[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 1]
[Issue]
[Pages 37-119]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[[Page 37]]
SENATE--Tuesday, January 7, 2014
The Senate met at 10 a.m. and was called to order by the President
pro tempore (Mr. Leahy).
______
prayer
The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, offered the following prayer:
Let us pray.
Out of the depths we lift our hearts to You, O God, waiting for Your
providence to prevail more than they who watch for sunrise. Guide our
Senators to find hope in Your presence as they trust the unstoppable
cycle of seed time and harvest. Lord, give our lawmakers such reverence
for You that they will stand for right although the heavens fall. May
they delight in any work they do for You and tire of any rest that is
apart from You. Create in them clean hearts, which no unworthy purpose
may tempt aside. May they wait for the power of Your Spirit, working
through their faith, to do more than they can ask or imagine.
We pray in Your great Name. Amen.
____________________
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The President pro tempore 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.
____________________
RECOGNITION OF THE MAJORITY LEADER
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Booker). The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call
be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
SCHEDULE
Mr. REID. Mr. President, following my remarks and those of the
Republican leader, the Senate will resume consideration of the motion
to proceed to Calendar No. 265, S. 1845, the unemployment insurance
extension.
I ask unanimous consent that the leader time that I use and that of
Senator McConnell not count against the half hour that the proponents
and opponents of this legislation have to speak, 15 minutes on each
side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. The vote will drag a little bit but not very much. My
remarks are fairly short.
The Senate will recess from 12:30 p.m. to 2:15 p.m. to allow for
weekly caucus meetings.
____________________
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION
Mr. REID. Over the last 45 months America's private sector has done
OK--not great but done pretty well. Eight million jobs have been
created. The stock market is booming and even the housing market is
starting to show signs of life.
A number of States were hit so hard with the decline of the housing
market. Nevada was hit the hardest, and California, Florida, Michigan--
a number of States--were hit very hard. But even in those States the
housing market is turning around a little bit--not enough but turning
around. It is clear that the economy is picking up steam--not enough
steam but picking up steam.
But for far too many Americans these bright headlines that I have
just announced touting good economic news don't match the darker
reality of their lives. They sit at the kitchen table--if they are
lucky to have a kitchen table--and they are juggling their bills.
It was brought to my attention on the way to work this morning about
how hard it is for so many people. On Constitution Avenue, as we were
waiting for a light, I could see off to the left a news camera and a
reporter trying to wake up somebody who had been spending the night on
the pavement--not on the grates where the heat comes up. They kept
pushing and pushing. I could see they were talking to him. He or she
didn't come out of that bundle of material on that sidewalk.
I don't know if this man is one of the long-term unemployed. I don't
know. But there are lots of people who are in desperate shape. They may
not be sleeping on a sidewalk on Constitution Avenue 14 blocks from the
White House, but there are people in America who are desperate for
help.
There are 1.3 million people who have already lost their unemployment
insurance benefits. This is not good for the country. We are told by
economists that for every $1 we spend on unemployment benefits it gets
$1.50 back to us just like that. So we have to start understanding that
we have a country where not everyone is benefiting from what is going
on with these headlines I just reported.
Over the last 30 years the income and wealth of the top 1 percent has
increased 300 percent. The middle class dropped almost 10 percent.
Think about it, 300 percent; the middle class about a 10-percent drop.
I haven't even mentioned the poor. They have been hit harder than
anyone else. When I say this, it is true. The rich are getting a lot
richer and the poor are getting poorer. The middle class is being
squeezed.
I have nothing against people of wealth. It is great we live in a
country where people can make a lot of money, but we have to understand
there are people who are really hurting. For those who have lost their
jobs through no fault of their own--and millions of them have struggled
for months to find new work--a booming stock market of increasing
corporate profits is of little comfort to them.
Fortunately, Americans looking for work have been able to rely on
unemployment insurance to get them through the tough times. But for 1.3
million people, no deal; 20,000 are veterans returning from wars in
Afghanistan and Iraq.
At the end of last year, only a few days ago, Congress failed to
extend unemployment emergency insurance for Americans who have been
looking for work for more than 6 months. We have never in the history
of our country had long-term unemployment such as today--never in the
history of our Republic. Yet we are turning 1.3 million people away.
Are they going to be the next ones sleeping on some street--wherever
they come from--trying to stay warm?
For many Americans these benefits make the difference between being
able to live a decent life--not a good life, a decent life--and going
hungry or becoming homeless.
Let us go back to 2012. In 2012 unemployment insurance helped 2.5
million people, including 600,000 children, from going into the rolls
of poverty. We don't have all the results from last year. These
families live in red States, blue States, Republicans, Democrats, or
Independents. We shouldn't turn our backs on them.
In the past, we have worked together. Did we complain when President
Bush came to us? Unemployment was nowhere near where it is now. There
were enough long-term unemployed, and we automatically together
extended those benefits. Not today. We are not doing it because we
can't get the Republicans to help us. We have reached out the hand to
hardworking Americans struggling to get by.
I would hope we can get a few Republicans to join Dean Heller of
Nevada, a conservative Senator. Join with Dean Heller, a junior Senator
from Nevada, and help get this legislation passed.
[[Page 38]]
In the latest round of emergency assistance, George Bush was the
person who signed that bill. At the time the unemployment rate was
about 5.5 percent. Today in Nevada and Rhode Island--the State of
Senator Jack Reed, who will speak--it is about 9 percent.
The long-term unemployment rate today is more than double what it was
at the time that we let emergency job assistance expire. Senator Heller
understands. I am troubled that most of Senator Heller's Republican
colleagues, according to what we are hearing in the press, callously
turned their backs on the long-term unemployed.
I am saddened. I hope that we can get them to move over and help us
to help these people who need it so very much. Failing to restore
emergency assistance would not only be a crushing blow to the long-term
unemployed, it would be a blow to our economy.
Americans use their unemployment benefits to buy food and fuel at
local gas stations, to pay their landlords or to purchase for a child a
winter coat. That is why for every dollar we spend on unemployment
benefits, I repeat, the economy grows by $1.50. This investment in our
fellow Americans is one of the most effective ways to spark and sustain
an economic recovery.
Last night the senior Senator from Texas, a Republican, asked that we
delay this vote until today. I was pleased to do that. He called this a
serious issue, and he is very correct. The senior Senator from Texas is
correct. This is a serious issue. It is as serious to people outside
Nevada as it is to those people from Nevada who have been out of work
for so long. People from Nevada have written and called my office,
calling and begging for a little more time.
For every job that is available, there are three that are unemployed
in America. We Democrats stand united in support of this extension.
Republicans need to take this seriously as well as we.
I hope Republicans remember that during hard times, that during times
of high unemployment--regardless of who is in the White House or who
led this Chamber--Congress is always willing to put politics aside and
put American families first.
Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
RECOGNITION OF THE MINORITY LEADER
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader is recognized.
____________________
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I indicated to the majority leader I
was going to ask unanimous consent, which I am prepared to do at this
point. I have to admit, I am a little surprised at the fervor with
which the majority is dedicated to reviving the expired emergency
unemployment benefits after they ignored the issue all of last year. I
am sure there are many on my side who would like to see these
additional weeks of benefits extended if--as the Speaker of the House
indicated he supported--we could find a way to extend them without
actually adding to the national debt.
To that end I would like to propose that we be allowed--my side be
allowed--to offer an amendment to pay for these benefits by lifting the
burden of ObamaCare's individual mandate for 1 year and take care of
our veterans who were harmed by the recently agreed-to budget deal
while we are in the same amendment, and once that is disposed of we can
have an actual debate on this issue and an amendment process in the
Senate, which hasn't happened very often in recent times.
Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that if cloture is invoked on the
motion to proceed to S. 1845, all postcloture time be yielded back and
the Senate proceed to the consideration of the bill and that my
amendment with Senator Hatch be the first amendment in order and that
there be up to 1 hour of debate on the amendment divided in the usual
form; that following the use or yielding back of that time, the Senate
then proceed to a vote in relation to that amendment. I further ask
unanimous consent that following the disposition of that amendment, it
be in order for the majority leader or his designee to offer an
amendment and it be in order for the leaders or their designees to
continue to offer amendments in alternating fashion, which used to be
the way we did business around here.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object--and I appreciate how candid
my Republican counterpart is and I say that seriously--I do speak with
some, or I try, though I am not real good at speaking with a lot of
fervor, as everyone knows--but I feel very strongly about this issue.
For people who are unemployed and can't find a job, it is a tough deal.
I have, fortunately, always had a job. I can't say the same for my
family, especially my dad. So I do speak with as much fervor as I am
capable on this issue.
The reason I mention I am glad my friend is being so candid is--
listen to this--no one can in any way dispute my facts. For every $1
spent, we get $1.50 back. That doesn't add to the deficit. So as I see
this picture from the consent request, I am seeing that we are going to
take away ObamaCare, which 9 million new people have and are signing up
at the rate of thousands every day. We are going to take away their
benefits, in some form or fashion, and we are going to trump the
bipartisan agreement we have with Mikulski and Rogers. They are coming
up with an omnibus bill. I know my friend has already stated he
initially was against the budget deal, but I would bet that is
addressed in this deal Mikulski and Rogers will come up with--this
helping of veterans.
So this is a guise to obstruct, as has been happening during the 5
years President Obama has been President of the United States, and I
object with as much fervor as I can.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, over the past several days, we have
seen a number of stories about how Democrats plan to spend the year
gearing up for the November elections by making an issue out of
economic hardships faced by Americans; in other words, instead of
working on reforms that would actually help people overcome the
challenges so many of them face in this economy, Democrats plan to
exploit those folks for political gain. It is pretty amazing when you
think about it.
We are now in the sixth year--the sixth year--of the Obama
administration. We all know the stock market has been doing great, so
the richest among us are doing fine. But what about the poor? What
about working-class folks? What about folks who work in industries
liberals don't approve of, such as coal? How many of these Americans
have been doing well during the Obama economy?
Record numbers of them are having a perfectly terrible time. One
indicator is the growth of the Food Stamp Program. Consider this: Since
the President took office, the number of Americans who have signed up
for food stamps has literally skyrocketed--skyrocketed. It is up almost
half. Nearly 4 out of 10 unemployed Americans are trapped--literally
trapped--in long-term unemployment. What is worse, the poorest
Americans are the ones who have often had the hardest time recovering
in this economy.
Yes, the President took office in the midst of an economic crisis. No
one disputes that. But for many Americans, a terrible situation seems
to have only gotten worse over the course of this administration. For
the President to turn around and try to blame his political opponents
for the suffering we have seen out there takes a pretty good amount of
nerve. It also assumes a collective case of national amnesia. It would
take a collective case of national amnesia to reach those conclusions
because, remember, these are the same folks who gave us the stimulus,
[[Page 39]]
who gave us tax increases, who gave us ObamaCare, and all of it was
done in the name of helping the little guy, in the name of greater
equality.
What has it given us? It has given us this mess we have in our
country: record numbers of long-term unemployed, record numbers on food
stamps, people losing their health care plans, others seeing the
premiums shoot up when they can least afford it, and now another call,
one more call, for a government fix.
Washington Democrats have shown almost no interest for 5 years in
working together on ways to create the kind of good, stable, high-
paying jobs people want and need. This is a real disservice, first and
foremost, to those who are struggling the most out there--from the
college graduate who suddenly finds herself wondering why she has huge
student loan debts but no prospects of work to the 50-year-old dad who
has worked his whole adult life but suddenly can't find a job that
meets either his needs or his potential. Yet this administration's
proposed solution is just to slap another bandaid from Washington on it
and call it a day.
Yes, we should work on solutions to support those who are out of work
through no fault of their own, but there is literally no excuse to pass
unemployment insurance legislation without also finding ways to create
good, stable, high-paying jobs and also trying to find the money to pay
for it. So what I am saying is, let us support meaningful job creation
measures and let us find a way to pay for these UI benefits so we are
not adding to an already completely unsustainable debt.
Unfortunately, the administration seems almost totally disinterested
in solutions that don't put government in the lead, and it seems nearly
incapable of working with those who don't share that belief. That, in
many ways, is precisely why we are in the situation we are in--because
it is only when one believes government is the answer to all of our
problems that we talk about unemployment insurance instead of job
creation and the minimum wage instead of helping people reach their
maximum potential.
It is time to get away from ``temporary government programs'' and
give the American people the tools they need to drive an economy that
truly works for them and for their families. We could start with one of
the real bright spots in our economy; that is, energy, a field that is
poised to help our economy create literally millions of jobs, if only
the administration would get out of the way.
Another area in which we should be able to work together is health
care. By almost any metric--affordability, accessibility, even the
ratio of cancellations to enrollments--this law has imposed more pain
and more distress than many had ever thought possible. Centrists,
moderates, conservatives, just about any sensible person outside the
congressional Democratic leadership in Washington has long understood
this. But now even the left is starting to come to grips with the
painfully obvious fact that the law it fell in love with can't possibly
work.
Last week one of the great pooh-bahs of the left admitted that
``ObamaCare is awful,'' calling it ``the dirty little secret many
liberals have avoided saying out loud.'' I don't agree with that man on
much else, including his broader ideas on health care, but it is good
to hear a grandee of the left at least admit this isn't working.
His words point to a larger truth, that the President's amen chorus
had ample opportunity to speak truth to power when it mattered and that
most--most--chose to remain silent. For that the law's apologists have
left the American people to pay the price.
Let me read part of a letter I recently received from Jennifer Bell,
a constituent of mine in Hopkinsville. This is what she said:
I have less coverage than I did before. I didn't get to
keep my policy that I was happy with. Every dollar I have to
pay more is a dollar taken from my family. I never thought
that in America we would be forced to purchase something we
cannot afford. We worked hard to get where we are. Now we are
being forced to pay more in order to pay for somebody else's
insurance. How is that fair?
I hear you, Jennifer. Everyone on this side of the aisle hears those
concerns.
Here is something else. Many Kentuckians are finding ObamaCare is
about more than just higher premiums and cuts to Medicare. It is also
about a lack of access to doctors and hospitals. One of the most
leftwing papers in my State recently ran a big story about how many
ObamaCare coverage networks exclude--exclude--so many of the hospitals
my constituents want to use.
A few weeks ago, the majority leader basically said criticisms of
ObamaCare amounted to jokes. He might like to think this is all some
joke, but the constituents who have been writing me about the
consequences of this failed law don't see it that way.
I know this must weigh heavily on our Democratic colleagues. I know
they can't see so many Americans hurting because of decisions they made
and feel absolutely nothing.
Let me say this to our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. It
is a new year and a time for new beginnings. If you are ready to work
with us, we are here. Together we can start over on health care.
Together we can give the American people the kind of health care reform
they deserve--reform that can lower costs and improve the quality of
care.
But as with solving the problems of joblessness and unemployment, it
is something we can only do together.
I yield the floor.
____________________
RESERVATION OF LEADER TIME
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the leadership time
is reserved.
____________________
EMERGENCY UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION EXTENSION ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 1845, which the
clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 265, S. 1845, a bill to
provide for the extension of certain unemployment benefits,
and for other purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 30
minutes of debate equally divided and controlled in the usual form.
The assistant majority leader.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, on the side supporting the pending motion,
there is 15 minutes under the unanimous consent agreement and a similar
amount of time on the other side. If all time is used, I would notify
Members our rollcall vote will be about 11 o'clock.
I ask unanimous consent that on our side, supporting the motion, I be
allowed 5 minutes, Senator Reed of Rhode Island 5 minutes, and Senator
Klobuchar of Minnesota 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I listened carefully to the Republican
leader today. Here is what he said.
If we are going to give 1.3 million Americans unemployment insurance
which has now expired, we have to pay for it. Then he suggested how he
would pay for it. He would pay for it by attacking ObamaCare. That is
no surprise. But the provision he would attack is the individual
mandate--the mandate that people buy health insurance. Well, what is
the impact of that? The mandate that people have the responsibility to
buy health insurance is necessary if we are going to protect Americans
from being discriminated against who have preexisting conditions in
their families. Follow me now. In order to make sure a parent with a
child who has asthma or a child who has diabetes can still buy health
insurance, we needed to expand the insurance pool. We expanded the
insurance pool by saying to everyone across America: You have the
responsibility to buy health insurance.
So what Senator McConnell, on behalf of Senate Republicans, is
suggesting is this: If we are going to give 1.3 million Americans
unemployment insurance, we have to say to everyone living in America we
can no longer
[[Page 40]]
keep our promise that health insurance will not discriminate against
your family because of a preexisting condition. Wow. What a tradeoff,
1.3 million people get unemployment benefits over 300 million Americans
lose the protection of discrimination in their health insurance because
of a preexisting condition in their families. That is the Republican
logic: Help the unemployed but at the expense of 300 million American
families and their health insurance protection.
It is interesting to note that we have had a dramatic increase in
people living in the Commonwealth of Kentucky--represented by Senator
McConnell--when it comes to the Affordable Care Act. Governor Beshear,
a Democrat, is promoting affordable care in Kentucky and has one of the
most successful efforts under way across America. Yet every day the
Senators from Kentucky both come to the floor and criticize the very
program that is so popular in their State.
The second point I want to make is this: All we are asking for this
morning is a vote to start the debate on unemployment insurance
benefits. We are asking 5 Republicans to join 55 Democrats to let us
debate whether we extend unemployment benefits across America. It is
that simple. At about 11:00 that vote will take place.
This used to be a bipartisan issue.
The Presiding Officer of New Jersey is the newest Member of the
Senate, and I welcome him again.
There was a time when Republican Presidents thought unemployment
compensation was a pretty good idea. Why? Because families with
breadwinners who are out of work need to feed their children, need to
feed themselves. Senator McConnell criticizes this program as a
temporary government handout. Let me tell you, if you don't have food
on the table, you need a temporary helping hand so you can put food on
the table so you are strong enough tomorrow to look for jobs again.
That is what it is all about, and they don't get it. They say we should
be talking about creating jobs. What about creating some food in the
bellies of children? What about paying the utility bill or the rent or
keeping the lights on or keeping the place that you live warm enough
while you are out looking for a job? That is part of the reality facing
people across America. There were 81,867 individuals in my home State
of Illinois who lost their benefits between Christmas and New Year.
They have written me letters.
Ryan, a 35-year-old man with two children from Antioch, IL, writes to
me about how difficult it is for him to keep his family together as he
continues day after weary day looking for a job. What I hear from the
Republican leader is: Well, isn't it a shame that Ryan doesn't have a
job? But we can't let government come in and provide the solution.
Well, historically government has stepped up when the private sector
cannot or will not. In this case, we know it is absolutely essential.
What we need to have is five Republicans to at least give us a chance
this morning at 11 to move forward on the debate on unemployment
insurance. This is basic and it is humane. It used to be bipartisan
before the tea party takeover of the Republican Party. I hope there are
enough moderates left on the Republican side to join us to make this a
bipartisan issue again. Helping people keep their families together,
the lights on, the heat in their homes, and food on the table while
they are looking for a job is not a government giveaway. For goodness
sake, it defines who we are as a nation. If we can't stand and help
these people looking for work, then it is a sad commentary on who we
are, where we are, and our principles.
Finally, this notion of thrashing out at ObamaCare every time there
is an issue coming up on the floor has reached its extreme today, when
the Republican leader would eliminate the protection against
discrimination for preexisting conditions for 300 million Americans in
order to provide unemployment benefits for 1.3 million.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, could the Presiding Officer instruct me when
I reach the 4-minute mark?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise with my colleagues to support this
motion to bring this legislation to the floor to begin a debate.
There were 1.3 million Americans who were pushed off an economic
cliff on December 28 when their extended unemployment benefits ended.
They are searching for work. They have to search for work. They are in
a market where there are typically two or three applicants for one job.
Yesterday I read a story from the Washington Post that talked about
the opening of a new dairy plant in Maryland. They were expecting a lot
of interest in the 36 jobs: 1,600 applicants. I would wager that many
of those applicants never thought in their lives, after being a vice
president of sales in a company or a sophisticated manager of the
financial aspects of a company, that they would be applying for work in
a dairy. Some of them might even be on extended benefits, and that is
the only thing keeping them whole. And they are looking for work, 1,600
applicants for 36 jobs.
This is not unique to Maryland. It is in my home State of Rhode
Island. It is in States all across this country, Nevada, Tennessee,
Arizona, States with unemployment numbers above the national average of
7 percent. In my case, it is 9 percent. We have to help these families.
And as Senator Durbin pointed out, we have done this on a bipartisan
basis until very recently.
This is a smart economic program. This program, according to CBO,
will create 200,000 jobs next year if we extend it. Those are 200,000
jobs we are going to give away. And the minority leader was talking
about how we have to do more to create jobs around here. Well, if we
don't pass this measure, CBO has told us we are going to forfeit
200,000 jobs. So from an economic basis in this country, this is smart.
But from a human basis, this helps people who have worked--and the only
way you qualify for this program is if you worked and then you are let
go through no fault of your own. So we have to do that.
Colleagues on the other side are talking about: Well, we have to pay
for these benefits. This is a selective sort of notion, because,
frankly, the last time we extended these benefits in January of 2013,
it was not offset and the vote was 89-8. It included tax provisions and
other provisions, but we extended these benefits, unpaid for, 89-8. Yet
now we have to pay for these benefits.
What Senator Heller and I have done is said: Listen, we need to help
these people now. Let's do a 90-day extension, provide retroactive
relief, and help these 1.3 million--and it will grow, because several
million more people will lose their benefits this year. Let's do it,
and then let's sit down and work on this program.
But let me also remind my colleagues, we have made significant
changes to the unemployment insurance program. In early 2012, we had a
conference report between the House and the Senate which made changes
in unemployment insurance. We reduced the total time from 99 weeks to
73 weeks. We created the work-sharing program, a very innovative
program which allows people to collect for part of the week but also
stay employed the rest of the week. It is a program which has helped
companies all across the country, small companies in particular. We
have given States more flexibility on job training. We have given
States more flexibility in oversight of their programs. We have made
changes. We are willing to listen to thoughtful proposals again. But we
can't do it on the backs of 1.3 million Americans who have lost the
only benefit they have.
If we really want to talk about job training, if we want to talk
about cooperation, why haven't we been able to reauthorize the
Workforce Investment Act since 1998? We have not made the changes in
workforce training that affect this whole country--not just the
unemployed but those young people who are trying to move out of high
school and junior college into the workforce. We haven't done it. Why?
[[Page 41]]
Well, from 1998 until 2007, we had a Republican Congress. Since 2007,
we have been struggling very mightily with an economic crisis. And we
have made progress.
But if we want to start cooperating, let's bring the Workforce
Investment Act to the floor. It has passed the committee on a
bipartisan basis. Let's bring it to the floor. Let's help people.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DURBIN. Would the Senator yield for a question?
How much time is remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. DURBIN. I ask the Senator from Rhode Island under that time to
yield for the following question.
I don't know if the Senator was on the floor when the Republican
leader said he wanted to pay for the cost of these unemployment
benefits by eliminating the individual mandate under the Affordable
Care Act--which is the key element in protecting families who have
children with preexisting conditions--cancer survivors, children with
diabetes, children with asthma. As I understood the Republican leader,
he believes that the best way to take care of people who are unemployed
and can't feed their children is to deny the protections of the
Affordable Care Act for those families who have children with
preexisting conditions. Would the Senator from Rhode Island comment on
whether that is a good trade for either side?
Mr. REED. I think it is a terrible trade. It is not just about
families with children, it is about many of these working adults who,
if they have a preexisting condition, lose their coverage. It is not
just a question of children. That I think is very sensitive. Without
the Affordable Care Act, if you get sick, you can't get coverage. The
only way you can get coverage if you are middle-aged is if you are
healthy and you don't need it. When you needed it, the insurance
companies took it away--before the Affordable Care Act.
Mr. DURBIN. If I might ask another question to the Senator from Rhode
Island from the time allotted on our side, I listened carefully to the
speech given by the Republican leader this morning.
I see my colleague from New York here, so I will yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. I thank my friends from Illinois and Rhode Island.
How much time is remaining on our side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 1 minute 30 seconds.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I see what is going on here. Our
colleagues on the other side of the aisle know the power of this issue
but don't really want to vote for it, and so they are putting
impossible logjams in the path.
Who would believe that on this side of the aisle we would delay an
important part of the ACA which would hurt--as my colleagues from
Illinois and Rhode Island brought out--parents who have kids with
cancer? We are not going to do that, and we are not going to do it on
the fly.
So what I would say to my colleagues is if you believe in
unemployment benefits and extending them, pass them clean and simple.
Don't play games. Don't put obstacles in their path that you know would
be insurmountable. Get it done.
I make one other point. The bottom line is very simple: People want
to work. People who have lost their jobs after working decades for a
company are knocking on doors every day. They are going online. They
are desperate to work.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. SCHUMER. This idea that unemployment benefits encourage them not
to work is balderdash.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. ISAKSON. I yield back all time on the Republican side.
____________________
CLOTURE MOTION
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
The cloture motion having been presented under rule XXII, the Chair
directs the clerk to read the motion.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to
proceed to Calendar No. 265, S. 1845, a bill to provide for
the extension of certain unemployment benefits, and for other
purposes.
Jack Reed, Richard J. Durbin, Martin Heinrich, Thomas R.
Carper, Charles E. Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, Patty
Murray, Bernard Sanders, Angus S. King, Jr., Al
Franken, Tom Harkin, Jeff Merkley, Elizabeth Warren,
Sheldon Whitehouse, Barbara Boxer, Richard Blumenthal,
Sherrod Brown.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum has
been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the
motion to proceed to S. 1845, a bill to provide for the extension of
certain unemployment benefits, and for other purposes, shall be brought
to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Begich) is
necessarily absent.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch) and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr.
Thune).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch)
would have voted ``nay.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Schatz). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 60, nays 37, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 2 Leg.]
YEAS--60
Ayotte
Baldwin
Baucus
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coats
Collins
Coons
Donnelly
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Heller
Hirono
Johnson (SD)
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Manchin
Markey
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Portman
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--37
Alexander
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
Cruz
Enzi
Fischer
Flake
Graham
Grassley
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Kirk
Lee
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Paul
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker
NOT VOTING--3
Begich
Hatch
Thune
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 60, the nays are
37. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
Mr. LEVIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mrs. BOXER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is not an order to reconsider; it is a
separate cloture motion.
Mr. REID. I note the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am so pleased that six Republicans--six
out of all the Republicans--joined with us--every Democrat present--to
reach that magic 60 votes we needed to proceed to consider the
unemployment compensation bill.
I think it is so important to recognize that Federal unemployment
programs have been extended no less than 28 times since 1958--15 times
under Republican Presidents and 13 times under Democratic Presidents.
So this is nothing new--this is nothing new--and the
[[Page 42]]
fact that it has been made such a big deal is incomprehensible given
the circumstances of us recovering from the greatest recession since
the Great Depression, with a very special number, a very large number.
The fact is we have a long-term unemployment rate that is very high,
way higher than normal.
The fact is, since we have extended Federal unemployment benefits so
many times it should not be a problem, it is shocking it is a problem.
In November 2008, unemployment insurance was extended with bipartisan
support without an offset, which seems to be the excuse the Republicans
have for not voting with us.
What is very interesting about that is these are the same Republicans
who voted to go to war twice and put those wars on the credit card--
never paid for them. These are the same Republicans who voted for tax
cuts to billionaires and multimillionaires and never paid for it. Yet
still, when it comes to the middle class, oh, they cannot possibly
extend unemployment benefits without paying for it. If anyone knows
anything about economics, they should know that when we are trying to
stimulate jobs and stimulate the economy--not depress jobs and lose
jobs--we do not contract spending.
We have already dealt with deficits, and we continue to deal with
deficits. I want to show the progress we have made under President
Obama. This is something we never hear from the Republicans. They would
make us feel deficits are raging, as they were under George W. Bush.
When President Obama took over, he inherited a $1.4 trillion deficit
from George Bush. George Bush inherited surpluses from Bill Clinton. It
took him--and I am exaggerating--15 minutes to change it: two wars on a
credit card, no problem, no offsets; tax cuts to billionaires, no
problem, no offsets--and the deficits soared to $1.4 trillion.
When President Obama came in, he not only had to deal with raging
deficits, he had to deal with the worst recession since the Great
Depression, and all we hear from the Republican side is: This President
did not do enough here, did not do enough there. Nothing is enough.
We are now in a situation where this deficit has been cut in half--
cut in half--down to $560 billion, and we want to see it disappear,
just as we did when Bill Clinton was President and the Democrats passed
a budget that balanced and set in motion a surplus, which was destroyed
when George W. Bush was President. Let's be clear on the history. There
are facts. There are stubborn things. They are real. These are the
facts.
Now we come to a place where we want to extend long-term unemployment
benefits for those who got deeply hurt in this great recession, and we
hear that we have to offset it, which goes against the economic experts
who say it is important that we stimulate this economy and keep these
jobs rolling.
Remember, in the President George W. Bush recession, we had a similar
extended benefit. It was not offset. It was extended twice in 2003 with
strong bipartisan support and no offset. So why is it when a Republican
is President the Republicans say: OK, let's help the unemployed without
an offset, without spending cuts. But when a Democrat is President, oh
no, we could not do it?
Honestly, it just is so political on its face. Democrats have been
consistent. Whether a Republican is President or a Democrat is
President, we want to help the middle class. We want to help the
unemployed. That is the difference between the parties. I say God bless
those six Republicans who joined with us today so we can do our job and
help the long-term unemployed.
The long-term unemployment rate is 2.6 percent--the long-term
unemployment rate, twice as high as it was at any other time that these
extended unemployment benefits were allowed to expire. Let me say that
again, how urgent this is. The long-term unemployment rate--that means
people who have been out of work for a long time, 6 months or more, is
2.6 percent, twice as high as it was at any other time in our history
where we have extended unemployment benefits.
There are almost three unemployed people for every job opening
nationwide. Let me repeat. There are almost three unemployed people for
every job opening nationwide. We need to understand, while some of our
Republican colleagues are blaming the unemployed and saying it is a
disservice to give them unemployment compensation, that these folks are
actively looking for jobs. That is part of the deal.
First of all, this is insurance. Second of all, they are looking for
work. Third of all, they are stuck in the situation where it is not
their fault. A Christmas present was given by the Republicans to the
1.3 million unemployed. That Christmas present was: Sorry, you are not
getting your unemployment benefits. We left here without being able to
deal with it.
But today we have a chance, a chance to do the right thing. In
California, my State alone, there are 222,000 people who have lost
their extended unemployment benefits. An additional 1.9 million people
are projected to lose their benefits over the next 6 months if
unemployment insurance is not extended.
What are these grandiose amounts of money that people get when they
are long-term unemployed: $300 a week, on average--$300 a week, on
average. So for our colleagues to say that people want to be
purposefully unemployed to collect $300 a week, could I tell you, try
living on $300 a week. If you are lucky, you can keep a roof over your
head but you have to be pretty lucky. If you are lucky, you can get
maybe a little bit of nutrition. That $300 a week is a lifeline. They
can put some groceries on the table, pay their rent, and cover the
expenses they have in looking for a job.
This keeps American families afloat at a critical time. I want to
give you a few stories from my home State of the real face of long-term
unemployment and why we have to vote to extend these benefits. One
woman wrote:
I am 58 years old and am receiving unemployment benefits
for the first time in my life. I am currently receiving my
first federal extension. I was laid off because the non-
profit I was working for lost a major portion of its state
funding.
Getting unemployment benefits is not preventing me from
looking for work. In fact, people getting extended
unemployment benefits are required to prove they're looking
for work. I spend hours every week filling out applications
and posting my resume without result.
Tell me, how am I, and thousands like me supposed to pay my
rent and eat? I agree that Washington should ``focus on job
creation'' but that should be in addition to, not instead of,
extending benefits. I beg you,--
She writes to me--
Please extend unemployment benefits. Thank you.
Another Californian wrote from Los Angeles:
After working 27 years for one employer, the bad economy
finally led to my layoff and my first time ever on
unemployment.
Remember, this person worked 27 years for one employer.
I was told that because of the bad economy, I would get up
to 63 weeks with the Federal Extension. Now I'm being told
without further action from Congress and the President, my
benefits end at the end of the year even though that leaves
me 3 months short. After paying into the system for 32 years,
this is the only time I have ever asked for anything back and
this is how I'm treated.
There are other stories. Kaitlyn of Twentynine Palms, 24 years old,
lost her $450-a-week benefit when the Federal extension expired. She is
a Marine Corps veteran, the mother of two young kids. She has been
searching for work. The family cannot move because her husband, a
veteran of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars must remain near the combat
center until he is discharged from the Marines.
The loss of her benefits will cut deeply into the couple's income.
Smith said, ``The family is already skimping on basics, including
heat.''
Including heat.
``I have to keep the house at 55 degrees even though I have two
little girls, ages 2\1/2\ and 1\1/2\.''
Keeping the house at 55 degrees. That is a story which appeared in
the Los Angeles Times on New Year's Eve.
Laura Walker, a 63-year-old paralegal has been looking for work since
January when she was laid off from a California law firm. She counted
on her benefits that have now run out.
[[Page 43]]
Not all of us have savings and a lot of us have to take
care of family because of what happened in the economy, said
Walker, of Santa Clarita, who said she has applied for at
least three jobs a week and shares an apartment with her
unemployed son, his wife and two children. It's going to put
my family and me out on the streets.
That appeared in Bloomberg News on December 31.
We have a story of a software engineer who lives in San Diego County.
She is one of 18,000 San Diego County residents to lose their payments.
She says her $450 weekly unemployment payment goes to food, dental
insurance, and other living necessities. She has tried zealously to
find work. She has volunteered. She has attended meetings. She has cold
called. She has written letters. She has joined the Project Management
Institute of San Diego. She said:
I haven't been sitting here watching soap operas. I would
go to work tomorrow, or today. I really am tired of this.
That story appeared in the San Diego Tribune. I ask unanimous consent
that several additional stories be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Cindy Snow, of Beaumont, CA, lost her job as a social
worker in April when the San Bernardino school system
terminated the child-care program where she worked. Her
husband, employed in the construction industry, has been
without a job since 2009. They have been relying on
assistance from the California Housing Finance Agency to
cover a $1,424-a-month payment on their home.
When she loses her unemployment benefits, she said, the
family will no longer qualify for the housing assistance.
``Why are they using us as pawns? They're playing games with
people's lives,'' Snow said, referring to politicians in
Washington.
--Bloomberg News, 12/30/13
____
Steven Swanson of Madera Ranchos, CA, worked for 33 years
in wholesale, mostly in beverage sales, before losing his job
in 2011. Since then, he estimates that he's submitted resumes
for more than 500 positions and in the last six months filled
out more than 200 job applications--all to no avail.
``I want a job, I want to work,'' said Swanson whose
daughter and son-in-law live with him and pay rent to help
him keep up the mortgage on the house he owns. ``As a
taxpayer, I paid into the system for a lot of years. For them
to just shut it off and say, `These people need to get weaned
off and get a job'--well, yeah, I need to get a job. But for
them to suggest that I just go get welfare or go get food
stamps--that's why I'm frustrated with the Republican Party.
They just don't get it.''
--Fresno Bee, 1/2/14
Mrs. BOXER. So here you have the facts. I will just recap them. We
have a situation where the long-term unemployment rate--those looking
for work and out of work for more than 6 months is higher than it has
ever been, 2.6 percent.
We have a situation where we are coming out of the worst recession
since the Great Depression. Even though President Obama has done an
amazing job on job creation, creating 8 million private sector jobs in
his time--8 million private sector jobs under President Obama. We lost
more than 600 million private sector jobs by the end of 8 years under
George W. Bush. But we still have a problem. How many private sector
jobs were lost in the recession? More than 8 million. So we need to
restore those jobs.
So this is not the time--when you go for a job and there are three
applicants for one job--to tell people they are cut off from
unemployment.
Here is the issue. In a State that has a really good economy with a
very low unemployment rate, less than about 5 percent, the full
extension does not go forward. It only goes forward to States that have
a high unemployment rate. So it is targeted. It is not going to States
where there is a boom going on or a really strong economy. It goes to
States that have a tough unemployment rate, and have all these people
coming for one job opening.
In some States it is five to one. Remember, the average is almost
three to one, three people for every job. In some States they are doing
better. Maybe there is just two people for every job. But there are
three nationally. In some States it is way higher. So we are just
saying at this particular point in time: Let's extend this for a 3-
month period. Do it without offsets, because when you offset you cut
something else and you constrict the economy at a time when you should
be expanding it. Two-thirds of the time we have never paid for
unemployment extensions. Under George W. Bush, who started the current
program, we never did--at least in the beginning we did not.
We care about jobs in this country. Everybody does. If we extend
unemployment insurance, we would prevent the loss of 240,000 jobs. You
say: Why? That is because when folks get their checks, what do they do
with it? They go down to the store, and they spend it buying food for
their families. They do not hold back. They pay their rent. The
landlord gets that check and spends that check. So it is an immediate
boon to the economy and an immediate fact that we can definitely prove
that jobs are not lost because economic activity in those communities
goes down.
We are talking, in my State, of 46,000 jobs that will be lost if we
do not correct this problem. The Congressional Budget Office has said
another year-long extension, if we do this and do it for a year--this
particular bill is only a few months extension--if we did it for a
year, we would add two-tenths of 1 percent to our gross domestic
product.
Extending unemployment insurance is one of the most cost effective
ways to grow the economy and create jobs. In the end, that reduces the
deficit. So all of this talk to cut this and cut that to pay for this,
it is counterproductive because you will pull back on gross domestic
product growth, and there will be less revenue coming into the
government.
So I do not see how this extension of unemployment is anything but a
win-win. It is an obvious win-win. If you took the politics out of it,
you would do the right thing, Republicans, because you have done it in
the past. When Republicans were President, you did it without an
offset. You did not hold up a bill. You passed it. You stimulated the
economy. You create more jobs. The deficit then goes down even faster
than it is going down. Look at how it is coming down.
There is no reason why we have to cut something that then depresses
spending over here, while doing unemployment over here. It does not
make sense. I was an economics major a long time ago. So I am not
saying that I am up to date on the latest theories. But one thing we
know makes sense: When you are trying to create jobs, when you are
trying to get out of a recession, you do not turn to austerity,
especially since we have wrapped our arms around this deficit. It has
been hard to do. But who would have thought we could have done it. We
did it.
So we do not have to say now that, while we give an unemployment
extension on the one hand, we are going to cut something on the other
hand and lose those jobs over there. It does not make sense. Then you
put those people on unemployment. It really does not make sense.
Would I vote to give a little higher tax rate to the billionaires? I
just watched a documentary called ``Park Avenue.'' This is what they
said. I have not fact-checked it, so we have to fact check this. But
this is what the documentary said: Approximately 400 or 500 families
are worth more than 150 million Americans--net worth. That is what they
said. We are going to fact-check it this afternoon. If I am wrong, I
will correct the Record.
That is what the movie said: 450, 500 families have more net worth
than half the population of America.
That is the income inequality.
So would I pay for this by putting a little tax on the billionaires?
Oh, yes, I would. But I don't wish to start cutting programs:
education, housing, health care, whatever they come up with, which then
means people would be laid off.
We can do this. We are not afraid to cut spending. We are not afraid
to reduce the deficit. We did it under Bill Clinton. We got a surplus,
and we are doing it under Barack Obama.
I defy any Republican to show me how this shapes up in a bad way with
the Bush record, which was taking surpluses that George Bush inherited
and
[[Page 44]]
turning it into massive deficits and literally no job creation. It was
1.1 million jobs created, compared to cutting the deficit in half after
President Barack Obama inherited the worst recession since the Great
Depression, creating 8 million new jobs in the private sector alone and
reducing the deficit by half.
We know what we are doing, despite what they say, and it is OK,
because at the end of the day the facts are the facts. I didn't make up
this chart. This is a chart that comes from the Congressional Budget
Office. These are their numbers.
The stories I have told and that I have put in the Record are
poignant. There are people out there who are at their wit's end holding
their lives together, keeping their homes at 55 degrees when they have
little children in them, not knowing if they can pay the rent, not
knowing if they can go to the grocery store, not knowing if they will
be homeless, not knowing what the future holds.
The least we can do, the least we can do in this Chamber is stand and
fight for them.
What are we here for anyway? Are we here for the Koch brothers? I
hope not. The billionaires are doing just fine. This country is a great
country. It is a great country because everyone can dream to go to the
top. But if we lose the middle class and we are not there with the
safety net when they fall, we will lose everything and this country
will not resemble the America I grew up in and that I knew. I had
nothing and my husband had nothing. He lost his father when he was only
a young boy. His mother was a school crossing guard and raised three
boys.
In this country, my husband went to college, to law school, and
started his own law firm, his own small business. That is what America
is.
But when we were in trouble when we were young, we knew we had the
hope and the dream. It was real. It wasn't unreachable. It was
reachable because there was a safety net, and part of that safety net
is unemployment insurance. Part of that safety net is extending it for
the long-term unemployed.
I am going to close with a couple of facts about health care because
I am so tired of the ``bad news bears'' coming out here every day
whining about ObamaCare. I wish to tell everyone some of the good news
about health care because we don't hear it enough.
Across this country, over 2.1 million Americans have enrolled through
the exchanges in private health insurance--2.1. It is pretty amazing,
and I wish to state some more facts.
In California, I wish to tell you what is happening. We have our own
exchange, Covered California, coveredCA.com. What has happened so far
we don't hear around the beltway. All we hear is: ObamaCare is bad.
ObamaCare is bad.
I wish to tell some stories of what is truly happening and these
facts will catch up as well, such as 400,000 Californians now have
coverage through the California exchange, private coverage.
We have more than 200,000 Californians on Medi-Cal, which is
California's Medicaid Program.
A truly great number is more than 1 million California families--not
people, families, so we are talking about probably a few million
people--have begun the process of applying for coverage.
Across the country, I can state--and we know we have had our bumps in
the road--today we are resolving some of those bumps. We had about 2
percent of the people who wound up in a problem where they couldn't get
the insurance they wanted. President Obama fixed that problem.
Now we have that 2-percent problem down to way less than .2 percent,
very few families. Let's get that clear. Will there be more bumps? Yes.
Will we fix them, yes. Are we still worried about the few thousand
families who need our help? Yes. We will fix it.
I don't shy away from this. If we have a problem, we fix it. Somebody
point out to me any business that doesn't have a few problems in the
rollout, and I will say that is pretty amazing.
We had problems with the rollout. It was bad. We are fixing it, and
the proof is in the pudding. Today, 9 million Americans have new secure
health insurance; 2.1 million, on that other chart, have received it
through all the different exchanges, 2.1 million; 3.9 million have
enrolled in Medicaid; and 3 million young adults can now stay on their
parents' plans. There were bumps in the road, we fixed them, and we
will continue to do so, but this is a good story.
I wish to read from some constituents who have written to me about
the Affordable Care Act. These are real people speaking, not
politicians, not I--them.
Mary Natwick of Monrovia signed up for a platinum plan for her family
of three through the Covered California Web site. Even though she makes
too much to qualify for a subsidy and even though she purchased the
highest level plan, she is saving $1,000 a month on her premiums and
she has a lower deductible.
Mary wrote:
Needless to say, we are thrilled beyond belief. Please
accept our gratitude, and pass on our thanks to all who voted
for this bill.
This is a constituent who likes ObamaCare and she thanks the Senator
from Oregon, Mr. Merkley.
David Specter of Ventura and his wife are young retirees, 62 and 58.
Their old premiums cost $882 a month. Now because David and his wife
qualify for subsidized premiums on the Covered California exchange,
they will pay a total of $434 a month with lower deductibles. That is
$400 a month in savings. Calculate what that means in 1 year, $400 a
month. They can spend it in the neighborhood, in the movies, at a
restaurant, in the grocery store, on a vacation, gifts for their
grandkids.
David wrote:
Thank you so much for supporting the Affordable Care Act.
It may not be perfect, but it sure makes a big difference for
us.
I think that sums it up for me. The Affordable Care Act, ObamaCare,
may not be perfect, but it sure is making a difference for Americans--
so far 9 million strong, and it will be way more than that.
Maya Walls of San Diego was diagnosed with breast cancer at 27 years
of age. Since that diagnosis 20 years ago, she has either kept working
to maintain insurance or paid very high COBRA premiums in between her
jobs to keep her coverage and to avoid preexisting condition
exclusions. That is because, as we know, until ObamaCare became the law
of the land, insurers could walk out on people once they got sick.
Two years ago, Maya lost her job. In September she held her breath
and went without coverage. On October 1, she found out she finally
qualified for California's new expanded Medicaid Program, which she had
never qualified for before.
She wrote:
Please do not give an inch on the ACA. This is the first
time I have taken a deep breath in 20 years. Thank you.
I see we have a new Presiding Officer, and I wish to retell this
story.
This is a story of one of my constituents who was diagnosed with
breast cancer at 27 years of age. Since that diagnosis she was so
scared she would lose her insurance because of her preexisting
condition that she kept paying very high COBRA premiums. When she
finally ran out of options, she lost her insurance and just found out
she qualifies for the new expanded Medicaid.
She wrote:
Please do not give an inch on the ACA. This is the first
time I have taken a deep breath in 20 years.
I say to the American people--I hope a few will hear my voice--
nothing in life is perfect. No bill is perfect. No business is perfect.
No one is perfect; no individual, no President, no Senator for sure.
But we see a problem, and we do our best to step up to the plate.
If things go wrong, as it did with the rollout, we get mad about it,
but we fix it, and we don't go back to the problems we had before of
kids being kicked off their parents' insurance and having no insurance,
of people being told: Sorry. You have asthma or you have cancer or you
have high blood pressure. We can't help you.
Those days are over. Being a woman was a preexisting condition.
Having been a victim of sexual assault was a preexisting condition. If
someone was
[[Page 45]]
in an abusive relationship, they said: You are just too high of a risk,
and they walked away.
There were lifetime caps on our policies. There were annual caps on
our policies, gender discrimination, preexisting condition
discrimination, all of that.
I am going to say anyone who wants to repeal ObamaCare or the
Affordable Care Act will go back to those days.
I will never forget reading a New American Foundation study that
said, if we hadn't changed health care in this country, we were getting
to a place where premiums would have risen to about 50 percent of our
incomes, on average, for at least half of American households. At that
point, who is going to be able to afford insurance?
I met people who were praying on their hands and knees to turn 65. As
we get older we say: Oh, my God. I want to stay young.
People were saying: Let me get to my 65th birthday so I can get
Medicare because I have no insurance.
That is what I heard from my constituents.
What I hear may not be perfect, but it is saving their lives: Fix
what is a problem, Senator. You can.
