reach agreement, we are going to do it automatically. We
are going to take $500 billion out of defense and $500 billion out of
nondefense spending. That is what this is about. People are coming to
the floor and saying that we cannot take another $500 billion out of
defense spending.
I will tell you that I think that is a lot to be taken out in light
of what we have already anticipated we are going to reduce in spending.
I think it will cause some serious problems. But I reject the notion
that that $500 billion, if it is taken out of domestic discretionary,
won't have equally horrible results.
So I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, when you had a
chance in the supercommittee to deal with spending cuts of a lesser
amount or deal with revenue, closing tax loopholes, you walked away
from it. Now you are complaining that we may end up cutting defense
spending.
Incidentally, if the sequestration number went through--the
additional $500 billion in cuts over the next 10 years--it would bring
the amount of money we spend on defense to the same percentage of the
GDP as it was when the budget was in balance.
So my friends who are speaking for national defense, I join you, but
I also speak for investments in America when it comes to education,
innovation, and infrastructure. That will help our economy grow. And
sequestration on the domestic side is unacceptable, from this Senator's
point of view, as well.
We clearly need to get beyond this and talk about an honest answer to
reducing the deficit. An honest answer, going back to Simpson-Bowles,
puts everything on the table--everything. To my friends on the other
side, I say that it puts revenue on the table, and it must. It puts
entitlement programs and spending cuts on the table, and it must. That
is the only honest way to address this issue. To pick it off and say
that we are going to take the one area that has grown in spending by 73
percent and ignore it and then have them say that we don't touch
revenue leaves two possibilities: If we are going to do anything about
the deficit--deeper cuts in programs such as student loans, medical
research, or cuts in Medicare--that is what it comes down to. They are
hard choices, right? I think the Bowles-Simpson approach of putting
everything on the table is the right approach.
I urge my colleagues on both sides to take this pain that we are
facing December 31 and turn it into an opportunity to work on a
bipartisan basis to reduce this deficit.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.

Surface Transportation

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I stand to raise a concern I have regarding
the conference committee report to accompany H.R. 4348.
Pursuant to paragraph 9 of rule XXVIII of the Standing Rules of the
Senate, we are supposed to have adequate notice of a report like this
before we have the opportunity to vote on it. The rule states:

It shall not be in order to vote on the adoption of a
report of a committee of conference unless such report has
been available to Members and to the general public for at
least 48 hours before such vote.

The current version of the committee report was filed, as I
understand it, at 8:07 p.m. last night. It is not even close to the 48
hours required notice.
What we have, ultimately, when we look at this, is the fact that we
have a highway bill that was sent to conference, but it came back from
closed-door negotiations with a student loan bill and also with a flood
insurance bill attached to it. We were neither given the chance to
debate nor to amend these provisions before they came to the floor. Now
we are approaching a vote on that.
We did not provide our fellow Senators or the American people with an
adequate opportunity to read the 596-page conference report, which is
required by our very own rule. This is somewhat reminiscent of a
statement made a few years ago by then-Speaker of the House Nancy
Pelosi when, speaking to Members of her body regarding the passage of
the Affordable Care Act, she said:

We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what's in
it.

This is one of the problems we have in Washington of which the
American people are becoming increasingly aware. It is a problem that I
think we need to address. Time and again, we have a problem in which
the Senate waits until the day before a holiday or the day before a
scheduled instate work period before bringing something to the floor
for a vote--without following the Senate's own rules, which are
designed to promote and protect the openness and transparency of the
legislative process. This is a troubling trend and one we should seek
to avoid whenever and wherever possible.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, currently Congress has about a 10-percent
approval rating. One of the reasons is that we don't even obey our own
rules.
For goodness' sakes, this is a 600-page bill. I got it this morning.
Not one Member of the Senate will read this bill before we vote on it.
We are going to vote on this in the next 30 minutes. I, Senator Lee,
and others will object to this. We will have a point of order that our
own rule says it has to be posted online for 48 hours. It is 600 pages,
and nobody will read it. No wonder our approval rating is 10 percent.
Nobody knows what we are voting on. In fact, provisions were stuck in
this bill last night that have nothing to do with any of these bills.
They have been stuck in and we are just now discovering it. I passed
two Senators in the hall who are trying to get something out of this
bill that affects their States, which they found out about just minutes
ago. Nobody would have known about it if they had not found out about
it.
There are three bills in question here: transportation, student
loans--on the student loan bill, originally we had loans at 6 percent,
and it was somehow bringing in money to the Treasury. We were using
that money to pay for ObamaCare. Now it is at 3 percent, and that money
is gone. Where is the money to pay for ObamaCare? We have a shell game
up here. We say one thing will pay for it, and now this will pay for
it--the money disappears.
Now they are saying they are going to pay for this by taking money
out of pensions. Raise your hand if you think it is a good idea to
underfund pensions more. Over half of the pensions in this country are
technically insolvent because they don't have enough money to pay for
them. Is it a good idea to have less money go into workers' pensions to
pay for a student loan program?
I have a bill in Congress that says we should read the bill before we
pass it. We should wait 1 day for each 20 pages, to be given time to
read 600-page bills. At the very least, we ought to adhere to our own
rules. They say it should be posted online at least 48 hours. Forty-
eight hours is still a challenge to find out everything in here. Do you
know how long the Federal Register is--55,000 pages, which is added to
annually. When you read this, you have to refer to the Federal
Register, which is

[[Page 10794]]

hundreds of thousands of pages, to find out what they stuck in this
bill in the dead of night. This isn't the way we should operate.
The American people want to know why do we say the government is not
going to do something for 3 days. What were they doing the previous 3
months?
The other side hasn't produced a budget in 3 years. That is against
the rules. The rules of the Senate say you must produce a budget, and
they didn't do it for 3 years. When we presented them with a budget
that we wrote for them, nobody voted for it, and zero on the other side
voted for their own President's budget.
How are we going to compromise if they are not showing up for work?
How are we going to get anything done if they don't obey their own
rules?
I will raise a point of order in the next hour that says that we have
broken the rules of the Senate, and I will ask them to vote on it. I
fully expect that the Parliamentarian will rule in our favor. We will
see. The other side will simply close their eyes to the rules, and they
won't care what the Parliamentarian says, and they will overturn this
by saying: We are the majority, and we deem it so. We are the majority,
and we don't care what is in the bill or to take time to read the bill;
we just deem it so.
I think this is why the American people are unhappy with what is
going on here. I object strenuously. I will vote against this, and I
will raise a point of order that says we should read the bill before we
pass it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank Senator Paul for raising these
issues. We are mismanaging the American people's money. It is good to
see Senator Lee, who just spoke, and Senator Paul, both new Members of
the Senate, who have been out talking to the American people and made
commitments that they are going to work to try to improve the process
here. I celebrate their activity, their vigor, and their determination,
and a lot of others feel the same way in our body.
Shortly we will be moving a cobbled-together bill. An attempt will be
made to accomplish this. I expect budget points of order and another
point of order to be raised.
I want to share some thoughts about how it is we do business and some
of the efforts that are not legitimate as we go about our business and
are dangerous to the financial health of America.
Let's take what we call the LUST fund. I know it is an odd name. The
true name of it is the leaking underground storage tank fund. People
who have them have to pay fees, and it goes into a fund. The idea of
the fund is to be available when cleanups need to be done. When the
company or other companies have gone bankrupt and there is no money,
this fund will pay to clean up the waste. Maybe it makes sense. It has
been operating for quite a number of years. It has run up a surplus.
That surplus is in the LUST trust fund--leaking underground storage
tank fund--and where does it go? What do you do with that money?
The Treasury of the United States is spending more money every year
than it takes in. This year we will spend approximately $3.7 trillion.
We take in about $2.4 trillion, and we have a $1,300 billion deficit.
That is how much we are spending. We spend around $3.7 trillion and are
taking in about $2.4 trillion, and we have about a $1.3 trillion
deficit this year--the fourth consecutive year that we have had almost
a $1,000 billion deficit. We will have a big one again next year
because we are systematically overspending.
But let's look at this fund--it has some real money in it, a number
of billions of dollars--and what happens to it. Well, when the
government spends more money than it takes in, it takes the money from
the LUST fund. Well, how does it get it? It borrows it. So there is
actually a debt instrument from the United States Treasury to the
trustees or the holders or managers of the LUST trust fund, and they
have loaned the money. They do not need it today, so they loan it to
the government so they can spend it. And it has been borrowed and has
been spent.
The assets in the LUST fund are nothing more than debt instruments
from the U.S. Treasury. But on the books, it appears this LUST fund has
assets. I guess in a sense it does. It has U.S. Treasury notes. So the
people looking around to spend money and to try to meet the demands of
our constituents--to build highways in this case--decided they could
take that money.
And you know something, it does not score as an expenditure in that
fashion. It is an odd way this is done. It is seen as found money that
they can go over and spend. But where does the money come from? The
money is not in the fund, remember? The fund holds Treasury bills. But
the highway trust fund doesn't want Treasury bills, it wants money that
can be spent. So what happens is the U.S. Treasury, which has been
borrowing money from another government agency and giving a debt
instrument in return, has to come up with the money now. It is going to
be spent. It is going to be taken out of the trust fund. So where do
they get the money? They convert an internal debt to an external debt.
The only thing they will do is borrow more money. So it will be this
many billions of dollars more than $1.2 trillion or $1.3 trillion that
we have. The debt is converted to a public debt, and somebody in China
or in Japan or in New York will loan money to the government and they
will use that money to pay the highway trust fund with it.
You see how circular that is? It allows the money to be double
counted. And that is actually what happened with President Obama's
health care bill. That $400 billion was funded this way. Social
Security still has a surplus. Although it has been drawn down, it still
has a surplus in its account--or Medicare does. So the Medicare
trustees raise Medicare taxes, they cut Medicare benefits, and they
save $400 billion, And that would be money of the Medicare and the
trustees. It is their money. But what happened with it? Under the
conventions of accounting, the money was available to be spent by the
U.S. Treasury, and the U.S. Treasury then would spend it on the new
health care bill.
The Congressional Budget Office Director, Mr. Elmendorf, wrote me a
letter the night before the bill passed--Christmas Eve--and he said
this is double counting the money. You can't simultaneously count it as
making Medicare better and providing new money to fund the health care
bill. Four hundred billion dollars on the night before the vote he
announces this is double counting. If a private business were to do it,
they would be in big trouble, I suggest. They might be sued for fraud.
They would be sued for fraud.
So the money was done in that fashion, and the way it happened was
Mr. Elmendorf said it is double counting the money. You cannot
simultaneously benefit Medicare and fund a new health care program,
although the conventions of accounting might suggest otherwise. So the
real smart financiers, what did they do? They figured out how to use
the conventions of accounting in a way that obscured the fact they
didn't have the $400 billion and that it was, in truth, borrowed money.
Mr. President, I see my colleagues on the floor, and I yield the
floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I just have a couple of comments to make
for clarification purposes.
First of all, I don't think anyone is going to question my
conservative credentials over the years I have been here. I have been
really offended by a lot of the things that have happened structurally
in this institution, over in the House, but so far as this bill is
concerned, let me clarify a couple of things.
It sounds good to stand up here and say we have only had a matter of
minutes to look at something that is 500 pages. We have had this bill
for a long time--for several days. We have had it and gone over
everything. On the bill we sent from the Senate to the House, it is
essentially the same thing.
I didn't agree when they added the two provisions on student loan and
flood insurance. I didn't agree with

[[Page 10795]]

that. Everyone knows those issues, but I don't think they should have
been on here. Nonetheless, we didn't have any control in this body over
that. But as far as the provisions of the bill are concerned, these
provisions we have seen. And everyone who has spoken against it has
been there when we have talked about the great reforms, and I have
commented several times that I thought one of the problems was we did
too good a job because we had too many reforms. But when it got over to
the House, where they are inclined to have more reforms there, they had
to start from a base where we had done a good job. Streamlining and
enhancements and all those things are in it.
The only thing I can say, from a conservative perspective, is we have
seen this bill. We have lived with this bill, not just hours but for
days, and actually for weeks, the basic provisions of the bill. But
what we have to realize is there is an alternative to what we are doing
here today, and that alternative--and the only alternative--is to go
back to extensions.
If we go back to extensions, a couple of things happen. No. 1, we
don't have any of the reforms we have in the bill; No. 2, we throw away
about 30 percent of the money----
Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Will my friend yield for a question?
Mr. INHOFE. Yes, of course.
Mr. REID. Through the Chair, I would ask my friend, the ranking
member of this committee, is it true this is basically the same bill we
are going to vote on today that passed this institution in March?
Mr. INHOFE. It is true, I say through the Chair. It passed this
institution with 74 votes, as I recall.
Mr. REID. So again, people have had since March to read this bill and
to get up to speed a little bit, don't you think?
Mr. INHOFE. I answer in the affirmative.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, would my friend yield for 1 minute? I want
to correct the Record.
There are a few changes, there is no question. We have speeded up
project delivery, as my friend knows. We gave a little more flexibility
to the States in terms of the TE program. So a few things were changed.
But my friends are right, primarily, this is a similar bill. It takes
the money and we say we are going to spend the same thing, plus
inflation. And it is true these bills have been out here for a long
time. Actually, they passed our committee, I say to Senator Inhofe, in
November of last year.
Mr. INHOFE. I respond, yes, that is correct. That is accurate.
I think that is very important too because we have been talking about
this bill for a long period of time. We actually started trying to get
a highway reauthorization bill way back in 2009, when the old bill from
2005 expired.
But the problem is--and I want to get back to where I was--there is
an alternative to this bill. If we defeat this bill, we go back to
extensions. If we go back to extensions, first of all, we are losing
about 30 percent of the money off the top. Everybody knows that.
Secondly, we don't get these reforms. If people are concerned out
there--conservatives--that they want to defeat this and go back to
extensions, they are not going to have reform with the enhancements.
Right now the law requires 10 percent, depending on how we want to put
it, in total funding or 2 percent of surface transportation. That has
to be spent on transportation enhancements.
My good friend, the chairman of the committee, Senator Boxer, and I
disagree on enhancements. She likes them; I don't. I want money to be
spent on concrete, on roads and bridges. This is what I think we should
be doing. But that is a disagreement we had and so we had a compromise
where she can have--and anyone can have--what they want. It is an
oversimplification, but it means, yes, this money is going to be put
into something. It can be enhancements. In my State of Oklahoma, it is
not going to be in enhancements, it is going to be paying for some of
the unfunded mandates. It will be paying for things we have to do in
terms of the environment and things that are required. So we have
solved that problem. If we don't pass this bill, we go right back and
it will have to go to enhancements.
On streamlining, all the streamlining is in this in terms of
environmental streamlining. Talk to any of the road contractors out
there and they will tell you about the waste of money and the number of
miles of roads they can't do because of some of these requirements--
these environmental requirements. We have streamlined those
requirements. If we don't pass this bill, we will go back to extensions
and the same thing applies--we are going to lose all those
opportunities. So not only will it cost more, we will not get the
streamlining.
I am very proud of a group that has always supported me, the American
Conservative Union. Is there anyone around here who doesn't think the
American Conservative Union isn't conservative? I made this a part of a
speech yesterday, an editorial by Al Cardenas, the chairman of the
American Conservative Union. It is an op-ed piece he wrote. But let me
read now two short paragraphs from this op-ed piece from the American
Conservative Union:

Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution specifically
lists interstate road-building as one of the delineated
powers and responsibilities vested in the federal Government.
In Federalist Paper #42, James Madison makes an early case
for the federal government's role in maintaining a healthy
infrastructure, by stating ``Nothing which tends to
facilitate the intercourse between states, can be deemed
unworthy of the public care.''

And the article goes on to say--and, remember, this is the American
Conservative Union.

Perhaps most importantly, those of us who believe in
constitutional conservatism understand that unlike all the
things the Federal Government wastes our money on,
transportation spending is at the core of what constitutes
legitimate spending.

That is from the American Conservative Union. I wanted people to
understand that voting for this is the conservative approach. We get
more for the money being spent, it has all the streamlining in it, and
it is our constitutional responsibility. This is what we are supposed
to do. There are only two ways of doing it: one way is to pass this
bill and the other is to operate under extensions, and I think it is
very important for people to understand that.
With that, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Order of Procedure H.R. 4348

Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding lack of
receipt of the papers with respect to the conference report to
accompany H.R. 4348, at 12:55 p.m. today, the Senate proceed to a
series of stacked votes as outlined in this agreement; that the time
until then be equally be divided between the two leaders or their
designees; that the only points of order in order to the conference
report be budget points of order or points of order relative to rule
XXVIII, which is the scope of conference, or rule XXVIII, paragraph 9,
availability; that if a rule XXVIII scope of conference point of order,
rule XXVIII availability point of order or budget-related point of
order is made against the conference report and an applicable motion to
waive is made during any debate time, the Senate proceed to vote on the
motions to waive in the order they were raised following the use or
yielding back of time; that if the motions to waive are successful, the
Senate proceed to vote on the conference report; that adoption of the
conference report be subject to a 60-affirmative-vote threshold; that
there be 2 minutes equally divided in the usual form prior to each
vote, and all after the first vote be 10-minute votes, and I ask that
in spite of the fact the votes may not come right after each other, all
the rest today will be

[[Page 10796]]

10-minute votes; further, that if the conference report is adopted, the
title amendment be agreed to; finally, that no motions to recommit be
in order to the conference report.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Paul, I raise a
point of order that the conference report on H.R. 4348 has not been
publicly available for 48 hours as required by rule XXVIII, paragraph
9.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to waive paragraph 9 of rule XXVIII
with respect to the conference report to accompany H.R. 4348.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet),
the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), and the Senator from Colorado
(Mr. Udall) are necessarily absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn),
and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr.
Alexander) would have voted ``nay.''
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 72, nays 22, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 169 Leg.]

YEAS--72

Akaka
Barrasso
Baucus
Begich
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Blunt
Boozman
Boxer
Brown (MA)
Brown (OH)
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coons
Durbin
Enzi
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Hagan
Harkin
Heller
Hoeven
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (SD)
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lugar
Manchin
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Shelby
Stabenow
Tester
Thune
Udall (NM)
Vitter
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden

NAYS--22

Ayotte
Burr
Coats
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Grassley
Hatch
Johnson (WI)
Kyl
Lee
McCain
Moran
Paul
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Sessions
Snowe
Toomey

NOT VOTING--6

Alexander
Bennet
Coburn
Inouye
Kirk
Udall (CO)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 72, the nays are 22.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the
affirmative, the motion is agreed to and the point of order falls.
The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. REID. Senator Coats wishes to speak.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I would like to raise the point of order
that section 1538 of the conference report to accompany H.R. 4348
violates rule XXVIII as it is a matter not committed by either House.
This is not a partisan issue. The Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin,
the Senator from Ohio, Mr. Brown, the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Kirk,
and I reached an agreement on how to deal with this issue. Yet during
this conference work that was proceeding in the dark of the night----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is not debatable.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I am not debating it. I am explaining it.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to waive all scope of conference
points of order on rule XXVIII.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there further points of order?
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask for a recorded vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there are no further points of order on
rule XXVIII, the yeas and nays have been asked for on the motion to
waive.
Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes of debate on the
waiver.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I jumped the gun a little bit. This gives
me a chance to explain it twice. Let me say there was a bipartisan
agreement that was reached on this. I will not name names, but after it
went over to the House, somebody dropped something in the middle of the
night to change this whole process.
The issue is not just so-called Asian carp; the issue is that if this
language is allowed to proceed, we will be authorizing over $100
billion of potential spending to address this without any review by the
Congress. All we ask for in our agreement was a simple opportunity to
review the study by the Corps of Engineers so we can make a decision
based on all the facts, which included over $100 billion of authorized
spending. That is why I urge my colleagues to oppose any effort to
waive this rule.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the provision in question simply
accelerates a study of invasive species such as the destructive Asian
carp, a study essential to protecting the Great Lakes, a resource that
is vital to the health, safety, and livelihoods of millions of
Americans.
The study was included in the Water Resources Development Act of 2007
that authorized the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct a feasibility
study to prevent the spread of aquatic nuisance species between the
Great Lakes and Mississippi River basins.
Since that time, Congress has provided over $13 million to the Corps
to conduct this study. The Corps maintains that the study cannot be
completed until the end of 2015.
The provision included in the conference agreement before us today
would accelerate this study and require its completion within 18
months.
We should not minimize the threat of the destructive Asian carp
entering the Great Lakes.
If Asian carp got into the Great Lakes, they would not only pose a
very serious threat to the environment but would have a devastating
effect on thousands of local jobs and a $7 billion fishing industry.
Accelerating this study would put us on a better track to protect one
of our Nation's greatest treasures and the thousands of jobs that
depend on it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I know everyone is anxious to finish. I am
too. This is a massive bill. It is so good for our country. This bill
includes student loans, flood insurance, and 2.8 million jobs. There
are a lot of disappointments. I have a few in this bill that I would be
happy to share with someone at the right time. We must waive this. This
is one of the great accomplishments of this Congress. Please, everyone,
vote to waive this.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays were previously ordered.
The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet),
the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), and the Senator from Colorado
(Mr. Udall) are necessarily absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn),
and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

[[Page 10797]]

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr.
Alexander) would have voted ``nay.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 66, nays 28, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 170 Leg.]

YEAS--66

Akaka
Baucus
Begich
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Blunt
Boozman
Boxer
Brown (MA)
Brown (OH)
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coons
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Johanns
Johnson (SD)
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lugar
Manchin
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Portman
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (NM)
Vitter
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden

NAYS--28

Ayotte
Barrasso
Burr
Chambliss
Coats
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Hutchison
Isakson
Johnson (WI)
Kyl
Lee
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Paul
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Snowe
Thune
Toomey

NOT VOTING--6

Alexander
Bennet
Coburn
Inouye
Kirk
Udall (CO)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 66 and the nays are
28. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to, and the point of order falls.
The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, the pending measure, the conference report
to accompany H.R. 4348, would exceed the aggregate level of budget
authority and outlays for fiscal year 2012, as set out in the most
recent budget resolution deemed by the Budget Control Act of 2011.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, the Senate is not in order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Would the Senate please be in order.
Mr. CORKER. Therefore, I raise a point of order under section----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. I cannot hear the Senator from Tennessee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. CORKER. Therefore, I raise a point of order under section
311(a)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974, the waiver provisions of applicable budget
resolutions, and section 4(g)(3) of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of
2010, I move to waive all applicable sections of those Acts and
applicable budget resolutions for purposes of the pending conference
report, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
However, I ask unanimous consent that the letter from CBO be printed
in the Record at this point, which indicates that not only is
everything paid for in this bill, it reduces the debt.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Congressional Budget Office,

U.S. Congress,

Washington, DC, June 29, 2012.
Hon. David Dreier,
Chairman, Committee on Rules,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
reviewed the conference report for H.R. 4348, MAP-21, as
posted on the Web site of the House Committee on Rules on
June 28, 2012.
CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 4348 would reduce budget
deficits over the 2012-2022 period by $16.3 billion. That
figure does not include effects that may be counted for
budget enforcement purposes in the House of Representatives.
Specifically, the House-passed budget resolution calls for
counting transfers from the general fund of the Treasury to
the Highway Trust Fund as new spending.
Major provisions of the legislation that would affect the
budget (see Table 1) would:
Reauthorize, through fiscal year 2014, the surface
transportation programs administered by the Federal-Aid
Highway Administration, the Federal Transit Administration,
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, and certain
programs administered by the Pipelines and Hazardous
Materials Administration;
Establish the Gulf Coast Restoration Trust Fund and require
that 80 percent of any administrative and civil penalties
paid to the federal government under the Clean Water Act in
connection with the April 2010 explosion at the Deepwater
Horizon facility in the Gulf of Mexico be deposited into that
trust fund and made available to be spent;
Change the interest rate that pension plans use to measure
their liabilities, increase pension premium rates for both
variable and flat rate premiums paid to the Pension Benefit
Guaranty Corporation, and establish a cap on the variable
rate premium;
Provide payments to certain states by reauthorizing the
Secure Rural Schools and Payments In Lieu of Taxes programs;
Allow eligible federal employees to enter into a phased
retirement, during which they continue to work part time
while drawing a partial salary and a partial civil service
retirement annuity;
Reduce the additional Medicaid payments to Louisiana that
it will receive based on prior declarations of federal
disasters;
Repeal a requirement that the Department of Transportation
reimburse the difference in cost between shipping foreign
food aid on a U.S.-flag ship and a foreign-flag ship;
Reduce mandatory payments to states that have completed
certain reclamation projects on land formerly used for
mining;
Reauthorize the National Flood Insurance Program through
2017 and increase premiums for some subsidized policies;
Retain an interest rate of 3.4 percent on all new
subsidized student loans until June 30, 2013, and change the
interest the federal government pays on behalf of some
borrowers who are attending school; and
Raise additional revenue by increasing the ability of
businesses with excess assets in their pension funds to use
them for retiree health and life insurance benefits, and by
defining businesses that make roll-your-own machines
available for consumer use as tobacco manufacturers.
CBO estimates that implementing the legislation also would
lead to discretionary spending of $95.9 billion over the
2013-2017 period (see Table 2); such spending would be
subject to future appropriation actions. Of that amount, the
spending on transportation programs would total $94.3
billion, which reflects estimated obligation levels for 2013
and 2014 that are approximately equal to the obligation
levels for 2012, adjusted for inflation.
In addition, CBO estimates that implementing provisions of
the conference report for the remainder of 2012, 2013, and
2014 would result in an end-of-year balance in 2014 of
approximately $4 billion in the highway account of the
Highway Trust Fund and about $1 billion in the transit
account of the Highway Trust Fund. Table 3 provides a
projection of future spending, revenues, and remaining
balances in the Highway Trust Fund over the next 10 years.
I hope this information is useful to you. If you need
additional details, we will be pleased to provide them. The
staff contact is Sarah Puro, who can be reached at 226-2860.
Sincerely,
Douglas W. Elmendorf,
Director.

TABLE 1--ESTIMATE OF THE EFFECTS ON DIRECT SPENDING AND REVENUES OF THE CONFERENCE REPORT FOR H.R. 4348, MAP-21, AS POSTED ON THE WEB SITE OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON RULES ON JUNE 28, 2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2012-2017 2012-2022
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING

Transportation Contract Authority:
Budget Authoritya............... 0 243 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 3,443 7,443
Estimated Outlaysb.............. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Gulf Coast Restoration:
Estimated Budget Authority...... 0 0 45 127 184 339 366 399 372 328 302 695 2,462
Estimated Outlays............... 0 0 2 14 47 105 175 260 322 351 352 168 1,628
Pension Provisions:
Estimated Budget Authority...... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

[[Page 10798]]

Estimated Outlays............... 0 -220 -350 -1,065 -1,885 -1,685 -1,555 -1,255 -1,115 -1,055 -1,040 -5,205 -11,225
Secure Rural Schools:
Estimated Budget Authority...... 288 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 288 288
Estimated Outlays............... 0 253 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 288 288
Payment in Lieu of Taxes:
Estimated Budget Authority...... 0 398 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 398 398
Estimated Outlays............... 0 398 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 398 398
Phased Retirement:
Estimated Budget Authority...... 0 -9 -26 -45 -54 -53 -52 -50 -49 -46 -42 -187 -427
Estimated Outlays............... 0 -9 -26 -45 -54 -53 -52 -50 -49 -46 -42 -187 -427
Change in Medicaid FMAP Increase:
Estimated Budget Authority...... 0 -510 -160 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -670 -670
Estimated Outlays............... 0 -510 -160 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -670 -670
Repeal Incremental Ocean Freight
Differential:
Estimated Budget Authority...... 0 -108 -108 -108 -108 -108 -108 -108 -108 -108 -108 -540 -1,080
Estimated Outlays............... 0 -108 -108 -108 -108 -108 -108 -108 -108 -108 -108 -540 -1,080
Limitation on Abandoned Mine
Reclamation Fund Payments:
Estimated Budget Authority...... 0 -139 -131 -47 -46 -46 -98 -99 -47 -47 -49 -409 -749
Estimated Outlays............... 0 -55 -94 -86 -73 -55 -67 -83 -73 -63 -53 -363 -702
National Flood Insurance Program\c\:
Estimated Budget Authority...... 0 -5 -30 -70 105 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays............... 0 -5 -30 -70 105 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
One-Year Extension of Subsidized
Student Loan Interest Rates:
Estimated Budget Authority...... 4,285 2,595 * * * * * * * * * 6,880 6,880
Estimated Outlays............... 2,480 3,505 * * * * * * * * * 5,985 5,985
Eliminate Interest Subsidy for
Certain Borrowers:
Estimated Budget Authority...... 0 -15 -85 -110 -130 -145 -170 -195 -200 -210 -210 -485 -1,470
Estimated Outlays............... 0 -10 -55 -90 -105 -120 -140 -160 -175 -180 -185 -380 -1,220
Changes in Direct Spending Excluding
Intragovernmental General Fund
Transfersd
Estimated Budget Authority...... 4,573 2,450 305 547 751 787 738 747 768 717 693 9,413 13,075
Estimated Outlays............... 2,480 3,239 -786 -1,450 -2,073 -1,916 -1,747 -1,396 -1,198 -1,101 -1,076 -506 -7,025
Intragovernmental Transfers from
General Fund to Highway Trust
Fundd:
Estimated Budget Authority...... 0 6,200 12,600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18,800 18,800
Estimated Outlays............... 0 6,200 12,600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18,800 18,800
Changes in Direct Spending,
Including Intragovernmental General
Fund Transfersd:
Estimated Budget Authority...... 4,573 8,650 12,905 547 751 787 738 747 768 717 693 28,213 31,875
Estimated Outlays............... 2,480 9,439 11,814 -1,450 -2,073 -1,916 -1,747 -1,396 -1,198 -1,101 -1,076 18,294 11,775

CHANGES IN REVENUES

Pension Provisions.................. 595 2,391 4,501 5,044 3,540 1,446 74 -882 -2,303 -3,046 -2,616 17,517 8,744
Transfer of Excess Pension Assets 0 0 20 41 42 43 44 45 47 48 24 145 354
and Allow Section 420 to Apply to
Life Insurance Benefits............
Phased Retirement................... 0 1 2 3 4 4 4 3 3 1 -1 14 24
Expand Definition of Tobacco 2 12 13 11 10 9 8 7 7 7 7 57 94
Manufacturer to Include Roll-Your-
Own-Cigarette Machines.............
Increased Civil Penalties for 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 10
Lenders............................
Total Changes................... 597 2,405 4,537 5,100 3,597 1,503 131 -826 -2,245 -2,989 -2,585 17,738 9,226
On-budget Revenues.......... 597 2,291 4,324 4,888 3,425 1,422 141 -726 -1,998 -2,712 -2,355 16,946 9,299
Off-budget Revenues......... 0 114 213 212 172 81 -10 -100 -247 -277 -230 792 -73

NET INCREASE OR DECREASE (-) IN THE DEFICIT FROM CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING AND REVENUES--EXCLUDING INTRAGOVERNMENTAL TRANSFERS FROM THE GENERAL FUND TO THE HIGHWAY TRUST FUND

Impact on Deficitd.................. 1,883 834 -5,323 -6,550 -5,670 -3,419 -1,878 -570 1,047 1,888 1,509 -18,244 -16,251
On-budget Deficit Change............ 1,883 948 -5,110 -6,338 -5,498 -3,338 -1,888 -670 800 1,611 1,279 -17,452 -16,324
Off-budget Deficit Change........... 0 -114 -213 -212 -172 -81 10 100 247 277 230 -792 73

NET INCREASE OR DECREASE (-) IN THE DEFICIT FROM CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING AND REVENUES--INCLUDING INTRAGOVERNMENTAL TRANSFERS FROM THE GENERAL FUND TO THE HIGHWAY TRUST FUND FOR BUDGET
ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES IN THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Impact on Deficitd.................. 1,883 7,034 7,277 -6,550 -5,670 -3,419 -1,878 -570 1,047 1,888 1,509 556 2,549
On-budget Deficit Change............ 1,883 7,148 7,490 -6,338 -5,498 -3,338 -1,888 -670 800 1,611 1,279 1,348 2,476
Off-budget Deficit Change........... 0 -114 -213 -212 -172 -81 -10 -100 -247 -277 -230 -792 73
Memorandum:
Increased Net Income to the 0 -5 -30 -70 -145 -250 -320 -380 -430 -490 -555 -500 -2,675
National Flood Insurance
Programc.......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: Congressional Budget Office and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation. Notes: FMAP = Federal Medical Assistance Percentages; * = between -$500,000 and $0. Amounts may not sum
to totals because of rounding.
aH.R. 4348 would provide $12.4 billion in contract authority (a mandatory form of budget authority) for the last quarter of fiscal year 2012, $50.1 billion for fiscal year 2013, and $50.9
billion for fiscal year 2014, CBO estimates. Consistent with the rules in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act for constructing its baseline for future contract authority
for transportation programs, CBO assumes that the contract authority for years after 2014 would be equal to the amount provided for 2014, the last year of the authorization.
bCBO expects that most of the outlays from contract authority (a mandatory form of budget authority) for surface transportation programs will continue to be controlled by obligation
limitations enacted in future appropriation acts. Those expenditures are displayed in Table 2.
cThe proposed amendment would raise premiums for certain subsidized flood insurance policies, increasing net income to the National Flood Insurance Program by $2.7 billion. However, because
many policies would continue to be subsidized and the program would continue to face significant interest costs from its prior and future borrowing, CBO expects that additional receipts
collected under this legislation would be spent to cover future program shortfalls, resulting in no net effect on the budget over the 11-year period.
dPursuant to section 508 of H. Con. Res. 112, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget--Fiscal Year 2013, general fund transfers to the Highway Trust Fund are considered to be new budget
authority and outlays for budget enforcement purposes in the House of Representatives. CBO estimates that such transfers would increase the balances attributed to the Highway Trust Fund;
however, those transfers would not increase direct spending or affect budget deficits.

TABLE 2--CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION UNDER THE CONFERENCE REPORT FOR H.R. 4348, MAP-21, AS
POSTED ON THE RULES COMMITTEE WEB SITE ON JUNE 28, 2012
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Fiscal Year, in Millions of Dollars
-----------------------------------------------------------------
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2013-2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
Spending from the Highway Trust Fund:
Estimated Obligation Limitationa.......... 49,409 50,103 0 0 0 99,512
Estimated Outlays......................... 12,318 31,794 27,318 12,134 6,780 90,344
Other Authorized Transportation Programs:
Estimated Authorization level............. 2,697 2,198 0 0 0 4,895
Estimated Outlays......................... 379 1,011 1,168 817 618 3,993
Non-Transportation Programs:b
Estimated Authorization Level............. 438 437 437 437 437 2,186
Estimated Outlays......................... 80 245 337 431 435 1,528
Total Changes:
Estimated Budgetary Resources......... 52,544 52,738 437 437 437 106,593
Estimated Outlays..................... 12,777 33,050 28,823 13,382 7,833 95,865
Memorandum:
Reduction in Offsetting Receipts from.....
Lower Employer Contributionsc............. 0 2 3 3 3 11
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Components may not sum to totals because of rounding.

[[Page 10799]]

aEstimated discretionary outlays reflect use of funds from the contract authority provided by the legislation
under the obligation limitations specified or estimated by CBO. (Outlays stemming from any additional contract
authority that would be provided for years after 2014 would be attributable to future legislation.) Under
current law, CBO estimates that spending from the Highway Trust Fund would be about $48 billion in 2012. (See
Table 3 for estimates of total outlays from the trust fund in 2013 and subsequent years.)
bH.R. 4348 would authorize the appropriation of $440 million a year over the 2013-2017 period for a national
flood mapping program and flood mitigation assistance. The legislation also would lower future federal
employer retirement contributions. Those contributions are contingent on future appropriation actions.
cEmployer contributions are intragovernmental transactions that do not affect the deficit; positive numbers
indicate a decrease in receipts.

TABLE 3--SUMMARY OF CASH FLOWS FOR ACCOUNTS IN THE HIGHWAY TRUST FUND UNDER H.R. 4348, MAP-21, AS POSTED ON THE WEB SITE OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON RULES
ON JUNE 28, 2012
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in billions of dollars--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highway Account:
Start-of-Year Balance....................................... 14 8 4 4 c c c c c c c
Revenues and Interest....................................... 33 33 33 34 35 36 36 36 36 37 37
Intragovernmental Transfers................................. 2 6 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Outlaysa,b.................................................. 42 43 44 44 44 45 45 46 46 47 47
End-of-Year Balance......................................... 8 4 4 c c c c c c c c
Transit Account:
Start-of-Year Balance....................................... 7 5 5 1 c c c c c c c
Revenues and Interest....................................... 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Intragovernmental Transfers................................. 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Outlaysa,b.................................................. 7 8 8 9 10 10 10 9 9 10 10
End-of-Year Balance......................................... 5 5 1 c c c c c c c c
Memorandum:
Cumulative Shortfall:c
Highway Account Shortfall................................... n.a. n.a. n.a. -6 -15 -24 -33 -42 -52 -62 -72
Transit Account Shortfall................................... n.a. n.a. n.a. -3 -7 -12 -16 -20 -24 -29 -33
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: n.a. = not applicable.
Contract authority is a mandatory form of budget authority typically provided in authorization acts.
Obligation limitations are limitations on the obligation of contract authority typically provided in appropriation acts.
aAfter 2014, the estimated outlays assume obligations will continue at the 2014 level, adjusted for inflation. The total outlays shown reflect prior and
future obligations.
bOutlays include amounts ''flexed'' or transferred between the highway and transit accounts. CBO estimates that amount would total about $1 billion
annually.
cCBO projects that, under provisions of the Conference Report for H.R. 4348, the highway account and the transit account of the Highway Trust Fund would
be exhausted in fiscal year 2015. Under current law, the Highway Trust Fund cannot incur negative balances. However, following rules in the Deficit
Control Act of 1985, CBO's baseline for highway spending assumes that obligations presented to the Highway Trust Fund will be paid in full. The
memorandum to this table illustrates the cumulative shortfall of fund balances, assuming spending levels that would be authorized by the Conference
Report for H.R. 4348.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays are ordered.
The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, if I could have everybody's attention,
according to CBO, this is paid for the old way, where we spend all the
money in a year or two and then it is paid for over 10.
This body came together last August in a bipartisan way to put in
place the Budget Control Act, and this bill violates the deemed budget
by $2.5 billion. This will be the third time we violate the Budget
Control Act deemed budget. For all of those people who are meeting in
the evenings, meeting in groups in rooms trying to solve our Nation's
fiscal issues, a vote to waive this motion says we don't have the
discipline, the courage, or the will to do what we told the American
people we would do to try to get our fiscal house in order.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this motion to waive right now.
Thank you, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Congressional Budget Office is a
nonpartisan body that determines what spending is for the Congress, and
they have determined that this bill is paid for and it reduces the
debt.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The yeas and nays are ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Ms. SNOWE (when her name was called). Present.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet),
the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), and the Senator from Colorado
(Mr. Udall) are necessarily absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn),
and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr.
Alexander) would have voted ``nay.''
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 63, nays 30, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 171 Leg.]

YEAS--63

Akaka
Baucus
Begich
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Blunt
Boxer
Brown (MA)
Brown (OH)
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coons
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Johanns
Johnson (SD)
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lugar
Manchin
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Shelby
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (NM)
Vitter
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden

NAYS--30

Ayotte
Barrasso
Boozman
Burr
Chambliss
Coats
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Hutchison
Isakson
Johnson (WI)
Kyl
Lee
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Paul
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Sessions
Thune
Toomey

ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

Snowe

NOT VOTING--6

Alexander
Bennet
Coburn
Inouye
Kirk
Udall (CO)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 63, the nays are
30. One Senator responded ``present.'' Three-fifths of the Senators
duly chosen and sworn having voted in the affirmative, the motion is
agreed to and the point of order falls.

Abandoned Mine Land Trust Fund

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I am extremely disappointed to be here today
to discuss a provision in the conference report that impacts my home
State and potentially impacts a number of other states. The provision
relates to the abandoned mine land trust fund, and undoes a carefully
construed compromise that occurred in 2006 between a coalition of
Eastern and Western States, mine workers, and coal companies.
This provision was included at the last moment. This pay-for was not
in either the Senate version of the Transportation bill, nor was it in
the House version. Although it has a tremendous impact on Wyoming,
neither Senator Barrasso nor I were consulted about the impact of the
provision. We are extremely disappointed that is the case and seek
commitments from our colleagues to fix this provision hopefully as a
technical correction, but at any rate not later than the end of the
year to reconstruct the careful compromise that occurred in 2006. While
I respect the work of the conference committee, provisions like this
are the reason that Congress is unpopular. I look forward to working
with my colleagues to undo this terrible provision and make Wyoming and
other impacted states whole.
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I second the comments of Senator Enzi.

[[Page 10800]]

This is an egregious provision that was included at the last moment
without any consultation of Senator Enzi or I. I am extremely
disappointed that we have not been able to address this matter before
the conference report was filed, and it is essential to fix it as soon
as possible preferably in a technical corrections bill that will be
drafted in the coming weeks but most certainly by the end of the year.
This provision is not well thought out. It has the potential to
impact not only Wyoming but a number of other States as well. I look
forward to working with my colleagues to fix the provision in an
expeditious manner.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I understand the problems that my
colleagues from Wyoming have with section 100125 of the conference
report. I recognize that this provision was included in the conference
report without their consultation. We will be working on a corrections
bill in the coming weeks, and I intend to work with them to address
this issue in that bill.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I second the chairwoman's commitment to
working with the Senators from Wyoming to fix this problem in the
technical corrections bill. It is important that we find a way to
address the issue as soon as possible, and I will work with them to
make Wyoming and the other impacted States whole.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, a portion of the abandoned mine land trust
fund program falls within the jurisdiction of the Senate Finance
Committee. I am also committed to working with my colleagues from
Wyoming to correct this situation. I hope we can do so as soon as
possible.