I thank the President for acting to make sure the people who got
those cancellation notices--it was about 2 percent of all Americans--
were able to stay on similar insurance for an extended period of time.
Yes, we will fix what the problems are, but we will also rejoice when
we get letters such as I am getting from all over my State. I ask
unanimous consent to have three additional stories printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
John Nunnemacher is a 43-year-old freelance graphic artist
from San Jose and the last time he had health insurance was
15 years ago, when his employer paid for his coverage. But as
of January 1, John is covered by a plan he can finally
afford. He told the San Jose Mercury News, ``I hoped this day
would come. I worried that it wouldn't. And I'm very glad
that it finally has.''
____
Amy Torregrossa, 27, is from San Francisco. She has been
without insurance since July, when coverage through her
partner's company ended because he changed jobs. She has a
congenital heart defect and a history of high blood pressure.
She no longer runs, she said, because ``if I twist my ankle
or get hit by a car. . .any doctor visit is so expensive.''
She signed up on Covered California for a silver plan costing
$310 a month. She made sure her cardiologist was in the
insurer's network and plans to schedule a checkup for early
next year.
____
Michel Stong, 57, is a self-employed product designer. For
many years, she could not afford any insurance at all because
of a false-positive test for lupus, which incorrectly flagged
her as someone with a pre-existing condition. For the past 15
years, she could afford only catastrophic insurance. Now,
thanks to a tax credit, she will pay $55 a month with no
deductible and a $3 copay for doctor visits. ``It just blows
my mind that I can get health insurance for this price! I can
finally afford checkups, tests, and age-related visits.''
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, we will tell those stories and we will
counteract the stories we hear.
In closing, I wish to say--because I know the Senator from Oregon has
been waiting patiently--the reason I took to the floor to talk about
health care is to make the point that it is the middle class and the
working poor who are truly being helped--that is so important in this
time of income inequality--and make the point that we make sure we
extend the unemployment compensation to the long-term unemployed as
they, through no fault of their own, are trying to keep their house and
home together, which is so critical.
I thank my six Republican colleagues who showed courage, stepped up,
and allowed us to get on this bill. I hope we pass it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Heitkamp). The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I wish to make a few very brief
comments, and the first is this: In the budget agreement that was
hammered out right before we left for the holidays, a provision was
inserted by Congressman Ryan that changed the COLA details for our
veterans. This provision is outrageous. It is changing the retirement
deal in the middle of a person's service or, for many of our veterans,
even after they have retired--between the time they have retired and
the time they reach age 62. In the coming days of this week, I hope
this body can come together and reverse this provision which unfairly
changes the terms of retirement for our veterans. Our veterans stood up
for us as a nation when they were overseas, and we must stand up for
them here at home.
Secondly, I would like to express hope for the bipartisan spirit that
led to an agreement to debate the bill regarding restoring emergency
unemployment. I had eight townhalls over the weekend, and I can tell
you that it strikes people as fundamentally unfair that States with
high unemployment, such as my home State of Oregon--that these weeks of
emergency unemployment, which was a deal hammered out in a bipartisan
fashion under a Republican President, President Bush, should be set
asunder.
Indeed, on December 28, 18,000 Oregon families got a lump of coal in
their stockings, and in the course of this coming year another 58,000
Oregon families will be thrown out in the cold, if you will, due to the
failure to reauthorize this program. Indeed, the failure to reauthorize
it not only affects directly those families who need a longer bridge to
the next job because of the high unemployment levels, but it also
affects the economy, destroying an estimated 4,000 jobs. Our citizens
want to see us create jobs, not destroy jobs.
So I hope the bipartisan spirit that led to our agreeing to debate
restoring the emergency unemployment program will lead to our actually
reauthorizing the emergency unemployment program.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, this new year represents an opportunity
for us to refocus and plan for our year ahead. Unfortunately, for
millions of Americans their focus will be on trying to stay afloat over
the next year while they search for work. All of us here know there is
no more important issue for middle-class families across America right
now than jobs and the economy. This is what they want their elected
officials to be focused on, and it is exactly what I think we ought to
be working on every day.
By reaching a bipartisan agreement last month, we did a number of
things to work toward that goal. First of all and importantly, we
showed the American people that Members of Congress can work together,
that we can listen to each other, and that we can get into a room and
talk frankly without trying to hurt each other politically. Second, by
breaking through that partisanship, we finally ended that seemingly
never-ending cycle of lurching from crisis to crisis. Third, we showed
that ``compromise'' isn't a dirty word and that there is a big
coalition that is ready to make some sacrifices politically to get
things done. Finally and importantly, for our efforts to continue to
grow our economy, we gave American families and businesses the
certainty they need to grow.
Of course, there is much more to do. As much as we are heartened by
the headlines that predict a strong economy this year, we understand
just how fragile our recovery still is, with millions of Americans
still out of work.
Now is the time to redouble our efforts, not shrink from the
challenges we face, because the truth is that all the economic
predictions in the world mean nothing if we don't continue to support
policies that help our middle class. That work absolutely starts with
extending unemployment benefits for the millions of Americans who have
been losing their benefits since December 28.
Because unemployment assistance goes right back into the economies of
communities large and small, nonpartisan economists have found it is
one of the most effective ways to build a recovery that lasts. Those
same economists have said that failure to continue these benefits will
cost us over 200,000 jobs. And renewing these benefits is simply the
right thing to do
[[Page 46]]
at a time when millions of American families continue to teeter on the
brink in States where unemployment remains stubbornly high.
I have come to the Senate floor today with the hope that we can
continue with the bipartisan momentum we saw with today's cloture vote
and that we have seen over the last few weeks and take a final vote to
provide a lifeline for millions of Americans. This should be an easy
issue. It would be simply wrong to cut off the support while our
economy continues to struggle and so many workers are really having
difficulty finding work. Right now, in fact, there are three unemployed
workers for every single job opening. If every opening were filled
tomorrow, we would still have more than 7 million American workers
across the country without a job to even apply for. More than one-third
of all unemployed workers have been out of a job for 6 months or
longer--above historic averages and higher than in past recoveries.
Millions of Americans are unemployed today not because they do not
want to work, not because they do not have valuable skills, but simply
because they found themselves in an economy that isn't creating jobs as
quickly as needed. These unemployed workers are desperate to get back
on the job, and unemployment benefits make all the difference for them
and their families while they scour the want ads, pound the pavement,
and send out resume after resume.
I have received story after story from workers and families across my
home State of Washington about what unemployment benefits have meant to
them and what losing them would mean for their future. These men and
women can't afford to have the rug pulled out from under them and are
now struggling with each day that passes.
One of these stories came from a woman named Carol from Puyallup in
my home State. She is a nurse. She was laid off from her job. She
decided that in order to make ends meet she would start her own legal
nurse consulting business, so she enrolled in classes to help her hone
her entrepreneurial skills. While taking those classes, Carol relied on
her unemployment benefits to get by. Then, not only were her benefits
slashed significantly due to sequestration, but Carol just found out
she was one of the 25,000 people in Washington State whose benefits
were completely cut off on December 28.
As a leader in the classroom, Carol has spoken to many other soon-to-
be business owners who are suffering. In the face of unexpected job
loss, they now feel as if they are being punished for deciding to chart
a new course in their lives. They are creating work for themselves and
potentially others but now have to decide whether they can continue
following that dream without the critical support unemployment benefits
provide them.
Carol is not alone. I heard from a woman who was laid off from her
job at a plant in Keyport, WA, early last year. She told me:
Living in Kitsap County, we are geographically isolated,
and finding work with so many qualified applicants right now
is much more difficult. This year, I have applied for over
200 jobs and in spite of a stellar resume, have only gotten
four phone interviews. I have lowered my standards throughout
the year and applied for jobs far below my pay grade to no
avail . . . my husband and I have had to claim bankruptcy . .
. and I truly worry about losing my home and displacing my
children.
Madam President, that is what people are facing today.
Finally, there is Traci, a woman from Everett. She is a former
executive assistant with 20 years of experience. After taking time off
from work to care for her dying mother and a daughter who was suffering
from bipolar disorder and drug addiction, Traci found herself without a
job. Shortly after her mother passed, Traci fell ill, making it
difficult for her to look for work.
While Traci was receiving unemployment benefits, they were barely
enough to cover the care her daughter required. Traci told me that she
now can't afford food and has lost over 50 pounds. She even asked that
I send her a video of the speech I am making right here as she won't be
able to tune in today because she had to get rid of her television in
the process of finding savings. Like so many others, Traci is searching
high and low for that one break, and she told me, ``I just need time
for someone to give me a chance.''
For Traci, unemployment benefits are not the solution. A job is what
she wants. But they provide her with some critical support while she
takes care of her family and tries to find that work.
Those are just a few of the stories I have heard, but there are a lot
like them. Millions of people across America, including an almost
additional 28,000 in my State, stand to lose the benefits they count on
if Congress doesn't act soon. These workers are not looking for a
handout. They do not want to be a burden. But they need support while
they work to get back on their feet and back on the job.
In this struggling economy, renewing these benefits is truly crucial.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has said that renewing
unemployment benefits is one of the most effective policy tools we have
to boost the economy and get money in the pockets of consumers. So I am
really hopeful the Senate will act quickly, without political games,
because failure to do so wouldn't just be devastating for the families
who count on this, it would also hurt many small businesses and
communities to have the billions of dollars pulled away from consumers
who spend it every month on food and rent and clothing.
Last month's budget deal provided us with a glimmer of bipartisan
hope coming into this new year. However, we have to continue working
together to focus on improving the economy for middle-class Americans.
We cannot afford to allow this lifeline to be cut off.
The stories I shared today, like so many others, are heartbreaking,
but they also show the fierce determination exhibited by so many who
are out of work in the struggle to get back on their feet. They are the
stories of people who are applying for work far below their own
qualifications, going back to school to earn the skills needed to
change careers or waking up every day to scour for jobs in their
communities that all too often lack opportunity. I believe it is
Congress that needs to match their determination and grit. We took an
important first step today, and I know unemployed workers I have heard
from are watching. Today's vote is a glimmer of hope for them. We can't
let it fade. We need to move on and pass this extension quickly, and
the House needs to follow suit.
Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, what is the parliamentary situation?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is in postcloture on the motion to
proceed to S. 1845.
Farm Bill Conference
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I congratulate Senator Reid, who I know
worked extraordinarily hard to get the votes for this.
I read something someone wrote in the press, saying they are afraid
that Senator Reid didn't talk about these issues enough yesterday on
the floor. I would point out that you can either talk or do. I thought
he spoke quite well, but he basically spent the time lining up the
votes and won. A lot of people talk about what they want to do. Senator
Reid usually gets it accomplished. As one who has served here longer
than anybody else in this body, I would rather see people get things
done, and he did.
Speaking of things to get done in this new year, the farm bill
remains as one of the Nation's top legislative priorities. Yet it has
languished in Congress's in-box. As the Senate begins this new session,
it is a relief--at last--to be able to say that there are new glimmers
of hope that Congress is nearing the point of being able to complete
work on a farm bill.
We passed this farm bill twice in the Senate. I compliment the chair
of the
[[Page 47]]
Agriculture Committee, Senator Stabenow. She brought together Democrats
and Republicans, many of us who served at one time or another as either
chair or ranking member or both on that committee, and said: Why don't
we just do it the old-fashioned way? Instead of just talking about it,
why don't we actually sit down, write it, and bring something to the
floor that can pass? We did, and it passed twice. While over in the
House, the bill languished for quite some time before they decided to
move forward.
Chairwoman Stabenow and Chairman Lucas from the House worked
throughout the holiday break. My own staff, Adrienne Wojciechowski and
Rebekah Weber, have worked very hard with them to produce a bipartisan,
comprehensive bill that addresses the needs of farmers, families,
communities, and taxpayers.
A farm bill is a dynamic element of our agriculture economy, and of
our overall national economy. A farm bill touches every family, in ways
large and small. It has now been more than 460 days since the last farm
bill expired. That is well over a year ago. Since then, American
farmers have struggled to make long-term planting decisions, and more
than 20 programs--such as those affecting organic certification cost-
sharing, beginning farmers, relief from livestock disasters, renewable
energy, and rural small businesses--all have been stranded without
funding. Rural small businesses are a major part of my State and the
Presiding Officer's State. But every State has some rural area that is
extremely important.
This farm bill limbo is part of a string of artificial made-by-
Congress dilemmas. Farm bill limbo hurts not only farmers, but their
communities, and our economy. It hampers efforts to help those who are
struggling the most in our communities, with food security for their
families. It holds us back from making greater gains toward energy
security.
Last month, the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives
proposed a short farm bill extension. Short extensions are nothing new
here on Capitol Hill. Most of us know them by the term ``kicking the
can down the road.'' They patch things over from one crisis to the
next. But just as a temporary extension to fund government offers
neither certainty nor meaningful change, a short extension of the farm
bill would not provide farmers the certainty they need to plan, or
funding for stranded programs. Farming is a business, and saddling
farmers with this needless uncertainty makes their difficult work even
more difficult. Even worse, the proposed House extension would prolong
direct payment subsidies for another year, senselessly costing
taxpayers untold millions of dollars. At this point, the only
acceptable path forward is to deliver a full, five-year, comprehensive
farm bill by the end of January. Moving forward on the farm bill not
only will avoid the so-called ``dairy cliff,'' but it also will help
families put food on the table, improve conservation efforts, support
regional farming, and put an end to wasteful subsidies.
This farm bill marks the seventh time that I have served as a member
of a Farm Bill Conference Committee. I know how difficult it is to
bring complex, five-year bills to the floor and ultimately to final
passage after a conference. I don't in any way diminish the difficulty
in that. I know; I have been there, and I have done that.
While there have been many significant changes in agricultural policy
since the 1981 farm bill, which I had the privilege to write, one thing
has remained the same: No farm bill is easy, and no farm bill is
perfect. But to finalize a farm bill, the Senate and House must work
together to reach bipartisan agreement. It means, whether you are a
Republican or Democrat, forget the symbolism and start dealing with the
substance. Stop rhetoric and go to reality.
The conference committee is making steady progress, and Chairwoman
Stabenow and Chairman Lucas deserve credit, and our appreciation, for
working closely together to bridge the wide differences between our two
bills. The cuts it includes will not go unnoticed, as we have already
seen spending reductions from the sequester, followed by the end of the
Recovery Act nutrition benefits. We can talk here on the floor. We are
all going to collect our paycheck every month. But we sometimes forget
these cuts and policy changes affect real people in real ways. So we
have to continue to do the best we can.
Speaking as a Vermonter, I would note that every farm bill is
important to Vermont, just as every farm bill is important to every
State represented in this body. Farm bills make real differences in our
quality of life, and the fact that Congress every 5 years or so would
renew and pass a farm bill was once something Americans could take for
granted. This is the first time we have not been able to do so.
The delays have been unfortunate, and they have been needless. But I
am increasingly hopeful that this recent dark chapter is coming to a
close. Farmers and families around the Nation are looking to us to pass
forward-looking, fiscally responsible, and regionally sensitive food
and farm policy--and the two have to be together, both the food and the
farm policy. Farmers have to be able to plan, but families have to
know, when their children go to school, they are going to be fed. Every
teacher will tell you that a hungry child doesn't learn. If children
aren't learning, what are we doing for the next generation? That is our
responsibility.
Now is the time, without further delay, to enact a farm bill that
will strengthen the Nation and support the economy. I know we are up to
this challenge. We have done it twice already in this body, forging a
bipartisan coalition. I am hoping the other body, notwithstanding some
of the Republicans who tried to block it, will come forward and speak,
not just for a small part of one political party, but speak for all
Americans.
Before I yield, I ask unanimous consent that all the time during the
recess count postcloture on the motion to proceed to S. 1845.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. I yield the floor.
____________________
RECESS
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate stands in
recess until 2:15 p.m.
Thereupon, the Senate, at 12:32 p.m., recessed until 2:15 p.m. and
reassembled when called to order by the Presiding Officer (Ms.
Baldwin).
____________________
EMERGENCY UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION EXTENSION ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED--
Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican whip.
Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, last month the President of the United
States gave a speech on what has come to be known by the code words
``income inequality,'' which means different things to different
people. He also talked about a very important aspect of that, and that
is upward income mobility. In other words, we want to make sure that
somebody who goes to work in a restaurant bussing tables can work their
way up the income and education ladder to where they can actually own
their own restaurant and create jobs and opportunities for other
people. The President called it ``the defining challenge of our time.''
Well, the timing, coming as it has, one might be forgiven from
wondering whether the President and his allies want to change the
subject from ObamaCare. We know that the rollout of ObamaCare has been
an unmitigated disaster, and, frankly, there is more to come. We can
certainly understand why the President might want to change the
subject. But while he is changing the subject, Republicans should
embrace the challenge of discussing this: What are the policies that
have resulted in income inequality and insufficient upward mobility
when it comes to jobs in America?
Of course, the President, you might predict, has talked about his
proposed solutions, which are creating more government programs and
more spending,
[[Page 48]]
including up to $6 billion of money that we have to borrow from China
and our other creditors just to extend the unemployment insurance
program by 3 months. My question is: What happens after that 3 months?
I don't want to be rash, but I will make a prediction that the
Democrats will say: We need another 3 months. After that, they will
say: We need another 3 months. Before you know it, unemployment
insurance has been extended beyond the half-year mark, which is the
basic program, to another full year beyond that at a cost of $25
billion.
Just to put all of this in context, the Federal Government spent $250
billion for extended unemployment insurance benefits since 2008. Of
course, the President did not mention some of the primary causes for
income inequality and the loss of upward mobility because he is
responsible for a lot of that, along with his allies. He failed to
mention that under his administration America has suffered the longest
period of high unemployment since the Great Depression, and he failed
to mention his signature health care law. I mentioned that a moment
ago. He is trying to pivot to another subject, but inevitably we find
ourselves coming back to ObamaCare and its negative impact on job
creation and the 40-hour workweek.
We know that ObamaCare has done a number of things in the short
period of time since it began the rollout, which was October 1st.
Millions of people have lost their existing insurance coverage. In
fact, more people have lost their insurance coverage than have signed
up for ObamaCare or even Medicaid. Then there is the issue of
skyrocketing insurance premiums. So I thought the idea was: How do we
make health care more affordable? In fact, instead of making health
care better and more affordable, it has become less affordable.
We are not just talking about the insurance premiums, we are talking
about deductibles. We have all heard the stories of people signing up
on the ObamaCare exchanges only to find out: Yeah, they have health
insurance, but you know what, the first $5,000 per person is the
deductible, which effectively means--for all practical purposes--that
person is self-insured. That is a deal breaker for many hard-working
middle-class Americans.
We know, of course, that even organized labor has complained about
the fact that ObamaCare has turned full-time work into part-time work.
Why is that? For employers who put their employees on a 30-hour
workweek, they are not required, under the law, to pay for health care
benefits. But if you have a full-time worker, you are required to pay
for health care benefits. So what is happening is that many employers
are cutting people back from 40 hours to 30 hours with a commensurate
loss of income.
Recently, I was in Tyler, TX, sitting around a table at a restaurant
when one gentleman who owns a restaurant said that because of ObamaCare
one of the single moms who works in his restaurant lost her 40-hour
workweek job. He had to cut her down to 30 hours. So she had to get two
30-hour jobs in order to get by. In other words, she now has to work 60
hours instead of working 40 hours, and obviously she is worried about
the lack of time she has with her children in addition to having lost
her full-time job.
The President has also failed to mention a number of other items
which have contributed to income inequality and the loss of upward
mobility, such as the medical device tax that is a feature of
ObamaCare. In Texas we have a number of medical device companies that
came to see me after the ObamaCare legislation passed.
They said: We have a duty to our shareholders not to spend their
money inefficiently, and so our only alternative is to expand our
existing facility in Costa Rica rather than in Texas. So the jobs that
would have been created in Texas effectively moved to Costa Rica
because of the medical device tax. So much for job creation and
reducing income inequality and enhancing upward mobility.
The President also declined to talk about his refusal to approve the
Keystone XL Pipeline. Of course, this is a pipeline that would start in
Canada and end up in Port Arthur, TX, in an area we call the Golden
Triangle. We happen to have a lot of refineries there that can refine
that oil into gasoline, jet fuel, and other products for Americans
consumers.
The President promised the country he would make a decision by the
end of 2013. I may have missed something during the holidays, but I
don't recall the President making any announcement whatsoever on the
Keystone XL Pipeline. Not only would it produce thousands of good well-
paying jobs, it would also produce a dependable supply of energy from a
friendly country--the nation of Canada.
What else did the President fail to mention in his income inequality
and upward mobility speech? He failed to mention how the impact of his
regulatory policies are piling hundreds of billions of dollars of
additional costs on small businesses.
For example, the small banks in Texas have told me that they have
hired new people, but the people they hired are the people who help us
comply with the Dodd-Frank regulations. This bill--just to remind
everybody--was filed to address the abuses on Wall Street that led to
the subprime loan crisis and collapse in 2008. As we now know, while
Wall Street was the target of Dodd-Frank and these regulations, Main
Street is the collateral damage. Yes, people are being hired but not
for the purpose of loaning more money and helping small businesses
start and grow their businesses but, rather, just to comply with new
government regulations.
What else did the President fail to mention in his discussion about
the lack of jobs and upward mobility? He failed to mention his proposed
greenhouse gas rules, which will kill jobs and drive up energy costs.
He failed to mention that during the so-called Obama economic
recovery--the President has now been President for 5 years. He can't
blame this on George Bush anymore. But during the so-called Obama
economic recovery, real median household income has fallen more than
$2,500. At the same time that real household median income has fallen
by $2,500, households are finding that their health care insurance
costs have gone up by $2,500, for a net loss of $5,000 for most hard-
working American families.
The President has failed to acknowledge--in his discussion of slow
economic growth--high unemployment. He has failed to mention that the
economic recovery following the 2008 recession has been the weakest
U.S. recovery since World War II.
Economists ordinarily say that after a recession there will be sort
of a V-shaped recovery--once you hit the bottom, you come out of it
very quickly and the economy grows fast. Under the Obama recovery, that
has been flatlined to anemic growth, which is not fast enough or strong
enough to hire more American workers.
Indeed, we have the lowest percentage of Americans actually in the
workforce in the last 30 years. What that means is that even though the
unemployment rate is roughly 7 percent--that is on a national basis--
millions of people have simply dropped out of looking for a job because
they see the prospects for finding work so dim.
The President also failed to mention that his 2009 stimulus package--
at that time you may remember that Speaker Pelosi said: Our goal is to
make timely, targeted, and temporary investments in government spending
to help stimulate the economy and help bring down the unemployment
rate.
The President later joked and said--we found out it wasn't a funny
joke--that ``shovel ready'' didn't actually mean it was shovel ready,
which was absolutely true. He failed to add that his 2009 stimulus
package added more than $1 trillion to the national debt, which now
stands at $17.3 trillion. That is equivalent to more than $54,000 worth
of debt for every man, woman, and child living in America today.
I don't think anyone in their right mind believes we can continue
down this same path of racking up more and more debt by borrowing more
and more money without having some negative consequences at some point
in the future. One thing we do know will occur
[[Page 49]]
is that the present generation that is racking up all of this debt will
probably not be around to have to pay it back, but the next generation
and beyond will.
If the President wants to have an honest debate about income
inequality, he needs to be honest about his own record, and he needs to
talk about it in a holistic context.
A few months ago, the New York Times reported that the trend of
rising inequality ``appears to have accelerated during the Obama
administration.'' Indeed, according to one measure of the income gap,
inequality has increased about four times faster under President Obama
than it did under President George W. Bush.
Here is the reality: If we want to reduce income inequality, we need
to boost economic growth. That is the debate we should be having and
which this side of the aisle embraces--not how we can pay more
government benefits to people who can't find work or artificially fix
the price of wages. We need to figure a way to benefit the entire
country by growing the economy.
Largely--at least where I come from--people say there are three
things that the Federal Government can do to help grow the economy: Get
out of the way, get off our back, and get your hand out of our pocket.
Those are three things the Federal Government could do which would help
the economy grow, create more opportunity, and deal with this issue of
income equality in an effective sort of way.
So we need to boost economic growth. That is the debate we should be
having--how do we create more jobs, or actually how do we allow the
private sector to create more jobs? We tried having the government
spend borrowed money to create more jobs, and that did not turn out so
well. So now we need to figure a way to get out of the way so the
private-sector economy can create the jobs that will put Americans back
to work and deal with this issue of income inequality once and for all.
As we saw last night, instead of trying to actually solve the
problem, sometimes I am tempted to think that the majority leader and
his allies really want a political issue rather than a solution to the
problem, because we saw last night the majority leader was ready to
have a vote with 17 Senators missing because of the storms around the
country. We know people could not get back because of cold weather and
storms and flight cancellations and the like, and I predict if we had
had the vote last night, the cloture vote that we had today would have
failed, and that would have fit very nicely into the majority leader's
and the President's desire to change the subject from ObamaCare to
Republicans blocking this unemployment compensation bill.
It did not turn out that way because we had the vote here this
morning. We embrace the opportunity to talk about our progrowth
alternatives, which will actually make life better for the American
people, not worse, as the policies of this administration have over the
last 5 years.
Basically, we know that the demand is this: to extend long-term
unemployment benefits beyond the half year, which is the basic program,
another 3 months, and to put the entire $6.5 billion tab on our
national credit card. But I ask you, What is going to happen after 3
months? Will the President and his allies be back asking for another 3
months and another $6.5 billion in deficit spending that will be added
to the debt? I think so. How about in 9 months? If we extend it for two
3-month periods, we will be here for another one that will extend it to
9 months and beyond, ad infinitum--$25 billion in added deficit and
debt spending--unless we solve the root of the problem.
Republicans would prefer that we offset any real extension with
spending cuts that would make it revenue neutral. We would also like to
reform the unemployment insurance program so it delivers better results
to the unemployed.
For example, if there is one thing that most people who are
unemployed need it is the opportunity for job skills training. We ought
to make sure things such as Pell grants are available for people during
that 26-week period of time they are on unemployment, that they can go
to a community college in their own town and learn new job skills, and
so they do not have to be stuck in the same old position. They could
learn new job skills, which will open a whole new world of opportunity
for them when it comes to jobs.
Before I conclude, I want to mention a few numbers that help put the
Obama economy in perspective. According to the Joint Economic
Committee, the economy grew during the first 4 years of the Reagan
administration by 22.3 percent--22.3 percent. During the first 4 years
of the Obama administration, it was about 9 percent--less than half.
Why is that? Why is it that the economy grew during the first 4 years
of the Reagan administration by 22 percent; in the first 4 years of the
Obama administration by about 9.2 percent?
As I pointed out, there are some good reasons why this recovery has
been anemic and so slow and why so many people are still struggling to
find work. If the Obama recovery had been as strong as the Reagan
recovery, we would have millions more private-sector jobs. Isn't that
what we want? The recipients of unemployment insurance compensation do
not want to receive a government check. What they want is the dignity
and the self-confidence and the opportunity to provide for their family
that comes with a good job. That is what is missing in this whole
equation and this transparent political exercise to play gotcha at
their expense.
We know it was President Reagan's economic strategies, combined with
permanent, broad-based tax cuts and sensible regulatory policies that
helped grow the economy. By contrast, President Obama's strategy is to
combine massive tax increases--including the payroll tax, a year ago
January--with a regulatory bonanza. We do not have to speculate about
what the impacts of President Obama's policies are. We are living with
them today.
So I would say to President Obama, if you really want to reduce
income inequality and promote upward mobility, we want to have that
conversation. Let's get back to the policies, though, that have worked
so well in the past, not those which have failed us and the American
people during the last 5 years. Let's put a stop to regulations that do
not pass a cost-benefit test. Let's do what we need to expand domestic
energy production and create jobs.
Do you know where the two lowest unemployment rates in the country
are? Bismarck, ND, and Midland, TX, and that is because of the shale
energy renaissance that has created jobs. If you can pass a commercial
driver's license test, you can get a job driving a truck with a high
school degree in both of those places and earn between $75,000 and
$100,000 a year; the lowest unemployment in the country but this
administration's policies have made it harder and harder for those jobs
to be created, along with the Keystone Pipeline and the jobs that would
create.
We need also to reform our Tax Code to encourage more investment. We
need to reward earned success so that small businesses can be started,
so existing small businesses can expand. All of the President's
policies, including, of course, most notably, ObamaCare, have made that
harder. We need to do what we can, as I said, to expand domestic energy
production and create jobs. We need to reform unemployment insurance to
get more people back into the workforce by making sure they have the
job training they need to learn employable skills.
Then, of course, the subject that will not go away--notwithstanding
the President's most earnest desire--that is, we need to dismantle
ObamaCare before it does any more harm to our health care system and
our broader economy. We need to replace it with more affordable
coverage that lets consumers keep the doctor they trust--a promise that
ObamaCare made, but a promise that has been broken, as too many people
already know.
Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, will the Senator yield for a moment?
Mr. CORNYN. I will.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
[[Page 50]]
Mr. PORTMAN. I was just walking through the Chamber and I had the
opportunity to visit with some of my colleagues in the back, and I
heard what my colleague from Texas was saying, and I just want to add a
couple things, if I could. One is to say he is absolutely right in
terms of the underlying problem here, which is a weak economy, and
really a historically weak economy. Never coming out of a recession
have we had a recovery this weak.
The Senator made that point well--that typically we go into a
recession in sort of a V formation. We go in and then come back out
with a relatively strong recovery from a relatively deep recession.
That certainly happened in 1981, where at this point in Ronald Reagan's
recovery we had created over 8 million new jobs. Unfortunately, we are
not creating the new jobs that we created in these other recoveries. As
a result, we do have these problems with folks who are both unemployed
and long-term unemployed.
I think it is important to note that we now have historic levels of
long-term unemployment, people who have been out of work for more than
a half year, more than 26 weeks--the highest levels ever. So something
is not working. It is different this time. I think what is not working
is that some of our basic structural institutions--such as our tax
system, our regulatory system, the regulations that have come from
ObamaCare, and so on--are adding more and more burdens to the economy.
The historic debt and deficits the Senator talked about are also
adding to our economic woes. It is hurting the economy today, and it is
certainly unfair, I would say even immoral to put that burden on future
generations. Some of the young people who are here today are going to
get left holding the bag for the $17 trillion national debt we now
have--$145,000 for every family in Texas or Ohio.
So the Senator makes the right points. We have to get this economy
moving. There are some very specific policy proposals the Senator has
outlined that we ought to turn to. The President has talked about tax
reform, he has talked about regulatory relief, but he has not
delivered. If we do not get at those issues, we are not going to
ultimately solve the problem.
But here we find ourselves within a few hours of having voted to
proceed on a debate on whether we do extend unemployment insurance for
people for the next 3 months beyond the normal unemployment insurance
that would be out there. Most States provide about 6 months of
unemployment insurance, about 26 weeks; some States a little more, some
States a little less. What we are talking about is how much do you add
at the Federal level as emergency unemployment benefits? I did vote,
along with some of my other colleagues on both sides of the aisle, to
proceed to this debate. As the Senator said earlier--I heard him--
perhaps that was not what the majority leader was hoping for because
maybe he wanted more of a political issue. But I did so because I took
to heart what was said on the other side of the aisle about the fact
that we are going to now have a debate.
I think this debate breaks down into a couple things. One is, how do
you deal with paying for this? Because, as we indicated, this economy
is not going to grow until we deal with these historic levels of debt
and deficit.
How ironic would it be if we were saying: We are going to help those
who are unemployed by making it harder to get the economy moving--by
not doing anything with regard to the debt and deficit, in fact, adding
to it.
So what I am going to be filing is an amendment. It is a very simple
amendment that says let's pay for this extension for 3 months. I just
heard my colleague from Texas saying he would support that. Others, I
hope, on both sides will support this. The specific idea that we have
is let's take the proposal out of the President's budget that says if
you are on Social Security disability and, therefore, not working, you,
of course, should not be getting unemployment insurance. It is in the
President's budget. I would also say trade adjustment assistance, of
course, should not be available to you because you are not working by
definition.
So it is basically tightening up some of the provisions in current
law to make them work better. That provides the funding to be able to
say: OK, let's go ahead and extend unemployment insurance, but only for
a few months while we do sit down and work on these bigger problems
that the Senator from Texas has taken a lead on and talked about today.
I hope that is where we will end up, that we will actually pay for this
rather than adding to the burden and making the economy even weaker by
adding to our deficit.
Second, I think we need to have an honest discussion, even in the
next couple of days here, as to how to make the unemployment system
itself work better. Unemployment insurance, as has been noted, is not
connecting people to jobs. That is the reason we have these historic
levels of long-term unemployment.
The Senator mentioned the Pell grants, for instance, being available
to people who are on unemployment insurance. That is incredibly
important, but also having our worker retraining programs at the
Federal level work better for those folks who are uninsured. I think we
should engage in that topic now--not only on how do we pay for this,
but how do we actually make the unemployment insurance system work for
the people who are unemployed?
The Federal Government spends over $15 billion a year in worker
retraining programs--47 programs spread over 9 different departments
and agencies. Often the right hand does not know what the left hand is
doing. The GAO, which looks at these issues--the General Accountability
Office--has said there is duplication in most of these programs, and
only a handful--four or five--are seeing the kind of performance
measures you would want to have in a Federal program.
So there is a great opportunity here on a bipartisan basis for us to
get those worker retraining programs working better and into the hands
of the people who really need the retraining to match skills with jobs.
In Ohio--and I am sure the same is true in Texas--we have a lot of jobs
going wanting right now. We have about 100,000 jobs available. We have
about 400,000 people out of work. How do you connect those? A big part
of that is providing the skills to those workers to be able to access
those jobs that are available that do require a higher skill--maybe it
is advanced manufacturing, maybe it is biotechnology.
The Federal Government is not providing that help right now. Those
worker retraining skills that are needed are not being provided. So I
do think there is an opportunity here for us to pay for this, to be
sure we are not adding to the debt and deficit, at a time when the
economy is too weak already, and, second, to provide the skills workers
need--Pell grants and so on--to actually give people some hope and give
people some additional tools to be able to access this economy and
these jobs that are available and get this economy moving again.
I thank the Senator for yielding.
Mr. CORNYN. Before the distinguished Senator from Ohio leaves the
floor, I did not know he was coming down, but I am delighted he did.
Not only is he an expert and former Director of the Office of
Management and Budget, distinguished Member of the House, now the
Senate, and a great new addition since 2010, he understands these
issues, particularly the fiscal issues, better than most of us.
But the Senator makes a very important point. I am worried, based on
what the majority leader did last night, that they preferred to have a
``gotcha'' moment, have the bill fail at the very outset, rather than
have a fulsome debate and a realistic discussion about what the
alternatives are to basically permanently paying people not to work,
through virtually a permanent extension of unemployment.
More than most people, the Senator from Ohio, when he came to this
Chamber, said what we need is a jobs program. So he advocated among
those in our Republican conference. He said: We need a positive program
for how do we facilitate the economy, the private sector, creating
those jobs. Of course, he
[[Page 51]]
described the amendment that he intends to offer on this bill, not only
to pay for this 3-month extension, which would be a welcome measure,
but also to reform the unemployment system so that people can learn
skills that actually match them with the jobs that do exist.
I would add, while the Senator is on the floor, that as he knows,
there are a lot of other good ideas that will be offered this week by
this side of the aisle, but it is entirely dependent upon the majority
leader allowing that sort of fulsome debate and those ideas to come to
the floor and be available for a vote, things such as the Forty Hours
Is Full Time Act that Senator Collins has promoted, the medical device
tax which I talked about, the repeal sponsored--the chief sponsor,
Senator Hatch of Utah.
Senator Barrasso from Wyoming has got one that would repeal the
health insurance tax from ObamaCare, which is a direct passthrough to
consumers. Senator Paul, Senator McConnell have their economic freedom
zones idea to help blighted areas where unemployment is high, and to
create a way for the private sector to be incentivized to come in and
start jobs and to create opportunity.
We have got regulatory reform bills and proposals. We have got the
Keystone XL Pipeline idea. I know Senator Lee and Senator Rubio have
both recently come up with some very visionary ideas about how do we
fight the war on poverty in a realistic sort of way. But my point is
that whether we are going to get into that debate and give a full and
fair consideration of all of these ideas about how to solve this
problem depends on the majority leader allowing amendments to be
offered and voted on.
I would ask the Senator from Ohio what his expectation is in that
regard, and what the consequences would be if the majority leader
decides to deny any amendments and basically shut down this process?
Mr. PORTMAN. I appreciate the Senator yielding. I would say that
having listened to some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
speak earlier today prior to the vote about what their intentions were,
including one of the authors of the legislation, and one of the leaders
in the Senate, it seems to me they are interested in a debate. They
encouraged those from the Republican side to vote yes on the motion to
proceed, with the understanding that there would be the opportunity
then to at least discuss these issues and to therefore offer amendments
and to have what the Senate typically has had over the years, which is
the opportunity for some give-and-take, and the opportunity to have
voices heard, people representing both the States on the Democratic
side and the Republican side of the aisle. So I am hopeful we will have
that debate. That is my expectation.
I plan to file an amendment to pay for the unemployment insurance
extension, and I know a lot of support will come from both sides of the
aisle for that. I also hope to be able to offer other amendments that
have to do with growing the economy in a more direct way. The Senator
mentioned regulatory reform, for instance.
We have bipartisan proposals on this side of the aisle that are
intended to take the unemployment situation and deal with it in a
broader context of reducing the burdens on small businesses, for
instance. When you try to get a permit, for instance, from the Federal
Government right now, sometimes with an energy project, sometimes there
are as many as 34 different permits you have to obtain. That is one
reason we are not seeing investment in some of the energy projects we
would like to see. It is a great potential for our economy right now.
We can make the potential even greater and achieve it if we can do
something on the regulatory reform side. So these are all issues that
ought to be part of the broader discussion as to how to increase
economic growth and therefore to increase jobs and opportunity for
people who find themselves unemployed and are looking for those job
skills and are looking for the jobs that are open.
I look forward to that debate over the next few days. That is
certainly my expectation. I hope that Members on both sides would come
down to the well and offer their amendments, have them voted up or down
in the great tradition of the Senate.
Mr. CORNYN. I thank the Senator for responding to that question.
I would point out, in conclusion, that this bill extends unemployment
benefits for 3 months at a cost of $6.5 billion, right now which is
unpaid for. But if the amendment of the Senator from Ohio is adopted,
there is the solution to that problem, along with reform of the job
training components of our current unemployment compensation system.
But if we are unable to have this broader debate, we will find
ourselves right back here in 3 more months because none of the
underlying problems, of which high unemployment and low growth are
symptoms, will have been addressed. So what I hope--and I would love to
be optimistic about the majority leader's willingness to allow those
amendments and allow those votes and have that fulsome debate. If he
does not, then we have had a 3-month patch and we will be right back
here with the same problems confronting us, with the underlying
symptoms of an anemic economy, with slow economic growth and high
unemployment.
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.
Mrs. FISCHER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. FISCHER. I rise today on behalf of over 37,000 unemployed
Nebraskans and nearly 21 million Americans who are searching for work.
The vast majority of these men and women are jobless through no fault
of their own. They are the real-life casualties of failed Washington
policies. They are our friends, our neighbors, and in many cases they
are our family members. They are decent people, and they are desperate
to regain the dignity of a full day of labor.
We have had 5 years of economic fits and starts--glimmers of hope
dashed by the harsh reality of persistent economic headwinds. But the
weak job reports and the Pollyanna claims of recovery don't tell the
full story. Our real unemployment rate or the total percentage of
unemployed and underemployed workers tops 13 percent, significantly
higher than the 7 percent reported by the Department of Labor in
November. That is nearly 21 million people out of work. At the same
time our labor force participation rate is at 63 percent, a near 35-
year low.
The greatness of a nation cannot endure without work for its people.
It is not only about putting food on the table. It is about the ability
of families to buy a home, to save for their kids' college education,
and to retire with a modest nest egg. It is about hard-working moms and
dads in need of the simple assurance that their government isn't going
to pass laws that intentionally make life harder for them.
I am interested in promoting thoughtful economic policies that
increase employment opportunities and make life a little bit easier for
our people. But instead of a laser focus on job creation, politicians
in Washington seem to pivot from issue to issue, frantically chasing
the topic du jour. Jobless Americans aren't interested in who is to
blame; they are interested in who is going to fix this mess and how.
Congress has returned to Washington for a new year, a new chance to
take on daunting challenges, such as joblessness in America. We have
all been informed by the media and the so-called wise men of Washington
that 2014 will be a year in which very little is accomplished. The
pundits point to election-year politicking, and some Members are
fretting about taking those very tough votes. There is no will for
action, they say. There is no chance for any kind of compromise, they
claim.
The 21 million Americans without jobs are counting on us to do our
job. They expect and they demand that we
[[Page 52]]
do better. Promoting policies to create jobs is not election-year
rhetoric; it is the duty of the people's government.
The best way to support the unemployed is not to just extend the
benefits; we need to grow the economy, and we need to provide paychecks
for families.
Lately, there has been a lot of talk about income inequality or the
need to bridge the gap between rich and poor. Some argue that deficit
spending is the way to go, while others insist on increasing the
minimum wage.
Arthur Brooks, the president of the American Enterprise Institute,
offers a different take on how to best conquer the income divide. In a
July 31, 2013, opinion piece published in the Wall Street Journal,
Brooks notes:
Again and again, the president offers a higher minimum wage
as a solution. Yet as the overwhelming majority of economists
have argued for decades, the minimum wage actually harms the
poorest and most marginalized workers--those with the most
tenuous grip on their jobs.
In January, a study from the National Bureau of Economic
Research surveyed the most recent studies and concluded:
``The evidence still shows that minimum wages pose a tradeoff
of higher wages for some, against job losses for others.''
Brooks continues:
The story for strivers and entrepreneurs is no better.
Scott Shane of Case Western Reserve University has shown that
business formation fell by 17.3% between 2007 and 2009.
Launching a business is never a walk in the park, especially
given the explosion of red tape at all levels of government.
While it is still possible for the educated and
comfortable, government bureaucracy can crush
entrepreneurship entirely for those at the bottom of the
income scale.
As a pro-poor rule of thumb, I suggest this: If you want to
start a landscaping business, all you should need is a lawn
mower, not an accountant and a lawyer to help you hack
through all the red tape before setting up shop.
I think Brooks is right.
Regulatory overreach is also holding back American business.
Regulations can be helpful. They ensure the health and safety of
Americans. However, overregulation places unnecessary burdens on small
business owners, and it does stifle economic growth. A homebuilder in
Nebraska once told me that he was fined $7,000 for leaning a ladder
against a wall.
There is solid legislation out there to address the rampant redtape.
Here are a few examples.
The Regulatory Responsibility for our Economy Act of 2013 is a bill
that was introduced by Senator Pat Roberts that I am cosponsoring. It
requires the executive branch to repeal duplicative and onerous rules
currently hindering our Nation's job creators. It also requires Federal
agencies to modify, streamline, or repeal significant regulatory
actions that are unnecessary or overly burdensome. The legislation
ensures that regulations put forth by the administration account for
their economic impact on American businesses. It ensures stakeholder
input and promotes innovation.
These simple commonsense policies are a good start toward relieving
business owners of some of the unnecessary challenges they face in
these already difficult economic times. I believe and I know many
Nebraskans believe that executive agencies should be held accountable
for the rules they put in place which directly affect our economic
growth and our job creation.
Another key way we can spur economic growth is through broad-based
tax reform. Our current tax system is arcane and riddled with loopholes
for special interests from the eighties. It is time that we simplify
our Tax Code so that we can encourage progrowth behavior.
Whenever I travel in my State and I meet with Nebraska's business
owners, both large and small, I hear the same message over and over: We
need more certainty. We need more certainty.
They need more certainty in the Tax Code, they need more certainty in
health care, and they need more certainty in the regulatory
environment. A business cannot grow today if it cannot adequately
predict its needs for tomorrow.
This is especially true for small business owners, who are
responsible for 64 percent of all net new private sector jobs. Jobs
will come when these entrepreneurs have confidence that the bureaucrats
are going to get off their backs. Jobs won't come from just another DC
Government program.
I believe we must shift the focus of economic growth from government-
driven regulation to private sector innovation. The great government-
controlled experiment has failed us yet again, so it is time for a
change of course.
There is no shortage of good ideas out there. My colleagues and I
have introduced dozens of bills to directly address job creation by
repealing specific regulations, preventing new burdensome mandates, and
encouraging a fairer tax system. But so far we haven't had any form of
meaningful debate. Why? Why can't we debate in this body in a
meaningful way? I believe it is because we are restricted in this
Senate by what we can actually vote on. It is a radical form of
control, and we are tired of it. Rather than allowing an open amendment
process, the majority leader has locked this place down. We hear
constant calls to end obstruction, but if we are being honest, we would
all acknowledge that the primary obstruction here is in the broken,
nonexistent amendment process.
My friend and colleague Senator Coburn recently noted in the Wall
Street Journal:
Mr. Reid had already used Senate rules to cut off debate
and prevent the minority from offering amendments 78 times--
more than all other Senate majority leaders combined.
Why?
It appears designed to advance a partisan political agenda--show
votes in an election year. In other words, let's airdrop bills on the
floor and prevent any form of modification or improvement. That seems
to be routine business around here these days, and it is shameful.
It is my hope that in this new year all thoughtful ideas will get a
vote. It is my hope that in this new year we will actually get a chance
to amend bills. That is the only way we can actually pass legislation
to improve the lives of the American people.
I look forward to putting forth my own proposals to fulfill my duty
to the people of Nebraska to get our friends and our neighbors back to
work. Rather than focusing on issues that divide us, I hope my
colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, will come together to support
policies that promote opportunities for all.
Show votes might make for good election-year politics, but make no
mistake--they are bad policy. And unfortunately it is ``we the people''
who pay the steep price for politics over policy.
I am excited for another year here in the Senate where I can
represent my friends and neighbors, Nebraskans from back home, and I
look forward to helping put Americans back to work in the year ahead.
Our citizens send us here to do a job and they are counting on us, so
let's not let them down.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Manchin). The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, the Chair and I earlier today were
part of a historic majority--a very bipartisan majority--that voted 60
to 37 to extend unemployment insurance for millions of Americans across
this country who are struggling to make ends meet, to keep their
families together, to keep a roof over their heads--basic essentials
not only to continue living but to continue searching for work. These
Americans are not without a work ethic. In fact, they are devastated by
being out of work for so long with such destructive results for their
sense of self-worth and their family.
This measure is limited in its scope and significance. It is only a
procedural vote on a temporary measure for 3 months, and only a partial
solution to the grave and pressing issue of putting Americans back to
work, restoring employment for Americans who want to work and keep
their families together, but it is profoundly important.
I want to thank my colleagues, Senators Reed of Rhode Island and
Heller of Nevada, as well as all of our colleagues who voted for it,
and even many of my colleagues who may have voted against it but were
torn and, hopefully, will vote for it on final passage. I urge all my
colleagues to get
[[Page 53]]
this job done so we can send it to the House of Representatives and
make sure it is approved there.
What is significant about this measure is in fact it was bipartisan.
It was overwhelming. It shows Congress is listening; that it is heeding
the calls for action from those 4 million Americans, including over
60,000 of them in my home State of Connecticut, who need this measure
so they can continue seeking work, hopefully successfully.
It is a temporary fix, but it is a measure with profound significance
for those men and women who courageously are facing the searing facts
of life during long-term joblessness. One of those individuals, in
fact, from Connecticut, very courageously appeared with the President
earlier today. Katherine Hackett of Moodus, CT, is the parent of two
sons in the military, who herself is struggling to keep the heat on and
put food on her table. She described her situation in introducing
President Obama when he spoke about this problem earlier today. I am
proud she is at the forefront of this fight, and I am proud to be
fighting with her so that Americans have the benefit of unemployment
insurance when they are unemployed for longer than the 26 weeks that is
recognized under the statute.
This story is one of numbers. We can't deny the statistics. The great
recession may have ended for a lot of Americans, but it continues for
the unemployed, the jobless, particularly long-term jobless. Those
numbers have become almost mind-numbing, but they are very significant.
According to a report recently released by the Joint Economic
Committee, 3 years after the recession ending in 1991, long-term
unemployment was at 1.3 percent. Three years after the recession ending
in 2001, long-term unemployment was also at 1.3 percent. Today, long-
term unemployment is double those numbers, at 2.6 percent.
Here we are, 4 years after the supposed end of the recession in 2009
with double the percentage of long-term unemployed that we had in
previous recessions. Our economy simply is not growing fast enough or
creating enough jobs to end that persistently high rate of long-term
unemployment. About 4 million Americans, more than one-third of
unemployed Americans, have been looking for work for 6 months or more.
In my home State of Connecticut, long-term unemployment has become
even more prevalent among those who have lost their jobs. In fact, 43.6
percent, or almost half of Connecticut's overall unemployed population,
are long-term unemployed. That means over 60,000 people.
But those numbers are less convincing and compelling than the human
stories. I was proud and moved to sit with a number of my fellow
Connecticut citizens--hard-working, dedicated people of all ages, some
of whom have spent lifetimes working for a single employer only to find
themselves rejected and released. Many of them told me they expected to
find work right away, within a couple of weeks, and here they are--more
than 6 months later, many of them--still struggling to find work and
working to improve their skills so they can match the job opportunities
that may exist.
Rosa Dicker, who has been out of work for almost a year, is a former
health insurance project manager who also has experience with health
care reform implementation in Massachusetts, our neighboring State.
Rosa has sent out 500 job applications in the past year. I almost
misstated that figure. I thought it was 50. It is 500 job applications
in the past year. And she has been granted how many interviews? She has
interviewed three times.
Nyrsa Cruz, an experienced social worker with a master's degree, has
also been unemployed since early 2013. Despite hours and hours she has
devoted to countless job applications, she has been unable to find
work.
Michael Kubica, unemployed after years of experience in the insurance
and publishing industries, went back to school to pursue an MBA. Yet
despite his educational experience, despite his degrees, despite his
dedication, he has been unable to secure more than temporary holiday
season work.
Anyone who suggests the long-term unemployed are somehow content or
have decided to stay out of work or have abandoned the search ought to
talk to people in their own communities--people such as Rosa, Nyrsa, or
Michael, who have struggled and worked to find suitable jobs. They are
driven, passionate, and absolutely dedicated.
One woman I met, Erin London, described it this way:
My whole family is impacted. My son asks, ``Am I going to
be able to go to college?'' I don't know how to answer. I
don't want him to know I am scared.
Imagine yourself as a parent thinking--and we have all thought it--I
don't want him or her to know I am scared.
Another Connecticut woman, Alicia Nesbitt, was proud to be working
and to have worked continuously since the age of 16, until she was
unemployed. Now she depends on food stamps and heating assistance.
These stories are powerful and compelling, even more so than the
numbers and statistics, shocking as they are. I hope we will heed those
human stories when we come back tomorrow and the next day to vote on
this bill.
In the long term we need measures such as targeted tax credits and
skills training so people can be matched with jobs and so they can
prepare for the jobs of the future. Pathways Back to Work is a bill I
have introduced that supports creation of new jobs as well as training
for the ones that exist. I have introduced it with my colleagues
Senators Murphy and Gillibrand, and I think it would do a great deal to
address the fundamental underlying challenges that are keeping
unemployed people from reconnecting with the world of work. But these
measures are for next week or the week after. Right now, the urgency of
this week is passing a measure that is fundamentally important to keep
people moving forward, searching for work, and to keep our economy
moving forward.
Those folks who receive unemployment insurance use it to buy clothes
or food or a car that drives the economy, provides for the kinds of
consumer demand we need to enable our economy to continue moving
forward. So we are helping these folks avoid the precipice of poverty
and homelessness, which makes their job search even more difficult, but
we are also helping our economy. All of us who want job creation and
economic progress want it to be our Nation's priority and success.
I am proud to stand and join Senators Reed and Heller, and thank also
our majority leader Senator Reid for their leadership, because our most
urgent task is to move our economy forward, provide these unemployment
benefits as soon as possible, and then look toward more permanent
measures--skills training, the Pathways Back to Work Act, veterans
programs that will enable all Americans to enjoy more equally the
benefits of the greatest nation in the history of the world.
The challenge of our growing inequality is also our growing inequity.
This measure is a start--a temporary, limited start--in the right
direction toward making America fulfill its great promise for the
future.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor today, and as I do
so, Washington has an incredible opportunity for a new beginning--a
beginning that would begin by listening to the American people and what
the American people want, and not just what Washington and the
Democrats in this body think is best for all the American people.
According to a new Associated Press poll, most Americans say health
care reform is the top issue they want the government to work on this
year--the top issue they want government to work on this year. Fifty-
two percent of people have said that is what they are asking us to work
on.
People have seen--and I heard about this all around Wyoming over the
Christmas holiday--the complete failure of the health care law's big
rollout last year. They saw President Obama and they saw Washington
Democrats
[[Page 54]]
break one promise after another. As a matter of fact, one of the
President's promises was designated ``the lie of the year.'' The
American people have lost faith this administration can ever get health
care reform right.
It wasn't just a bad Web site. The President said: Well, the Web site
was bad. He said: The health care law is more than a Web site.
In spite of what the Obama administration has said, it wasn't all
fixed last year because the Web site is just the tip of the iceberg.
And huge Web site failures? Absolutely. I heard it everywhere I went
around Wyoming, and I actually even heard it brought up when I was in
Afghanistan visiting the troops on New Year's Day.
So it is not just the Web site, with the higher premiums, canceled
coverage, can't keep your doctor, fraud and identity theft, higher
copays and higher deductibles; the Web site continues to be just the
tip of the iceberg.
Beyond all of those things we have been talking about coming down the
line and hitting the American people, we have also seen even more
problems surface already this year.
Here is a headline from the Wall Street Journal, January 3:
``Consumers Hit Snags as Health Law Kicks In.'' The snags? We can
imagine what they are. People have been going to the doctor, going to
the pharmacy looking for help, and even though they signed up for
insurance in the new exchange, it turns out they can't be found. They
are not in the system.
So Web site failures? Absolutely. Insurance companies aren't sure who
is signed up with them. People aren't sure if they are covered. Doctors
aren't sure who is covered.
Doctors, as a result of their training, their compassion, their care
for human beings, are trying their best to help their patients. They
have been fighting a losing battle against the exchanges and all of the
problems with the new Washington-mandated health insurance. One Chicago
doctor tried for 2 hours to verify the new insurance for a patient who
was scheduled for surgery. The office manager finally gave up. The
doctor went ahead with the surgery without what should have been a
routine approval from the insurance company.
Here is another problem some people are going to have to deal with
this year. The Associated Press ran an article headlined ``Adding a
baby to health plan is not easy.'' Every day, babies are born and need
to be included in the family's health plan. For common life changes
such as having a baby, you would normally just call your insurance
company and they would take care of it from there. Not under this law.
If you have to buy your insurance through one of the new health care
exchanges, it is not that simple. According to the article, ``the
HealthCare.gov website can't handle new baby updates, along with a list
of other life changes including marriage and divorce, a death in the
family, a new job or a change in income, even moving to a different
community.'' Yet the Obama administration and the Secretary of Health
and Human Services says the Web site is fixed. It can't handle a baby
being born, marriage, divorce, moving, change in income. It can't
handle any of those things, and they claim it is fixed.
Here is another problem that has turned up. Washington Democrats said
the law would lead to fewer people visiting emergency rooms--I heard it
right here on this floor: fewer people getting their care in emergency
rooms--and that would reduce expenses. The reality is very different.
The New York Times, Friday morning, January 3: ``Emergency Visits Seen
Increasing With Health Law. Doubt Cast on Savings.'' But Democrats on
this floor said that emergency visits would decrease and that it would
save money. That is not what the New York Times says. They said,
``Oregon Medicaid Test at Hospitals Found Rise of 40 Percent.'' The
Wall Street Journal, in the same issue, talks about how the Medicaid
expansion drives up emergency room visits. The Washington Post said,
``Study: Expanding Medicaid Doesn't Reduce ER trips. It increases
them.''
Democrats don't want to talk about all these problems. They don't
want to talk about all of the reform bills which Republicans passed in
the House last year but which never got a vote in the Senate in spite
of our efforts to try to get votes on those bills. Democrats hope
people believe what they are saying, accept their claims that the Web
site is working fine and that all the law's problems have been fixed.
The American people see through this. They know that what has been done
to them by this administration is not right.
It is time for Washington Democrats to play it straight with the
American people and to make a new beginning on health care reform. I am
not talking about more fake fixes like the one we saw right before
Christmas. That was the Obama administration quietly announcing that
people whose insurance had been canceled because of the law could apply
for a hardship exemption to avoid the individual mandate.
Well, the newer numbers have come out. There are now more than 5
million health insurance cancellations in 35 States. And we don't even
know how many were canceled in Texas, Ohio, Virginia, South Carolina,
Missouri, and Wisconsin. We don't know those numbers yet. So we know
that a minimum of 5 million people have received cancellation notices
and the anxiety that comes with that, as well as the anger. When people
tried to replace the plans they lost, many found that their premiums
would skyrocket and their deductibles would be higher than ever.
I find it interesting that Democrats I have talked to said: Well,
January 1 has come, so the numbers aren't going to go up anymore. That
is just not true. I was just in my office and got off the phone with a
friend in Douglas, WY. He is a pharmacist and provides health insurance
for employees. He has fewer than 50 employees, so it is not mandatory
under the law that he do so, but he does it anyway and he has done it
for years. But Gary is in a situation where he has now received a
letter of cancellation of his own insurance policy, and it was dated
January 1. This is not something from last year; this is something
dated January 1, 2014. It is a letter from the Madison National Life
Insurance Company to Gary Shatto at Shatto's Frontier Drug in Douglas,
WY.
``Important Notice.'' Can you imagine getting this letter and opening
it? ``Important Notice'' in bold print. ``This Affects Your Insurance
Contract Rights. Please Read Carefully.'' That would get your
attention.
This notice is to inform your company that Madison National
Life Insurance Company . . . will be exiting the employer
small group major medical insurance market in Wyoming
effective June 30, 2014 at midnight.
Exiting June 30, 2014, at midnight.
So what this tells us is these numbers are going to go up because, at
3,000, the numbers in Wyoming are such that we know more people are
going to get cancellation notices. And this isn't just for Gary; this
is for everybody who works there.
They ``will be exiting the employer small group major medical
insurance market in Wyoming effective June 30, 2014 at midnight. This
decision was prompted by the increased regulation since the federal
government's passage of its recent federal health care reform, commonly
referred to as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
(``PPACA'').
``The increased regulation will make it difficult for Madison
National to continue to operate and compete meaningfully in Wyoming's
small group major medical market. As such, your referenced insurance
coverage will terminate at midnight on June 30, 2014.''
This is what people are going to continue to deal with, letters like
this continuing to go out, a new round of letters going out January 1.
The President of the United States needs to be honest with the
American people about the significant damage his health care law is
doing to families all across the country. And as the employer mandate--
which the President has delayed for a year--kicks in this year, we are
going to see more and more letters like this and more and more people
dumped, losing their insurance, in spite of the President's claim that
``if you like your coverage,
[[Page 55]]
you can keep your coverage.'' No wonder the folks who look into these
things have labeled it the ``lie of the year.''
The White House continues to try to do this little bandaid approach.
Now they say they are going to let some Americans buy catastrophic
coverage. That is an idea I proposed to the President at the White
House health care roundtable back in February of 2010. After 25 years
of practicing medicine, I know that for some people catastrophic
coverage is the right option. For many people it is, and it encourages
patients to be smart consumers of medical services. But at our meeting
4 years ago President Obama said that these plans were suitable only
for the wealthy, that they weren't good ideas. He said that letting
people be smarter consumers wouldn't help. Now he has changed his mind.
Don't expect him to admit that Republicans were right all along. The
President said: Well, the Republicans have no ideas. If they have some
ideas, they can bring them to him. There were a number of different
bills and proposals by Republicans. The President seems to want to
ignore that just as much as he wants to ignore the problems and the
misery his health care law has caused for so many people all around the
country.
Instead of trying to patch this terrible health care law together
with chicken wire and duct tape, it is time for Democrats in Washington
to admit that this entire law is failing the American people because it
absolutely hurts so many American families. Then we can move on to
talking about real reforms to give people access to quality, affordable
health care. That is the year's top priority of the American people,
and it needs to be our top priority in the Senate.
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the
Emergency Unemployment Compensation Extension Act. That would be S.
1845. This is legislation that will continue to be a critical safety
net for workers who have fallen on tough times through no fault of
their own. Just a few short hours ago, as you know, the Senate sent a
strong message by voting to move forward on this vital legislation to
restore unemployment insurance for the more than 1 million Americans
whose benefits expired on December 28.
I wish to thank Senator Jack Reed and Senator Heller for their
bipartisan leadership on this issue. This is a very important step in
providing economic security for the millions of Americans who lost
their unemployment benefits at the end of the year or who will lose
them this year if Congress does not act.
By helping people to stay on their feet after an unexpected job loss,
unemployment insurance has kept millions of Americans out of poverty.
Rather than removing the safety net these people rely on, we should be
focused on policies that help the long-term unemployed get back to
work, including the help that will allow them to pay their rent and
fill their gas tanks while they are searching for jobs.
Yesterday I released the Joint Economic Committee report making the
economic case for extending the Federal support for our unemployment
insurance, designed to keep long-term unemployed Americans above water
as they search for work. Approximately 1.3 million workers, as we know,
lost their unemployment benefits on December 28. Barring Congressional
action, benefits will expire for an additional 3.6 million over the
next year. In my home State of Minnesota, roughly 8,500 people lost
benefits at the end of last year and about 65,000 Minnesotans will lose
benefits by the end of December of 2014.
These are people who may have had a plant close in their town. Maybe
their position was eliminated and no one is hiring. Either way, these
are people who have been paying into the system for their working lives
and we need to see them through to their next job.
This is especially important at a time of stubbornly high long-term
unemployment. For most Americans, State-funded unemployment insurance
lasts 26 weeks. Yet the average unemployment spell lasts 10 weeks
longer. In 2008, as our country went into the worst downturn since the
Great Depression, Congress authorized Federal support for extended
unemployment benefits for those who were out of work for more than 26
weeks. For people struggling to find work during those dark days, the
extension was a lifeline. For the millions of Americans still searching
for work as our economy recovers, it is a critical safety net.
Our economy, as we know, has come a long way since the downturn
began, with the national unemployment rate now lower than it has been
in 5 years. In my home State of Minnesota we are doing even better. The
unemployment rate is more than two points below the national average.
We are proud of that for our businesses. We are proud of that for our
workers.
But there is a problem that remains. While the overall workforce is
growing stronger every day, we are still facing significant challenges
with long-term unemployment. At 2.6 percent, that is people long-term
unemployed more than 6 months, it is more than twice what it was when
Congress last allowed Federal unemployment insurance to expire after
the recessions of 1990-1991 and 2001. In fact, in our report we have a
graph that shows that literally this unemployment rate we are facing
now for the long-term unemployed is twice what it has been in any other
year when we faced a decision in Congress and decided in fact to
terminate those benefits.
Literally, that long-term unemployment rate is now twice what it was
in those other years. That is why there is so much concern about
stopping the benefits at this point.
In Minnesota, our long-term unemployment rate is 1.4 percent, much
better than it is in many States in the country, but too many Minnesota
communities are still hurting, with unemployment rates reaching as high
as 9.5 percent in Clearwater County in Minnesota.
Given the numbers, Federal support for unemployment insurance is more
important than ever for the long-term unemployed. Extending this
critical safety net is fair. American families, struggling against
long-term unemployment, are working hard to find a job, to put food on
the table, to pay their bills. They are not exactly the ones who have
seen the upturn from the stock market that many people have seen in the
last years. They are not the ones who have seen their stocks rise. They
don't have stocks. They are just trying to put food on the table for
their families. They are not faceless, nameless charity cases. They are
our neighbors, they are our family members, and they are our friends.
In fact, nearly one out of every five Americans has either received or
is living with someone who has received Federal unemployment benefits
since 2008. That is 69 million people. Almost 24 million long-term
unemployed workers have directly benefited and another 45 million
Americans, including nearly 17 million children, are living with
someone who is receiving unemployment insurance.
These benefits help carry families through long unemployment spells,
pay the mortgage, rent, utilities. While the average unemployment
insurance benefit of $300 per week only replaces about one-third of an
individual's average weekly wage, unemployment insurance benefits have
kept 11 million Americans out of poverty; 2.5 million in 2012 alone.
That is 2.5 million Americans kept out of poverty because of this
program.
In 13 States, over 40 percent of those who are unemployed have been
out of work for more than 26 weeks and have exhausted their State-
funded benefits. Nationally nearly 38 percent of unemployed workers are
long-term unemployed. These are the workers, the 4.9 million Americans
who will lose their
[[Page 56]]
unemployment insurance if we fail to pass this bill. These benefits
help them to keep looking for work, support their children and
families, and contribute to the economy.
The longer a person is unemployed, the more difficult it is for that
person to find a job. Skills atrophy and professional networks dry up.
But you can't go on a job interview if you cannot even fill up your car
with gas, so we also need to make sure the long-term unemployed are not
left high and dry after State-funded unemployment benefits run out.
Addressing long-term unemployment is a problem that calls for an all-
of-the-above solution. We need to do more to support American workers.
This is the right thing to do. We also know it is better for the
economy. The CBO has found that each dollar of unemployment insurance
increases the GDP by as much as $1.90, and extending the Federal
unemployment benefits through 2014 would boost GDP by a .2 percentage
point and increase employment by 200,000 jobs. Failing to extend
Federal unemployment benefits will cost the economy 240,000 jobs,
according to the Council of Economic Advisors. Those are the numbers
with which we are dealing.
We also know if we look at the suggestions of the debt commission--
something that I think is a very important body of work and has some
very good ideas in it--their idea is trying to get about $4 trillion in
debt reduction. We are something above $2.6 trillion of the way there
with more to do, but the point is there are ways to get there. One of
my favorite ways is to pass the immigration bill. CBO has found that in
the second 10 years that will actually save $700 billion on the debt by
making people pay taxes, by bringing them out of the shadows so they
pay fines. That is what we are dealing with.
If we want to look at ways to reduce our debt, I don't think we
should be doing it on the backs of the most vulnerable, those kids,
those people who are long-term unemployed who still have not been able
to find a job. In many States it is still a very difficult economy.
Especially for the long-term unemployed, this is the right thing to do.
We shouldn't leave these Americans in the lurch. We need to restore
this critical safety net and focus on getting Americans back to work.
I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I come to the floor to talk about an
amendment I will seek to offer on the pending bill, amendment No. 2603.
We all sympathize with those who are struggling to find work in a
difficult economy, and I want to see people get back to work. Certainly
a short-term extension for those who are relying on unemployment
insurance--if it is paid for--will allow a transition for those who are
out of work. What we need to do most in this Chamber is to give them an
opportunity to get a good-paying job. The focus in this Chamber, most
of all, needs to be on enacting progrowth policy that will encourage
both small and large businesses to thrive and grow in our economy and
create jobs.
I have voted today to begin debate on the legislation to provide a
temporary extension of unemployment insurance. I voted to begin this
debate because I believe both sides of the aisle can find a way to
grant this temporary extension to those who are struggling to find work
in this difficult economy while making sure we don't add to the $17
trillion of debt that also threatens our country and our economy.
I continue to believe that any temporary extension in a long-term
unemployment benefit should be paid for in a responsible manner. So I
have submitted an amendment, Ayotte amendment No. 2603. I think it is
an amendment that makes a ton of sense.
Let me tell you what this amendment does. This amendment pays for the
3-month extension of unemployment insurance. It fixes the unfair cut to
the military cost of living that was just enacted in the budget I voted
against. I felt this was unfair to those who have served in our
military and were singled out for cuts to their retirement benefits,
unlike anyone else, and it included, by the way, those who were retired
because they had a medical retirement. In other words, those who many
of us--I know the Presiding Officer has visited Walter Reed, as have I;
those who have lost arms, legs--they have received a medical
retirement, and their cost of living was cut under this budget as well.
So my amendment not only would pay for this temporary unemployment
insurance for those who are struggling to find work, to give them a
transition to get them back to work, but it would also pay to fix and
reverse this unfair cut in military retirement benefits--many who, by
the way, have served multiple tours for our country and have sacrificed
a tremendous amount because they moved around, because they served both
in Iraq and Afghanistan, on behalf of our country.
It would also give approximately $7 billion toward reducing our
deficit.
The way I pay for this is to fix an egregious problem in our Tax
Code. It is a problem that was identified by the Treasury IG. It is,
frankly, egregious. This is a problem in our Tax Code that has allowed
illegal immigrants to claim a refundable tax credit for children who
should not be entitled to it--children that do not even live in the
United States of America or may not even exist. Why? Because when
someone claims this refundable tax credit, they do not have to include
a Social Security number on their return. A Treasury IG report
identified this problem.
This amendment--a simple fix that would require a Social Security
number for anyone who is claiming the additional child tax credit on
their tax return--is estimated to save approximately $20 billion over
the next 10 years. So paying for reversing the cost-of-living increase
for those who have sacrificed so much for our country, paying for a
temporary unemployment insurance extension for those who are struggling
to find work, and reducing our deficit by approximately $7 billion over
10 years--all three of those things are done by fixing an egregious
problem in our Tax Code.
The audit of the Treasury IG in 2011 reported that individuals who
are not authorized to work in the United States of America received
$4.2 billion by claiming this additional child tax credit. The audit
found that the payment of Federal funds through this tax benefit
appears to provide an additional incentive for aliens to enter, reside,
and work in the United States without authorization, which contradicts
Federal law and policy to remove such incentives.
The audit was based upon an analysis of tax returns filed by persons
with individual taxpayer identification numbers which are issued to
individuals who are required to have a taxpayer ID number for tax
purposes but are not eligible for a Social Security number because they
are not authorized to work in the United States of America.
Again, this saves approximately $20 billion over the next 10 years.
Let me tell you how egregious this is. Here are some of the reports
about this problem in our Tax Code. It is fraud. This is fraud we are
going to fix here. This is good government. We should fix this now,
regardless. This $20 billion is money that should not be going out the
door over 10 years.
Here are some examples from Indiana. In fact, I just saw walk into
the Chamber one of my colleagues from Indiana, Senator Coats. In
Indiana, a local television station found that an undocumented worker
who was interviewed at his home in southern Indiana by a reporter
admitted his address was used this year to file tax returns by four
other undocumented workers who do not even live there. Those four
workers claimed 20 children who live in one residence, and, as a
result, the IRS sent the illegal immigrants tax refunds totaling over
$29,000.
[[Page 57]]
The local station has found many undocumented workers are claiming
tax credits for children who live in Mexico. Many children who do not
even live in this country are being used by those committing fraud on
the IRS to claim this tax credit.
In Indiana, a tax preparer who acted as a whistleblower to an Indiana
news station said: ``We've seen sometimes 10 or 12 dependents--most
times nieces and nephews--on these tax forms. The more you put on
there, the more you get back.'' The whistleblower had thousands of
examples.
Another example from the whistleblower: ``We've got an over $10,000
refund for nine nieces and nephews,'' he said, pointing to the words
``niece'' and ``nephew'' listed on the tax form nine separate times.
``We're getting an $11,000 refund on this tax return.'' ``There are
seven nieces and nephews,'' he said, pointing to another set of
documents. ``I can bring out stacks and stacks. It's just so easy, it's
ridiculous.''
In North Carolina, investigators uncovered more than 1,000 tax
returns linked to eight addresses in that state last May, with refunds
worth more than $5 million. Investigators tied at least 17 tax returns,
totaling more than $62,000 in refunds, to a Charlotte, NC, apartment
one woman leased. At another apartment nearby, investigators discovered
153 returns, valued at over $700,000 in refunds.
Another address in the same apartment complex had 236 returns worth
$1.1 million in refunds.
At another Charlotte apartment complex, investigators traced 398
returns to two apartments, totaling more than $1.9 million in
additional child tax credits, with no guarantee that the children even
existed or lived in the United States of America.
Another North Carolina woman owned a tax preparation business. A
search of that business and her home turned up more returns, dozens of
uncashed U.S. Treasury checks, a FedEx box containing dozens of foreign
birth certificates, and a notary public stamp and signature stamp
listing her as a notary. That fraud case by the IRS totaled over $5
million.
In Tennessee, a search warrant prepared by the IRS claims that a
Murfreesboro, TN, tax company encouraged undocumented workers to lie on
their tax returns by claiming children who live in Mexico as
dependents. The IRS says that the Tennessee tax preparer has filed
6,000 tax returns over the last 3 years and although his clients only
paid $3.3 million in taxes, they were able to claim more than $17
million in refunds. The refunds left the United States on the hook for
$14 million.
So here is the question in this Chamber. The question is, Should we
fix egregious fraud in our Tax Code, where we have people, who are not
entitled to work in this country, claiming tax refunds for children,
some of whom have not been determined to exist, some of whom do not
even live in our country? Should we fix that in our Tax Code? Isn't
that good government?
And if we fix it, we can use the pay-for, the $20 billion that the
Joint Tax Committee has estimated to save over the next 10 years, to do
the following: to provide for a 3 month temporary extension of
unemployment insurance to those Americans who are struggling for work
right now; to fix the unfair cut to our military retirees, including
those who have gotten a medical retirement, those who are our wounded
warriors who have been injured, many of them serving in Afghanistan and
Iraq; and return $7 billion to the Treasury.
So here is the choice. Only in Washington would this be the choice:
We can fix the egregious problem with the Tax Code, where there is all
kinds of fraud and save billions of dollars; we can fix it for those
who have sacrificed the most--the unfair cuts to their cost-of-living
increase--those who have served our country admirably, and our wounded
warriors; and return money to reduce the deficit or what? We can be
denied a vote. I hope I will get a vote on this amendment. It is pretty
outrageous if I am not granted a vote on this amendment to prevent tax
fraud that needs to be fixed on behalf of the taxpayers in this
country.
If I cannot get a vote to take that $20 billion to help struggling
workers and to fix the unfair cuts to those who have sacrificed the
most and taken the bullets for this country and also to help fix our
deficit--only in Washington would that be a tough choice for anyone.
How do you vote against doing that?
I really hope the majority leader will allow a vote on this
commonsense amendment that will allow us to help struggling workers
without adding to the $17 trillion debt, that will allow us to say to
our men and women who have sacrificed the most: We are not going to
continue to target you with these unfair cuts to your cost of living,
when no one else has sacrificed under this budget agreement like that--
and particularly our wounded warriors--and to say to the American
public: We are going to fix fraud in our Tax Code, and also take some
money and apply it to the deficit.
It makes so much sense that only in Washington would I even be asking
the question on the Senate floor: Will I get a vote on this commonsense
amendment that allows us to do important things for the Nation and
fixes egregious fraud in our Tax Code, putting taxpayer dollars to uses
that they should be put to.
I end with the hope that I will get a vote on this commonsense
amendment and that my colleagues will support this amendment.
Thank you, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I would like to discuss today's vote, as
others who have come down here.
First of all, it is important to understand that this was a vote on
whether to start debate. I was one of those who joined several of my
colleagues saying: Yes, this ought to be debated. It was not a vote to
pass or not pass the legislation. That will come.
But the frustration that so many of us have had over this past year
in particular of not being able to participate in the process of
legislating boiled over at the end of the year and ended with a change
in the rules in the way the Senate has operated for more than 200 years
and stuffed the desires of the minority to be able to participate in
certain areas regarding nominations. Now there is some talk about doing
the same for legislation.
That frustration has led many of us to try to rethink: How can we get
back to what is called regular order--the way the Senate has always
operated in the past, the way it operated when I came here in my first
tranche in the Senate.
I started in the House of Representatives back in 1980. I was part of
a minority for four straight terms. There are majority rules. If one is
in the minority, they do not have a whole lot of authority. Maybe at
that time we held the White House under Ronald Reagan. He had the
ability to go above a Congress which did not support him but went to
the American people, and through their efforts many changed their minds
in the majority party and supported the policies of President Reagan.
When I came to the Senate in 1989, I was asked: What is the
difference between the House and the Senate? You are in the minority in
the Senate. You were in the minority in the House. I said: The
difference is like going to legislative heaven from a place a lot lower
than that in the House, because any Senator, majority or minority, had
the opportunity to offer an amendment, to offer an alternative, to
offer a statute, to participate in the effort to pass better
legislation.
Any Senator had that in the minority. The majority leader, then-
Senator George Mitchell, the Democratic leader, honored that. It was
honored throughout my term in the Senate. I was then gone for 12 years
and came back. I thought I was coming back to that same process, only
to find that, no, the whole process has been changed.
We do not have the rights we once had. We do not have the
opportunities we had. I came here to represent the people of Indiana
and their wishes. Yet now I am in a position where I do not even have a
chance to offer an amendment. I do not have even have a chance
[[Page 58]]
to offer an alternative or a substitute saying: Look. This may be a
legitimate issue. I cannot support what is being handed to us take it
or leave it. It deserves debate. It deserves alternatives. It deserves
to give us an opportunity to try to convince our colleagues that a
majority of us can work together to pass legislation.
That is the kind of legislation that works, as opposed to some of the
legislation we are dealing with now that has been enacted simply by
one-party rule. I think looking back on the Affordable Care Act, so-
called ObamaCare, those who supported it wish now that it did have
bipartisan support, that it was worked out, that some of the
alternatives that were presented by Republicans were debated and
perhaps supported. Maybe we would be in a different position now.
It is not right to characterize a vote on a procedural motion to say
let's go forward and open this for debate, the opportunity to have
amendments. That is why I voted for it. Unemployment insurance is a
legitimate issue, policy issue to debate. I cannot support the proposal
that was brought before us. But I can support going forward to discuss
that proposal, to look at the alternative, to offer my own amendments
and see if our thoughts, our ideas prevail.
I am hoping that is what will happen. That is up to the majority
leader Senator Reid. Mr. President, 2013 did not offer us very many--in
fact, very few--opportunities to do that. We ended up on a very sour
note in 2013. It was good we had that break and we are back, the second
day of a new session of Congress. I hope Members on both sides of the
aisle reflected over this period of time on how we can return the
Senate to its original intent, how we can get back to so-called regular
order, so we can have legitimate debate on the floor, we can go back
and forth with our colleagues.
I think if we amend this, it will be a better bill. We do not think
that bill is the one that ought to address this problem, but here is a
substitute. Let's debate it. Then let's have a vote. Some of us will
win and some of us will lose. But every one of us will have the
opportunity to have their voice heard, their amendment voted on, their
alternative evaluated, and perhaps work in a bipartisan way to come up
with something constructive.
So that was the purpose for leaving most of my party and voting for
the motion to proceed, to go forward. Here we are. Now we have a chance
to debate it. Senator Ayotte was on the floor speaking before me,
Senator Portman, Senator Cornyn, all proposing ways in which we can
offset the cost.
We all know we are adding to our debt and deficit on a daily basis.
We have not come to grips with that. Yet the future consequences for
this country, our economy, our children, our grandchildren, future
generations is something we are all going to be ashamed of if we do not
try to impose some discipline. How do we do that?
We made many efforts going all the way back to Simpson-Bowles. All of
the major efforts, we were unable get the President's support for any
of those, even though he commissioned the Simpson-Bowles group, which
was bipartisan. But nevertheless, we have not yet to this point been
able to get that large effort in place that will put us on the path to
fiscal health.
But one thing we can do is when we have programs--new programs, an
extension of programs such as this--come before us, we can say: Let's,
one, reform this so we achieve what we want to achieve, and, No. 2,
let's make sure we do not add more taxpayer dollars to our deficit
spending and our debt. Let's offset it with something.
For those who say we cannot cut a penny more, for goodness' sake, the
organizations--the Federal organizations, the Office of Management and
Budget, the Congressional Research Service, on and on, GAO and others,
have proposed numerous ways of billions of dollars, hundreds of
billions of dollars in savings for programs that are deemed wasteful
and fraudulent.
Senator Ayotte just mentioned specific examples, some in my State, of
abuses of the system. There are concerns about abuse of the
unemployment insurance, people seeing this not as a help to getting a
job and getting back into the workforce but seeing this as yet another
entitlement benefit they can receive without putting the effort in to
get meaningful employment.
We have the responsibility to bring forward measures that I think
give people a connection between unemployment and their ability to get
employed. That has been suggested by Senator Portman and others here.
Senator Cornyn also talked about that. So whether it is an offset in
order to pay for this so we do not go further in debt and use taxpayer
money for excess spending, when we know over here is waste and fraud
and abuse in programs that have been deemed dysfunctional, unnecessary,
the Federal Government never should have been involved in this process
in the first place, why not take those programs that have been
recommended to us by nonpartisan agencies of the Federal Government?
Senator Coburn has spent his career down here pointing out excessive,
outrageous, egregious waste that has gone on and a misuse of taxpayer
dollars. That is not how to run a government. My State has had to face
this. They have faced up to it. We made the tough decisions. Of course,
there have been interest groups supporting every possible item we spend
money on. But we separated the necessary, the efficient, the effective
from the unnecessary, ineffective.
We now have been rated as the most taxpayer conscious friendly State
in the Nation. Our per capita tax impact on Hoosiers in Indiana is the
lowest of any State in the Nation. We have an efficient, effective
government that has a AAA credit rating, that has been deemed business
friendly, taxpayer friendly, residential friendly, family friendly. It
is a good place to live because we are not wasting taxpayer dollars.
People are tired of spending money on what does not work.
I have gotten way off my intended statement. But I guess I am
expressing my frustrations over the inability to participate in the
process that can bring about better use of the taxpayers' dollars and
more effective government. I think I speak for a lot of people on both
sides of the aisle, that the way to do this is simply not to freeze out
debate, not to freeze out amendments, not to freeze out the opportunity
to offer alternatives. By moving through this motion to proceed, I am
hoping this is a step forward to returning to a process in which we are
able to do what I just suggested.
This decision is going to be up to the majority leader. If he wants
honest debate, if he wants the American people and all of us in this
Chamber to know--to examine alternatives, if he wants to be
conscientious about spending taxpayer dollars, allow us the opportunity
to offer some offsets.
Senator Ayotte had a specific and I think very compelling offset. If
we took a fraction of the money that we would save, we can cover the
cost of this extension, if that is where we think we should go. I think
major reforms need to be made to this program, and we ought to be
emphasizing getting people back to work rather than how to keep
extending unemployment. But the two go somewhat hand in hand.
There are people in Indiana and other places who have made every
possible effort to get a job and have come up short. We need to be
sensitive to the plight of those people, but we do not need to be
sensitive to those who have taken advantage of this program and are
abusing this program who simply say: I do not have to work because the
government will send me a check; when I add up all of my benefits, I am
doing as well as I could if I worked. That is not the kind of policy we
ought to be advocating or enabling in the Senate.
As I said, there are numerous alternatives or ways in which we can
find a way to pay for this, if we can also put the reforms in place
that mean we ought to go forward with this particular program. Let me
suggest three. My colleagues have suggested others also, which I
support. Any one of these could work. This program is scored at about a
cost of six point something billion dollars.
[[Page 59]]
This is a program, a policy, which requires taxpayers, in order to
claim refundable portions of the child tax credit, it would require
them to provide a Social Security number. I mean, this is so
elementary, it is unbelievable to discover that a government agency has
said: This is not in place. In other words, if you want to qualify for
a refundable child tax credit, you have to verify who you are by giving
them your Social Security number, so they can check to see if this is
legitimate or not legitimate.
Senator Ayotte laid out a situation where people were claiming 10,
15, 20 exemptions for children who did not even live in the United
States, who were not even citizens. I was embarrassed that one of
examples came from my State. But I think it is true of all States. But
the savings to put a good bit of common sense into a program is scored
not by Dan Coats, not by a Republican Senator but by a government
agency. It is scored at $27 billion.
So here is a program that wants to spend $6.6 billion. Republicans
say: First of all, we have problems with the program. I may or may not
support extending this. But if it does get extended, surely we do not
want to dump more money, more future debt, onto our children and
grandchildren. So let's take this $27 billion, or a fraction of that
$27 billion, and pay for this.
Let me offer another option: a delay for 1 year of the individual
employer mandates under ObamaCare, the legislation I introduced in the
Senate. If the President has delayed the mandates for businesses,
should not he offer the same delay to families and individuals as a
simple issue of fairness? What is the score--$30 billion.
A third option: Prohibit those who are eligible for unemployment
insurance from claiming Social Security disability benefits. Under the
law, one must be able to work to qualify for unemployment benefits.
Yet some people claiming unemployment benefits are also claiming
Social Security disability benefits. We can't make some of this stuff
up. Savings: roughly $6 billion, maybe more, that, if we want to
support this bill, would be a pay-for. So whether it is a pay-for or
whether it is the necessary policy changes to make the program more
effective--including, and I would suggest, a number of efforts that
have been proposed by my colleagues in terms of better connecting the
unemployed with those who are seeking, with the employers.
I can't tell you how many employers I have talked to in Indiana who
have said: I have jobs.
I have talked to others, but the bottom line is this. There are
people out there who look at what I have to offer. It is not the
greatest, but it is a job. It covers benefits, and it is a step forward
for them.
But they say: It doesn't match what I am getting from the government,
so I think I will take a pass.
This is not America and not the principles that made America the kind
of country it is. We should not be enablers in that regard through
legislation that we pass.
I hope that we can have a full and open debate on this bill and move
to policies that will grow and create jobs, and that we will adopt a
practice of paying for new spending with offsets from known waste,
fraud, and abuse that has been documented by government agencies.
Can't we at least do that? Can't we at least agree, in the future
interest of our country, both fiscally, domestically, on a number of
issues, for all of the reasons that I have articulated or tried to
articulate, this makes sense?
Breaking with some of the past ways I have given my vote, I have said
I am going to vote for the motion to proceed, and I going to challenge
the majority leader to look at this and say let's run this place
differently in 2014 than it was in 2013. Let's not be afraid of debate.
Let's not be afraid of amendments. Let's let the yeas be yeas and the
nays be nays. Let's give everybody an opportunity to state their case,
to offer an alternative, and to be recognized. As a Member of the
Senate, and the way this Senate was designed to be and traditionally
for over 200 years it has been, let's move back to that.
What happens next is now up to the majority leader. The ball is in
his court.
Had we not passed the motion to proceed with the support of
Republican help, then we wouldn't have given the majority leader the
need to make a decision.
What kind of a Senate do we want in 2014? A Senate that is doing what
the American people want us to do, representing the people of our State
with their interests, representing our beliefs about how government
should be run, how it should be funded, having an open and honest
debate, not afraid to take votes, trying to construct good policy for
the future of this country? We can't do that if this body is run by one
person saying: My way or the highway. You are in the minority. Tough
break.
This is a chance for the majority leader. Let's give us the
opportunity and return this back to the Senate it was once and always
has been until lately. It is up to the majority leader.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Ms. WARREN. I am here today with some good news. This week the
government will fix something that was broken. I know that some people
wish to deny that is possible, but hear me out.
Five years ago, during the 2008 financial crisis, we witnessed
firsthand that the market for home mortgages was badly broken. The
fundamental problem was that many lenders issued mortgages without any
concern about whether the borrower would be able to repay those
mortgages in the long run. Why would they do that? They did it because
they could immediately sell the mortgage to another financial
institution. If the borrower couldn't pay, that would turn out to be
somebody else's problem.
We all know what happened next. Millions of these dangerous mortgages
were bundled together, sliced, diced, slapped with AAA ratings, and
then sold to retirement funds, local governments, and investors all
over the country. When borrowers couldn't make their monthly payments,
those bundles of mortgages began collapsing, and the effects were felt
in every corner of the economy.
This Friday, that basic business model will change, thanks to the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's new mortgage rules. When these
rules go into effect, lenders will be able to issue a mortgage only
after they determine that the borrower has the ability to repay it.
Lenders will no longer be able to make loans they know will blow up
and then feed those dangerous loans into the financial system. Because
of the consumer agency's new rules, families will be safer. Pension
funds and other investors will be safer. Our whole economy will be
safer--not completely safe, but with a new cop on the beat, it will be
safer.
The new rules will fix other problems as well. Before the crisis,
some mortgage brokers who were supposed to be helping consumers find
the best mortgage were actually taking money from lenders to steer
those consumers into higher-cost loans. The CFPB's new rules will
prohibit this sort of under-the-table dealing and protect consumers
from being tricked by people they think they can trust.
The rules will also address many of the mortgage servicing problems
that emerged during the crisis. After mortgages were sold off, bundled,
and cut up into pieces for various investors, too many borrowers were
unable to track down clear information about their accounts. Some of
the companies responsible for servicing their loans took days or even
weeks to give them credit for their payments.
When borrowers fell behind, these servicers often began foreclosure
proceedings without giving people full information about the options
they had to modify their loans. The consumer agency's new rules will
help clean up the mortgage servicing industry so more families can keep
up with their payments and stay in their homes.
CFPB Director Rich Cordray and his hardworking and incredibly
talented staff have worked for a long time to
[[Page 60]]
put these new rules together, and its rules will reshape the mortgage
market for the better. They will give people a better chance to buy
homes and a better chance to keep those homes. They will force mortgage
lenders and servicers to compete by offering better rates and customer
service, not by tricking and trapping people. These rules will help
markets work better, and they will reduce the risk that the economy
will crash again.
Our work is not done. The march toward financial reform has been too
slow, and the chances of another crisis, while dialed back in some
areas, remain unacceptably high in others. Even today, the too-big-to-
fail banks that nearly crashed the global economy in 2008 are nearly 40
percent bigger than they were back then.
Yes, we have more work to do on dangerous banking practices, but this
week marks an important milestone. Six years ago, I noted that it was
impossible to buy a toaster with a one-in-five chance of bursting into
flames and burning your house down, but it was possible to take out a
mortgage that had the same one-in-five chance of putting a family out
on the street.
The point was that consumers had the Consumer Products Safety
Commission to keep people safe from dangerous toasters, and they needed
the same kind of agency to keep people safe from dangerous and
deceptive financial products.
In the years since, we have built that agency. It has already
returned nearly $1 billion to consumers who were cheated, and it has
helped tens of thousands of consumers resolve complaints against
financial institutions. Now, this Friday, that agency will put in place
some commonsense rules that will make a real difference for millions of
families who own--or someday hope to own--their own home.
The consumer bureau's new mortgage rules show, once again, that
government can fix problems. Sure, we have to work hard. We have to
fight against those who benefit from the broken system, and we have to
stick with it even when the odds are against us. But when we do those
things, real change is possible in this country. We are seeing that up
close this week.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Warren). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The Federal Reserve
Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, last night here in the Senate we
confirmed Janet Yellen to be the next Chairman of the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System. I firmly opposed her
confirmation. In 2010 I also voted against Dr. Yellen's nomination to
serve as Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve. I want to explain.
At that time I stated my deep concerns about Dr. Yellen's Keynesian
bias toward inflation as a member of the Federal Open Market Committee
and her poor record of bank regulation as president of the San
Francisco Federal Reserve. Those concerns have not faded; rather, they
are magnified in light of the importance of the position to which Dr.
Yellen has now been confirmed, and that is the Chairman of the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve.
It is not just that the Chairman of the Fed is perhaps the most
powerful individual in the global economy; it is that the institution
itself is in utterly uncharted waters. I believe we need a Federal
Reserve Chairman with the record and resolve to navigate our economy
through this incredibly delicate situation. In my judgment, I thought
Dr. Yellen was not that person.
The Federal Reserve's balance sheet currently stands at $4 trillion.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of the
balance sheet as of January 1 of this year.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
8. CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF CONDITION OF ALL FEDERAL RESERVE BANKS
[Millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change since
Eliminations Wednesday Jan -------------------------------
Assets, liabilities, and capital from 1, 2014 Wednesday Dec Wednesday Jan
consolidation 25, 2013 2, 2013
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assets:
Gold certificate account.................... .............. 11,037 0 0
Special drawing rights certificate account.. .............. 5,200 0 0
Coin........................................ .............. 1,955 -8 -148
Securities, unamortized premiums and .............. 3,952,587 -7,327 +1,113,092
discounts, repurchase agreements, and loans
Securities held outright (1)............ .............. 3,756,159 -6,835 +1,086,566
U.S. Treasury securities............ .............. 2,208,775 -54 +542,657
Bills (2)....................... .............. 0 0 0
Notes and bonds, nominal (2).... .............. 2,103,871 -1 +523,399
Notes and bonds, inflation- .............. 91,379 0 +16,639
indexed (2)....................
Inflation compensation (3)...... .............. 13,525 -53 +2,619
Federal agency debt securities (2).. .............. 57,221 0 -19,562
Mortgage-backed securities (4)...... .............. 1,490,162 -6,781 +563,471
Unamortized premiums on securities held .............. 208,610 -492 +37,730
outright (5)...........................
Unamortized discounts on securities held .............. -12,352 +20 -10,788
outright (5)...........................
Repurchase agreements (6)............... .............. 0 0 0
Loans................................... .............. 171 -21 -416
Net portfolio holdings of Maiden Lane LLC .............. 1,541 0 +128
(7)........................................