Transit Title

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, we are poised to pass a truly historic
transportation bill and I wanted to engage in a brief colloquy with my
colleague Chairman Johnson, with whom I have worked closely over the
past year and a half to craft the transit title of the bill. He has
been a true pleasure to work with and I think we should all be proud
that we have secured stable funding for public transportation over the
next 2 years.
The bill has record amounts of rail funding and by abandoning
earmarks, all of the major formula programs have been increased
significantly. We have greatly enhanced the Federal Transit
Administration's powers to provide safety oversight and set national
standards, which will ensure millions of transit passengers can travel
safely and efficiently.
But for the purposes of this colloquy I wanted to focus on section
20013 on private sector participation in public transportation. I ask
the chairman, does anything in this section show a preference by
Congress for public transportation to be provided by private operators
rather than public operators?
Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Absolutely not. That section is intended
to help public and private sector providers to better coordinate
service and allow for more private investment in public transportation
projects. Public providers of public transportation do our Nation a
great service in providing affordable efficient service, lowering
pollution, and easing traffic congestion. There is no reason to have a
policy that favors private-public transportation service, and this
language does not do so.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Chairman Johnson, I completely agree. This language
should not be interpreted to encourage or require public-private
partnership activities in transit or give any preference to grantees
based on the decisions they make on this issue.
For years, the committee has endorsed the longstanding congressional
policy that decisions involving the choice between public and private
transit operators should be left to local authorities who are better
equipped to make local transportation decisions. The Federal government
is clearly best suited to making broad public policy decisions rather
than micromanaging the local transit choices selected to meet the needs
of rural, urban, and suburban communities. Does the chairman agree?
Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Absolutely. Nothing in this bill changes
the fact that decisions to use public or private service should be up
to local providers. We firmly believe that the public versus private
question should be decided on the basis of local needs, not ideology.
And most importantly, the Federal Government should remain neutral, and
it should not intrude on local decisionmaking. The language in current
49 U.S.C. 5306 regarding private sector participation states that such
issues are guided by local policies, criteria, and decisionmaking. This
bill maintains this language, reaffirming Congress' commitment to local
control on this issue.
Mr. MENENDEZ. I thank the chairman. I look forward to continue
working with you to oversee the implementation of this and other
provisions in this bill and continue to do all we can do to support a
robust, well-funded public transportation program.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to thank my colleagues on
the transportation conference for including the National Flood
Insurance Program reauthorization and for removing the controversial
residual risk provision.
That provision was a real concern to me and more than a dozen cities
and counties in California. It would have required nearly 1 million
residents in my State to purchase flood insurance even though they live
behind fully functioning levees that meet or exceed Federal safety
standards. That provision alone could have quadrupled the number of
homeowners in my State who have to buy flood insurance.
The flood insurance bill called this low-level risk behind levees
``residual risk.'' It is the risk left over after a levee has been
built--the risk of levee failure, in essence.
These are levees that homeowners funded with their own tax dollars,
and the provision would have forced them to spend even more money. That
is just not good policy. And I was proud to add my voice to that of the
Senator from Arkansas in strong opposition to including it in the bill.
The bottom line is this: Until the residual risk provision was
removed, the National Flood Insurance Program reauthorization would
have had a devastating effect on communities in California and across
the Nation.
Even homeowners in communities who maintain their levees to Federal
safety standards with their own tax dollars would have been forced to
pay for Federal flood insurance. I simply could not support such an
unfair policy. It sent the message to homeowners and local communities
that regardless of their investments in flood protection, it is simply
not good enough. That is not the message we should be sending when this
country needs to invest more in flood control infrastructure, not when
homeowners are struggling to pay their mortgages, not when housing
starts are near alltime lows, and not when our economy is still
struggling to get back on track.
I was not alone in my opposition to the residual risk provision. I
received letters from elected officials across the State--Oceanside,
Long Beach, Lakewood, Los Angeles, Santa Maria, Stockton, Sacramento,
Yuba City. Del Norte, Sutter, Yolo, and Butte Counties were opposed, as
well as San Joaquin County.
This was not a regional issue. The letters came in from southern
California, the central coast, northern California and the Central
Valley.
In San Joaquin County, in the middle of my State, this provision
would have meant 280,000 additional residents had to purchase flood
insurance. This is a county where 1 in every 194 homes is in
foreclosure--3.3 times the national average. At even $1 a day, this
added expense could jeopardize the county's already shaky housing
market.
The purchase requirement would have covered most of the city of
Stockton, with a population of nearly 300,000. This would have further
devastated a city that suffered the second highest foreclosure rate in
the Nation last year.
In Palo Alto, this provision would have required another 5,500
homeowners to buy insurance.
In Sutter County, an estimated 28,000 of the 34,308 parcels would
have been affected. That is 81.6 percent of all parcels in the county.

[[Page 10801]]

In Butte County, 14,000 parcels would have been affected.
In Los Angeles County, supervisors Mark Ridley Thomas and Don Knabe
tell me that at least 200,000 properties and 800,000 residents would
have been impacted. These homeowners are currently protected by 130
miles of levees and 18 dams in L.A. County.
Many of the affected homeowners live along the Los Angeles River,
which isn't really a river at all--it is a concrete channel. And it is
very hard to imagine a flood ever occurring there. More than $200
million has been invested to minimize the risk.
The federally authorized Los Angeles County Drainage Area Project
reinforced levees along the Los Angeles River to protect against floods
well beyond a 100-year event. Local taxpayers contributed $55 million
to complete this project; Federal contributions totaled another $155
million. This investment was made so that residents could avoid $32
million in yearly flood insurance premiums. With the inclusion of the
residual risk provision, homeowners in the area would have once again
had to pay flood insurance bills every year.
I appreciate the efforts of Senators Cochran and the chairman and
ranking member to address this problem, but changes they made to the
original draft did not go far enough. Even with their changes, the
provision could have further depressed home prices by driving up
ownership costs in many areas.
Let me be clear: This policy wasn't proposed because homeowners lived
behind unsafe levees. These were safe levees that meet Federal
standards. Some believe this provision was added to the original bill
to restore the fiscal solvency of the program. By bringing in new, low-
risk properties, it is true that the fiscal health of the Flood
Insurance Program would have improved. But I, for one, oppose propping
up the Flood Insurance Program on the backs of constituents who played
by the rules.
If the goal is to ensure that people are informed about the risks
they face, I continue to be willing to work with my colleagues to
accomplish that. In fact, California already offers a model for
achieving that very goal.
The bottom line is this: Even with the changes made to the residual
risk provision, the bill would have still required homeowners and
businesses protected by certified levees to purchase mandatory flood
insurance. Candidly, I was shocked that we even considered adding this
provision without a full floor debate because it was not a trivial
extension. The bill would have imposed substantial new costs to nearly
1 million homeowners in California alone.
Again, I thank my colleagues on the conference committee for removing
this provision. This conference report was not the time or place for it
to be considered.
Now, with the 5-year reauthorization of the National Flood Insurance
Program in place, we will be taking an important step to stabilize our
housing market. We have also taken some very responsible steps to put
the program back on the path to fiscal solvency.
I commend my colleagues for putting together this package of bills. I
know they had a tremendous challenge, and I think they have done an
exceptional job.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I would like to turn to discussing the
vital contributions of staff who worked on this bill. We are very
fortunate in the Senate to be able to rely on the expertise and the
support of so many talented and dedicated staffers whose efforts
enabled us to finalize this conference report.
This bill turned out to be unique because it spanned so many
different issues. In addition to the ones I have already mentioned, my
staff also had to work on pension matters, flood insurance, Federal
trust funds, labor, and a range of other issues. All of this combined
to make this a very complicated bill with many moving parts.
Accordingly, I want to take this opportunity to publicly and
professionally thank the following staffers for guiding this bill
through markups in different Senate committees, negotiating with
counterparts from the House of Representatives, and getting us over the
finish line with a conference report that provides the American people
with the good policies included in this bill:
There was Tom Lynch, who worked on both the Environment and Public
Works Committee's portion of the bill and the Finance Committee's
portion.
Tax Counsel Ryan Abraham, whose work along with Tom Lynch on the
highway trust fund was key to being able to fund highways and transit
projects under the bill.
Tom, Ryan, and Lily Batchelder, chief tax counsel and head of Finance
Committee's tax team, held more than 20 staff meetings with Democrats
and Republicans before our Finance Committee markup.
Mark Hybner, who was critical to refining the Indian Reservation
Roads Program among other things, a program that is very important to
the seven tribes in my State.
Tax and benefits counsel Tom Reeder, a true seasoned professional
without whom we couldn't have found the essential offsets to ensure the
highway trust fund would remain solvent.
Spencer Gray, who shepherded the secure rural schools and payment in
lieu of taxes through this process.
Dave Hughes and Ann Cammack, who made critical contributions both to
raise revenue and in tracking policy.
Sean Morrison and Blaise Cote, the Finance Committee's two excellent
research assistants.
Heather O'Loughlin, easily one of the most versatile and capable
staffers working in the Senate, who was key both to the education and
the flood insurance portions.
Amber Cottle, Bruce Hirsch, Gabriel Adler, Hun Quach, Chelsea Thomas,
and Rory Murphy, who were very helpful in the effort to develop offsets
during the Finance Committee markup.
Department of Transportation detailee and Billings Montana native
Avital Barnea, who lent helpful assistance at a crucial time.
Jeffrey Arnold, who was very helpful in assisting on Pension Benefit
Guaranty Corporation provisions and phased retirement.
Intern extraordinaire Pete Markuson, who logged a lot of meaningful
hours.
The outstanding press team of Jenny Donohue, Meaghan Smith, Ryan
Carey, Kate Downen, Kathy Weber, and our newest addition, Sean Neary.
And my indispensable leadership staff of Jon Selib, Russ Sullivan,
and Paul Wilkins, who as always remained focused and unflappable
despite the challenges.
Finally, I also want to use this opportunity to thank Bettina
Poirier, David Napoliello, Andrew Dohrmann, and Grant Cope from
Chairman Boxer's Environment and Public Works Committee staff; Ruth Van
Mark, James O'Keeffe, Murphie Barrett, Kyle Miller, Dmitri Karakitsos,
and Alex Renjel from Senator Inhofe's staff; Charles Brittingham with
Senator Vitter; Tyler Rushforth with Senator Reid; Ellen Doneski, James
Reid, Ian Jefferies, Rich Swayze, Richard Russell, and Bailey Edwards
from the Commerce Committee; and Chris Campbell, Mark Prater, Jim
Lyons, Nick Wyatt, and Preston Rutledge from the Finance Committee.
Without the individual and collective contributions of each one of
these people I have mentioned, we would not have pulled this off. For
them and their efforts to help support American jobs, all of us should
be very grateful.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the bill before us today takes several
important steps in several policy areas to move our Nation forward. It
prevents a pending student loan interest rate hike that would make
college less affordable for American students and their families. It
makes important investments in our roads, bridges, and other
transportation infrastructure, investments that will put Americans to
work today and make our economy more competitive for years to come. It
reauthorizes the Flood Insurance Program that provides security to
millions of Americans, while making the program more efficient and more
fair to States such as Michigan that for too long have paid more in
premiums than they receive in benefits. While this legislation does not
include everything I had hoped for

[[Page 10802]]

or supported, it makes significant progress on issues our constituents
need us to address.
Millions of Americans will be relieved that this bill avoids a
looming increase in student loan interest rates. On July 1, those
interest rates are scheduled to double, an increase that Americans
already struggling to pay for higher education simply cannot afford.
Extending the current 3.4 percent interest rate for another year lifts
a significant burden, financial and emotional, from students and their
families who were looking to us for aid.
I am pleased Senate and House conferees have come to an agreement on
a transportation reauthorization. Reauthorization of our Nation's
transportation programs is long overdue.
Investing in transportation infrastructure creates jobs and improves
our international competitiveness. We create more than 35,000 jobs for
every $1 billion in Federal funds we spend on transportation
infrastructure. The bill will create or preserve an estimated 3 million
jobs nationwide. In Michigan, the bill will provide more than $2
billion over the next 2 years for road projects and another $261
million over the next 2 years for Michigan transit projects. Funding
transportation infrastructure improvements at robust levels is one of
the most obvious things we can do to help boost the U.S. economy.
The conference report extends Federal surface transportation programs
at current levels, with a small adjustment for inflation, through
September 2014. Given the difficult budget climate, this has to be
viewed as a victory. Our State transportation agencies need to be able
to do long-term planning. This bill helps that cause and is surely
better than the short-term extensions we have been living under. Given
the negative budget climate and the difficulty we had finding the
revenue to offset the highway trust fund shortfall, a 2-year bill is
what is possible, although I would have preferred a longer term bill.
I am pleased the agreement includes a provision that would direct the
Corps of Engineers to accelerate its feasibility study of preventing
the inter-basin transfer of aquatic invasive species, such as the
destructive Asian carp, between the Mississippi River and the Great
Lakes basins. While the Corps is planning to produce an interim report
at the end of 2013, this provision would require a full feasibility
report that would also include a recommendation for implementing
preventative measures. Accelerating this study will put us on a better
track to protect our $7 billion Great Lakes fishery that supports
thousands of jobs.
The conference agreement includes a provision regarding harbor
maintenance that is based on an amendment to the Senate Transportation
bill. This is the first time we have addressed harbor maintenance in a
transportation bill, and including this language will help elevate this
important issue and strengthen momentum to use trust fund receipts for
harbor maintenance.
I am disappointed, however, that the provision in the conference
agreement does not include the strong enforcement language I urged
conferees to include that would ensure that appropriators actually
include funding for harbor maintenance that is collected for this
purpose.
Navigation infrastructure is a vital link in the transportation
system, one our economy depends upon. Maintaining our harbors and ports
is vital to our economic competitiveness. I will continue to work to
ensure that we provide sufficient Federal funds to properly maintain
our harbors.
The conference agreement also extends for 1 year mandatory PILT
funding, or payments in lieu of taxes, that will provide about $4
million to Michigan local governments to help offset losses in property
taxes due to nontaxable Federal lands within their boundaries. These
payments can help support a variety of infrastructure and educational
needs. I had urged conferees to include this provision in the bill, and
I am pleased it was included in the final agreement.
The conference report should provide some much needed equity to
Michigan and other States through a 5-year reauthorization of the
National Flood Insurance Program.
Michigan residents have paid more than six times more in premiums
than they have received in payouts from the National Flood Insurance
Program. We must correct this disparity, and the conference report
takes some steps to do so in requiring that premiums be more reflective
of the true risk of flooding.
The conference report will phase out subsidies for repetitive-loss
properties that continue to be rebuilt in high-risk areas. It will also
phase out subsidized rates for vacation homes and businesses located in
high-risk areas, many of which have received subsidized rates for more
than 30 years.
This bill will clarify the law to allow property owners to purchase
flood insurance from a private insurer, rather than the Federal
Government, if they so choose. This means private companies can compete
with FEMA to offer consumers a better price.
Finally, I am very disappointed that the conference report removes an
offshore tax provision that I authored with Senator Conrad to fight
against tax evasion. This provision, which was included by voice vote
in the Senate bill and is similar to a provision I introduced as part
of a broader offshore tax bill, was scored as raising over $1 billion
over 10 years and could have helped pay for transportation programs or
reduced the deficit. I am disappointed that Congress has yet again
missed an opportunity to fight offshore tax evasion, which robs
billions of sorely needed dollars from our Treasury each year.
The legislation before us today does not include everything I had
hoped for or supported, but it is necessary, and we should pass it
without further delay.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, at the first public meeting of the
conference committee charged with producing transportation
reauthorization legislation, I laid out a series of basic principles
that I think should guide our efforts to finance transportation policy.
I had voted against the Senate bill in large part because it failed to
follow these basic principles.
Boiled down, these principles are simple. The user-pays model that is
the reason for the creation of the Highway Trust Fund should be
preserved. Revenues and spending should line up on a year-to-year
basis. We should avoid spending down the trust fund. And we should not
raise taxes, but rather should examine the spending side of the ledger.
The conference agreement is an even further departure from these
principles than the Senate bill was. The conference agreement by and
large uses sources of revenue that are problematic in and of themselves
to facilitate yet another general fund transfer that requires our
Nation to make payments for 10 years on 2 years of programs.
Despite all of the committee markups, and staff meetings, and press
conferences, and frantic press accounts, at the end of the day we
simply got the fourth in a series of general fund transfers that
stretches back to 2008.
I think the supposed consensus the conference committee product
represents can best be summed up by the Margaret Thatcher quote I cited
at the Finance Committee markup of a revenue title held on February 7.
``To me consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs,
principles, values and policies in search of something in which no one
believes, but to which no one objects the process of avoiding the very
issues that have to be solved, merely because you cannot get agreement
on the way ahead . . .''
Well I object. The taxpayers of this country deserve better than this
legislation, and I will be voting against it.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose to the flood
insurance language that is included in the conference report to
accompany H.R. 4348, which the Senate will consider today.
The Senate had been debating a stand-alone bill to reform the
National Flood Insurance Program for several days, but we were
prevented from voting on amendments to the bill and ultimately passing
the legislation. Since agreement on a process for considering

[[Page 10803]]

flood insurance amendments was blocked, we are now forced into an up-
or-down vote on a conference report that contains provisions that will
save or create millions of jobs in the transportation sector and keep
Federal student loan rates from doubling. I will support the conference
report because of those provisions, but I oppose the flood insurance
portions.
Last September, I saw firsthand how Hurricane Irene's floods
devastated communities in my State of New Jersey. President Obama and I
toured the wreckage together. It was heartbreaking. We saw families
with their belongings on their front lawns, and much of their homes
destroyed. Unfortunately, Hurricane Irene was not the only storm to
cause major flooding in New Jersey recently. In just the last 3 years,
FEMA has declared five federal disasters that caused major flooding in
New Jersey. For many of the people who have been hit by these floods,
their homes are all they have. Many of them have owned their homes for
generations. They have raised their children and built their lives in
them. For these homeowners, it would be wrong to turn our backs on
them. But I am afraid the flood insurance language in the conference
report could do exactly that.
The flood insurance language we are considering will require major
insurance premium increases for people living in certain homes built
before FEMA's flood maps were finalized. For years, families who bought
homes built before floods maps were available paid lower rates for
their flood insurance. We did that because we recognized it would be
wrong to charge extremely high premiums on families who did not know
their flood risk when they purchased their home. But the flood
insurance reform proposals on the table would bring the hammer down on
those families. Most families affected by the change would see their
premiums double. Some may even see their premiums increase five-fold.
In New Jersey, we know of families in over 1,800 homes that would see
their premiums increase under these provisions. Residents in other
States, including Louisiana, Texas, New York, Pennsylvania, and
Florida, would also face these dramatic rate hikes.
To address some of these concerns, I introduced two amendments on
flood insurance this week. One would have prevented premium increases
for primary residences built prior to 1974, and the other would have
allowed the increases to occur for some homeowners, but provided for a
hardship exemption from premium increases for families that cannot
afford the higher rates. Let's remember, many of these homeowners rely
on fixed incomes, are retired, and have budgeted with the expectation
that their premiums would stay steady. We should not change the rules
in the middle of the game when homeowners have played by those rules
from day one. Many of these families simply do not have the means to
raise more money if rates increase.
I also cosponsored an amendment from Senator Pryor to eliminate a
requirement in the stand-alone bill that owners of homes behind dams
and levees obtain flood insurance. I am pleased that the language in
the conference report does not include that requirement.
Flood insurance reform will have real implications for millions of
people throughout the United States, including in my home State of New
Jersey. Changes to the National Flood Insurance Program should not be
taken lightly, and deserve to be debated and amended on the Senate
floor. I am disappointed my Republican colleagues have prevented us
from considering important flood insurance amendments this week, and I
oppose including flood insurance reform in the legislative package we
are considering today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is
agreeing to on the conference report to accompany H.R. 4348.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the transportation
conference report. This legislation will establish for the first time
Federal safety standards for metro systems.
My promises made are promises kept. After the deadly DC Metro crash
on June 22, 2009, I promised two things to the workers at Metro and my
constituents who ride Metro. One, I would deliver the $150 million in
dedicated funding for Metro's capital improvements in the annual
Transportation appropriations bill. I have done this every year. Two:
pass legislation giving the U.S. Department of Transportation authority
to establish safety standards for metro systems across the country.
Today, this legislation delivers on that promise.
We always say a grateful nation will never forget. Then we pound our
chests, hold hearings, and nothing is ever done. Well, not this time
and not this Senator. Immediately following the Metro crash, I was the
first to introduce a bill, the National Metro Safety Act of 2009, to
establish Federal standards. My bill required the U.S. Department of
Transportation to work with the National Transportation Safety Board to
implement their most wanted safety recommendations: crashworthiness
standards, emergency entry and evacuation design standards, and data
event recorders for rail cars; and hours-of-service regulations for
train operators.
Now, 3 years later, Congress has finally acted. This highway bill
includes similar language to my transit safety bill. It requires the
Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation to create and
implement safety standards and a safety training program. The Secretary
must also take into consideration the recommendations of the National
Transportation Safety Board when establishing the safety performance
standards for railcars.
This bill before us today also requires transit authorities to
complete comprehensive safety plans and States to have a safety
oversight program approved by the U.S. Department of Transportation.
The Secretary must certify that these oversight programs are meeting
the new Federal safety standards each year. If a State oversight agency
is not doing its job, the Secretary can withhold Federal funding or
require that 100 percent of funding be used to fix the metro system's
problems.
In addition, the U.S. Department of Transportation has the power to
conduct inspections, investigations, and audits of transit system
railcars, facilities, and operations. It can also investigate accidents
and provide corrective guidance. The Secretary has the authority to
issue a subpoena when investigating an accident as well as require
additional reporting and recordkeeping.
Every weekday more than 7 million people board railcars. Now they can
breathe a bit easier knowing their metro will soon have Federal safety
standards just like commercial buses, airplanes, and commuter rail
systems. I want to thank Senators Tim Johnson and Bob Menendez for
working with me on this important safety issue.
Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. President, today I wish to speak in
support of the surface transportation conference report. As chairman of
the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, which is
responsible for authorizing the public transportation portion of the
bill, I was proud to serve as one of the conferees.
After intense and exhaustive negotiations our conference committee
reached an agreement on a bill that will benefit every American. In my
home State of South Dakota alone, this bill will support 10,000 jobs
and across the country it will support nearly 3 million jobs. It will
improve rural transit service and make our Nation's highways safer and
more efficient. I am relieved that we will not let another construction
season go by without certainty of Federal funding.
From the start, the Banking Committee worked in a bipartisan fashion
on the transit reauthorization which is why we were able to pass our
portion of this bill out of committee by a unanimous voice vote. I am
happy to say that most of our committee-passed bill is still intact in
the final product we have before us today.
This conference report will increase funding for public
transportation through the end of fiscal year 2014 and deliver critical
investments in the Nation's aging transit infrastructure.

[[Page 10804]]

In addition, the bill will institute much needed reforms such as
speeding the construction of public transportation projects. The bill
also includes transit safety provisions that have been stalled for 3
years.
Finally, our bill increases formula funding for all types of transit:
additional urban and rural formula funds, new money for every State to
address state of good repair needs, and more money for tribal transit.
Our Nation's transit systems need more than $77 billion to address
backlogged repairs. This bill can't address all of those needs, but it
can ensure that our transit systems don't fall further behind.
Americans make 35 million trips on public transportation every
weekday. Many of these trips are in our cities, but in places like
South Dakota, rural transit service connects seniors with their doctors
and helps our workers travel long distances to get to jobs. Everyone
benefits from public transportation, and this is a bill the American
people deserve.
This bill wouldn't have been possible without the hard work and
determination of more people than I can name today. However, there are
a few in particular that I must single out.
We would not be at the finish line today if we didn't have Senator
Boxer as our conference chairwoman. And Senator Menendez, our
Transportation Subcommittee chairman, worked side-by-side with me on
transit since we started work on this bill last year. I thank them for
their support.
And I would be remiss if I did not mention my staff. Homer Carlisle,
my lead transit aide, did outstanding work in helping craft this bill.
In the last year, he worked countless late nights that often lasted
into the early morning. Additionally, Charles Yi and Dwight Fettig were
instrumental in getting us to this point today.
There is just so much credit to go around. We had four committees
working on this bill and without such dedicated hard-working staffs we
could not have reached this agreement.
I am also pleased this conference report will provide stability to
the Flood Insurance Program by reauthorizing it for 5 years. The
National Flood Insurance Program protects millions of homeowners and is
critically important to our Nation's housing market.
As the people of South Dakota and others across the country have
experienced firsthand, flooding is responsible for more damage and
economic loss than any other type of natural disaster. It affects
people across the Nation, in every State, which is why we are going to
do the right thing today and pass this bipartisan legislation to
provide stability and much needed reforms for the program.
Since 2008, when our last long-term reauthorization expired, we have
passed 18 short-term extensions of this program. During this time, the
program has lapsed 5 times, for as long as 33 days, with detrimental
effects on homeowners and the insurance and housing markets.
By passing this bill, we will end the uncertainty of month-to-month
extensions for the NFIP and the families and businesses that rely on
its $1.2 trillion of coverage.
This bill is not perfect, and no one has gotten everything that they
wanted. Unfortunately, we were unable to reach a bipartisan agreement
on addressing the outstanding debt of the program that has accumulated
since Hurricane Katrina. But we have found enough common ground to move
critically important reforms forward. As part of that effort, I want to
thank my colleagues on the Banking Committee and in the House for their
cooperation and input.
The flood insurance bill didn't just come together in one night. It
came together in countless late nights worked by staff over the last
year. So I want to take this opportunity to thank my committee staff--
Beth Cooper, Brett Hewitt, Chris Ledoux, Glen Sears, Laura Swanson, and
Charles Yi for their work on this legislation. Additionally, I want to
thank Alison Wright MacDonald and James Ollen-Smith from the Office of
Legislative Counsel.
Lastly, I am pleased that the conference report includes a provision
to avert a catastrophic interest rate hike on student loans. If
Congress had failed to act, over 7 million students, including an
estimated 31,000 undergraduates in South Dakota, would have seen their
interest rates double.
Earlier this month, I talked with students at Southeast Technical
Institute in Sioux Falls. They told me a rate hike would make it harder
for them to complete their schooling and would likely deter countless
students from pursuing their higher education goals.
At a time when too many students are graduating with enormous debt
loads, we should not make it more difficult for students to finance
their education and manage their debt. I am glad we have reached an
agreement that prevents the rate hike from taking effect. This is an
important victory for students across South Dakota and throughout our
country.
In passing this conference report we will send a clear message that
it is still possible to work across the aisle and pass commonsense
bipartisan legislation in the interest of the American people.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill and I yield the floor.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I yield back all time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, all time is yielded back.
Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on adoption of the conference report.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Ms. SNOWE (when her name was called). Present.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet),
the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), and the Senator from Colorado
(Mr. Udall) are necessarily absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn),
and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
The result was announced--yeas 74, nays 19, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 172 Leg.]

YEAS--74

Akaka
Baucus
Begich
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Blunt
Boozman
Boxer
Brown (MA)
Brown (OH)
Burr
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coons
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Grassley
Hagan
Harkin
Heller
Hoeven
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (SD)
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lugar
Manchin
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Stabenow
Tester
Thune
Udall (NM)
Vitter
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden

NAYS--19

Ayotte
Barrasso
Coats
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Enzi
Graham
Hatch
Johnson (WI)
Lee
McCain
Moran
Paul
Portman
Risch
Rubio
Toomey

ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

Snowe

NOT VOTING--6

Alexander
Bennet
Coburn
Inouye
Kirk
Udall (CO)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes
for the adoption of this conference report, the conference report is
agreed to.

The title was amended so as to read: ``An Act to authorize
funds for Federal-aid highways, highway safety programs, and
transit programs, and for other purposes.''.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and lay that
motion upon the table.
The motion to lay upon the table was agreed to.

Vote Explanation

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I am disappointed in the final
version of

[[Page 10805]]

this bill. If I had been present, I would have voted against it for a
number of reasons, including the fact that it violates the Budget
Control Act, it does not use the money produced from the pension
reforms to shore up the financial strength of pension systems, and it
fails to prevent the EPA from regulating coal ash as a hazardous
material.

Vote Explanation

Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I want the record to reflect that I
would have voted in favor of H.R. 4348, but I went home to Colorado to
be with my constituents, many of whom have lost their homes and are
facing severe challenges as several fires continue to rage across the
State.
By finally reauthorizing our transportation programs for over 2
years, we will provide some measure of certainty for States,
municipalities, and businesses across the country urgently in need of
more than just a 2-month extension. The bill includes resources,
modeled on legislation that I introduced with Senator Mark Warner, for
transit-oriented development competitive grants to help local
communities work with private investors to promote long-term transit
planning, and the legislation also contains a common-sense modification
to the rural transit formula for which I advocated. These provisions
will benefit transit agencies across my State as they provide quality
service to Coloradans. The bill also maintains continued funding for
the Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) Program and Secure Rural Schools
and Community Self-Determination (SRS) Act. These programs are
lifelines for financially strapped rural counties and local businesses.
Of course this is not a perfect bill. I am disappointed that the
conference committee eliminated the Senate provision funding the Land
and Water Conservation Fund, a program that has been vital to
preserving Colorado's western heritage. And I would have liked to see a
longer reauthorization, with structural reforms to the highway trust
fund to ensure we can continue to finance improvements to our public
infrastructure and leave more--not less--for the next generation. That
said, I commend my colleagues for all their hard work getting this bill
across the line.
I am also pleased that this legislation will prevent loan rates from
doubling and averts an increase that would have put the dream of a
college degree further out of reach for thousands of Colorado students,
and increased an already crushing debt burden on the middle
class.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, it has been a very long and winding road
to get to this place. I am overwhelmed with the amazing vote we just
had--the margin of success, the fact that this is the product that is
not only bipartisan but bicameral. I understand that the House vote was
equally lopsided in favor of passage. I think this sends a tremendous
signal to the people of America, and that is that we can work together.
Do not give up hope. When it comes to the well-being of our people, we
must get together.
I know the President must be smiling broadly because he has stated
over and over how important it has been for us to pass a highway bill
and to pass a reduction in student loan interest rate bill in order to
help our people.
I have said many times that what kept me going and so many others--
and I am going to name the various chairmen whom I worked with here and
over on the House side and staff--what really kept us all going is the
fact that we know how hard the construction sector has been hit in this
recession. The housing crisis started this recession. It has not gotten
better. It is slowly coming around, but new construction is going to
take a while before all of the inventories are back in their
appropriate place. What is going to help us? We could fill 10 Super
Bowl stadiums with unemployed construction workers. We are looking at
well over 1 million construction workers who are unemployed. Well, this
was the answer.
The transportation sector is hurting. The construction sector is
hurting. And today we have sent a message, a powerful message that for
2 years and 3 months, we have funded a good bill that is going to
employ up to 3 million workers and help thousands of businesses, and it
is all in the private sector, the things that need to be done.
We know we have 70,000 bridges that are deficient. We know we have 50
percent of our roads that are deficient. We know we have transit
systems that need capital improvements. We know we have bike paths that
need fixing and pedestrian walkways that need fixing. All of that has
been resolved.
Are there things in this package that I do not like? Absolutely. Are
there things in this package my Republican counterparts do not like?
Absolutely. We had to give. We had to take. We struggled.
I am going to read into the Record the names of these staffers. This
is an unbelievable list. I am going to do it quickly. I am going to say
to these staffers from the various committees that they knew how
important their work was.
If we didn't succeed, there would be no more money in the highway
trust fund, and all of the repairs on our roads would stop and the
repairs on our bridges because everybody out there, since President
Dwight Eisenhower was President, depends on the Federal share.
We cannot have a strong economy without a strong infrastructure. Here
are the names. I am not reading Democrats and then Republicans; I am
reading the bipartisan list of staffers: Bettina Poirier, Ruth VanMark,
David Napoliello, James O'Keeffe, Andrew Dohrmann, Murphie Barrett,
Tyler Rushforth, Kyle Miller, Jason Albritton, Grant Cope, Mike Burke,
Tom Lynch, Mark Hybner, Charles Brittingham, Alex Renjel, and Dimitri
Karakitsos.
I also thank the leadership staff. When things were looking glum,
there they were. They are David Krone, Bill Dauster, and Bob Herbert.
Here are the staff directors of the key committees who worked on
this--remember, this was a four-committee process, including EPW,
Banking, Commerce, and Finance. I thank Russ Sullivan, Dwight Fettig,
Ellen Doneski and their extraordinary staff. They include Ryan Abrahams
with the Finance Committee; Ian Jefferies, David Bonelli, Anna Laitin,
and James Reid with the Commerce Committee; and Homer Carlisle with the
Banking Committee.
I also want to thank the Senate legislative counsel, Rachelle
Celebrezze and Gary Endicott, whom I drove crazy yesterday by telling
them to please produce the paper.
This staff loved their work so much that I thought they would never
end it. I had to beg them: Please finish because there will always be
something more you can do. You can always find something better or put
a comma in a different place. They wanted to make it as perfect as they
could. There was a time when we just had to say, OK, we are done. They
got it done. I am very moved of their dedication.
I know my staff at EPW--for 3 days, the staff members, whose names I
read--if they got 4 or 5 hours of sleep, they got a lot. They are
running on empty right now. I tell them that their names will forever
be in this record, and people they don't know will flourish because of
their work when we start hiring people to do this infrastructure work.
I thank my dear colleagues, Jay Rockefeller, Max Baucus, and Tim
Johnson. No way could I have done it without them. I also pay tribute
to Mary Landrieu, who is on the Senate floor today. Senator Landrieu
and her State have gone through so many traumas--so many--with
hurricanes and all of the attendant problems, and the BP oilspill,
which did so much terrible damage to her State and the other Gulf
States--environmental damage, commercial damage, broken hearts, broken
spirits.
Let me tell you, you never break Mary Landrieu's spirit. She teamed
up with Senator Vitter, and they wrote the RESTORE Act. Then she went
to all of the other colleagues of the gulf cost and said: You have to
help me. They put together a great package. What it means--without
going into detail; she will do that--is that when the

[[Page 10806]]

court decision comes down and the funds come to the Federal Government
for all the violations of law that took place with the BP spill, 80
percent of the funds will be directed to the very people who got hurt.
Senator Landrieu, it is an honor and a privilege to work with you.
You have been a model of a Senator who never, ever stops fighting. I am
so grateful I was able to step to the plate and help you.
I will add more names of colleagues, but I don't have time at this
point. Others want to speak. This is a great moment. The bill we passed
is a good bill. It is going to speed up project delivery without
waiving any environmental laws that we keep the protections in and give
a little more flexibility to the States on the alternative
transportation routes. But, believe me, we also add a new piece that
gives more power to the local people to decide on these projects. I am
so pleased.
I will add more statements to the Record later today. We have done
this, and we are going to mark this moment.
After we get our breath back and get our energy back, we are going to
look at a long-term solution to the problem of the highway trust fund.
We know the gas tax receipts are going down, and we have to solve the
problem. If it wasn't for Senator Baucus and his staff, we never would
be at this point because we didn't have the funding. They have to come
up with it. I thank them and the Republicans on the committee.
With that, I yield the floor, thanking one and all for this
tremendous vote today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, before the Senator from California
leaves the floor, for a much needed rest and relaxation and celebration
with her extraordinary staff, let me be one of the first to thank her,
to join my colleagues who have thanked her for her leadership.
This Transportation bill would not be a reality for the Nation--not
for California, Texas, New York, or Louisiana,--if it weren't for the
leadership of the chairperson of this committee. Senator Rockefeller
was there to push, Senator Baucus was there to push, Senator Johnson
was there to push, but the leader of this victory was Senator Barbara
Boxer.
Her colleague, Senator Inhofe, stood bravely against winds of
opposition, ideology, without common sense--ideology without regard to
the needs of the Nation. Senator Inhofe, a Republican, stood against
those winds and with the Senator from California to produce a jobs bill
for the Nation.
I hope people appreciate the extraordinary accomplishment this is in
the context of the political quagmire we find ourselves in just a few
months before a very significant national election, with both sides
hugging the opposite wall. For these two to come forward today and meet
in the middle of the Chamber and produce a bill with this kind of vote,
people did not think it was possible up until just a few weeks ago.
There was still the majority saying it will never happen.
But I know something about Barbara Boxer, as well. She came here as a
fighter. Her name ``Boxer'' says it all. It is the way she fought her
way to the Senate, and she continues to fight not just for the people
of California but the people of the Nation.
I knew 2 years ago--now a little over 2 years ago--when the Deepwater
Horizon platform blew up in the gulf, one of the first people I could
go to, to ask for help, for support, for ideas and advice about what to
do would be Senator Boxer. She is a strong environmentalist. She has a
heart for our oceans, and she understood the challenge of Louisiana's
eroding coastline--more so than many Members in this body.
I will be forever grateful for the fact that she and her staff sat
with me and other colleagues and crafted the RESTORE Act, which is a
historic piece of legislation. It has no precedent in Congress. It
will, for the first time, set aside such a significant amount of money
from a penalty that has yet to be determined by a polluter that has
been determined--BP--that under the law, after the Valdez spill, now
has to pay to the Federal Government $1,000 for every barrel of oil
that was spilled or gushed out of the explosion for months on end. They
have to pay $1,000 for every barrel of oil that was spilled. The
estimates are that, unfortunately for our coast, our people, our
fishermen, shrimpers, charter boat captains, and the pelicans, fish,
shrimp, and oystermen, for us it was 5 million barrels of oil spilled
between August and July, until the well was capped. It is the largest
pollution event in the history of the Nation. It will be the largest
fine.
I have every confidence that the people of the gulf coast and the
Nation will find justice in the courts. I hope this fine is as high as
it can be, based on the damage that has been done from Texas to Florida
and off the coast of Louisiana. When I brought this to Senator Boxer,
she understood that we had to find a way for justice in the gulf. I
crafted the RESTORE Act with my colleague Dick Shelby. For months we
negotiated about how to craft it, what to say, how to specifically
direct the funding, and had the benefit of having the support of the
White House, the support of every commission and every individual
appointed by the President supportive of this idea.
So I first thank the VP's Presidential commission that was one of the
first to step up and support this concept of an 80-percent set-aside
and redirect to the gulf.
I particularly thank Secretary Ray Mabus, whom we will remember led
the President's first commission, former Governor of Mississippi, who
knows the gulf coast well and understands Louisiana's coast as a
neighbor for so long. He stepped up and said: Yes, this is the right
thing to do. We had hundreds--and, really, thousands--of individuals
and hundreds of organizations that started to come forward.
Let me name a few: the Environmental Defense Fund was absolutely
instrumental, National Audubon Society, National Wildlife Federation,
Nature Conservancy, Ocean Conservancy, Oxfam America, and GNO, Inc.--
Greater New Orleans, Inc. They were some of the first organizations to
step up.
The Greater Houston Partnership was invaluable in the early days to
build support among the business community, as were the Mobile Chamber
of Commerce, Ducks Unlimited, America's WETLAND Foundation, Restore or
Retreat--a vibrant local and dynamic organization in south Louisiana--
Chamber of Southwest Louisiana, Baton Rouge Area Foundation, and Women
of the Storm--representing thousands of women, not just throughout the
gulf coast, but as well from your State and every State. Women stepped
up who said this kind of accident has to stop. This kind of explosion
should never happen again.
Most important, they said the people who were hurt the most, the area
damaged the worst should be compensated by this fine. This money should
not come to the general fund of the United States to be spent
everywhere else in the Nation for a variety of unrelated purposes. The
RESTORE Act says: No, the right way for this money to be allocated is
to the area where the accident occurred, where the injury occurred, and
that is exactly what RESTORE does--no more and no less.
There is one other person who deserves particular thanks and a
shoutout, and that is the Senator from Rhode Island Sheldon Whitehouse.
When Senator Shelby and I finished crafting this bill, which was
introduced by a few colleagues--a similar bill--on the House side,
Representative Steve Scalise, Cedric Richmond, and Representative
Bonner from Alabama--we were having a great deal of difficulty moving a
bill through a committee that only had two gulf coast Members and
Senator Boxer.
The other Members were sympathetic but not that enthusiastic, and I
can most certainly understand why. As you know, this is going to be a
tremendous amount of money. It is going to direct these funds to only
five States. They were sympathetic, but what was in it for everyone
else? Sheldon Whitehouse and I put our heads together and came up--it
was his idea--with the bill itself and thought maybe we could, as a
part of RESTORE--an integral part

[[Page 10807]]

of RESTORE--say perhaps the oceans deserved justice as well because
water knows no boundaries. What happened in the gulf could have impacts
in the Atlantic, up the Atlantic, and out to the Pacific. Who knows.
And that is the problem. We don't have enough scientific research going
on in this Nation about our oceans, which is 70 percent of our planet.
In Louisiana, we derive great pleasure, joy, and income from our
oceans, and from our oil and gas exploration, which is usually safe, on
any normal day. This was not a normal day in the gulf, not a normal
operation when the Horizon rig blew up. We get our fish, our oysters,
our seafood industry, our restaurant industry, our hotels, and our
ecotourism--and I could go on and on--from the ocean. We make our
living from the ocean. Senator Whitehouse and I thought--and I think
most reasonable people agreed--the oceans deserve something out of
this. So at no cost to the five States, we put in a provision that a
small portion--a half percent of the interest earnings that would be
generated--not the fund itself, not taking money away from the gulf
coast, as some have claimed, but appropriately saying interest
earnings--would create a trust fund for the oceans so that every State
could use it for research along their coast.
But that was a bridge too far for the Republican leaders in the House
who think we can learn nothing, who want no partnerships, no research
whatsoever, I guess, to go on in the oceans. So as that amendment
became a part of the committee process over here, we had that amendment
connected to RESTORE at the committee level. It was part of RESTORE. It
was moved to the floor and it enabled us to build a broader coalition,
which is the way legislation is built. It is not one person's idea. It
is not one person's work. The best of the bills and legislation we pass
are about teams, about generosity and sharing and understanding, a
little give here, a little take there.
It is a shame there are some people on the other side of this Capitol
who don't seem to know that is the basic operation of a democracy. I am
not sure what books they read in school, but they weren't the ones we
read at Ursuline Academy, taught by the Ursuline nuns. But Sheldon
Whitehouse read those same books, and we put this bill together. I
couldn't have been happier. Not only could I go home and say we did
this great thing for the Gulf of Mexico and that everyone came together
to help us in our time of need, but I could also look at our great
friends from other parts of the country and say there is a portion in
here for the oceans.
That is how the bill came to the floor. One of my proudest days, in
my 16 years here in the Senate, was when this Senate voted, under the
leadership of Senator Boxer and myself and Senator Shelby, for this
bill--the RESTORE Act--with 76 votes. I don't think the transportation
bill itself got 76 votes, to indicate how difficult it is to get 76
votes. Other than just for immaterial items, it is hard to get 76 votes
for apple pie and Mother's Day greetings. But we got 76 votes, and I
was so proud. Not only was it the right thing to do--a great help to
the region I help to represent--but also very fair, with the inclusion
also of the land and water, which was not part of RESTORE but an
amendment that was put on to help this effort with other parts of the
country. So the good news is we passed that bill and paid for it in
full over here with a pay-for that was also agreed to by 76 Senators.
But when the bill went over to the House, one of the first and most
serious detrimental things that happened was the oceans endowment trust
fund was stripped out. I want those who stripped it out to know this:
We will be back. We are going to lead a coalition of Democrats and
Republicans in the Senate who are going to send a strong message to
House Republicans that the oceans do deserve our time, our attention,
our love and support and our money. We can't do this on a wish and a
prayer. We have wildlife and fish and migratory birds that depend on
healthy oceans. The people of our country and the world depend on that.
This will not be the last time they see the national oceans
endowment. I will be proud to have my name right next to Sheldon
Whitehouse's and we will go into battle again.
But around here, you don't win everything every day, and so they cut
it out. But we will put it back and it will be bigger and stronger than
it was when they took it out.
The other thing the House Republicans did, which I have no
understanding of why, to pay for this RESTORE Act, the student loans,
the transportation bill, and the flood insurance bill, is they took
$700 million away from Louisiana's Medicaid budget. I will have more to
say about the details of that later, because I want to stay focused on
RESTORE, but I want to put in the record what our Commissioner of
Administration said, who, of course, works for Republican Governor
Bobby Jindal, and Republican Secretary of Health and Hospitals Bruce
Greenstein:

. . . the loss of more than $400 million--

And that was in fiscal year 2013, and it was another $250 million, so
it was $650 in 2014.