Net portfolio holdings of Maiden Lane II LLC .............. 63 0 +2
(8)........................................
Net portfolio holdings of Maiden Lane III .............. 22 0 0
LLC (9)....................................
Net portfolio holdings of TALF LLC (10)..... .............. 109 0 -747
Items in process of collection.............. (0) 165 +4 -22
Bank premises............................... .............. 2,289 -1 -42
Central bank liquidity swaps (11)........... .............. 272 -1 -8,617
Foreign currency denominated assets (12).... .............. 23,821 +35 -1,181
Other assets (13)........................... .............. 24,579 -1,637 +3,987
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total assets.................................... (0) 4,023,640 -8,935 +1,106,451
===============================================================
Liabilities:
Federal Reserve notes, net of F.R. Bank .............. 1,197,920 +2,719 +71,059
holdings...................................
Reverse repurchase agreements (14).......... .............. 315,924 +164,667 +212,653
Deposits.................................... (0) 2,445,620 -174,717 +822,821
Term deposits held by depository .............. 0 0 0
institutions...........................
Other deposits held by depository .............. 2,249,070 -201,663 +740,398
institutions...........................
U.S. Treasury, General Account.......... .............. 162,399 +68,506 +77,941
Foreign official........................ .............. 7,970 -10 +1,660
Other................................... (0) 26,181 -41,550 +2,822
Deferred availability cash items............ (0) 1,127 -87 -66
Other liabilities and accrued dividends (15) .............. 8,035 -1,514 -311
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total liabilities............................... (0) 3,968,627 -8,930 +1,106,158
===============================================================
Capital accounts:
Capital paid in............................. .............. 27,507 -2 +147
[[Page 61]]
Surplus..................................... .............. 27,507 -2 +147
Other capital accounts...................... .............. 0 0 0
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total capital................................... .............. 55,014 -4 +294
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Components may not sum to totals because of rounding.
Mr. SHELBY. A recent Bloomberg analysis contains figures that help us
put this staggering number--$4 trillion--into perspective.
I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record that
Bloomberg article.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From Bloomberg, Dec. 17, 2013]
Fed's $4 Trillion in Assets Draw Lawmakers' Scrutiny
(By Jeff Kearns)
The Federal Reserve's balance sheet is poised to exceed $4
trillion, prompting warnings its record easing is inflating
asset-price bubbles and drawing renewed lawmaker scrutiny
just as Janet Yellen prepares to take charge.
The Fed's assets rose to a record $3.99 trillion on Dec.
11, up from $2.82 trillion in September 2012, when it
embarked on a third round of bond buying. Policy makers meet
today and tomorrow to decide whether to start curtailing the
$85 billion monthly pace of purchases.
Among Fed officials, ``there's discomfort in the sense that
the portfolio could grow almost without limit,'' former Fed
Vice Chairman Donald Kohn said last week during a panel
discussion in Washington. Kohn said there was ``discomfort in
the potential financial stability effects'' and added:
``There's some legitimacy in those discomforts.''
Fed Governor Jeremy Stein has said some credit markets,
such as corporate debt, show signs of excessive risk-taking,
while not posing a threat to financial stability.
Representative Jeb Hensarling, chairman of the House
committee that oversees the Fed, last week said he plans
``the most rigorous examination and oversight of the Federal
Reserve in its history.''
While any effort to rewrite the law establishing Fed powers
lacks support from Democrats who control the Senate, the
scrutiny is undesirable for central bankers who believe
``independence is priceless,'' said Laura Rosner, a U.S.
economist at BNP Paribas SA in New York.
Not Welcome
The Fed Approaches a Taper on Tiptoe
``It's not a welcome development that a lot more time and
focus is spent on answering questions'' from Congress, said
Rosner, a former researcher at the Federal Reserve Bank of
New York. Lawmakers may also use the size of the balance
sheet to ``draw attention to concerns they have about the
Fed's responsibilities and growing role in financial
regulation.''
Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, whose second four-year term ends
next month, has quadrupled Fed assets since 2008 with bond
purchases intended to lower long-term borrowing costs and
reduce unemployment. Vice Chairman Yellen, who may win Senate
confirmation this week to replace Bernanke, has been a
supporter of the policy.
The Fed has said it will keep buying bonds until the
outlook for the labor market has ``improved substantially.''
Thirty-four percent of economists surveyed by Bloomberg Dec.
6 predicted the Fed will start reducing purchases this month,
while 26 percent forecast January and 40 percent said March.
Assets Held
The Fed's balance sheet exceeds the gross domestic product
of Germany, the world's fourth-largest economy. It's enough
to cover all U.S. federal government spending for more than a
year. It could pay off all student and auto loans in the
country with $2 trillion to spare, Fed data show. The central
bank's assets are set to exceed the $4.1 trillion held by
BlackRock Inc. (BLK), the world's largest asset manager.
The third round of quantitative easing probably will total
$1.54 trillion before it ends, bringing the balance sheet to
$4.3 6 trillion, according to economists in the survey.
``This is a stimulus of the first order. It's just
unprecedented,'' Alabama Republican Senator Richard Shelby
said in an interview last week. ``The Fed is an independent
body, but we can point out what they're doing.''
Jeffrey Lacker, president of the Richmond Fed and a critic
of the Fed's bond buying, said in a Dec. 9 speech he expects
the Fed policy makers to discuss reducing purchases at this
week's meeting. Adding to the balance sheet ``increases the
risks'' associated with exiting stimulus, he said.
`Real Risk'
Shelby, a five-term senator and past chairman of the
Banking Committee sees ``a real risk'' the balance sheet will
ignite inflation. So far, there's little sign that's
happening: a measure of prices watched by the Fed rose 0.7
percent in October from a year earlier, below the central
bank's 2 percent target and the least in four years.
At 22 percent of the $16.9 trillion U.S. economy, the
balance sheet is surpassed by those of other major central
banks as a percentage of gross domestic product, according to
third-quarter data compiled by Haver Analytics in New York.
In the euro zone, the figure is 24 percent, and in Japan,
it's about 44 percent.
That doesn't mollify Republican critics. When Yellen
started to make global comparisons at her Senate confirmation
hearing last month, Shelby interrupted her.
``I'm asking about the Federal Reserve of the United States
of America,'' he said.
Warning Signs
Yellen is set to take over amid warnings that assets from
leveraged loans to farmland are showing signs of froth.
The Fed and other U.S. banking regulators have said they
want to crack down on underwriting standards in the market
for high-risk, high-yield loans.
Non-bank lenders such as mutual funds, hedge funds and
pools of collateralized loan obligations, bought $630 billion
of the loans this year, surpassing the 2007 peak of $581.5
billion, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.
Sales of high-yield, high-risk bonds, rated below Baa3 by
Moody's Investors Service and lower than BBB- at Standard &
Poor's, soared to an annual record of $373.2 billion this
year, data compiled by Bloomberg show. That compares with
$149.2 billion in 2006, the year before the start of the
credit crisis.
The extra yield investors demand to hold speculative-grade
bonds rather than government debt reached 411 basis points,
or 4.11 percentage points, last week, the least since October
2007, according to Bank of America Merrill Lynch index data.
Spreads ended the week at 412 basis points.
Record Loans
Sales of institutional loans have also reached an annual
record, soaring 71 percent from 2012 to $627.1 billion,
according to data compiled by Bloomberg.
Potential losses on the Fed's investments are also cause
for concern and ``something we will be watching,''
Representative John Campbell, a California Republican who
leads the House Financial Services subcommittee on monetary
policy and trade, said in February.
The Fed sent a record $88.4 billion to the Treasury in 2012
and $75.4 billion in 2011, up from $31.7 billion in 2008.
Most of the income was from interest on assets bought under
the quantitative easing program.
The risk for the Fed is that rising interest rates reduce
the value of its bond holdings, potentially causing losses if
the central bank had to sell the securities back into the
open market.
``Losses are dangerous for the Fed from a political
perspective because they would be a risk to its
independence,'' said Roberto Perli, a partner at Cornerstone
Macro LP in Washington.
Deficit Spending
Campbell and Hensarling also say the Fed's purchases of
government debt are encouraging deficit spending by allowing
the government to borrow cheaply. The yield on the 10-year
Treasury note has averaged 2.31 percent this year, compared
with a 6.61 percent mean over the past half century.
``The Fed's additional extraordinary purchases of Treasury
bonds have supported the Obama administration's trillion-
dollar deficits,'' Hensarling said at a Dec. 12 hearing.
Yellen says bond purchases have put Americans back to work.
Asset purchases helped the private sector add 7.8 million
workers since 2010 and boosted home prices and auto sales,
Yellen said in her confirmation hearing, adding that the
progress will let the central bank get back to more normal
monetary policy.
Jobless Rate
The jobless rate has fallen to 7 percent from a 26-year
high of 10 percent in October 2009. Since then, the economy
has regained most of the jobs it lost during the 18-month
recession ended in June 2009.
``The balance sheet is growing because that's how the
Federal Reserve thinks it's going to accomplish the mandates
that Congress gave to it'' for full employment and
[[Page 62]]
price stability, Kohn, now a senior fellow at the Brookings
Institution's Hutchins Center on Fiscal and Monetary Policy
in Washington, said in an interview last week.
Still, policy makers haven't spurred the growth they
expected. Officials forecast 2013 growth of 2 percent to 2.3
percent in September, down from a 2.3 percent to 2.8 percent
estimate in March.
``QE turned out to be a safety net, a floor, a way to catch
the economy to keep it from crashing,'' said Steve Blitz,
chief economist at ITG Investment Research Inc. in New York.
``A safety net to catch a falling economy is not the same
thing that can springboard the economy to a higher rate of
growth.''
Mr. SHELBY. The article contains the following three comparisons that
I found more than interesting. Four trillion dollars is equivalent to
24 percent of the U.S. GDP. That is greater than the GDP of the world's
fourth largest country--Germany. Think about it. Four trillion dollars
is twice the amount of all student and auto debt in this country. Yes,
$4 trillion far surpasses even the amount of money the Federal
Government spends in an entire year.
This brings me to my next point. Many hold the misconception in this
country that China is the world's largest owner of U.S. debt. That is
not true. In fact, the Federal Reserve's balance sheet shows the
Federal Reserve itself is by far the largest holder of U.S. Treasury
bonds. With $2.2 trillion in Treasury debt, the Fed holds nearly $900
billion more than China does, if you can think in those terms. The Fed
holds more in Treasury bonds than do China and most of the eurozone
combined.
The rate of acceleration with which the Federal Reserve is purchasing
Treasuries should be alarming to all Americans. On the day of President
Obama's first inauguration, the Federal Reserve held $475 billion in
Treasuries. Today it holds $2.2 trillion in Treasuries. That represents
a 363-percent increase in the past 5 years.
It is no coincidence that President Obama has greatly accelerated our
national debt over that same period of time. There is a connection.
When he took office, the national debt stood at a large $10.6 trillion.
That is a lot of money. Today it stands at $17.3 trillion--5 years
later. I believe the Federal Reserve is aiding and abetting the failed
policies and the reckless spending of the Obama administration.
But the Fed's binge on Treasuries alone doesn't tell the full story
of its exploding balance sheet. The Federal Reserve's portfolio is also
loaded with nearly $1.5 trillion of mortgage-backed securities. I have
long been concerned that this aggressive and extraordinary purchasing
program is artificially propping up home prices, and this is especially
pertinent since an overheated housing market greatly contributed to the
financial crisis that caused this situation in the first place.
Taken altogether, the Federal Reserve has added more than $3 trillion
to its balance sheet since early 2008, just before the investment bank
Bear Stearns failed and the Federal Reserve stepped in.
I realize that sometimes it is easy to become lost in all of these
huge figures I have been sharing. I brought a simple chart that
illustrates the magnitude of the Federal Reserve's actions. It shows
here the size of the Federal Reserve's balance sheet by decade, from
its creation in 1913, 100 years ago, to present day. As we can see, it
took 95 years for the Federal Reserve's balance sheet to reach $1
trillion. But look at the incredible spike in just a few years since,
in the red here. Here we are today, just 5 years later, at $4 trillion
and growing.
Let's call this what it is: a backdoor stimulus program through
monetary policy. Very complicated, yes, but very important. It dwarfs
even the fiscal stimulus package President Obama rammed through
Congress during his first days in office about 5 years ago. President
Obama's fiscal stimulus package totaled $787 billion--a lot of money--
and I have just described the Fed's monetary stimulus package as nearly
four times larger and growing.
This highly unconventional monetary policy poses huge risks to our
economy--namely, inflation in the future and a devaluation of our
currency. I realize that current inflation expectations are relatively
low and anchored. However, again we are in completely uncharted
territory. Should inflation expectations become unglued, prices could
increase uncontrollably. There is simply no playbook that I am aware of
on how to deal with such a situation successfully.
Yes, I also understand that the Fed has recently announced it will
modestly scale back its so-called quantitative easing program. The Fed
will still purchase tens of billions of dollars of securities each
month.
Make no mistake--the Fed's balance sheet will continue to expand
rapidly. How long will this continue? We don't know. How large will the
Fed's balance sheet ultimately grow? We don't know. Will the Fed be
able to contain inflation if it does begin to rise? Again, we don't
know. And when will the Federal Reserve actually begin to unwind the
balance sheet--which will be tricky? Again, we don't know. How exactly
does the Federal Reserve plan to unwind the balance sheet? Again, we
don't know, and I don't believe they know.
I raise these points because I met with Dr. Yellen in my office and
attended her confirmation hearing in the Banking Committee. I received
no meaningful answers to any of those questions, only the usual
platitudes that so often mark such meetings.
If I may, I will now turn briefly to the subject of bank regulation,
which is very important in this country--a primary and critical
function of the Federal Reserve.
I have been a member of the Banking Committee since I first came to
the Senate in 1987. I served on the committee through many difficult
times in the financial markets, including the savings and loan crisis
and the 2008 financial crisis. In all of my experience, I have never
seen a financial institution fail that was well managed, well
capitalized, and well regulated. The fact is that so many financial
institutions failed in 2008 and 2009 in no small part because the
Federal Reserve failed spectacularly in its role as their regulator. I
think that is a given.
As President of the San Francisco Fed from 2004 to 2010, Dr. Yellen
presided over a regional housing bubble and failed to restrain the
excesses in the market. Yet, despite this record of failure, she now
runs the most powerful bank regulatory institution in the world--the
Federal Reserve. I guess failure begets promotion in President Obama's
view. We have seen it time and again.
This is all the more important considering that the Fed gained even
greater power under the Dodd-Frank financial regulation law despite the
fact that the Federal Reserve's own failures contributed to the need
for financial reform in the first place.
In light of Dr. Yellen's weak touch as a bank regulator and her
strong inclination to print more and more money, I firmly opposed her
nomination. Only time will tell, but I believe a vote in the
affirmative is one many of my colleagues will come to regret.
Madam President, 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.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I presume we are in a quorum call. I
ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Global Warming
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I am back today for the 54th time to
urge my colleagues to wake up to what carbon pollution is doing to the
Earth's climate and oceans. We see the facts all around us, but can't
seem to penetrate the politics of Congress.
We, in this body, are willfully ignoring changes we have never seen
before, changes that threaten our planet and its rich array of plant
and animal life, our homes, farms, and factories, and our very health
and well being.
Carbon-driven climate change can be seen in warming surface
temperatures and shifting seasons, but perhaps nowhere is carbon
pollution doing more harm than in our oceans. The year 2013 brought
ample new evidence of these changes in our oceans.
[[Page 63]]
People often talk about climate change as if it were a theory. Here
is what we know. We know that the oceans are warming. That is not a
theory; that is a measurement. It is done with thermometers. It is not
complicated. Sea level, we know, is rising; that is another
measurement. It is very simple. We could do it with a yardstick. Oceans
are becoming more acidic. Every American with an aquarium measures
acidity with litmus paper. Again, it is simple measurement and proven
facts.
If we put those proven facts into context, let's look at geologic
context. According to an article published in 2012 in the journal
Science, our current rate of carbon dioxide emissions--mainly from
burning fossil fuels--is enough to cause the most severe changes to the
chemistry of our oceans in 300 million years, and 300 million years ago
is before the dinosaurs.
We know the oceans are warming. The oceans have absorbed more than 90
percent of the excess heat in the atmosphere between 1971 and 2010,
according to a 2013 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change.
Here is where the heat goes: 93.4 percent goes into the ocean. The
rest we are seeing, 2.3 percent, goes into the atmosphere. Our oceans
are really taking the brunt of the added heat.
We also know that sea level is rising. We know this. It is driven not
only by melting glaciers carrying water into the seas and raising their
level, but also by ocean water expanding. As water warms, it expands.
The principle of thermal expansion is known in every science class in
this country.
At the Newport tide gauge in Rhode Island, sea level is up almost 10
inches since the 1930s. So that means that storms driving the sea
against Rhode Island's coast have 10 more inches of sea to throw
against our homes and infrastructure.
Recent satellite measurements from the University of Colorado Sea
Level Research Group show 3.2 millimeters of sea level rise per year
from 1993 to 2013. Between 1901 and 2010, that rate was estimated at
1.7 millimeters per year. So the rate of increase has nearly doubled,
and that means sea level rise is very likely speeding up. That is all
stuff we measure. That is not theory.
The IPCC report also projects--conservatively, in my view--that sea
level will likely rise one-half to one full meter by the year 2100 if
we do nothing to dial back carbon pollution. Obviously, the other
estimates are for far more extreme sea level rise.
We know the oceans are becoming more acidic. Oceans not only absorb
90 percent of the heat that has come from climate change, they are
absorbing about 30 percent of the carbon itself. The carbon itself goes
to the surface of the ocean, and it is absorbed there. Roughly 600
gigatons worth of carbon have been pumped into our oceans as a result.
As all that carbon dissolves into the oceans, what happens? Ocean water
becomes more acidic. It is a chemistry experiment you can duplicate in
any simple lab. Indeed, if you do the measurement, we have gotten about
26 percent more acidic--the seas have--since the Industrial Revolution.
That was reported, again, last year by the International Programme on
the State of the Ocean.
The rate of change in ocean acidity--we can see it is speeding up--is
already faster than at any time measured in the past 50 million years
according to research published in the journal Nature Geoscience. Yet
we sleep walk here in Congress, narcotized by polluter money.
Ocean acidification and warming are fundamentally altering our
undersea environment--what Pope Francis in his recent exhortation
called the ``ocean wonder world.'' These changes, among other things,
have made the world's coral reefs extremely vulnerable to decay and
bleaching. Areas such as the Great Barrier Reef--one of the great
global wonders of the world off the coast of Australia--has already
experienced large-scale bleaching.
As a boy, I used to scuba dive in the Andaman Sea. If you go back
now--30 years later--it is heavily bleached. These are pictures that
were taken in 2002 by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, and
they clearly show a once lush and vibrant reef now gone and barren.
Worsening this bleaching would be particularly hard on countries
whose people depend on the bounty of the reef for their protein,
sustenance, and economy. Remember, the reefs are the ocean's nurseries,
and they support food and economic stability as well as pretty tropical
fish.
New research also suggests that even the most remote depths of the
ocean will suffer the consequences of climate change. A study published
in the journal Global Change Biology looked at various climate models
to predicate changes in food supply throughout the world's oceans. The
models predict that the changes to our ocean could lead to a worldwide
drop in sea floor dwelling life by the year 2100.
The North Atlantic--off our shores in Massachusetts and in Rhode
Island--may lose more than one-third of all deep-sea marine life. These
drastic changes from our carbon pollution are daunting ones--
particularly for our ocean State of Rhode Island. Our way of life in
Rhode Island, like the Presiding Officer's in Massachusetts, has always
been closely tied to the sea. Yet here in Congress we ignore all of
that and continue perilously sleepwalking through history.
The Obama administration has at last put forward a Climate Action
Plan, the cornerstone of which will be EPA regulations to limit
greenhouse gas emissions from new and existing powerplants. Our 50
worst powerplants--in terms of emission--put out more carbon pollution
than the entire country of Canada and the entire country of Korea. So
solving that problem is vitally important.
The plan also directs executive branch agencies to take concrete
steps to safeguard the American people and our interest in the world
against the harmful effects of excessively high temperatures, melting
ice, ocean acidification, and sea level rise.
These are important steps, but they must ultimately be backed up by
congressional action. EPA regulations and executive orders will never
have the same economy-wide effect as a congressionally approved carbon
fee, for instance.
The sweeping changes taking place in our oceans make adapting to
these changes particularly important along our coastlines. Warmer
waters and higher seas load the dice for more damaging storms. Our
coastal counties in this country harbor 39 percent of the country's
population and account for 41 percent of our GDP.
Let's look at our ports, for example. According to a 2009 National
Ocean Economics Program report: ``Three-quarters of all United States
trade passes through estuary ports.'' No wonder, then, that the
American Association of Port Authorities is taking climate change
seriously--working to reduce carbon pollution and stave off its
effects, rather than waiting for Congress to awaken from our slumber.
American ports are switching trucks and cranes from diesel to
electric and installing onshore power supply to ships, thus reducing
emissions from the port and from idling vessels. Likewise, the
International Association of Ports and Harbors has launched the World
Ports Climate Initiative to reduce the CO2 output from port-
related activities.
In my State, the Rhode Island Climate Change Commission reported:
Inundation of the state's ports and railroads may reduce
interstate access, affecting economic viability and
potentially limiting imports and exports. Sea level rise may
also reduce navigational clearances for the State's bridges,
additionally limiting access.
These changes will be particularly harmful for the Port of
Providence, which today brings hundreds of millions of dollars to the
region.
We need strong Federal action to reduce the carbon emissions that are
threatening our coastal communities. We must also take firm Federal
action to adapt ourselves, and our States and our coastal communities,
to the changes that we can no longer avoid because of what we have
already pumped into the atmosphere and the harm we have already done.
[[Page 64]]
This is a real threat. It is embarrassing, and it is wrong for
Congress and the Senate to continue to ignore it. Somebody who knew
something about looming threats was Sir Winston Churchill. He gave this
advice:
One ought never to turn one's back on a threatened danger
and try to run away from it. If you do that, you will double
the danger. But if you meet it promptly and without
flinching, you will reduce the danger by half.
That is good advice. What's embarrassing and wrong is that not only
are we failing to meet it promptly--and flinching--but that failure and
that flinching is the result of special interest influence in this
body.
We face uncommon challenges and they demand uncommon resolve. America
has not overcome past crises by pretending they did not exist; that
state of play is preposterous for us to embark from. We actually have
clear scientific understanding of the problem. The doubt is passed, the
jury is in, and the verdict has been delivered. Yet we lack the will of
leadership to forge a solution. Another great leader who knew something
of leadership in times of crisis was President Lincoln. He understood
that the greatest challenges require clear vision and brave thinking.
When faced with a crisis, President Lincoln said:
The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must
rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think
anew, and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then
we shall save our country.
It is past time to disenthrall ourselves of the corrupt thrall of
polluting special interests. It is time, at last, to wake up and get to
work on the job we have before us.
I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I want to share in some remarks
Senator Ayotte had relative to the amendment she submitted that would
pay for the unemployment insurance extension and veteran pensions
benefits. I will just say her pay-for is an issue that I have had some
experience with. I offered several years ago an amendment to fix the
same problem, and I was disappointed when the majority leader, Senator
Reid, objected to that amendment.
Senator Ayotte's amendment would pay for the jobless benefits of
unemployed Americans and restore veterans' pensions by cutting off
fraudulent tax payments to illegal aliens. This is a very simple
concept. There is a clear abuse going on here that needs to be fixed,
and it should have been fixed a long time ago.
The amendment contains an offset of $20 billion--$20 billion--by
closing this loophole and ending this abuse of American tax dollars.
Remember, the veterans' retirement benefit reductions in their
retirement plans that were voted on recently in this body--part of the
Ryan-Murray budget agreement--only saved $6 billion over 10 years by
altering the retirement benefits of veterans. So this amendment--
closing the tax loophole--would save $20 billion over 10 years.
In 2011--this is when the matter first came to my attention by the
Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration. Each Department has
an inspector general. The inspectors general are part of the Obama
administration, but they take pride in their independence, and they are
by and large a very valuable part of the American Government.
So this Treasury Inspector General made this statement in a report:
Millions of people are seeking this tax credit who, we
believe, are not entitled to it. We have made recommendations
to the IRS as to how they could address this, and they have
not taken sufficient action in our view to solve the problem.
A clear statement by the Inspector General of the U.S. Treasury
Department that there were problems with this policy, and they could be
fixed, and the Internal Revenue Service was failing to take steps to
fix the problem.
One press report that highlighted the abuses occurring within this
program reported that an illegal alien admitted that his address was
used to file tax returns by four other illegal workers. All were in the
country working illegally, and they filed tax returns. Did they file
the tax returns to pay taxes? No. They filed the tax returns to get a
tax credit back from the government, a check from the government. They
claimed 20 dependents living inside their residence, and the Internal
Revenue Service sent the illegal tax filers $30,000--direct checks from
the U.S. Government, from the U.S. Department of Treasury, went to
them. They filed a return, they said they had all these children, and
they were given $30,000.
According to the report, none of those dependents lived in the United
States or had even visited the United States. The illegal alien in the
story justified the enormous tax fraud by saying: ``If the opportunity
is there and they can give it to me, why not take advantage of it?''
Well, this is an interesting development. Let's go along a little
further. As the Treasury Inspector General himself said: ``The payment
of Federal funds through this tax benefit appears to provide an
additional incentive for aliens to enter, reside, and work in the
United States without authorization, which contradicts Federal law and
policy to remove such incentives.''
So the inspector general took the obvious position that it is the
government's position that people who enter the country illegally ought
not to receive tax credit checks from Uncle Sam and that this policy
not only encouraged that, it encouraged more people to come to America
to claim benefits, as this person who entered the country illegally
said: If they can give it to me, why not take advantage of it?
Now one of the things I have learned as I have traveled the world is,
a lot of people have an exaggerated opinion of the wealth and power of
the United States. You meet good people in underdeveloped countries,
and they say: Why doesn't the United States do this, that, and the
other--as if we had unlimited power, unlimited money, and unlimited
ability to solve the problems they face at any given time.
So a lot of people, maybe, when they come to the country do not
realize we are a nation of limited resources and we cannot be wasting
money, we cannot be having people enter our country contrary to the
law, undocumented, working, taking jobs that Americans need, and then
sending them big checks--$30,000 for children who do not even exist or
certainly have never been in the United States.
How do they do it? They use an ITIN, an individual tax identification
number. They do not have Social Security numbers. They have a tax ID
number. Why? That is a tax number that the Treasury Department came up
with to allow noncitizens who do not have Social Security numbers to
pay taxes to Uncle Sam. That is what it was supposed to be used for.
These clever individuals have figured out a way--they do not qualify
for a Social Security number, so they get an ITIN number, and then they
immediately start filing a tax return, claiming benefits, tax credits
for children they may not even have or are not in the country, and they
are not entitled to it. It is billions of dollars. According to the
best estimates we have, if this loophole were closed--that the Treasury
Department themselves has identified--it would save $20 billion over 10
years. Well, that is a lot of money.
In fact, in 2011, they claimed--and I do not know why it is not
more--that illegal aliens received a staggering $4.2 billion in
refundable tax credits in 2010. So in 2010, they received illegally
$4.2 billion under this program. Can you imagine that? That is more
than the budget of the State of Alabama--the general fund budget of the
State. This was in 2010, and it has been growing substantially. It is
probably more than that now.
So the legislation Senator Ayotte proposes would fix this problem,
and it is time we fixed it. I cannot imagine why anyone would oppose
it. The House has passed legislation already that would fix this
problem and it died in the Senate. Senator Reid refused to bring it up.
He obstructed its passage. It should have long since been passed.
So I pose a question to my colleagues: Which would you rather do?
Would you cut the retirement benefits of men and women who served this
[[Page 65]]
country for 20 years or more in the U.S. military, being deployed in
harm's way, placing their lives at risk--even those who are disabled as
a result of service in the U.S. military in combat zones; they have
their retirement cut too--would you choose to cut their pay to save $6
billion, when you could cut out a totally unjustified claim of tax
credits of $20 billion? Is it political correctness run amok that we
are dealing with here? Why can't we fix this? So I think this is
something that needs to be fixed. It is past due to be fixed.
Senator Ayotte is correct to raise it as a legitimate pay-for for
unemployment compensation and veterans' retirement, and I salute her
for it. It is something I pushed for, and I offered a very similar
amendment when the Murray-Ryan bill moved through the Senate. I think
it is something we need to work on.
We are not talking about it as much as we should now that the chatter
has receded a little bit--but our deficit situation is still very grim.
We now have a current debt of $17 trillion. That is unprecedented in
the history of the United States. It has doubled in recent years. They
are the kind of deficits we have never seen before, and it is something
we have to address.
Mr. J.T. Young, in the Washington Times, a former member of the
Department of Treasury, I believe, in the Bush administration, and a
former staffer on the Budget Committee, wrote that what we are seeing
in our budgeting is a tip of the iceberg. The interest payments we are
making now--some $250 billion a year on the $17 trillion we owe--is a
tip of the iceberg. Because if interest rates return to their 40-year
average, we are going to see a dramatic increase in interest payments
on that debt.
When we say we have $17 trillion, we are talking about money the U.S.
Government has borrowed so it could spend. That borrowed money comes
from a source. Much of the source of that money are foreign nations.
The largest creditor is China. They loan us money, and we pay them
interest every year.
Right now interest rates are low, unusually low, exceedingly low
according to historic averages, and most people expect they are not
going to stay low. The bond market is already slipping because people
expect interest rates to go up, making their bonds less valuable. All
the experts--virtually all--expect we will have rising interest rates
in the years to come.
Our Congressional Budget Office analyzes the debt of the United
States and our whole fiscal policy--taxing and spending and income and
outgo and has calculated that 10 years from today, under their baseline
budget plan, with interest rates increasing, and the increased
deficits--the deficits every year that we will have that will add to
the $17 trillion--in 10 years we will be paying interest, each year, of
over $800 billion.
Mr. Young refers to that as a ``third entitlement.'' Actually, under
these figures, it looks as though that interest payment will exceed
Social Security's payment and Medicare's payment and the Defense
Department. Not together, but each. This is a stunning danger that we
face. So it is not mean-spirited to say that before we pass an
unemployment compensation extension beyond our historic levels that we
need to ask: Will we just borrow all the money, or will we look around
this government and find places to save money such as the child tax
credit going to people without Social Security numbers illegally in the
country? What should we do?
The challenge we face is how to confront the rising debt. Every year,
every month, virtually, some other issue rises before the Senate. It
sounds persuasive and it is something we want to do, sometimes it is
something we really need to do. Certainly Americans are hurting today.
There is no doubt about that. There are a lot of reasons for it. We
need to work to reverse those trends. Middle America, poor America are
not doing well financially.
One reason is, there are millions of people in the country illegally
taking jobs, pulling down wages and reducing the employment prospects
of American citizens. There is no doubt about that. President Obama
proposed, and this Senate voted by a sizable majority, to double the
amount of guest workers who come into America. Meanwhile, they come
before the Senate and say: We need another $7 billion in unemployment
benefits because we have too much unemployment in America. How can that
possibly resonate logically with the American people? We should control
immigration in America. We are a very generous nation of immigrants. We
support immigration. One million people enter our country every year
legally. We have guest workers who come every year.
The immigration bill that was before us, that was voted on by this
body, would have not ended the illegality it would reduce it only by 40
percent or so, according to the Congressional Budget Office. But it
would have doubled the legal flow of guest workers to America. What a
stunning number, at a time of high unemployment, low wages, and the
lowest workplace participation rate this country has seen since the
1970s.
Americans are having a hard time finding work. So we have our
colleagues, our Senate majority, who voted for that immigration bill,
ranting to the Senate, demanding now that we extend unemployment
insurance, demanding that we raise the minimum wage. Well, I would like
to see the wages of Americans go up, all of them. I would like to see
people make $15, $18, $25, $30 an hour. We need more of that kind of
growth and prosperity in America. But I am not comfortable with the
Federal Government setting wages and price controls in this country. It
has never worked effectively.
We should do things that make sense. We should create economic
policies that create prosperity. We should not import large increases
in labor in America when we have huge numbers of people here that are
unemployed. That is just common sense.
I want to share with our colleagues some thoughts about where we are
with regard to the unemployment insurance extension legislation that is
now before us. Since 2009, the Senate has required that any extension
of unemployment insurance benefits be paid for because we agreed that
we need to reduce the amount of money we are borrowing. We are spending
considerably more than we take in. We are going to have to raise the
debt ceiling again next month so we can borrow even more money. So all
of the money my colleagues want to spend on extending unemployment
insurance, unless some savings are found elsewhere in the government,
will be borrowed. The legislation that is before us now borrows every
cent of it. Every cent of the $7 billion that is proposed will be
borrowed.
We are $17 trillion in debt, much owed to foreign creditors. It does
not seem wise to do this. This is the wrong thing. In the past,
Congress has paid for unemployment insurance extensions. This is
unprecedented, an extranormal unemployment insurance extension. The
current amount is always out there, but because the unemployment rate
has been high, we have extended it up to 99 weeks. We paid for this in
2009. We paid for it in 2011, and we paid for it in 2012.
So clearly the Senate's policy approach has been consistent in recent
years to pay for this. Many remember our former colleague, Jim Bunning,
that Hall of Fame baseball pitcher, who stood right back here and
objected to this one time before, I think it was in 2009, all alone and
he insisted that it be paid for, and eventually he prevailed. It caused
quite a stir. He stopped the train until there was an agreement to pay
for this.
According to a report yesterday in National Journal, some Senators
want to rush this bill through now and will worry about paying for it
later. They will promise to pay for it later. This ``spend now, pay
later'' policy is how we racked up $17 trillion in debt. It is smoke
and mirrors. If you do not in this Congress agree to pay for something
before it is spent, it is not going to be paid for later. We have got
debt in the hundreds of billions of dollars every year and we are
certainly not going to go back and pay for more, pay down the money we
spent the year before. We have got to deal with the year
[[Page 66]]
we are in. If we do that, it would be helpful. This is how we go broke.
But what I want to say is, fundamentally, the spending provided for
in this extension of unemployment insurance violates the spirit of the
Budget Control Act of 2011. It spends money above what we agreed to
spend. It should not be done. We need to know, every one of us, that by
voting for this bill, you are voting to violate the promise you made to
the American people in August of 2011 that we would limit the growth in
spending, not cut spending, but limit the growth in spending, that we
would raise the debt ceiling $2.1 trillion so that money could be
borrowed and be spent, but we would reduce, over 10 years, the growth
in spending enough to offset that increase. That was the bargain that
was made.
More importantly, this legislation violates the budget agreement that
was passed into law, the Murray-Ryan bill that was signed by President
Obama just before Christmas--just a few weeks ago. The ink is barely
dry on that agreement and my colleagues now are proposing to bust it
completely. This has become too common. This is too much how we operate
here. Some of our Members take umbrage at the fact that millions of
Americans are unhappy with us in Washington. People complain about how
we are doing our jobs. They say the Tea Party people are angry and
therefore they are evil people. Well, why should they not be angry with
us? We promised not to spend over a certain amount of money and we have
repeatedly voted to do that since 2011.
We voted in December to contain spending and maintain spending
levels. Now, in January, as soon as the year began, we have a proposal
to add $7 billion to the debt above what we agreed to spend. So I think
the American people have a right to be hot with us. We need to vote
some people out of here. If we do not change the spending habit, this
country is going to be facing a fiscal catastrophe as independent
observers have warned us for years.
Next month, the President is going to ask Republicans for our help in
passing a bill that raises the debt ceiling. We have already hit the
debt ceiling again. So he will be asking for us to raise it again,
because we need to borrow more money because we haven't cut spending.
We are spending more money than comes in. We are spending that every
year. The President wants to keep spending and not reduce spending. So
he is asking us to raise the debt ceiling to let him borrow even more
than the $17 trillion we have. They are going to threaten, cajole, and
try to scare Americans with horror stories of imminent financial
collapse if we do not agree to raise the debt ceiling. We know that is
coming. Hopefully we will reach an agreement that will raise the debt
ceiling but get some real reforms in this government and bring down the
rate of growth in spending in this country.
But how can we talk about promise to contain spending in the future
when we have got a bill before us right now that blatantly violates the
Budget Act? All we are doing is spending more money, borrowing more
money, and raising the debt ceiling even faster than otherwise would be
the case. This is the wrong direction for America. We need to be
reducing our deficit, not voting to increase deficits. This is simple
and plain. We need to be reducing deficits.
We need to be working every day, as the American people have told us,
to bring our spending under control. Wasteful Washington spending is
threatening America. The Federal Government already taxes too much,
spends too much, borrows too much, regulates too much. It is time for
us to live within our means, to balance our budget. That includes
finding offsets and spending savings to pay for any extension of
unemployment insurance or really any other proposal for new spending.
This Congress has not been doing that. I would note that in the New
York Times recently, Jonathan Weisman wrote this:
The drive to extend unemployment insurance has put both
parties into awkward political positions. Mr. Reid opened the
second session of the 113th Congress Monday by declaring:
`The rich keep getting richer. The poor keep getting poorer,
and the middle class are under siege.' It was hardly an
endorsement for an economy entering its sixth year under
President Obama's watch.
Gene Sperling, the President's economic advisor, just said this
recently. ``Three people are looking for every one job open.''
So what are we to do about this? What do we say about this? I would
say, colleagues, that while hopefully we can help unemployed Americans
today with some sort of a benefit that we will pay for in a financially
sound manner, hopefully we will see wages rise. We need to see wages
rise, in my opinion, because I think the middle class is under siege. I
think poor people are getting hammered in this current economy.
But I will ask this question: Who has been setting the agenda
economically for America for the last 5 years? Has not President Obama
taxed more? Hasn't he regulated more? Has he not spent more? Hasn't he
borrowed more? Hasn't ObamaCare, the Affordable Care Act, hammered
American businesses and caused them to lay off workers and hire people
part time rather than full time?
Actually two-thirds of the people hired in 2013 were hired part time.
This is not healthy. Things are not going well. The model that is
planned that we are seeing overall is not working.
How much longer will it take for people to recognize that? The
promises were made. If we just send out more checks, if we pass more
stimulus bills, if we spend more money, if we do all these things,
somehow this will create growth and prosperity in America. But all this
time, we have been increasing the debt dramatically, trillion-plus-
dollar deficits for 4 years. We have never seen anything like this in
American history.
The debt itself is a detriment and a depressant to economic growth in
America. It causes fear and concern throughout the entire American
populace and the world, unease about the future of the United States
with these kinds of debts.
The point I would make is let's do some things that fix the disease,
and the disease is an excessive government domination of the economy
that is suppressing growth and prosperity, suppressing wages, and
government actions that create more unemployment and part-time
employment than is necessary and should be happening. That is the
problem we need to be addressing. The symptoms of that are being
addressed when we deal with unemployment insurance or mandatory wage
rates.
I thank the Chair and my colleagues for the opportunity to share
these thoughts. I really do believe Senator Ayotte's proposal to deal
with the waste and fraudulent abuse of tax money through the improper
use of the ITIN--the individual tax identification number--is very
real. It is very effective, would save billions of dollars, and would
help us pay for some of the things we would like to do. That is what we
should be doing, not adding more debt to the people of America.
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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call
be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REED. I come to the floor this evening to express my hope that
the bipartisan effort that brought this 3-month bill to the floor can
be sustained as we go forward so that we can swiftly help the 1.3
million long-term unemployed workers who were cut off from these
benefits on December 28. As many of my colleagues have discovered from
going back to their home States, in many cases these folks are
desperate. This benefit was the difference between things we take for
granted--having a car to be able to get to a job, having a cell phone
so they can get a message saying they have a job interview, paying for
heat in the cold weather, putting groceries on the
[[Page 67]]
table. For many people, this is truly an emergency.
That is why working with Senator Heller, whom I applaud for his
vision, collaboration, and for his sense in terms of the difficulties
of his constituents and, nationally, many people, and for his effort--
he did a superb job. What we sensed was we needed to provide relief
immediately. Longer term, there are issues to address, and my
colleagues have been on the floor discussing these issues, but
immediately we have 1.3 million Americans, and every day many more who
need help go off the rolls.
I hope we can move very expeditiously and provide at least this
short-term aid. Then, of course, we have very significant issues going
forward for the entire-year extension, which I hope ultimately we can
resolve.
In addition to Senator Heller, I wish to thank all of my colleagues.
Particularly, I thank Senators Collins, Murkowski, Portman, Ayotte, and
Coats for their support, along with all of our Members of the
Democratic caucus who came together.
Now we have the challenge of providing this relief and then thinking
creatively, constructively, and collaboratively about how we provide
this relief at least through the full year. I hope we can extend the
program for the next 90 days immediately and quickly, but that other
issue is certainly before us.
I understand also that my colleagues have raised issues about the
structure of the program, about whether this spending--even the short-
term spending--should be offset. Again, I go back to the point that we
have 1.3 million Americans--and growing each day--who are looking for
immediate help, not thoughtful, careful, long-term deliberation. That
was the logic behind moving to a 90-day extension, getting it done, and
then going forward and dealing with inherently more difficult issues
for a full-year program.
We already understand that short-term lapse from the 28th until today
has already had dramatic impacts on families. This is what I think my
colleagues have heard, seen, and read about when they have gone home.
Men and women who worked for decades, never thinking they would ever
use their unemployment benefits, which they have earned since they
started working, are now suddenly facing a weakened job market where
there are nearly three people for every one job, where there are issues
of skill training for the new jobs that are emerging. These are very
difficult challenges.
I think what finally led us to at least this point of moving forward
was the perception that this program is not subject to some arcane
abuse by people in the system; this is for working men and women who,
through no fault of their own, lost their jobs, who are desperately
looking for jobs, and they are our neighbors and our constituents--many
of whom we thought and they thought would never be in this predicament.
They have families, elderly parents, and young children. They have
responsibilities.
They have something else too, which I think we sometimes don't give
enough credit for: They want to work. They have spent a life, many of
them, working to a position of responsibility where they are using all
of their talents. The idea that they are just going to give that up for
the only available job, which might be working at a counter at a fast-
food restaurant--that is a challenge not only to your pocketbook, but
that is a challenge to your person, to who you are--we have to
recognize that also.
These benefits are usually helpful to people in so many different
capacities.
As I said, we are trying to deal with a situation where people have
been let go through no fault of their own. If someone quits, they don't
qualify. If they are fired, they don't qualify. Many of these people
are unemployed as a result of the new economy--information technology
that makes their job something that can be done away with; mergers,
acquisitions, and downsizing that caused the bottom line of a
corporation to grow, but they are out of a job. We have to deal with
it, and we have to deal with it as we have done so many times before by
providing these long-term unemployment benefits.
We also have to do it because it is good for our economy. The CBO
estimates that if we do not renew UI for the full year 2014, we will
lose 200,000 jobs because the weekly benefits, which are rather
modest--$300 to $350 a week--go almost immediately from the recipient
into the economy. It is the reason some grocery stores can keep two or
three extra people on, because the demand is still there. It is the
reason some service stations can keep the extra mechanic on, because
the demand is still there. If we shut down that demand, we will have
200,000 more people--ironically--who will qualify, at least initially,
for State unemployment benefits.
This is about our economy.
I would like to draw our attention to the report our colleague
Senator Amy Klobuchar did as the vice chair of the Joint Economic
Committee. It was very thoughtfully done. It is not a surprise given
that it was authored in large part by Senator Klobuchar. This report
touches on these important issues and notes that ``unemployment
insurance (UI) has kept more than 11 million people out of poverty
since 2008--including 1.8 million adults and 620,000 children in 2012
alone. People of all demographic and socio-economic backgrounds have
been helped by unemployment insurance following a job loss.''
This cuts across the whole spectrum. Again, how does someone get to
qualify? They have to work. I would suspect that every one of my
colleagues would say this country should be all about work, rewarding
work, and if someone loses a job through no fault of their own, give
them a chance to get back in the workforce.
The reality of this economic downturn has been so pervasive that it
has affected virtually every American. And so unemployment insurance
has been a key part of the recovery. We all know that economists who
have looked at this program suggest there is anywhere from a $1.50 to
$1.60 benefit for every $1 we put in the economy. Economically, for the
national economy as a whole, this is a very powerful tool to keep
economic growth, expansion, and demand moving forward. That is exactly
what we need to keep the economy growing.
Indeed, one of the aspects of this recession and one of the aspects
highlighted very insightfully by the report from the Joint Economic
Committee is the long-term rate of unemployment. This might be a new
structural phenomenon in our economy, but definitely something is
happening out there.
I will go back to when I was a kid. Someone is on the third shift
because they are the junior person. The recession comes and guess who
gets laid off. The third shift. The second shift, the middle people,
and the first shift, the most senior people, typically weren't touched.
The economy came back, and that third shift got rehired, but those
workers with 10, 15 years' experience were pretty safe.
Now that is not the case. Now we are seeing first, second, and third
shift gone. Now we are seeing, well, this is a great opportunity, with
interest rates at in some cases 1 percent--at least for the major
financial institutions--to replace a lot of workers with a lot of
machines. Let's do that. Let's get value. Let's downsize. Let's make
sure we invest in capital. This is the phenomenon we are seeing, and it
is causing some of this significant increase in long-term unemployment.
In the JEC report, they note:
The current long-term unemployment rate of 2.6 percent is
twice as high as it was when Congress allowed emergency
federal UI programs to expire after the 1990-91 and 2001
recessions.
Let me say that in my terms. Previously, we have never taken away
these benefits when long-term unemployment has been so high, and these
benefits are not directly responsible for long-term unemployment. The
26 weeks of the State benefit programs is for people who lose work and
find it relatively quickly. This program, the one we are debating
today, is specifically designed for those people who are having a
difficult time finding work over a long period of time.
[[Page 68]]
We are now at twice as high a level of unemployment as we were in
previous recessions when we ended these benefits, which would suggest
this is not the time to end these benefits.
Let me continue from the JEC report:
While employment prospects have improved for many jobless
Americans (the national unemployment rate is 7.0 percent--the
lowest rate in five years), finding work is challenging for
the long-term unemployed. More than one-third of unemployed
workers (roughly 4 million Americans) have been searching for
work for more than 26 weeks, when state-funded UI benefits
typically run out, and 2.8 million unemployed people have
been searching for work for more than one year.
This is a phenomenon we have to deal with. This program we are
discussing today is specifically designed for those long-term
unemployed. So if there is one program that is responsive to one of the
most salient aspects of this current recession, it is the long-term UI
program because long-term unemployment seems to be the most difficult
issue to resolve, even as our overall employment numbers continue to
grow--not fast enough, but they are growing.
I want to also dispel the belief of some of my colleagues that these
benefits only flow to one or two distinct constituencies. That this is
a targeted program that provides some benefits, but it doesn't apply
across the board. That is not the case. This is about every American
from virtually every type of education, income, and ethnic background.
As the JEC report documents:
The 23.9 million Americans who have directly benefited from
the EUC program since 2008 include people of all demographic
and socioeconomic backgrounds . . . [I]n 2012, more than 60
percent of the recipients were between the ages of 25 and 54.
Let me stop. There is a stereotype out there that a lot of these
folks are 18 year olds who had a job for a while but decided they would
rather go skiing in Utah or snorkeling in the Caribbean, and what
better way to do that than just essentially sort of perform so that
when the layoffs come you get one--but so what, I am not going to look
for work; I'm going to just go. Sixty percent of these people are 25
years old to 54 years old. They are starting the prime or are in the
prime of their work career. They have responsibility. They typically
have families. They have, probably, if they are in their 50s, been
working for 30 years.
So this notion this is just a convenient time to take a vacation
subsidized by the government is erroneous.
Let me continue from the report:
The remaining recipients were about evenly split between
those younger than 25 and those 55 and older.
Again, the 55 and older--and this is very close to home--for these
people it is a desperate struggle because they are caught right in the
middle. They have a 75-year-old or 80-year-old mother or father; they
have 30-year-old children and some younger who are going to school or
they need the help. They have been working for 30-plus years. They have
reached positions of responsibility in their firm and now, suddenly,
for the first time--many is the case--they are without a job. That is
not just economic, as I suggested. That also goes deeply to who they
are, their value, and how they can help their family if they can't
work. What is the effect on the family? How do they come home every day
from looking for work without a job and not have it affect the family?
This is the reality we are dealing with.
That is why, frankly, I have been pleading to at least get this
program restored for 90 days. That will give us the time--not on the
backs of the unemployed--but give us the time to do the work for a
longer extension.
Now let me continue:
More than half the recipients in 2012 were white, while 22
percent were black, and 19 percent were Hispanic. The vast
majority (85 percent) lived in households with more than one
adult, and 43 percent lived in households with at least one
child.
So these are not single transients who move around and are used to
being unemployed and could work if they wanted to. These are people
with real family responsibilities.
People of all levels of education have received EUC
benefits. The majority of recipients in 2012 had earned a
high school diploma, and almost one-fifth held a 4-year
college degree.
These are people that have skills. They have at least got the
credentials, which, again, 20 or 30 years ago put you into the
workplace and probably kept you there, if you were diligent.
So I hope my colleagues take time to review this report. It is
extremely useful. It shatters some stereotypes and reinforces the point
this is about helping working Americans who need help.
I think the facts are clearly on the side of continuing this program,
and I think the reality is they need the help now. If we can get them
that help, then we will have the time to deliberate the very serious
questions that my colleagues have raised; and they have raised them
constructively and raised them sincerely about the long-term approach
of this program. But to continue to trade legislative ideas on the
floor while millions of Americans either are losing their benefits or
are seeing the end come within days, weeks or months is not the right
response.
So I urge my colleagues to move forward through these procedural
hurdles. Let's get this bill done as Senator Heller and I have proposed
it. Let's get it done, and then we have another huge challenge because
we want, frankly, and I think the sentiment is across the board--if we
are going to do this, let us at least continue it through the year
2014.
We are beginning to sense some positive economic shifts. We hope
those materialize. We hope they come forward to the point where the
unemployment rate, which has fallen--I heard the President today say
when he took over we were losing 800,000 jobs a month. It was rocketing
up into the stratosphere in some states, 12 percent, 14 percent. In
Rhode Island it is still 9 percent. We have seen some progress--not
enough in my State, in Nevada, and other States. But we have seen
progress, and we hope that progress continues.
Indeed, one of the other aspects of this program, if we pass these
benefits--and the economists have pointed it out, particularly if we
pass them on an emergency basis--it will add more fuel to our economy,
not less. It will add more demand. It will, in fact, increase growth at
a time when everyone is on the floor talking about the fact that we
just have to grow more jobs. Of course we do. But this program is, in a
way, the proverbial two-fer. You help people who need help, and you
help the economy grow faster--200,000 jobs at least.
So I really do think we should move forward as quickly as we can to
get this Reed-Heller bill completed, and then we have a lot of careful,
thoughtful, collaborative effort to engage in. Because if we want to go
forward for a full year, which we do, we have other significant
issues--not just the size of the program, but other issues as were
brought up by my colleagues, and brought up very fairly, very
constructively, and very thoughtfully.
So Madam President, my message is: No. 1, I thank my colleagues for
giving us the chance to seriously debate this bill, and I urge them to
pass it quickly, and then we will set ourselves up for another serious,
thoughtful and constructive debate. That is my wish.
With that, Madam President, 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. REED. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
MORNING BUSINESS
Mr. REED. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to a period of morning business with Senators permitted to
speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
[[Page 69]]
____________________
REMEMBERING PHIL EVERLY
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I rise today to bid farewell to a
Kentucky son who became half of one of the most enduring and
influential acts of country and rock and roll music. Phil Everly, of
the hit-making duo the Everly Brothers, passed away this weekend at the
age of 74.
Phil and his older brother Don brought their trademark close harmony
singing, modeled in the Appalachian country and bluegrass music
tradition, to rock and roll beginning in the late 1950s. With songs
including ``Bye Bye Love,'' ``Wake Up Little Susie,'' and ``All I Have
to Do Is Dream,'' they consistently scored hits at the top of the
charts.
The Everly Brothers are famous the world over and influenced
musicians such as the Beatles, the Beach Boys, Bob Dylan, Simon and
Garfunkel, and many others. But they were especially beloved in their
family's home State of Kentucky, and particularly in Central City, in
Muhlenberg County, western Kentucky, which was the site of the Everly
Brothers' Labor Day Homecoming Music Festival every year.
This festival included many famous country and rock and roll music
stars from the Everly Brothers themselves to Chet Atkins, Keith Urban,
Billy Ray Cyrus, and Tammy Wynette. Money raised went to local
charities.
Phil and Don Everly's musical career was the result of a lifetime
spent singing. Phil and Don were born the sons of a Kentucky coal miner
turned country musician, Ike Everly, and his wife Margaret. The family
moved to pursue musical opportunities and ended up playing live country
music on the radio in Shenandoah, IA. The whole family was spotlighted,
from Mom and Dad Everly to Little Donnie and 6-year-old ``Baby Boy
Phil.'' Don and Phil spent their summers in their parents' home of
Muhlenberg County.
As teenagers the Everly Brothers started their own careers, first as
songwriters, then as performers. In 1957 they scored a No. 1 hit with
``Bye Bye Love.'' In their trademark style, Phil sang the high harmony
notes while Don sang baritone, their voices intertwining in a way that
sounded easy but was difficult to duplicate.
They continued to have best-selling songs for several years,
including 12 Billboard top 10 hits, and released the landmark country-
rock album ``Roots'' in 1968 that included snippets of their old family
radio show. The Beatles have said that the vocal harmonies from their
first No. 1 hit, ``Please Please Me'' of 1963, were modeled after the
Everly Brothers' 1960 hit song ``Cathy's Clown.'' Phil was the author
of one of the duo's best loved songs, ``When Will I Be Loved?,'' which
was a top 10 hit for Linda Ronstadt in 1975.
While older brother Don was born in Kentucky, younger brother Phil
was actually born in Chicago on January 19, 1939. Nearly 50 years
later, in 1988, the mayor of Central City gave Phil Everly an honorary
Kentucky birth certificate. ``I really appreciate you making me a full-
blown Kentuckian,'' Phil said as he received it. ``I've been lying for
a lot of years.''
The Everly Brothers' Labor Day Homecoming Music Festival began in
1988 as a way for the Everly Brothers to show their gratitude to their
hometown fans. In 2010, the Central City Tourism Commission opened the
Muhlenberg County Music Museum, which showcases a complete collection
of Don and Phil's albums and features a 1950s-style jukebox that plays
their biggest hits.
Sadly, just before Phil's death, local western Kentucky fans of the
Everly Brothers were planning a celebration of what would have been
Phil's 75th birthday on January 19. Instead, the Central City Tourism
Commission will host a memorial service at the museum on that day to
celebrate Phil's life and music. Phil is survived by many family
members and beloved friends, including his brother Don.
I know my colleagues will join me in expressing gratitude and
appreciation for the wonderful music that Phil, along with his brother
Don, provided the world. The music of the Everly Brothers continues to
provide joy to people to this day. Kentucky is honored to have played
such a role in the shaping of this extraordinary musical family.
____________________
HONORING OUR ARMED FORCES
California Casualties
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to eight
servicemembers from California or based in California who have died
while serving our country in Operation Enduring Freedom since I last
entered names into the record on July 10, 2013. This brings to 410 the
number of servicemembers either from California or based in California
who have been killed while serving our country in Afghanistan. This
represents 18 percent of all U.S. deaths in Afghanistan:
LCpl Benjamin W. Tuttle, 19, of Gentry, AR, died July 14, 2013, at
the Landstuhl Regional Medical Center following a medical evacuation
from the aircraft carrier the USS Nimitz, CVN 68, during a scheduled
port visit in the 5th Fleet Area of Responsibility. Lance Corporal
Tuttle was assigned to Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 323, Marine
Aircraft Group 11, 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing, I Marine Expeditionary
Force, Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, CA.
SPC Nicholas B. Burley, 22, of Red Bluff, CA, died July 30, 2013, in
Pul-E-Alam, Afghanistan, of injuries sustained when enemy forces
attacked his unit with indirect fire. Specialist Burley was assigned to
the 6th Squadron, 8th Cavalry Regiment, 4th Infantry Brigade Combat
Team, 3rd Infantry Division, Fort Stewart, GA.
SPC Kenneth Clifford Alvarez, 23, of Santa Maria, CA, died August 23,
2013, in Haft Asiab, Afghanistan, from wounds suffered when enemy
forces attacked his unit with an improvised explosive device during
combat operations. Specialist Alvarez was assigned to 2nd Engineer
Battalion, 36th Engineer Brigade, White Sands Missile Range, NM.
SSG Robert E. Thomas Jr., 24, of Fontana, CA, died September 13,
2013, at Brooke Army Medical Center, Fort Sam Houston, TX, of wounds
suffered during a non-combat related incident on April 21, 2013, in
Maiwand, Afghanistan. Staff Sergeant Thomas was assigned to the 1st
Battalion, 36th Infantry Regiment, 1st Brigade Combat Team, Fort Bliss,
TX.
LCDR Landon L. Jones, 35, of Lompoc, CA, died September 22, 2013, as
a result of an MH-60S Knighthawk helicopter crash while operating in
the central Red Sea. Lieutenant Commander Jones was assigned to
Helicopter Sea Combat Squadron Six at Naval Air Station North Island,
San Diego, CA.
CWO Jonathon S. Gibson, 32, of Aurora, OR, died September 22, 2013,
as a result of an MH-60S Knighthawk helicopter crash while operating in
the central Red Sea. Chief Warrant Officer Gibson was assigned to
Helicopter Sea Combat Squadron Six at Naval Air Station North Island,
San Diego, CA.
CPT Jennifer M. Moreno, 25, of San Diego, CA, died October 6, 2013,
in Zhari District, Afghanistan, of injuries sustained when enemy forces
attacked her unit with an improvised explosive device. Captain Moreno
was assigned to Madigan Army Medical Center, Joint Base Lewis-McChord,
WA.
LCpl Matthew R. Rodriguez, 19, of Fairhaven, MA, died December 11,
2013, while conducting combat operations in Helmand Province,
Afghanistan. Lance Corporal Rodriguez was assigned to 1st Combat
Engineer Battalion, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force,
Camp Pendleton, CA.
____________________
YELLEN NOMINATION
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, yesterday, the Senate voted to confirm
Janet Yellen to be Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Regrettably, I was
not in Washington and was not present for the vote. Had I been here, I
would have voted no on this nomination. While Ms. Yellen may be well-
qualified for this position, I do not support her nomination due to her
support of monetary policies such as quantitative easing, QE, that have
distorted the markets and artificially stimulated the economy. With
interest rates at record lows, economic growth continues to be anemic
and unemployment rates are
[[Page 70]]
higher than normal. During her confirmation hearing, Ms. Yellen
admitted that there are ``costs and risks'' associated with the QE
program but still signaled support. QE has done little more than
increase uncertainty in our economy and opened the door for high
interest rates in the future. The Federal Reserve must stop this ill-
conceived, wholly irresponsible approach and Congress and the
administration must enact fiscally responsible policies that strengthen
the middle class by creating jobs, growing the economy and cutting the
red tape that continues to hamper the private sector.
____________________
BUDGET ACT SECTION 114(c)
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I rise to enter into a colloquy with
the Senator from Ohio, Mr. Portman, to discuss section 114(c) of the
Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013, which establishes a deficit-neutral
reserve fund to replace sequestration.
Before I turn to Senator Portman for his questions, I would like to
note that the Senate has relied on reserve funds for nearly 30 years to
help it carry out its priorities as part of the annual budget process.
In fact, during debate on the 2014 budget resolution, the Senate
considered or filed over 300 reserve funds. These included multiple
amendments from Members of both parties to create new reserve funds.
This particular reserve fund, section 114(c), was included and voted on
as part of both the Senate Budget Committee-reported resolution and the
Senate-passed budget resolution.
I would now like to turn to my colleague for his questions.
Mr. PORTMAN. I would like to thank the chairman of the Budget
Committee for the opportunity to engage in this colloquy with her. As I
understand it, the intent of the reserve fund under section 114(c) is
to be available to adjust certain budgetary levels for deficit-neutral
legislation that would replace sequestration. Do I have that correct?
Mrs. MURRAY. Yes, the bipartisan budget agreement reached between the
House and Senate replaces some of the sequester cuts that otherwise
would occur in 2014 and 2015. By avoiding sequestration and reaching
agreement on bipartisan funding levels for 2014 and 2015, this
agreement will provide relief to our families, servicemembers, and the
economy. Sequestration, however, continues to remain in place,
unmodified, for fiscal years 2016 through 2021. Assuming legislation
met the necessary requirements specified in section 114(c), this
reserve fund would be available to further address the harmful effects
of sequestration.
Mr. PORTMAN. I thank the chairman for her response. There is a
concern that the reserve fund in section 114(c) could deprive the
minority of an opportunity to require 60 votes for legislation that
would modify the statutory limits on discretionary spending and pay for
some or all of that cost with new revenue. Is that concern accurate?
Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Senator for his question. No, that concern
is not accurate. While a useful tool to help the Senate carry out its
priorities under the budget process, a reserve fund is limited in what
it allows me to do, in my capacity as chairman of the Budget Committee.
In general, for legislation that meets the required criteria, reserve
funds allow me to revise the levels adopted in a budget resolution and
enforced in the Senate, such as committee allocations and the budgetary
aggregates.
A reserve fund, however, does not have any impact on the standing
rules of the Senate, including the cloture process and the need for 60
votes to end debate. Nothing in the Bipartisan Budget Act would change
that process.
A reserve fund also does not waive budget points of order. I can use
a reserve fund to revise the committee allocations and budgetary
aggregates, such that legislation that meets the criteria of the
reserve fund, including deficit neutrality, can be brought into
compliance with the allocations and aggregates. But, it does not allow
me to waive budget points of order that still may lie against the
legislation following the reserve fund adjustment. Budget points of
order generally can only be waived by unanimous consent or with 60
votes. Nothing in the Bipartisan Budget Act would change that.
Further, the Senator from Ohio proposed the specific hypothetical
example of legislation that would increase the statutory limits on
discretionary spending and offset some or all of those costs with new
revenue. Recognizing this is a hypothetical scenario, I believe in that
situation the legislation would be subject to a 60-vote point of order
for violating section 306 of the Congressional Budget Act, which
creates a point of order against legislation dealing with matters
within the jurisdiction of the Budget Committee that has not been
reported out of the Budget Committee. Ultimately, the Parliamentarian
of the Senate determines whether points of order under section 306 lie
against legislation, but legislation to alter the statutory limits in
discretionary spending has historically been within the jurisdiction of
the Budget Committee. A reserve fund would have no impact on a section
306 point of order and nothing in the Bipartisan Budget Act would
change that.
In addition, legislation increasing the statutory caps on
discretionary spending above the existing levels, as the Senator from
Ohio outlines in his question, would also violate section 312(b) of the
Congressional Budget Act, which prohibits consideration of legislation
that would exceed any of the statutory limits on discretionary
spending. The reserve fund in 114(c), like other reserve funds, deals
only with Senate enforcement and would have no impact on that point of
order. Again, nothing in the Bipartisan Budget Act would change that.
Finally, I would suggest to my colleague that legislation originating
in the Senate rather than in the House of Representatives that raises
revenue would likely be subject to a ``blue slip'' and returned back to
the Senate by the House of Representatives. Again, nothing in the
Bipartisan Budget Act would change that process.
Mr. PORTMAN. I thank the Chairman for her answer. I understand that
we were discussing a hypothetical example. I thank her for engaging
with me in this colloquy.
____________________
VOTE EXPLANATION
Mr. THUNE. Madam President, last night, due to airline flight delays
in South Dakota and Minneapolis, I missed the roll call vote on the
confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 452, Janet L. Yellen, of
California, to be Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve System for a term of 4 years. Had I been present for this vote,
I would have voted no.
Madam President, last night, due to airline flight delays in South
Dakota and Minneapolis, I missed the roll call cloture vote on the
motion to proceed to S. 1845. Had I been present for this vote, I would
have voted no.
____________________
U.S. CADET NURSE CORPS
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, today I wish to recognize the women of
the U.S. Cadet Nurse Corps. Approximately 125,000 American women served
as Corps members during World War II, providing comfort and care at
hospitals across the country, including in New Hampshire. Most of the
former Corps members are now in their eighties, and it is incumbent
upon us to ensure that the lessons of their service are remembered for
the benefit of future generations.
In March of 1943, Congresswoman Frances P. Bolton of Ohio, a strong
believer in the power of nurses in the healing process, introduced
legislation to ensure that the supply of nurses in the United States
would be large enough to meet the increasing demands of the war effort,
especially as large numbers of experienced nurses left the country to
serve overseas. The Bolton Act promised a free nursing education in
exchange for a commitment to serve in the Cadet Nurse Corps for the
duration of the war.
Driven by the immediate need for more nurses, Corps members worked
overtime to finish their studies within
[[Page 71]]
a compressed study schedule and began to perform nursing duties even
before they had formally graduated. This on-the-job training ensured
that civilians and recovering servicemembers continued to receive
necessary medical care even as much of the medical community was
focused on the war front.
Members of the U.S. Cadet Nurse Corps took an oath to dedicate
themselves to the triumph of life over death at a time when this
perpetual struggle took on previously unseen dimensions. Like many of
the American soldiers fighting overseas, these women were predominantly
young, recent high school graduates who, when confronted with the call
to serve their country, answered unhesitatingly and in large numbers.
I ask my colleagues in the Senate to join me in thanking all former
Cadet Nurse Corps members for their service to the country and for
their the selfless commitment to the nursing profession.
____________________
MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT
Messages from the President of the United States were communicated to
the Senate by Mr. Williams, one of his secretaries.
____________________
EXECUTIVE MESSAGES REFERRED
As in executive session the Presiding Officer laid before the Senate
messages from the President of the United States submitting sundry
nominations which were referred to the appropriate committees.
(The messages received today are printed at the end of the Senate
proceedings.)
____________________
PROPOSED AGREEMENT FOR COOPERATION BETWEEN THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE IN
TAIWAN (AIT) AND THE TAIPEI ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE
IN THE UNITED STATES (TECRO) CONCERNING PEACEFUL USES OF NUCLEAR
ENERGY--PM 26
The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message
from the President of the United States, together with an accompanying
report; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations:
To the Congress of the United States:
I am pleased to transmit to the Congress, pursuant to sections 123 b.
and 123 d. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C.
2153(b), (d)) (the ``Act''), the text of a proposed Agreement for
Cooperation Between the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) and the
Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States
(TECRO) Concerning Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy (the ``Agreement'').
I am also pleased to transmit my written approval, authorization, and
determination concerning the Agreement, and an unclassified Nuclear
Proliferation Assessment Statement (NPAS) concerning the Agreement. (In
accordance with section 123 of the Act, as amended by title XII of the
Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-
277), a classified annex to the NPAS, prepared by the Secretary of
State in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence,
summarizing relevant classified information, will be submitted to the
Congress separately.) The joint memorandum submitted to me by the
Secretaries of State and Energy and a letter from the Chairman of the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) stating the views of the Commission
are also enclosed. An addendum to the NPAS containing a comprehensive
analysis of the export control system of Taiwan with respect to
nuclear-related matters, including interactions with other countries of
proliferation concern and the actual or suspected nuclear, dual-use, or
missile-related transfers to such countries, pursuant to section 102A
of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 403-1), as amended, is
being submitted separately by the Director of National Intelligence.
The proposed Agreement has been negotiated in accordance with the Act
and other applicable law. In my judgment, it meets all applicable
statutory requirements and will advance the nonproliferation and other
foreign policy interests of the United States.
The proposed Agreement provides a comprehensive framework for
peaceful nuclear cooperation with the authorities on Taiwan based on a
mutual commitment to nuclear nonproliferation. The proposed Agreement
has an indefinite term from the date of its entry-into-force, unless
terminated by either party on 1 year's written notice. The proposed
Agreement permits the transfer of information, material, equipment
(including reactors), and components for nuclear research and nuclear
power production. The Agreement also specifies cooperation shall be in
accordance with the provisions of the Agreement and applicable legal
obligations, including, as appropriate, treaties, international
agreements, domestic laws, regulations, and/or licensing requirements
(such as those imposed by the NRC in accordance with 10 CFR 110 and the
Department of Energy in accordance with 10 CFR 810). It does not permit
transfers of Restricted Data, sensitive nuclear technology and
facilities, or major critical components of such facilities. The
proposed Agreement also prohibits the possession of sensitive nuclear
facilities and any engagement in activities involving sensitive nuclear
technology in the territory of the authorities represented by TECRO. In
the event of termination of the proposed Agreement, key
nonproliferation conditions and controls continue with respect to
material, equipment, and components subject to the proposed Agreement.
Over the last two decades, the authorities on Taiwan have established
a reliable record on nonproliferation and on commitments to
nonproliferation. While the political status of the authorities on
Taiwan prevents them from formally acceding to multilateral
nonproliferation treaties or agreements, the authorities on Taiwan have
voluntarily assumed commitments to adhere to the provisions of
multilateral treaties and initiatives. The Republic of China ratified
the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) in 1970
and ratified the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development,
Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin
Weapons and on Their Destruction (the ``Biological Weapons Convention''
or ``BWC'') in 1972. The authorities on Taiwan have stated that they
will continue to abide by the obligations of the NPT (i.e., those of a
non-nuclear-weapon state) and the BWC, and the United States regards
them as bound by both treaties. The authorities on Taiwan follow
International Atomic Energy Agency standards and directives in their
nuclear program, work closely with U.S. civilian nuclear authorities,
and have established relationships with mainland Chinese civilian
authorities with respect to nuclear safety. A more detailed discussion
of the domestic civil nuclear activities and nuclear nonproliferation
policies and practices of the authorities on Taiwan, including their
nuclear export policies and practices, is provided in the NPAS and in a
classified annex to the NPAS submitted separately. As noted above, an
addendum to the NPAS containing a comprehensive analysis of the export
control system of the authorities on Taiwan with respect to nuclear-
related matters is being submitted to you separately by the Director of
National Intelligence.
I have considered the views and recommendations of the interested
agencies in reviewing the proposed Agreement and have determined that
its performance will promote, and will not constitute an unreasonable
risk to, the common defense and security. Accordingly, I have approved
the Agreement and authorized its execution and urge the Congress to
give it favorable consideration.
This transmission shall constitute a submittal for purposes of both
sections 123 b. and 123 d. of the Act. My Administration is prepared to
begin immediately the consultations with the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee as provided in
section 123 b. Upon completion of the 30 days of continuous session
review provided for in section
[[Page 72]]
123 b., the 60 days of continuous session review provided for in
section 123 d. shall commence.
Barack Obama.
The White House, January 7, 2014.
____________________
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. BROWN:
S. 1896. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to extend the new markets tax credit and provide designated
allocations for areas impacted by a decline in manufacturing;
to the Committee on Finance.
____________________
SUBMISSION OF CONCURRENT AND SENATE RESOLUTIONS
The following concurrent resolutions and Senate resolutions were
read, and referred (or acted upon), as indicated:
By Mr. COONS (for himself, Mr. Kirk, Mr. Rockefeller,
Mr. Alexander, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Durbin, Ms.
Ayotte, and Ms. Klobuchar):
S. Res. 329. A resolution expressing support for the goals
and ideals of the biennial USA Science & Engineering Festival
in Washington, DC and designating April 21 through April 27,
2014, as ``National Science and Technology Week''; considered
and agreed to.
____________________
ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS
S. 178
At the request of Mr. Cornyn, the name of the Senator from Minnesota
(Ms. Klobuchar) was added as a cosponsor of S. 178, a bill to provide
for alternative financing arrangements for the provision of certain
services and the construction and maintenance of infrastructure at land
border ports of entry, and for other purposes.
S. 209
At the request of Mr. Paul, the name of the Senator from South
Carolina (Mr. Graham) was added as a cosponsor of S. 209, a bill to
require a full audit of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System and the Federal reserve banks by the Comptroller General of the
United States, and for other purposes.
S. 249
At the request of Mr. Menendez, the name of the Senator from
Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin) was added as a cosponsor of S. 249, a bill to
provide for the expansion of affordable refinancing of mortgages held
by the Federal National Mortgage Association and the Federal Home Loan
Mortgage Corporation.
S. 267
At the request of Mr. Rockefeller, the name of the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) was added as a cosponsor of S. 267, a bill
to prevent, deter, and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated
fishing through port State measures.
S. 269
At the request of Mr. Rockefeller, the name of the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) was added as a cosponsor of S. 269, a bill
to establish uniform administrative and enforcement authorities for the
enforcement of the High Seas Driftnet Fishing Moratorium Protection Act
and similar statutes, and for other purposes.
S. 270
At the request of Mr. Begich, the name of the Senator from New York
(Mrs. Gillibrand) was added as a cosponsor of S. 270, a bill to amend
the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 to establish a
United States Ambassador at Large for Arctic Affairs.
S. 411
At the request of Mr. Rockefeller, the name of the Senator from New
Mexico (Mr. Udall) was added as a cosponsor of S. 411, a bill to amend
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend and modify the railroad
track maintenance credit.
S. 653
At the request of Mr. Blunt, the names of the Senator from Texas (Mr.
Cruz) and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Portman) were added as cosponsors
of S. 653, 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. 1011
At the request of Mr. Johanns, the name of the Senator from Colorado
(Mr. Bennet) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1011, a bill to require the
Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins in commemoration of the
centennial of Boys Town, and for other purposes.
S. 1099
At the request of Mr. Johanns, his name was added as a cosponsor of
S. 1099, a bill to ensure that individuals do not simultaneously
receive unemployment compensation and disability insurance benefits.
S. 1150
At the request of Mr. Blumenthal, the name of the Senator from
Connecticut (Mr. Murphy) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1150, a bill to
posthumously award a congressional gold medal to Constance Baker
Motley.
S. 1204
At the request of Mr. Coburn, the names of the Senator from Tennessee
(Mr. Corker) and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) were added
as cosponsors of S. 1204, a bill to amend the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act to protect rights of conscience with regard to
requirements for coverage of specific items and services, to amend the
Public Health Service Act to prohibit certain abortion-related
discrimination in governmental activities, and for other purposes.
S. 1349
At the request of Mr. Moran, the name of the Senator from New
Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1349, a bill to
enhance the ability of community financial institutions to foster
economic growth and serve their communities, boost small businesses,
increase individual savings, and for other purposes.
S. 1431
At the request of Mr. Wyden, the name of the Senator from Arkansas
(Mr. Boozman) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1431, a bill to
permanently extend the Internet Tax Freedom Act.
S. 1456
At the request of Ms. Ayotte, the name of the Senator from Florida
(Mr. Rubio) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1456, a bill to award the
Congressional Gold Medal to Shimon Peres.
S. 1460
At the request of Mr. Blumenthal, the name of the Senator from New
Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1460, a bill to
create two additional judge positions on the court established by the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 and modify the procedures
for the appointment of judges to that court, and for other purposes.
S. 1467
At the request of Mr. Blumenthal, the name of the Senator from New
Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1467, a bill to
establish the Office of the Special Advocate to provide advocacy in
cases before courts established by the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978 and for other purposes.
S. 1468
At the request of Mr. Brown, the names of the Senator from South
Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow) and the
Senator from New York (Mr. Schumer) were added as cosponsors of S.
1468, a bill to require the Secretary of Commerce to establish the
Network for Manufacturing Innovation and for other purposes.
S. 1495
At the request of Mr. Casey, the name of the Senator from California
(Mrs. Boxer) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1495, a bill to direct the
Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to issue an order
with respect to secondary cockpit barriers, and for other purposes.
S. 1595
At the request of Mr. Udall of New Mexico, the name of the Senator
from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1595, a
bill to establish a renewable electricity standard, and for other
purposes.
[[Page 73]]
S. 1610
At the request of Mr. Menendez, the name of the Senator from Maine
(Ms. Collins) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1610, a bill to delay the
implementation of certain provisions of the Biggert-Waters Flood
Insurance Reform Act of 2012, and for other purposes.
S. 1696
At the request of Mr. Blumenthal, the name of the Senator from
Illinois (Mr. Durbin) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1696, a bill to
protect a women's right to determine whether and when to bear a child
or end a pregnancy by limiting restrictions on the provision of
abortion services.
S. 1709
At the request of Mr. Kirk, the name of the Senator from South
Carolina (Mr. Graham) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1709, a bill to
require the Committee on Technology of the National Science and
Technology Council to develop and update a national manufacturing
competitiveness strategic plan, and for other purposes.
S. 1737
At the request of Mr. Harkin, the names of the Senator from Oregon
(Mr. Wyden), the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren), the Senator
from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and
the Senator from New York (Mr. Schumer) were added as cosponsors of S.
1737, a bill to provide for an increase in the Federal minimum wage and
to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend increased
expensing limitations and the treatment of certain real property as
section 179 property.
S. 1778
At the request of Mr. Burr, the name of the Senator from North
Carolina (Mrs. Hagan) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1778, a bill to
require the Attorney General to report on State law penalties for
certain child abusers, and for other purposes.
S. 1796
At the request of Mrs. Gillibrand, the name of the Senator from
Minnesota (Mr. Franken) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1796, a bill to
increase the participation of women, girls, and underrepresented
minorities in STEM fields, to encourage and support students from all
economic backgrounds to pursue STEM career opportunities, and for other
purposes.
S. 1798
At the request of Mr. Warner, the names of the Senator from Georgia
(Mr. Isakson) and the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Carper) were added as
cosponsors of S. 1798, a bill to ensure that emergency services
volunteers are not counted as full-time employees under the shared
responsibility requirements contained in the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act.
S. 1802
At the request of Mr. Inhofe, the name of the Senator from Florida
(Mr. Rubio) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1802, a bill to provide
equal treatment for utility special entities using utility operations-
related swaps, and for other purposes.
S. 1810
At the request of Mrs. Gillibrand, the name of the Senator from
Maryland (Ms. Mikulski) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1810, a bill to
provide paid family and medical leave benefits to certain individuals,
and for other purposes.
S. 1846
At the request of Mr. Menendez, the name of the Senator from Oregon
(Mr. Wyden) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1846, a bill to delay the
implementation of certain provisions of the Biggert-Waters Flood
Insurance Reform Act of 2012, and for other purposes.
S. 1869
At the request of Ms. Ayotte, the names of the Senator from Georgia
(Mr. Chambliss), the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the Senator
from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the
Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven), the Senator from Ohio (Mr.
Portman), the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran), the Senator from
Idaho (Mr. Risch), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the
Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), the Senator from Maine (Ms.
Collins) and the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson) were added as
cosponsors of S. 1869, a bill to repeal section 403 of the Bipartisan
Budget Act of 2013, relating to an annual adjustment of retired pay for
members of the Armed Forces under the age of 62, and to provide an
offset.
S. 1894
At the request of Mr. Cochran, the name of the Senator from Georgia
(Mr. Isakson) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1894, a bill to provide
for the repeal of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act if it
is determined that the Act has resulted in increasing the number of
uninsured individuals.
____________________
SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS
______
SENATE RESOLUTION 329--EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR THE GOALS AND IDEALS OF
THE BIENNIAL USA SCIENCE & ENGINEERING FESTIVAL IN WASHINGTON, DC AND
DESIGNATING APRIL 21 THROUGH APRIL 27, 2014, AS ``NATIONAL SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY WEEK''
Mr. COONS (for himself, Mr. Kirk, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Alexander, Mr.
Baucus, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Durbin, Ms. Ayotte, and Ms. Klobuchar) submitted
the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to:
S. Res. 329
Whereas science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
(referred to in this preamble as ``STEM'') are essential to
the future global competitiveness of the United States;
Whereas advances in technology have resulted in significant
improvement in the daily lives of individuals in the United
States;
Whereas scientific discoveries are critical to curing
diseases, solving global challenges, and an increased
understanding of the world;
Whereas the future global economy will require a workforce
that is educated in science and engineering specialties;
Whereas educating a new generation of individuals in the
United States in STEM is crucial to ensure continued economic
growth;
Whereas increasing the interest of the next generation of
students in the United States, particularly young women and
underrepresented minorities, in STEM is necessary to maintain
the global competitiveness of the United States;
Whereas science and engineering festivals have attracted
millions of participants and inspired a national effort to
promote science and engineering;
Whereas thousands of universities, museums, science
centers, STEM professional societies, educational societies,
government agencies and laboratories, community
organizations, elementary and secondary schools, volunteers,
corporate and private sponsors, and nonprofit organizations
have come together to organize the USA Science & Engineering
Festival in Washington, DC in April 2014;
Whereas the USA Science & Engineering Festival will
reinvigorate the interest of young people in the United
States in STEM and highlight the important contributions of
science and engineering to the competitiveness of the United
States through exhibits on topics that include human
spaceflight, medicine, engineering, biotechnology, physics,
and astronomy; and
Whereas scientific research is essential to the
competitiveness of the United States, and events like the USA
Science & Engineering Festival promote the importance of
scientific research and development to the future of the
United States: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) expresses support for the goals and ideals of the USA
Science & Engineering Festival to promote scholarship in
science and an interest in scientific research and
development, as the cornerstones of innovation and
competition in the United States;
(2) supports festivals, such as the USA Science &
Engineering Festival, that focus on the importance of science
and engineering to the daily lives of individuals in the
United States through exhibits on topics that include human
spaceflight, medicine, engineering, biotechnology, physics,
and astronomy;
(3) congratulates all individuals and organizations whose
efforts will make possible the USA Science & Engineering
Festival, highlighting the accomplishments of the United
States in science and engineering;
(4) encourages families and children to participate in the
activities and exhibits of the USA Science & Engineering
Festival that will occur in Washington, DC, and across the
United States as satellite events of the festival; and
(5) designates April 21 through April 27, 2014, as
``National Science and Technology Week''.
[[Page 74]]
____________________
AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED AND PROPOSED
SA 2603. Ms. AYOTTE (for herself, Mr. Chambliss, Mr.
Barrasso, Mr. Portman, Mr. Hoeven, Mr. Moran, Ms. Collins,
Mr. Johnson of Wisconsin, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Inhofe, and Mr.
Graham) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by her
to the bill S. 1845, to provide for the extension of certain
unemployment benefits, and for other purposes; which was
ordered to lie on the table.
SA 2604. Mr. VITTER submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill S. 1845, supra; which was ordered
to lie on the table.
SA 2605. Mr. INHOFE submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill S. 1845, supra; which was ordered
to lie on the table.
SA 2606. Mr. COBURN (for himself, Mr. Tester, Mr. Udall of
Colorado, Mr. King, Mr. McCain, and Mr. Begich) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 1845,
supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 2607. Mr. COBURN (for himself, Mr. Manchin, Mr. King,
and Mr. Flake) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed
by him to the bill S. 1845, supra; which was ordered to lie
on the table.
SA 2608. Mr. BLUMENTHAL submitted an amendment intended to
be proposed by him to the bill S. 1845, supra; which was
ordered to lie on the table.
SA 2609. Mr. COATS submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill S. 1845, supra; which was ordered
to lie on the table.
SA 2610. Mr. COATS submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill S. 1845, supra; which was ordered
to lie on the table.
SA 2611. Mr. COATS submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill S. 1845, supra; which was ordered
to lie on the table.
SA 2612. Mr. MORAN submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill S. 1845, supra; which was ordered
to lie on the table.
____________________
TEXT OF AMENDMENTS
SA 2603. Ms. AYOTTE (for herself, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Barrasso, Mr.
Portman, Mr. Hoeven, Mr. Moran, Ms. Collins, Mr. Johnson of Wisconsin,
Mr. Isakson, Mr. Inhofe, and Mr. Graham) submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed by her to the bill S. 1845, to provide for the
extension of certain unemployment benefits, and for other purposes;
which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. ___. REPEAL OF REDUCTIONS MADE BY BIPARTISAN BUDGET ACT
OF 2013.
(a) Repeal.--Section 403 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of
2013 is repealed as of the date of the enactment of such Act.
(b) Social Security Number Required to Claim the Refundable
Portion of the Child Tax Credit.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (d) of section 24 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end
the following new paragraph:
``(5) Identification requirement with respect to
taxpayer.--
``(A) In general.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any
taxpayer for any taxable year unless the taxpayer includes
the taxpayer's Social Security number on the return of tax
for such taxable year.
``(B) Joint returns.--In the case of a joint return, the
requirement of subparagraph (A) shall be treated as met if
the Social Security number of either spouse is included on
such return.
``(C) Limitation.--Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to the
extent the tentative minimum tax (as defined in section
55(b)(1)(A)) exceeds the credit allowed under section 32.''.
(2) Omission treated as mathematical or clerical error.--
Subparagraph (I) of section 6213(g)(2) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows:
``(I) an omission of a correct Social Security number
required under section 24(d)(5) (relating to refundable
portion of child tax credit), or a correct TIN under section
24(e) (relating to child tax credit), to be included on a
return,''.
(3) Conforming amendment.--Subsection (e) of section 24 of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting
``With Respect to Qualifying Children'' after
``Identification Requirement'' in the heading thereof.
(4) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection
shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
______
SA 2604. Mr. VITTER submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill S. 1845, to provide for the extension of certain
unemployment benefits, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie
on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. TRANSPARENCY OF COVERAGE DETERMINATION.
(a) In General.--Not later than 30 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Chief Administrative Officer of
the House of Representatives and the Financial Clerk of the
Senate shall make publically available the determinations of
each member of the House of Representatives and each Senator,
as the case may be, regarding the designation of their
respective congressional staff (including leadership and
committee staff) as ``official'' for purposes of requiring
such staff to enroll in health insurance coverage provided
through an Exchange as required under section 1312(d)(1)(D)
of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (42 U.S.C.
18032(d)(1)(D)), and the regulations relating to such
section.
(b) Failure to Submit.--The failure by any member of the
House of Representatives or Senator to designate any of their
respective staff, whether committee or leadership staff, as
``official'' (as described in subsection (a)), shall be noted
in the determination made publically available under
subsection (a) along with a statement that such failure
permits the staff involved to remain in the Federal Employee
Health Benefits Program.
(c) Privacy.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed to
permit the release of any individually identifiable
information concerning any individual, including any health
plan selected by an individual.
______
SA 2605. Mr. INHOFE submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill S. 1845, to provide for the extension of certain
unemployment benefits, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie
on the table; as follows:
On page 6, after line 11, add the following:
SEC. 7. STATE CONTROL OF ENERGY DEVELOPMENT AND PRODUCTION ON
ALL AVAILABLE FEDERAL LAND.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Available federal land.--The term ``available Federal
land'' means any Federal land that, as of May 31, 2013--
(A) is located within the boundaries of a State;
(B) is not held by the United States in trust for the
benefit of a federally recognized Indian tribe;
(C) is not a unit of the National Park System;
(D) is not a unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System;
and
(E) is not a Congressionally designated wilderness area.
(2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(3) State.--The term ``State'' means--
(A) a State; and
(B) the District of Columbia.
(b) State Programs.--
(1) In general.--A State--
(A) may establish a program covering the leasing and
permitting processes, regulatory requirements, and any other
provisions by which the State would exercise its rights to
develop all forms of energy resources on available Federal
land in the State; and
(B) as a condition of certification under subsection (c)(2)
shall submit a declaration to the Departments of the
Interior, Agriculture, and Energy that a program under
subparagraph (A) has been established or amended.
(2) Amendment of programs.--A State may amend a program
developed and certified under this section at any time.
(3) Certification of amended programs.--Any program amended
under paragraph (2) shall be certified under subsection
(c)(2).
(c) Leasing, Permitting, and Regulatory Programs.--
(1) Satisfaction of federal requirements.--Each program
certified under this section shall be considered to satisfy
all applicable requirements of Federal law (including
regulations), including--
(A) the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.);
(B) the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.); and
(C) the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470
et seq.).
(2) Federal certification and transfer of development
rights.--Upon submission of a declaration by a State under
subsection (b)(1)(B)(i)--
(A) the program under subsection (b)(1)(A) shall be
certified; and
(B) the State shall receive all rights from the Federal
Government to develop all forms of energy resources covered
by the program.
(3) Issuance of permits and leases.--If a State elects to
issue a permit or lease for the development of any form of
energy resource on any available Federal land within the
borders of the State in accordance with a program certified
under paragraph (2), the permit or lease shall be considered
to meet all applicable requirements of Federal law (including
regulations).
(d) Judicial Review.--Activities carried out in accordance
with this section shall not be subject to judicial review.
(e) Administrative Procedure Act.--Activities carried out
in accordance with this section shall not be subject to
subchapter II of chapter 5, and chapter 7, of title 5, United
States Code (commonly known as the ``Administrative Procedure
Act'').
[[Page 75]]
______
SA 2606. Mr. COBURN (for himself, Mr. Tester, Mr. Udall of Colorado,
Mr. King, Mr. McCain, and Mr. Begich) submitted an amendment intended
to be proposed by him to the bill S. 1845, to provide for the extension
of certain unemployment benefits, and for other purposes; which was
ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the end, add the following:
SEC. 7. ENDING UNEMPLOYMENT PAYMENTS TO JOBLESS MILLIONAIRES
AND BILLIONAIRES.
(a) Prohibition.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, no Federal funds may be used to make payments of
unemployment compensation (including such compensation under
the Federal-State Extended Compensation Act of 1970 and the
emergency unemployment compensation program under title IV of
the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008) to an individual
whose adjusted gross income in the preceding year was equal
to or greater than $1,000,000.
(b) Compliance.--Unemployment Insurance applications shall
include a form or procedure for an individual applicant to
certify the individual's adjusted gross income was not equal
to or greater than $1,000,000 in the preceding year.
(c) Audits.--The certifications required by subsection (b)
shall be auditable by the U.S. Department of Labor or the
U.S. Government Accountability Office.
(d) Status of Applicants.--It is the duty of the states to
verify the residency, employment, legal, and income status of
applicants for Unemployment Insurance and no Federal funds
may be expended for purposes of determining an individual's
eligibility under this Act.
(e) Effective Date.--The prohibition under subsection (a)
shall apply to weeks of unemployment beginning on or after
the date of the enactment of this Act.
______
SA 2607. Mr. COBURN (for himself, Mr. Manchin, Mr. King, and Mr.
Flake) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the
bill S. 1845, to provide for the extension of certain unemployment
benefits, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the
table; as follows:
At the end, add the following:
SEC. 7. PROHIBITION ON PAYMENT OF BENEFITS BASED ON RECEIPT
OF UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION.
(a) In General.--Title II of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 401 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 224
the following new section:
``prohibition on payment of benefits based on receipt of unemployment
compensation
``Sec. 224A. (a) If for any month prior to the month in
which an individual attains retirement age (as defined in
section 216(l)(1))--
``(1) such individual is entitled to benefits under section
223, and
``(2) such individual is entitled for such month to
unemployment compensation,
the total of the individual's benefits under section 223 for
such month and of any benefits under subsections (b) through
(h) of section 202 for such month based on the individual's
wages and self-employment income shall be reduced to zero.
``(b)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
head of any Federal agency shall provide such information
within its possession as the Commissioner may require for
purposes of making a timely determination under this section
for reduction of benefits payable under this title, or
verifying other information necessary in carrying out the
provisions of this section.
``(2) The Commissioner is authorized to enter into
agreements with States, political subdivisions, and other
organizations that administer unemployment compensation, in
order to obtain such information as the Commissioner may
require to carry out the provisions of this section.
``(3) Any determination by the Commissioner pursuant to
this section shall be subject to the requirements described
in section 205(b)(1), including provision of reasonable
notice and opportunity for a hearing.
``(c) For purposes of this section, the term `unemployment
compensation' has the meaning given that term in section
85(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to benefits payable for months beginning after
180 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
______
SA 2608. Mr. BLUMENTHAL submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill S. 1845, to provide for the extension of
certain unemployment benefits, and for other purposes; which was
ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the end, add the following:
TITLE II--PATHWAYS BACK TO WORK
SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Pathways Back to Work Act
of 2013''.
SEC. 202. ESTABLISHMENT OF PATHWAYS BACK TO WORK FUND.
(a) Establishment.--There is established in the Treasury of
the United States an account, which shall be known as the
Pathways Back to Work Fund (referred to in this title as
``the Fund''), consisting of such amounts as are paid to the
Fund under subsection (b).
(b) Payment Into the Fund.--Out of any amounts in the
general fund of the Treasury not otherwise appropriated,
there is appropriated $12,500,000,000, which shall be paid to
the Fund, to be used by the Secretary of Labor to carry out
this title.
(c) Period of Availability.--The amounts appropriated under
this title shall be available for obligation by the Secretary
of Labor through December 31, 2014, and shall be available
for expenditure by recipients of grants and subgrants under
this title through September 30, 2015.
SEC. 203. AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS.
(a) In General.--Using the amounts available through the
Fund under section 202(b), the Secretary of Labor shall,
subject to subsection (b)--
(1) allot $8,000,000,000 in accordance with section 204 to
provide subsidized employment to unemployed, low-income
adults;
(2) allot $2,500,000,000 in accordance with section 205 to
provide summer employment and year-round employment
opportunities to low-income youth; and
(3) use $2,000,000,000 in accordance with section 206 to
award grants on a competitive basis to local entities to
carry out work-based training and other work-related and
educational strategies and activities of demonstrated
effectiveness to unemployed, low-income adults and low-income
youth to provide the skills and assistance needed to obtain
employment.