--in so-called FMAP money, already built into the state's
Fiscal 2013 budget passed by the Legislature and signed into
law by Gov. Bobby Jindal, would altogether lead to a loss in
Medicaid dollars that would require $1.1 billion in cuts.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
a copy of this quote from Paul Rainwater and Bruce Greenstein.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Louisiana Commissioner of Administration Paul Rainwater and
Secretary of Health and Hospitals Bruce Greenstein said the
loss of more than $400 million in so-called FMAP money,
already built into the state's Fiscal 2013 budget passed by
the Legislature and signed into law by Gov. Bobby Jindal,
would altogether lead to a loss in Medicaid dollars that
would require $1.1 billion in cuts.

Ms. LANDRIEU. The House Republicans who came up with this idea
insisted on this offset when there were others that could have been
offered that were much more fair, much less impactful, and much less
hurtful. There were some Republican Members who absolutely insisted
this offset be included, and so the Republican Governor Bobby Jindal,
with a Republican legislature and a Republican delegation in the House,
will have to find a way forward. I am not sure what that way is going
to be, but when the bill left the Senate that was not even discussed
under any circumstance whatsoever.
But even this terrible action taken on the House side cannot diminish
the extraordinary victory of the RESTORE Act. Bills such as this, that
basically distribute anywhere from $5 billion to $20 billion for
coastal restoration efforts, take years, even decades to pass. We did
this in 2 years, working together, staying focused, and building a
support structure nationwide from the business community to the
environmental community. The Chamber of Commerce stepped up, the
American Petroleum Institute did their part, and many of the oil and
gas companies stepped up as well. With the coalition of
environmentalists, business organizations, wildlife enthusiasts, we
were able to get this significant bill passed. It is going to be a
tremendous downpayment for the challenge in the gulf coast.
Let me, for the record, say again that there were 86,985 square miles
of water closed to fishing, approximately 36 percent of Federal waters
in the gulf that were closed to fishing for months, causing a loss to
the industry of $2.5 billion. There were 600 miles of the gulf
coastline that were oiled. Over half of those miles were in Louisiana,
and some oil is still lingering. In fact, scientists who have been
studying the baseline said the erosion of the marsh that was oiled was
eroding at twice the speed as normal, and that normal erosion is pretty
breathtaking in terms of its rate.
We have lost basically the size of the State of Rhode Island in the
last 50 years. If our delegation is not successful in continuing to
have victories such as this, it is conceivable, with the climate change
that is happening, the rising of the tides and the frequency of these
great storms, that one day, if we

[[Page 10808]]

are not successful in preserving these wetlands--and these are wetlands
of all of America, that drain 40 percent of our Nation, that supply 40
percent of the fisheries to everybody, and 80 percent of the oil and
gas to everyone--that New Orleans will be existing as a city with a 30-
foot concrete levee around it and everything else washed away--our
culture, our hope, our way of life.
I have said this a thousand times: We are not sunbathing here in
south Louisiana. We are not vacationing in south Louisiana. We have
fun, we have weekends where we fish and we hunt, but we are not
vacationing for weeks and weeks in south Louisiana, lying on the beach
and getting a tan. There are no beaches to lie on. We only have two.
Grand Isle is 7 miles long, and Holly Beach, which got washed away in
Rita and still has not been rebuilt.
The Corps of Engineers continues to tell me there is nothing they can
do for the last inhabited island off the coast of Louisiana. Well,
there is a lot they can do, and we will see to that in another bill.
But we want these wetlands preserved for our children, for our
grandchildren, and for the economic vitality of the Nation. This is the
mouth of the greatest river system in North America and we intend to
save what we can. We will never get everything back. We have lost 1,900
square miles since 1930. We lose 25 square miles of wetlands each year,
and we lose a football field every 30 minutes.
Two million people live in coastal Louisiana, about \1/2\ million in
Mississippi, about 1 million in Alabama, and probably about 4 million
in Texas. We cannot get up and move. There is no place to go. We don't
want to live in Arkansas and Missouri. We want to live on the gulf
coast, and we have been there since before this Nation was a nation,
and we are not leaving. We are tired of retreating. We know this can be
done. We have been to The Netherlands and places around the world where
wetlands have been saved--levees built that don't break. It is cost
effective in the long run. In the short run it costs investment. In the
long run, it creates wealth for everyone.
Three trillion dollars is contributed to the national economy by the
gulf coast every year, 17 percent of the national GDP comes from the
gulf coast every year, 50 percent of all the oil and gas that fuels
this Nation comes from the gulf coast, and 80 percent comes from
offshore. Every year, despite how much we do, we get zero back from
offshore oil and gas drilling off our shore. The interior States have
received 50 percent since 1923, but not Texas, not Louisiana, not
Mississippi, and not Alabama. We drill, drill, drill, and send oil
everywhere, keeping lights on everywhere. The pipelines just run
through our State. We are happy to have the industry, but we would like
to share the revenues with the Federal Government. We send to the
Federal Government about $6 billion a year, and have for decades. So
when people say, don't you ever get embarrassed by asking for so much
money? No. I could not possibly ask for as much money from Washington
as we have already sent here. So I am going to continue to ask for
funding for our State because we send off of our coast, and we are
happy to do it, but we believe in fair partnerships and mutual respect.
And until we get that, I am not going to stop advocating for our State.
So RESTORE is a first step. It is the right step.
It is the fair step and justice for the goals for right now. This
isn't taxpayer money. No taxpayers are paying this. BP is going to pay
this. But we are going to come back next year and talk about the
sharing of the tax revenues that the oil companies--not individuals but
the oil companies--pay to the Federal Government every year for every
barrel of oil, every cubic foot of gas they take out of the gulf. That
sharing should be done not just here in America, it should be done off
the coast of Africa, off the coast of South Africa, off the coast of
Brazil, off the coast of Ghana, so the people who live along the coast
can be respected, since that is where the drilling and the exploration
is taking place.
Just as people in North Dakota and Utah and Wyoming share their
revenues with the Federal Government, we intend to have a more robust
revenue-sharing effort in the future. But until the day that happens--
and I am confident, as sure as I am standing here, it will--this
RESTORE money will go as a significant downpayment to help jump-start
coastal efforts. We are not doing it like every man or woman for
himself. It is not a grab bag for Governors. Senator Shelby and I
carefully crafted this so the money will be spent wisely, well, and
efficiently in coordination with the Federal and State governments.
Is it going to be perfect? No. I am sure we are going to have some
stumbling blocks. But this is unprecedented in its nature. This kind of
public works effort has never been undertaken in this great way. So the
scientists hopefully will lead us, the engineers and designers will
design what we need, and we can continue giving our best effort in
hopes of saving a great place on this Earth; that is, the great marshes
of the gulf coast and the great delta that this mighty Mississippi
River built thousands and thousands of years ago and leave it better to
our grandchildren than most certainly we found it.
It has been a wonderful part of my life's work. It has been a worthy
project to work on. There are others who have most certainly joined me
in this leadership. But I am very proud of the work this Senate did and
very disappointed in some things the House did on it. But as Senator
Boxer said, it is legislation and we just can't have a perfect bill. It
was better to get this than to leave it on the cutting-room floor, even
though they did leave important pieces of it there.
I wish to thank Senator Boxer's staff, in particular, Senator
Inhofe's staff for being so courteous, and Senator Boxer's staff for
being very tenacious--to Tina and Jason particularly--to help us
negotiate one of the great environmental pieces of legislation in
decades.
I yield the floor.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the
transportation reauthorization bill that passed today. Having served on
past transportation bill conference committees, I know the long hours
and intense negotiations that were required to prepare this bill for
consideration today, and I want to extend my congratulations,
appreciation, and respect to Senators Boxer and Inhofe. I know from
past experience that they are both principled, tough negotiators, and I
am sure that is why the transportation bill returned from conference
with so many key provisions intact.
In March, the Senate acted in a bipartisan manner to pass a
transportation bill that contained significant achievements for our
country, and would have greatly benefited my State of Connecticut. The
bill would have reduced red tape for transportation projects while
still protecting our environment and resources. It included a provision
I worked on with my colleague from Delaware, Senator Carper, which
would have required cities and States to take air quality goals into
account when drafting transportation plans. It also would have provided
mass transit benefits the same tax beneficial treatment as parking
benefits, and would have funded Connecticut's transportation programs
at a level that met our basic needs for the next few years.
The bill that came back from conference retained many of these
provisions, but I regret to see that it weakened others and discarded
some of the rest. As I stated earlier, I am no stranger to working on a
conference committee, and I fully realize that the best legislation is
produced through a give and take on various issues. Clearly, that was
the case here. Despite my disappointment on some of these compromises,
I believe that it was essential that we acted to ensure that our
national transportation programs did not lapse on July 1, and that is
why I supported the transportation bill conference report. I would like
to take a few minutes to briefly explain some of my concerns, and why I
ultimately voted the way I did.
My concerns can generally be broken down into three categories:
environmental, Connecticut-specific programs,

[[Page 10809]]

and the long-term viability of the transportation system. First, let me
touch upon the environment. We have come a long way since the days when
Federal and State transportation departments labored under the mistaken
belief that building our roads and highways bigger was better, no
matter the consequences. We have long since realized that land deserves
to be preserved, the purity of our water protected, and our air quality
improved. I worry that the bill would be a step backwards because it
would waive environmental reviews of many transportation projects,
including some in environmentally endangered areas of our country. By
providing a categorical exclusion under the National Environmental
Policy Act for any projects within an existing operational right-of-
way, I can foresee wetlands being filled, sensitive habitat threatened,
and resources spoiled, all without any environmental review. There is a
right way and a wrong way to expedite projects, and I believe this is
the wrong way. I understand this was a necessary concession in order to
get a conference report agreed to, but I hope it will be addressed in
the future.
The second concern I have is the impact of the bill on my State,
Connecticut. The Federal highway program is just that: a Federal
program that is intended to address the needs of the national
transportation system. Nonetheless, our country's different regions
have particular needs. Connecticut, and the Northeast in general, have
urgent needs when it comes to transportation. My State has one of our
Nation's oldest transportation systems, because Connecticut has been
around a long time, one of the Nation's highest ratios of traffic
volume to miles of road, and is a frequent pass-through State for
commuters throughout the Northeast. Federal transportation funding
should go to areas with the greatest need, just as happens with other
government programs such as farm subsidies and disaster relief.
Connecticut residents do not protest these agricultural support
programs despite our paying a disproportionate share of taxes for them,
but we deserve to receive adequate funds to address our unique
transportation needs. Under this bill, Connecticut will receive
inadequate funding. I would urge my colleagues to reconsider this
problem, as well as the 95 percent minimum rate of return for all
States, during deliberations on the next transportation bill just as we
did during consideration of the 2005 transportation bill.
Finally, I want to take a moment to address a growing concern across
the country: the future of our Highway Trust Fund. Since the
establishment of the Federal highway system, we have utilized a user-
fee system to fund our transportation programs. That system served us
well for years, and relied on a gas tax to fill the Highway Trust Fund,
which in turn distributed funds to our States. As is so often the case,
with the good comes the bad: as we make cars that are more fuel
efficient, thereby cleaning up our air and reducing emissions, we also
purchase less gas per mile driven, and the amount of money flowing into
the Trust Fund shrinks as a result. The gas tax has stayed static at
18.4 cents per gallon since 1993. Because it is not adjusted for
inflation, the federal gas tax has experienced a cumulative loss in
purchasing power of 33 percent since 1993. For 4 years now, the Trust
Fund has been running a deficit and we have had to bail it out with
transfers from the Treasury. This is not the way the system was meant
to work, and it is not a way it can long survive.
The blame lies at all of our feet. Neither party has had the courage
to face the reality that we are running out of money for our roads and
bridges. Instead of dealing with the problem, we have continued to bail
out the trust fund, hoping that some future Congress will take
necessary steps to fix this problem. I applaud my colleague from
Wyoming, Senator Enzi, who took a stand and proposed adjusting the gas
tax for inflation, basically a half-cent a gallon increase. This could
have gone a long way to reducing the amount of money we need to use to
bailout the trust fund. Unfortunately, we never had a chance to discuss
the matter. I understand that colleagues do not want to talk about
raising taxes. But in the end we have no choice but to talk about
raising taxes if we want our transportation infrastructure to keep pace
with our people's needs.
We need leadership from Congress, and the President, to face the
facts: our transportation system is both broke and broken. The system
does not have funds for some basic repairs, let alone to make the new
investments for infrastructure we urgently need. In 2002, the United
States was ranked fifth, in terms of infrastructure quality, worldwide.
Today, we have dropped to twenty-fourth. We have fallen 19 places down
in less than a decade.
Unfortunately, the large-scale investments we need will not be
possible until we can fix the funding issue. The Simpson-Bowles
Commission recommended a 5-cent per year increase to the gas tax for 3
years. Others have recommended shifting to a system that charges users
for vehicle-miles-travelled. Such a VMT would ensure that those driving
fuel efficient, electric, or alternative fuel vehicles pay for the
wear-and-tear to the roads they cause. Although I will not be a member
of the Senate when the next transportation bill is debated, I would
urge my colleagues to begin to address this issue before the trust fund
goes broke once again. Washington must have the courage to keep all
options on the table, and then do what works to fix this problem.
In closing, I wish to again express my gratitude to Senators Boxer
and Inhofe. This is a true jobs bill, and it will guarantee that
millions of construction workers are still employed come Sunday, that
student loan interest rates do not double this school year, and that
our truly important flood insurance program will be reauthorized.
I thank Senator Boxer, Senator Inhofe, the staff of the EPW
committee, as well as the staffers at the Departments of Transportation
both in Washington and Connecticut, for their efforts in bringing this
bill to fruition.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I forgot to thank my own staff, which
would be very important to do. Elizabeth Weiner, Elizabeth Craddock,
Jane Campbell, my chief of staff, and my entire staff for their
tremendous work--we are all going to get a good rest in the week to
come--and other staff, Tanner Johnson in particular, no longer with my
staff but who put the original bill together.
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

CONDITIONAL ADJOURNMENT OR RECESS OF THE SENATE AND ADJOURNMENT OF THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate
proceed to immediate consideration of S. Con. Res. 51, the adjournment
resolution which was submitted earlier today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

A concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 51) providing for a
conditional adjournment or recess of the Senate and an
adjournment of the House of Representatives.

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to the concurrent
resolution.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the concurrent
resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the
table, with no intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 51) was agreed to, as
follows:

S. Con. Res. 51

[[Page 10810]]

or his designee, it stand recessed or adjourned until 12:00
noon on Monday, July 9, 2012, or such other time on that day
as may be specified by its Majority Leader or his designee in
the motion to recess or adjourn, or until the time of any
reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent
resolution, whichever occurs first; and that when the House
adjourns on any legislative day from Friday, June 29, 2012,
through Friday, July 6, 2012, on a motion offered pursuant to
this concurrent resolution by its majority leader or his
designee, it stand adjourned until 2:00 p.m. on Monday, July
9, 2012, or until the time of any reassembly pursuant to
section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs
first.
SEC. 2. The Majority Leader of the Senate and the Speaker
of the House, or their respective designees, acting jointly
after consultation with the Minority Leader of the Senate and
the Minority Leader of the House, shall notify the Members of
the Senate and House, respectively, to reassemble at such
place and time as they may designate if, in their opinion,
the public interest shall warrant it.
Ms. LANDRIEU. 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. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

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

Mr. REID. Mr. President, we are on the motion to proceed to Calendar
No. 341, S. 2237; is that true?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.

Cloture Motion

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have a cloture motion at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The bill 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.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory
quorum under rule XXII be waived; that at 2:15 p.m., Tuesday, July 10,
there be 10 minutes equally divided between the two leaders or their
designees prior to a vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion
to proceed to S. 2237.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT--EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on Tuesday,
July 10, 2012, at 11:30 a.m., the Senate proceed to executive session
to consider the following nomination: Calendar No. 661; that there be
30 minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form; that upon the
use or yielding back of that time, the Senate proceed to vote on that
matter without intervening action or debate, the motion to reconsider
be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action
or debate; that no further motions be in order; that any related
statements be printed in the Record; that President Obama be
immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume
legislative session.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

EXECUTIVE SESSION

______

NOMINATIONS DISCHARGED

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to executive session and the Foreign Relations Committee be
discharged from further consideration of Presidential Nomination 1680
and the Senate proceed to its consideration; that the nomination be
confirmed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, there be no
intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to
the nomination; that any related statements be printed in the Record;
and that President Obama be immediately notified of the Senate's
action.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The nomination considered and confirmed is as follows:

Department of State

Derek J. Mitchell, of Connecticut, to be Ambassador
Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of
America to the Union of Burma.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Commerce be discharged from further consideration of PN 1442, 1461,
1462, 1671, 1377, and 1734; that the nominations be confirmed, the
motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; that
there be no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in
order to the nominations; that any related statements be printed in the
Record; and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's
action.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The nominations considered and confirmed are as follows:

COAST GUARD

The following named officers for appointment to the grade
indicated in the United States Coast Guard under title 14,
U.S.C., section 271:

To be rear admiral upper half

Rear Admiral (lh) Daniel B. Abel
Rear Admiral (lh) Frederick J. Kenney Jr
Rear Admiral (lh) Marshall B. Lytle III
Rear Admiral (lh) Fred M. Midgette
Rear Admiral (lh) Karl L. Schultz
Rear Admiral (lh) Cari B. Thomas
Rear Admiral (lh) Christopher J. Tomney

The following named officer for appointment in the United
States Coast Guard Reserve to the grade indicated under the
10 U.S.C., section 12203:

To be rear admiral upper half

Rear Adm. (lh) John S. Welch

The following named officers for appointment to the grade
indicated in the United States Coast Guard under title 14,
U.S.C. section 211(A)(2):

To be lieutenant commander

Jason A. Boyer
Eric A. Cain
William E. Donohue
Roy Eidem
Matthew A. Pickard

The following named officers as members of the Coast Guard
permanent commissioned teaching staff for appointment in the
grade indicated in the United States Coast Guard under title
14, U.S.C., section 188:

To be commander

Russell E. Bowman

To be lieutenant commander

Joseph D. Brown

To be lieutenant

Meghan K. Steirhaus

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION

Subject to qualifications provided by law, the following
for permanent appointment to the grade indicated in the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration:

To be ensign

Lucas D. Johnson
Kevin G. Doremus
Michael N. Hirsch
Joshua D. Witmer
Jared R. Halonen
Daniel P. Langis
Andrew R. Clos
John R. Kidd
Aras J. Zygas
Refael W. Klein
David B. Keith
Whitley J. Gilbert
Kelsey E. Jeffers
Kasey M. Sims
Junie H. Cassone
Ricardo Rodriguez Perez
Aaron D. Colohan
Veronica J. Brieno Rankin
Chelsea D. Frate
Theresa A. Madsen

Subject to qualifications provided by law, the following
for permanent appointment to the grade indicated in the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration:

To be lieutenant (junior grade)

Kyle S. Salling
Daniel D. Smith
Anthony R. Klemm
Richard J. Park
David J. Rodziewicz
Andrea L. Proie
Joseph T. Phillips

[[Page 10811]]

Kelli-Ann E. Bliss
Larry V. Thomas, Jr.
Leslie Z. Flowers
Shannon K. Hefferan

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to consider Calendar Nos. 726, 764, 765, 766, 767, 768, 769,
770, 771, 772, 773, 774, 775, 776, 778, 819, 820, 821, 822, 823, and
824; that the nominations be confirmed en bloc; that the motion to
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; that there be no
intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to
any of the nominations; that any related statements be printed in the
Record; and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's
action.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The nominations considered and confirmed en bloc are as follows:

Nominations

IN THE AIR FORCE

The following named officer for appointment in the United
States Air Force to the grade indicated while assigned to a
position of importance and responsibility under title 10,
U.S.C., section 601:

To be general

Lt. Gen. Herbert J. Carlisle

NATIONAL BOARD FOR EDUCATION SCIENCES

Larry V. Hedges, of Illinois, to be a Member of the Board
of Directors of the National Board for Education Sciences for
a term expiring November 28, 2015.
Susanna Loeb, of California, to be a Member of the Board of
Directors of the National Board for Education Sciences for a
term expiring March 15, 2016.

NATIONAL COUNCIL ON DISABILITY

Kamilah Oni Martin-Proctor, of the District of Columbia, to
be a Member of the National Council on Disability for a term
expiring September 17, 2014.
Sara A. Gelser, of Oregon, to a Member of the National
Council on Disability for a term expiring September 17, 2014.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Edward M. Alford, of Virginia, a Career Member of the
Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United
States of America to the Republic of The Gambia.
Peter William Bodde, of Maryland, a Career Member of the
Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United
States of America to the Federal Democratic Republic of
Nepal.
Piper Anne Wind Campbell, of the District of Columbia, a
Career Member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of
Counselor, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary
of the United States of America to Mongolia.
Dorothea-Maria Rosen, of California, a Career Member of the
Senior Foreign Service, Class of Counselor, to be Ambassador
Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United State of
America to the Federated States of Micronesia.
Mark L. Asquino, of the District of Columbia, a Career
Member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-
Counselor, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary
of the United States of America to the Republic of Equatorial
Guinea.
Michele Jeanne Sison, of Maryland, a Career Member of the
Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United
States of America to the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri
Lanka, and to serve concurrently and without additional
compensation as Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary
of the United States of America to the Republic of Maldives.
Douglas M. Griffiths, of Texas, a Career Member of the
Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United
States of America to the Republic of Mozambique.
Jay Nicholas Anania, of Maryland, a Career Member of the
Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United
States of America to the Republic of Suriname.
Susan Marsh Elliott, of Florida, a Career Member of the
Senior Foreign Service, Class of Counselor, to be Ambassador
Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of
America to the Republic of Tajikistan.
Richard L. Morningstar, of Massachusetts, to be Ambassador
Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of
America to the Republic of Azerbaijan.

department of justice

Patrick A. Miles, Jr., of Michigan, to be United States
Attorney for the Western District of Michigan for the term of
four years.
John S. Leonardo, of Arizona, to be United States Attorney
for the District of Arizona for the term of four years.
Jamie A. Hainsworth, of Rhode Island, to be United States
Marshal for the District of Rhode Island for the term of four
years.

community relations service

Grande Lum, of California, to be Director, Community
Relations Service, for a term of four years.

Nuclear Regulatory commission

Kristine L. Svinicki, of Virginia, to be a Member of the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission for the term of five years
expiring June 30, 2017.
Allison M. Macfarlane, of Maryland, to be a Member of the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission for the remainder of the term
expiring June 30, 2013.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Homeland
Security and Government Affairs Committee be discharged from further
consideration of PN 1121; that the nomination be confirmed; that the
motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; that
there be no intervening action or debate; that there be no further
motions in order to the nomination; that any related statements be
printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of
the Senate's action; and that the Senate then resume legislative
session.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The nomination considered and confirmed is as follows:

corporation for national and community service

Deborah J. Jeffrey, of the District of Columbia, to be
Inspector General, Corporation for National and Community
Service.

____________________

LEGISLATIVE SESSION

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will resume legislative session.

____________________

MORNING BUSINESS

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to
speak therein for 10 minutes each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

BUDGET REVISIONS

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I previously filed committee allocations
and budgetary aggregates pursuant to section 106 of the Budget Control
Act of 2011. Today, I am adjusting some of those levels, specifically
the allocation to the Committee on Appropriations for fiscal year 2013
and the budgetary aggregates for fiscal year 2013.
Section 101 of the Budget Control Act allows for various adjustments
to the statutory limits on discretionary spending, while section 106(d)
allows the chairman of the Budget Committee to make revisions to
allocations, aggregates, and levels consistent with those adjustments.
The Committee on Appropriations reported four bills that are eligible
for adjustments under the Budget Control Act. Consequently, I am making
adjustments to the 2013 allocation to the Committee on Appropriations
and to the 2013 aggregates for spending by a total of $9.245 billion in
budget authority and $2.385 billion in outlays. Those adjustments
reflect the sum of $5.648 billion in budget authority and $403 million
in outlays for funding designated for disaster relief, $2.547 billion
in budget authority and $1.075 billion in outlays for funding
designated as being for overseas contingency operations, and $1.050
billion in budget authority and $907 million in outlays for program
integrity initiatives. The two program integrity initiatives for which
adjustments are in order under the Budget Control Act are continuing
disability reviews and redeterminations and health care fraud and abuse
control.
I ask unanimous consent that the following tables detailing the
changes to the allocation to the Committee on Appropriations and the
budgetary aggregates be printed in the Record.
There being no objection the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[[Page 10812]]

BUDGETARY AGGREGATES
[Pursuant to section 106(b)(2)(C) of the Budget Control Act of 2011 and
section 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$s in millions 2012 2013
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Spending Aggregates:
Budget Authority.............. 3,075,731 2,828,030
Outlays....................... 3,123,589 2,944,872
Adjustments:
Budget Authority.............. 0 9,245
Outlays....................... 0 2,385
Revised Spending Aggregates:
Budget Authority.............. 3,075,731 2,837,275
Outlays....................... 3,123,589 2,947,257
------------------------------------------------------------------------

REVISIONS TO THE BUDGET AUTHORITY AND OUTLAY ALLOCATIONS TO THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
[Pursuant to section 106 of the Budget Control Act of 2011 and section 302 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current
In millions of dollars Allocation/ Adjustment Revised
Limit Allocation/Limit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 2012:
Security Discretionary Budget Authority............ 816,943 0 816,943
Nonsecurity Discretionary Budget Authority......... 363,536 0 363,536
General Purpose Discretionary Outlays.............. 1,320,414 0 1,320,414
Fiscal Year 2013:
Security Discretionary Budget Authority............ 546,000 254 546,254
Nonsecurity Discretionary Budget Authority......... 501,000 8,991 509,991
General Purpose Discretionary Outlays.............. 1,222,497 2,385 1,224,882
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DETAIL ON ADJUSTMENTS TO FISCAL YEAR 2013 ALLOCATIONS TO COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
[Pursuant to section 106 of the Budget Control Act of 2011]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overseas
$s in billions Program Disaster Relief Emergency Congency Total
Integrity Operations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Financial Services:
Budget Authority..................................... 0.000 0.167 0.000 0.000 0.167
Outlays.............................................. 0.000 0.129 0.000 0.000 0.129
Homeland Security:
Budget Authority..................................... 0.000 5.481 0.000 0.254 5.735
Outlays.............................................. 0.000 0.274 0.000 0.203 0.477
Labor-HHS-ED:
Budget Authority..................................... 1.050 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.050
Outlays.............................................. 0.907 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.907
State-Foreign Operations:
Budget Authority..................................... 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.293 2.293
Outlays.............................................. 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.872 0.872
Total:
Budget Authority................................. 1.050 5.648 0.000 2.547 9.245
Outlays.......................................... 0.907 0.403 0.000 1.075 2.385
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Memorandum 1: Breakdown of Above Adjustments by Category:
Security Budget Authority............................ 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.254 0.254
Nonsecurity Budget Authority......................... 1.050 5.648 0.000 2.293 8.991
General Purpose Outlays.............................. 0.907 0.403 0.000 1.075 2.385
Memorandum 2: Cumulative Adjustments (Includes Previously
Filed Adjustments)
Budget Authority..................................... 1.050 5.648 0.000 2.547 9.245
Outlays.............................................. 0.907 0.403 0.000 1.075 2.385
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

____________________

REQUEST FOR SEQUENTIAL REFERRAL

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in
the Record a letter dated June 28, 2012, to the Majority leader from
myself and Senator Grassley.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

U.S. Senate,

Committee on the Judiciary,

Washington, DC, June 28, 2012.
Hon. Harry Reid,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Majority Leader Reid: Pursuant to Section 3(b) of
Senate Resolution 400 of the 94th Congress, as amended by
Senate Resolution 445, 108th Congress, we request that S.
3276, the FAA Sunsets Extension Act of 2012, which was filed
by the Select Committee on Intelligence on June 7, 2012, be
sequentially referred to the Judiciary Committee. The bill
contains matters within the jurisdiction of the Judiciary
Committee.
Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
Sincerely,
Patrick Leahy,
Chairman.
Charles E. Grassley,
Ranking Member.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

United States Senate,

Committee on the Judiciary,

____________________

CONTINUATION OF THE WIPA PROGRAM

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my disappointment
and frustration that the Work Incentives Planning and Assistance
program also known as WIPA run by the Social Security Administration is
being shut down today. Congress has not acted to extend this important
program and the Commissioner of Social Security does not believe he has
the authority to continue the program. I disagree. I think he could
continue this program under his broad authority to implement the Social
Security Act. It is my belief that if he did that and that was contrary
to congressional intent, Congress would express that disapproval
through the appropriations process.
Let me explain what the WIPA program does. Both the Social Security
disability insurance, SSDI, program and the supplemental security
income, SSI, program have many provisions to assist beneficiaries in
attempting to return to work, but the rules and features of the work
incentives are complex and can be intimidating. Through

[[Page 10813]]

the WIPA program, SSA makes grants to community-based organizations to
provide SSDI and SSI disability beneficiaries with assistance in
navigating and using the return-to-work features. The total budget for
the WIPA grant program is $23 million a year. Because it is such a
large State, Montana has two WIPA grantees. The Montana Center for
Inclusive Education at Montana State University in Billings is the WIPA
specialist for residents of eastern Montana. Over the last 30 months,
the WIPA in MSU Billings has served over 100 Montana residents. On the
western side of the State, the North Central Independent Living
Services, Inc., near Great Falls runs an innovative program where the
WIPA grant is dispersed among several Centers for Independent Living in
order to provide more personal, one-on-one service for residents of
Montana. That program has served over 220 Montana residents.
I think the WIPA program should continue. I know many Members of
Congress agree. I hope the Commissioner will continue these important
programs as soon as possible. Given the state of the economy today, we
should not limit important services that can help our constituents who
want to help themselves by attempting to work.

____________________

AUTHORIZED RURAL WATER PROJECTS COMPLETION ACT

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today as an original co-sponsor
of the Authorized Rural Water Projects Completion Act, introduced by my
colleague, Senator Baucus. I am pleased to support this important
legislation which would address the serious backlog in the construction
of Bureau of Reclamation water projects that are intended to serve
rural and tribal communities.
All of these projects have already been studied and authorized by the
Congress. However, the funding for constructing the projects has
lagged, causing a delay in addressing the needs of rural and tribal
communities to have potable water delivered for their use.
In 1902, the Reclamation Fund was established by Congress, intended
to be used as a funding source to construct water projects in the West.
It is funded through a variety of receipts, including Federal mineral
leasing receipts. However, the use of monies from the Reclamation Fund
has been subject to appropriation, and therefore, large balances have
remained in the Fund. The average annual surplus in the Reclamation
Fund from FY 2005 through FY 2011 was $960 million. While these monies
were intended to be used for water project construction, they have not
always been appropriated when needed.
The bill that is being introduced today would direct that every year
$80 million that would otherwise be deposited in the Reclamation Fund
be made available without further appropriation for the construction of
the authorized rural water projects--projects that Congress has already
determined are in the public interest and should be built.
I would like my colleagues to note that according to Bureau of
Reclamation analysis, an increase in funding for the construction of
rural water projects to $80 million per year would reduce the total
Federal appropriations needed to complete the projects by more than $1
billion, due to project costs and inflation. Therefore, this bill will
have a positive fiscal impact. The bill also includes language that
states that amounts may not be transferred for rural water projects
pursuant to the legislation if to do so would raise the deficit.
The legislation provides that the Secretary may not expend amounts
under the bill until the Secretary develops programmatic goals that
would: enable completion of rural water projects as quickly as
possible; reflect the goals and priorities identified in the laws
authorizing the rural water projects; and reflect the goals of the
Reclamation Rural Water Supply Act of 2006. The bill does not direct
that a particular project receive funding, but rather provides that the
Secretary develop funding prioritization criteria to serve as a formula
for distributing funds consistent with considerations set forth in the
bill.
This bill is important to our citizens in rural and tribal
communities in the West. Adequate water supplies are fundamental to our
way of life, and far too many Americans still live without safe
drinking water. Congress has already determined that the rural water
projects it has authorized are needed to provide water supplies to our
rural and tribal communities and are in the best interests of public.
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this
important legislation, so that the promise of these important water
projects can become an on-the-ground reality.

____________________

50TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE INTERNATIONAL BRIDGE

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the International Bridge at Sault St. Marie
stands as an enduring, visible reminder of the connection Michigan has
with our neighbor to the north. This nearly 2-mile expanse, quite
literally, brings communities in Michigan and Canada closer together,
forging a mutually beneficial partnership in the process. To
commemorate the construction of the bridge, a new, patriotic lighting
scheme will be introduced on the American side of the bridge this week.
Thousands of vehicles cross this bridge each day. In fact, in 2007
alone, nearly 2 million cars traversed this roadway. This bridge is a
pathway for commerce and trade; it is a convenient way for families
separated by a short distance, but still a Nation apart to visit; and
it supports recreation and tourism, which are central to the economies
of many of Michigan's communities. Designed by Dr. Carl Gronquist, this
sprawling structure has buoyed a number of industries important to
Michigan, including steel, paper and forestry.
Before the International Bridge opened to traffic on October 31,
1962, Michiganians crossed the St. Mary's River either by car ferry or
by railway. The need for a more efficient means to connect Sault Ste.
Marie, MI and Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario was evident. In response, in
1940, Congress approved an international crossing in Sault Ste. Marie,
and in 1955, the Canadian Parliament established the St. Mary's Bridge
Company to facilitate and oversee an international crossing. The $16
million construction project that ensued lasted nearly 2 years and gave
way to the structure we enjoy today.
Connecting Sault Ste. Marie with a city of 75,000 in Ontario that
also serves as an important international trade crossing in
Northwestern Ontario has been very beneficial. The theme of this
celebration--Celebrating 50 years of International Friendship--speaks
powerfully to this point. I also would like to recognize the work of
the Sault Ste. Marie Bridge Authority and the International Bridge
Administration for their tremendous work and dedication. The work that
is done each day to ensure an efficient and steady flow of traffic
across this bridge has positively impacted the lives of Michiganians
and countless businesses for the last half century. As we look toward
the future, it is important to preserve and maintain the International
Bridge for future generations.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO GUNNERY SERGEANT THOMAS J. BOYD, USMC

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, this Sunday, Marine Corps GySgt Thomas
Boyd, who is currently serving as a legislative fellow in my office,
will receive his promotion to master sergeant at his home in Uniontown,
PA, surrounded by his wife Reagan and his family. I would like to take
the opportunity to recognize Tom's accomplishments and selfless service
to our Nation.
Tom enlisted in the Marine Corps in 1996, following in the footsteps
of his father, older brother, and great uncle. He immediately took on
the very demanding occupational specialty of signals intelligence,
which involves the collection and analysis of enemy communications. It
is a unique and critically important specialty that accepts only the
highest quality and most trustworthy marines, which tells you a lot
about Tom's character.

[[Page 10814]]

From 2005 to 2009 Tom was stationed at Fort Meade and served at the
National Security Agency. His skills were put to the test in three
combat deployments, two to Iraq and one to Afghanistan, during which he
supported numerous counterterrorism operations that helped make those
countries and our own more secure. The Department of Defense recognized
his contributions with the Defense Meritorious Service Medal, one of
the highest awards the Department can bestow upon a servicemember.
Last year the Marine Corps selected Tom for its Congressional
Fellowship Program, which, as my colleagues know, is highly selective.
Tom is one of only two enlisted Marines selected to serve on Capitol
Hill this year. While working in a Senate office is considerably less
action-packed than the jobs he has had in the recent past, Tom has
tackled all the tasks we have assigned to him with the overwhelming
enthusiasm and tenacity we expect from our marines.
I know some of our constituents who have met Tom are sometimes
surprised to come to my office and find themselves across the table
from ``Big Country,'' as Tom is affectionately known among his peers.
Then they realize that not only is Tom as dedicated to serving them as
any member of any Senator's staff but also that it can be a big
advantage to have a man who was clearly born to be a leatherneck on
their side.
To my colleagues, should you see Tom walking the halls of the Senate,
I ask that you take a moment to congratulate him on his promotion and
thank him and his family for their sacrifices on behalf of our country.
In his personality, professionalism, and selflessness, Tom Boyd
reflects the best traditions of the U.S. Marine Corps.