(b) Reservation.--The Secretary of Labor may reserve not
more than 1 percent of the amounts available through the Fund
under each of paragraphs (1) through (3) of subsection (a) to
pay for the costs of technical assistance, evaluations, and
Federal administration of this title.
SEC. 204. SUBSIDIZED EMPLOYMENT FOR UNEMPLOYED, LOW-INCOME
ADULTS.
(a) In General.--
(1) Allotments.--From the funds available under section
203(a)(1), the Secretary of Labor shall make an allotment or
provide assistance under subsection (b) to each State that
has a State plan approved under subsection (c) and to each
outlying area and recipient under section 166(c) of the
Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2911(c)) that
meets the requirements of this section, for the purpose of
providing subsidized employment opportunities to unemployed,
low-income adults.
(2) Guidance.--Not later than 30 days after the date of
enactment of this title, the Secretary of Labor, in
coordination with the Secretary of Health and Human Services,
shall issue guidance regarding the implementation of this
section. Such guidance shall, consistent with this section,
include procedures for the submission and approval of State
and local plans and the allotment and allocation of funds,
including reallotment and reallocation of such funds, that
promote the expeditious and effective implementation of the
activities authorized under this section.
(b) State Allotments.--
(1) Reservations for outlying areas and tribes.--Of the
funds described in subsection (a)(1), the Secretary of Labor
shall reserve--
(A) not more than \1/4\ of 1 percent to provide assistance
to outlying areas to provide subsidized employment to
unemployed, low-income adults; and
(B) 1.5 percent to provide assistance to recipients under
section 166(c) of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29
U.S.C. 2911(c)) to provide subsidized employment to
unemployed, low-income adults.
(2) States.--After determining the amounts to be reserved
under section 203(b) and paragraph (1), the Secretary of
Labor shall allot the remainder of the funds described in
subsection (a)(1) among the States by allotting--
(A) one-third on the basis of the relative number of
unemployed individuals in areas of substantial unemployment
in each State, compared to the total number of unemployed
individuals in areas of substantial unemployment in all
States;
(B) one-third on the basis of the relative excess number of
unemployed individuals in each State, compared to the total
excess number of unemployed individuals in all States; and
(C) one-third on the basis of the relative number of
disadvantaged adults and youth in each State, compared to the
total number of disadvantaged adults and youth in all States.
(3) Definitions.--For purposes of the formula described in
paragraph (2)--
(A) Area of substantial unemployment.--The term ``area of
substantial unemployment'' means any contiguous area that has
a population of at least 10,000, and that has an average rate
of unemployment of at least 6.5 percent for the most recent
12 months, as determined by the Secretary of Labor.
(B) Disadvantaged adult or youth.--The term ``disadvantaged
adult or youth'' means an individual who is age 16 or older
who received an income, or is a member of a family
[[Page 76]]
that received a total family income, that, in relation to
family size, does not exceed the higher of--
(i) the poverty line; or
(ii) 70 percent of the lower living standard income level.
(C) Excess number.--The term ``excess number'' means, used
with respect to unemployed individuals in a State, the higher
of--
(i) the number that represents the number of unemployed
individuals in excess of 4.5 percent of the civilian labor
force in the State; or
(ii) the number that represents the number of unemployed
individuals in excess of 4.5 percent of the civilian labor
force in areas of substantial unemployment in such State.
(4) Reallotment.--If the Governor of a State does not
submit a State plan by the date specified in subsection
(c)(2)(B), or a State does not receive approval of a State
plan, the amount the State would have been eligible to
receive pursuant to the formula under paragraph (2) shall be
transferred within the Fund and added to the amounts
available for competitive grants under section 203(a)(3).
(c) State Plan.--
(1) In general.--For a State to be eligible to receive an
allotment of funds under subsection (b), the Governor of the
State shall submit to the Secretary of Labor a State plan in
such form and containing such information as the Secretary
may require. At a minimum, such plan shall include--
(A) a description of the strategies and activities to be
carried out by the State, in coordination with employers in
the State, to provide subsidized employment opportunities to
unemployed, low-income adults, including strategies relating
to the level and duration of subsidies consistent with
subsection (e)(2);
(B) a description of the requirements the State will apply
relating to the eligibility of unemployed, low-income adults,
consistent with section 208, for subsidized employment
opportunities, which requirements may include criteria to
target assistance to particular categories of such adults,
such as individuals with disabilities or individuals who have
exhausted all rights to unemployment compensation;
(C) a description of how the funds allotted to provide
subsidized employment opportunities will be administered in
the State and (if administered by entities described in
subsection (d)(1)(A)) in local workforce investment areas, in
accordance with subsection (d);
(D) a description of the performance outcomes to be
achieved by the State through the activities carried out
under this section and the processes the State will use to
track the performance, consistent with guidance provided by
the Secretary of Labor regarding such outcomes and processes
and with section 207(b);
(E) a description of the coordination of activities to be
carried out with the funds provided under this section, with
activities under title I of the Workforce Investment Act of
1998 (29 U.S.C. 2801 et seq.), the program of block grants to
States for temporary assistance for needy families
established under part A of title IV of the Social Security
Act (referred to in this title as the ``TANF program''; 42
U.S.C. 601 et seq.), and other appropriate Federal and State
programs that may assist unemployed, low-income adults in
obtaining and retaining employment;
(F) a description of the timelines for implementation of
the activities described in subparagraph (A), and the number
of unemployed, low-income adults expected to be placed in
subsidized employment by calendar quarter;
(G) assurances that the State will report such information
relating to fiscal, performance, and other matters as the
Secretary of Labor may require and as the Secretary
determines is necessary to effectively monitor the activities
carried out under this section; and
(H) assurances that the State will ensure compliance with
the requirements, restrictions, labor standards, and other
provisions described in section 207(a).
(2) Submission and approval of state plan.--
(A) Submission with other plans.--The State plan described
in paragraph (1) may be submitted in conjunction with the
State plan modification or other request for funds by the
State required under section 205, and may be submitted as a
modification to a State plan that has been approved under
section 112 of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29
U.S.C. 2822).
(B) Submission and approval.--
(i) Submission.--The Governor shall submit the State plan
described in paragraph (1) to the Secretary of Labor not
later than 75 days after the date of enactment of this title
and the Secretary shall make a determination regarding the
approval or disapproval of such plan not later than 45 days
after the submission of such plan. If the plan is
disapproved, the Secretary may provide a reasonable period of
time in which the plan may be amended and resubmitted for
approval.
(ii) Approval.--The Secretary of Labor shall approve a
State plan that the Secretary determines is consistent with
the requirements of this section and reasonably appropriate
and adequate to carry out the objectives of this section. If
the plan is approved, the Secretary shall allot funds to the
State under subsection (b) within 30 days after such
approval.
(3) Modifications to state plan.--The Governor may submit a
modification to a State plan under this subsection,
consistent with the requirements of this section.
(d) Administration Within the State.--
(1) Option.--The State may administer the funds for
activities under this section through--
(A) the State and local entities responsible for the
administration of the formula program of workforce investment
activities for adults under subtitle B of title I of the
Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2811 et seq.);
(B) the State agency or agencies responsible for the
administration of the TANF program; or
(C) a combination of the entities and agency or agencies
described in subparagraphs (A) and (B).
(2) Within-state allocations.--
(A) Allocation of funds.--The Governor may reserve not more
than 5 percent of the funds made available through the
allotment under subsection (b)(2), for administration and
technical assistance, and shall allocate the remainder, in
accordance with the option elected under paragraph (1)--
(i) among local workforce investment areas within the State
in accordance with subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of
subsection (b)(2), except that for purposes of such
allocation references in paragraph (2) or (3) of subsection
(b) to a State shall be deemed to be references to a local
workforce investment area and references to all States shall
be deemed to be references to all local workforce investment
areas in the State involved; or
(ii) through entities responsible for the administration of
the TANF program in local areas, in such manner as the State
agency or agencies responsible for the administration of the
TANF program may determine to be appropriate.
(B) Local plans.--
(i) In general.--In a case in which the responsibility for
the administration of the activities described in subsection
(e) is to be carried out by the entities described in
paragraph (1)(A), in order to receive an allocation for a
local workforce investment area under subparagraph (A)(i), a
local workforce investment board, in partnership with the
chief elected official for the local workforce investment
area, shall submit to the Governor, not later than 30 days
after the submission of the State plan, a local plan for the
use of such funds under this section. Such local plan may be
submitted as a modification to a local plan approved under
section 118 of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29
U.S.C. 2833).
(ii) Contents.--The local plan described in clause (i)
shall contain the information described in subparagraphs (A)
through (H) of subsection (c)(1), as applied to the local
workforce investment area.
(iii) Approval.--The Governor shall approve or disapprove
the local plan submitted under clause (i) not later than a
date (referred to in this clause as the ``final determination
date'') that is the later of the 30th day after the
submission of the local plan or the 30th day after the
approval of the State plan. The Governor shall approve the
local plan unless the Governor determines that the plan is
inconsistent with the requirements of this section or is not
reasonably appropriate and adequate to carry out the
objectives of this section. If the Governor has not made a
determination by the final determination date, the plan shall
be considered to be approved. If the plan is disapproved, the
Governor may provide a reasonable period of time in which the
plan may be amended and resubmitted for approval. If the plan
is approved, the Governor shall allocate funds to the local
workforce investment area involved under subparagraph (A)(i)
within 30 days after such approval.
(C) Reallocation of funds to local workforce investment
areas.--In a case described in subparagraph (B)(i), if a
local workforce investment board and chief elected official
do not submit a local plan by the date specified in
subparagraph (B)(i), or the Governor disapproves a local
plan, the amount the local workforce investment area would
have been eligible to receive pursuant to the formula under
subparagraph (A)(i) shall be allocated to local workforce
investment areas that receive approval of their local plans
under subparagraph (B). Each such local workforce investment
area shall receive a share of the total amount available for
reallocation under this subparagraph, in accordance with the
area's share of the total amount allocated under subparagraph
(A)(i) to such local workforce investment areas.
(e) Use of Funds.--
(1) In general.--The funds made available under this
section shall be used to provide subsidized employment for
unemployed, low-income adults. The entities or agencies
described in subsection (d)(1) may use a variety of
strategies in recruiting employers and identifying
appropriate employment opportunities, but shall give priority
to providing employment opportunities likely to lead to
unsubsidized employment in emerging or in-
[[Page 77]]
demand occupations in the area served through the grant
involved. Funds made available under this section may be used
to provide support services, such as transportation and child
care, that are necessary to enable such adults to participate
in subsidized employment opportunities.
(2) Level of subsidy and duration.--The entities or
agencies described in subsection (d)(1) may determine the
percentage of the wages and costs of employing a participant
for which an employer may receive a subsidy with the funds
made available under this section, and the duration of such
subsidy, in accordance with guidance issued by the Secretary
of Labor in coordination with the Secretary of Health and
Human Services. The entities or agencies may establish
criteria for determining such percentage or duration, using
appropriate factors such as the size of the employer and type
of employment.
(3) Limitation.--Not more than 10 percent of the funds
allocated to a local workforce investment area under
subsection (d)(2)(A)(i) may be used for the costs of
administration of this section.
(f) Coordination of Federal Administration.--The Secretary
of Labor shall administer this section in coordination with
the Secretary of Health and Human Services to ensure the
effective implementation of this section.
SEC. 205. SUMMER EMPLOYMENT AND YEAR-ROUND EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITIES FOR LOW-INCOME AND DISCONNECTED
YOUTH.
(a) In General.--From the funds available under section
203(a)(2), the Secretary of Labor shall make an allotment or
provide assistance under subsection (c) to each State that
has a modification to a State plan approved under section 112
of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2822)
(referred to in this section as a ``State plan
modification'') (or other State request for funds specified
in guidance under subsection (b)) approved under subsection
(d) and to each outlying area and recipient under section
166(c) of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C.
2911(c)) (referred to in this section as a ``Native American
grantee'') that meets the requirements of this section, for
the purpose of providing summer employment and year-round
employment opportunities to low-income youth.
(b) Guidance and Application of Requirements.--
(1) Guidance.--Not later than 20 days after the date of
enactment of this title, the Secretary of Labor shall issue
guidance regarding the implementation of this section.
(2) Procedures.--Such guidance shall, consistent with this
section, include procedures for--
(A) submission and approval for State plan modifications,
for such other forms of requests for funds by the State as
may be identified in such guidance, for modifications to
local plans approved under section 118 of the Workforce
Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2833) (referred to
individually in this section as a ``local plan
modification''), or for such other forms of requests for
funds by local workforce investment areas as may be
identified in such guidance, that promote the expeditious and
effective implementation of the activities authorized under
this section; and
(B) the allotment and allocation of funds, including
reallotment and reallocation of such funds, that promote such
implementation.
(3) Requirements.--Except as otherwise provided in the
guidance described in paragraph (1) and in this section and
other provisions of this title, the funds provided for
activities under this section shall be administered in
accordance with the provisions of subtitles B and E of title
I of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2811 et
seq., 2931 et seq.) relating to youth activities.
(c) State Allotments.--
(1) Reservations for outlying areas and tribes.--Of the
funds described in subsection (a), the Secretary of Labor
shall reserve--
(A) not more than \1/4\ of 1 percent to provide assistance
to outlying areas to provide summer employment and year-round
employment opportunities to low-income youth; and
(B) 1.5 percent to provide assistance to Native American
grantees to provide summer employment and year-round
employment opportunities to low-income youth.
(2) States.--After determining the amounts to be reserved
under section 203(b) and paragraph (1), the Secretary of
Labor shall allot the remainder of the funds described in
subsection (a) among the States in accordance with the
subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of section 204(b)(2).
(3) Reallotment.--If the Governor of a State does not
submit a State plan modification or other State request for
funds specified in guidance under subsection (b) by the date
specified in subsection (d)(2)(B), or a State does not
receive approval of such State plan modification or request,
the amount the State would have been eligible to receive
pursuant to the formula under paragraph (2) shall be
transferred within the Fund and added to the amounts
available for competitive grants under section 203(a)(3).
(d) State Plan Modification or Request.--
(1) In general.--For a State to be eligible to receive an
allotment of funds under subsection (c), the Governor of the
State shall submit to the Secretary of Labor a State plan
modification, or other State request for funds specified in
guidance under subsection (b), in such form and containing
such information as the Secretary may require. At a minimum,
such State plan modification or request shall include--
(A) a description of the strategies and activities to be
carried out to provide summer employment opportunities and
year-round employment opportunities, including linkages to
training and educational activities, consistent with
subsection (f);
(B) a description of the requirements the States will apply
relating to the eligibility of low-income youth, consistent
with section 208, for summer employment opportunities and
year-round employment opportunities, which requirements may
include criteria to target assistance to particular
categories of such low-income youth, such as youth with
disabilities, consistent with subsection (f);
(C) a description of the performance outcomes to be
achieved by the State through the activities carried out
under this section and the processes the State will use to
track the performance, consistent with guidance provided by
the Secretary of Labor regarding such outcomes and processes
and with section 207(b);
(D) a description of the timelines for implementation of
the activities described in subparagraph (A), and the number
of low-income youth expected to be placed in summer
employment opportunities, and year-round employment
opportunities, respectively, by calendar quarter;
(E) assurances that the State will report such information
relating to fiscal, performance, and other matters as the
Secretary of Labor may require and as the Secretary
determines is necessary to effectively monitor the activities
carried out under this section;
(F) assurances that the State will ensure compliance with
the requirements, restrictions, labor standards, and other
provisions described in section 207(a); and
(G) for any employment opportunity that will provide
participants with an industry-recognized credential, a
description of the credential.
(2) Submission and approval of state plan modification or
request.--
(A) Submission.--The Governor shall submit the State plan
modification or other State request for funds specified in
guidance under subsection (b) to the Secretary of Labor not
later than 30 days after the issuance of such guidance. The
State plan modification or other State request for funds may
be submitted in conjunction with the State plan required
under section 204(c).
(B) Approval.--The Secretary of Labor shall approve or
disapprove the State plan modification or request submitted
under subparagraph (A) within 30 days after submission. The
Secretary of Labor shall approve the modification or request
unless the Secretary determines that the modification or
request is inconsistent with the requirements of this
section. If the Secretary has not made a determination within
that 30-day period, the modification or request shall be
considered to be approved. If the modification or request is
disapproved, the Secretary may provide a reasonable period of
time in which the modification or request may be amended and
resubmitted for approval. If the modification or request is
approved, the Secretary shall allot funds to the State under
subsection (c) within 30 days after such approval.
(3) Modifications to state plan modification or request.--
The Governor may submit further modifications to a State plan
modification or other State request for funds specified under
subsection (b), consistent with the requirements of this
section.
(e) Within-State Allocation and Administration.--
(1) In general.--Of the funds allotted to the State under
subsection (c), the Governor--
(A) may reserve not more than 5 percent of the funds for
administration and technical assistance; and
(B) shall allocate the remainder of the funds among local
workforce investment areas within the State in accordance
with subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of section 204(b)(2),
except that for purposes of such allocation references in
paragraph (2) or (3) of section 204(b) to a State shall be
deemed to be references to a local workforce investment area
and references to all States shall be deemed to be references
to all local workforce investment areas in the State
involved.
(2) Local plan modification or request.--
(A) Submission.--In order to receive an allocation for a
local workforce investment area under paragraph (1)(B), the
local workforce investment board, in partnership with the
chief elected official for the local workforce investment
area, shall submit to the Governor, not later than 30 days
after the submission by the State of the State plan
modification or other State request for funds specified in
guidance under subsection (b), a local plan modification, or
such other request for funds by local workforce investment
areas as may be specified in guidance under subsection (b),
describing the strategies and activities to be carried out
under this section.
[[Page 78]]
(B) Approval.--The Governor shall approve or disapprove the
local plan modification or other local request for funds
submitted under subparagraph (A) within 30 days after
submission. The Governor shall approve the modification or
request unless the Governor determines that the modification
or request is inconsistent with the requirements of this
section. If the Governor has not made a determination within
that 30-day period, the modification or request shall be
considered to be approved. If the modification or request is
disapproved, the Governor may provide a reasonable period of
time in which the modification or request may be amended and
resubmitted for approval. If the modification or request is
approved, the Governor shall allocate funds to the local
workforce investment area within 30 days after such approval.
(3) Reallocation.--If a local workforce investment board
and chief elected official do not submit a local plan
modification, or other local request for funds specified in
guidance under subsection (b), by the date specified in
paragraph (2)(A), or the Governor disapproves such a
modification or request, the amount the local workforce
investment area would have been eligible to receive pursuant
to the formula under paragraph (1)(B) shall be allocated to
local workforce investment areas that receive approval of
their local plan modifications or local requests for funds
under paragraph (2). Each such local workforce investment
area shall receive a share of the total amount available for
reallocation under this subparagraph, in accordance with the
area's share of the total amount allocated under paragraph
(1)(B) to such local workforce investment areas.
(f) Use of Funds.--
(1) In general.--The funds made available under this
section shall be used--
(A) to provide summer employment opportunities for low-
income youth, with direct linkages to academic and
occupational learning, and may be used to provide supportive
services, such as transportation or child care, that are
necessary to enable the youth to participate in the
opportunities; and
(B) to provide year-round employment opportunities, which
may be combined with other activities authorized under
section 129 of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29
U.S.C. 2854), to low-income youth, giving priority to out-of-
school youth who are--
(i) high school dropouts; or
(ii) recipients of a secondary school diploma or its
recognized equivalent but who are basic skills deficient,
unemployed, or underemployed.
(2) Program priorities.--In administering the funds under
this section, the local board and chief elected official
shall give priority to--
(A) identifying employment opportunities that are--
(i) in emerging or in-demand occupations in the local
workforce investment area; or
(ii) in the public or nonprofit sector and meet community
needs; and
(B) linking participants in year-round employment
opportunities to training and educational activities that
will provide such participants with an industry-recognized
credential.
(3) Performance accountability.--For activities funded
under this section, in lieu of meeting the requirements
described in section 136 of the Workforce Investment Act of
1998 (29 U.S.C. 2871), States and local workforce investment
areas shall provide such reports as the Secretary of Labor
may require regarding the performance outcomes described in
section 207(b)(5).
(4) Limitation.--Not more than 10 percent of the funds
allocated to a local workforce investment area under
subsection (e)(1)(B) may be used for the costs of
administration of this section.
SEC. 206. WORK-RELATED AND EDUCATIONAL STRATEGIES AND
ACTIVITIES OF DEMONSTRATED EFFECTIVENESS.
(a) In General.--From the funds available under section
203(a)(3), the Secretary of Labor shall award grants on a
competitive basis to eligible entities to carry out work-
related and educational strategies and activities of
demonstrated effectiveness.
(b) Eligible Entity.--To be eligible to receive a grant
under this section, an entity--
(1) shall include--
(A) a partnership involving a chief elected official, and
the local workforce investment board, for the local workforce
investment area involved (which may include a partnership
with elected officials and workforce investment boards in the
region and in the State); or
(B) an entity eligible to apply for a grant, contract, or
agreement under section 166 of the Workforce Investment Act
of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2911); and
(2) may include, in combination with a partnership or
entity described in paragraph (1)--
(A) employers or employer associations;
(B) adult education providers or postsecondary educational
institutions, including community colleges;
(C) community-based organizations;
(D) joint labor-management committees;
(E) work-related intermediaries; or
(F) other appropriate organizations.
(c) Application.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
this section, an entity shall submit to the Secretary of
Labor an application at such time, in such manner, and
containing such information as the Secretary may require. At
a minimum, the application shall--
(1) describe the strategies and activities of demonstrated
effectiveness that the eligible entity will carry out to
provide unemployed, low-income adults and low-income youth
with skills that will lead to employment upon completion of
participation related to such strategies and activities;
(2) describe the requirements that will apply relating to
the eligibility of unemployed, low-income adults or low-
income youth, consistent with section 208, for strategies and
activities carried out under this section, which requirements
may include criteria to target assistance to particular
categories of such adults and youth, such as individuals with
disabilities or individuals who have exhausted all rights to
unemployment compensation;
(3) describe how the strategies and activities will address
the needs of the target populations identified under
paragraph (2) and the needs of employers in the local
workforce investment area;
(4) describe the expected outcomes to be achieved by
implementing the strategies and activities;
(5) provide evidence that the funds provided through the
grant will be expended expeditiously and efficiently to
implement the strategies and activities;
(6) describe how the strategies and activities will be
coordinated with other Federal, State, and local programs
providing employment, education, and supportive activities;
(7) provide evidence of employer commitment to participate
with respect to the strategies and activities funded under
this section, including identification of anticipated
occupational and skill needs;
(8) provide assurances that the eligible entity will report
such information relating to fiscal, performance, and other
matters as the Secretary of Labor may require and as the
Secretary determines is necessary to effectively monitor the
strategies and activities carried out under this section;
(9) provide assurances that the eligible entity will ensure
compliance with the requirements, restrictions, labor
standards, and other provisions described in section 207(a);
and
(10) for any activity leading to the acquisition of an
industry-recognized credential, a description of the
credential.
(d) Priority in Awards.--In awarding grants under this
section, the Secretary of Labor shall give priority to
applications submitted by eligible entities from areas of
high poverty and high unemployment, as defined by the
Secretary, such as Public Use Microdata Areas designated by
the Bureau of the Census.
(e) Use of Funds.--An entity that receives a grant under
this section shall use the funds made available through the
grant to support strategies and activities of demonstrated
effectiveness that are designed to provide unemployed, low-
income adults or low-income youth with skills that will lead
to employment as part of or upon completion of participation
with respect to such strategies and activities. Such
strategies and activities may include--
(1) on-the-job training, registered apprenticeship
programs, or other programs that combine work with skills
development;
(2) sector-based training programs that have been designed
to meet the specific requirements of an employer or group of
employers in that sector and for which employers are
committed to hiring individuals upon successful completion of
the training;
(3) training that supports an industry sector or an
employer-based or labor-management committee industry
partnership and that includes a significant work experience
component;
(4) strategies and activities that lead to the acquisition
of industry-recognized credentials in a field identified by
the State or local workforce investment area as a growth
sector or in-demand industry in which there are likely to be
significant job opportunities in the short term;
(5) strategies and activities that provide connections to
immediate work opportunities, including subsidized employment
opportunities, or summer employment opportunities for youth,
that include concurrent skills training and other supports;
(6) strategies and activities offered through career
academies that provide students with the academic preparation
and training, such as paid internships and concurrent
enrollment in community colleges or other postsecondary
institutions, needed to pursue a career pathway that leads to
postsecondary credentials and in-demand jobs; and
(7) adult basic education and integrated basic education
and training, for low-skilled adults, that are tied to
employer workforce needs, hosted at community colleges or at
other sites, to prepare individuals for jobs that are in
demand in a local workforce investment area.
(f) Coordination of Federal Administration.--The Secretary
of Labor shall administer this section in coordination with
the Secretary of Education, the Secretary of
[[Page 79]]
Health and Human Services, and other appropriate agency
heads, to ensure the effective implementation of this
section.
SEC. 207. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS.
(a) Labor Standards and Protections.--Activities provided
with funds made available under this title shall be subject
to the requirements and restrictions, including the labor
standards, described in section 181 of the Workforce
Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2931) and the
nondiscrimination provisions of section 188 of such Act (29
U.S.C. 2938), in addition to other applicable Federal laws.
(b) Reporting.--The Secretary of Labor shall require the
reporting of information relating to fiscal, performance, and
other matters that the Secretary determines is necessary to
effectively monitor the activities carried out with funds
provided under this title. At a minimum, recipients of grants
or subgrants under this title shall provide information
relating to--
(1) the number of individuals participating in activities
with funds provided under this title and the number of such
individuals who have completed such participation;
(2) the expenditures of funds provided under this title;
(3) the number of jobs created pursuant to the activities
carried out under this title;
(4) the demographic characteristics of individuals
participating in activities under this title; and
(5) the performance outcomes for individuals participating
in activities under this title, including--
(A) for adults participating in activities funded under
section 204, performance on indicators consisting of--
(i) entry into unsubsidized employment;
(ii) retention in unsubsidized employment; and
(iii) earnings in unsubsidized employment;
(B) for low-income youth participating in summer employment
activities under sections 205 and 206, performance on
indicators consisting of--
(i) work readiness skill attainment, using an employer-
validated checklist; and
(ii) placement in or return to secondary or postsecondary
education or training, or entry into unsubsidized employment;
(C) for low-income youth participating in year-round
employment activities under section 205 or in activities
under section 206, performance on indicators consisting of--
(i) placement in or return to postsecondary education;
(ii) attainment of a secondary school diploma or its
recognized equivalent;
(iii) attainment of an industry-recognized credential; and
(iv) entry into unsubsidized employment, retention, and
earnings as described in subparagraph (A); and
(D) for unemployed, low-income adults participating in
activities under section 206--
(i) entry into unsubsidized employment, retention, and
earnings as described in subparagraph (A); and
(ii) attainment of an industry-recognized credential.
(c) Activities Required To Be Additional.--Funds provided
under this title shall only be used for activities that are
in addition to activities that would otherwise be available
in the State or local workforce investment area in the
absence of such funds.
(d) Additional Requirements.--The Secretary of Labor may
establish such additional requirements as the Secretary
determines may be necessary to ensure fiscal integrity,
effective monitoring, and appropriate and prompt
implementation of the activities under this title.
(e) Report of Information and Evaluations to Congress and
the Public.--The Secretary of Labor shall provide to the
appropriate committees of Congress and make available to the
public the information reported pursuant to subsection (b)
and the evaluations of activities carried out with the funds
reserved under section 203(b).
SEC. 208. DEFINITIONS.
In this title:
(1) Chief elected official.--The term ``chief elected
official'' means the chief elected executive officer of a
unit of general local government in a local workforce
investment area or, in the case in which such an area
includes more than one unit of general local government, the
individuals designated under an agreement described in
section 117(c)(1)(B) of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998
(29 U.S.C. 2832(c)(1)(B)).
(2) Industry-recognized credential.--The term ``industry-
recognized credential'' means such a credential within the
meaning of section 3 of the Carl D. Perkins Career and
Technical Education Act of 2006 (20 U.S.C. 2302).
(3) Local workforce investment area.--The term ``local
workforce investment area'' means such area designated under
section 116 of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29
U.S.C. 2831).
(4) Local workforce investment board.--The term ``local
workforce investment board'' means such board established
under section 117 of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29
U.S.C. 2832).
(5) Low-income youth.--
(A) In general.--The term ``low-income youth'' means an
individual who is not younger than age 16 and not older than
age 24 and is an individual described in subparagraph (B) or
(C).
(B) Eligible youth.--For purposes of this paragraph, an
individual described in this subparagraph--
(i) meets the definition of a low-income individual
provided in section 101(25) of the Workforce Investment Act
of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2801(25)), except that--
(I) States and local workforce investment areas, subject to
approval in the applicable State and local plan modifications
and requests for funds, may increase the income level
specified in subparagraph (B)(i) of such section to an amount
not in excess of 200 percent of the poverty line for purposes
of determining eligibility for participation in activities
under section 205; and
(II) eligible entities described in section 206(b), subject
to approval in the applicable applications for funds, may
make such an increase for purposes of determining eligibility
for participation in activities under section 206; and
(ii) is in one or more of the categories specified in
section 101(13)(C) of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998
(29 U.S.C. 2801(13)(C)).
(C) Youth eligible for school lunches.--For purposes of
this paragraph, an individual described in this subparagraph
receives or is eligible to receive a free or reduced price
lunch under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act
(42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.).
(6) Outlying area.--The term ``outlying area'' means the
United States Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the
Republic of Palau (except during any period for which the
Secretary of Labor determines that a Compact of Free
Association is in effect and provides for Federal assistance
for education or training).
(7) Poverty line.--The term ``poverty line'' means a
poverty line as defined in section 673 of the Community
Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9902), applicable to a
family of the size involved.
(8) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several
States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
(9) Unemployed, low-income adult.--The term ``unemployed,
low-income adult'' means an individual who--
(A) is age 18 or older;
(B) is without employment and is seeking assistance under
this title to obtain employment; and
(C) meets the definition of a low-income individual
specified in section 101(25) of the Workforce Investment Act
of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2801(25)), except that--
(i) States and local entities described in section
204(d)(1)(A), subject to approval in the applicable State
plans and local plans described in subsection (c) or (d) of
section 204, or a State agency or agencies described in
section 204(d)(1)(B), subject to approval in the State plan
described in section 204, may increase the income level
specified in subparagraph (B)(i) of such section 101(25) to
an amount not in excess of 200 percent of the poverty line
for purposes of determining eligibility for participation in
activities under section 204; and
(ii) eligible entities described in section 206(b), subject
to approval in the applicable applications for funds, may
make such an increase for purposes of determining eligibility
for participation in activities under section 206.
______
SA 2609. Mr. COATS submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill S. 1845, to provide for the extension of certain
unemployment benefits, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie
on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. ___. SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER REQUIRED TO CLAIM THE
REFUNDABLE PORTION OF THE CHILD TAX CREDIT.
(a) In General.--Subsection (d) of section 24 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end
the following new paragraph:
``(5) Identification requirement with respect to
taxpayer.--
``(A) In general.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any
taxpayer for any taxable year unless the taxpayer includes
the taxpayer's Social Security number on the return of tax
for such taxable year.
``(B) Joint returns.--In the case of a joint return, the
requirement of subparagraph (A) shall be treated as met if
the Social Security number of either spouse is included on
such return.
``(C) Limitation.--Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to the
extent the tentative minimum tax (as defined in section
55(b)(1)(A)) exceeds the credit allowed under section 32.''.
(b) Omission Treated as Mathematical or Clerical Error.--
Subparagraph (I) of section 6213(g)(2) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows:
``(I) an omission of a correct Social Security number
required under section 24(d)(5) (relating to refundable
portion of child tax credit), or a correct TIN under section
24(e) (relating to child tax credit), to be included on a
return,''.
[[Page 80]]
(c) Conforming Amendment.--Subsection (e) of section 24 of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting
``With Respect to Qualifying Children'' after
``Identification Requirement'' in the heading thereof.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
______
SA 2610. Mr. COATS submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill S. 1845, to provide for the extension of certain
unemployment benefits, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie
on the table; as follows:
At the end, add the following:
SEC. 7. DISQUALIFICATION ON RECEIPT OF DISABILITY INSURANCE
BENEFITS IN A MONTH FOR WHICH UNEMPLOYMENT
COMPENSATION IS RECEIVED.
(a) In General.--Section 223(d)(4) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 423(d)(4)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(C)(i) If for any month an individual is entitled to
unemployment compensation, such individual shall be deemed to
have engaged in substantial gainful activity for such month.
``(ii) For purposes of clause (i), the term `unemployment
compensation' means--
``(I) `regular compensation', `extended compensation', and
`additional compensation' (as such terms are defined by
section 205 of the Federal-State Extended Unemployment
Compensation Act (26 U.S.C. 3304 note)); and
``(II) trade adjustment assistance under title II of the
Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2251 et seq.).''.
(b) Trial Work Period.--Section 222(c) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 422(c)) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(6)(A) For purposes of this subsection, an individual
shall be deemed to have rendered services in a month if the
individual is entitled to unemployment compensation for such
month.
``(B) For purposes of subparagraph (A), the term
`unemployment compensation' means--
``(i) `regular compensation', `extended compensation', and
`additional compensation' (as such terms are defined by
section 205 of the Federal-State Extended Unemployment
Compensation Act (26 U.S.C. 3304 note)); and
``(ii) trade adjustment assistance under title II of the
Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2251 et seq.).''.
(c) Data Matching.--The Commissioner of Social Security
shall implement the amendments made by this section using
appropriate electronic data.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply with respect to months after March 2014.
______
SA 2611. Mr. COATS submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill S. 1845, to provide for the extension of certain
unemployment benefits, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie
on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. DELAY IN APPLICATION OF INDIVIDUAL HEALTH INSURANCE
MANDATE.
(a) In General.--Section 5000A(a) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``2013'' and inserting
``2014''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 5000A(c)(2)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 is amended--
(A) by striking ``2014'' in clause (i) and inserting
``2015'', and
(B) by striking ``2015'' in clauses (ii) and (iii) and
inserting ``2016''.
(2) Section 5000A(c)(3)(B) of such Code is amended--
(A) by striking ``2014'' and inserting ``2015'', and
(B) by striking ``2015'' (prior to amendment by
subparagraph (A)) and inserting ``2016''.
(3) Section 5000A(c)(3)(D) of such Code is amended--
(A) by striking ``2016'' and inserting ``2017'', and
(B) by striking ``2015'' and inserting ``2016''.
(4) Section 5000A(e)(1)(D) of such Code is amended--
(A) by striking ``2014'' and inserting ``2015'', and
(B) by striking ``2013'' and inserting ``2014''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect as if included in section 1501 of the
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
SEC. __. DELAY IN APPLICATION OF EMPLOYER HEALTH INSURANCE
MANDATE.
(a) In General.--Section 1513(d) of the Patient Protection
and Affordable Care Act is amended by striking ``December 31,
2013'' and inserting ``December 31, 2014''.
(b) Reporting Requirements.--
(1) Reporting by employers.--Section 1514(d) of the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act is amended by striking
``December 31, 2013'' and inserting ``December 31, 2014''.
(2) Reporting by insurance providers.--Section 1502(e) of
the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is amended by
striking ``2013'' and inserting ``2014''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect as if included in the provision of the
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to which they
relate.
______
SA 2612. Mr. MORAN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill S. 1845, to provide for the extension of certain
unemployment benefits, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie
on the table; as follows:
At the end of the bill, add the following:
SEC. 7. SUPPORTING NEW BUSINESSES.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the
``Startup Act 3.0''.
(b) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Achieving economic recovery will require the formation
and growth of new companies.
(2) Between 1980 and 2005, companies less than 5 years old
accounted for nearly all net job creation in the United
States.
(3) New firms in the United States create an average of
3,000,000 jobs per year.
(4) To get Americans back to work, entrepreneurs must be
free to innovate, create new companies, and hire employees.
(c) Conditional Permanent Resident Status for Immigrants
With an Advanced Degree in a STEM Field.--
(1) In general.--Chapter 2 of title II of the Immigration
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1181 et seq.) is amended by
inserting after section 216A the following:
``SEC. 216B. CONDITIONAL PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR ALIENS
WITH AN ADVANCED DEGREE IN A STEM FIELD.
``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security may adjust the
status of not more than 50,000 aliens who have earned a
master's degree or a doctorate degree at an institution of
higher education in a STEM field to that of an alien
conditionally admitted for permanent residence and authorize
each alien granted such adjustment of status to remain in the
United States--
``(1) for up to 1 year after the expiration of the alien's
student visa under section 101(a)(15)(F)(i) if the alien is
diligently searching for an opportunity to become actively
engaged in a STEM field; and
``(2) indefinitely if the alien remains actively engaged in
a STEM field.
``(b) Application for Conditional Permanent Resident
Status.--Every alien applying for a conditional permanent
resident status under this section shall submit an
application to the Secretary of Homeland Security before the
expiration of the alien's student visa in such form and
manner as the Secretary shall prescribe by regulation.
``(c) Ineligibility for Federal Government Assistance.--An
alien granted conditional permanent resident status under
this section shall not be eligible, while in such status,
for--
``(1) any unemployment compensation (as defined in section
85(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986); or
``(2) any Federal means-tested public benefit (as that term
is used in section 403 of the Personal Responsibility and
Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1613)).
``(d) Effect on Naturalization Residency Requirement.--An
alien granted conditional permanent resident status under
this section shall be deemed to have been lawfully admitted
for permanent residence for purposes of meeting the 5-year
residency requirement set forth in section 316(a)(1).
``(e) Removal of Condition.--The Secretary of Homeland
Security shall remove the conditional basis of an alien's
conditional permanent resident status under this section on
the date that is 5 years after the date such status was
granted if the alien maintained his or her eligibility for
such status during the entire 5-year period.
``(f) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Actively engaged in a stem field.--The term `actively
engaged in a STEM field'--
``(A) means--
``(i) gainfully employed in a for-profit business or
nonprofit organization in the United States in a STEM field;
``(ii) teaching 1 or more STEM field courses at an
institution of higher education; or
``(iii) employed by a Federal, State, or local government
entity; and
``(B) includes any period of up to 6 months during which
the alien does not meet the requirement under subparagraph
(A) if such period was immediately preceded by a 1-year
period during which the alien met the requirement under
subparagraph (A).
``(2) Institution of higher education.--The term
`institution of higher education' has the meaning given the
term in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965
(20 U.S.C. 1001(a)).
``(3) STEM field.--The term `STEM field' means any field of
study or occupation included on the most recent STEM-
Designated
[[Page 81]]
Degree Program List published in the Federal Register by the
Department of Homeland Security (as described in section
214.2(f)(11)(i)(C)(2) of title 8, Code of Federal
Regulations).''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of contents for the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.) is
amended by inserting after the item relating to section 216A
the following:
``Sec. 216B. Conditional permanent resident status for aliens with an
advanced degree in a STEM field.''.
(d) Government Accountability Office Study.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 3 years after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the
United States shall submit a report to Congress on the alien
college graduates granted immigrant status under section 216B
of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as added by
subsection (c).
(2) Contents.--The report described in paragraph (1) shall
include--
(A) the number of aliens described in paragraph (1) who
have earned a master's degree, broken down by the number of
such degrees in science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics;
(B) the number of aliens described in paragraph (1) who
have earned a doctorate degree, broken down by the number of
such degrees in science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics;
(C) the number of aliens described in paragraph (1) who
have founded a business in the United States in a STEM field;
(D) the number of aliens described in paragraph (1) who are
employed in the United States in a STEM field, broken down by
employment sector (for profit, nonprofit, or government); and
(E) the number of aliens described in paragraph (1) who are
employed by an institution of higher education.
(3) Definitions.--In this subsection, the terms
``institution of higher education'' and ``STEM field'' have
the meaning given such terms in section 216B(f) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act, as added by subsection (c).
(e) Immigrant Entrepreneurs.--
(1) Qualified alien entrepreneurs.--
(A) Admission as immigrants.--Chapter 1 of title II of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1151 et seq.) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 210A. QUALIFIED ALIEN ENTREPRENEURS.
``(a) Admission as Immigrants.--The Secretary of Homeland
Security, in accordance with the provisions of this section
and section 216A, may issue a conditional immigrant visa to
not more than 75,000 qualified alien entrepreneurs.
``(b) Application for Conditional Permanent Resident
Status.--Every alien applying for a conditional immigrant
visa under this section shall submit an application to the
Secretary of Homeland Security in such form and manner as the
Secretary shall prescribe by regulation.
``(c) Revocation.--If, during the 4-year period beginning
on the date that an alien is granted a visa under this
section, the Secretary of Homeland Security determines that
such alien is no longer a qualified alien entrepreneur, the
Secretary shall--
``(1) revoke such visa; and
``(2) notify the alien that the alien--
``(A) may voluntarily depart from the United States in
accordance to section 240B; or
``(B) will be subject to removal proceedings under section
240 if the alien does not depart from the United States not
later than 6 months after receiving such notification.
``(d) Removal of Conditional Basis.--The Secretary of
Homeland Security shall remove the conditional basis of the
status of an alien issued an immigrant visa under this
section on that date that is 4 years after the date on which
such visa was issued if such visa was not revoked pursuant to
subsection (c).
``(e) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Full-time employee.--The term `full-time employee'
means a United States citizen or legal permanent resident who
is paid by the new business entity registered by a qualified
alien entrepreneur at a rate that is comparable to the median
income of employees in the region.
``(2) Qualified alien entrepreneur.--The term `qualified
alien entrepreneur' means an alien who--
``(A) at the time the alien applies for an immigrant visa
under this section--
``(i) is lawfully present in the United States; and
``(ii)(I) holds a nonimmigrant visa pursuant to section
101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b); or
``(II) holds a nonimmigrant visa pursuant to section
101(a)(15)(F)(i);
``(B) during the 1-year period beginning on the date the
alien is granted a visa under this section--
``(i) registers at least 1 new business entity in a State;
``(ii) employs, at such business entity in the United
States, at least 2 full-time employees who are not relatives
of the alien; and
``(iii) invests, or raises capital investment of, not less
than $100,000 in such business entity; and
``(C) during the 3-year period beginning on the last day of
the 1-year period described in paragraph (2), employs, at
such business entity in the United States, an average of at
least 5 full-time employees who are not relatives of the
alien.''.
(B) Table of contents amendment.--The table of contents in
the first section of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1101 et seq.) is amended by adding after the item
relating to section 210 the following:
``Sec. 210A. Qualified alien entrepreneurs.''.
(2) Conditional permanent resident status.--Section 216A of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1186b) is
amended--
(A) by striking ``Attorney General'' each place such term
appears and inserting ``Secretary of Homeland Security'';
(B) in subsection (b)(1)(C), by striking ``203(b)(5),'' and
inserting ``203(b)(5) or 210A, as appropriate,'';
(C) in subsection (c)(1), by striking ``alien entrepreneur
must'' each place such term appears and inserting ``alien
entrepreneur shall'';
(D) in subsection (d)(1)(B), by striking the period at the
end and inserting ``or 210A, as appropriate.''; and
(E) in subsection (f)(1), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``or 210A.''.
(f) Government Accountability Office Study.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 3 years after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the
United States shall submit a report to Congress on the
qualified alien entrepreneurs granted immigrant status under
section 210A of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as added
by subsection (e).
(2) Contents.--The report described in paragraph (1) shall
include information regarding--
(A) the number of qualified alien entrepreneurs who have
received immigrant status under section 210A of the
Immigration and Nationality Act, listed by country of origin;
(B) the localities in which such qualified alien
entrepreneurs have initially settled;
(C) whether such qualified alien entrepreneurs generally
remain in the localities in which they initially settle;
(D) the types of commercial enterprises that such qualified
alien entrepreneurs have established; and
(E) the types and number of jobs created by such qualified
alien entrepreneurs.
(g) Elimination of the Per-country Numerical Limitation for
Employment-based Visas.--
(1) In general.--Section 202(a)(2) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1152(a)(2)) is amended--
(A) in the paragraph heading, by striking ``and employment-
based'';
(B) by striking ``(3), (4), and (5),'' and inserting ``(3)
and (4),'';
(C) by striking ``subsections (a) and (b) of section 203''
and inserting ``section 203(a)'';
(D) by striking ``7'' and inserting ``15''; and
(E) by striking ``such subsections'' and inserting ``such
section''.
(2) Conforming amendments.--Section 202 of the Immigration
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1152) is amended--
(A) in subsection (a)(3), by striking ``both subsections
(a) and (b) of section 203'' and inserting ``section
203(a)'';
(B) by striking subsection (a)(5); and
(C) by amending subsection (e) to read as follows:
``(e) Special Rules for Countries at Ceiling.--If it is
determined that the total number of immigrant visas made
available under section 203(a) to natives of any single
foreign state or dependent area will exceed the numerical
limitation specified in subsection (a)(2) in any fiscal year,
in determining the allotment of immigrant visa numbers to
natives under section 203(a), visa numbers with respect to
natives of that state or area shall be allocated (to the
extent practicable and otherwise consistent with this section
and section 203) in a manner so that, except as provided in
subsection (a)(4), the proportion of the visa numbers made
available under each of paragraphs (1) through (4) of section
203(a) is equal to the ratio of the total number of visas
made available under the respective paragraph to the total
number of visas made available under section 203(a).''.
(3) Country-specific offset.--Section 2 of the Chinese
Student Protection Act of 1992 (8 U.S.C. 1255 note) is
amended--
(A) in subsection (a), by striking ``subsection (e))'' and
inserting ``subsection (d))''; and
(B) by striking subsection (d) and redesignating subsection
(e) as subsection (d).
(4) Effective date.--The amendments made by this
subsection--
(A) shall take effect as if enacted on September 30, 2012;
and
(B) shall apply to fiscal years beginning with fiscal year
2013.
(h) Transition Rules for Employment-Based Immigrants.--
(1) In general.--Subject to the succeeding paragraphs of
this subsection and notwithstanding title II of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1151 et seq.), the
following rules shall apply:
[[Page 82]]
(A) For fiscal year 2013, 15 percent of the immigrant visas
made available under each of paragraphs (2) and (3) of
section 203(b) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(b)) shall be
allotted to immigrants who are natives of a foreign state or
dependent area that was not one of the two states with the
largest aggregate numbers of natives obtaining immigrant
visas during fiscal year 2011 under such paragraphs.