____________________

REMEMBERING VICE ADMIRAL WILLIAM D. HOUSER, USN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I rise to honor a great naval
officer and a true friend. Yesterday, VADM William ``Bill'' Douglas
Houser, USN, Retired, was buried with full military honors at Arlington
National Cemetery. His was a life spent in service to our great country
and its Navy and sailors.
An Atlanta native, Admiral Houser entered the Naval Academy in 1938
at the age of 16, as part of the class of 1942. He was commissioned
early with his class in 1941, after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.
During World War II, he served for 3 years as a deck officer aboard the
USS Nashville, which saw combat in the battle for Guadalcanal, raids on
the Marcus and Wake Islands, and operations around Leyte and Luzon in
the Philippines. In 1945, Admiral Houser entered flight training and
was designated a naval aviator the following year. He saw combat in
Korea as commanding officer of Fighter Squadron 44 and during the
Vietnam War as commanding officer of the aircraft carrier USS
Constellation. Other commands-at-sea included Fighter Squadron 124, the
USS Mauna Loa, and Carrier Division TWO as a flag officer.
Ashore, Admiral Houser served on the staff of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff from 1960 to 1962 and again from 1967 to 1968 as Director,
Strategic Plans Division. He was the Military Assistant to the Deputy
Secretary of Defense from 1962 through 1963; a member of the staff of
the National Security Council in 1965; and Director of Aviation Plans
and Requirements for the U.S. Navy from 1968 through 1970. He was
promoted to Vice Admiral in 1972 and served his last tour of duty from
1972 to 1976 as Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Air Warfare, where
he was responsible for all Naval aviation matters. Admiral Houser said
that his most satisfying accomplishment as Deputy Chief was saving the
F-14 fighter from cancellation.
Admiral Houser received numerous medals and decorations while on
Active Duty. They include the Distinguished Service Medal, two awards;
the Legion of Merit, four awards; the Bronze Star with Combat V; and
the Air Medal, two awards. In retirement, he was also honored to
receive the prestigious U.S. Naval Academy Alumni Association
Distinguished Graduate Award in 2003.
After retirement from the Navy, Admiral Houser went on to a
successful career in the telecommunications industry, working for the
Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Communications Satellite
Corporation, and Com21, among others. But he always remained dedicated
to the Navy he so loved. He served as a trustee of the U.S. Naval
Academy Foundation for 30 years. He served on the International Midway
Memorial Foundation and helped establish the annual Navy Midway Dinner.
He spearheaded the creation of a Midway Memorial in the yard of the
U.S. Naval Academy.
Beyond all his accomplishments, Bill was a great friend. When I
returned home from prison in Vietnam, he was instrumental in helping me
return to flying status. I remain forever indebted to him for his
support and assistance.
Bill passed away on February 5, 2012, and is survived by his wife
Jan; his 3 daughters, Cindy, Gayle, and Francie; his 2 stepdaughters,
Karla and Louise; 11 grandchildren; and 1 great-granddaughter.
President John F. Kennedy once said, ``Any man who may be asked in this
century what he did to make his life worthwhile, I think can respond
with a good deal of pride and satisfaction, `I served in the United
States Navy.''' By that standard, VADM William D. Houser, USN, Retired,
lived a life of immeasurable worth. God bless and Godspeed, old friend.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO REVEREND FRED LUTER, JR.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise today to ask my colleagues to
join me in congratulating Rev. Fred Luter, Jr., of New Orleans, LA on
being elected to be president of the Southern Baptist Convention and
acknowledging Reverend Luter's unique role as the first African-
American leader of the Southern Baptist Convention.
Rev. Fred Luter, Jr. preached his first church sermon in 1983 at the
Law Street Baptist Church in New Orleans, LA. He then became pastor of
Franklin Avenue Baptist Church in 1986. Under the leadership of
Reverend Luter, the Franklin Avenue Baptist Church community grew from
65 members in 1986 to over 7,000 members in 2005. Thanks to Reverend
Luter, the Franklin Avenue Baptist Church grew to be the largest
Southern Baptist Church in the State of Louisiana.
In 2005, Franklin Avenue Baptist Church was extensively damaged by
Hurricane Katrina. Along with the church, Reverend Luter also lost his
home to flooding. Displaced members of the church totaled approximately
2,000 people. Reverend Luter, in cooperation with Rev. David Crosby,
found a temporary home for Franklin Avenue Baptist Church during the
aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. As well as setting up a temporary
church, Reverend Luter continued to minister to his congregation, even
holding services in Baton Rouge, LA, and Houston, TX. After tremendous
hard work and determination, Reverend Luter reopened the door to
Franklin Avenue Baptist Church in April of 2008.
In 2011, Reverend Luter became the first African-American to be
elected as first vice president of the Southern Baptist Convention. The
Southern Baptist Convention is a cooperative of over 45,000 churches
they diligently seek to bring about greater racial and ethnic
representation at every level of Southern Baptist institutional life.
Reverend Luter was then nominated by Rev. David Crosby to become
president of the Southern Baptist Convention. On June 19, 2012,
Reverend Luter was elected to be the first African-American president
of the Southern Baptist Convention.
It is with a special measure of commendation and heartfelt
congratulations on becoming the first African-American president of the
Southern Baptist Convention and for his commitment to ministering to
his congregation that I ask my colleagues to join me along with
Reverend Luter's family in honoring and celebrating the life of this
most extraordinary person.

[[Page 10815]]

____________________

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS

______

RECOGNIZING JEWISH FAMILY SERVICES

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize
Jewish Family Services, a philanthropic treasure in Connecticut. This
year marks a momentous 100th anniversary of community service.
Founded June 1912, Jewish Family Services was built to assist
European immigrants coming to this country to seek the American dream
and escape persecution. These new residents of Connecticut confronted
the challenges of their new lives with hope and determination.
Jewish Family Services has touched all generations, giving
unconditionally to all those in need. Following the value of Tikkun
Olam--``healing the world''--their mission is truly boundless. Their
courageous staff of experienced social workers has helped facilitate
new lives for many citizens, empowering their first steps towards
change.
Jewish Family Services has recently focused on programs to support
new careers and combat long-term unemployment. Through the Jewish
Employment Transition Services, JFS has helped ease the desperation of
joblessness. These programs complement many others including a food
pantry, mental health services, care for the aging, children, and
Holocaust survivors, counseling for life transitions such as divorce,
and financial tutoring.
To celebrate its 100th anniversary while preparing for the next
decades, Jewish Family Services has created three new funds--one
dedicated to our children, the Changing Children's Lives Fund, another
for those confronting emergency situations or personal crisis, the
First Responders Fund, and a third, aptly named the Future Fund.
By giving help and getting help, Jewish Family Services has formed a
family for the Greater Hartford area. It embraces community assistance
as a given and disperses inspiration and hope. Its one hundred years
are a prelude to future accomplishment and contribution.

____________________

FOREST RIVER, NORTH DAKOTA

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am pleased to honor a community
in North Dakota that will soon celebrate its 125th anniversary. On July
13, 2012, the residents of Forest River will recognize the community's
history and founding.
Named after the river that flows through the area, Forest River was
established in 1878 as a stop for both the Northern Pacific Railroad
Company and the Soo Line Railroad. The river's original name was the
Big Salt River; however, it was later changed to reflect the thick
growth of trees along the banks of the water.
Residents of Forest River will celebrate the town's 125th anniversary
with fun activities, including a parade, an ice cream social, a street
fair, several street dances, and a museum exhibit chronicling the
history and heritage of the town and its residents. These activities
reflect the charm and character of Forest River and the town's strong
sense of community.
I ask the Senate to join me in congratulating Forest River, ND, and
its residents on their 125th anniversary and in wishing them a bright
future.

____________________

REGAN, NORTH DAKOTA

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am pleased to honor a community
in North Dakota that will soon celebrate its 100th anniversary. From
July 13 through the 15, the residents of Regan will recognize the
community's history and founding.
Regan, like many towns in North Dakota, began with the coming of the
Northern Pacific Railroad Company. Regan was named after J. Austin
Regan, a businessman from nearby Fessenden and an official of Dakota
Land and Townsite, the company which originally mapped the town. The
first building in Regan was a cream station named Tolchinsky's, where
early settlers sold their cream. In the following years, the town grew
quickly with the additions of a post office, a church, many businesses,
and a baseball diamond.
Dubbed ``Rockin' Regan'' the residents have an extensive list of
events for the centennial celebration, including a parade, a raffle,
and the Centennial Tractor Trek that will travel along ND-Highway 36.
Today, Regan, although small, is still a prominent farming community.
I am reminded of a saying from their 75th celebration: ``We are not
just a town, but a community, and a community we will remain.'' This is
the true essence of the people of North Dakota; no matter what the
future brings, communities will remain. The town of Regan has
demonstrated its independence as a strong community and has remained
strong since 1912.
I ask the Senate to join me in congratulating Regan, ND, and its
residents on their 100th anniversary and in wishing them a bright
future.

____________________

BRIDAL VEIL POST OFFICE

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, today I wish to commemorate the
one hundred and twenty fifth anniversary of the Bridal Veil Post
Office.
Since July 7th, 1887, the Bridal Veil Post Office has delivered
letters and packages to the community in a timely and efficient manner.
The post office, all 100 square feet of it, manages to keep up with the
thousands of brides that flood to this town every year, seeking the
coveted Bridal Veil postmark on their wedding invitations. While the
town of Bridal Veil may have decreased in size since its days as a
bustling mill-town, the dedication and service of this post office has
certainly remained.
The Bridal Veil Post Office also serves as a testament to a time in
Oregon's past that is too often forgotten; a time that the Bridal Veil
Historical Preservation Society and its supporters have fought to
preserve. Even in the face of post office closures and modernizations,
this post office has endured. The efforts of those that have fought to
maintain this structure, especially the Historical Preservation
Society, serve as a testament to its importance not only to this
community, but to the state of Oregon as well.
To President and Postmaster Geri Canzler, the citizens of Bridal
Veil, and all those that have fought to preserve this historic site:
thank you and congratulations on 125 years and counting.

____________________

NOTIFICATION OF THE PRESIDENT'S INTENT TO TERMINATE THE DESIGNATIONS OF
GIBRALTAR AND THE TURKS AND CAICOS ISLANDS AS BENEFICIARY DEVELOPING
COUNTRIES UNDER THE GENERALIZED SYSTEM OF PREFERENCES (GSP) PROGRAM--PM
53

The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message
from the President of the United States which was referred to the
Committee on Finance:

[[Page 10816]]

trade benefits under the GSP program will end on January 1, 2014.
In addition, pursuant to section 502(e) of the 1974 Act, I have
determined that it is appropriate to terminate Turks and Caicos
Islands' designation as a beneficiary developing country under the GSP
program, because it has become a high income country as defined by the
World Bank. Accordingly, Turks and Caicos Islands' eligibility for
trade benefits under the GSP program will end on January 1, 2014.
Barack Obama.
The White House, June 29, 2012.

____________________

NOTIFICATION OF THE PRESIDENT'S INTENT TO ADD THE REPUBLIC OF SENEGAL
TO THE LIST OF LEAST-DEVELOPED BENEFICIARY DEVELOPING COUNTRIES UNDER
THE GENERALIZED SYSTEM OF PREFERENCES (GSP) PROGRAM--PM 54

The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message
from the President of the United States which was referred to the
Committee on Finance:

____________________

MESSAGES FROM THE HOUSE

At 10:22 a.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered
by Mrs. Cole, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has
passed the following bills, in which it requests the concurrence of the
Senate:

H.R. 1447. An act to amend title 49, United States Code, to
direct the Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security
(Transportation Security Administration) to establish an
Aviation Security Advisory Committee, and for other purposes.
H.R. 3173. An act to direct the Secretary of Homeland
Security to reform the process for the enrollment,
activation, issuance, and renewal of a Transportation Worker
Identification Credential (TWIC) to require, in total, not
more than one in-person visit to a designated enrollment
center.
H.R. 3276. An act to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 2810 East Hillsborough
Avenue in Tampa, Florida, as the ``Reverend Abe Brown Post
Office Building''.
H.R. 3412. An act to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 1421 Veterans Memorial Drive
in Abbeville, Louisiana, as the ``Sergeant Richard Franklin
Abshire Post Office Building''.
H.R. 3501. An act to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 125 Kerr Avenue in Rome
City, Indiana, as the ``SPC Nicholas Scott Hartge Post
Office''.
H.R. 3772. An act to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 150 South Union Street in
Canton, Mississippi, as the ``First Sergeant Landres Cheeks
Post Office Building''.
H.R. 4005. An act to direct the Secretary of Homeland
Security to conduct a study and report to Congress on gaps in
port security in the United States and a plan to address
them.
H.R. 4251. An act to authorize, enhance, and reform certain
port security programs through increased efficiency and risk-
based coordination within the Department of Homeland
Security, and for other purposes.
H.R. 5843. An act to amend the Homeland Security Act of
2002 to permit use of certain grant funds for training
conducted in conjunction with a national laboratory or
research facility.
H.R. 5889. An act to amend title 18, United States Code, to
provide for protection of maritime navigation and prevention
of nuclear terrorism, and for other purposes.
____

At 1:38 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered
by Mrs. Cole, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House
agrees to the report of the committee of conference on the disagreeing
votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill
(H.R. 4348) to authorize funds for Federal-aid highways, highway safety
programs, and transit programs, and for other purposes.
____

At 2:40 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered
by Mrs. Cole, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has
passed the following bill, in which it requests the concurrence of the
Senate:

H.R. 6064. An act to provide an extension of Federal-aid
highway, highway safety, motor carrier safety, transit, and
other programs funded out of the Highway Trust Fund pending
enactment of a multiyear law reauthorizing such programs.

The message also announced that pursuant to section 1238(B)(3) of the
Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001
(22 U.S.C. 7002), as amended, and the order of the House of January 5,
2011, the Speaker appoints the following member on the part of the
House of Representatives to the United States-China Economic and
Security Review Commission for a term to expire December 31, 2014: Mr.
Peter Brookes of Springfield, Virginia.
____

At 3:50 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered
by Mr. Novotny, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has
passed the following bill, in which it requests the concurrence of the
Senate:

H.R. 5972. An act making appropriations for the Departments
of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and
related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2013, and for other purposes.

____________________

MEASURES REFERRED

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

H.R. 1447. An act to amend title 49, United States Code, to
direct the Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security
(Transportation Security Administration) to establish an
Aviation Security Advisory Committee, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
H.R. 3173. An act to direct the Secretary of Homeland
Security to reform the process for the enrollment,
activation, issuance, and renewal of a Transportation Worker
Identification Credential (TWIC) to require, in total, not
more than one in-person visit to a designated enrollment
center; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
H.R. 3276. An act to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 2810 East Hillsborough
Avenue in Tampa, Florida, as the ``Reverend Abe Brown Post
Office Building''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs.
H.R. 3412. An act to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 1421 Veterans Memorial Drive
in Abbeville, Louisiana, as the ``Sergeant Richard Franklin
Abshire Post Office Building''; to the Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs.
H.R. 3501. An act to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 125 Kerr Avenue in Rome
City, Indiana, as the ``SPC Nicholas Scott Hartge Post
Office''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs.
H.R. 3772. An act to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 150 South Union Street in
Canton, Mississippi, as the ``First Sergeant Landres Cheeks
Post Office Building''; to the Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs.
H.R. 4005. An act to direct the Secretary of Homeland
Security to conduct a study and report to Congress on gaps in
port security in the United States and a plan to address
them; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs.
H.R. 4251. An act to authorize, enhance, and reform certain
port security programs through increased efficiency and risk-
based coordination within the Department of Homeland
Security, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
H.R. 5843. An act to amend the Homeland Security Act of
2002 to permit use of certain grant funds for training
conducted in conjunction with a national laboratory or
research facility; to the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs.

____________________

MEASURES PLACED ON THE CALENDAR

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

[[Page 10817]]

____________________

MEASURES READ THE FIRST TIME

The following bill was read the first time:

H.R. 4018. An act to improve the Public Safety Officers'
Benefits Program.

____________________

EXECUTIVE AND OTHER COMMUNICATIONS

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

EC-6749. A communication from the Senior Program Analyst,
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Bell Helicopter
Textron Canada Limited Helicopters'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket
No. FAA-2012-0084)) received in the Office of the President
of the Senate on June 21, 2012; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-6750. A communication from the Senior Program Analyst,
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc.
Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2012-0293))
received in the Office of the President of the Senate on June
26, 2012; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-6751. A communication from the Senior Program Analyst,
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; BAE SYSTEMS
(Operations) Limited Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No.
FAA-2012-0188)) received in the Office of the President of
the Senate on June 26, 2012; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-6752. A communication from the Senior Program Analyst,
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Eurocopter
Deutschland GMBH Helicopters'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No.
FAA-2012-0101)) received in the Office of the President of
the Senate on June 26, 2012; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-6753. A communication from the Senior Program Analyst,
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing
Company Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2011-
1320)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate
on June 26, 2012; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-6754. A communication from the Senior Program Analyst,
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier Inc.
Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2012-0109))
received in the Office of the President of the Senate on June
26, 2012; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-6755. A communication from the Senior Program Analyst,
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Services
B.V. Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2012-0141))
received in the Office of the President of the Senate on June
26, 2012; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-6756. A communication from the Senior Program Analyst,
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Amendment of Class E Airspace; Tallahassee,
FL'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2012-0240)) received in
the Office of the President of the Senate on June 21, 2012;
to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-6757. A communication from the Acting Assistant
Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to
law, the report of a rule entitled ``Fisheries of the
Northeastern United States; Northeast Multispecies Fishery;
Recreational Accountability Measures'' (RIN0648-BB66)
received in the Office of the President of the Senate on June
20, 2012; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-6758. A communication from the Acting Deputy Assistant
Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Fisheries of
the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Snapper-
Grouper Fishery Off the Southern Atlantic States; Amendment
24'' (RIN0648-BA52) received in the Office of the President
of the Senate on June 21, 2012; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-6759. A communication from the Acting Deputy Assistant
Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Atlantic
Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act Provisions;
American Lobster Fishery'' (RIN0648-BA56) received in the
Office of the President of the Senate on June 21, 2012; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-6760. A communication from the Acting Deputy Assistant
Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Fisheries of
the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Snapper-
Grouper Fishery Off the Southern Atlantic States; Amendment
18A'' (RIN0648-BB56) received in the Office of the President
of the Senate on June 21, 2012; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-6761. A communication from the Acting Deputy Assistant
Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Western
Pacific Pelagic Fisheries; Modification of American Samoa
Large Vessel Prohibited Area'' (RIN0648-BB45) received in the
Office of the President of the Senate on June 21, 2012; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-6762. A communication from the Acting Deputy Assistant
Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions;
Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast
Multispecies Fishery; Framework Adjustment 47'' (RIN0648-
BB62) received in the Office of the President of the Senate
on June 20, 2012; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-6763. A communication from the Acting Deputy Assistant
Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Fisheries of
the Northeastern United States; Final 2012 Spiny Dogfish
Fishery Specifications'' (RIN0648-XA973) received in the
Office of the President of the Senate on June 12, 2012; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-6764. A communication from the Acting Director of
Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service,
Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a rule entitled ``Accountability Measures for the
Recreational Sector of Gray Triggerfish in the Gulf of Mexico
for the 2012 Fishing Year'' (RIN0648-XCO36) received in the
Office of the President of the Senate on June 21, 2012; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-6765. A communication from the Acting Director of
Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service,
Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a rule entitled ``Fisheries of the Exclusive
Economic Zone Off Alaska; Northern Rockfish in the Bering Sea
and Aleutian Islands Management Area'' (RIN0648-XC052)
received in the Office of the President of the Senate on June
21, 2012; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-6766. A communication from the Acting Director of
Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service,
Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a rule entitled ``Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions;
Fisheries Off West Coast States; Biennial Specifications and
Management Measures; Inseason Adjustments'' (RIN0648-BC11)
received in the Office of the President of the Senate on June
20, 2012; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-6767. A communication from the Acting Director of
Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service,
Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a rule entitled ``Atlantic Highly Migratory
Species; Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Fisheries'' (RIN0648-XC006)
received in the Office of the President of the Senate on June
12, 2012; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-6768. A communication from the Acting Director of
Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service,
Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a rule entitled ``Atlantic Highly Migratory
Species; Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Fisheries'' (RIN0648-XC035)
received in the Office of the President of the Senate on June
12, 2012; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-6769. A communication from the Acting Director of
Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service,
Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a rule entitled ``Fisheries of the Exclusive
Economic Zone Off Alaska; Pacific Cod for American Fisheries
Act Catcher/Processors Using Trawl Gear in the Bering Sea and
Aleutian Islands Management Area'' (RIN0648-XC064) received
in the Office of the President of the Senate on June 21,
2012; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-6770. A communication from the Trial Attorney, Federal
Railroad Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Systems for Telephonic Notification of Unsafe Conditions at
Highway-Rail and Pathway Grade Crossings'' (RIN2130-AC12)
received in the Office of the President of the

[[Page 10818]]

Senate on June 21, 2012; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-6771. A communication from the Senior Program Analyst,
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Flightcrew Member Duty and Rest
Requirements; Correction'' (RIN2120-AJ58) received in the
Office of the President of the Senate on June 12, 2012; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-6772. A communication from the Senior Program Analyst,
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Modification of VOR Federal Airways V-135
and V-137; Southwest United States'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket
No. FAA-2011-0654)) received in the Office of the President
of the Senate on June 26, 2012; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-6773. A communication from the Senior Program Analyst,
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Modification of Multiple Compulsory
Reporting Points; Continental United States, Alaska and
Hawaii'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2012-0130)) received
in the Office of the President of the Senate on June 26,
2012; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-6774. A communication from the Senior Program Analyst,
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Modification, Revocation and Establishment
of Air Traffic Service Routes; Windsor Locks Area; CT''
((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2011-1386)) received in the
Office of the President of the Senate on June 12, 2012; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-6775. A communication from the Senior Program Analyst,
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Modification of Class D and Class E
Airspace and Revocation of Class E Airspace; Bellingham, WA''
((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2011-0363)) received in the
Office of the President of the Senate on June 26, 2012; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-6776. A communication from the Senior Program Analyst,
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace;
Leesburg, FL'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2012-0445))
received in the Office of the President of the Senate on June
26, 2012; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-6777. A communication from the Senior Program Analyst,
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Amendment of Class E Airspace; Orlando,
FL'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2011-0503)) received in
the Office of the President of the Senate on June 26, 2012;
to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-6778. A communication from the Chief of Staff, Media
Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Carriage of
Digital Television Broadcast Signals: Amendment to Part 76 of
the Commission's Rules'' (FCC 12-59, CS Docket No. 98-120)
received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of
the President of the Senate on June 15, 2012; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-6779. A communication from the Regulatory Ombudsman,
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Inspection, Repair, and Maintenance;
Driver-Vehicle Inspection Report for Intermodal Equipment''
(RIN2126-AB34) received in the Office of the President of the
Senate on June 21, 2012; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-6780. A communication from the Chief of Staff, Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Improving Spectrum Efficiency through Flexible Channel
Spacing and Bandwidth Utilization for Economic Area-based 800
MHz Specialized Mobile Radio Licensees, et. al.'' (WT Docket
Nos. 12-64 and 11-110; FCC 12-55) received in the Office of
the President of the Senate on June 12, 2012; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-6781. A communication from the Deputy Bureau Chief,
Wireline Competition Bureau, Federal Communications
Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a
rule entitled ``Wireline Competition Bureau Announces Support
Amounts for Connect America Fund Phase One Incremental
Support'' (WT Docket Nos. 10-90, 05-337; DA 12-639) received
in the Office of the President of the Senate on June 12,
2012; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-6782. A communication from the Deputy Bureau Chief,
Wireline Competition Bureau, Federal Communications
Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a
rule entitled ``Connect America Fund; A National Broadband
Plan for Our Future; Establishing Just and Reasonable Rates
for Local Exchange Carriers; High-Cost Universal Service
Support'' (WT Docket Nos. 10-90, 07-135, 05-337, 03-109; GN
Docket No. 09-51; CC Docket Nos. 01-92, 95-45; WT Docket No.
10-208) received in the Office of the President of the Senate
on June 12, 2012; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-6783. A communication from the Chief of Staff, Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and Public Safety and
Homeland Security Bureau Suspend Acceptance and Processing of
Certain Part 22 and 90 Applications for 470-512 MHz
Spectrum'' (DA 12-643) received in the Office of the
President of the Senate on June 12, 2012; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-6784. A communication from the Deputy Bureau Chief,
Wireline Competition Bureau, Federal Communications
Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a
rule entitled ``Connect America Fund; High-Cost Universal
Service Support'' (WC Docket Nos. 10-90, 05-337; DA-646)
received in the Office of the President of the Senate on June
12, 2012; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.

____________________

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES

The following reports of committees were submitted:

By Mr. LIEBERMAN, from the Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs, with an amendment in the nature of
a substitute:
S. 2239. A bill to direct the head of each agency to treat
relevant military training as sufficient to satisfy training
or certification requirements for Federal licenses.

____________________

EXECUTIVE REPORTS OF COMMITTEE

The following executive reports of nominations were submitted:

By Mr. BAUCUS for the Committee on Finance.
*Matthew S. Rutherford, of Illinois, to be an Assistant
Secretary of the Treasury.
*Meredith M. Broadbent, of Virginia, to be a Member of the
United States International Trade Commission for a term
expiring June 16, 2017.
*Mark J. Mazur, of New Jersey, to be an Assistant Secretary
of the Treasury.

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

____________________

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

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

By Mr. AKAKA (for himself, Mr. Boozman, Mr. Whitehouse,
and Mr. Crapo):
S. 3362. A bill to reauthorize the National Dam Safety
Program Act, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
By Mr. CHAMBLISS (for himself and Mr. Reed):
S. 3363. A bill to provide for the use of National Infantry
Museum and Soldier Center Commemorative Coin surcharges, and
for other purposes; considered and passed.

____________________

SUBMISSION OF CONCURRENT AND SENATE RESOLUTIONS

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

By Mr. NELSON of Florida (for himself and Mr. Brown of
Ohio):
S. Res. 516. A resolution expressing the sense of the
Senate on the restitution of or compensation for property
seized during the Nazi and Communist eras; to the Committee
on Foreign Relations.
By Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Mr. Kirk):
S. Res. 517. A resolution congratulating the Northwestern
Wildcats Women's Lacrosse Team on winning the 2012 National
Collegiate Athletic Association Division I Women's Lacrosse
Championship; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Ms. LANDRIEU:
S. Res. 518. A resolution congratulating the Southern
Baptist Convention for electing Reverend Fred Luter, Jr., as
the president of the Southern Baptist Convention,
acknowledging Reverend Luter's unique role as the first
African-American leader of the Southern Baptist Convention,
and honoring the

[[Page 10819]]

commitment of the Southern Baptist Convention to an inclusive
faith-based community and society; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
By Mr. REID (for himself and Mr. McConnell):
S. Con. Res. 51. A concurrent resolution providing for a
conditional adjournment or recess of the Senate and an
adjournment of the House of Representatives; considered and
agreed to.

____________________

ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS

S. 344

At the request of Mr. Reid, the name of the Senator from Texas (Mrs.
Hutchison) was added as a cosponsor of S. 344, a bill to amend title
10, United States Code, to permit certain retired members of the
uniformed services who have a service-connected disability to receive
both disability compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs
for their disability and either retired pay by reason of their years of
military service or Combat-Related Special Compensation, and for other
purposes.

S. 362

At the request of Mr. Whitehouse, the names of the Senator from
Kansas (Mr. Moran) and the Senator from Montana (Mr. Tester) were added
as cosponsors of S. 362, a bill to amend the Public Health Service Act
to provide for a Pancreatic Cancer Initiative, and for other purposes.

S. 697

At the request of Mr. Casey, the name of the Senator from Texas (Mrs.
Hutchison) was added as a cosponsor of S. 697, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a credit against income tax for
amounts paid by a spouse of a member of the Armed Services for a new
State license or certification required by reason of a permanent change
in the duty station of such member to another State.

S. 952

At the request of Mr. Durbin, the name of the Senator from New
Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen) was added as a cosponsor of S. 952, a bill to
authorize the cancellation of removal and adjustment of status of
certain alien students who are long-term United States residents and
who entered the United States as children and for other purposes.

S. 974

At the request of Ms. Snowe, the name of the Senator from Maryland
(Ms. Mikulski) was added as a cosponsor of S. 974, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand the tip tax credit to employers
of cosmetologists and to promote tax compliance in the cosmetology
sector.

S. 1245

At the request of Mr. Johanns, his name was added as a cosponsor of
S. 1245, a bill to provide for the establishment of the Special Envoy
to Promote Religious Freedom of Religious Minorities in the Near East
and South Central Asia.

S. 1283

At the request of Mr. Durbin, the name of the Senator from Maryland
(Mr. Cardin) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1283, a bill to amend the
Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 to permit leave to care for a
same-sex spouse, domestic partner, parent-in-law, adult child, sibling,
grandchild, or grandparent who has a serious health condition.

S. 1301

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

S. 1591

At the request of Mr. Thune, his name was added as a cosponsor of S.
1591, a bill to award a Congressional Gold Medal to Raoul Wallenberg,
in recognition of his achievements and heroic actions during the
Holocaust.

S. 1929

At the request of Mr. Blumenthal, the names of the Senator from
Virginia (Mr. Warner), the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Pryor), the
Senator from Indiana (Mr. Coats), the Senator from Texas (Mrs.
Hutchison), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from
Mississippi (Mr. Wicker), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch), the
Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from North Carolina
(Mr. Burr), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), the Senator from
North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the
Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Casey) and the Senator from Vermont (Mr.
Leahy) were added as cosponsors of S. 1929, a bill to require the
Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins in commemoration of Mark Twain.

S. 1935

At the request of Mrs. Hagan, the name of the Senator from Montana
(Mr. Baucus) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1935, a bill to require the
Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins in recognition and celebration
of the 75th anniversary of the establishment of the March of Dimes
Foundation.

S. 1979

At the request of Mr. Conrad, the name of the Senator from North
Dakota (Mr. Hoeven) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1979, a bill to
provide incentives to physicians to practice in rural and medically
underserved communities and for other purposes.

S. 1990

At the request of Mr. Johanns, his name was added as a cosponsor of
S. 1990, a bill to require the Transportation Security Administration
to comply with the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment
Rights Act.

S. 2165

At the request of Mrs. Boxer, the names of the Senator from Illinois
(Mr. Durbin) and the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow) were added as
cosponsors of S. 2165, a bill to enhance strategic cooperation between
the United States and Israel, and for other purposes.

S. 2189

At the request of Mr. Harkin, the name of the Senator from Maryland
(Ms. Mikulski) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2189, a bill to amend the
Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 and other laws to clarify
appropriate standards for Federal antidiscrimination and
antiretaliation claims, and for other purposes.

S. 2201

At the request of Mr. Grassley, the name of the Senator from South
Dakota (Mr. Johnson) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2201, a bill to
amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the renewable energy
credit.

S. 2239

At the request of Mr. Johanns, his name was added as a cosponsor of
S. 2239, a bill to direct the head of each agency to treat relevant
military training as sufficient to satisfy training or certification
requirements for Federal licenses.
At the request of Mr. Nelson of Florida, the name of the Senator from
West Virginia (Mr. Manchin) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2239, supra.

S. 2244

At the request of Mr. Portman, the name of the Senator from Arkansas
(Mr. Boozman) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2244, a bill to direct the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs to assist in the identification of
unclaimed and abandoned human remains to determine if any such remains
are eligible for burial in a national cemetery, and for other purposes.

S. 2320

At the request of Ms. Ayotte, the name of the Senator from Hawaii
(Mr. Inouye) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2320, a bill to direct the
American Battle Monuments Commission to provide for the ongoing
maintenance of Clark Veterans Cemetery in the Republic of the
Philippines, and for other purposes.

S. 2369

At the request of Mr. Lautenberg, the name of the Senator from New
York (Mrs. Gillibrand) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2369, a bill to
establish the American Innovation Bank, to improve science and
technology job training, to authorize grants for curriculum
development, and for other purposes.

S. 3077

At the request of Mr. Portman, the name of the Senator from Kansas
(Mr.

[[Page 10820]]

Moran) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3077, a bill to require the
Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins in recognition and celebration
of the Pro Football Hall of Fame.

S. 3186

At the request of Mr. Schumer, the name of the Senator from Colorado
(Mr. Udall) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3186, a bill to make it
unlawful to alter or remove the identification number of a mobile
device.

S. 3287

At the request of Mr. Paul, the name of the Senator from Oklahoma
(Mr. Coburn) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3287, a bill to protect
individual privacy against unwarranted governmental intrusion through
the use of the unmanned aerial vehicles commonly called drones, and for
other purposes.

S.J. RES. 29

At the request of Mr. Udall of New Mexico, the name of the Senator
from Delaware (Mr. Coons) was added as a cosponsor of S.J. Res. 29, a
joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the
United States relating to contributions and expenditures intended to
affect elections.

S.J. RES. 43

At the request of Mr. McConnell, the name of the Senator from North
Dakota (Mr. Hoeven) was added as a cosponsor of S.J. Res. 43, a joint
resolution approving the renewal of import restrictions contained in
the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003, and for other purposes.

S.J. RES. 45

At the request of Mrs. Hutchison, the name of the Senator from Alaska
(Ms. Murkowski) was added as a cosponsor of S.J. Res. 45, a joint
resolution amending title 36, United States Code, to designate June 19
as ``Juneteenth Independence Day''.

S. CON. RES. 46

At the request of Mr. Webb, the name of the Senator from Connecticut
(Mr. Blumenthal) was added as a cosponsor of S. Con. Res. 46, a
concurrent resolution expressing the sense of Congress that an
appropriate site at the former Navy Dive School at the Washington Navy
Yard should be provided for the Man in the Sea Memorial Monument to
honor the members of the Armed Forces who have served as divers and
whose service in defense of the United States has been carried out
beneath the waters of the world.

S. CON. RES. 48

At the request of Mr. Leahy, the names of the Senator from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Casey), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven)
and the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Conrad) were added as cosponsors
of S. Con. Res. 48, a concurrent resolution recognizing 375 years of
service of the National Guard and affirming congressional support for a
permanent Operational Reserve as a component of the Armed Forces.

S. CON. RES. 50

At the request of Mr. Rubio, the names of the Senator from Delaware
(Mr. Coons) and the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) were added as
cosponsors of S. Con. Res. 50, a concurrent resolution expressing the
sense of Congress regarding actions to preserve and advance the
multistakeholder governance model under which the Internet has thrived.

____________________

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. AKAKA (for himself, Mr. Boozman, Mr. Whitehouse, and Mr.
Crapo):
S. 3362. A bill to reauthorize the National Dam Safety Program Act,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public
Works.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to
reauthorize the National Dam Safety Program managed by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, FEMA. I thank Senators Boozman,
Whitehouse, and Crapo for joining me in sponsoring this bill that will
help promote public safety and prevent the destruction caused by dam
failures. This fiscally responsible legislation will help states do
more to protect communities and avoid costly dam incidents without
increasing funding above the most recent authorization level.
With more than 84,000 dams listed in the National Inventory of Dams,
dams are a critical and ubiquitous part of our nation's infrastructure.
In Hawaii, 142 State-regulated dams are located across our islands from
Kekaha on Kauai to Paauilo on Hawaii Island. These dams are owned by
non-profit organizations, private companies, individuals, and Federal,
State, and local governments. While they go largely unseen, dams
benefit our lives every day. They provide drinking water, hydroelectric
power, irrigation water, flood control, and recreational opportunities.
However, dams also pose a significant risk to public safety, local
economies, and the environment. Our nation's dams received a grade of
``D'' from the American Society of Civil Engineers 2009 Report Card for
America's Infrastructure, which cited more than 4,000 deficient dams,
including more than 1,800 that would result in loss of life if they
failed. Unfortunately, we know that this risk is not just hypothetical.
In 2006, the Ka Loko Dam on Kauai collapsed killing seven people, and
dozens of other dam failures have occurred across the nation since that
time. While we cannot avoid all dam incidents, this legislation will
help prevent dam disasters and better prepare Americans for when they
do happen.
The National Dam Safety Program is the foundation of prevention
efforts nationally. The program helps states to check for deteriorating
conditions at dams. This is important so that repairs can be made in
order to safeguard against incidents that result in loss of life and
property. The program also helps ensure that states have the technical
assistance, training, and procedures needed to prevent dams from
reaching a condition that puts communities in danger.
I very much appreciate the involvement of experts in dam safety,
including FEMA, the Army Corps of Engineers, Hawaii Department of Land
and Natural Resources, the American Society of Civil Engineers, and the
Association of State Dam Safety Officials, in developing this
legislation. I urge my colleagues to support his measure.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 3362

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Dam Safety Act of 2012''.

SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

The purpose of this Act and the amendments made by this Act
is to reduce the risks to life and property from dam failure
in the United States through the reauthorization of an
effective national dam safety program that brings together
the expertise and resources of the Federal and non-Federal
communities in achieving national dam safety hazard
reduction.

SEC. 3. ADMINISTRATOR.

(a) In General.--The National Dam Safety Program Act (33
U.S.C. 467 et seq.) is amended by striking ``Director'' each
place it appears and inserting ``Administrator''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 2 of the National Dam
Safety Program Act (33 U.S.C. 467) is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (3);
(2) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as paragraphs
(2) and (3), respectively; and
(3) by inserting before paragraph (2) (as redesignated by
paragraph (2)) the following:
``(1) Administrator.--The term `Administrator' means the
Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.''.

SEC. 4. INSPECTION OF DAMS.

Section 3(b)(1) of the National Dam Safety Program Act (33
U.S.C. 467a(b)(1)) is amended by striking ``or maintenance''
and inserting ``maintenance, condition, or provisions for
emergency operations''.

SEC. 5. NATIONAL DAM SAFETY PROGRAM.

(1) Objectives.--Section 8(c) of the National Dam Safety
Program Act (33 U.S.C. 467f(c)) is amended by striking
paragraph (4) and inserting the following:
``(4) develop and implement a comprehensive dam safety
hazard education and public awareness program to assist the
public in preparing for, mitigating, responding to, and
recovering from dam incidents;''.
(2) Board.--Section 8(f)(4) of the National Dam Safety
Program Act (33 U.S.C. 467f(f)(4)) is amended by inserting
``, representatives from nongovernmental organizations,''
after ``State agencies''.

[[Page 10821]]

SEC. 6. PUBLIC AWARENESS AND OUTREACH FOR DAM SAFETY.

The National Dam Safety Program Act (33 U.S.C. 467 et seq.)
is amended--
(1) by redesignating sections 11, 12, and 13 as sections
12, 13, and 14, respectively; and
(2) by inserting after section 10 (33 U.S.C. 467g-1) the
following:

``SEC. 11. PUBLIC AWARENESS AND OUTREACH FOR DAM SAFETY.

``The Administrator, in consultation with other Federal
agencies, State and local governments, dam owners, the
emergency management community, the private sector,
nongovernmental organizations and associations, institutions
of higher education, and any other appropriate entities shall
carry out a nationwide public awareness and outreach program
to assist the public in preparing for, mitigating, responding
to, and recovering from dam incidents.''.

SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

(1) National dam safety program.--
(A) Annual amounts.--Section 14(a)(1) of the National Dam
Safety Program Act (33 U.S.C. 467j(a)(1)) (as so
redesignated) is amended by striking ``$6,500,000'' and all
that follows through ``2011'' and inserting ``$9,200,000 for
each of fiscal years 2012 through 2016''.
(B) Maximum amount of allocation.--Section 14(a)(2)(B) of
the National Dam Safety Program Act (33 U.S.C. 467j(a)(2)(B))
(as so redesignated) is amended--
(i) by striking ``The amount'' and inserting the following:
``(i) In general.--The amount''; and
(ii) by adding at the end the following:
``(ii) Fiscal year 2013 and subsequent fiscal years.--For
fiscal year 2013 and each subsequent fiscal year, the amount
of funds allocated to a State under this paragraph may not
exceed the amount of funds committed by the State to
implement dam safety activities.''.
(2) National dam inventory.--Section 14(b) of the National
Dam Safety Program Act (33 U.S.C. 467j(b)) (as so
redesignated) is amended by striking ``$650,000'' and all
that follows through ``2011'' and inserting ``$500,000 for
each of fiscal years 2012 through 2016''.
(3) Public awareness.--Section 14 of the National Dam
Safety Program Act (33 U.S.C. 467j) (as so redesignated) is
amended--
(A) by redesignating subsections (c) through (f) as
subsections (d) through (g), respectively; and
(B) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
``(c) Public Awareness.--There is authorized to be
appropriated to carry out section 11 $1,000,000 for each of
fiscal years 2012 through 2016.''.
(4) Research.--Section 14(d) of the National Dam Safety
Program Act (as so redesignated) is amended by striking
``$1,600,000'' and all that follows through ``2011'' and
inserting ``$1,450,000 for each of fiscal years 2012 through
2016''.
(5) Dam safety training.--Section 14(e) of the National Dam
Safety Program Act (as so redesignated) is amended by
striking ``$550,000'' and all that follows through ``2011''
and inserting ``$750,000 for each of fiscal years 2012
through 2016''.
(6) Staff.--Section 14(f) of the National Dam Safety
Program Act (as so redesignated) is amended by striking
``$700,000'' and all that follows through ``2011'' and
inserting ``$1,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2012 through
2016''.