(B) For fiscal year 2014, 10 percent of the immigrant visas
made available under each of such paragraphs shall be
allotted to immigrants who are natives of a foreign state or
dependent area that was not one of the two states with the
largest aggregate numbers of natives obtaining immigrant
visas during fiscal year 2012 under such paragraphs.
(C) For fiscal year 2015, 10 percent of the immigrant visas
made available under each of such paragraphs shall be
allotted to immigrants who are natives of a foreign state or
dependent area that was not one of the two states with the
largest aggregate numbers of natives obtaining immigrant
visas during fiscal year 2013 under such paragraphs.
(2) Per-country levels.--
(A) Reserved visas.--With respect to the visas reserved
under each of subparagraphs (A) through (C) of paragraph (1),
the number of such visas made available to natives of any
single foreign state or dependent area in the appropriate
fiscal year may not exceed 25 percent (in the case of a
single foreign state) or 2 percent (in the case of a
dependent area) of the total number of such visas.
(B) Unreserved visas.--With respect to the immigrant visas
made available under each of paragraphs (2) and (3) of
section 203(b) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(b)) and not
reserved under paragraph (1), for each of fiscal years 2013,
2014, and 2015, not more than 85 percent shall be allotted to
immigrants who are natives of any single foreign state.
(3) Special rule to prevent unused visas.--If, with respect
to fiscal year 2013, 2014, or 2015, the operation of
paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection would prevent the
total number of immigrant visas made available under
paragraph (2) or (3) of section 203(b) of such Act (8 U.S.C.
1153(b)) from being issued, such visas may be issued during
the remainder of such fiscal year without regard to
paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection.
(4) Rules for chargeability.--Section 202(b) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1152(b)) shall
apply in determining the foreign state to which an alien is
chargeable for purposes of this subsection.
(i) Capital Gains Tax Exemption for Startup Companies.--
(1) Permanent full exclusion.--
(A) In general.--Subsection (a) of section 1202 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows:
``(a) Exclusion.--In the case of a taxpayer other than a
corporation, gross income shall not include 100 percent of
any gain from the sale or exchange of qualified small
business stock held for more than 5 years.''.
(B) Conforming amendments.--
(i) The heading for section 1202 of such Code is amended by
striking ``partial''.
(ii) The item relating to section 1202 in the table of
sections for part I of subchapter P of chapter 1 of such Code
is amended by striking ``Partial exclusion'' and inserting
``Exclusion''.
(iii) Section 1223(13) of such Code is amended by striking
``1202(a)(2),''.
(2) Repeal of minimum tax preference.--
(A) In general.--Subsection (a) of section 57 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking
paragraph (7).
(B) Technical amendment.--Subclause (II) of section
53(d)(1)(B)(ii) of such Code is amended by striking ``, (5),
and (7)'' and inserting ``and (5)''.
(3) Repeal of 28 percent capital gains rate on qualified
small business stock.--
(A) In general.--Subparagraph (A) of section 1(h)(4) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows:
``(A) collectibles gain, over''.
(B) Conforming amendments.--
(i) Section 1(h) of such Code is amended by striking
paragraph (7).
(ii)(I) Section 1(h) of such Code is amended by
redesignating paragraphs (8), (9), (10), (11), (12), and (13)
as paragraphs (7), (8), (9), (10), (11), and (12),
respectively.
(II) Sections 163(d)(4)(B), 854(b)(5), 857(c)(2)(D) of such
Code are each amended by striking ``section 1(h)(11)(B)'' and
inserting ``section 1(h)(10)(B)''.
(III) The following sections of such Code are each amended
by striking ``section 1(h)(11)'' and inserting ``section
1(h)(10)'':
(aa) Section 301(f)(4).
(bb) Section 306(a)(1)(D).
(cc) Section 584(c).
(dd) Section 702(a)(5).
(ee) Section 854(a).
(ff) Section 854(b)(2).
(IV) The heading of section 857(c)(2) is amended by
striking ``1(h)(11)'' and inserting ``1(h)(10)''.
(4) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection
shall apply to stock acquired after December 31, 2013.
(j) Research Credit for Startup Companies.--
(1) In general.--
(A) In general.--Section 41 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(i) Treatment of Credit to Qualified Small Businesses.--
``(1) In general.--At the election of a qualified small
business, the payroll tax credit portion of the credit
determined under subsection (a) shall be treated as a credit
allowed under section 3111(f) (and not under this section).
``(2) Payroll tax credit portion.--For purposes of this
subsection, the payroll tax credit portion of the credit
determined under subsection (a) for any taxable year is so
much of such credit as does not exceed $250,000.
``(3) Qualified small business.--For purposes of this
subsection--
``(A) In general.--The term `qualified small business'
means, with respect to any taxable year--
``(i) a corporation, partnership, or S corporation if--
``(I) the gross receipts (as determined under subsection
(c)(7)) of such entity for the taxable year is less than
$5,000,000, and
``(II) such entity did not have gross receipts (as so
determined) for any period preceding the 5-taxable-year
period ending with such taxable year, and
``(ii) any person not described in subparagraph (A) if
clauses (i) and (ii) of subparagraph (A) applied to such
person, determined--
``(I) by substituting `person' for `entity' each place it
appears, and
``(II) in the case of an individual, by only taking into
account the aggregate gross receipts received by such
individual in carrying on trades or businesses of such
individual.
``(B) Limitation.--Such term shall not include an
organization which is exempt from taxation under section 501.
``(4) Election.--
``(A) In general.--In the case of a partnership or S
corporation, an election under this subsection shall be made
at the entity level.
``(B) Revocation.--An election under this subsection may
not be revoked without the consent of the Secretary.
``(C) Limitation.--A taxpayer may not make an election
under this subsection if such taxpayer has made an election
under this subsection for 5 or more preceding taxable years.
``(5) Aggregation rules.--For purposes of determining the
$250,000 limitation under paragraph (2) and determining gross
receipts under paragraph (3), all members of the same
controlled group of corporations (within the meaning of
section 267(f)) and all persons under common control (within
the meaning of section 52(b) but determined by treating an
interest of more than 50 percent as a controlling interest)
shall be treated as 1 person.
``(6) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe such
regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of
this subsection, including--
``(A) regulations to prevent the avoidance of the purposes
of paragraph (3) through the use of successor companies or
other means,
``(B) regulations to minimize compliance and recordkeeping
burdens under this subsection for start-up companies, and
``(C) regulations for recapturing the benefit of credits
determined under section 3111(f) in cases where there is a
subsequent adjustment to the payroll tax credit portion of
the credit determined under subsection (a), including
requiring amended returns in the cases where there is such an
adjustment.''.
(B) Conforming amendment.--Section 280C(c) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
``(5) Treatment of qualified small business credit.--For
purposes of determining the amount of any credit under
section 41(a) under this subsection, any election under
section 41(i) shall be disregarded.''.
(2) Credit allowed against fica taxes.--
(A) In general.--Section 3111 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(f) Credit for Research Expenditures of Qualified Small
Businesses.--
``(1) In general.--In the case of a qualified small
business which has made an election under section 41(i),
there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by
subsection (a) on wages paid with respect to the employment
of all employees of the qualified small business for days in
an applicable calendar quarter an amount equal to the payroll
tax credit portion of the research credit determined under
section 41(a).
``(2) Carryover of unused credit.--In any case in which the
payroll tax credit portion of the research credit determined
under section 41(a) exceeds the tax imposed under subsection
(a) for an applicable calendar quarter--
``(A) the succeeding calendar quarter shall be treated as
an applicable calendar quarter, and
``(B) the amount of credit allowed under paragraph (1)
shall be reduced by the amount of credit allowed under such
paragraph for all preceding applicable calendar quarters.
``(3) Allocation of credit for controlled groups, etc.--In
determining the amount of the credit under this subsection--
``(A) all persons treated as a single taxpayer under
section 41 shall be treated as a single taxpayer under this
section, and
[[Page 83]]
``(B) the credit (if any) allowable by this section to each
such member shall be its proportionate share of the qualified
research expenses, basic research payments, and amounts paid
or incurred to energy research consortiums, giving rise to
the credit allowable under section 41.
``(4) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection--
``(A) Applicable calendar quarter.--The term `applicable
calendar quarter' means--
``(i) the first calendar quarter following the date on
which the qualified small business files a return under
section 6012 for the taxable year for which the payroll tax
credit portion of the research credit under section 41(a) is
determined, and
``(ii) any succeeding calendar quarter treated as an
applicable calendar quarter under paragraph (2)(A).
``For purposes of determining the date on which a return is
filed, rules similar to the rules of section 6513 shall
apply.
``(B) Other terms.--Any term used in this subsection which
is also used in section 41 shall have the meaning given such
term under section 41.''.
(B) Transfers to federal old-age and survivors insurance
trust fund.--There are hereby appropriated to the Federal
Old-Age and Survivors Trust Fund and the Federal Disability
Insurance Trust Fund established under section 201 of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401) amounts equal to the
reduction in revenues to the Treasury by reason of the
amendments made by paragraph (1). Amounts appropriated by the
preceding sentence shall be transferred from the general fund
at such times and in such manner as to replicate to the
extent possible the transfers which would have occurred to
such Trust Fund had such amendments not been enacted.
(3) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2012.
(k) Accelerated Commercialization of Taxpayer-funded
Research.--
(1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
(A) Council.--The term ``Council'' means the Advisory
Council on Innovation and Entrepreneurship of the Department
of Commerce established pursuant to section 25(c) of the
Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C.
3720(c)).
(B) Extramural budget.--The term ``extramural budget''
means the sum of the total obligations minus amounts
obligated for such activities by employees of the agency in
or through Government-owned, Government-operated facilities,
except that for the Department of Energy it shall not include
amounts obligated for atomic energy defense programs solely
for weapons activities or for naval reactor programs, and
except that for the Agency for International Development it
shall not include amounts obligated solely for general
institutional support of international research centers or
for grants to foreign countries.
(C) Institution of higher education.--The term
``institution of higher education'' has the meaning given the
term in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965
(20 U.S.C. 1001(a)).
(D) Research or research and development.--The term
``research'' or ``research and development'' means any
activity that is--
(i) a systematic, intensive study directed toward greater
knowledge or understanding of the subject studied;
(ii) a systematic study directed specifically toward
applying new knowledge to meet a recognized need; or
(iii) a systematic application of knowledge toward the
production of useful materials, devices, and systems or
methods, including design, development, and improvement of
prototypes and new processes to meet specific requirements.
(E) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Commerce.
(2) Grant program authorized.--
(A) In general.--Each Federal agency that has an extramural
budget for research or research and development that is in
excess of $100,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through
2018, shall transfer 0.15 percent of such extramural budget
for each of such fiscal years to the Secretary to enable the
Secretary to carry out a grant program in accordance with
this paragraph.
(B) Grants.--
(i) Awarding of grants.--
(I) In general.--From funds transferred under subparagraph
(A), the Secretary shall use the criteria developed by the
Council to award grants to institutions of higher education,
including consortia of institutions of higher education, for
initiatives to improve commercialization and transfer of
technology.
(II) Request for proposals.--Not later than 30 days after
the Council submits the recommendations for criteria to the
Secretary under paragraph (3)(B)(i), and annually thereafter
for each fiscal year for which the grant program is
authorized, the Secretary shall release a request for
proposals.
(III) Applications.--Each institution of higher education
that desires to receive a grant under this subsection shall
submit an application to the Secretary not later than 90 days
after the Secretary releases the request for proposals under
subclause (II).
(IV) Council review.--
(aa) In general.--The Secretary shall submit each
application received under subclause (III) to the Council for
Council review.
(bb) Recommendations.--The Council shall review each
application received under item (aa) and submit
recommendations for grant awards to the Secretary, including
funding recommendations for each proposal.
(cc) Public release.--The Council shall publicly release
any recommendations made under item (bb).
(dd) Consideration of recommendations.--In awarding grants
under this subsection, the Secretary shall take into
consideration the recommendations of the Council under item
(bb)).
(ii) Commercialization capacity building grants.--
(I) In general.--The Secretary shall award grants to
support institutions of higher education pursuing specific
innovative initiatives to improve an institution's capacity
to commercialize faculty research that can be widely adopted
if the research yields measurable results.
(II) Content of proposals.--Grants shall be awarded under
this clause to proposals demonstrating the capacity for
accelerated commercialization, proof-of-concept proficiency,
and translating scientific discoveries and cutting-edge
inventions into technological innovations and new companies.
In particular, grant funds shall seek to support innovative
approaches to achieving these goals that can be replicated by
other institutions of higher education if the innovative
approaches are successful.
(iii) Commercialization accelerator grants.--The Secretary
shall award grants to support institutions of higher
education pursuing initiatives that allow faculty to directly
commercialize research in an effort to accelerate research
breakthroughs. The Secretary shall prioritize those
initiatives that have a management structure that encourages
collaboration between other institutions of higher education
or other entities with demonstrated proficiency in creating
and growing new companies based on verifiable metrics.
(C) Assessment of success.--Grants awarded under this
paragraph shall use criteria for assessing the success of
programs through the establishment of benchmarks.
(D) Termination.--The Secretary shall have the authority to
terminate grant funding to an institution of higher education
in accordance with the process and performance metrics
recommended by the Council.
(E) Limitations.--
(i) Project management costs.--A grant recipient may use
not more than 10 percent of grant funds awarded under this
paragraph for the purpose of funding project management costs
of the grant program.
(ii) Supplement, not supplant.--An institution of higher
education that receives a grant under this paragraph shall
use the grant funds to supplement, and not supplant, non-
Federal funds that would, in the absence of such grant funds,
be made available for activities described in this
subsection.
(F) Unspent funds.--Any funds transferred to the Secretary
under subparagraph (A) for a fiscal year that are not
expended by the end of such fiscal year may be expended in
any subsequent fiscal year through fiscal year 2018. Any
funds transferred under subparagraph (A) that are remaining
at the end of the grant program's authorization under this
subsection shall be transferred to the Treasury for deficit
reduction.
(3) Council.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 120 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Council shall convene and
develop recommendations for criteria in awarding grants to
institutions of higher education under paragraph (2).
(B) Submission to commerce and publicly released.--The
Council shall--
(i) submit the recommendations described in subparagraph
(A) to the Secretary; and
(ii) release the recommendations to the public.
(C) Majority vote.--The recommendations submitted by the
Council under subparagraph (A) shall be determined by a
majority vote of Council members.
(D) Performance metrics.--The Council shall develop and
provide to the Secretary recommendations on performance
metrics to be used to evaluate grants awarded under paragraph
(2).
(E) Evaluation.--
(i) In general.--Not later than 180 days before the date on
which the grant program authorized under paragraph (2)
expires, the Council shall conduct an evaluation of the
effect that the grant program is having on accelerating the
commercialization of faculty research.
(ii) Inclusions.--The evaluation shall include--
(I) the recommendation of the Council as to whether the
grant program should be continued or terminated;
(II) quantitative data related to the effect, if any, that
the grant program has had on faculty research
commercialization; and
(III) a description of lessons learned in administering the
grant program, and how those lessons could be applied to
future efforts to accelerate commercialization of faculty
research.
(iii) Availability.--Upon completion of the evaluation, the
evaluation shall be made
[[Page 84]]
available on a public website and submitted to Congress. The
Secretary shall notify all institutions of higher education
when the evaluation is published and how it can be accessed.
(4) Construction.--Nothing in this subsection may be
construed to alter, modify, or amend any provision of chapter
18 of title 35, United States Code (commonly known as the
``Bayh-Dole Act'').
(l) Economic Impact of Significant Federal Agency Rules.--
Section 553 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(f) Required Review Before Issuance of Significant
Rules.--
``(1) In general.--Before issuing a notice of proposed
rulemaking in the Federal Register regarding the issuance of
a proposed significant rule, the head of the Federal agency
or independent regulatory agency seeking to issue the rule
shall complete a review, to the extent permitted by law,
that--
``(A) analyzes the problem that the proposed rule intends
to address, including--
``(i) the specific market failure, such as externalities,
market power, or lack of information, that justifies such
rule; or
``(ii) any other specific problem, such as the failures of
public institutions, that justifies such rule;
``(B) analyzes the expected impact of the proposed rule on
the ability of new businesses to form and expand;
``(C) identifies the expected impact of the proposed rule
on State, local, and tribal governments, including the
availability of resources--
``(i) to carry out the mandates imposed by the rule on such
government entities; and
``(ii) to minimize the burdens that uniquely or
significantly affect such governmental entities, consistent
with achieving regulatory objectives;
``(D) identifies any conflicting or duplicative
regulations;
``(E) determines--
``(i) if existing laws or regulations created, or
contributed to, the problem that the new rule is intended to
correct; and
``(ii) if the laws or regulations referred to in clause (i)
should be modified to more effectively achieve the intended
goal of the rule; and
``(F) includes the cost-benefit analysis described in
paragraph (2).
``(2) Cost-benefit analysis.--A cost-benefit analysis
described in this paragraph shall include--
``(A)(i) an assessment, including the underlying analysis,
of benefits anticipated from the proposed rule, such as--
``(I) promoting the efficient functioning of the economy
and private markets;
``(II) enhancing health and safety;
``(III) protecting the natural environment; and
``(IV) eliminating or reducing discrimination or bias; and
``(ii) the quantification of the benefits described in
clause (i), to the extent feasible;
``(B)(i) an assessment, including the underlying analysis,
of costs anticipated from the proposed rule, such as--
``(I) the direct costs to the Federal Government to
administer the rule;
``(II) the direct costs to businesses and others to comply
with the rule; and
``(III) any adverse effects on the efficient functioning of
the economy, private markets (including productivity,
employment, and competitiveness), health, safety, and the
natural environment; and
``(ii) the quantification of the costs described in clause
(i), to the extent feasible;
``(C)(i) an assessment, including the underlying analysis,
of costs and benefits of potentially effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives to the proposed rule, which have been
identified by the agency or by the public, including taking
reasonably viable nonregulatory actions; and
``(ii) an explanation of why the proposed rule is
preferable to the alternatives identified under clause (i).
``(3) Report.--Before issuing a notice of proposed
rulemaking in the Federal Register regarding the issuance of
a proposed significant rule, the head of the Federal agency
or independent regulatory agency seeking to issue the rule
shall--
``(A) submit the results of the review conducted under
paragraph (1) to the appropriate congressional committees;
and
``(B) post the results of the review conducted under
paragraph (1) on a publicly available website.
``(4) Judicial review.--Any determinations made, or other
actions taken, by an agency or independent regulatory agency
under this subsection shall not be subject to judicial
review.
``(5) Defined term.--In this subsection the term
`significant rule' means a rule that is likely to--
``(A) have an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000
or more;
``(B) adversely affect, in a material way, the economy, a
sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or
tribal governments or communities; or
``(C) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere
with an action taken or planned by another agency.''.
(m) Biennial State Startup Business Report.--
(1) Data collection.--The Secretary of Commerce shall
regularly compile information from each of the 50 States and
the District of Columbia on State laws that affect the
formation and growth of new businesses within the State or
District.
(2) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act, and every 2 years thereafter, the
Secretary, using data compiled under paragraph (1), shall
prepare a report that--
(A) analyzes the economic effect of State and District laws
that either encourage or inhibit business formation and
growth; and
(B) ranks the States and the District based on the
effectiveness with which their laws foster new business
creation and economic growth.
(3) Distribution.--The Secretary shall--
(A) submit each report prepared under paragraph (1) to
Congress; and
(B) make each report available to the public on the website
of the Department of Commerce.
(4) Inclusion of large metropolitan areas.--Not later than
90 days after the submission of the first report under this
subsection, the Secretary of Commerce shall submit a study to
Congress on the feasibility and advisability of including, in
future reports, information about the effect of local laws
and ordinances on the formation and growth of new businesses
in large metropolitan areas within the United States.
(5) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out
this subsection.
(n) New Business Formation Report.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Commerce shall regularly
compile quantitative and qualitative information on
businesses in the United States that are not more than 1 year
old.
(2) Data collection.--The Secretary shall--
(A) regularly compile information from the Bureau of the
Census' business register on new business formation in the
United States; and
(B) conduct quarterly surveys of business owners who start
a business during the 1-year period ending on the date on
which such survey is conducted to gather qualitative
information about the factors that influenced their decision
to start the business.
(3) Random sampling.--In conducting surveys under paragraph
(2)(B), the Secretary may use random sampling to identify a
group of business owners who are representative of all the
business owners described in paragraph (2)(B).
(4) Benefits.--The Secretary shall inform business owners
selected to participate in a survey conducted under this
subsection of the benefits they would receive from
participating in the survey.
(5) Voluntary participation.--Business owners selected to
participate in a survey conducted under this subsection may
decline to participate without penalty.
(6) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act, and every 3 months thereafter, the
Secretary shall use the data compiled under paragraph (2) to
prepare a report that--
(A) lists the aggregate number of new businesses formed in
the United States;
(B) lists the aggregate number of persons employed by new
businesses formed in the United States;
(C) analyzes the payroll of new businesses formed in the
United States;
(D) summarizes the data collected under paragraph (2); and
(E) identifies the most effective means by which government
officials can encourage the formation and growth of new
businesses in the United States.
(7) Distribution.--The Secretary shall--
(A) submit each report prepared under paragraph (6) to
Congress; and
(B) make each report available to the public on the website
of the Department of Commerce.
(8) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out
this subsection.
(o) Rescission of Unspent Federal Funds.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, of all available unobligated funds for fiscal year 2013,
the amount necessary to carry out this section and the
amendments made by this section in appropriated discretionary
funds are hereby rescinded.
(2) Implementation.--The Director of the Office of
Management and Budget shall determine and identify from which
appropriation accounts the rescission under paragraph (1)
shall apply and the amount of such rescission that shall
apply to each such account. Not later than 60 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office
of Management and Budget shall submit a report to the
Secretary of the Treasury and Congress of the accounts and
amounts determined and identified for rescission under the
preceding sentence.
[[Page 85]]
____________________
AUTHORITY FOR COMMITTEES TO MEET
select committee on intelligence
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select
Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of
the Senate on January 7, 2014, at 2:30 p.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
subcommittee on the constitution, civil rights, and human rights
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil
Rights, and Human Rights, be authorized to meet during the session of
the Senate, on January 7, 2014, at 2:30 p.m., in room SH-216 of the
Hart Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Syrian
Refugee Crisis.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
SUPPORTING ENHANCED MARITIME SECURITY IN THE GULF OF GUINEA
Mr. REED. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
now proceed to Calendar No. 270, S. Res. 288.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S. Res. 288) supporting enhanced maritime
security in the gulf of Guinea and encouraging increased
cooperation between the United States and West and Central
African countries to fight armed robbery at sea, piracy, and
other maritime threats.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
resolution.
Mr. REED. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to,
the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered
made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 288) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:
S. Res. 288
Whereas, although the number of armed robbery at sea and
piracy attacks worldwide dropped substantially in recent
years, such acts in the Gulf of Guinea are increasing, with
more than 40 reported through October 2013 and many more
going unreported;
Whereas the United States imported more than 315,000,000
barrels of oil through the region in 2012, and United States
businesses have extensive fixed assets in the region that are
important to United States energy security;
Whereas the nature of attacks in the Gulf of Guinea
demonstrates an ongoing pattern of cargo thefts and robbery,
often occurring in the territorial waters of West and Central
African states;
Whereas there are countries in West and Central Africa that
are susceptible to acts of armed robbery at sea and piracy
that lack adequate law enforcement and naval capabilities to
stop or deter such attacks;
Whereas acts of maritime crime raise the costs and risks of
trade and commerce in Africa and beyond because the security
of vessels, crews, and cargoes cannot be guaranteed;
Whereas shipping insurance premiums increase after such
attacks, and in so doing, create disincentives for local,
regional, and international investors and companies seeking
to do business in the region;
Whereas imports provide indispensable goods and services
for the people of West and Central Africa, generate port fees
and customs duties for their governments, and are essential
in spurring economic growth and development in the region;
Whereas the U.S. Strategy Toward Sub-Saharan Africa issued
by President Barack Obama in June 2012 states, ``It is in the
interest of the United States to improve the region's trade
competitiveness, encourage the diversification of exports
beyond natural resources, and ensure that the benefits from
growth are broad-based.'';
Whereas a vibrant trade relationship between Africa and its
partners, including the United States, can lead to expanded
economic opportunities that can spur competition, raise
productivity, and facilitate job creation in the economies of
all participating countries;
Whereas the African Union, in collaboration with numerous
official and nongovernmental stakeholders, developed the
``2050 Africa's Integrated Maritime Security'' strategy (the
2050 AIM STRATEGY) which seeks ``to address contending,
emerging and future maritime challenges and opportunities in
Africa . . . with a clear focus on enhanced wealth creation
from a sustainable governance of Africa's oceans and seas'';
Whereas the African Union's 2050 AIM STRATEGY seeks to
combat ``diverse illegal activities which include . . . arms
and drug trafficking, human trafficking and smuggling,
piracy, and armed robbery at sea'', among other objectives;
Whereas the June 24-25, 2013, meeting of the Gulf of Guinea
Maritime Security Heads of State Summit held in Cameroon
marked the culmination of a United States Government-
supported Economic Communities of Central African States
(ECCAS) and Economic Community of West African States
(ECOWAS)-led initiative and process that produced an approved
ECOWAS-ECCAS Memorandum of Understanding for regional
cooperation, and adopted a Gulf of Guinea Code of Conduct to
address maritime crime and a Heads of State Political
Declaration;
Whereas ECOWAS and ECCAS states are working to cooperate
and build their joint capacities in order to increase
maritime security in the Gulf of Guinea and are working to
achieve this goal with such partners as the United Nations
Offices for West and Central Africa, the Gulf of Guinea
Commission, the International Maritime Organization, the
Maritime Organization for West and Central Africa, and the
African Union;
Whereas the United States Government in the Gulf of Guinea
has focused on encouraging multi-layered regional and
national ownership in developing sustainable capacity
building efforts, including working with partners through the
G8++ Friends of Gulf of Guinea Group, to coordinate United
States Government maritime security activities in the region;
Whereas the United States Government has assisted the
countries of West and Central Africa to enhance regional
maritime security through programs such as the ``African
Partnership Station'', operated by United States Naval Forces
Africa ``to build maritime safety and security by increasing
maritime awareness, response capabilities and
infrastructure'', and the ``African Maritime Law Enforcement
Partnership'', which ``enables African partner nations to
build maritime security capacity and improve management of
their maritime environment through real world law enforcement
operations, and through provision of diverse types of
training and equipment assistance and participation in
diverse regional maritime military exercises'', as well as by
employing analytical tools such as the Maritime Security
Sector Reform Guide; and
Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 2039,
``expressing its deep concern about the threat that piracy
and armed robbery at sea in the Gulf of Guinea pose to
international navigation, security and the economic
development of states in the region'', was unanimously
adopted on February 29, 2012: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) condemns acts of armed robbery at sea, piracy, and
other maritime crime in the Gulf of Guinea;
(2) endorses and supports the efforts made by United States
Government agencies to assist affected West and Central
African countries to build capacity to combat armed robbery
at sea, piracy, and other maritime threats, and encourages
the President to continue such assistance, as appropriate,
within resource constraints; and
(3) commends the African Union, subregional entities such
as the ECOWAS and ECCAS, and the various international
agencies that have worked to develop policy and program
frameworks for enhancing maritime security in West and
Central Africa, and encourages these entities and their
member states to continue to build upon these and other
efforts to achieve that end.
____________________
REGARDING CRITICAL NEED FOR POLITICAL REFORM IN BANGLADESH
Mr. REED. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 273, S. Res.
318.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S. Res. 318) expressing the sense of the
Senate regarding the critical need for political reform in
Bangladesh, and for other purposes.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
resolution, which had been reported from the Committee on Foreign
Relations, with an amendment to the title.
Mr. REED. I further ask unanimous consent that the resolution be
agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the committee reported title
amendment be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered
made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
[[Page 86]]
The resolution (S. Res. 318) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:
S. Res. 318
Whereas the nation of Bangladesh was established in 1971
after a bitter war in which it split from Pakistan, and for
many of the ensuing years until 1990, it was ruled by
military governments;
Whereas political tensions have at times turned to violence
in Bangladesh, undermining the democratic process;
Whereas the last parliamentary elections in Bangladesh
originally scheduled for January 2007, were postponed
indefinitely after the military intervened amid rising
violence and questions about the electoral process's
credibility;
Whereas a military-backed civilian caretaker government
held power until December 2008 when Bangladeshis returned to
the polls to elect a new parliament for the first time in
many years;
Whereas ongoing antagonism between the country's two ruling
parties, the Awami League and the Bangladesh Nationalist
Party, distracts from the important needs of the country;
Whereas concerns have grown about religious extremism in
the otherwise usually tolerant country;
Whereas the United States-Bangladesh relationship is strong
and involves many shared interests, including regional
economic integration, counterterrorism, counter-piracy,
poverty alleviation, food security, regional stability, and
mitigation of natural disasters;
Whereas bilateral trade between the United States and
Bangladesh now tops $6,000,000,000 annually, with major
United States companies making significant long-term
investments in Bangladesh;
Whereas the economy of Bangladesh has grown six percent per
year over the last two decades, despite a range of
challenges;
Whereas the poverty rate in Bangladesh dropped from 40
percent to 31 percent between 2005 and 2010--a notable
accomplishment in a country in which poverty has been deep
and widespread;
Whereas the Grameen Bank's revolutionary microfinance
lending to the poor has helped reduce poverty not only in
Bangladesh, but has served as an innovative and powerful
model for helping the poor elsewhere in the world;
Whereas the Department of State, Congress, and other high
profile international voices have recognized the Grameen
Bank's innovative work and expressed great concern over
actions by the Government of Bangladesh that undermine the
Bank's independence;
Whereas Bangladesh, an example of a moderate and diverse
Muslim-majority democracy, is scheduled to have national
elections on January 5, 2014;
Whereas, in 2013, hundreds of Bangladeshis died in violent
clashes as a result of political violence and unrest, and
some opposition and human rights activists have been
arrested;
Whereas trials held by the International Crimes Tribunal in
Bangladesh--set up to prosecute those responsible for
atrocities committed during Bangladesh's war of liberation
with Pakistan in 1971--have fallen short of international
standards;
Whereas the Government of Bangladesh eliminated a
constitutional provision requiring the governing party to
cede power to a neutral caretaker government three months
before an election;
Whereas the 18-member opposition coalition in Bangladesh
called for numerous nationwide strikes and transportation
blockades in 2013, resulting in dozens of deaths;
Whereas Bangladeshi students cannot attend school and
complete mandatory exams due to the strikes and blockades and
related violence;
Whereas many citizens of Bangladesh have had their work and
daily activities disrupted due to the strikes and related
violence, which come at a cost to the economy and stability
of Bangladesh;
Whereas a stable, moderate, secular, Muslim-majority
democracy with the world's seventh-largest population, and
the world's fourth-largest Muslim population, will have
lasting positive impacts in the region and beyond;
Whereas the success of the democratic process in Bangladesh
is of great importance to the United States and the world;
and
Whereas during the week of December 8, 2013, United Nations
Assistant Secretary General Oscar Fernandez-Taranco visited
Bangladesh to foster political dialogue between Bangladeshi
political parties and leaders in order to bring a halt to
violence and allow for a credible peaceful election: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) condemns the political violence in Bangladesh and urges
political leaders in that country to engage directly and
substantively in a dialogue toward free, fair, and credible
elections;
(2) expresses great concern about the continued political
deadlock in Bangladesh that distracts from the country's many
important challenges;
(3) urges political leaders in Bangladesh to take immediate
steps to rein in and to condemn the violence as well as to
provide space for peaceful political protests;
(4) urges political leaders in Bangladesh to ensure the
safety and access of observers in its upcoming elections;
(5) supports ongoing efforts by United Nations Assistant
Secretary General Oscar Fernandez-Taranco to foster political
dialogue between political factions in Bangladesh; and
(6) urges the Government of Bangladesh to ensure judicial
independence, end harassment of human rights activists, and
restore the independence of the Grameen Bank.
The title was amended so as to read: ``A resolution expressing the
sense of the Senate regarding the critical need for political dialogue
in Bangladesh, and for other purposes.''
____________________
EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR THE UKRAINIAN PEOPLE
Mr. REED. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 274, S. Res.
319.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S. Res. 319) expressing support for the
Ukrainian people in light of President Yanukovych's decision
not to sign an Association Agreement with the European Union.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
resolution.
Mr. REED. Madam President, I further ask unanimous consent that the
resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no
intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 319) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:
S. Res. 319
Whereas, according to a poll conducted in November 2013, a
majority of the people of Ukraine supported signing a
historic trade and political agreement with the European
Union;
Whereas a closer association between Ukraine and the
European Union has been supported by Ukrainian civil society,
business leaders, and politicians across the political
spectrum and would bring lasting political, democratic, and
economic benefits to the people of Ukraine;
Whereas Ukraine successfully passed much of the legislation
required to conform to European Union standards for signing
an Association Agreement;
Whereas, on September 22, 2012, and November 18, 2013, the
Senate unanimously passed resolutions calling for a
demonstrable end to selective justice in Ukraine and
expressing its belief that Ukraine's future lies with
stronger ties to Europe, the United States, and others in the
community of democracies;
Whereas the experience of countries such as Poland,
Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia provides a positive example of
increased economic opportunity, enhanced personal freedom,
and good governance. which can also be realized by Ukraine;
Whereas the Government and people of Ukraine have the
sovereign right to choose their own foreign policy and
economic course, and no other country has the right to
determine their political and economic orientation, nor
decide which alliances and trade agreements they can join;
Whereas, on November 21, 2013, President Viktor Yanukovych
suspended Ukraine's preparations for signing the Association
Agreement one week before a critical European Union Summit in
Vilnius, Lithuania;
Whereas the abrupt reversal on the eve of the summit
following Russian economic coercion and to protect the narrow
interests of some officials and individuals in Ukraine
prompted hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians all across the
country, especially young people and students, to protest the
decision and stand in support of furthering Ukraine's Euro-
Atlantic integration;
Whereas international nonprofit and nongovernmental
organizations provide essential care to needy Ukrainians, yet
face direct threats and challenges to their existence and
administrative and regulatory impediments, including
challenges to operating with the tax-exempt status necessary
to maximize the use of funds on the ground and threats to the
fabric of civil society vital to democracy in Ukraine;
Whereas, on November 30, 2013, at Independence Square in
Kyiv, special division police dispersed a peaceful
demonstration of students and civil society activists who
were calling on President Yanukovych to sign the Association
Agreement;
[[Page 87]]
Whereas approximately 35 individuals were detained or
arrested, and dozens were hospitalized, some with severe
injuries;
Whereas, on December 9, 2013, raids were conducted on three
opposition media outlets and the headquarters of one
opposition party;
Whereas, on December 11, 2013, Ukrainian authorities
conducted an overnight police operation in an attempt to
forcefully take control of Independence Square, but were
resisted by brave Ukrainians who filled the square and
rebuffed the police action;
Whereas all three former Presidents of Ukraine have
underscored the need to refrain from violence and the
importance of engaging in a dialogue with the opposition; and
Whereas Ukraine faces an impending economic crisis that can
only be solved with long-term economic reforms: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) stands with the people of Ukraine and supports their
sovereign right to chart an independent and democratic future
for their country;
(2) urges leaders in the United States and the European
Union to continue working together actively to support a
peaceful and democratic resolution to the current crisis that
moves Ukraine toward a future in the Euro-Atlantic community
and a long-term solution to Ukraine's economic crisis;
(3) encourages demonstrators and members of the
opposition and civil society in Ukraine to continue avoiding
the use of violence and engage in a dialogue of national
reconciliation;
(4) urges all political parties to refrain from hate
speech or actions of an anti-Semitic or other character which
further divide the Ukrainian people when they need to be
united;
(5) calls on the Government of Ukraine to refrain from
further use of force or acts of violence against peaceful
protestors, and to respect the internationally recognized
human rights of the Ukrainian people, especially the freedoms
of speech and assembly;
(6) condemns the decision by Ukrainian authorities to use
violence against peaceful demonstrators on November 30,
December 1, and December 11, 2013, and calls for those
responsible to be swiftly brought to justice and all detained
nonviolent demonstrators to be immediately released; and
(7) notes that in the event of further state violence
against peaceful protestors, the President and Congress
should consider whether to apply targeted sanctions,
including visa bans and asset freezes, against individuals
responsible for ordering or carrying out the violence.
____________________
NATIONAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY WEEK
Mr. REED. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to S. Res. 329, submitted earlier today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S. Res. 329) expressing support for the goals
and ideals of the biennial USA Science & Engineering Festival
in Washington, DC and designating April 21 through April 27,
2014, as ``National Science and Technology Week''.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
resolution.
Mr. REED. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no
intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 329) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
(The resolution, with its preamble, is printed in today's Record
under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')
____________________
ORDERS FOR WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 8, 2014
Mr. REED. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the
Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m. on
Wednesday, January 8, 2014; that following the prayer and the pledge,
the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be
approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for
their use later in the day; that following any leader remarks, the
Senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 1845, the
unemployment insurance extension, postcloture, and that all time during
adjournment count postcloture on the motion to proceed to S. 1845.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
ADJOURNMENT UNTIL 10 A.M. TOMORROW
Mr. REED. Madam President, if there is no further business to come
before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the
previous order.
There being no objection, the Senate, at 6:55 p.m., adjourned until
Wednesday, January 8, 2014, at 10 a.m.
____________________
NOMINATIONS
Executive nominations received by the Senate:
COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION
SHARON Y. BOWEN, OF NEW YORK, TO BE A COMMISSIONER OF THE
COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION FOR A TERM EXPIRING
APRIL 13, 2018, VICE BARTHOLOMEW CHILTON, RESIGNED.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
ERIC ROSENBACH, OF PENNSYLVANIA, TO BE AN ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, VICE PAUL N. STOCKTON, RESIGNED.
DAVID B. SHEAR, OF NEW YORK, TO BE AN ASSISTANT SECRETARY
OF DEFENSE, VICE MARK WILLIAM LIPPERT, RESIGNED.
NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION
J. MARK MCWATTERS, OF TEXAS, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL
CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION BOARD FOR A TERM EXPIRING AUGUST
2, 2019, VICE MICHAEL E. FRYZEL, TERM EXPIRED.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
JANET GARVIN MCCABE, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, TO BE AN
ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY, VICE REGINA MCCARTHY, RESIGNED.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
DARCI L. VETTER, OF NEBRASKA, TO BE CHIEF AGRICULTURAL
NEGOTIATOR, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE,
WITH THE RANK OF AMBASSADOR, VICE ISLAM A. SIDDIQUI.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
MAX SIEBEN BAUCUS, OF MONTANA, TO BE AMBASSADOR
EXTRAORDINARY AND PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA TO THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA.
UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
PAIGE EVE ALEXANDER, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE AN ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL
DEVELOPMENT, VICE MARA E. RUDMAN.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
JOHN CHARLES CRUDEN, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE AN ASSISTANT
ATTORNEY GENERAL, VICE IGNACIA S. MORENO, RESIGNED.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
LEON RODRIGUEZ, OF MARYLAND, TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED
STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY, VICE ALEJANDRO N. MAYORKAS, RESIGNED.
IN THE AIR FORCE
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE RESERVE
OF THE AIR FORCE TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 12203:
To be brigadier general
COL. DONALD R. LINDBERG
THE FOLLOWING AIR NATIONAL GUARD OF THE UNITED STATES
OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE RESERVE OF THE AIR FORCE TO
THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTIONS 12203
AND 12212:
To be major general
BRIG. GEN. WILLIAM D. COBETTO
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES AIR FORCE TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 624:
To be major general
BRIG. GEN. BART O. IDDINS
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES AIR FORCE TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 624:
To be brigadier general
COLONEL ROY-ALAN C. AGUSTIN
COLONEL ROBERT G. ARMFIELD
COLONEL MARK A. BAIRD
COLONEL DIETER E. BAREIHS
COLONEL MITCHEL H. BUTIKOFER
COLONEL MARK D. CAMERER
COLONEL DOUGLAS A. COX
COLONEL STEPHEN L. DAVIS
COLONEL ERIC T. FICK
COLONEL KEITH M. GIVENS
COLONEL PAUL H. GUEMMER
COLONEL GREGORY M. GUILLOT
COLONEL GREGORY M. GUTTERMAN
COLONEL DARREN E. HARTFORD
COLONEL DAVID W. HICKS
COLONEL BRIAN T. KELLY
COLONEL DAVID A. KRUMM
COLONEL PETER J. LAMBERT
COLONEL EVAN M. MILLER
COLONEL THOMAS E. MURPHY
COLONEL DAVID S. NAHOM
COLONEL MARY F. O'BRIEN
COLONEL STEPHEN W. OLIVER, JR.
COLONEL SCOTT L. PLEUS
COLONEL JOHN T. RAUCH, JR.
COLONEL CHRISTOPHER M. SHORT
COLONEL KIRK W. SMITH
COLONEL ROBERT W. STANLEY II
COLONEL MARK E. WEATHERINGTON
COLONEL STEPHEN C. WILLIAMS
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE
INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 624:
To be lieutenant colonel
TERESA G. PARIS
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE
INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 624:
To be lieutenant colonel
JOEL K. WARREN
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADES
INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 624:
To be lieutenant colonel
JEFFREY P. TAN
To be major
CRISTALLE A. COX
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADES
INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 624:
[[Page 88]]
To be colonel
ROBERT D. COXWELL
ROBERT J. GRAZULIS
AARON L. ULLMAN
KENT A. WILLIAMS
To be lieutenant colonel
BRIAN E. EARP
To be major
CHRISTOPHER ALFARO
STEVEN M. ANDERSON
JOHN H. BRINDLE
TRENT L. FRITZ
SHAWNTARA GOVAN
JOSHUA L. GREENSPAN
JOSEPH A. JOHNSON
MICHAEL D. JOHNSON
JAMES M. KRAMER
MATTHEW E. STIGLER
WESTON D. TURNER
SCOT L. WILLIAMS
IN THE ARMY
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE
INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C.,
SECTION 624:
To be major
DAVID W. BRYANT
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE
INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL'S
CORPS UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTIONS 624 AND 3064:
To be colonel
JOSEPH B. BERGER III
ERIK L. CHRISTIANSEN
GAIL A. CURLEY
JONATHAN HOWARD
CHARLES T. KIRCHMAIER
NICHOLAS F. LANCASTER
JEFFERY D. LIPPERT
DAVID E. MENDELSON
MICHAEL E.J. MUELLER
CHARLES C. POCHE
LUIS O. RODRIGUEZ
JOHN T. ROTHWELL
MICHELLE L. RYAN
WILLIAM D. SMOOT III
IN THE MARINE CORPS
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE
INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 624:
To be colonel
BAMIDELE J. ABOGUNRIN
JOSEPH T. ALLENA, JR.
PHILIP G. ANTEKEIER
HUGH L. ATKINSON
IAN D. BRASURE
TIMOTHY R. BRYANT
DANIEL T. CANFIELD, JR.
JAMES C. CARROLL III
RONNIE A. CARSON, JR.
BRIAN S. CHRISTMAS
ROBERT M. CLARK
CARL E. COOPER, JR.
DARYL G. CRANE
NICHOLAS E. DAVIS
MICHAEL E. DEHNER
THOMAS J. DODDS
CRAIG R. DOTY
ANDREW J. DRAKE
HAROLD B. EGGERS
CHRISTIAN T. ELLINGER
DAREN J. ERICKSON
LY T. FECTEAU
ROBERT A. FREELAND
EDWARD A. GARLAND
ERIC A. GILLIS
DONALD A. GORDON
JON L. HALVERSON
CHRISTIAN D. HARSHBERGER
CARLTON W. HASLE
CARL C. HENGER
PATRICK R. HITTLE
JEFFREY C. HOLT
BRIAN G. HUGHES
MICHAEL J. JERNIGAN
MATTHEW G. KELLY
ERIC S. LIVINGSTON
HENRY W. LUTZ III
KENDALL A. MARTINEZ
KEVEN W. MATTHEWS
ROGER T. MCDUFFIE
BOYD A. MILLER
THOMAS P. MITALSKI
MICHAEL C. MONTI
DAVID C. MORRIS
BRIAN W. NEIL
RICHARD F. NEITZEY
JULIE L. NETHERCOT
JOHN M. NEVILLE, JR.
ANDREW M. NIEBEL
RICHARD E. PETERSEN
MICHAEL A. PHILLIPS
RICARDO T. PLAYER
JOHN R. POLIDORO, JR.
THOMAS E. PRENTICE
MATTHEW PUGLISI
MATTHEW B. REUTER
ROBERT C. RICE
CHRISTOPHER S. RICHIE
RYAN S. RIDEOUT
JEFFREY N. RULE
MICHAEL V. SAMAROV
JAMES A. SCHNELLE
MICHAEL E. SCHUTTE
KEVIN R. SCOTT
CHANDLER P. SEAGRAVES
DANIEL L. SHIPLEY
TODD P. SIMMONS
DIANA L. STANESZEWSKI
JAMES B. STONE IV
CLAY C. TIPTON
STEPHEN K. VANRIPER
MICHAEL C. VARICAK
JOSEPH F. WADE
WILLIAM M. WANDO
MARTIN F. WETTERAUER III
JOSEPH D. WILLIAMS
CRAIG C. WIRTH
JASON G. WOODWORTH
JAY D. WYLIE
WILLIAM W. YATES
DEVIN C. YOUNG
PHILLIP M. ZEMAN
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE
INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 624:
To be major
ERNEST P. ABELSON II
BRIAN W. ACKERSON
STEVEN A. ADAIR, JR.
THOMAS R. ADAME
SAMUEL P. ADAMS
KARIN B. ALISSANDRATOS
STEVEN E. ALSOP
RYAN A. ALTER
MIGUEL ALVAREZ, JR.