____________________

SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS

______

SENATE RESOLUTION 516--EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE SENATE ON THE
RESTITUTION OF OR COMPENSATION FOR PROPERTY SEIZED DURING THE NAZI AND
COMMUNIST ERAS

Mr. NELSON of Florida (for himself and Mr. Brown of Ohio) submitted
the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on
Foreign Relations:

S. Res. 516

Whereas protecting and respecting private property rights
is a basic principle for all democratic governments that
operate according to the rule of law;
Whereas Nazi or Communist regimes dominated many Eastern
European countries without the consent of their people for
parts of the 20th century;
Whereas the authoritarian and totalitarian regimes that
emerged in Eastern Europe after World War II perpetuated the
wrongful and unjust confiscation of property, including
immovable property, personal property, and financial assets,
that belonged to victims of Nazi persecution;
Whereas the Nazi regime considered religious property an
early target and denied religious communities the temporal
facilities that held them together by expropriating churches,
synagogues, religious seminaries, cemeteries, and other
communal property;
Whereas, after World War II, Communist regimes expanded the
systematic expropriation of private, communal, and religious
property in an effort to eliminate the influence of religion;
Whereas, since the fall of the Iron Curtain, only part of
the immovable property confiscated during and after the
Holocaust has been recovered or compensated;
Whereas, in July 2001, the Paris Declaration of the
Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe
Parliamentary Assembly noted that the process of restitution,
compensation, and material reparation of victims of Nazi
persecution has not been pursued with the same degree of
comprehensiveness by all of the participating states of that
Organization;
Whereas the Organization for Security and Co-operation in
Europe Parliamentary Assembly has called on each
participating state to adopt and implement appropriate
legislation to ensure that victims of Nazi persecution,
including communal organizations and institutions, receive
restitution of or compensation for lost property, without
regard to the current citizenship or place of residence of
the victims or their heirs or the relevant successors to
communal property;
Whereas the United States Congress has, unanimously and on
numerous occasions, urged countries in Europe that have not
yet done so to immediately enact fair, comprehensive,
nondiscriminatory, and just legislation to provide
restitution, or fair compensation in cases in which
restitution is not possible, to victims of persecution who
had private property looted or wrongfully confiscated by
Nazis during World War II or subsequently seized by a
Communist government and the heirs of those victims;
Whereas the representatives of 44 countries that
participated in the 1998 Washington Conference on Holocaust-
Era Assets agreed on principles intended to guide just and
equitable solutions to confiscated art, insurance, and
communal property, but did not address the complex issue of
private property;
Whereas, 11 years later, representatives of more than 45
countries participated in the Prague Holocaust-Era Assets
Conference in June 2009, and agreed to the Terezin
Declaration of June 30, 2009, which--
(1) recognized that Holocaust (Shoah) survivors and other
victims of Nazi persecution have reached an advanced age and
that respecting their personal dignity and addressing their
social welfare needs is an issue of utmost urgency;
(2) recognized that wrongful property seizures, such as
confiscation, forced sales, and sales under duress of
property, were part of the persecution by the Nazis of
innocent people, many of whom died without heirs;
(3) recognized the importance of restituting communal and
individual property that belonged to victims of the Holocaust
(Shoah) and other victims of Nazi persecution and urged that
every effort be made to rectify the consequences of wrongful
property seizure;
(4) urged that every effort be made to provide for the
restitution of former Jewish communal and religious property
through in rem restitution or compensation in cases in which
restitution has not yet been effectively achieved; and
(5) recognized that in some countries heirless property
could serve as a basis to address the material necessities of
Holocaust (Shoah) survivors and to ensure ongoing education
about the Holocaust (Shoah) and its causes and consequences;
Whereas nearly 3 years have passed since the adoption of
the Terezin Declaration and the governments of some countries
have still not fulfilled or made progress toward fulfilling
the moral obligations expressed in that document, including--
(1) the Government of Poland, which is virtually alone
among post-Communist countries in not having adopted any
legislation providing a process for restitution of or
compensation for private property that Nazi or Communist
regimes confiscated despite numerous public promises from
various administrations;
(2) the Government of Romania, which has halted
implementation of legislation to return former communal
property or pay compensation to claimants;
(3) the Government of Latvia, which has failed to press
forward with legislation to return Jewish communal and
religious properties or provide financial compensation for
the loss of those properties despite numerous promises to
domestic and international claimants;
(4) the Government of Slovenia, which has refused to pay
compensation for officially recognized former Jewish
property; and
(5) the Government of Croatia, which has still not adopted
appropriate legislation to provide compensation for property
that the Nazis and their allies confiscated during the
Holocaust;
Whereas the governments of Serbia and Lithuania have
recently enacted restitution and compensation programs for
private and Jewish communal property, respectively, serving
as a potential model for other governments to follow;
Whereas some Holocaust survivors, now in the twilight of
their lives, are impoverished and in urgent need of
assistance, lacking the resources to support basic needs,
including adequate shelter, food, or medical care;
Whereas the Washington and Prague conferences on Holocaust-
era assets should not be the last opportunity for the
international

[[Page 10822]]

community to address property restitution at the highest
level;
Whereas the European Shoah Legacy Institute will hold an
Immoveable Property Review Conference in late November 2012
in Prague to review compliance with the Terezin Declaration
as well as the document entitled ``Guidelines and Best
Practices for the Restitution and Compensation of Immovable
(Real) Property Confiscated or Otherwise Wrongfully Seized by
the Nazis, Fascists and Their Collaborators during the
Holocaust (Shoah) Era between 1933-1945, Including the Period
of World War II'', which 43 countries adopted following the
Prague Conference; and
Whereas, although those documents are not legally binding,
the governments of all countries bear a moral responsibility
to uphold and defend the plight and dignity of Holocaust
survivors, ensure their well-being, and respond to their
social needs: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) recognizes the unmet needs of many Holocaust survivors
and the urgency of addressing those needs;
(2) appreciates the efforts of the governments of countries
in Europe that have enacted and implemented legislation for
the restitution of or compensation for private, communal, and
religious property wrongly confiscated during the Nazi or
Communist eras;
(3) welcomes the efforts of the governments of many post-
Communist countries to address complex and difficult
questions relating to the status of wrongly confiscated
property;
(4) urges each government that has not already done so to
complete the process of adopting and implementing necessary
and proper legislation to effect the in rem return of or the
payment of compensation for wrongly confiscated property;
(5) calls on each government to establish restitution and
compensation schemes in a simple, transparent, and timely
manner to provide a real benefit to those who suffered from
the unjust confiscation of their property; and
(6) calls on the Secretary of State to issue an updated
report on property restitution in Central and Eastern Europe
that evaluates whether the governments of those countries
have met the basic standards and best practices of the
international community.

____________________

SENATE RESOLUTION 517--CONGRATULATING THE NORTHWESTERN WILDCATS WOMEN'S
LACROSSE TEAM ON WINNING THE 2012 NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION DIVISION I WOMEN'S LACROSSE CHAMPIONSHIP

Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Mr. Kirk) submitted the following
resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary:

S. Res. 517

Whereas, on May 27, 2012, the Northwestern Wildcats Women's
Lacrosse Team (referred to in this preamble as the
``Wildcats'') won the National Collegiate Athletic
Association Division I Women's Lacrosse Championship;
Whereas the Wildcats defeated Syracuse University by a
score of 8-6 in the championship game, giving the Wildcats
their 7th victory over the last 8 NCAA Division I Women's
Lacrosse Championships;
Whereas reigning National Player of the Year Shannon Smith
had 2 goals and 2 assists in the championship game;
Whereas 2012 National Player of the Year Finalist Taylor
Thornton scored the game-winning goal;
Whereas Northwestern University established their first
women's lacrosse team in 1982, playing in the NCAA tournament
5 times before the team was disbanded in 1992 due to budget
cuts;
Whereas, in 2002, Northwestern University revived the
women's lacrosse team and hired former University of Maryland
player Kelly Amonte Hiller as head coach;
Whereas, in 2005, the Wildcats went undefeated and won
their first NCAA title;
Whereas, in 2007, the Wildcats joined the University of
Maryland as the only 2 teams to win 3 consecutive NCAA
titles;
Whereas, during their 5-year championship run from 2005 to
2009, the Wildcats were undefeated at home and had a record
of 106 wins and 3 losses;
Whereas the Wildcats won their 6th and 7th NCAA titles in
2011 and 2012;
Whereas, in her final game for the Wildcats, Shannon Smith
was named Most Valuable Player at Championship Weekend for
the second straight year;
Whereas, for seniors like Shannon Smith, the victory on May
27, 2012 was their third NCAA championship;
Whereas, as head coach of the Wildcats, Kelly Amonte Hiller
has a record of 32 wins and only 2 losses in the NCAA
tournament;
Whereas Kelly Amonte Hiller will be inducted into the
United States Lacrosse Hall of Fame for her performance as a
player at the University of Maryland and is just one more
title away from tying her former coach, Cindy Timchal, for
the most NCAA championships;
Whereas, as a college athlete, Kelly Amonte Hiller earned
All-American honors in both Women's Lacrosse and Soccer;
Whereas, as a lacrosse player at the University of
Maryland, Kelly Amonte Hiller was a 4-time All-American and
the school's record holder for career goals (187), assists
(132), and points (319, which is 70 more points than the
second-place holder);
Whereas, for nearly a decade, Kelly Amonte Hiller played
for the United States Women's National Team, leading the
United States to the International Federation of Women's
Lacrosse Associations World Cup titles in 1997 and 2001;
Whereas Kelly Amonte Hiller was named to the Atlantic Coast
Conference 50th Anniversary Women's Lacrosse Team in 2002 and
to the NCAA Division I 25th Anniversary Women's Lacrosse Team
in 2006; and
Whereas the State of Illinois celebrates the Wildcats's
seventh championship and commends the fans, players, and
coaches of all the teams that competed in the 2012 NCAA
Women's Lacrosse Division I Championship; Now, therefore, be
it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) congratulates the Northwestern Wildcats Women's
Lacrosse Team (referred to in this resolution as the
``Wildcats'') on winning the 2012 National Collegiate
Athletic Association Division I Women's Lacrosse
Championship; and
(2) commends the Wildcats players and their fans, as well
as head coach Kelly Amonte Hiller, on winning their seventh
title in the last 8 years.

____________________

SENATE RESOLUTION 518--CONGRATULATING THE SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION
FOR ELECTING REVEREND FRED LUTER, JR., AS THE PRESIDENT OF THE SOUTHERN
BAPTIST CONVENTION, ACKNOWLEDGING REVEREND LUTER'S UNIQUE ROLE AS THE
FIRST AFRICAN-AMERICAN LEADER OF THE SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION, AND
HONORING THE COMMITMENT OF THE SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION TO AN
INCLUSIVE FAITH-BASED COMMUNITY AND SOCIETY

Ms. LANDRIEU submitted the following resolution; which was referred
to the Committee on the Judiciary:

S. Res. 518

Whereas the Southern Baptist Convention formed in 1845 in
Augusta, Georgia, in opposition to the abolition of slavery;
Whereas the Southern Baptist Convention supported racial
segregation for much of the twentieth century;
Whereas the Southern Baptist Convention issued a resolution
stating that the Convention sought to purge itself and
society of all racism in 1978;
Whereas the Southern Baptist Convention issued a resolution
denouncing racism as a deplorable sin in 1995;
Whereas, in 2012, the Southern Baptist Convention is a
cooperative of more than 45,000 churches that seek diligently
to bring about greater racial and ethnic representation at
every level of Southern Baptist institutional life;
Whereas Reverend Fred Luter, Jr., was born on November 11,
1956, in New Orleans, Louisiana;
Whereas Reverend Luter preached his first church sermon in
1983 at the Law Street Baptist Church in New Orleans,
Louisiana;
Whereas Reverend Luter became the pastor of Franklin Avenue
Baptist Church in 1986;
Whereas, under the leadership of Reverend Luter, the
Franklin Avenue Baptist Church community grew from 65 members
in 1986 to more than 7,000 members in 2005;
Whereas the Franklin Avenue Baptist Church was destroyed in
2005 by Hurricane Katrina and lost approximately 2,000
members;
Whereas Reverend Luter, in cooperation with Reverend David
Crosby, found a temporary home for Franklin Avenue Baptist
Church during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina;
Whereas, continuing that spirit of cooperation, Reverend
Crosby nominated Reverend Luter to become president of the
Southern Baptist Convention;
Whereas Reverend Luter was elected to be the first African-
American president of the Southern Baptist Convention on June
19, 2012; and
Whereas the election of Reverend Luter brings great pride
and honor to the membership of the Southern Baptist
Convention: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) congratulates the Southern Baptist Convention for
electing Reverend Fred Luter, Jr., as the president of the
Southern Baptist Convention;
(2) acknowledges Reverend Luter's unique role as the first
African-American leader of the Southern Baptist Convention;
and

[[Page 10823]]

(3) honors the commitment of the Southern Baptist
Convention to an inclusive faith-based community and society.

____________________

SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 51--PROVIDING FOR A CONDITIONAL
ADJOURNMENT OR RECESS OF THE SENATE AND AN ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES

Mr. REID (for himself and Mr. McConnell) submitted the following
concurrent resolution; which was considered and agreed to:

S. Con. Res. 51

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives
concurring), That when the Senate recesses or adjourns on any
day from Friday, June 29, 2012, through Monday, July 2, 2012,
on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by
its Majority Leader or his designee, it stand recessed or
adjourned until 12:00 noon on Monday, July 9, 2012, or such
other time on that day as may be specified by its Majority
Leader or his designee in the motion to recess or adjourn, or
until the time of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of
this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first; and that
when the House adjourns on any legislative day from Friday,
June 29, 2012, through Friday, July 6, 2012, on a motion
offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its
majority leader or his designee, it stand adjourned until
2:00 p.m. on Monday, July 9, 2012, or until the time of any
reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent
resolution, whichever occurs first.
Sec. 2. The Majority Leader of the Senate and the Speaker
of the House, or their respective designees, acting jointly
after consultation with the Minority Leader of the Senate and
the Minority Leader of the House, shall notify the Members of
the Senate and House, respectively, to reassemble at such
place and time as they may designate if, in their opinion,
the public interest shall warrant it.

____________________

AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED AND PROPOSED

SA 2489. Mr. REID (for Mrs. Hutchison (for herself and Mr.
Inhofe)) proposed an amendment to the bill S. 1335, to amend
title 49, United States Code, to provide rights for pilots,
and for other purposes.

____________________

TEXT OF AMENDMENTS

SA 2489. Mr. REID (for Mrs. Hutchison (for herself and Mr. Inhofe))
proposed an amendment to the bill S. 1335, to amend title 49, United
States Code, to provide rights for pilots, and for other purposes; as
follows:

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Pilot's Bill of Rights''.

SEC. 2. FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION ENFORCEMENT
PROCEEDINGS AND ELIMINATION OF DEFERENCE.

(I) describes the facility at which such information is
located; and
(II) identifies the date on which such information was
generated.

(iii) Provision of information to individual.--If the
Administrator receives a request under this subparagraph, the
Administrator shall--

(I) request the contractor to provide the requested
information; and
(II) upon receiving such information, transmitting the
information to the requesting individual in a timely manner.

[[Page 10824]]

(1) In general.--In an appeal filed under subsection (d) in
a United States district court, the district court shall give
full independent review of a denial, suspension, or
revocation ordered by the Administrator, including
substantive independent and expedited review of any decision
by the Administrator to make such order effective
immediately.
(2) Evidence.--A United States district court's review
under paragraph (1) shall include in evidence any record of
the proceeding before the Administrator and any record of the
proceeding before the National Transportation Safety Board,
including hearing testimony, transcripts, exhibits,
decisions, and briefs submitted by the parties.

SEC. 3. NOTICES TO AIRMEN.

SEC. 4. MEDICAL CERTIFICATION.

____________________

NOTICE OF HEARING

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the
information of the Senate and the public that an oversight hearing has
been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
The hearing will be held on Thursday, July 12, 2012, at 9:30 a.m. in
room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.
The purpose of the hearing is to provide oversight on Remediation of
Federal Legacy Wells in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska.
Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may
testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written
testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, 304 Dirksen Senate
Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by email to
Jake_McC[email protected].
For further information, please contact Patricia Beneke (202) 224-
5451 or Jake McCook (202) 224-9313.

____________________

AUTHORITY FOR COMMITTEES TO MEET

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on
Friday, June 29, 2012.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet
during the session of the Senate on Friday, June 29, 2012.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

TEMPORARY SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EXTENSION ACT

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the consideration of H.R. 6064, which was received from the
House and is at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will state the bill by title.
The bill clerk read as follows:

A bill (H.R. 6064) to provide an extension of Federal-aid
highway, highway safety, motor carrier safety, transit, and
other programs funded out of the Highway Trust Fund pending
enactment of a multiyear law reauthorizing such programs.

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be
read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon
the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any
statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (H.R. 6064) was ordered to a third reading, was read the
third time, and passed.

____________________

UNITED STATES-ISRAEL ENHANCED SECURITY COOPERATION ACT OF 2012

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 437, S. 2165.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report the bill by title.

[[Page 10825]]

The bill clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 2165) to enhance strategic cooperation between
the United States and Israel, and for other purposes.

The Senate proceeded to consider the bill which had been reported
from the Committee on Foreign Relations, with an amendment to strike
all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu thereof the following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``United States-Israel
Enhanced Security Cooperation Act of 2012''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Since 1948, United States Presidents and both houses of
Congress, on a bipartisan basis and supported by the American
people, have repeatedly reaffirmed the special bond between
the United States and Israel, based on shared values and
shared interests.
(2) The Middle East is undergoing rapid change, bringing
with it hope for an expansion of democracy but also great
challenges to the national security of the United States and
our allies in the region, particularly to our most important
ally in the region, Israel.
(3) The Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran is
continuing its decades-long pattern of seeking to foment
instability and promote extremism in the Middle East,
particularly in this time of dramatic political transition.
(4) At the same time, the Government of the Islamic
Republic of Iran continues to enrich uranium in defiance of
multiple United Nations Security Council resolutions.
(5) A nuclear-weapons capable Iran would fundamentally
threaten vital United States interests, encourage regional
nuclear proliferation, further empower Iran, the world's
leading state sponsor of terror, and pose a serious and
destabilizing threat to Israel and the region.
(6) Over the past several years, with the assistance of the
Governments of the Islamic Republic of Iran and Syria,
Hizbollah and Hamas have increased their stockpile of
rockets, with more than 60,000 now ready to be fired at
Israel. The Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran
continues to add to its arsenal of ballistic missiles and
cruise missiles, which threaten Iran's neighbors, Israel, and
United States Armed Forces in the region.
(7) As a result, Israel is facing a fundamentally altered
strategic environment.
(8) Pursuant to chapter 5 of title 1 of the Emergency
Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2003 (Public Law
108-11; 117 Stat. 576), the authority to make available loan
guarantees to Israel is currently set to expire on September
30, 2012.

SEC. 3. STATEMENT OF POLICY.

It is the policy of the United States:
(1) To reaffirm our unwavering commitment to the security
of the State of Israel as a Jewish state. As President Barack
Obama stated on December 16, 2011, ``America's commitment and
my commitment to Israel and Israel's security is
unshakeable.'' And as President George W. Bush stated before
the Israeli Knesset on May 15, 2008, on the 60th anniversary
of the founding of the State of Israel, ``The alliance
between our governments is unbreakable, yet the source of our
friendship runs deeper than any treaty.''.
(2) To help the Government of Israel preserve its
qualitative military edge amid rapid and uncertain regional
political transformation.
(3) To veto any one-sided anti-Israel resolutions at the
United Nations Security Council.
(4) To support Israel's inherent right to self-defense.
(5) To pursue avenues to expand cooperation with the
Government of Israel both in defense and across the spectrum
of civilian sectors, including high technology, agriculture,
medicine, health, pharmaceuticals, and energy.
(6) To assist the Government of Israel with its ongoing
efforts to forge a peaceful, negotiated settlement of the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict that results in two states
living side-by-side in peace and security, and to encourage
Israel's neighbors to recognize Israel's right to exist as a
Jewish state.
(7) To encourage further development of advanced technology
programs between the United States and Israel given current
trends and instability in the region.

SEC. 4. UNITED STATES ACTIONS TO ASSIST IN THE DEFENSE OF
ISRAEL AND PROTECT UNITED STATES INTERESTS.

It is the sense of Congress that the United States
Government should take the following actions to assist in the
defense of Israel:
(1) Seek to enhance the capabilities of the Governments of
the United States and Israel to address emerging common
threats, increase security cooperation, and expand joint
military exercises.
(2) Provide the Government of Israel such support as may be
necessary to increase development and production of joint
missile defense systems, particularly such systems that
defend against the urgent threat posed to Israel and United
States forces in the region.
(3) Provide the Government of Israel assistance
specifically for the production and procurement of the Iron
Dome defense system for purposes of intercepting short-range
missiles, rockets, and projectiles launched against Israel.
(4) Provide the Government of Israel defense articles and
defense services through such mechanisms as appropriate, to
include air refueling tankers, missile defense capabilities,
and specialized munitions.
(5) Provide the Government of Israel additional excess
defense articles, as appropriate, in the wake of the
withdrawal of United States forces from Iraq.
(6) Examine ways to strengthen existing and ongoing
efforts, including the Gaza Counter Arms Smuggling
Initiative, aimed at preventing weapons smuggling into Gaza
pursuant to the 2009 agreement following the Israeli
withdrawal from Gaza, as well as measures to protect against
weapons smuggling and terrorist threats from the Sinai
Peninsula.
(7) Offer the Air Force of Israel additional training and
exercise opportunities in the United States to compensate for
Israel's limited air space.
(8) Work to encourage an expanded role for Israel with the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), including an
enhanced presence at NATO headquarters and exercises.
(9) Expand already-close intelligence cooperation,
including satellite intelligence, with Israel.

SEC. 5. ADDITIONAL STEPS TO DEFEND ISRAEL AND PROTECT
AMERICAN INTERESTS.

(a) Extension of War Reserves Stockpile Authority.--
(1) Department of defense appropriations act, 2005.--
Section 12001(d) of the Department of Defense Appropriations
Act, 2005 (Public Law 108-287; 118 Stat. 1011) is amended by
striking ``more than 8 years after'' and inserting ``more
than 10 years after''.
(2) Foreign assistance act of 1961.--Section 514(b)(2)(A)
of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C.
2321h(b)(2)(A)) is amended by striking ``fiscal years 2011
and 2012'' and inserting ``fiscal years 2013 and 2014''.
(b) Extension of Loan Guarantees to Israel.--Chapter 5 of
title I of the Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations
Act, 2003 (Public Law 108-11; 117 Stat. 576) is amended under
the heading ``Loan Guarantees to Israel''--
(1) in the matter preceding the first proviso, by striking
``September 30, 2011'' and inserting ``September 30, 2015'';
and
(2) in the second proviso, by striking ``September 30,
2011'' and inserting ``September 30, 2015''.

SEC. 6. REPORTS REQUIRED.

(a) Report on Israel's Qualitative Military Edge (QME).--
(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to the
Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the
Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives
a report on the status of Israel's qualitative military edge
in light of current trends and instability in the region.
(2) Substitution for quadrennial report.--If submitted
within one year of the date that the first quadrennial report
required by section 201(c)(2) of the Naval Vessel Transfer
Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-429; 22 U.S.C. 2776 note) is due
to be submitted, the report required by paragraph (1) may
substitute for such quadrennial report.
(b) Reports on Other Matters.--Not later than 180 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President
shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a
report on each of the following matters:
(1) Taking into account the Government of Israel's urgent
requirement for F-35 aircraft, actions to improve the process
relating to its purchase of F-35 aircraft, particularly with
respect to cost efficiency and timely delivery.
(2) Efforts to expand cooperation between the United States
and Israel in homeland security, counter-terrorism, maritime
security, energy, cyber-security, and other related areas.
(3) Actions to integrate Israel into the defense of the
Eastern Mediterranean.

SEC. 7. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term
``appropriate congressional committees'' means--
(A) the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on Armed
Services, the Committee on Foreign Relations, and the Select
Committee on Intelligence of the Senate; and
(B) the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on Armed
Services, the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and the Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of
Representatives.
(2) Qualitative military edge.--The term ``qualitative
military edge'' has the meaning given the term in section
36(h)(2) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C.
2776(h)(2)).

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I further ask that the committee-reported
substitute amendment be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be read
the third time; and that the Senate proceed to a voice vote on passage
of the bill, as amended.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
The bill, as amended, was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading
and was read the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the
question is, Shall it pass?
The bill (S. 2165), as amended, was passed.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to
reconsider be laid upon the table, with no

[[Page 10826]]

intervening action or debate and that any statements relating to the
measure be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

DAVID F. WINDER DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS COMMUNITY BASED
OUTPATIENT CLINIC

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Veterans
Affairs Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 3238
and that the Senate proceed to its consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report the bill by title.
The bill clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 3238) to designate the Department of Veterans
Affairs community based outpatient clinic in Mansfield, Ohio,
as the David F. Winder Department of Veterans Affairs
Community Based Outpatient Clinic, and for other purposes.

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be
read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon
the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any
statements related to the measure be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (S. 3238) was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading,
was read the third time, and passed, as follows:

S. 3238

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

SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

Congress makes the following findings:
(1) David F. Winder, was born on August 10, 1946, in
Edinboro, Pennsylvania.
(2) David F. Winder served as a Private First Class in the
United States Army, enlisting in Columbus, Ohio, in 1968. His
service in the Army ended in May 1970.
(3) David F. Winder was awarded the Medal of Honor, the
highest honor in the United States awarded for valor to
members of the Armed Forces, for his actions during the
ambush of his company, on May 13, 1970, in the Republic of
Vietnam for conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk
of his life above and beyond the call of duty as a senior
medical aidman with Company A, 3rd Battalion, 1st Infantry
Regiment, 11th Infantry Brigade, Americal Division.
(4) Unarmed, PFC Winder proceeded to crawl over 100 meters
of open, bullet swept terrain to treat the 2 different
wounded soldiers while suffering 2 serious wounds himself in
the process. He was mortally wounded for the third and final
time when closing to within 30 feet of a third soldier.
(5) PFC Winder was laid to rest in Mansfield Memorial Park.

SEC. 2. DAVID F. WINDER DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
COMMUNITY BASED OUTPATIENT CLINIC.

(a) Designation.--The Department of Veterans Affairs
community based outpatient clinic located in Mansfield, Ohio,
shall after the date of the enactment of this Act be known
and designated as the ``David F. Winder Department of
Veterans Affairs Community Based Outpatient Clinic''.
(b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation,
document, paper, or other record of the United States to the
Department of Veterans Affairs community based outpatient
clinic referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a
reference to the David F. Winder Department of Veterans
Affairs Community Based Outpatient Clinic.

____________________

COMMEMORATING THE 225TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE SIGNING OF THE CONSTITUTION
OF THE UNITED STATES AND RECOGNIZING THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE NATIONAL
SOCIETY OF THE SONS OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION AND THE NATIONAL SOCIETY
DAUGHTERS OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary
Committee be discharged from further consideration of and the Senate
proceed to S. Res. 376.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report the resolution by title.
The bill clerk read as follows:

A resolution (S. Res. 376) commemorating the 225th
anniversary of the signing of the Constitution of the United
States and recognizing the contributions of the National
Society of the Sons of the American Revolution and the
National Society Daughters of the American Revolution, and
for other purposes.

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
resolution.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to,
the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon
the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 376) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:

S. Res. 376

Whereas the American Revolution secured the independence of
the United States of America and made possible the vibrant
system of self-government of the United States;
Whereas the supporters of the American Revolution, through
their vision and determination, enhanced the lives of
countless individuals and made possible the system of equal
justice, limited government, and the rule of law that exists
in the United States;
Whereas the people who fought in the American Revolution
made great sacrifices for their fledgling country;
Whereas the 55 delegates who attended the Constitutional
Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 225 years ago, and
the 39 delegates who signed the Constitution of the United
States at the Constitutional Convention, irrevocably changed
the course of history;
Whereas the Constitution of the United States, a revered
and living document--
(1) provides important rights to every citizen of the
United States;
(2) secures ``the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our
Posterity''; and
(3) sets the standard of democracy for the world;
Whereas the delegates to the Constitutional Convention in
1787 established the imperative precedent of compromise;
Whereas the Constitution and the subsequent 27 amendments
to the Constitution outline the freedoms and the principles
of representative government that are as strong today as they
were on that momentous occasion in 1787;
Whereas September 17, 2012, marks the 225th anniversary of
the signing of the Constitution of the United States, which
is the supreme law of the land and the document by which the
people of the United States govern their great country;
Whereas, to venerate the immeasurable importance of the
Constitution and the day on which the Constitution was
signed, it is essential to continually educate people about,
and celebrate, the principles and legacy of the Founding
Fathers; and
Whereas members of organizations such as the National
Society of the Sons of the American Revolution and the
National Society Daughters of the American Revolution play an
important role in promoting patriotism, preserving the
history of the United States, and educating the public about
the rights and responsibilities of citizenship: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) commemorates the 225th anniversary of the signing of
the Constitution of the United States on September 17, 2012,
and remembers the sacrifices made by the people who made the
signing possible; and
(2) applauds the continuing contributions made by the
members, volunteers, and staff of historical, educational,
and patriotic societies of the United States, such as the
National Society of the Sons of the American Revolution and
the National Society Daughters of the American Revolution, in
promoting patriotism and the values embodied in the
Constitution of the United States.

____________________

PROVIDING FOR USE OF NATIONAL INFANTRY MUSEUM AND SOLDIER CENTER
COMMEMORATIVE COIN SURCHARGES

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the consideration of S. 3363.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The bill clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 3363) to provide for the use of National
Infantry Museum and Soldier Center Commemorative Coin
surcharges, and for other purposes.

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time,
passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any
statements related to this bill be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (S. 3363) was read the third time and passed, as follows:

S. 3363

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

[[Page 10827]]

SECTION 1. NATIONAL INFANTRY MUSEUM AND SOLDIER CENTER
COMMEMORATIVE COIN SURCHARGES.

Section 6(b) of the National Infantry Museum and Soldier
Center Commemorative Coin Act (Public Law 110-357, 122 Stat.
3999) is amended by inserting before the period at the end
the following: ``, and for the retirement of debt associated
with building the existing National Infantry Museum and
Soldier Center.''

____________________

VETERAN SKILLS TO JOBS ACT

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to Calendar No. 439, S. 2239.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The bill clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 2239) to direct the head of each agency to treat
relevant military training as sufficient to satisfy training
or certification requirements for Federal licenses.

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill,
which had been reported from the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs, with an amendment to strike all after the
enacting clause and insert in lieu thereof the following:

S. 2239

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

[SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

[This Act may be cited as the ``Veteran Skills to Jobs Act
of 2012''.

[SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF RELEVANT MILITARY TRAINING AS
SUFFICIENT TO SATISFY TRAINING OR CERTIFICATION
REQUIREMENTS FOR FEDERAL LICENSES.

[The head of each agency (as defined under section 551 of
title 5, United States Code) shall deem an applicant for a
license issued by the agency who has received relevant
training while serving as a member of the Armed Forces, as
determined by the head of the agency, to have satisfied any
training or certification requirements for the license,
unless the head of the agency determines that the training
received by the applicant is substantially different from the
training or certification required for the license.]

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Veteran Skills to Jobs
Act''.

SEC. 2. CONSIDERATION OF RELEVANT MILITARY TRAINING FOR
ISSUANCE OF A FEDERAL LICENSE.

(a) In General.--The head of each Federal licensing
authority shall consider and may accept, in the case of any
individual applying for a license, any relevant training
received by such individual while serving as a member of the
armed forces, for the purpose of satisfying the requirements
for such license.
(b) Definitions.--For purposes of this Act--
(1) the term ``license'' means a license, certification, or
other grant of permission to engage in a particular activity;
(2) the term ``Federal licensing authority'' means a
department, agency, or other entity of the Government having
authority to issue a license;
(3) the term ``armed forces'' has the meaning given such
term by section 2101(2) of title 5, United States Code; and
(4) the term ``Government'' means the Government of the
United States.

SEC. 3. REGULATIONS.

The head of each Federal licensing authority shall--
(1) with respect to any license a licensing authority
grants or is empowered to grant as of the date of enactment
of this Act, prescribe any regulations necessary to carry out
this Act not later than 180 days after such date; and
(2) with respect to any license of a licensing authority
not constituted or not empowered to grant the license as of
the date of enactment of this Act, prescribe any regulations
necessary to carry out this Act not later than 180 days after
the date on which the agency is so constituted or empowered,
as the case may be.

Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported
substitute amendment be agreed to, the bill, as amended, then be read a
third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table,
with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the
bill be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
The bill (S. 2239), as amended, was ordered to be engrossed for a
third reading, was read the third time, and passed.

____________________

MEASURE READ THE FIRST TIME--H.R. 4018

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I understand that H.R. 4018 is at the desk
and is due for its first reading.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read the bill for the first
time.
The bill clerk read as follows:

A bill (H.R. 4018) to improve the Public Safety Officers'
Benefits Program.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I would now ask for a second reading, and I
object to my own request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The bill will be read for
the second time on the next legislative day.

____________________

SIGNING AUTHORITY

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that from Friday,
June 29 through Monday, July 9, the majority leader and Senator Cardin
be authorized to sign duly enrolled bills or joint resolutions.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

APPOINTMENTS AUTHORITY

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding
the upcoming recess or adjournment of the Senate, the President of the
Senate, the President pro tempore, and the majority and minority
leaders be authorized to make appointments to commissions, committees,
boards, conferences, or interparliamentary conferences authorized by
law, by concurrent action of the two Houses, or by order of the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

ORDERS FOR MONDAY, JULY 2 THROUGH MONDAY, JULY 9, 2012

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate
completes its business today, it adjourn and convene for pro forma
sessions only, with no business conducted, on the following dates and
times, and that following each pro forma session, the Senate adjourn
until the next pro forma session: Tuesday, July 3, at 12 p.m.; Friday,
July 6, at 12 p.m.; and that the Senate adjourn on Friday, July 6,
until 2 p.m. on Monday, July 9, unless the Senate has received a
message from the House that it has adopted S. Con. Res. 51, which is
the adjournment resolution; that if the Senate has received such a
message, the Senate adjourn until Monday, July 9, at 2 p.m., under the
provisions of S. Con. Res. 51; that following the prayer and pledge,
the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be
deemed expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for use
later in the day; that the majority leader be recognized and Senators
be permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

PROGRAM

Mr. REID. Mr. President, as previously announced, there will be no
rollcall votes on Monday, July 9. The next rollcall vote will be at
noon on Tuesday, July 10, on the confirmation of the Fowlkes
nomination.

____________________

ADJOURNMENT UNTIL TUESDAY, JULY 3, 2012, AT 12 NOON

Mr. REID. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come
before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the
previous order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate stands adjourned until Tuesday,
July 3, 2012, at 12 p.m., unless the Senate has received a message that
the House has agreed to S. Con. Res. 51, in which case the Senate
stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Monday, July 9, 2012.
Thereupon, the Senate, at 4:04 p.m., adjourned until Tuesday, July 3,
2012, at 12 noon.

____________________

DISCHARGED NOMINATIONS

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION NOMINATIONS
BEGINNING WITH LUCAS D. JOHNSON AND ENDING WITH THERESA A.
MADSEN, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND
APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON FEBRUARY 13, 2012.
COAST GUARD NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH REAR ADMIRAL (LH)
DANIEL B. ABEL AND ENDING WITH REAR ADMIRAL (LH) CHRISTOPHER
J. TOMNEY, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND
APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON MARCH 12, 2012.

[[Page 10828]]

COAST GUARD NOMINATION OF REAR ADM. (LH) JOHN S. WELCH, TO
BE REAR ADMIRAL UPPER HALF.
COAST GUARD NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH JASON A. BOYER AND
ENDING WITH MATTHEW A. PICKARD, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE
RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD ON MARCH 19, 2012.
COAST GUARD NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH RUSSELL E. BOWMAN
AND ENDING WITH MEGHAN K. STEINHAUS, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE
RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD ON MAY 14, 2012.
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION NOMINATIONS
BEGINNING WITH KYLE S. SALLING AND ENDING WITH SHANNON K.
HEFFERAN, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND
APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON JUNE 14, 2012.
DEREK J. MITCHELL, OF CONNECTICUT, TO BE AMBASSADOR
EXTRAORDINARY AND PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA TO THE UNION OF BURMA.
DEBORAH J. JEFFREY, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, TO BE
INSPECTOR GENERAL, CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY
SERVICE.

____________________

CONFIRMATIONS

Executive nominations confirmed by the Senate June 29, 2012:

IN THE AIR FORCE

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

To be general

LT. GEN. HERBERT J. CARLISLE

NATIONAL BOARD FOR EDUCATION SCIENCES

LARRY V. HEDGES, OF ILLINOIS, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE BOARD
OF DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL BOARD FOR EDUCATION SCIENCES FOR
A TERM EXPIRING NOVEMBER 28, 2015.
SUSANNA LOEB, OF CALIFORNIA, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL BOARD FOR EDUCATION SCIENCES FOR A
TERM EXPIRING MARCH 15, 2016.

NATIONAL COUNCIL ON DISABILITY

KAMILAH ONI MARTIN-PROCTOR, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, TO
BE A MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL ON DISABILITY FOR A TERM
EXPIRING SEPTEMBER 17, 2014.
SARA A. GELSER, OF OREGON, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL
COUNCIL ON DISABILITY FOR A TERM EXPIRING SEPTEMBER 17, 2014.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

EDWARD M. ALFORD, OF VIRGINIA, A CAREER MEMBER OF THE
SENIOR FOREIGN SERVICE, CLASS OF MINISTER-COUNSELOR, TO BE
AMBASSADOR EXTRAORDINARY AND PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA TO THE REPUBLIC OF THE GAMBIA.
PETER WILLIAM BODDE, OF MARYLAND, A CAREER MEMBER OF THE
SENIOR FOREIGN SERVICE, CLASS OF MINISTER-COUNSELOR, TO BE
AMBASSADOR EXTRAORDINARY AND PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA TO THE FEDERAL DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF
NEPAL.
PIPER ANNE WIND CAMPBELL, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, A
CAREER MEMBER OF THE SENIOR FOREIGN SERVICE, CLASS OF
COUNSELOR, TO BE AMBASSADOR EXTRAORDINARY AND PLENIPOTENTIARY
OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO MONGOLIA.
DOROTHEA-MARIA ROSEN, OF CALIFORNIA, A CAREER MEMBER OF THE
SENIOR FOREIGN SERVICE, CLASS OF COUNSELOR, TO BE AMBASSADOR
EXTRAORDINARY AND PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA TO THE FEDERATED STATES OF MICRONESIA.
MARK L. ASQUINO, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, A CAREER
MEMBER OF THE SENIOR FOREIGN SERVICE, CLASS OF MINISTER-
COUNSELOR, TO BE AMBASSADOR EXTRAORDINARY AND PLENIPOTENTIARY
OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO THE REPUBLIC OF EQUATORIAL
GUINEA.
MICHELE JEANNE SISON, OF MARYLAND, A CAREER MEMBER OF THE
SENIOR FOREIGN SERVICE, CLASS OF MINISTER-COUNSELOR, TO BE
AMBASSADOR EXTRAORDINARY AND PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA TO THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI
LANKA, AND TO SERVE CONCURRENTLY AND WITHOUT ADDITIONAL
COMPENSATION AS AMBASSADOR EXTRAORDINARY AND PLENIPOTENTIARY
OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO THE REPUBLIC OF MALDIVES.
DOUGLAS M. GRIFFITHS, OF TEXAS, A CAREER MEMBER OF THE
SENIOR FOREIGN SERVICE, CLASS OF MINISTER-COUNSELOR, TO BE
AMBASSADOR EXTRAORDINARY AND PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA TO THE REPUBLIC OF MOZAMBIQUE.
JAY NICHOLAS ANANIA, OF MARYLAND, A CAREER MEMBER OF THE
SENIOR FOREIGN SERVICE, CLASS OF MINISTER-COUNSELOR, TO BE
AMBASSADOR EXTRAORDINARY AND PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA TO THE REPUBLIC OF SURINAME.
SUSAN MARSH ELLIOTT, OF FLORIDA, A CAREER MEMBER OF THE
SENIOR FOREIGN SERVICE, CLASS OF COUNSELOR, TO BE AMBASSADOR
EXTRAORDINARY AND PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA TO THE REPUBLIC OF TAJIKISTAN.
RICHARD L. MORNINGSTAR, OF MASSACHUSETTS, TO BE AMBASSADOR
EXTRAORDINARY AND PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA TO THE REPUBLIC OF AZERBAIJAN.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

PATRICK A. MILES, JR., OF MICHIGAN, TO BE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN FOR THE TERM OF
FOUR YEARS.
JOHN S. LEONARDO, OF ARIZONA, TO BE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA FOR THE TERM OF FOUR YEARS.
JAMIE A. HAINSWORTH, OF RHODE ISLAND, TO BE UNITED STATES
MARSHAL FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND FOR THE TERM OF FOUR
YEARS.

COMMUNITY RELATIONS SERVICE

GRANDE LUM, OF CALIFORNIA, TO BE DIRECTOR, COMMUNITY
RELATIONS SERVICE, FOR A TERM OF FOUR YEARS.

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

KRISTINE L. SVINICKI, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION FOR THE TERM OF FIVE YEARS
EXPIRING JUNE 30, 2017 .
ALLISON M. MACFARLANE, OF MARYLAND, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE TERM
EXPIRING JUNE 30, 2013.

IN THE COAST GUARD

THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE
INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES COAST GUARD UNDER TITLE 14,
U.S.C., SECTION 271:

To be rear admiral upper half

REAR ADMIRAL (LH) DANIEL B. ABEL
REAR ADMIRAL (LH) FREDERICK J. KENNEY, JR.
REAR ADMIRAL (LH) MARSHALL B. LYTLE III
REAR ADMIRAL (LH) FRED M. MIDGETTE
REAR ADMIRAL (LH) KARL L. SCHULTZ
REAR ADMIRAL (LH) CARI B. THOMAS
REAR ADMIRAL (LH) CHRISTOPHER J. TOMNEY
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES COAST GUARD RESERVE TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE
10, U.S.C., SECTION 12203:

To be rear admiral upper half

REAR ADM. (LH) JOHN S. WELCH
COAST GUARD NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH JASON A. BOYER AND
ENDING WITH MATTHEW A. PICKARD, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE
RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD ON MARCH 19, 2012.
COAST GUARD NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH RUSSELL E. BOWMAN
AND ENDING WITH MEGHAN K. STEINHAUS, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE
RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD ON MAY 14, 2012.

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION NOMINATIONS
BEGINNING WITH LUCAS D. JOHNSON AND ENDING WITH THERESA A.
MADSEN, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND
APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON FEBRUARY 13, 2012.
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION NOMINATIONS
BEGINNING WITH KYLE S. SALLING AND ENDING WITH SHANNON K.
HEFFERAN, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND
APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON JUNE 14, 2012.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

DEREK J. MITCHELL, OF CONNECTICUT, TO BE AMBASSADOR
EXTRAORDINARY AND PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA TO THE UNION OF BURMA.

CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE

DEBORAH J. JEFFREY, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, TO BE
INSPECTOR GENERAL, CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY
SERVICE.

[[Page 10829]]

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS
____________________

HONORING BISHOP WILLIAM P. DEVEAUX

______

HON. HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, JR.

of georgia

in the house of representatives

Friday, June 29, 2012

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following
Proclamation:
Whereas, Bishop William P. DeVeaux is celebrating eight years (8) in
leadership this year as the presiding prelate for all of the African
Methodist Episcopal (AME) churches in Georgia and Dr. Patricia Ann
Morris is celebrating eight years as the Episcopal Supervisor, they
have both provided stellar leadership to their church on an
international level; and
Whereas, Bishop and Dr. DeVeaux, under the guidance of God has
pioneered and sustained the African Methodist Episcopal churches in
Georgia, as an instrument in our community that uplifts the spiritual,
physical and mental welfare of our citizens; and
Whereas, this remarkable and tenacious man and virtuous woman of God
give hope to the hopeless, feed the hungry and are a beacon of light to
those in need; and
Whereas, Bishop and Dr. DeVeaux are spiritual warriors, persons of
compassion, fearless leaders and servants to all, but most of all
visionaries who share not only with their Church, but with our District
and the world their passion to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ; and
Whereas, the U.S. Representative of the Fourth District of Georgia
has set aside this day to honor and recognize Bishop and Dr. DeVeaux on
their excellent leadership in Georgia;
Now therefore, I, Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. do hereby proclaim
June 1, 2012 as Bishop William P. DeVeaux and Dr. Patricia Ann Morris
DeVeaux Day in the 4th Congressional District.
Proclaimed, this 1st day of June, 2012.

____________________

IN TRIBUTE TO SERGEANT JOHN ``J.D.'' DAVID MEADOR II

______

HON. JOE WILSON

of south carolina

in the house of representatives

Friday, June 29, 2012

Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, June 20,
2012, Sgt. John ``J.D.'' David Meador II, of Columbia, South Carolina,
was killed in action while serving in the South Carolina Army National
Guard in Afghanistan. Sergeant Meador began his career in service to
our country when he enlisted in the United States Army in 1994. He is a
graduate of Lexington High School and a member of the Lexington County
Sherriff's Department. As a former high school wrestler, Sergeant
Meador enjoyed coaching wrestling at his alma mater, White Knoll High
School, and Irmo High School. He also enjoyed hunting, the outdoors and
carpentry.
Every member of our Armed Forces sacrifices their lives to keep
America and her freedoms safe. Without these sacrifices, America would
not remain the most free and prosperous country in the world.
Specialist Meador paid the ultimate sacrifice and died honorably
protecting these freedoms that we all enjoy.
My thoughts and prayers are with his wife Christy, and their two
daughters, Brianna and Elana, as well as his parents, John and Sharon
Meador. His service to our nation will never be forgotten and we will
always be eternally grateful. As a Guard veteran myself with four sons
currently serving in the military, I particularly appreciate your
extraordinary military family. Freedom is not free.

____________________

HONORING THE CARROLLTON BLACK CEMETERY

______

HON. KENNY MARCHANT

of texas

in the house of representatives

Friday, June 29, 2012

Mr. MARCHANT. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pride and pleasure to
rise today to recognize and commemorate the heritage of the Carrollton
Black Cemetery. Buried beneath its soil are the men and women who
forged the pathway for the Carrollton community. Today we recognize
those who have gone before us, the sacrifices they have made, and the
impact they have had on the lives of today's Carrollton citizens.
In 1850, the first recorded burial in the cemetery was Mary Lamer, an
immigrant from Illinois and the original owner of the property. In
1871, the Carrollton Black Cemetery was established on a forty-acre
sited owned by Mr. Scott Boswell, an early African American Carrollton
farmer. By 1915, Mr. C.B. Baxley purchased the land with a deed
exclusion to keep the cemetery intact. Up until the Civil War, it was
customary to bury slaves on their owner's land. After Emancipation,
freed slaves and their families wished to have their own burial
locations. Unfortunately, the Carrollton Black Cemetery has undergone
flooding from the Trinity River which has caused the loss of many of
its gravestones. In 1981, to preserve the cemetery's history, a fence
was erected around its perimeter. On Saturday, June 23, the cemetery
was identified as a Texas historical site.
The Carrollton Black Cemetery is referred to by many names including
the Carrollton Community Cemetery and the Carrollton Memorial Cemetery.
The record of the Carrollton Black Cemetery reflects the rich history
of the African American community in Carrollton. Many of the people
buried in the Carrollton Black Cemetery were trailblazers of growth,
development, and continued successes in the Carrollton community.
Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to recognize the Carrollton Black
Cemetery for the heritage and history it brings to the 24th District of
Texas. I ask all of my distinguished colleagues to join me in honoring
the Carrollton Black Cemetery and in commending the current citizens
who care for it.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO JOHN JOHNSON

______

HON. WILLIAM L. OWENS

of new york

in the house of representatives

Friday, June 29, 2012

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the career and service
of one of my constituents, John Johnson, President and CEO of Alice
Hyde Medical Center in Malone, New York. John's time as a public
servant in the North Country and hospital administrator reflects an
enduring commitment to our community and to improving the access and
quality of healthcare for the people of Northern New York.
After graduating with a Bachelor's of Science degree from SUNY
Plattsburgh in 1971, John went on to rise through the ranks of the
Franklin County Probation Department to become its Director in 1977. He
later worked as Franklin County Manager in 1984 until he joined Alice
Hyde as an Associate Director in 1990. He soon became the Executive
Vice President of the Acute Care Facility, the Outpatient Health
Center, and the Adjacent Skilled Nursing Facility. John went on to
become President and CEO of Alice Hyde in 1994 where he has served till
recently.
Under John's tenure as President and CEO, the AHMC has established
five health centers and opened cancer, hemodialysis, ambulatory and
orthopedic and rehabilitation centers. In 2009, AHMC was recognized as
the Organization of the Year by the Malone Chamber of Commerce for its
efforts to pursue innovative medicine, growth, and community programs.
I had the privilege to serve with John on the Plattsburgh State
University College Council where he exemplified his community
commitment. While I am saddened by the departure of John as President
and CEO of AHMC, his work will continue to have an impact for years to
come. I congratulate John on his retirement and wish him all the best
in the many years ahead.

[[Page 10830]]

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

______

HON. VICKY HARTZLER

of missouri

in the house of representatives

Friday, June 29, 2012

Mrs. HARTZLER. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, June 28, 2012, I was unable
to vote. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: on rollcall
No. 442, ``yea.''

____________________

IN HONOR OF MIKE SEDELL

______

HON. ELTON GALLEGLY

of california

in the house of representatives

Friday, June 29, 2012

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in honor of my close personal
friend Mike Sedell, who is retiring next week as the City Manager of
the City of Simi Valley, California.
Mike and I have worked together for 33 years. When I was first
elected to the Simi Valley City Council, he was Simi Valley's Deputy
City Manager under then-City Manager Lin Koester. When I was elected to
Congress in 1986, he came to Washington, DC, to serve as my first Chief
of Staff. After three years in Washington, he returned to Simi Valley
as Assistant City Manager, becoming City Manager in 1995.
Mike and I are not just professional associates. We are personal
friends and have continued to be personal friends in the 17 years since
he left my employ. Not a week goes by that we don't connect to discuss
a federal issue, or a local issue, or our respective families.
Mike began working for the people of Simi Valley in 1972 as a
California State University, Northridge, intern and subsequently served
the City in a variety of assigmnents. He first worked as Simi Valley's
Personnel Administrator and Community Services Coordinator, which
included working on the Neighborhood Council Program, the Youth
Council, and Youth Services. In 1975, he was asked to become part of
the City Manager's office.
Once in the City Manager's Office, Mike effectively supervised
several programs, including public affairs, media relations, City
Council/staff relations, governmental affairs, labor relations, transit
system operations, and elections.
When Lin Koester left Simi Valley to become the Chief Administrative
Officer for Ventura County in 1995, the City Council unanimously
appointed Mike as City Manager, a position he has held since.
In addition to serving as Simi Valley's City Manager, Mike
periodically teaches an Intergovernmental Relations Seminar in the
Master's Degree program in Public Administration at Cal State
Northridge, and has served as past Chair of the Board of Directors of
Interface Children and Family Services of Ventura County.
With his contacts developed over the years in both Washington and
Sacramento, Mike is often called upon by Simi Valley, and occasionally
other cities, to assist whenever a legislative or intergovernmental
crisis occurs. Mike also works with Sacramento and Washington
legislators on budget issues affecting Simi Valley and other California
cities, and he has been a key player in developing the final funding
formula for local agencies, and crafting complex intergovernmental
agreements.
His liaison work between the City and The Ronald Reagan Presidential
Library has been instrumental in forming a strong operating bond
between the Library and the City, and Mike was proud to be a member of
the coordinating team that put together the local events for the
funeral of President Reagan.
Mr. Speaker, Mike Sedell has spent a lifetime in public service at
the local and federal level. He has steered the City of Simi Valley
through many difficult times with great success and his expertise is
recognized and sought after by many other government officials. I know
my colleagues join my wife, Janice, and me in thanking Mike for his
lifetime of public service and in wishing our good friends Mike and his
wife, Judie, the best in retirement.

____________________

HONORING BRIAN A. MANN

______

HON. HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON

of georgia

in the house of representatives

Friday, June 29, 2012

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following
proclamation:
Whereas, Brian A. Mann has distinguished himself as an outstanding
researcher in the area of Science from Rockdale Magnet School for
Science and Technology; and
Whereas, Mr. Mann has competed throughout the state of Georgia, the
Nation and internationally; and
Whereas, his research project the ``Piezoelectric Nanogenerators''
received the designation and prestigious ranking of #3 worldwide as a
Bronze medalist this year in Istanbul, Turkey; and
Whereas, he has studied hard, sacrificed much and balanced his life
as a teenager maintaining a high grade point average throughout the
school year; and
Whereas, he is a model student leader with the heart to serve his
community and a drive to one day be the best of the best for his
school, his family and his country; and
Whereas, his boundless energy and enthusiasm has opened
internationally recognized opportunities, helping Fourth District
Congressional students understand that their futures are as limitless
as the skies; and
Whereas, we are grateful for the accomplishments and work of this
outstanding student of honor who define the power of education and
imagination; and
Now therefore, I, Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. do hereby proclaim
June 26, 2012 as Brian A. Mann Day in Georgia's 4th Congressional
District.
Proclaimed, this 26th day of June, 2012.

____________________

IN HONOR OF ANTHONY A. TORRE AND JOHN GALLACHER, PH.D.

______

HON. JOE COURTNEY

of connecticut

in the house of representatives

Friday, June 29, 2012

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the careers of
Dr. John Gallacher and Anthony A. Torre. As they prepare to retire as
the Superintendent and Assistant Superintendent of Schools for the town
of Enfield, respectively, they leave behind a legacy of excellence.
Dr. John Gallacher's passion for education began in 1968, when he
started his career as a sixth grade teacher for the Elmhurst U-205
School District in Elmhurst, Illinois. He moved to Iowa eight years
later to become an Elementary School Principal: first for the Ponora-
Linden Community School District in Panora, Iowa, and then for
Washington and Torrence Schools in Keokuk. Dr. Gallacher continued his
work in Keokuk until 1992, serving as the Instructional Services
Coordinator and the Superintendent of Schools for the district. Having
held a variety of positions within the public school system, Dr.
Gallacher brought an impressive knowledge and diverse set of skills to
Enfield, Connecticut. He has worked as the Superintendent for the past
twenty years, where he earned the reputation of an astute problem
solver and tireless worker.
Like Dr. Gallacher, Anthony Torre served in different facets of
education before becoming an administrator for the Enfield Public
School System. In 1959, he started out a classroom teacher at A.D.
Higgins Junior High School, working for six years before transitioning
to the Chair of the Math Department at Enfield High. Mr. Torre went on
to serve as the school's Assistant Principal and Principal, as well as
the Principal of Enrico Fermi High School in town. He has remained at
his current position of the Assistant Superintendent of Schools for
nearly forty years, playing a key role overseeing the expansion of the
town's High Schools and ensuring that technological advances were
integrated into classrooms.
These two men share nearly 100 years of experience between them that
has been an invaluable asset to the children of Enfield. Both have been
passionate advocates of education and have gone above and beyond the
boundaries of their job description to transform the lives of thousands
of youngsters. They will be missed greatly. I ask my colleagues to join
with me to recognize the exemplary service that Dr. John Gallacher and
Mr. Anthony Torre have provided to Connecticut's children.

____________________

IMPORTANCE OF THE WEATHERIZATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

______

HON. PAUL TONKO

of new york

in the house of representatives

Friday, June 29, 2012

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw our colleagues'
attention to the OP-ED that appeared in Roll Call's online issue on
June 20 authored by Tim Warfield, the Executive Director of the
National Association for

[[Page 10831]]

State Community Services Programs. The OP-ED, which I have included
below, addresses the Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP), our
nation's largest residential energy efficiency program. Energy
efficiency represents one of our greatest opportunities to reduce
energy expenditures for industry, government, and for individual
citizens. Dollars we do not have to spend to heat or cool homes and
buildings are dollars that can be invested elsewhere. Reducing energy
use extends the years we can use non-renewable energy sources and
brings us closer to achieving the goal of energy independence.
Buildings represent a significant proportion of our energy use and
heating and cooling expenditures are a significant portion of household
budgets. At a time when we want to create jobs and lower energy costs
for our constituents, programs like WAP should receive our full
support.
I am disappointed that the Energy and Water Appropriations bill that
we passed earlier did not maintain funding for this important program.
As Mr. Warfield's editorial points out, the funding level in the House
bill will not sustain this important program through 2013. I hope our
colleagues in the other body will do better.

[Special to Roll Call; June 20, 2012]

Warfield: Weatherization Is Effective Investment

(By Tim Warfield)

The Weatherization Assistance Program employs workers in
every state and county in America and has weatherized more
than 7.1 million homes over the past 35 years. Weatherization
has proved its value and is a highly successful and effective
investment in the American workforce--weatherization
improvements funded by the 2009 stimulus law alone created
14,000 new jobs, according to the White House Recovery.gov
website.
Weatherization reduces household energy use by almost 35
percent in the typical weatherized home, allowing families to
use their limited funds for other necessities. The reduction
in energy demand also reduces our nation's reliance on
foreign oil.
The success of a program that brings the threefold benefit
of jobs, household savings and energy conservation is a
powerful argument to sustain and fully fund the program, yet
it still has its opponents on Capitol Hill, where two
Republican House Members have introduced bills to abolish it.
Unfortunately, much of the information that has been
presented as an argument to cut funding is a disingenuous
misrepresentation of facts. Opponents have created the false
impression that remaining stimulus funds will allow the
program to serve just as many households in 2013 as it did
before the program expansion under the 2009 law. This
misstatement occurred again during floor debate recently on
the House Energy and water development appropriations bill.
The argument about ``available funds'' would seem to
demonstrate that the Weatherization Assistance Program can
absorb proposed cuts and still maintain services at a fiscal
2010 level. This characterization is entirely wrong.
Program opponents in the House are taking advantage of the
confusion that arises because the ``program year'' is not the
same as the federal fiscal year. The program year was set
later in the year at the Weatherization Assistance Program's
inception so it wouldn't suffer the disruptive and costly
effects of funding gaps that might result from prolonged
federal budget negotiations.
In most states, the new program year begins in April, and
by that time almost all stimulus funding will be spent.
Nominal amounts will remain in three states, but in the vast
majority the ``available funds'' that program opponents
propose to use for the 2013 program year will already be used
up. Additionally, regular appropriations are similarly
depleted, with the $68 million provided for 2012 being far
below a sustainable level. States have already begun slowing
down operations and eliminating jobs.
The funding levels debated on the Hill threaten the
nationwide network and many states will be hard pressed to
operate a program at all in fiscal 2013. For example, at the
$54 million level in the House-passed bill, Arizona, Hawaii
and Delaware could weatherize about a dozen homes each in
2013, effectively forcing them to halt services. The ripple
effect will disperse a well-trained workforce, reduce
purchases from vendors that provide supplies, leave the
government investment in equipment and vehicles unused, and
leave many families to struggle financially because of high
utility bills.
Rather than dismantling a beneficial and cost-effective
operation that has been successful for 35 years, Congress
should allocate funds to sustain the program at its true pre-
stimulus level of $220 million to $240 million.
We are mindful of the difficult budget choices that face
Congress, but these choices should be made based on facts.
The facts show that the Weatherization Assistance Program
performs a vital role in reducing the burden of high energy
prices on low-income families. The program creates jobs and
strengthens the economy through the purchase of materials and
equipment from the private sector. Each dollar is multiplied
as it flows through our communities.
Congress must restore the program to pre-stimulus levels to
maintain an effective commitment to weatherization, maintain
the trained workforce and provide a much needed economic
boost to a fragile economy. Don't allow distortions of the
facts to put the truly effective 35-year effort that is the
Weatherization Assistance Program in peril.

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

______

HON. JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY

of illinois

in the house of representatives

Friday, June 29, 2012

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 441, 442 I would not
participate in what I strongly believe was an abuse of power by the
majority who, for illegitimate reasons, chose to hold the Attorney
General, Eric Holder, in contempt of Congress. I was against the
rollcall votes.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

____________________

HOME HEALTH COMMUNITY

______

HON. THOMAS J. ROONEY

of florida

in the house of representatives

Friday, June 29, 2012

Mr. ROONEY. Mr. Speaker, America's health care sector is wrought with
waste, fraud and abuse, but the home healthcare industry has proposed
thoughtful reforms that will strengthen program integrity and achieve
substantial savings without burdening beneficiaries.
Among the home health community's proposals are measures to reduce
the abusive use of home health care services in order to eliminate
excessive overpayments, as well as implement initiatives that will
drive innovation and reduce program costs. Other proposed safeguards
achieve savings by screening questionable claims, improving payment
accuracy, and targeting bad actors. The home health care industry's
proposal is a responsible initiative and should be taken into
consideration as Congress continues to address ways to reduce health
care costs and improve patient care.
Home health care is a key source of clinical treatment for millions
of Americans and is meeting complex needs in the most cost-effective,
patient-preferred setting available--patients' own homes.
Unfortunately, some are now advocating the reintroduction of a
copayment for home health services at a time when the industry is
already threatened by arbitrary yearly payment cuts. I believe that the
imposition of a home health care copayment and misguided cuts could
seriously impact Florida's seniors and result in increased Medicare
costs.
The home health community is vital to upholding our commitment to
America's seniors and the millions of beneficiaries who depend on a
meaningful and affordable Medicare program.

____________________

CAL FORMOLO

______

HON. DAN BENISHEK

of michigan

in the house of representatives

Friday, June 29, 2012

Mr. BENISHEK. Mr. Speaker, let it be known that it is an honor and
pleasure to pay tribute to Lieutenant Cal Formolo for his distinguished
military career. Lieutenant Formolo, a native of Iron Mountain,
Michigan, joined the Navy in November 1987, and graduated from basic
training from the Electrician's Mate ``A'' School and Naval Nuclear
Power School. After graduation, he went on to the Nuclear Power
Training Unit (S1W) where he completed prototype training. He remained
in Idaho Falls for a staff instructor tour at the A1W prototype.
In August 1991, Lieutenant Formolo reported to his first ship, the
Ohio Class submarine USS Florida in Bangor, Washington, where he was
assigned to the Electrical Division. During his tour, the USS Florida
completed nine strategic deterrent patrols, and Lieutenant Formolo was
awarded two Battle Efficiency ``E'' awards. He was also selected as the
USS Florida Sailor of the Year in 1996. Leaving the USS Florida,
Lieutenant Formolo served at the Nuclear Power Training Unit in
Ballston Spa, New York. As a First Class Petty Officer, he quickly
qualified as the engineering officer of the watch, and advanced to the
rank of Chief Petty Officer. In December 2000, Lieutenant Formolo
reported to the Los Angeles Class submarine USS Honolulu in Pearl
Harbor, Hawaii, where he completed one Western Pacific Deployment and
two

[[Page 10832]]

Eastern Pacific Deployments. During his tour, the USS Honolulu was
awarded the Battle Efficiency ``E'' Award. Lieutenant Formolo next
reported to the USS John C. Stennis in San Diego, California. As the
ship's reactor controls technical assistant, he was responsible for the
safe operation and maintenance of John C. Stennis's two 500 mega-watt
reactors. He stood watch as Officer of the Deck during a six-month
Western Pacific Deployment. In 2004, Lieutenant Formolo reported aboard
the Naval Submarine Support Center Performance Monitoring Team in
Norfolk, Virginia, as Officer in Charge. He was responsible for
monitoring submarine systems and creating work requests for system
repairs, and was promoted to Lieutenant during this tour.
In January 2007, Lieutenant Formolo reported to Commander Submarine
Squadron Six to perform the duties of the Material Officer and Depot
Availability Coordinator. There he was responsible for the planning and
execution of submarine dry-docking repair periods. After serving in the
U.S. Navy for over 24 years, Lieutenant Formolo retired during this
tour on April 1, 2012. Lieutenant Formolo was awarded the Navy and
Marine Corps Commendation Medals, Navy and Marine Corps Achievement
Medal, Surface Warfare Officer Breast Insignia and Enlisted Submarine
Warfare Breast Insignia. Lieutenant Formolo is currently employed at WE
Energies as an Electric Distribution Controller. He is married to the
former Cheryl Simonson of Benicia, California. They reside in
Kingsford, Michigan, with their son Jacob. On behalf of the citizens of
Michigan's First District, it is my privilege to recognize Cal Formolo
for his service, sacrifice, and continued patriotism.

____________________

MAINE WABANAKI-STATE CHILD WELFARE TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION MANDATE

______

HON. CHELLIE PINGREE

of maine

in the house of representatives

Friday, June 29, 2012

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my gratitude and
best wishes to a coalition doing very important work in my state to
heal injuries of the past and find a better path into the future.
Today, Wabanaki Chiefs, officials, and citizens--along with members
of the Maine Legislature, Truth and Reconciliation Convening Group,
Maine Indian Tribal-State Commission, and Maine's governor--are
gathering to sign the Maine Wabanaki-State Child Welfare Truth and
Reconciliation Mandate.
This historic signing will begin work to seek truth and healing in
how the state child welfare system has treated the families of these
indigenous Maine tribes--including the Houlton Band of Maliseet
Indians, Passamaquoddy Tribe at Motahlunikuk, Passamaquoddy Tribe at
Sipayik, Penobscot Indian Nation, and the Aroostook Band of Micmacs. In
recent decades, these groups have seen their children taken from them
to be placed with non-native families through adoption and foster care.
Through this process, the commission will listen to stories of
families affected by these practices and learn how the loss has
impacted cultures that rely on their children for continued existence.
The goal is not to injure, blame or shame anyone, but to bring these
truths to the open air so they can heal, teach, and prevent future
harm.
I'm so proud to live in a state that is willing to have these
difficult, but crucially important, conversations with a spirit of
honesty and reconciliation. I wish my best to this group and fervently
hope it reaches a successful conclusion.

____________________

HONORING BISHOP DR. STEWART REESE, JR.

______

HON. HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, JR.

of georgia

in the house of representatives

Friday, June 29, 2012

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following
proclamation:
Whereas, Bishop Dr. Stewart Reese, Jr., is celebrating forty three
(43) years in pastoral leadership this year as the founder of Bethesda
Cathedral of the Apostolic Faith, Inc., and has provided stellar
leadership to his church; and
Whereas, Bishop Reese, under the guidance of God has pioneered and
sustained Bethesda Cathedral as an instrument in our community that
uplifts the spiritual, physical and mental welfare of our citizens; and
Whereas, this remarkable and tenacious man of God has given hope to
the hopeless and is a beacon of light to those in need; and
Whereas, Bishop Reese is a spiritual warrior, a man of compassion, a
fearless leader and a servant to all, but most of all a visionary who
has shared not only with his Church, but with our District and the
nation his passion to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ; and
Whereas, the U.S. Representative of the Fourth District of Georgia
has set aside this day to honor and recognize Bishop Reese, as he
celebrates forty three years in pastoral leadership on this the
Founder's Day of Bethesda Cathedral of the Apostolic Faith;
Now Therefore, I, Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. do hereby proclaim
June 3, 2012 as Bishop Dr. Stewart Reese, Jr. Day in the 4th
Congressional District.
Proclaimed, this 3rd day of June, 2012.

____________________

THE WIPA AND PABSS CONTINUATION OF SERVICES ACT OF 2012

______

HON. XAVIER BECERRA

of california

in the house of representatives

Friday, June 29, 2012

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing, along with my
colleagues, the ``WIPA and PABSS Continuation of Services Act of
2012,'' which would support Americans with severe disabilities who want
to attempt to work and potentially reduce their need for Social
Security Disability Insurance (DI) and Supplemental Security Income
(SSI) disability benefits. It does so by ensuring the continuation of
two important community-based programs that assist individuals who wish
to transition off of benefits by seeking and maintaining paid
employment.
These programs have in the past been extended with overwhelming
bipartisan support. Unfortunately, due to lack of action by the
majority, the programs are today on the verge of expiring, and
disability beneficiaries who want to try to work will be without the
assistance they need to move ahead. We have worked extensively to find
another solution, but we have reached an impasse.
I have received many letters, calls and emails of support for
extending WIPA and PABSS. I'd like to submit three of these for
inclusion in the Congressional Record--the endorsements of the bill by
the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities Task Force on Social
Security, the National Disability Rights Network, and Easter Seals.
Helping individuals with disabilities who want to return to work
should not be a partisan issue. I encourage all Members to join me in
support of this legislation, and I hope we can move forward promptly,
so Americans who are disabled are not denied the support they need to
return to work.
More detailed information about WIPA and PABBS, and a description of
the bill, follows.

``Work Incentives Planning and Assistance'' (WIPA)

When Congress passed the Ticket to Work Act in 1999, we recognized
that beneficiaries needed help in navigating the work rules for DI and
SSI recipients, which can seem like a complex maze. The Social Security
Administration (SSA) lacked and still lacks the resources to be able to
provide the kind of individualized assistance beneficiaries often need
in order to use the work incentives. Moreover, Congress recognized that
beneficiaries may be reluctant to discuss with SSA their interest in
trying to work despite the obstacles, out of fear that they may lose
their benefits even if their attempt to work fails. WIPA was created to
fill this vacuum.
WIPA funds community-based programs through which trained benefit
counselors help beneficiaries understand how to use the SSA work
incentives. These counselors help people with disabilities in a number
of ways:
They provide basic information on how disability beneficiaries can
test out their ability to obtain and sustain employment, using work
incentive provisions in DI, SSI and other programs to transition off of
benefits.
They provide intensive, individualized guidance on the operation of
these complex benefit rules and help beneficiaries report their
earnings to SSA.
Their guidance helps reduce the likelihood of overpayments and
increase beneficiaries' confidence that their attempt to work will not
risk a catastrophic loss of basic economic security.
Recognizing the reality that SSA cannot always adjust benefit
payments quickly in light of an individual's earnings, WIPA staff also
counsel clients to set aside any overpaid benefits so that they are
prepared to repay the overpayment once SSA processes their case.
Since their inception in 2000, WIPA programs have served nearly half
a million SSA beneficiaries. SSA currently funds 140 WIPA grantees,
using $23 million included in its overall annual operating budget.
However,

[[Page 10833]]

funding for more than half of the WIPA programs will expire on June 30,
2012, unless Congress or SSA is able to extend them.

``Protection and Advocacy for Beneficiaries of Social Security''
(PABSS)

During consideration of the Ticket to Work Act, Congress also
recognized that Americans with disabilities who can work may need legal
advocacy in order to be able to obtain a job or maintain employment, so
that they eventually won't need disability benefits. The PABSS program
was established to assist such Americans.
PABSS organizations provide a wide range of services in support of
work by persons with disabilities:
An individual with an intellectual disability was told that the job-
coach assistance that enabled her to work would be terminated. Her
local PABSS program intervened and the client was able to maintain her
employment.
A blind individual had accommodations in place at work, but a
software change at his company made it impossible to use them to
perform his job. The PABSS office helped the employer upgrade the
accommodations and worked with the Commission for the Blind to split
the cost.
An individual with muscular dystrophy who lived in a rural area
needed car repairs so he could get to his job. PABSS helped him resolve
the issue with his warranty company so that his car could be repaired
and he could keep his job.
A disabled individual was able to drive a taxi, but needed prompt
payment of his past-due DI benefits in order to purchase a vehicle.
PABSS helped the client obtain his past-due benefits, and he was able
to purchase the cab.
PABSS operates through the protection and advocacy agencies in each
state and territory. Since its inception, PABSS has assisted more than
80,000 individuals. The $7 million annual cost is included in SSA's
annual operating budget. Funding for PABSS expires September 30, 2012.

Status of WIPA and PABSS

Both programs are permanently authorized, and SSA uses its annual
appropriation for the agency's overall operating expenses to fund the
grantees. To reinforce and clarify the underlying law, Congress has
several times adopted legislation, with overwhelming bipartisan
support, to extend SSA's specific authorization to use already-
appropriated operating budget funds. However, in the 112th Congress,
the majority has not been able to pass an extension and has not
introduced any legislation on this topic.
We have been working to find an administrative solution, since the
programs are permanently authorized in statute, but the issues are
complicated. The simplest way to address the problem is to pass
legislation.

The WIPA and PABSS Continuation of Services Act of 2012

The legislation would clarify the existing law by removing any
ambiguity about SSA's authority to continue WIPA and PABSS grants. The
bill removes a conflicting provision from the statute that authorized a
particular amount and time frame for funding of the WIPA and PABSS
programs. It leaves in place the underlying provisions that permanently
establish the two programs, including the standing authorization for
SSA to use its annual operating budget to fund them.
I urge all Members to support this legislation. I hope that Congress
will act promptly so that we can keep these programs in operation and
continue to serve Americans with disabilities.

National Disability Rights

Network,

June 27, 2012.
Hon. Xavier Becerra,
Ranking Member, House Ways and Means Social Security
Subcommittee, Washington, DC.
Dear Ranking Member Becerra: On behalf of the National
Disability Rights Network (NDRN), and the 57 Protection and
Advocacy (P&A) agencies we represent in every state and
territory, I write to express our strong support for the
``WIPA and PABSS Continuation of Services Act of 2012'' that
you are introducing.
NDRN is the national membership association for the fifty-
seven P&A agencies that run the Protection and Advocacy for
Beneficiaries of Social Security (PABSS) program in every
state, the District of Columbia, and all U.S. territories.
Collectively, the P&A Network is the largest provider of
legally-based advocacy services for persons with disabilities
in the United States. NDRN strives to promote a society where
people with disabilities have equality of opportunity and are
able to participate fully in community life (including
employment) by exercising informed choice and self-
determination.
Every year, the PABSS program and the Work Incentives
Planning and Assistance (WIPA) program help thousands of
people with disabilities enter or stay in the workforce, and
to progress towards independence and economic self-
sufficiency. Ensuring that these programs continue is
critical to addressing the high unemployment and low labor
participation rates for people with disabilities in this
country, while simultaneously helping beneficiaries of Social
Security disability benefits attain economic self-
sufficiency.
The PABSS program was created in 1999 as part of the Ticket
to Work and Work Incentives Act to protect the rights of
beneficiaries as they attempt to go to work. PABSS provides a
wide range of services to Social Security beneficiaries. This
includes information and advice about obtaining vocational
rehabilitation and employment services, information and
referral services on work incentives, and advocacy or other
legal services that a beneficiary needs to secure, maintain,
or regain gainful employment. Advocates funded by PABSS can
investigate and advocate to remedy complaints of employment
discrimination and other civil and legal rights violations.
These advocates also address deficiencies in entities
providing employment supports and services to beneficiaries.
Authorization for both the PABSS and WIPA programs expired
on September 30, 2011. Fortunately, the Social Security
Administration (SSA) was able to set aside funding to sustain
the WIPA program until June 30, 2012, and the PABSS program
until September 30, 2012. However, without the passage of a
new authorization bill, like your legislation, the Social
Security Administration says that the funding for these
programs will end, which will cause many Social Security
recipients to go without services to help them return to
work. Additionally, layoffs and long-term disruptions to the
ability of grantees to provide these services will occur with
the loss of experienced personnel.
Failure to reauthorize these programs will mean that the
following success story, which repeats around the country
every day, will no longer be able to occur:
PABSS staff represented a 57-year-old female and SSDI
beneficiary, diagnosed with bilateral blindness and
orthopedic disabilities. She had not been employed since
losing her eyesight several years ago. She sought to return
to work, and applied for services from the Division of
Vocational Rehabilitation (DVR). DVR took her application,
disregarded her statutory presumptive eligibility, and sent
her a letter stating that she was ineligible for DVR services
because of ``transferable job skills.'' As a direct result of
PABSS advocacy, DVR reopened this woman's case, found her
presumptively eligible, conducted an appropriate
Comprehensive Assessment of Rehabilitation Needs, and
negotiated with her former employer to allow her to return to
her previous job. As a result, this woman has returned to the
workforce.
Examples, such as the above story, demonstrate that losing
the PABSS program will hurt efforts to encourage people with
disabilities to return to work, which in turn leads to
further depletion of the Social Security Disability trust
fund.
Again, thank you for introducing the ``WIPA and PABSS
Continuation of Services Act of 2012.'' We look forward to
working with you and your colleagues to enact this important
legislation into law.
Sincerely,
Curt Decker,
Executive Director.
____

Consortium for Citizens

With Disabilities,

June 28, 2012.
Hon. Xavier Becerra,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Social Security of the
Committee on Ways and Means, Washington, DC.
Dear Ranking Member Becerra: The undersigned Co-Chairs of
the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities (CCD)
Employment and Training and Social Security Task Forces are
writing to thank you and express our strong support for the
bill you are introducing to ensure the continuation of
services under the Work Incentives Planning and Assistance
(WIPA) program and the Protection and Advocacy for
Beneficiaries of Social Security (PABSS) program. These two
critically important programs help beneficiaries of the
Social Security disability programs navigate the complex
program rules and work incentives and attain economic self-
sufficiency. The PABSS program was created in 1999 to protect
the rights of beneficiaries as they attempt to go to work.
The WIPA program funds Community Work Incentive Coordinators
who help beneficiaries understand their options if they
choose to return to work. Without congressional action, these
programs will run out of funding soon causing many Social
Security disability beneficiaries to go without services to
help them return to work.
As you know, both WIPA and PABSS are vital to help Social
Security Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security
Income beneficiaries who wish to return to the workforce.
WIPA grants go to local non-profits and other agencies to
support outreach, education and benefits planning. WIPA
grantees inform beneficiaries on the impact that employment
will have on their disability income and medical coverage,
and address

[[Page 10834]]

many of the real fears that individuals have about going to
work at the risk of losing health coverage.
PABSS provides a wide range of services to Social Security
beneficiaries. This includes information and advice about
obtaining vocational rehabilitation and employment services,
information and referral services on work incentives, and
advocacy or other legal services that a beneficiary needs to
secure, maintain, or regain gainful employment. Advocates
funded by PABSS can investigate and advocate to remedy
complaints of employment discrimination and other civil and
legal rights violations, and to address deficiencies in
entities providing employment supports and services to
beneficiaries.
Thank you for your leadership in continuing the WIPA and
PABSS programs. We thoroughly support the continuation of
these vital programs for people with disabilities.
Sincerely,
Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities Employment &
Training Task Force Co-Chairs:
Alicia Epstein,
NISH.
Susan Goodman,
National Down Syndrome Congress.
Charles Harles,
Inter-National Association of Business Industry and
Rehabilitation (I-NABIR).
Susan Prokop,
Paralyzed Veterans of America.
Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities Social Security
Task Force Co-Chairs:
Jeanne Morin,
National Association of Disability Representatives.
TJ Sutcliffe,
The Arc of United States
Ethel Zelenske,
National Association of Social Security Claimants'
Representatives.
____

Easter Seals,

Washington, DC, June 27, 2012.
Hon. Xavier Becerra,
Ranking Member, Social Security Subcommittee, Committee on
Ways and Means, Washington, DC.
Dear Ranking Member Becerra: I am writing in support of
your legislative efforts to continue the Work Incentives
Planning and Assistance (WIPA) and Protection and Advocacy
for Beneficiaries of Social Security (PABSS) programs at the
Social Security Administration (SSA).
WIPA and PABSS provide Social Security beneficiaries with
disabilities with access to reliable work incentive and
benefits information that can help lead to increased
employment and decreased reliability on public benefits. Four
Easter Seals affiliates provide work and benefits counseling
through WIPA to veterans, transition-to-work aged youth, and
other Social Security beneficiaries who are interested in
entering or returning to the workforce. Through the WIPA
program, Easter Seals affiliates have helped thousands of
individuals across the country, including many who are now
working, paying taxes and improving their futures.
SSA has taken steps to wind down these programs by
informing current WIPA and PABSS grantees to stop taking new
clients and to finish their work with existing clients.
Service disruption will further discourage beneficiaries from
working--the very problem these programs were designed by
Congress to address. In addition, gaps in service will result
in the loss of experienced work incentive staff members that
are specially trained on the complexities of the current work
incentive system and rules. Shutting down and reopening WIPA
services will cost far more in terms of dollars and lost
expertise than a simple continuation. While Easter Seals
believes SSA has the authority and funding to continue WIPA
and PABSS through the end of fiscal year 2012, we strongly
support your legislative fix to make it absolutely clear and
to avoid future shutdowns of these programs.
Easter Seals applauds your efforts to continue these
important programs for people with disabilities. We look
forward to working with you to move the bill through the
legislative process.
Sincerely,
Katy Beh Neas,
Senior Vice President, Government Relations.

____________________

IN TRIBUTE TO CAPTAIN RYAN RAWL

______

HON. JOE WILSON

of south carolina

in the house of representatives

Friday, June 29, 2012

Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, June 20,
2012, Captain Ryan Rawl, of Lexington, South Carolina, was killed in
action while serving in the South Carolina Army National Guard in
Afghanistan. Captain Rawl is a graduate of Lexington High School in
2000. After graduating from high school, Captain Rawl furthered his
education and graduated from The Citadel in 2004 with a major in
Criminal Justice before joining the South Carolina National Guard in
2006. While in college, Captain Rawl received an award for his
outstanding service on the school's Honor Court and enjoyed leading
underclassmen in Bible study. Captain Rawl joined the National Guard in
2006. Since his active duty deployment, Captain Rawl has received
numerous decorations and honors including The Bronze Star, The Purple
Heart, The Combat Action Badge, The South Carolina Medal of Valor, and
The South Carolina Meritorious Service Medal.
We are able to enjoy our freedoms due to the sacrifices of the brave
men and women serving in our Armed Forces. Captain Rawl paid the
ultimate sacrifice dedicating his life protecting American families and
all of the freedoms we hold so dear.
My thoughts and prayers are with wife, Katherine, and their two young
children, Callie and Caleb, as well as his parents Stanley and Diane
Rawl. As a Guard veteran myself with four sons currently serving in the
military, I particularly appreciate your extraordinary military family.
Freedom is not free.

____________________

IN CELEBRATION OF THE 25TH CHURCH ANNIVERSARY OF REVEREND DAVID L.
STANLEY, SR.

______

HON. SANFORD D. BISHOP, JR.

of georgia

in the house of representatives

Friday, June 29, 2012

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to extend my
personal congratulations to the Reverend David L. Stanley, the beloved
pastor of Union Baptist Church in Macon, Georgia, who will be
celebrating 25 years at this wonderful church. On Sunday, July 8, 2012,
he will be honored by his congregation at Union Baptist Church for this
important milestone.
Rev. Stanley, the second youngest of five children, was born to
Charles and Anna Stanley. He grew up in Dublin, Georgia and attended
M.M. Burdell Elementary School and Northeast High School in Macon,
Georgia.
Rev. Stanley went on to receive a Certificate of Diploma in Old and
New Testament Studies from Moody Bible College. He also obtained a
Bachelor of Arts degree in Biblical Studies from Carolina University in
Lincolnton, North Carolina. However, Rev. Stanley's studies have not
concluded as he strives to continue to understand and keep abreast of
the Word of God.
Before becoming pastor of Union Baptist Church, Rev. Stanley served
as a Sunday School teacher, Assistant Superintendent and
Superintendent. He received God's call to the ministry in 1985 and
accepted pastoral duties at Union Baptist Church two years later in
1987.
Union Baptist Church has had an enduring history. After relocating
many times since the church was founded in 1893, a church at the
present site was built in 1963. Many improvements and additions have
been made since then and groundbreaking for the new edifice was held on
November 27, 1999, during Rev. Stanley's tenure. Two years later, on
April 1, 2001, the new sanctuary was unveiled and dedicated to the
Lord.
Under Rev. Stanley's leadership, Union Baptist Church has grown not
only in size, but also in faith. Always pressing towards the mark for
the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus, in order to
better improve the craft of Christian discipleship, Rev. Stanley's
philosophy emphasizes the importance of instructing his flock and
others in becoming more knowledgeable about God's Word. Putting his
philosophy into action, he implemented the Union Baptist Non-Accredited
Bible School to enhance regular Bible study among members of his
congregation and the community.
As a servant of God, Rev. Stanley is also a servant of others. He has
received a ``Key to the City'' for his community work. Always
endeavoring to motivate others, he was chosen as one of Macon's Most
Inspirational Speakers by the residents of the city. He is also
involved in the Union Baptist Association, the Georgia Baptist
Convention and the Baptist Minister's Union.
Rev. Stanley is a great and inspirational leader, but none of this
would have been possible without the love and support of his wife,
Deborah, and his son, David, Jr.

[[Page 10835]]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me today in congratulating
Reverend David L. Stanley for 25 outstanding years of pastorship at
Union Baptist Church in Macon, Georgia. He has truly implemented the
Word of God in his congregation and in the community. I am profoundly
grateful for his outstanding Christian stewardship and dedication to
his church and family.
Truly to God be the glory!

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

______

HON. LYNN C. WOOLSEY

of california

in the house of representatives

Friday, June 29, 2012

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, on June 28, 2012, I was unavoidably
detained and was unable to record my vote for rollcall No. 438. Had I
been present I would have voted:
Rollcall No. 434: ``yes''--Securing Maritime Activities through Risk-
based Targeting (SMART) for Port Security Act.

____________________

HONORING DR. EDMUND O. SCHWEITZER, III

______

HON. CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS

of washington

in the house of representatives

Friday, June 29, 2012

Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate a
very good friend and constituent, Dr. Edmund O. Schweitzer, III on
receiving the 2012 Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
Medal in Power Engineering.
Truly one of the most inspirational individuals I have ever met, Dr.
Schweitzer is an electrical engineer and President, CEO, and Founder of
Schweitzer Engineering Laboratories in Pullman, Washington. After
growing up in Chicago, he received his bachelor's and master's degrees
in electrical engineering from Purdue University, West Lafayette,
Indiana, and his doctorate from Washington State University, Pullman.
After sharpening his craft at Ohio University and Washington State
University, Dr. Schweitzer founded SEL, Inc. in 1982 in Pullman,
Washington. An IEEE Fellow and member of the U.S. National Academy of
Engineering, Dr. Schweitzer's has more honors and accolades to fully
list, but they include an Alumni Achievement Award from Washington
State University and the Purdue University Outstanding Electrical and
Computer Engineer Award.
Since its founding, SEL has grown into the world's leading power
protection company with over 3,000 employee-owners with facilities in
20 countries around the world. Dr. Schweitzer envisioned the concept of
the ``smart grid'' long before the term was popularized. He recognized
early in his career the importance of computer technology for power
protection and how it could change the field. Dr. Schweitzer's
pioneering inventions and leadership in bringing computer-based methods
to the marketplace starting in the 1980s have revolutionized safety,
reliability and efficiency in generating, transmitting and distributing
electric power and have transformed operation of the power grid.
Much like Benjamin Franklin and many of our nation's greatest
inventors, Dr. Schweitzer was not deterred by early set backs or
conventional wisdom that ran contrary to his transformational vision.
Dr. Schweitzer's innovations have allowed engineers of all backgrounds
to monitor, control and protect power systems in ways not previously
imagined. As an engineer with keen business intellect, Dr. Schweitzer
realized early on that his innovations could revolutionize companies'
bottom line--allowing them to reduce expenses, expand, and create jobs.
The application of Dr. Schweitzer's digital technology as replacement
equipment or in new installations has led to reduced design work in
protection and control systems, flexible operation options and
increased reliability, resulting in reduced cost.
Recently, Speaker John A. Boehner and I had the pleasure of touring
and meeting the newest employee-owners at SEL's headquarters in
Pullman, Washington. The Speaker and I were a touched by the sincerity
and pride each of SEL's employees have in their work--a direct
reflection of Dr. Schweitzer's leadership.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to join me in congratulating
one of America's great innovators and modern day pioneers, Dr. Edmund
O. Schweitzer, III, on receiving the 2012 Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers Medal in Power Engineering.

____________________

HONORING MRS. CAROLYN B. PARKS

______

HON. HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, JR.

of georgia

in the house of representatives

Friday, June 29, 2012

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following
Proclamation:
Whereas, the lives of many have been touched by the life of one--Mrs.
Carolyn B. Parks; and
Whereas, Mrs. Carolyn B. Parks is the District I Vice President of
the American Business Women's Association (ABWA), she has been and
continues to be involved in promoting business and community by
informing, educating and giving support to our citizens in our
District; and
Whereas, this phenomenal woman has shared her time and talents for
the betterment of our community through her tireless works, words of
encouragement and empowerment; and
Whereas, Mrs. Carolyn B. Parks has given DeKalb County and the
Metropolitan Atlanta area, tools that enhance lives, supports our
youth, protect our seniors and promotes our community businesses; and
Whereas, the U.S. Representative of the Fourth District of Georgia
has set aside this day to honor and recognize Mrs. Carolyn B. Parks for
her outstanding leadership and service to our District;
Now therefore, I, Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. do hereby proclaim
July 27, 2012 as Carolyn B. Parks Day in the 4th Congressional District
of Georgia.
Proclaimed, this 27th day of July, 2012.

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

______

HON. TOM REED

of new york

in the house of representatives

Friday, June 29, 2012

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I was detained on June 20, 2012, and was
unable to be on the House floor to vote. Had I been there, I would have
voted as follows:
Rollcall 389: H. Res. 691, On Ordering the Previous Question:
``yes.''
Rollcall 390: H. Res. 691, Rule providing for consideration of H.R.
4480: ``yes.''
Rollcall 391: Walz of Minnesota Motion to Instruct Conferees on H.R.
4348: ``yes.''

____________________

CONGRATULATING LIEUTENANT COMMANDER ZACHARY DANIEL MERRITT

______

HON. TODD RUSSELL PLATTS

of pennsylvania

in the house of representatives

Friday, June 29, 2012

Mr. PLATTS. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to offer my heartiest
congratulations to Lieutenant Commander Zachary Daniel Merritt of the
United States Navy on his recent promotion. This is certainly a
momentous occasion and one worthy of great commendation.
Lieutenant Commander Merritt was born and raised in my hometown of
York, Pennsylvania. He graduated from the Naval Reserves Officer
Training Corps at Penn State University with a Bachelor's Degree in
nuclear engineering. He was commissioned at Penn State in December
2004.
Lieutenant Commander Merritt served his junior officer tour aboard
the U.S.S. Michigan and later served on the faculty of the Naval
Submarine School, where he earned the distinction of ``Instructor of
the Year.'' He currently serves as the Engineer aboard the U.S.S.
Alexandria.
Lieutenant Commander Merritt's outstanding record of service to our
country is certainly worthy of great praise. All Americans are forever
indebted to him and his family for their dedicated service and deep
commitment to our country. I am certain that Lieutenant Commander
Merritt's fellow citizens, family, friends and colleagues join me
congratulating him on his recent promotion.

____________________

IN HONOR OF THE RETIREMENT OF GAIL MILLAR

______

HON. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN

of maryland

in the house of representatives

Friday, June 29, 2012

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, my colleague, Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin, and
I would like to take a moment to recognize the career and the
retirement of Gail Millar, the General Counsel for the House Budget
Committee,

[[Page 10836]]

and to thank her for the service she has provided to not just the
Committee, but to the Congress and the United States of America in a
wide variety of roles. Ms. Millar is retiring after more than three
decades of dedicated service to our Nation as an employee of the
Federal Government.
In 1981, she began her time on Capitol Hill by joining the Senate
Budget Committee under Senator Pete Domenici and became Chief Counsel.
She went from there to the Senate Parliamentarian's Office and stayed
there from 1984 through 1988. After the departure of the Senate
Parliamentarian, Bob Dove, she took on the enormous responsibility in
1987 as First Assistant to the new Parliamentarian, Alan Frumin. He has
characterized her as a ``great colleague, smart, courageous, reliable,
loyal, and tough as nails.''
When she announced that she was leaving the office, Majority Leader
Robert C. Byrd made a personal appeal for her to stay with the Office.
Even so, soon after, Ms. Millar began as an assistant counsel for the
Congressional Budget Office, rising to General Counsel during her stay
there, which lasted from 1989 to 2000. Ms. Millar's area of expertise
was budget scorekeeping and working with budget analysts and program
analysts on budget issues.
She also served from 2000 to 2002 as clerk for the Subcommittee on
Commerce, State, Justice, the Judiciary and Related Agencies at the
House Committee on Appropriations. After that position, she worked from
2002 to 2005 as associate director for budget policy and management in
the Office of Technical Assistance at the Department of the Treasury, a
job in which she and her staff advised governments around the world
about how to put in place budget processes and procedures to advance
their nations.
In 2005, she began serving as Chief Counsel to the Senate Budget
Committee before leaving to work for the House Budget Committee as
General Counsel in 2007.
As Counsel to both the House and Senate Budget Committees, Ms. Millar
has been dedicated to the proper interpretation of the law, the
drafting of bills and amendments, and the development of important
concepts related to those laws.
Throughout her public service, she has fearlessly advocated to
preserve the integrity of the budget process and the principles of the
House and Senate.
For all of the outstanding work she has done in her 32-year career,
her greatest accomplishments and her proudest achievements are her two
children, Joe and Jeanne.
We deeply appreciate Gail Millar's long service to Congress and to
the Executive Branch, which has been manifested in so many ways and in
so many roles. We will truly miss the wisdom that she brings to her
work. We wish her the best in her retirement and in her new opportunity
to spend more time with her family and friends.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO ERNESTINE CORNETT

______

HON. HAROLD ROGERS

of kentucky

in the house of representatives

Friday, June 29, 2012

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to
Ernestine Cornett, in honor of her retirement after dedicating nearly
30 years to WYMT-TV, a CBS-affiliate in Hazard, Kentucky, providing
continuous news coverage and serving as a tireless ambassador for
southern and eastern Kentucky.
With Ernestine Cornett at the helm of WYMT as General Manager,
hundreds of thousands of families gained access to local, live-remote
news coverage in southern and eastern Kentucky with the station's first
satellite truck. Over the years, WYMT-TV has also answered the call for
more than news coverage. To promote higher attainment rates for college
degrees, Ernestine led the way for thousands of students in the region
to gain access to college scholarships through fundraising efforts by
the station. In the midst of flooding, tornadoes and other natural
disasters, the station has provided staff and airtime for numerous
telethons to raise money to give back to families and communities in
dire need. During the holidays, WYMT also promotes food and donation
drives to make sure the less fortunate have something to celebrate.
Ernestine Cornett is also a model for women in business in rural
communities. Starting in the commercial traffic department at WYMT more
than two decades ago, Ernestine worked her way up the ladder to general
manager in 1990 through her loyalty to the region, integrity in
decision-making, her astute leadership, and pure hard work. The
station's call letters, WYMT, stand for ``We're Your Mountain
Television'' and it's Ernestine's passion for connecting and improving
the region that have served as hallmarks for the station's mission.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring a leader and
dear friend of southern and eastern Kentucky, Ernestine Cornett, on her
retirement. My wife, Cynthia and I wish Ernestine and her family all
the best in the years to come.

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

______

HON. CAROLYN McCARTHY

of new york

in the house of representatives

Friday, June 29, 2012

Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent for
a vote on June 26th, 2012. Had I been present, I would have voted in
the following manner:
Rollcall No. 416--On Agreeing to the Amendment (Connolly of Virginia
Amendment) ``yes.''

____________________

CONGRATULATING THE MIAMI HEAT

______

HON. FREDERICA S. WILSON

of florida

in the house of representatives

Friday, June 29, 2012

Ms. WILSON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the
Miami Heat on its 2011-2012 National Basketball Association (NBA)
Championship. The Miami Heat's journey to its second championship is a
testament to teamwork and selflessness. In honor of their remarkable
season and leadership in my community, I submit the following poem,
written by Albert Carey Caswell.

THE HEAT IS ON,
FEEL . . . FEEL THE HEAT!
IN HONOR OF THE WORLD CHAMPIONS
THE MIAMI HEAT
THE HEAT IS ON, FEEL . . . FEEL THE HEAT!

(By Albert Carey Caswell)

THUNDER and HEAT!
When two forces of nature so meet!
But only one can so hold that title so very sweet?
As World Champions, as out into a future which so speaks!
Feel . . . Feel The Heat!
``WADE' a minute, your over your head . . . so very deep!
Something so fast and so furious that no one can beat!
Like a Category 5 Hurricane coming at you, up from the beach!
You better get your children inside, because this title is so
out of reach!
Feel! Feel The Heat!
It begins . . . with a little boy with a ball in hand. . .
As into the wee hours of the night he now so stands . . .
Shot after shot, rebound after rebound, as he takes command!
Dreaming that Dream, that once so began!
To walk upon that hardwood, and so see and so feel the crowd
. . .
To play in the NBA, all of those sights and so sounds!
As it all so begins with that first basketball, The Round!
Pee wee leagues, elementary, pick up games, middle and high
school ball!
And just maybe a college so comes to call . . .
And then The Pro's, The Greatest of All!
Oh how I wonder, if all of this Dr. Naismith saw?
And for many, this dream but so gives them that chance!
To leave a life of heartache and poverty, and to so advance!
To go to March Madness, and The Big Dance . . .
And to get an education, and have a life and make future
plans!
And yet still for some, even greater dreams may so advance!
To play in The NBA!
And then the greatest of all of them,
That One Golden Chance!
To be a World Champion,
and wear that crown and ring and so dance!
And so reside at The Top of Round Ball,
oh what a romance!
That of a World Champion, to so take that most lofty stance!
For only a very few will ever be in such a circumstance!

[[Page 10837]]

For these are sheer men of might!
Who fly through the air almost at the speed of light!
Who jump high above those backboards all on game night!
With such catlike reflexes and speed, to the crowds to
ignite!
Even Spider Man could learn lessons from them all about
flight!
The ones who can shoot the eyes out of basket going left or
right!
And who will wear this most hallowed crown, so very bright?
And earn that great title of World Champions, this night!
THUNDER AND HEAT!
When two forces of nature on the hardwood so meet!
Something's got to give, THUNDER AND HEAT!
And after last year's loss they had down graded, The Heat!
But, this year's version . . .
according to The Book of King James, ``hunt it . . . hunt
it'' was ready to compete!
As they took that loss and planted it all in their hearts so
very deep!
As day in and day out they so strived for that title to seek!
AS THE THREE AVENGERS AND THE TEAM,
ALL CAME TOGETHER AT WARP SPEED!
THE BIG THREE, WHAT HELL TRULY CAN BE!
Melding into a perfect storm,
in the NBA to create such havoc, to reek!
Making grown men so weep!
AS IT WAS JUDGEMENT DAY!
AS THIS TIME THEY WERE PLAYING FOR KEEPS!
A New Kid in town, Durant and his Thunder at the OK Corral!
When, The James Gang came riding into town!
Two of the best ball slingers in the NBA to be found!
But they were ambushed in game one, as The Heat went down!
As Dwayne said ``WADE, A MINUTE . . . WADE A MINUTE NOW!''
And King James said, ``its' not OK, we're going to be wearing
that crown!''
And he said, ``you won't get this title sooner, much later
now!
And BOSH, put it into high gear . . . high performance so
now!
As The Heat evened the series,
and cried take me to Miami . . . were heading South!
As it was Mano v Mano,
LeBron and Durant who would so bow?
Even Spider Man wishes he could be like LeBron,
someway . . . or somehow!
Maybe if he goes to his basketball camp,
King James will show him just how!
A question asked, ``did LeBron, really turn that role of
Spider Man down?''
As the next three games, were all so insane . . .
As THE HEAT said feel my pain!
With a wave of DEFENSE, that washed The Thunder out!
As this Hurricane's intensity grew so, and how!
Even the weather channel was forecasting major damage, about!
As they gave The Thunder fair warning to evacuate this town!
As Dwayne was smooth as silk, as he comes from a different
ilk!
Is he from another planet? WOW!
Shooting the eyes out of the basket, up and down the court on
a cloud!
As The Thunder said,
``cape crusaders in the NBA should not be allowed!''
Like Batman and Robin. . . King James and Wade,
The Dynamic Duo said throw in the towel!
Now that's what I'm talking about!
And then throw in THE BOSH, making The Big Three!
IT'S LIKE A BATTLE STAR, HOLY COW!
James, Wade and Bosh have more combined take offs and
landings,
than Miami's airport does so now!
We need an air traffic controller on the court,
to regulate these take offs and landings somehow!
You know, ``Sometimes you get a ``REVEALING''!
Like you never had before!
As they turned UP THE HEAT and LeBron triple doubled,
and went beyond a category 5 to victory insure!
A category, is that what his number 6 on his jersey stands
for?
Ruling, over his Kingdom from baseline to baseline. . .
Something so beautiful and pure!
He'll slam you, he'll jam you, like a vampire make your neck
sore.
As he was a Man For All Seasons, need I say more?
He's a Tour De Force!
As once again MVP once more!
As Miller Time, throwing up three's like he was out of his
mind!
And Shane Battiher would ``Duke it out'',
making threes from the back line!
As they were all giving James, a very Harden time!
As Serge couldn't Iblocka each and every Heat shota he'd
find!
And Westbrook, Miami's D gave him the hook making him whine!
As Mario Charmed them from down town one at a time!
And Udonis U Hasem,
all on defense and rebounds making them hide!
AND WHEN GAME FIVE WAS DONE,
THAT'S HOW THE WEST WAS WON!
AS KING JAMES SAID, THE HEAT IS ON!
STAY OUT OF THE HEAT MY SON!
Even skin block won't protect you, get the job done!
As you looked around,
you saw the tears in The Heat's eyes!
As they had a feeling like they never had before!
A revealing!
As coach Erik Poelstra said, ``I'm so proud of you guys!''
And Riley said, ``Erik, I worship you on high!''
For money can not buy, that feeling of a dream deep down
inside!
That all little boys hearts, one day hope to realize!
Somewhere in America tonight, a little boy stands. . .
shot after shot, rebound after rebound into the night making
plans!
Dreaming that dream, fighting that fight!
WARNING! WARNING! A NATIONAL WEATHER ALERT!
MORE HURRICANES ARE PREDICTED IN THE FUTURE THAT HURT!
MORE NBA CHAMPIONSHIPS ARE COMING FROM THE HEAT!
THE HEAT IS ON, IT'S ON THE COURT, IT'S IN THE SEATS,
IT'S IN THE OCEAN, IT'S IN THE STREETS, ON BISCAYNE BVD
SO SWEET! THE HEAT IS ON, FEEL. . . FEEL THE HEAT!

____________________

HONORING CRYSTAL BROCKINGTON AND JOHNATHAN DAVIS

______

HON. HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, JR.

of georgia

in the house of representatives

Friday, June 29, 2012

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following
Proclamation:
Whereas, Crystal Brockington and Johnathan Davis have distinguished
themselves as an outstanding research team in the area of Science from
Rockdale Magnet School for Science and Technology; and
Whereas, Miss Brockington and Mr. Davis have competed throughout the
state of Georgia, the Nation and internationally; and
Whereas, their research project the ``Optimization of Solar Cells
Using Quantum Dots & Nanofibers'' received the designation and
prestigious ranking of #2 worldwide as a Silver medalist this year in
Istanbul, Turkey; and
Whereas, these students have studied hard, sacrificed much and
balanced their lives as teenagers maintaining high grade point averages
throughout the school year; and
Whereas, they are model student leaders with the heart to serve their
community and a drive to one day be the best of the best for their
school, their family and their country; and
Whereas, their boundless energy and enthusiasm have opened
internationally recognized opportunities, helping Fourth District
Congressional students understand that their futures are as limitless
as the skies; and
Whereas, we are grateful for the accomplishments and work of these
outstanding students of honor who define the power of education and
imagination; and
Now Therefore, I, Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. do hereby proclaim
June 12, 2012 as Crystal Brockington and Johnathan Davis Day in
Georgia's 4th Congressional District.
Proclaimed, this 12th day of June, 2012.

____________________

IN CELEBRATION OF HOWARD E. JEFFERSON'S 75TH BIRTHDAY

______

HON. AL GREEN

of texas

in the house of representatives

Friday, June 29, 2012

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the
75th birthday of a respected community and business leader, Howard
Jefferson. Born in Mississippi, on this day in 1937, Mr. Jefferson rose
from humble beginnings to preeminence in Houston, Texas.
He excelled in school, graduating from Southern University with a
Bachelor of Science degree in Chemistry. In 1962, he was the recipient
of the prestigious Academic Year Fellowship in Science and Mathematics
from the University of Texas. Mr. Jefferson received a Masters Degree
in Administration and Supervision from the University of Houston in
1967.

[[Page 10838]]

A born scholar and educator, Mr. Jefferson finished his education and
quickly rose to the position of Assistant Superintendent in the Houston
Independent School District, where he supervised over 120 schools and
eight area superintendents. He later retired and went on to become the
Chairman of Protectors Insurance and Financial Services, LLC as well as
the Protectors Health Partners, LLC.
Mr. Jefferson has held leadership positions on various boards and
commissions, including President of the National Association of the
Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), Houston Branch, Vice-Chairman of
the Board of Commissioners of the Houston Housing Authority, Chairman
of the Veterans Advisory Committee, Vice President of the Houston
Principals Association, Vice President of the Mustang Little League
Football Team and Chairman of the Board of Directors of Operation PULL.
He has also been a member of numerous boards and commissions, including
the Harris County Board of Education, Shell Oil Company Diversity
Advisory Board and City of Houston Urban Policy Advisory Board.
Mr. Jefferson's leadership and community service have been
consistently recognized by his colleagues. Amongst other honors, Mr.
Jefferson has received the State of Texas NAACP Heroes Award, the NAACP
Mickey Leland Humanitarian Award, National Baptist Association
Humanitarian Award, Houston Lawyers Association Outstanding Services
Award, Houston Black Fire Fighters Service Award and had a day
pronounced in the city of Houston in his honor by Houston mayor Lee P.
Brown.
Mr. Speaker, I am blessed to have the opportunity to pay tribute to a
man who so selflessly acts as an agent for change and a coalition
builder. He is an exemplar for all those who aspire to selflessly serve
others, and most of all he is a friend.

____________________

CELEBRATING THE ACHIEVEMENTS OF EUGENE SHEA

______

HON. C. W. BILL YOUNG

of florida

in the house of representatives

Friday, June 29, 2012

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I stand today to recognize the
life and achievements of one of my constituents, Eugene Shea of St.
Petersburg, Florida. Now 100 years old, Mr. Shea has been blessed to
have lived such a long life and he has not wasted any part of that
gift. In his youth, he was a world champion speed skater from his
native state of New York. Since moving to St. Petersburg, he has built
a successful career as a real estate agent with Coldwell Banker
Commercial. He continues to work there today. Each day, he sits down at
his desk with his trusted typewriter and phone. He is known for his
hard work and still closes negotiations worth more than a million
dollars. We should all celebrate his century of setting such a fine
example.
This illustration is important for today as our expectations of a
long and fruitful life continue to grow. Mr. Shea, at age 100,
demonstrates for us that it is possible to continue contributing to the
community long after age 65. Working as a real estate agent, Mr. Shea
is often in stressful negotiations. He handles these situations with
the strength of his immense experience and hopes to continue to work at
his typewriter for years to come. I hope that this might inspire others
to believe that they too can continue to live healthy and productive
lives.
For the last century, Mr. Shea has led a life of fine character,
working hard and contributing to the community in my district. His
success and continued work ethic truly represent the best ideals of his
profession and are a source of inspiration for all who meet him. Mr.
Shea is an exceptional example of Pinellas County, the state of Florida
and the United States. I am proud to congratulate Mr. Shea for his
quality and achievements which deserve to be recognized by this chamber
and the country.

____________________

BETH CHAVERIM'S 30TH ANNIVERSARY

______

HON. E. SCOTT RIGELL

of virginia

in the house of representatives

Friday, June 29, 2012

Mr. RIGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to enter a statement into the
Record on behalf of my constituent, Dr. Israel Zoberman. Dr. Zoberman
is the Founding Rabbi of Congregation Beth Chaverim in Virginia Beach,
Virginia. He is also the president of the Hampton Roads Board of Rabbis
and Cantors. Dr. Zoberman asked me to enter the following remarks into
the Record regarding Chanaka. Dr. Zoberman's statement follows:

At the Shabbat morning service, June 30, at 10:30 a.m.,
followed by a festive luncheon, the family of Beth Chaverim
will joyfully celebrate its 30th anniversary which officially
falls on July 2. What a milestone in the history of our young
congregation that has endured and even flourished during
these three eventful decades of accomplishments!
I, a grateful founding rabbi, shall always remember and
cherish the transforming birth of what we affectionately
called, ``the baby.'' Much love and tenderness has been
bestowed upon the fast-growing ``baby,'' remaining the newest
synagogue in the exceptional community of Hampton Roads and
the only Reform Jewish temple in Virginia Beach. The
congregation's name, ``Beth Chaverim,'' was deliberately
chosen to reflect the very essence of what we wanted our
temple to be, an embracing ``House of Friends,'' whose birth
would always be justified by trying harder than others to
create a loving and accepting Jewish home for those choosing
to enter our gates and hearts. Admittedly, we have also
learned that we are only human and that the perfect vision of
our innocent youth was bound to be challenged by a complex
and, at times, trying reality.
It is though beyond doubt that our beloved Beth Chaverim
has generated multiple blessings onto its immediate
congregational family, the larger Jewish community and the
general one with interfaith bonds of historical significance.
For our first three years we were kindly hosted by the now
Heritage United Methodist Church, followed for ten years
(1985-1995) at the most gracious Catholic Church of the
Ascension, at that time the only such Jewish-Catholic
relationship in the world! While at the church I invited in
1993 Muslims to join in the first Jewish-Muslim joint prayer
in Hampton Roads, celebrating the beginning of the Peace
Process in the Middle East. Currently Beth Chaverim is home
to two African American churches, New Jerusalem Ministries
led by Dr. Veronica Coleman and Emmanuel Way of the Cross
Church led by Bishop Fred E. Hill. Another giant
breakthrough! Peace by Piece by Edmarc Hospice For Children
and Jewish Family Service of Tidewater meets here as well,
along with Boy Scouts Troop #488 that we sponsor.
I profoundly thank you, founding president Dr. Jerry and
Paula Levy, and all members of our Founding Generation, for
being such an indispensable part of our noble endeavors and
dreams, making possible our sacred work in progress. Your
faithful participation has nourished and sustained the
miracle called Beth Chaverim, a caring, courageous and
creative congregation! Our remarkable Bingo Bunch has made a
critical contribution. Our inspiring additions in 2006 of the
Marilyn and Marvin Simon Family Sanctuary and the Religious
School wing have made a significant difference, allowing us
to host the notable Yom Ha'Shoah gathering sponsored by the
Holocaust Commission of the United Jewish Federation of
Tidewater.
How appropriate and symbolic that our first ``home-grown''
rabbi, Sam Rose, Lora's son, was ordained on June 4th, 2012
in Cincinnati, Ohio, at my alma mater, the Hebrew Union
College-Jewish Institute of Religion, from which I was
ordained 38 years ago. We are proud of him, his wife Andrea,
Lora and the entire family. Rabbi Rose will serve at Temple
Beth Israel in Austin, Texas, as of July 1st.
A heartfelt Mazal Tov & Le'Chaim--To life for a great past
and even a greater future as we continue to go and grow from
strength to strength. My beloved wife Jennifer, soul-mate and
helpmate, founding rebbitzen, founding president Dr. Jerry
and Paula Levy, president Nate and Janet Rubin, immediate
past-president Chris and Dr. Jim Ohlstein, along with past-
president Dr. Marty and Judi Snyder, join me in offering
heartfelt gratitude on truly a grand Simcha celebration of a
very special ``baby.''

____________________

THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES DECISION ON THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT

______

HON. MARTHA ROBY

of alabama

in the house of representatives

Friday, June 29, 2012

Mrs. ROBY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my deep
disappointment with the recent United States Supreme Court ruling on
June 28, 2012 that upheld the constitutionality of the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA).
The Court's opinion is lengthy and complicated and will require
careful evaluation and review. However, we know that the Court affirmed
the view that President Obama's law represents a significant tax on the
American people, and that it is through the federal government's power
to levy taxes that the Court upheld the law as constitutional.
Mr. Speaker, the Court's legal analysis is dubious and cause for
concern given the dangerous precedent it sets. Can the government

[[Page 10839]]

now require Americans to purchase government-approved goods and
services or else face the threat of a tax? What we do know, however, is
that the Court put restraint on the power of Congress to mandate the
purchase of goods and services under the Commerce Clause of the United
States Constitution.
The Court ruled on the legal issues, not the wisdom of the policy.
The American people have already weighed in and overwhelmingly rejected
this law. As a whole, the law, which the nonpartisan Congressional
Budget Office predicts will cost $1.6 trillion and will result in as
many as 20 million Americans losing their existing health care
coverage, remains deeply unpopular with the public. This is a stark
contrast to the President Obama's repeated promise that, ``if you like
your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.''
The President's law has also proven to be ineffective at reducing the
cost of health care, as it is suffocating small businesses with
overbearing regulations and hampering job creation in a time of
economic uncertainty. Recent estimates indicate that the law will
actually cost 800,000 American jobs, not create 400,000 jobs as Nancy
Pelosi claimed in 2010.
By law, beginning in 2014, employers with more than 50 employees will
be required to offer health insurance coverage or face financial
penalties. In addition, an employer plan must cover a specific set of
services determined by the Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS) and meet actuarial standards laid out in the law. As a result,
employers will be forced to choose whether to meet the new insurance
requirements, pay noncompliance penalties to the Internal Revenue
Service (IRS), or reduce workers' hours so they do not qualify as full-
time. I have heard from several small business owners in my home state
of Alabama, and across the United States, that will have financial
struggles no matter which decision they chose. How can a business owner
provide health insurance to his employees if his business is bankrupt?
We can all agree that the Court's preservation of PPACA's employer
health insurance mandate is costly, to both employers and to their
employees. Rising costs will force employers to consider dropping
health coverage altogether. Recent polls state that 30 percent of
employers will ``definitely'' or ``probably'' stop offering health
insurance after 2014. In the wake of the Court's ruling, employers will
have three options in coming years: maintain coverage and absorb cost
increases, maintain coverage and pass on as many costs as possible to
workers, or drop coverage and pay a penalty. Despite the court's
ruling, I remain committed to working toward the repeal of this harmful
law.
The House of Representatives will vote yet again to repeal the law in
early July and immediately begin deliberate work to replace the law
with free market reforms that truly improve access to quality and
affordable care. Americans and their doctors, not federal bureaucrats
and politicians, are in the best position to determine which health
care options best meet their individual needs.

____________________

300TH ANNIVERSARY OF UWCHLAN TOWNSHIP, CHESTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

______

HON. JIM GERLACH

of pennsylvania

in the house of representatives

Friday, June 29, 2012

Mr. GERLACH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Uwchlan
Township, Chester County, Pennsylvania on its 300th anniversary.
Founded by Welsh Quakers in the late 17th century, the first European
inhabitants called the area ``Uwchlan,'' meaning ``upland'' in Welsh.
In 1712, Uwchlan was established as a township, having grown up around
ancient Native American trails that today are part of South Village
Avenue and Dowlin Forge Road.
Uwchlan existed principally as a rural, farming community well into
the 20th century. The end of World War II brought about new changes as
suburban developments gradually began replacing farms. A census taken
in 1973 counted 6,616 residents, up from about only 500 in 1920. Three
hundred years after its establishment as a township, the most recent
census presents a robust population of 18,088.
While Uwchlan Township has changed a great deal since its
establishment 300 years ago, it still retains much of the charm from
its historic past. Now pre-Revolutionary farmhouses stand in close
proximity to modern business parks. Today, Uwchlan Township and its
citizens continue to make valuable contributions to the quality of the
economic and social life of Chester County while preserving the rich
and storied heritage of their past.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me today in congratulating
Uwchlan Township and its remarkable history on the occasion of its
300th anniversary and to extend best wishes for the Township's
continued prosperity and longevity.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO MRS. LINDA SCRITCHFIELD

______

HON. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO

of west virginia

in the house of representatives

Friday, June 29, 2012

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the
accomplishment of a constituent of mine, Mrs. Linda Scritchfield, and
to praise her 25 years of service as Site Manager for the Ravenswood
Senior Center.
Linda, whose first day as Site Manager was January 1, 1987, will work
her final day on June 29, 2012. When Linda took over the Senior Center,
it was located in an old locks building on the banks of the Ohio River
and offered few activities. Under Linda's guidance, the seniors started
looking for land in order to build a new center. They held multiple
fundraisers, and with the help of Jackson County Commission on Aging,
grants, and the city of Ravenswood, the new center opened in November
1997.
Linda was instrumental in raising funds for the services that the
senior citizens of Ravenswood enjoy. The new center has a dining area,
computer room, billiards room, library, pool area and offices. A
therapeutic pool was opened a few years later. The center also provides
services for veterans along with offering wigs for cancer patients, flu
shot clinics, water aerobics, and open swim classes.
Although Linda has helped the Senior Center make great strides over
the years, Linda says her biggest accomplishments in life are the
personal relationships she formed with the seniors. They have made such
an impact on her life, and she hopes that she has been able to do the
same for them.
I thank Linda for her years of service and Ravenswood is fortunate to
call Linda one of its own.

____________________

IN REMEMBRANCE OF JUDGE PATRICK F. GALLAGHER

______

HON. DENNIS J. KUCINICH

of ohio

in the house of representatives

Friday, June 29, 2012

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in remembrance of Judge
Patrick F. Gallagher, who spent nearly 20 years as a judge for the
Cuyahoga County Domestic Relations Court.
Born on September 1, 1918, Judge Gallagher was raised in the City of
Cleveland. He graduated from St. Ignatius High in 1936. Before
enrolling in college, Judge Gallagher served with the U.S. Army for
four years in England during World War II. He was discharged, having
earned the rank of master sergeant.
Upon returning home, Judge Gallagher graduated from Case Western
Reserve University and earned his law degree from Cleveland Marshall
College of Law. In 1956, he joined the Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court
as a legal consultant. He would eventually become the Juvenile Court's
chief clerk.
Judge Gallagher was first elected as a Judge for Cuyahoga Court
Domestic Relations Court in 1972. He was subsequently reelected for two
additional terms and retired after 18 years on the bench.
I offer my condolences to his wife, Eileen; children, Patrick
(Cynthia), Dr. Michael (Catherine), Dr. Timothy (Lynn), John and
Captain Colleen Gallagher Thomas; grandchildren, Molly (Kevin), Kate,
Mary Catherine, Brian, Kelly, Amy, Jaci, Timothy, Erin, Daniel, Bridget
and Brendan; and great-grandson, Jack.
Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honoring Cuyahoga
County Domestic Relations Court Judge Patrick F. Gallagher.

____________________

COMMENDATION OF GROSSE POINTE SOUTH HIGH SCHOOL GIRLS' TRACK AND FIELD
AND TENNIS TEAMS

______

HON. HANSEN CLARKE

of michigan

in the house of representatives

Friday, June 29, 2012

Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the
Grosse Pointe

[[Page 10840]]

South girls' track and field and tennis teams for being Michigan High
School Athletic Association (MHSAA) Division 1 champions! I am proud of
the Grosse Pointe South athletes' discipline, motivation, and
perseverance.
For the second year in a row, the Grosse Pointe South girls' track
and field team won the Division 1 state championship and demonstrated
the power of friendship and teamwork. Track and field team members
Ersula Farrow, Haley Meier, Hannah Meier, and Kelsie Schwartz beat the
state record in the 3200-meter relay by 17 seconds and set a National
Federation high school track and field record with a time of 8 minutes
and 48.29 seconds. Grosse Pointe South is the only Michigan team to
break the 9-minute barrier in the 3200-meter relay.
The same day, the Grosse Pointe South girls' tennis team won the
highly competitive Division 1 state championship title and finished
with 26 points. Maggie Sweeney won the individual championship at No. 4
singles and Amelia Boccaccio and Carrie Lynch won at No. 2 doubles.
I am honored to recognize the Grosse Pointe South girls' track and
field and tennis teams, their standout athletes, and their dedicated
coaches for their commitment and hard work.

____________________

HONORING L.L. BEAN

______

HON. MICHAEL H. MICHAUD

of maine

in the house of representatives

Friday, June 29, 2012

Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize L.L. Bean on the
occasion of its 100th anniversary.
It was one century ago that Leon Leonwood Bean sent out his first
shipment of Maine hunting shoes. Defects in the shoe's initial design
caused individuals to return 90 pairs of those shoes. Undeterred, Bean
provided the purchasers with full refunds, corrected the design flaws
and set back to work marketing his products. This commitment to
customer satisfaction has been the cornerstone of L.L. Bean's success
throughout the last 100 years. Not only does their customer
satisfaction guarantee remain in effect, but L.L. Bean's store in
Freeport, Maine is still open to visitors 24 hours a day, 365 days a
year.
L.L. Bean has since grown to become a global retail giant. The
company achieved over $1.52 billion in sales last year while providing
over 4,900 full-time jobs. Shoppers can visit any one of the retail or
outlet stores located throughout the United States and Japan, or
purchase quality products online. Despite its success in appealing to
consumers from all over the world, L.L. Bean is beloved for retaining
its uniquely Maine character.
From July 4th to 7th, L.L. Bean will be celebrating its 100th
anniversary with music, parades, and a fireworks display. I am pleased
to be one of the countless individuals throughout Maine who will be
congratulating L.L. Bean, and all of its employees, on achieving this
impressive milestone.
Mr. Speaker, please join me in congratulating L.L. Bean on its
tremendous success over the last 100 years.

____________________

HONORING SENATOR MARGARITA PRENTICE ON HER RETIREMENT FROM THE
WASHINGTON STATE SENATE

______

HON. ADAM SMITH

of washington

in the house of representatives

Friday, June 29, 2012

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Margarita
Prentice as she retires from the Washington State Senate after 24 years
of distinguished public service. Representing Washington's 11th
Legislative District, her constituents included residents of Seattle,
Renton, and SeaTac.
Senator Prentice's voice as a healthcare champion has been invaluable
and has bettered our community. She previously worked as a registered
nurse at Valley Medical Center and in recognition of her career in
public service and leadership, the Emergency Services Tower at Valley
Medical Center is named in her honor.
The Senator's contributions have been recognized by many throughout
the years. She has dedicated countless hours of hard work on behalf of
her constituents in the 11th District and all of Washington State. She
has been recognized as the 2008 Children's Advocate by the Pediatric
Interim Care Center and in 2007 was named by the Community Health Care
Network of Washington as their Health Care Champion. She has also been
named Legislator of the Year by the Washington State Nurses Association
and Washington State Dental Hygienists Association.
Mr. Speaker, it is with respect and great pleasure that I recognize
the work Senator Prentice has done for Washington State's 11th
Legislative District.

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

______

HON. LUIS V. GUTIERREZ

of illinois

in the house of representatives

Friday, June 29, 2012

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent for a vote in
the House chamber on June 21, 2012. Had I been present, I would have
voted ``nay'' on rollcall vote 411.
I was also unavoidably absent in the House Chamber for one vote on
June 26, 2012. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on
rollcall votes 414, 416 and 419 and ``nay'' on rollcall votes 412, 413,
415, 417, 418, 420, 421, 422 and 423.

____________________

HONORING EZEKIEL DEMPSEY

______

HON. HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, JR.

of georgia

in the house of representatives

Friday, June 29, 2012

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following
Proclamation:
Whereas, the birth of Ezekiel Dempsey in the state of North Carolina
in the 1800's began the Dempsey family lineage which has blessed us
with descendants that have helped to shape our nation; and
Whereas, the Dempsey Family has produced many well respected citizens
and the patriarchs and matriarchs of the Dempsey Family are pillars of
strength that have touched many throughout our nation, family members
of the past and present such as Rev. Tom Dempsey, Stephen Dempsey,
William Dempsey, James Dempsey and Sarah Dempsey; and
Whereas, in our beloved Fourth Congressional District of Georgia, we
are honored to have members of the Dempsey family for they are some of
our most beloved citizens in our District; and
Whereas, family is one of the most honored and cherished institutions
in the world, we take pride in knowing that families such as the
Dempsey family have set aside this time to fellowship with each other,
honor one another and to pass along history to each other by meeting at
this year's family reunion in DeKalb County, Georgia; and
Whereas, the U.S. Representative of the Fourth District of Georgia
has set aside this day to honor and recognize the Dempsey family;
Now therefore, I, Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. do hereby proclaim
June 8, 2012 as Dempsey Family Reunion Day in the 4th Congressional
District of Georgia.
Proclaimed, this 8th day of June, 2012.

____________________

THE INTRODUCTION OF THE RACHEL CARSON NATURE TRAIL DESIGNATION ACT OF
2012

______

HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON

of the district of columbia

in the house of representatives

Friday, June 29, 2012

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing the Rachel Carson
Nature Trail Designation Act of 2012 to recognize Rachel Carson, an
environmental pioneer and inspiration for the development of
environmental consciousness and the environmental movement, best known
for her groundbreaking book Silent Spring. September marks the fiftieth
anniversary of the publication of Silent Spring, which has been
translated into more than a dozen foreign languages. My bill designates
a National Park Service trail in the District of Columbia in honor of
Rachel Carson.
Ms. Carson was born on May 27, 1907, on a farm in Springdale,
Pennsylvania, graduated magna cum laude with a biology degree from the
Pennsylvania College for Women (later Chatham College), and received a
full scholarship that enabled her to obtain a master's degree in marine
zoology from Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. A world-renowned
environmental scientist, writer, and educator, Ms. Carson worked as a
writer, editor, and ultimately Editor-in-Chief for the U.S. Department
of Fish and Wildlife Service's publications department.
Ms. Carson lived in a city, not in the wilderness or in rural
America. She accomplished much of her seminal professional work as a
federal employee at the U.S. Department of

[[Page 10841]]

the Interior in the District. She often used the Glover Archbold Park
in the District as a site from which she drew observations about nature
and the environment. She performed research on dangers of pesticides,
and her findings were sustained by the Science Advisory Committee,
created during President John F. Kennedy's administration. As a result,
federal and state legislatures enacted pesticide legislation. Her work
paved the way for groundbreaking environmental protection legislation
throughout the world.
Ms. Carson was inducted into the American Academy of Arts and Letters
and received many other honors. She died on April 14, 1964, in Silver
Spring, Maryland, leaving a rich legacy that will continue to benefit
present and future generations well beyond the fiftieth anniversary of
Silent Spring.
My bill serves to commemorate Rachel Carson for her tireless efforts
to make the District of Columbia, the United States, and, indeed, the
world a better and safer place for us all. The trail designated by the
bill, located in the NPS's Glover Archbold Park in the District of
Columbia, will be known as the ``Rachel Carson Nature Trail.'' The bill
ensures that Rachel Carson's contributions, many of which resulted from
observations in Glover Park, will be remembered and treasured for years
to come.
I strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

____________________

I CANNOT SUPPORT A TAINTED PROCESS

______

HON. DENNIS J. KUCINICH

of ohio

in the house of representatives

Friday, June 29, 2012

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today because I cannot support a
tainted process. Congress generally, and the Oversight and Government
Reform Committee specifically, has the duty and obligation to provide
effective oversight. Congress should not be interrupted in that
process, but neither should that process be sullied.
Under the Constitution, Congress has the authority to compel
testimony and issue subpoenas. When the President of the United States
exercises the right of Executive Privilege and there is a dispute over
whether that exercise is a valid one, the matter should then be
referred to the courts. I have stated this publicly and frequently.
While Congress has the authority to compel the information being
protected by the Presidential exercise of privilege, the process by
which H.R. 706 has been brought to the floor has been tainted.
I voted for the Motion to Refer brought by Congressman John Dingell
which called for a real investigation. The Majority on the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform rejected all Democratic witnesses. They
would not allow Michael Mukasey, former Attorney General, and Kenneth
Melson, former director of the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and
Explosives to testify before the Committee. While Congress has the
authority take this to the courts, it is premature to use this
authority before a full investigation has been conducted.
Secondly, I cannot support the injudicious context in which H.R. 706
finds its way before us today. This could be a meritorious process, but
it has been tainted with partisan vitriol. This takes a fundamental
right of Congress and propels it into a realm of partisan action with
wild charges and abuse of power. There have been charges of
Presidential cover-up, despite the Chairman of the Committee admitting
there is no such evidence.
Both parties should have been able to work this out before we got to
this situation. This is not how Congress should have proceeded. I
cannot dignify a tainted process. I have joined my colleagues in
abstaining from voting, on H.R. 706 as well H.R. 711.

____________________

IN RECOGNITION OF THE LEADERSHIP OF HIGHLAND VILLAGE FIRE DEPARTMENT
CHIEF LONNIE TATUM

______

HON. MICHAEL C. BURGESS

of texas

in the house of representatives

Friday, June 29, 2012

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Highland Village Fire
Department Chief Lonnie Tatum. Chief Tatum has spent over 42 years in
public service; he began his notable career as a Firefighter/Paramedic
for the City of Nacogdoches, advancing through the ranks over the next
32 years serving as Driver/Operator, Lieutenant, Captain and Arson
Investigator. In 2001, he began his ten year tenure as Fire Chief at
the City of Highland Village, Texas.
Chief Tatum is a graduate of the National Fire Academy and attended
St. Edwards University, Angelina College and graduated from Weatherford
College with a degree in Fire Service Administration. He holds Masters
Level Certifications from the Texas Commission on Fire Protection, the
Texas Commission on Law Enforcement and the Texas Department of Public
Safety.
On numerous occasions, he has been recognized for his expertise in
fire administration and personal dedication as a firefighter. Chief
Tatum was chosen by the Angelina College Board of Regents to establish
a Fire Academy and Training Facility at Angelina College in Lufkin,
Texas, serving as Director for five years. He also served as Regional
Faculty for the American Heart Association CPR training program at
Stephen F. Austin University in Nacogdoches, Texas. In 1992, he was
recognized as ``Outstanding Firefighter'' of the year, and in 1994, he
received the department's Medal of Valor.
Under his laudable direction, the Highland Village Fire Department
has expanded from all volunteer to a professional full-time staff
comprised of fifteen Firefighters/Paramedics and additional
administrative personnel. The Highland Village Fire Department has
garnered recognition reflective of Chief Tatum's capable direction; in
2006, the Highland Village Fire Department was awarded an ISO
Classification of 2 and celebrated the grand opening of their new
state-of-the-art Central Fire Station in May 2008.
After a decade as Highland Village Fire Chief, Chief Tatum's bravery
and dedication to the safety and well being of his community will be
greatly missed; his positive contributions will continue long past his
retirement. It is my pleasure to recognize Highland Village Fire Chief
Lonnie Tatum, and I am privileged to represent the City of Highland
Village in the U.S. House of Representatives.

____________________

HONORING THE LIFE AND SERVICE OF NORMAN F. LENT

______

HON. JOHN L. MICA

of florida

in the house of representatives

Friday, June 29, 2012

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and
accomplishments of a statesman and a friend, former Member of Congress
Norman ``Norm'' F. Lent, who passed away on June 11th.
Norm was born March 23, 1931 in Oceanside, NY on Long Island. He
graduated from Hofstra University in 1952 and in 1957 got his law
degree from Cornell University. After serving in the Navy for two years
and achieving the rank of Lieutenant, Norm worked as a lawyer in
private practice in Lynbrook, New York beginning in 1957, and served as
an Associate Police Justice in East Rockaway in 1959-60. He then worked
as the Confidential Law Secretary (law clerk) to New York State Supreme
Court Justice Thomas P. Farley from 1960-62.
After leaving the private sector in 1962, Lent was elected to the New
York State Senate from Nassau County, and served from 1963 until 1970,
when he was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives.
During his long tenure in the U.S. House of Representatives, Norm
served on the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the House
Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, ultimately becoming the
ranking minority member of both committees often being cited as a ``key
player in environmental and energy legislation.''
To Norm's wife Barbara and children, Barbara and Norman we extend our
deepest sympathies.
Norm truly made an indelible mark on our nation and he leaves a proud
and distinguished legacy. Mr. Speaker, I ask all Members of the U.S.
House of Representatives join me in recognizing Norman Lents' years of
service and dedication to his community, state and our Nation.

____________________

HONORING JULIA ANN SNELL

______

HON. HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, JR.

of georgia

in the house of representatives

Friday, June 29, 2012

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following
proclamation:
Whereas, One hundred five years ago a virtuous woman of God was born
in Buena Vista, Alabama on July 1, 1907; and
Whereas, Mrs. Julia Ann Snell was born Julia Ann Holt to Mr. Daniel
and Mrs. Irean Holt, she was educated in the local school

[[Page 10842]]

system in Alabama, married Mr. Tim Wilson in Mobile, Alabama and was a
homemaker and a store clerk at their grocery store until Mr. Wilson
preceded her in death; She later married Mr. Nathaniel Snell and lived
in California until Mr. Snell preceded her in death, after Mr. Snell's
passing, she moved backed to Mobile, Alabama and eventually to Decatur,
Georgia; and
Whereas, this Phenomenal Proverbs 31 woman has shared her time and
talents as a Wife, Sister, Aunt and Motivator, giving the citizens of
Georgia a person of great worth, a fearless leader and a servant to all
who wants to advance the lives of others; and
Whereas, Mrs. Snell has been blessed with a long, happy life, devoted
to God and credits it all to the Will of God; and
Whereas, Mrs. Snell along with her family and friends are celebrating
this day a remarkable milestone, her 105th Birthday, we pause to
acknowledge a woman who is a cornerstone in our community in DeKalb
County, Georgia; and
Whereas, the U.S. Representative of the Fourth District of Georgia
has set aside this day to honor and recognize Mrs. Snell on her
birthday and to wish her well and recognize her for an exemplary life
which is an inspiration to all;
Now therefore, I, Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., do hereby proclaim
July 1, 2012 as Mrs. Julia Ann Snell Day in the 4th Congressional
District of Georgia.
Proclaimed, this 1st day of July, 2012.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO WHEELER COUNTY JUDGE JEANNE BURCH

______

HON. GREG WALDEN

of oregon

in the house of representatives

Friday, June 29, 2012

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker I rise today to recognize the tremendous,
longtime, and diverse public service of a leader who lives and works in
the heart of Oregon's Second District, Wheeler County Judge Jeanne
Burch. Judge Burch has served as Wheeler County Judge since 1994 but
began serving her County long before that. Mr. Speaker, I have enjoyed
working with her and I will miss her service and so will Wheeler
County.
Judge Burch lives in the town of Fossil, the county seat of Wheeler
County which has a total population of around 1,400 people. Wheeler
County is one of Oregon's most geographically diverse counties--it's a
rugged place home to Oregon's most unique John Day Fossil Beds, two
national forests, and the iconic John Day River which runs right
through the middle of it. Judge Burch has seen days when her county has
thrived from the economic benefits generated by the adjacent forests.
And she's been there when things haven't been so good as the forest
sector was forced to a halt and those jobs and benefits disappeared.
Regardless, good times or bad, Judge Burch has been there to lead her
county when they needed her most.
Judge Burch has called Oregon home since 1947. In the early 1950s her
father got a job as a railroad conductor in the region and the family
moved to Wheeler County. Jeanne was a freshman in high school then, but
went on to study at UC-Berkley where she received a degree in
accounting. That is where she met her husband, Howard, who worked for
oil companies as a drilling supervisor. Howard's job took them around
the world--to such places as Nigeria, Iran, Greece, and the Canary
Islands. After living and seeing the world, Jeanne moved back to
Wheeler County to raise her daughters Belinda and Jennifer.
In 1985, Jeanne began working as the Fossil City Recorder and Finance
Director. From there, she was appointed Wheeler County Judge in early
1994. Since then, Judge Burch has been described as a ``one woman
county,'' and it's not hard to see why. She serves as a probate and
juvenile court judge, the county administrator, and chair of the County
Court. In her years of service she has overseen the complete
rehabilitation of the county's courthouse, boosted local tourism, and
opened the door for businesses to create jobs in Wheeler County.
As the Chairman of the Communications and Technology Subcommittee on
the House Energy and Commerce Committee, I am grateful for Judge
Burch's remarkable work on telecommunications issues. As a founding
board member of Frontier TeleNet over ten years ago, she has helped
implement communication services and rural broadband to communities in
Gilliam, Sherman and Wheeler counties. It began as a need for broadband
access and distance learning opportunities to the rural schools in the
three counties. Under Judge Burch's leadership as Chair, Frontier
TeleNet has expanded service coverage from roughly 4,000 square miles
across three counties to 21,000 square miles across nine counties,
bringing with it new ways for medical clinics to help their patients
and a backbone for public safety communications in these rural
counties. Judge Burch understands the important role that modern
communications play in rural isolated communities.
Not only a driving force behind Frontier TeleNet's expansion, she
spearheaded efforts to bring cell phone coverage to Fossil and the
northern portion of Wheeler county, and continues these efforts in
Mitchell and the southern end. Accomplishing these feats has not been
an easy task and Judge Burch continued to push through. She has brought
the knowledge gained from her experiences to other parts of Oregon as
Chair of the Telecommunications Committee for Association of Oregon
Counties.
Mr. Speaker, one of my fondest memories of Judge Burch is and will
remain her long fight to bring modern telecommunications into the
county. Years after most rural communities around Oregon had some
access to cellular service, Wheeler County and the county seat of
Fossil remained a completely isolated island without cell phone
service. Judge Burch would often tell me about the number of
recreational accidents and ``potential drownings'' that float down the
John Day River through the county every week in the summer, and the
need for cell phone service for emergencies and other uses. With this
need and Jeanne's stories on my ``to-do'' list, I took the opportunity
to point out to U.S. Cellular that this unserved area was in their
coverage territory. Well, the company took Jeanne's and my message to
heart and within weeks U.S. Cellular began analyzing how to cover this
county. In July 2008, Jeanne's coordinated and unrelenting efforts
culminated with the community celebration of the county's first cell
tower.
I can recall that months after the cell service was established,
Judge Burch closed a town meeting I held in Wheeler County by giving me
a note from a woman whose husband most likely would have died from the
heart attack he suffered, except for the fact that she was able to use
her cell phone to call for emergency assistance.
Mr. Speaker, I know you would appreciate Judge Burch's get're done
attitude. It makes all the travel and work worthwhile to know that
someone like Judge Burch was there to help find solutions to real
problems.
Although the sun is setting on Jeanne Burch's career leading Wheeler
County, I can tell you the sun will never set on the impact she has had
on this county and region and the people who call it home.
I ask my colleagues to join me in wishing Judge Jeanne Burch and her
husband Howard the best as she retires. Judge, thank you for your
exemplary service to Wheeler County and to Oregon.

____________________

OUR UNCONSCIONABLE NATIONAL DEBT

______

HON. MIKE COFFMAN

of colorado

in the house of representatives

Friday, June 29, 2012

Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, on January 20, 2009, the day
President Obama took office, the national debt was
$10,626,877,048,913.08.
Today, it is $15,780,999,920,520.17. We've added
$5,154,122,871,607.09 to our debt in just over 3 years. This is debt
our nation, our economy, and our children could have avoided with a
balanced budget amendment.

____________________

THE 62ND ANNIVERSARY OF THE OUTBREAK OF THE KOREAN WAR

______

HON. MIKE KELLY

of pennsylvania

in the house of representatives

Friday, June 29, 2012

Mr. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, the United States and the Republic of Korea
have a deep and sustaining relationship built on shared values and
shared sacrifice.
June 25th marked the 62nd anniversary of the outbreak of the Korean
War and the early days of an alliance with Korea that has withstood the
test of time.
In honor of those who made the ultimate sacrifice for the cause of
freedom on the Korean Peninsula, we should affirm our continued support
of this trusted ally who has fought alongside the U.S. in nearly every
major conflict the U.S. has faced since World War II.
Earlier this year, the United States and the Republic of Korea began
the implementation of the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement, the

[[Page 10843]]

product of years of negotiation and persuasion that will be beneficial
to both of our countries and to businesses, workers, and consumers both
here and in Korea.
This Free Trade Agreement will stimulate America's economic
recovery--without government spending--by increasing U.S. exports and
creating jobs in the U.S. According to the Senate Finance Committee,
data taken from the independent, nonpartisan U.S. International Trade
Commission (ITC) suggest that KORUS could create up to 280,000 jobs in
the United States. While conservative estimates from the Office of the
U.S. Trade Representative show a more modest increase of 70,000 jobs,
either way you cut it, KORUS means more jobs for Americans, and that's
great news for a nation that's suffered one of the longest periods of
high unemployment rates since the Great Depression.
In order to level the playing field for American businesses and
manufacturers, the agreement has already begun to reduce Korean tariffs
on U.S. exports. The ITC estimates that full implementation of KORUS
will increase U.S. exports to Korea by nearly 30 percent more than
imports from Korea would increase in the U.S., an amount equaling more
than $10 billion.
Even setting aside the great strides we have made by implementing the
Free Trade Agreement, the relationship between the United States and
Korea could not be stronger.
Economically and politically speaking, Korea is stronger today than
at any time in its history, a strength that would have been
unimaginable in the dark days after the North Korean invasion 62 years
ago.
We have one of the strongest relationships in that part of the world
and it will be growing stronger as we have more opportunities to
advance our national security interests in the area of nuclear energy
cooperation.
Mr. Speaker, let me add that, after 40 years of a really close
partnership in nuclear energy, it's now time to renew our 123 Agreement
with Korea to strengthen our cooperation in this area. The Korea-U.S.
123 Agreement will create good jobs for Americans in a key industry,
nuclear energy.
Clean, safe nuclear energy creates red, white, and blue jobs. I'm
talking about evening the playing field for American energy companies
that are competing with foreign companies and ensure American global
leadership to energy exports of strong domestic energy companies such
as Westinghouse, which is one of the most successful employers in
Pennsylvania.
Over the past 4 years, Westinghouse has added about 5,000 new
employees to sustain its ability to deliver new nuclear power plants in
China and the U.S., and provide services and nuclear fuel to the
world's existing fleet of nuclear power plants. The majority of these
new jobs were added in Western Pennsylvania. In fact, recently
Westinghouse has consolidated about 4,000 of the 6,000 employees in
Western Pennsylvania in a new facility in Cranberry Township in Butler
County. Westinghouse is building products to export to Korea and other
countries, and we must assure that all the legal hurdles to these
exports are overcome. This includes renewal of our Section 123
agreement that dates to the early 1970s.
Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, the Republic of Korea has been a partner
with us since 1950 in every endeavor we've had--commercially,
diplomatically, and militarily.
The Korean people don't wait for the call. They don't wait for
somebody saying, we need your help. They are there. And they stay until
it's over.
We have fought side-by-side with Korean soldiers in Vietnam, Iraq,
and Afghanistan, and Korea has been a reliable diplomatic ally as we
seek peace and stability in Northeast Asia and elsewhere around the
world.
Mr. Speaker, that last year I had the opportunity to travel to Korea
to meet with political and military leaders and with business
executives. The hospitality I encountered was remarkable. My hosts were
gracious and informative, and being ``on the ground'' helped me to
understand how the U.S.--Korea partnership works so well and, indeed,
how it endures.
I urge my colleagues to join me in saluting our Korean allies on this
62th anniversary of the beginning of the Korean War. More than six
decades have passed but the sacrifices of our American soldiers,
sailors, airmen and Marines as well as the untold sacrifices of the
Korean people have not and will not be forgotten.

____________________

IN HONOR OF THE ITALIAN CULTURAL GARDEN

______

HON. DENNIS J. KUCINICH

of ohio

in the house of representatives

Friday, June 29, 2012

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of the Italian
Cultural Garden, a Cleveland landmark that will be dedicating a statue
of the great author Dante Alighieri and celebrating the 66th
anniversary of the Republic of Italy on June 29, 2012.
The 254 acre piece of land that constitutes Rockefeller Park was
donated to the City of Cleveland by John D. Rockefeller in 1896. The
Cleveland Cultural Gardens were founded in 1926 to create a memorial
area for the diverse ethnic groups that shape the region, and to serve
as a space for reflection on peace, cooperation and understanding. The
Cultural Gardens are currently a collection of 26 gardens which include
African-American, American Indian, British, Chinese, Czech, Estonian,
and Slovenian gardens, among others.
The Italian Cultural Garden was established in 1930 ``as a symbol of
the contribution of Italian culture to American democracy.'' It lies in
Rockefeller Park among 35 other cultural gardens representing the
diverse ethnic populations of Cleveland. The Italian Garden is the
most-visited of all the gardens and is the venue of various free
concerts.
The Italian Cultural Garden has been in the process of a massive
restoration since 2007. The garden was enhanced with new historic
lampposts, new fountains and new statues. More renovations are planned
for the future.
Currently, the garden honors noteworthy figures in Italian history,
including Giotto, Michelangelo, and Guglielmo Marconi. The addition of
Dante Alighieri, the author of The Divine Comedy and a master of the
Italian language, will pay tribute to this outstanding Italian and
symbolize the contributions of Cleveland's Italian community. The
ceremony will be hosted by the Italian Cultural Garden Foundation.
Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honoring the Italian
Cultural Garden, a historic landmark and tribute to Cleveland's beloved
Italian community.

____________________

IN HONOR OF MASTER SERGEANT JOSEPH J. DUFFY

______

HON. DOUG LAMBORN

of colorado

in the house of representatives

Friday, June 29, 2012

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Master Sergeant
Joseph J. Duffy's induction to the Air Force Communications and
Information Hall of Fame. His service to this country spanned over 42
years from 1955 to 1997. He started as a Crypto Operator and trained
over 75 personnel in Crypto Operations.
While stationed at Tan Son Nhut in Vietnam, he was responsible for
the second largest COMSEC account. During his second tour in Vietnam,
he was tasked with terminating all communications activities within 90
days; this was completed in less than 80 days. Due to this exemplary
performance, he was assigned to RAF Bruggen, Germany as Site Commander;
he was the only Tech Sergeant to achieve this distinction.
His final Air Force assignment was at HQ SAC where he attained the
rank of Master Sergeant and was the COMSEC Manager for 12 AF Special
Security Offices. Thanks to his unique experience and skill set, MSgt.
Duffy was appointed as the Foreign Service Communications Officer for
the State Department. His first three assignments were high value
hardship postings to Moscow, Beijing and Berlin. He followed that up
with a tour in Sydney, Australia.
His outstanding performance resulted in him being assigned to State
Department HQ as the COMSEC Manager for over 70 overseas significant
activities. MSgt. Duffy has earned numerous decorations including the
Bronze Star, the Air Force Commendation Medal with 3 Oak Leaf Clusters,
the Outstanding Unit Award with 2 Oak Leaf Clusters with the ``V''
device, the Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palms, and State Department
Superior and Meritorious Honor Awards.
MSGT Duffy's service to the nation has continued into his retirement.
He has spent his retirement volunteering with the Warrior Games. The
Warrior Games was created in 2010 as an introduction to Paralympics for
injured service members and veterans and has since developed into a
premier military program under the United States Olympic Committee. I
applaud MSgt. Duffy for his tireless service to our country and I offer
my sincere congratulations for his induction to the Air Force
Communications and Information Hall of Fame.

[[Page 10844]]

____________________

ROCK ISLAND ARSENAL'S 150TH BIRTHDAY

______

HON. ROBERT T. SCHILLING

of illinois

in the house of representatives

Friday, June 29, 2012

Mr. SCHILLING. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to wish the Rock Island
Arsenal in the 17th District of Illinois a happy 150th Birthday.
An act of Congress in 1809 first established the Rock Island facility
as a military reservation. In 1862 Congress officially established Rock
Island Arsenal as a facility for the deposit and repair of military
materiel in a bill that President Abraham Lincoln signed into law on
July 11, 1862.
This Arsenal has provided equipment for our military in every major
conflict since the Spanish-American War. It has supported our Army's
readiness in times of both peace and war. I am proud of the work that
the men and women at Rock Island Arsenal have done and are still doing
because they have played a role in making our military become the best
in the world.
In addition to supporting our troops and contributing our national
defense capabilities, the Rock Island Aresnal has taken an active role
in job creation and economic development in our region. For that
reason, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of a resolution by
Congressman Dave Loebsack that recognizes and honors this great
facility.
I am also proud to have worked hard for the Rock Island Arsenal with
Congressman Loebsack on getting important provisions in the Fiscal Year
2012 and 2013 National Defense Authorization Acts that will help
strengthen this national treasure and recognize the critical
manufacturing capability of the organic base. I will continue to
support this important facility.
I want to thank the past and current men and women of the Rock Island
Arsenal for everything they have done for the Army and our country as a
whole and I want to wish them a Happy Birthday. Here is to 150 more
years.

____________________

HONORING MARY THERESA JOHNSON

______

HON. HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, JR.

of georgia

in the house of representatives

Friday, June 29, 2012

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following
proclamation:
Whereas, Forty-two years ago a young woman accepted her calling to
serve in the Health Care System as a Nurse; and
Whereas, Ms. Mary Theresa Johnson began her nursing career in
Wilmington, Delaware and this year she retires from nursing at the
Shepherd Spinal Center in Atlanta, Georgia, she has served the Health
Care System well and our community has been blessed through her
service; and
Whereas, this phenomenal woman has shared her time and talents as a
Nurse, Mother and Motivator, giving the citizens of Georgia a person of
great worth, a fearless leader, a devoted professional and a servant to
all who want to advance the lives of others through medicine; and
Whereas, Ms. Johnson is formally retiring from her nursing career
today, she will continue to promote healthy living because she is a
cornerstone in our community that has enhanced the lives of thousands
for the betterment of our District and Nation; and
Whereas, the U.S. Representative of the Fourth District of Georgia
has set aside this day to honor and recognize Ms. Mary Theresa Johnson
on her retirement and to wish her well in her new endeavors;
Now therefore, I, Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., do hereby proclaim
May 26, 2012 as Ms. Mary Theresa Johnson Day in the 4th Congressional
District of Georgia.
Proclaimed, this 26th day of May, 2012.

____________________

RECOGNIZING BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATOR AND CEO STEVE
WRIGHT ON HIS RETIREMENT

______

HON. ADAM SMITH

of washington

in the house of representatives

Friday, June 29, 2012

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Bonneville
Power Administration (BPA) Administrator and Chief Executive Officer,
Steve Wright, on his upcoming retirement. He has served as
Administrator of the BPA for over a decade and is the second-longest
serving administrator in the organization's history.
Mr. Wright joined BPA in 1981 in the agency's conservation office.
From this entry-level position he became the permanent BPA
Administrator in February of 2002 after serving as Acting Administrator
since late 2000.
Mr. Wright began his tenure as head of the BPA at the beginning of
the West Coast energy crisis in 2000 and 2001. He successfully avoided
electrical blackouts in the Pacific Northwest by reducing spot market
purchases, which helped return BPA to financial stability. He also
worked to negotiate and preserve the hydropower system and bring more
renewable resources to the region.
His leadership of BPA has been based on collaboration and
transparency. Steve's work to reach out to customers, tribes, and
stakeholders resulted in the highest ever customer, constituent, and
tribal satisfaction scores. By opening up the financial and decision-
making process to the public he increased transparency and reduced
internal inefficiencies, saving millions of dollars.
Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I recognize the career of
Steve Wright. His leadership and dedication to Bonneville Power
Administration has had an astounding impact on the lives of everyone
living in the Pacific Northwest. I wish him the best in all of his
future endeavors.

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

______

HON. LYNN C. WOOLSEY

of california

in the house of representatives

Friday, June 29, 2012

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, on June 6, 2012, I was unavoidably detained
and was unable to record my vote for rollcall Nos. 414-423. Had I been
present I would have voted:
Rollcall No. 414: ``yes''--On Hoyer of Maryland Motion to Instruct
Conferees; rollcall No. 415: ``no''--On Black Tennessee Motion to
Instruct Conferees; rollcall No. 416: ``yes''--Connolly of Virginia
Amendment; rollcall No. 417: ``no''-- McClintock of California
Amendment; rollcall No. 418: ``no''--Garrett of New Jersey Amendment;
rollcall No. 419: ``yes''--Capps of California Amendment; rollcall No.
420: ``no''--Gosar of Arizona Amendment; rollcall No. 421: ``no''--
First Broun of Georgia Amendment; rollcall No. 422: ``no''--Second
Broun of Georgia Amendment; rollcall No. 423: ``no''--Fourth Broun of
Georgia Amendment.

____________________

IN CELEBRATION OF THE 85TH BIRTHDAY OF MR. LAWRENCE WRIGHT JORDAN, SR.

______

HON. SANFORD D. BISHOP, JR.

of georgia

in the house of representatives

Friday, June 29, 2012

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to extend my
personal congratulations and happy birthday wishes to Mr. Lawrence
Wright Jordan, Sr., who will turn 85 years of age on July 8, 2012. On
this day, he will be honored by his family and friends at a celebration
at Crawford County Board of Education Auditorium in Roberta, Georgia at
1:00 p.m.
Mr. Jordan, the second of nine children, was born on July 8, 1927, to
Mattie Lee (Barnes) Jordan and Graham Jordan, Sr. in Roberta, Georgia.
He started working at a young age and served as the ``house boy'' for
the family whose land his own family lived on.
As he grew up, Mr. Jordan had a great desire to serve his country and
wanted to enlist in the United States Army at age 18. However, he was
required to wait as his older brother was in the Navy and his mother
did not want two sons in the military at the same time. He was finally
able to enter the Army at the age of 25.
In the 1950s, Mr. Jordan served two tours of duty in the Korean War
before receiving honorable discharges from the Army. He is one of the
very few Korean War Veterans still alive today.
On October 11, 1958, Mr. Jordan married Anola Preston, also of
Roberta, Georgia. They would go on to have six beautiful and loving
children: Barbara Ann (Jordan) Snowden, Lawrence Wright Jordan, Jr.,
Linda Joyce Jordan, Sam Edward Jordan, Tammy Renee (Jordan) Jones, and
John Howard Jordan as well as Shirlene Tennyson, who, sadly, passed
away. Additionally, Mr. Jordan has 18 grandchildren and 10 great-
grandchildren.
George Washington Carver once said, ``How far you go in life depends
on your being tender with the young, compassionate with the

[[Page 10845]]

aged, sympathetic with the striving and tolerant of the weak and strong
because someday in your life you will have been all of these.'' Mr.
Jordan has advanced so far in life because he kept these lessons with
him throughout his childhood, his service in the Army, and his adult
life.
The race of life isn't given to the swift or to the strong, but to
those who endure until the end. Mr. Jordan has run the race of life
with grace and dignity and God has blessed him over his lifetime.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me today in paying tribute
to Mr. Jordan, a distinguished veteran and beloved husband, father,
grandfather, and great-grandfather.

____________________

IN TRIBUTE TO THE RONALD REAGAN PRESIDENTIAL FOUNDATION, WALT DISNEY
COMPANY, AND THE ``D23 PRESENTS TREASURES OF THE WALT DISNEY ARCHIVES''

______

HON. ELTON GALLEGLY

of california

in the house of representatives

Friday, June 29, 2012

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in tribute to the Ronald Reagan
Presidential Foundation and the Walt Disney Company's D23, the Official
Disney Fan Club, as they present an historic exhibit at the Ronald
Reagan Presidential Library and Museum in Simi Valley, California,
titled, ``D23 Presents Treasures of the Walt Disney Archives.''
The exhibit, which opens on July 6, salutes Walt Disney, one of
America's most revered men of imagination. D23, the Official Disney Fan
Club will showcase the largest-ever exhibition of iconic props,
costumes, artwork, and artifacts at the Presidential Library of our
40th president, who believed there are no limits to growth and human
progress when men and women are free to follow their dreams.
Ronald Reagan and Walt Disney were American originals and eternal
optimists who shared a belief in the essential goodness of the American
way of life. Both grew up in the heartland of America during the early
1900s with hardworking, patriotic parents who believed that everything
was part of God's plan. Next to his photograph in his high school
yearbook, Reagan's outlook is captured in the expression: ``Life is
just one grand song, so start the music.''
Both men moved to California in their 20s to pursue careers in
entertainment. With deeply shared values and abundant talent, the
friendship of the pioneering imagineer and actor/broadcaster began
decades before Reagan went to Washington. In July 1955, Disney
revolutionized family entertainment when he unveiled the Magic Kingdom,
Disneyland, and asked Reagan to co-host ABC's television coverage of
the historic event.
Disney joined the ``Friends of Ronald Reagan'' to encourage and
promote Reagan's ideas about limited government and individual liberty
during Reagan's first gubernatorial race in 1966. Reagan was hoping
Disney would join his finance team in Sacramento but, sadly, Disney
died just 16 days before Reagan's inauguration. In tribute, Governor
Reagan successfully petitioned the U.S. Postal Service to create a
stamp in Disney's honor.
During his presidency, Reagan visited Walt Disney World in Florida
twice. In 1983, he promoted the President's International Youth
Exchange Initiative in tandem with the World Showcase Fellowship
Program, and encouraged students to ``soar on the wings of invention
and the winds of change.''
In 1985, President and Mrs. Reagan celebrated a first at Walt Disney
World by holding a ``make-up'' inaugural parade after the original
parade was cancelled due to severely cold weather. During his speech at
that event, President Reagan honored the immense force for good that is
found in the imagination of those who live in freedom and reminded us
that Walt Disney personified the spirit of America, leading us to
invent, to build, to envision, and to learn.
After leaving the Oval Office, one of President Reagan's first public
events was a return to Disneyland, where he officiated at the park's
January 1990, 35th anniversary celebration, proclaiming it ``one of
America's treasures.''
It is a tribute to both men that this exhibition of Disney treasures
will be open at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in honor of the
bond between President Reagan and Walt Disney.
Mr. Speaker, Bob Iger, the chairman of The Walt Disney Company, which
partnered with the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Library,
continues Walt Disney's legacy. As chairman of Capital Cities/ABC
television, he was an architect of the merger with Disney--a
combination that has shaped and transformed the global media landscape.
He has dedicated himself to fostering the creative vitality of the
Disney organization and under his guidance The Walt Disney Company has
become the world's largest media company.
Ronald Reagan was the first president I served under as a Member of
Congress and his Presidential Library is less than a half-mile from my
home. On a plane ride back to California, I met actor Fess Parker, who
was catapulted to fame by playing Disney's Davey Crockett and was
returning home after spending time with his friend Ronald Reagan at the
White House. Fess Parker became a lifelong friend as well. Personally
and as an American, I have a strong connection to this exhibit and the
men it honors.
``D23 Presents Treasures of the Walt Disney Archives'' celebrates the
leadership, the accomplishments, the creative spirit and powerful
legacies of two great American pioneers. Ronald Reagan ended the Cold
War and reshaped the world. Walt Disney changed the face of family
entertainment. And both men had a keen understanding of what you'd find
at the ``shining city on a hill'': harmony, decency, wholesomeness, and
homespun values that never have, and never will, go out of style.

____________________

IN TRIBUTE TO SERGEANT FIRST CLASS MATTHEW BRADFORD ``BRAD'' THOMAS

______

HON. JOE WILSON

of south carolina

in the house of representatives

Friday, June 29, 2012

Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, June 20,
2012, Sergeant First Class Matthew Bradford ``Brad'' Thomas, of Easley,
South Carolina, was killed in action while serving in the South
Carolina Army National Guard in Afghanistan. SFC Thomas attended
Greenville Technical College after graduating from Travelers Rest High
School.
SFC Thomas paid the ultimate sacrifice and served our country in the
most honorable way. Without the dedication of our brave men and women
serving in our Armed Forces, we would not be able to enjoy the freedoms
we hold so dear. SFC Thomas served to the highest standards of military
service.
My thoughts and prayers are with wife, Jana, and their son Cayden, as
well as his parents Charles ``Bud'' and Marsha Thomas. As a Guard
veteran myself with four sons currently serving in the military, I
particularly appreciate your extraordinary military family. Freedom is
not free.

____________________

RECOGNIZING THE HEROIC EFFORTS OF THOSE FIGHTING THE WALDO CANYON FIRE

______

HON. DOUG LAMBORN

of colorado

in the house of representatives

Friday, June 29, 2012

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank the heroic men and
women who are battling the Waldo Canyon Fire. 1,200 firefighters from
all over Colorado's 5th District and the nation have been fighting this
fire around the clock since Saturday. They have been assisted by
numerous law enforcement agencies who have managed an orderly and
injury-free evacuation of 32,500 citizens.
The cooperation between all levels and branches of government has
been seamless, coordinated, cooperative, and effective. One example is
the use of military assets, such as C-130 MAFFS firefighting aircraft.
These planes have dropped over 73,000 gallons of slurry on this fire in
coordination with the highly skilled firefighting teams on the ground.
Additionally, Fort Carson, Peterson Air Force Base, and Cheyenne
Mountain Air Force Station have contributed firefighters, support
personnel, and air and ground equipment to assist in fighting and
containing the fire along Highway 24 and on the Air Force Academy
grounds.
The community response has been equally impressive. Shelters, food
banks, and other charitable organizations have been overwhelmed by the
generous donations of food and manpower. The Care and Share Food Bank
has received hundreds of thousands of pounds of food and the Red Cross
is doing extraordinary work at the shelters they are running throughout
the District. Many homes

[[Page 10846]]

have been lost and much work remains, but I know that we have the
people and the resources we need to win this fight.

____________________

THE TUAREG REVOLT AND THE MALI COUP

______

HON. CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH

of new jersey

in the house of representatives

Friday, June 29, 2012

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, this morning, my subcommittee
held a hearing to examine current U.S. policy and U.S. policy options
in response to the recent military coup in Mali and the larger revolt
of the Tuareg people in northern Mali.
The Tuaregs have been in conflict with the central government in
Bamako, Mali, for many years, but following the service of some Tuaregs
as mercenaries for the late Muammar Qaddafi in Libya, the acquisition
of more sophisticated weapons from the Libyan conflict and increasing
ties to Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, they now pose a danger not
only to Mali, but also to Algeria, Niger, Mauritania, Burkina Faso and
perhaps even Nigeria.
Meanwhile, Mali, in recent years a model of African democracy, now
finds itself struggling to resurrect democratic governance and put the
military back in its proper role as part of government. The downfall of
Mali's democracy could have a negative impact on the future of Mali, as
well as the entire Sahel region of Africa.
Amadou Toumani Toure--popularly known as ATT--led a military coup in
1991 that created a transitional government and resulted in democratic
elections in 1992. Mali's growing reputation for democratic rule was
enhanced in 2002, when President Alpha Oumar Konare, having served the
two terms permitted under the constitution, stepped down, and ATT,
running as an independent and leveraging his reputation as Mali's
``soldier of democracy,'' was elected president.
Unfortunately, two issues eroded ATT's initial popularity. The first
was a political system in which there appears to have been incentives
for corruption. Certainly there was a growing public perception that
the system was corrupt. The second was popular anger toward the
government's handling of the Tuareg rebellion in the North. Weeks of
protests at the government response to the northern rebellion dropped
ATT's popularity to a new low.
On March 21, mutinying Malian soldiers, displeased with the
management of the Tuareg rebellion, attacked several locations in the
capital, Bamako, including the presidential palace, state television,
and military barracks. The soldiers said they had formed the National
Committee for the Restoration of Democracy and State and declared the
following day that they had overthrown the government. This forced ATT
into hiding.
As a consequence of the instability following the coup, Mali's three
largest northern cities--Kidal, Gao and Timbuktu--were overrun by the
rebels on three consecutive days. On April 5, after the capture of the
town of Douentza, the National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad
(MNLA) said that it had accomplished its goals and called off its
offensive. The following day, it proclaimed independence of their
homeland Azawad from Mali. The Islamist group Ansar al-Dine was later a
part of the rebellion, claiming control of vast swaths of territory,
although this control was disputed by the MNLA. On May 26, the MNLA and
Ansar al-Dine announced that they had signed a pact to join their
respective territories and form an Islamic state.
Will this alliance last? Perhaps not. The MNLA is an offshoot of a
previous nationalist political movement and is dedicated to a separate
homeland for the Tuaregs and Moors who comprise its membership. Ansar
al-Dine, whose name means ``Defenders of Faith,'' is an Islamist group
believed to have links with Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and other
Islamist groups. Ansar al-Dine is dedicated to establishing sharia
law--not only in Azawad, but also in the rest of Mali as well. Disputes
between the two groups already have resulted in gunfire involving the
supposed allies.
As we held this hearing today, the Economic Community of West African
States, the African Union and the United Nations were discussing the
viability of a peacekeeping mission in Mali. Such a mission would look
to secure and protect civilian institutions and help restructure the
Mali military. However, it also will focus on the situation in the
North, which will be a tremendously sensitive matter, especially if the
mission of the peacekeeping force is to retake territory from the MNLA
and Ansar al-Dine.
To add further to the problematic nature of a response to the Mali
coup and the Tuareg revolt, there is the matter of providing
humanitarian aid to the 210,000 Malian refugees in Niger, Mauritania,
Burkina Faso and Algeria. Another 167,000 Malians are internally
displaced. Many of them are in remote areas and are difficult to reach
with food and medical supplies. There is the question of how effective
our aid efforts will be in such a challenging situation.
But no matter how difficult this matter is to address, there are too
many people affected for the United States to fail to provide
leadership in the effort to solve this political-social crisis.

____________________

THE ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF ARIZONA'S TGEN ON ITS 10TH ANNIVERSARY

______

HON. JEFF FLAKE

of arizona

in the house of representatives

Friday, June 29, 2012

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the achievements
in the field of biomedical research of the Translational Genomics
Research Institute, known as TGen, over the last decade.
Located in Phoenix, TGen applies the science of genomics, or the
study of the human genetics, to finding cures for neurological
disorders and diseases such as cancer and diabetes.
When TGen was founded in 2002, Arizona's state and local leaders were
excited by the promise of the many novel scientific discoveries that
could be made through TGen.
But what was most exciting was that these discoveries made possible
through further research into the human genome would translate into
immediate and effective benefits for doctors and especially patients.
By partnering with entities at the forefront of medical discoveries
like the Mayo Clinic and Scottsdale Healthcare, TGen for 10 years has
focused on utilizing genomic analyses to improve patient treatments.
Whether it's sequencing anthrax or the plague; finding new clues to
Alzheimer's disease; or leading new research partnerships addressing
pediatric and canine cancers, TGen's research has changed patients'
lives.
In addition to making critical contributions to the scientific and
medical fields, over the past 10 years, TGen has made many
contributions to Arizona's economy in the forms of investment and
private-sector job creation. Investment into TGen and the biosciences
spurred growth across the state, and spurred the launch of the Critical
Path Institute and Bio5 in southern Arizona; Arizona State University's
Biodesign Institute and a northern Phoenix bio campus; TGen North; and
expansion of W.L. Gore in northern Arizona.
On its 10th anniversary, I applaud TGen's president, Dr. Jeffrey
Trent, and the scientists at TGen for their commitment to make a
difference for medical patients and their contributions to creating
innovative research for Arizona.

____________________

HONORING MARIE ROBINSON

______

HON. HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, JR.

of georgia

in the house of representatives

Friday, June 29, 2012

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following
proclamation:
Whereas, Ninety years ago a virtuous woman of God was born in Henry
County, Georgia on July 21, 1922; and
Whereas, Mrs. Marie Robinson was born Marie Morris to Mr. Wil and
Mrs. Mary Gay Morris, she was educated in the local school system in
Georgia, married Mr. Moses E. Robinson and through their union was
blessed with nine children, thirty-five grandchildren, sixty-six great-
grandchildren and nine great-great grandchildren; and
Whereas, this Phenomenal Proverbs 31 woman has shared her time and
talents as a Wife, Mother and Motivator, giving the citizens of Georgia
a person of great worth, a fearless leader and a servant to all who
wants to advance the lives of others; and
Whereas, Mrs. Robinson has been blessed with a long, happy life,
devoted to God and credits it all to the Will of God; and
Whereas, Mrs. Robinson along with her family and friends are
celebrating this day a remarkable milestone, her 90th Birthday, we
pause to acknowledge a woman who is a cornerstone in our community in
DeKalb County, Georgia; and

[[Page 10847]]

Whereas, the U.S. Representative of the Fourth District of Georgia
has set aside this day to honor and recognize Mrs. Robinson on her
birthday and to wish her well and recognize her for an exemplary life
which is an inspiration to all;

Now therefore, I, Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., do hereby proclaim
July 21st, 2012 as Mrs. Marie Robinson Day in the 4th Congressional
District of Georgia.
Proclaimed, this 21st day of July, 2012.