CLINTON S. ANDERSON
CRAIG R. ANDERSON
WILLIAM H. ANDERSON
JOSEPH A. ANDREJACK
MICHAEL G. ANKRUM
ERIC M. ANTONELLI
SCOTT D. ARMSTRONG
LISA M. AROCHO
CHRISTOPHER A. ASHINHURST
MICHELLE E. AUGUSTINE
DANIEL R. BALLARD
ANDREW C. BANKSTON
WILLIAM A. BARTHOLOMAE
DAVID G. BATCHELER
JEFFREY D. BAYSE
MICHAEL C. BELL
JOHN L. BELSHA
CERA T. BENBOW
SAMUEL A. BENEFIEL
PETER D. BENNING
DANIEL H. BENSON
CLAUDE L. BERTHOLD
JEREMY S. BEST
ALISON M. BETSINGER
JOSHUA K. BEYER
BARNEY B. BLAINE
JONATHAN C. BODWELL
BROOKS W. BOEHLERT
JEFFREY R. BOGLE
AUSTIN C. BONNER
JOHN A. BORING
ANDREW J. BORMANN
ERIC D. BOWER
BRIAN V. BOYD
CHARLES W. BOYD
PATRICK M. BRALEY
ROBERT G. BUCK
NICHOLAS BUKOVAC
JASON L. BULLIS
MELVIN D. BURCH
RICKY D. BURIA
LARRY L. BUZZARD
GERALDINE C. CAREY
JOSHUA E. CARPENTER
BENJAMIN C. CARRUTHERS
ANDREW M. CASCI
JASON CASTILLO
JONATHAN I. CHAIKEN
ROY E. CHEEKS, JR.
SIMBA A. CHIGWIDA
COLE M. CLEMENTS
JEREMY M. CLEVENGER
MICHAEL F. CLEVENGER
ADAM C. COKER
ALEXANDER G. COLE
AMBER G. COLEMAN
RYAN C. COLLINS
RYAN D. COLTON
JOSE I. COLUNGA
JEREMY J. COLWELL
HARRY P. CONSAUL IV
DUSTY L. COOK
STEPHEN M. COOK
BRANDON E. COOLEY
JASON C. COPELAND
AARON J. CORONNA
JEREMY A. COTHERN
STEPHANIE L. COTHERN
DEREK M. COTTA
GABRIEL R. CRANE
JACK M. CRONAN
TROY J. CRONBAUGH
NICHOLAS J. CRUZ
JAMES N. CUNNINGHAM III
KENNETH H. CURTIS
THOMAS W. DAGGETT
ANTHONY R. DAMICO
DEAN V. DAMIN
CRAIG O. DAVIS
CHRISTOPHER M. DELL
SUZANNE M. DEMPSEY
CHRISTOPHER A. DENVER
BIJAN C. DERAKHSHAN
MICHAEL A. DEREDITA
JOHN B. DICKENS
SEAN P. DILLON
AMANDA N. DONNELLY
CASEY W. DOYLE
CHARLES R. DRENNAN
THOMAS J. DUFF
DOUGLAS I. DUFFIN
CHRISTOPHER S. DUNCAN
THOMAS J. DUNN
DANIEL B. EAGAN
PAUL D. ECKERT
JONATHAN R. ELLIOTT
THOMAS A. EYBL
ROSS A. FEARON
ROBERT W. FEATHERSTONE
TERRY A. FELLOWS, JR.
RYAN A. FERRELL
JASON M. FIDUCCIA
DANIEL M. FLETCHER
JOHN G. FLETCHER III
CARLOS R. FLORES
RICARDO S. FLORES, JR.
KATHARINE E. FOLZ
ERIC FONG
SCOT A. FOSTER
AARON M. FREY
JASON E. FRIDAY
CHRISTOPHER M. GAITENS
ANTHONY T. GAROFANO
JOSE B. GARZA, JR.
BRADLEY P. GAUTREAUX
CLINTON P. GEBKE
JAMES M. GEIGER, JR.
JAMES M. GEIGER III
JONATHAN M. GEISLER
CHARLES E. GEORGE
DEREK R. GEORGE
TIMOTHY J. GILLETTE, JR.
JAMIE M. GLINES
NATHANIEL C. GODDARD
PASCAL J. GONZALEZ
DANIEL E. GRAINGER
TAD A. GREER
WILLIAM P. GRIMES
ANTHONY J. GUIDRY
MARK A. GUTHRIE
ROBERT F. GUYETTE II
PAUL D. HAAGENSON
MICHAEL S. HAGER
KYLE P. HAHN
KALEB J. HARKEMA
CLAYTON T. HARLIN, JR.
MICHAEL B. HARMON
RICHARD D. HARPER
AARON J. HARRELL
KEATON H. HARRELL
ADAM M. HARRINGTON
TODD E. HARRISON
CHRISTOPHER R. HART
NATHAN M. HARVEY
ANGELA B. HATCH
CHARLES A. HATTON
JESSICA M. HAWKINS
MATTHEW M. HEMPHILL
MICHAEL S. HENSON
PAUL C. HERRERA
MATTHEW W. HOHL
CORY L. HOLIDAY
KRIKET S. HOLLEY
TYLER J. HOLT
CHRISTOPHER K. HUCKABY
JEREMIAH W. HUGHES
BERNARD W. HUND III
CHARLES P. HUNT
TREVOR L. HUNT
CHRISTOPHER J. JAMISON
JOHN F. JEDRA
BYRON R. JOHNSON
MICHAEL E. JOHNSON
ANDRE M. JONCKHEERE
JUSTIN A. JONES
LAWRENCE O. JONES
SCOTT L. JONES
PATRICK W. JUNICK
JASON D. KAISER
VERONICA L. KALTRIDER
RUTH E. KEHOE
STEVEN M. KEISLING
BRADLEY B. KELLER
CHRISTOPHER J. KELLY
ROBERT S. KEMPER
DUSTIN A. KERLIN
JOHN S. KIM
ASHLYN E. KING
MATTHEW F. KLOBY
ERIC J. KNECHT
[[Page 89]]
NATHAN K. KNOWLES
ANTHONY M. KOEHL
ERIK B. KOLLE
STEVEN L. KOSNIK
JASON A. KOZAK
DAVID A. KRIEGBAUM
ETHAN C. KRUMNOW
LOWELL D. KRUSINGER
JENNIFER A. KUKLA
VALERIE N. KYZAR
JASON R. LAIRD
JASON A. LAMBERT
JONATHAN W. LANDERS
JARRIEL L. LANG
JARROD P. LARSON
JASON E. LATTA
RALPH E. LEMASTER
JASON R. LESHIKAR
JOHN M. LEWIS
RAYMOND F. LHEUREUX, JR.
JAMES J. LILLEY
ASHLEY E. LISH
JUSTIN D. LOKKESMOE
EDWARD A. LORD
JEFFREY L. LUDWIG
FRANK A. MACHNIAK, JR.
ADAM J. MALLO
MICHAEL F. MANNING
ERICA K. MANTZ
EFREN S. MANZANET
JONATHAN E. MARANG
PAUL M. MARCY
AHMAD J. MARTIN
THEODORE P. MARTIN
TRACY A. MARTIN
FREDDIE F. MARTINEZ
LINDSAY E. MATHWICK
MATTHEW S. MAYO
MATTHEW J. MCLANE
MICHAEL D. MCMAHON
SHAWN A. MEIER
JOHN T. MEIXNER
CHARLES E. MILLER II
JOHN C. MILLER
JOSHUA D. MILLER
YATES F. MINNER
JOSE N. MIRELES
JOSEPH D. MONTAGNA
BRIAN M. MONTALVO
JOSHUA E. MONTERO
MICHAEL W. MOORE
MITCHELL A. MOORE
FREDDY A. MORALES
PATRICK R. MORAN
MIGUEL MORENO
TRAVIS M. MORRIS
THOMAS C. MORSE
BRANDON W. MOTT
MARCUS D. MOYER
LINDSAY K. MURPHY
JAMES O. MYUNG
REID B. NANNEN
ANTHONY M. NAVARRETTE
MATTHEW J. NEELY
JEREMY M. NELSON
GEOFFREY T. NEWTON
KAHO NG
AARON C. NORWOOD
COURTNEY D. OBRIEN
KEVIN J. ODONNELL
WILBUR S. OLES IV
KYLE B. OPEL
WILLIAM C. OREN
PEDRO ORTIZ
BRIAN M. OSHEA
KRISTOPHER W. OTTEN
BENJAMIN M. PARENTE
FRANK N. PARISI
KIRA L. PARRISH
MARIO S. PARZINO
WILLIAM J. PATRICK
RAMON E. PATTUGALAN
MATTHEW A. PEDERSON
WILLIAM P. PENDLEY
LAURA J. PERAZZOLA
NICHOLAS B. PERKINS
ADAM F. PERLIN
BUCK A. PERRY
RYAN E. PETERSEN
JON T. PETERSON
TODD A. PETERSON
JOSEPH R. PETKUS
PHUONG H. PHAN
STEVEN M. PIACENTE
STEPHEN M. PIANTANIDA
STACIE M. PICCINICH
DANIEL D. PINKERTON
JUAN R. PLASCENCIA
JOSHUA R. PLUMMER
ERIC D. PORTER
LEVI G. PORTER
JUSTIN M. POTHEN
JEFFREY B. POTTER
WILLIAM M. POWELL
ADAM E. POWERS
JONATHAN S. PRATHER
AARON W. PRIDGEN
DAVID S. RAINEY
NATHAN T. RASMUSSEN
JOHNATHAN D. REED
JONATHAN P. REED
STEVAN D. REICHERT
STACI L. REIDINGER
HARRY REIFSCHNEIDER III
JASON R. REUKEMA
THEODORE C. RHODES
MATHEW J. RICE
OWEN Q. RIEMER
JONATHAN M. RINGLEIN
ANDREW C. ROBBINS
LUKE T. ROBERTS
ERIC C. ROBINSON
JEFFREY M. ROHMAN
CHRISTOPHER J. ROSS
STEPHEN R. RUBEO
JAMES P. RUBOCKI
EDWARD P. RUSHING
JOSEPH M. SALUCCI
MATTHEW J. SAMSON
JOSEPH C. SANDS
BRYAN P. SARGENT
LUKE A. SAUBER
ERIC A. SCHERRER
ANDREW P. SCHILLING
JOHN W. SCHINDEL
ERIK M. SCHMIDT
ERIK N. SCHNEIDER
TED W. SCHROEDER
ROBERT M. SCOTT
JONATHAN M. SECOR
ANDREW J. SEGAL
ANTON T. SEMELROTH
JOSEPH T. SEYKORA
RICHARD L. SHINN
GORDON M. SILLIKER
JAMES C. SMITH
JOSHUA E. SMITH
NICHOLAS A. SMITH
WILLIAM M. SMYTH
WALTER P. SNODGRASS
CHRISTOPHER A. SOUTHARD
TIMOTHY A. SPARKS
KATHERINE L. SPIES
JEREMY J. SPRIGGS
JON D. STIEBNER
ADAM C. STILES
BRANDON M. STOCKWELL
DANIEL J. STRUZIK
JAMES A. SUMLER
ERIC D. SWANSON
AUTUMN D. SWINFORD
STEPHEN G. TAUTE
ALEXANDER M. TAYLOR
BRETT V. TAYLOR
CHRISTOPHER A. TCHINSKI
JACK C. TEMPLETON II
CURTIS L. THOMAS
DANIELLE E. THOMAS
MATTHEW A. THOMPSON
CHRISTOPHER T. TIERNEY
JON C. TILLMAN
JARED L. TOWLES
CHANCE D. TROMBETTI
ADAM W. TROUT
EMMA C. TUCKER
WILLIAM D. TURNER III
KYLE A. UGONE
DAVID D. VANDAM
SAMUEL A. VERPLANCK
ESTEBAN T. VICKERS
BENJAMIN Y. VICTOR
NICHOLAS L. VOGEL
ALEXIS F. VOGELGESANG
NATALIE N. WALKER
TOBIN J. WALKER
SHANNON M. WALLER
JEREMY R. WALTER
JASON R. WAREHAM
MILES G. WARREN
WILLIAM D. WHALEY II
WILLIAM G. WHEATLEY, JR.
JOSEPH L. WHITE
LEE A. WHITE
MICHAEL W. WHITE
RANDALL C. WHITE
JOE A. WHITEFIELD, JR.
NICKOLAS D. WHITEFIELD
KIRK A. WHITTENBERG
ROBERT E. WICKER
ERIC A. WIENER
BRIAN S. WILLIAMS
THEODORE L. WILLIAMS II
JONATHAN M. WILLIAMSON
BRIAN J. WILSON
NICHOLAS R. WITTMAN
ANTHONY J. WLOTKO
ALLEN D. WOLD
ROBERT W. WOODARD
ALI I. YAKUB
ADRIAN E. YBARRA
JUSTIN A. YOUNG
JASON C. YURISIC
CHRISTOPHER L. ZACHARY
BRYAN L. ZUPPINGER
DAVID D. ZYGA
[[Page 90]]
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES--Tuesday, January 7, 2014
The House met at 2 p.m. and was called to order by the Speaker pro
tempore (Ms. Foxx).
____________________
DESIGNATION OF THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from the Speaker:
Washington, DC,
January 7, 2014.
I hereby appoint the Honorable Virginia Foxx to act as
Speaker pro tempore on this day.
John A. Boehner,
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
____________________
PRAYER
Reverend Cara Spaccarelli, Christ Church, Washington, D.C., offered
the following prayer:
Almighty and eternal God, You have blessed us with creation and made
us fellow workers in bringing about Your kingdom.
So draw our hearts to You, so guide our minds, so fill our
imaginations, that we may have insight into Your purposes for our
country and wisdom and determination in providing for its future, that
in all our works begun, continued, and ended in You, we may glorify You
in our care for all Your people.
All this we ask in Your holy name.
Amen.
____________________
MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT
A message in writing from the President of the United States was
communicated to the House by Mr. Brian Pate, one of his secretaries.
____________________
RESIGNATION FROM THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
resignation from the House of Representatives:
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, January 6, 2014.
Hon. John A. Boehner,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Boehner: I hereby resign as a member of the
United States House of Representatives, effective immediately
upon being sworn in as the Director of the Federal Housing
Finance Agency, the position to which I have been nominated
by the President of the United States and confirmed by the
United States Senate.
Service in the House has been a high honor. Please convey
to my colleagues my thanks for the courtesies they have
extended to me and for the privilege I have enjoyed of
serving with them.
Sincerely,
Melvin L. Watt,
12th District of North Carolina.
____
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, January 6, 2014.
Hon. Patrick McCrory,
State of North Carolina, Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC.
Dear Governor McCrory: I hereby resign as a member of the
United States House of Representatives, effective immediately
upon being sworn in as the Director of the Federal Housing
Finance Agency, the position to which I have been nominated
by the President of the United States and confirmed by the
United States Senate.
Service in the House has been a high honor.
Sincerely,
Melvin L. Watt,
12th District of North Carolina.
____________________
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under clause 5(d) of rule XX, the Chair
announces to the House that, in light of the resignation of the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), the whole number of the House
is 432.
____________________
COMMUNICATION FROM FIELD REPRESENTATIVE, THE HONORABLE TOM GRAVES,
MEMBER OF CONGRESS
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from Travis Loudermilk, Field Representative, the
Honorable Tom Graves, Member of Congress:
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, December 9, 2013.
Hon. John A. Boehner,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: This is to notify you formally pursuant
to Rule VIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives
that I have been served with a subpoena, issued by the State
of Georgia Superior Court, County of Walker, for witness
testimony.
After consultation with the Office of General Counsel, I
have determined that compliance with the subpoena is
consistent with the privileges and rights of the House.
Sincerely,
Travis Loudermilk,
Field Representative.
____________________
RECESS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 12(a) of rule I, the
Chair declares the House in recess until approximately 6:30 p.m. today.
Accordingly (at 2 o'clock and 3 minutes p.m.), the House stood in
recess.
____________________
{time} 1832
AFTER RECESS
The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the
Speaker at 6 o'clock and 32 minutes p.m.
____________________
CALL OF THE HOUSE
The SPEAKER. The Clerk will use the electronic system to ascertain
the presence of a quorum.
Members will record their presence by electronic device.
The call was taken by electronic device, and the following Members
responded to their names:
[Roll No. 1]
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--316
Aderholt
Amash
Bachmann
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bentivolio
Bera (CA)
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Burgess
Bustos
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clay
Coble
Coffman
Cohen
Cole
Collins (GA)
Connolly
Cooper
Cotton
Courtney
Crawford
Cuellar
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Danny
Davis, Rodney
DeFazio
Delaney
DelBene
Dent
DeSantis
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Duckworth
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farenthold
Farr
Fattah
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Hahn
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Heck (WA)
Hensarling
Himes
Hinojosa
Holding
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huelskamp
Hunter
Hurt
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Lankford
Larson (CT)
Latham
Latta
Levin
Lewis
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Long
Lowenthal
Lucas
[[Page 91]]
Luetkemeyer
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lummis
Maffei
Maloney, Sean
Marino
Massie
Matheson
Matsui
McAllister
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Moore
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Napolitano
Negrete McLeod
Neugebauer
Noem
Nolan
Nugent
Nunes
O'Rourke
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Payne
Pearce
Perlmutter
Perry
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Pocan
Poe (TX)
Polis
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Radel
Rahall
Rangel
Reichert
Renacci
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rooney
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruiz
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanford
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schiff
Schneider
Schock
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Sires
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Speier
Stewart
Stutzman
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tierney
Tipton
Tonko
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Vargas
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Waxman
Weber (TX)
Welch
Wenstrup
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yarmuth
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--115
Amodei
Andrews
Bachus
Barber
Benishek
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Bucshon
Butterfield
Cantor
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Conyers
Cook
Costa
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
DeGette
DeLauro
Denham
DesJarlais
Doyle
Duffy
Ellmers
Enyart
Fincher
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gibson
Gosar
Granger
Grayson
Grijalva
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Harris
Heck (NV)
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Hudson
Huffman
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Issa
Johnson (GA)
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kingston
Kuster
LaMalfa
Larsen (WA)
Lee (CA)
Lipinski
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Marchant
McCarthy (NY)
McIntyre
Meeks
Meng
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Neal
Nunnelee
Pelosi
Pingree (ME)
Reed
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Richmond
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Ros-Lehtinen
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Schakowsky
Schwartz
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Stivers
Stockman
Terry
Tiberi
Titus
Van Hollen
Veasey
Wagner
Walorski
Webster (FL)
Westmoreland
Wilson (FL)
Yoder
{time} 1852
The SPEAKER. On this roll call, 316 Members have recorded their
presence.
A quorum is present.
Ms. CLARKE of New York. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 1, I was in the
Chamber trying to vote at the voting box when the Speaker gaveled down
the vote. I was present. I would have voted ``present.''
Mrs. ELLMERS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 1, I was unavoidably
detained for quorum vote. If I had been here, I would have voted
``present.''
Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 1,
I was at a Steering and Policy Committee meeting with Leader Pelosi.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``present.''
Mr. VEASEY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 1, had I been present, I
would have voted ``present.''
Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, because of flight cancellations due
to extreme weather I was not present for tonight's rollcall vote No. 1.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``present.''
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 1, I was unavoidably
detained and had I been present, I would have been recorded as
``present.''
____________________
THE JOURNAL
The SPEAKER. The Chair has examined the Journal of the proceedings of
January 3, 2014, 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 Texas (Mr. Poe) come forward and
lead the House in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mr. POE of Texas 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.
____________________
RESIGNATION OF CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES
The SPEAKER laid before the House the following communication from
the Chief Administrative Officer of the House of Representatives:
Chief Administrative Officer,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, November 1, 2013.
Hon. John A. Boehner,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: This is to formally notify you of my
intent to resign as Chief Administrative Officer (CAO)
effective at the close of business on January 6, 2014.
Thank you for the opportunity to serve you and the U.S.
House of Representatives. Over the course of my 28 years as a
staff member, I have developed a deep respect and reverence
for the institution and, in particular, the Members and staff
whose dedication and commitment to service make it an
exciting, vibrant, and interactive community.
Additionally, I want to thank Ed Cassidy of your staff for
his leadership, direction and support as Director of House
Operations. He has done a tremendous job instilling and
fostering a culture of collaboration and coordination within
and among the institutional entities that support the House.
Finally, I want to thank my colleagues in the Office of the
CAO and all the other institutional offices whose non-
partisan professionalism serve as a model of excellence for
other legislative bodies.
I will work with my successor as needed to ensure a smooth
transition.
Sincerely,
Daniel J. Strodel.
The SPEAKER. Without objection, the resignation is accepted.
There was no objection.
____________________
ELECTING THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged resolution and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 449
Resolved, That Ed Cassidy of the State of Connecticut, be,
and is hereby, chosen Chief Administrative Officer of the
House of Representatives.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER. Will Mr. Cassidy please take the well.
The Chair will now administer the oath of office to the Chief
Administrative Officer.
Mr. Cassidy appeared at the bar of the House and took the oath of
office, as follows:
Do you solemnly swear or affirm that you will support and
defend the Constitution of the United States against all
enemies, foreign and domestic; that you will bear true faith
and allegiance to the same; that you take this obligation
freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion;
and that you will well and faithfully discharge the duties of
the office on which you are about to enter, so help you God.
The SPEAKER. Congratulations, Mr. Cassidy.
____________________
PROVIDING FOR A COMMITTEE TO NOTIFY THE PRESIDENT OF THE ASSEMBLY OF
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I send to the desk a privileged resolution
and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 450
Resolved, That a committee of two Members be appointed by
the Speaker on the part of the House of Representatives to
notify the President of the United States that a
[[Page 92]]
quorum of the House has assembled and that the House is ready
to receive any communication that he may be pleased to make.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
APPOINTMENT AS MEMBERS OF COMMITTEE TO NOTIFY THE PRESIDENT, PURSUANT
TO HOUSE RESOLUTION 450
The SPEAKER. Pursuant to House Resolution 450, the Chair appoints the
following Members to the committee to notify the President of the
United States that a quorum of the House has assembled and that the
House is ready to receive any communication that he may be pleased to
make:
The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor) and
The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
____________________
TO INFORM THE SENATE THAT A QUORUM OF THE HOUSE HAS ASSEMBLED
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I send to the desk a privileged resolution
and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 451
Resolved, That the Clerk of the House inform the Senate
that a quorum of the House is present and that the House is
ready to proceed with business.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
PROVIDING FOR THE HOUR OF MEETING OF THE HOUSE
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I send to the desk a privileged resolution
and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 452
Resolved, That unless otherwise ordered, the hour of daily
meeting of the House shall be 2 p.m. on Mondays; noon on
Tuesdays (or 2 p.m. if no legislative business was conducted
on the preceding Monday); noon on Wednesdays and Thursdays;
and 9 a.m. on all other days of the week.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
MAKING IN ORDER MORNING-HOUR DEBATE
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the order of
the House of January 3, 2013, providing for morning-hour debate be
extended for the remainder of the 113th Congress, except that House
Resolution 452 shall supplant House Resolution 9; and the Speaker may
dispense with morning-hour debate upon receipt of a notification
described in clause 12(c) of rule I and notify Members accordingly.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Texas.
There was no objection.
____________________
{time} 1900
ROSALYN ``ROZ'' MARIE SHOEMAKER
(Mr. POE of Texas asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. POE of Texas. Madam Speaker, she was a little bitty tiny thing
weighing barely over 5 pounds. Four days after Christmas, she was born
at 4:25 a.m. Sunday morning, December 29, 2013, in Dallas, Texas. Two
days later, on New Year's Eve, Rosalyn Marie Shoemaker came home with
her adoptive parents, Kellee and Anthony, and 3-year-old sister,
Olivia.
Roz, as she is already nicknamed, is a good sleeper, healthy eater,
and a cuddler. Kellee, my daughter, and Anthony, her husband, are model
God-fearing parents of strong character and have a compassion for
children. Being parents is the hardest and most important role and job.
Roz could have none better.
During Christmas, Christians honor the most important child ever
born, but in our family, this past Christmas season, we know that unto
us a special child was also born. Her name is Roz. My hope and prayer
for Roz is that she grows in wisdom and stature and favor with the good
Lord.
Roz is our 11th grandchild. Like her ten cousins, she too was born in
Texas. Of course she was born in Texas, because that's the rule.
And that's just the way it is.
____________________
RECOGNIZING LIVERMORE HIGH SCHOOL SCOREKEEPER PEDER ANDERSEN
(Mr. SWALWELL of California asked and was given permission to address
the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. SWALWELL of California. Mr. Speaker, I'm honored today to
recognize legendary Livermore High School scorekeeper Pete Andersen,
who sadly passed away on Sunday, December 29. He was 91.
After emigrating from Denmark to the United States in 1922, Pete went
to high school in Pleasanton and served in the U.S. Army during World
War II. Upon returning home from the war, Pete began keeping score at
Livermore High School's sporting events. Pete had an impressive 60-
year, 3,513-game tenure and built a reputation for dedication,
knowledge, and a passion for sports. It's because of his dedication to
our community that Pete was inducted into the first class of the
Livermore High School Sports Hall of Fame in 2009.
I would like to express my deepest condolences to Pete's wife,
Margaret, his family, and friends. In talking about his sacrifice for
60 years to keep score for young athletes, he said: ``It was a nice
place to go on a Friday night.'' Well, Friday nights in Livermore won't
be the same without Pete.
Pete will be missed dearly. His life is truly an inspiration to
athletes, coaches, students, and the East Bay sporting community.
____________________
THE SKILLS ACT
(Ms. FOXX asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, today the President called on Congress to take
action to help put Americans back to work. Almost 9 months ago, the
House passed H.R. 803, the SKILLS Act, with bipartisan support. The
SKILLS Act, which I authored, would modernize the vast labyrinth of
Federal workforce development programs, increasing access, eliminating
waste, and promoting accountability. This bill is languishing in the
Senate.
As we gavel in the second session of the 113th Congress, this House
will maintain its focus on jobs. Our top priority is creating an
environment conducive to economic growth and job creation. In last
year's session, the House passed more than 30 pieces of legislation
designed to decrease bureaucracy, increase opportunity, and restore
vitality to our economy. Unfortunately, the majority of this
legislation is being held up in the Senate. I join the President in
calling for action on jobs, starting with Senate consideration of the
SKILLS Act.
____________________
SAFE CLIMATE CAUCUS
(Mr. WAXMAN asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, as we begin the second session of the 113th
Congress, Americans all over this country are coming up with their New
Year's resolutions for 2014. In Congress, I propose we make this the
year we stop ignoring climate change.
Last year, CO2 concentrations reached dangerous new
heights in our atmosphere. We suffered through--and paid for--record-
breaking extreme weather events, and we received dire new projections
from international scientific organizations on the threats posed by
climate change.
What did the Republican-led House do? It continued its anti-
environment voting record, voting 109 times in 2013 to weaken
environmental protections.
[[Page 93]]
This behavior is reckless and irresponsible.
Despite the gridlock in Congress, the Obama administration has been
making progress. Under the President's leadership, the Nation has
doubled the production of renewable energy like wind and solar,
vehicles are more fuel efficient, and toxic air pollution for power
plants has been cut dramatically.
Let's work with the President this year to build off of these
successes so that, on December 31, we can look with pride that we
finally took action on climate change.
____________________
OBAMACARE INCREASES HEALTHCARE SPENDING
(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, yesterday, the White House
claimed ObamaCare is partially responsible for helping to slow the
growth rate in health care spending. Health care spending did grow at a
record slow pace in 2012. Unfortunately, according to NPR:
The Federal officials who compiled the report disagree with
the Obama administration about why.
That's right. The annual report from the actuaries for the Centers
for Medicare and Medicaid Services disagrees with the White House.
NPR disagrees as well:
One thing that did not lead to slower growth, according to
the report's authors, was the Affordable Care Act.
``It's the recession, not ObamaCare, that is slowing health
spending,'' writes the National Journal.
Mr. Speaker, hospital costs are increasing. Out-of-pocket costs
continue to increase, and any reduction in the rate of growth isn't due
to the Affordable Care Act.
A closer look at the numbers shows us that this law has made matters
worse. A closer look at the numbers tells us more about what the White
House would rather not discuss. A closer look tells us that the
American people deserve better.
____________________
UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Speaker, right now, 1.3 million Americans are
asking the question, why? Why is there a debate about my ability to pay
for rent or mortgage or food or the necessities of taking care of my
family? Why, having worked for many, many years, am I now being denied
an unemployment insurance benefit that was utilized for the last 5
years and first voted on and brought forward by the Congress that
supported President Bush in extending unemployment benefits?
Why is there not an understanding of what it is like to receive a
letter in the mail to indicate that you will get no more benefits, even
though you are actively looking for work and even though there are
three people looking for every job? Why does this House of
Representatives not understand that we can pass a 3-month emergency
relief for these individuals and debate for the rest of the year how do
we get a pay-for or an offset for funding it after 3 months?
Mr. Speaker, this is an emergency. People are on a lifeline, and we
are killing it. It is time to pass unemployment insurance benefits now
for the American people.
____________________
APPRECIATING JOHN CHAPLA
(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, this weekend, the Armed
Forces community lost a great friend and ally. Retired Army Lieutenant
Colonel John Chapla was truly a Virginia gentleman of the Virginia
Military Institute tradition. After serving our Nation in uniform for
over 25 years, John continued his passion for public service as a
professional staff member on the House Armed Services Committee,
eventually becoming the lead staff member for the Subcommittee on
Military Personnel.
John possessed vast and remarkable wisdom of the military. He always
sought to advocate for our brave men and women, their families, and our
veterans. I had the privilege of working alongside him for 4 years as
he coordinated the annual National Defense Authorization Act. Because
of John's efforts, our wounded warriors, military families, and victims
of sexual assault have substantial protections. There is no doubt that
our country is a much safer place because of John Chapla's hard work
and dedication.
My thoughts and prayers are with John's wife, Lee, his two daughters,
and three granddaughters during this difficult time. He will be forever
appreciated.
In conclusion, God bless our troops, and we will never forget
September the 11th in the global war on terrorism.
____________________
UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS
(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, 10 days ago, 1.3 million Americans lost
their emergency extension of unemployment benefits.
Today, this afternoon at the White House, one of those individuals,
Ms. Katherine Hackett from Moosup, Connecticut, shared her story with
our country. She has two sons serving in the military. She was laid off
through no fault of her own. She has been actively seeking employment,
and yet she still needs help.
Yet this House left before Christmas without taking up an
unemployment extension, which in every past recession, any unemployment
rate above 5 percent required and resulted in automatic extensions. Yet
this House went home.
Curt Edwards, from Norwich, Connecticut, who I spoke to yesterday, 20
years in the U.S. Army, Army Ranger, was laid off last April and is
looking for work. His unemployment was cut off on December 28.
The majority leader issued his agenda for the month of January. There
was not a word in that agenda about extending unemployment for 1.3
million Americans. Every economist tells us that's a mistake. These
individuals need help. It is time for this House to focus on the
immediate needs of the American people and extend unemployment
insurance for 1.3 million Americans.
____________________
RECOGNIZING NATIONAL SLAVERY AND HUMAN TRAFFICKING PREVENTION MONTH
(Mr. PAULSEN asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. Speaker, January is National Slavery and Human
Trafficking Prevention Month. It is a perfect time to highlight the
terrible reality of sex trafficking that is happening in our
communities. It is also an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to take steps to
combat this growing problem that now puts 300,000 children at risk in
the United States--many of whom are 12- and 14-year-old girls.
I'm authoring several bipartisan bills to address sex trafficking.
One gives law enforcement additional tools to turn the tide against sex
trafficking and help the victims of these horrific crimes receive the
support they need and deserve. That's what these young girls are:
victims. The second bill improves data systems that track missing
children because better information will help us find better solutions.
Mr. Speaker, it's time to end sex trafficking, and there's bipartisan
support for action.
____________________
{time} 1915
TRIBUTE TO OFFICER ROBERT DECKARD
(Mr. GALLEGO asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
[[Page 94]]
Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Speaker, I rise on this first day of our 2014
session to pay tribute to a husband, a father, a son, and a San
Antonian.
Bobby Deckard was a San Antonio police officer who died on Friday,
December 20. He had come in on his day off to substitute for a
colleague. He was shot in the line of duty. He was only 31 years of
age.
This past Saturday, San Antonio and its citizens came together to
honor Bobby's life and bid him a final farewell. Thousands of people
lined the streets, and thousands of police officers from throughout the
country were present as police helicopters flew in formation above the
burial service, in remembrance of someone who spent 7 years of his life
helping the citizens of San Antonio.
During the ceremony, San Antonio Police Chief William McManus
instructed police dispatchers to retire Bobby's badge number, 0582, and
every officer throughout the city heard the retirement of that badge
number.
In a November email, ironically, Bobby Deckard had aspired to join
the honor guard, the honor guard that, in fact, escorted his flag-
draped coffin. In an email to his supervisor, he wrote that was the
highest position of honor inside the department. That tells us so much
about him, so much about him even as we mourn his loss. He had a
positive outlook and a great personality. His humor could win anybody
over.
Mr. Speaker and Members, I ask that we all take a moment to remember
Bobby Deckard, police officer from San Antonio, Texas, whose name will
now be added to the National Law Enforcement Memorial, the only
memorial in Washington that has never been completed.
____________________
SUPPORT FAIRNESS TO VETERANS ACT
(Mr. FITZPATRICK asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. FITZPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I introduced H.R. 2906, the Fairness to
Veterans Act, because I believe if anyone deserves a leg up in America,
it is those who have served on our behalf.
The Fairness to Veterans Act is straightforward. It says that if any
business receives a contracting preference, then a veteran-owned small
business should receive that very same preference. I call this bill
Fairness to Veterans because I believe it is only fair that if we are
going to be singling out certain businesses to receive special
consideration for government contracts, then that same benefit should
be extended to veteran-owned small businesses.
More than 250,000 servicemembers are transitioning each year from
military to civilian life; 2.4 million veterans own a small business of
their own. Overall, one in four veterans say they want to start a
business. This bipartisan bill makes sure that we are tapping into the
most highly skilled workforce in history and utilizing their unique
skills to get our economy moving again.
Mr. Speaker, whether my colleagues believe there should be
contracting preferences or not is not at the heart of this legislation.
The question here is: Do Members believe that veterans deserve to be on
a level playing field with anyone when bidding for government
contracts? I believe the answer to that question is a resounding
``yes.'' I urge my colleagues to cosponsor H.R. 2906.
____________________
EMERGENCY UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS
(Mr. DEUTCH asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Speaker, it is cold outside, and for too many
Americans who have been unemployed for too long because this Congress
has failed to act, it is now a little bit harder for those Americans
who are actively seeking work to get the emergency unemployment
benefits that they need so that they can keep their homes warm for them
and their families as they continue to seek employment.
For the 1.3 million Americans that we left behind by failing to
extend emergency unemployment benefits before we left, this is the week
when the check stops. This is the week when it becomes more difficult
for them to keep a roof over their heads, to keep a warm environment
for their families as they continue to seek employment.
Mr. Speaker, we have an obligation to move forward and make sure that
those benefits are continued. It is the right thing to do. It is time
for this Congress to act.
____________________
CONGRATULATING FLORIDA STATE SEMINOLES
(Mr. SOUTHERLAND asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute.)
Mr. SOUTHERLAND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate this
year's BCS national champions, the Florida State Seminoles.
In one of the greatest championship games of the BCS era, head coach
Jimbo Fisher and Heisman Trophy winner Jameis Winston led the Seminoles
to a thrilling, come-from-behind victory last night over the Auburn
Tigers, to a 34-31 victory. With 1 minute and 11 seconds left, the
Seminoles drove 80 yards to score the game-winning touchdown, thereby
capping an undefeated season.
As the Representative of Florida's Second Congressional District, I
could not be more proud. As the Bowl Championship Series comes to a
close, the Florida State faithful can forever take pride in knowing
that the last BCS title will forever reside in Tallahassee, Florida.
On behalf of the people of north and northwest Florida and Florida's
Second Congressional District, I extend my congratulations to the
coaches and players who helped us provide a wonderful year for the fans
and such an exciting season.
Mr. UPTON. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SOUTHERLAND. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. UPTON. I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman have an
additional 2 minutes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McAllister). The Chair cannot entertain
that request.
Mr. UPTON. In the gentleman's remaining time, I would just say
congratulations to Florida State. We from Michigan would love to see a
unanimous consent that perhaps the Seminoles could play the Spartans
for a national championship, and see that occur in the next couple of
months. But, congratulations. It was a great game. It kept us up
watching it.
Mr. SOUTHERLAND. I thank the gentleman very much for those sentiments
and that offer. We will contact the coaches and see what we can do.
Mr. UPTON. We will be ready.
Mr. SOUTHERLAND. Go Noles.
____________________
VISITING NORTH KOREA IS TERRIBLE IDEA
(Mr. ENGEL asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, Dennis S. Rodman of NBA fame has announced
that he and 10 or so other basketball players are going to North Korea,
he said, to visit his friend, the notorious butcher and dictator, Kim
Jong Un of North Korea.
Bringing American basketball to North Korea, a rogue state which has
nuclear weapons, which starves its own people and imprisons them and
throws them in jail, bringing American basketball there and sitting
down with a dictator like Mr. Kim would be the equivalent of taking
Adolf Hitler to lunch. This is really a terrible thing, a terrible
idea, and it makes us gloss over the terrible suffering of the North
Korean people and just ignore it and say, Well, we are going to play
basketball and we are going to make this guy look legitimate.
In a rambling discussion today on one of the networks, Rodman said
that he didn't even care that an American, Mr. Kenneth Bae, was
imprisoned in North Korea. At the very least we would hope that this
American who is imprisoned for no reason by this brutal dictator would
be released.
[[Page 95]]
We should not be clinking glasses or playing basketball with this
dictator. We should be demanding that an American citizen who committed
no crime be released.
____________________
CONGRATULATING RIVERSIDE PHARMACY ON ITS 60TH ANNIVERSARY
(Mr. COLLINS of Georgia asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute.)
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize a
business in my district that celebrated its 60th anniversary this week.
Riverside Pharmacy is an example of a small business that has
survived the economic downturn, changing health care landscape, and
often unfair playing field to continue serving the people of northeast
Georgia.
Local pharmacies, such as Riverside, play a vital role in America's
neighborhoods. They provide unparalleled guidance, assistance, and
resources for families, including my own.
Joann Adams and Charlie Johnson first opened Riverside on January 6,
1954. Now owned by Scottie Barton and Stephen Gee, Riverside Pharmacy
has served generations of Georgians, helping to guide them through the
often difficult health care decisions.
Although the world we live in looks far removed from the 1950s, the
focus of Riverside Pharmacy has remained on the patient. I am pleased
to offer my heartfelt congratulations to Riverside on their 60th
anniversary. We are so lucky to have them providing care to families in
northeast Georgia. The challenges facing independent community
pharmacies are great. But the important role they play in our towns and
States are even greater still.
____________________
AGREEMENT FOR COOPERATION BETWEEN THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE IN TAIWAN AND
THE TAIPEI ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE IN THE UNITED
STATES CONCERNING PEACEFUL USES OF NUCLEAR ENERGY--MESSAGE FROM THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES (H. DOC. NO. 113-86)
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following message
from the President of the United States; which was read and, together
with the accompanying papers, referred to the Committee on Foreign
Affairs and ordered to be printed:
To the Congress of the United States:
I am pleased to transmit to the Congress, pursuant to sections 123 b.
and 123 d. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C.
2153(b), (d)) (the ``Act''), the text of a proposed Agreement for
Cooperation Between the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) and the
Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States
(TECRO) Concerning Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy (the ``Agreement'').
I am also pleased to transmit my written approval, authorization, and
determination concerning the Agreement, and an unclassified Nuclear
Proliferation Assessment Statement (NPAS) concerning the Agreement. (In
accordance with section 123 of the Act, as amended by title XII of the
Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-
277), a classified annex to the NPAS, prepared by the Secretary of
State in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence,
summarizing relevant classified information, will be submitted to the
Congress separately.) The joint memorandum submitted to me by the
Secretaries of State and Energy and a letter from the Chairman of the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) stating the views of the Commission
are also enclosed. An addendum to the NPAS containing a comprehensive
analysis of the export control system of Taiwan with respect to
nuclear-related matters, including interactions with other countries of
proliferation concern and the actual or suspected nuclear, dual-use, or
missile-related transfers to such countries, pursuant to section 102A
of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 403-1), as amended, is
being submitted separately by the Director of National Intelligence.
The proposed Agreement has been negotiated in accordance with the Act
and other applicable law. In my judgment, it meets all applicable
statutory requirements and will advance the nonproliferation and other
foreign policy interests of the United States.
The proposed Agreement provides a comprehensive framework for
peaceful nuclear cooperation with the authorities on Taiwan based on a
mutual commitment to nuclear nonproliferation. The proposed Agreement
has an indefinite term from the date of its entry-into-force, unless
terminated by either party on 1 year's written notice. The proposed
Agreement permits the transfer of information, material, equipment
(including reactors), and components for nuclear research and nuclear
power production. The Agreement also specifies cooperation shall be in
accordance with the provisions of the Agreement and applicable legal
obligations, including, as appropriate, treaties, international
agreements, domestic laws, regulations, and/or licensing requirements
(such as those imposed by the NRC in accordance with 10 CFR 110 and the
Department of Energy in accordance with 10 CFR 810). It does not permit
transfers of Restricted Data, sensitive nuclear technology and
facilities, or major critical components of such facilities. The
proposed Agreement also prohibits the possession of sensitive nuclear
facilities and any engagement in activities involving sensitive nuclear
technology in the territory of the authorities represented by TECRO. In
the event of termination of the proposed Agreement, key
nonproliferation conditions and controls continue with respect to
material, equipment, and components subject to the proposed Agreement.
Over the last two decades, the authorities on Taiwan have established
a reliable record on nonproliferation and on commitments to
nonproliferation. While the political status of the authorities on
Taiwan prevents them from formally acceding to multilateral
nonproliferation treaties or agreements, the authorities on Taiwan have
voluntarily assumed commitments to adhere to the provisions of
multilateral treaties and initiatives. The Republic of China ratified
the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) in 1970
and ratified the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development,
Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin
Weapons and on Their Destruction (the ``Biological Weapons Convention''
or ``BWC'') in 1972. The authorities on Taiwan have stated that they
will continue to abide by the obligations of the NPT (i.e., those of a
non-nuclear-weapon state) and the BWC, and the United States regards
them as bound by both treaties. The authorities on Taiwan follow
International Atomic Energy Agency standards and directives in their
nuclear program, work closely with U.S. civilian nuclear authorities,
and have established relationships with mainland Chinese civilian
authorities with respect to nuclear safety. A more detailed discussion
of the domestic civil nuclear activities and nuclear nonproliferation
policies and practices of the authorities on Taiwan, including their
nuclear export policies and practices, is provided in the NPAS and in a
classified annex to the NPAS submitted separately. As noted above, an
addendum to the NPAS containing a comprehensive analysis of the export
control system of the authorities on Taiwan with respect to nuclear-
related matters is being submitted to you separately by the Director of
National Intelligence.
I have considered the views and recommendations of the interested
agencies in reviewing the proposed Agreement and have determined that
its performance will promote, and will not constitute an unreasonable
risk to, the common defense and security. Accordingly, I have approved
the Agreement and authorized its execution and urge the Congress to
give it favorable consideration.
This transmission shall constitute a submittal for purposes of both
sections
[[Page 96]]
123 b. and 123 d. of the Act. My Administration is prepared to begin
immediately the consultations with the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee as provided in
section 123 b. Upon completion of the 30 days of continuous session
review provided for in section 123 b., the 60 days of continuous
session review provided for in section 123 d. shall commence.
Barack Obama.
The White House, January 7, 2014.
____________________
{time} 1930
A GREAT DEAL OF NEWS TO REPORT
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McAllister). Under the Speaker's
announced policy of January 3, 2013, the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Gohmert) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority
leader.
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, a great deal of news has come out. So many
things have happened since we recessed in December. Some things did not
get the attention they should have.
This is an article from the Daily Caller, December 18, entitled:
``Senate Democrats Block Amendment to Restore Veteran Benefits by
Closing Illegal Immigrant Welfare Loophole.''
Mr. Speaker, it would seem by anyone's standard of morality that when
someone promises something in order to encourage or get someone else to
expose themselves to death, to brutal treatment, and that person does
so--they join the military, go through rigorous training, spend a
career 20 years or more defending the United States of America,
following orders--that it would be morally reprehensible for anyone, or
in this case any government, to pull back on the promises that were
made to those who served relying on those promises.
In courts, that doctrine would be called ``promissory estoppel.''
Promises are made to induce someone else to act, the other does act in
reliance on those promises to the actor's detriment, then in a court
system a civilian would be required under the doctrine of promissory
estoppel to provide what was promised.
But the United States Government is not subject to such claims in
court so it must rely upon Congress to have the moral compass and the
conscience to keep our promises to those who have served enough years,
long enough to retire. When I push for such benefits and the keeping of
our word to our veterans, it is not something that enures to my
benefit. I served in the Army, but only for 4 years. I did not reach
the 20-year mark or more that would have entitled me to the promises
that were made.
But I know so many who had the chance to go back and make more money
in the civilian sector and not give up their right of freedom of
assembly and had to assemble at 5 in the morning, as we often did, or
doing forced marches, as we did, or doing so many things that were not
fun or pleasant, but doing so because it was proper training to be in
the United States military. We owe those who have served to keep our
promises.
When George Washington resigned as commander of the revolutionary
military, it was an incredible act that constantly comes up both here
and abroad when people both here and around the world look for an
example of true selfless service to one's country. And how George
Washington could serve as commander of the revolutionary military, the
revolution is won, and he did what no one in the history of the world
has ever done: won the revolution as commander of the military and then
resign and in effect that I have done all you asked and now I am going
home.
That was brought up to me in the Maldive Islands some time back that
I was told was a relatively new democracy who were always worried about
a military coup because we never had a proper example like George
Washington, we never had a George Washington to set the proper example,
and has had a military coup since, I was told. Not only did George
Washington resign, but at the end of his resignation--and this was
something that was said to all 13 Governors--he had a prayer for the
country. Part of that prayer was that we would never fail to remember,
basically honoring those who have served.
Then apparently on December 18, the United States Senate voted
against restoring the benefits that were taken away from veterans
because they didn't want to close a loophole in the law that allows for
people who come here illegally to get welfare. Because if that loophole
had been closed, then people who come illegally would not be able to
get welfare, and the money saved by closing that loophole would be
enough to fund our promises that have been broken to our veterans under
the brand-new budget.
I hope very soon that we will have a chance to fix that in the House.
It is the right thing to do. How else will we have the moral authority
in Congress to do anything else? We can't keep our promises in answer
to the prayer that George Washington had that we would never forget
those, that we would help those who have served in the field, our
military. That is a travesty.
On December 19, the next day, there was an article in the Washington
Times: ``Homeland Security Helps Smuggle Illegal Immigrant Children
into the United States.'' It goes on to discuss a 10-page order by
Judge Andrew S. Hanen. And Judge Hanen, it says, said the case was the
fourth such case he had seen over the last month. And in each instance,
Customs and Border Protection agents have helped to locate and deliver
the children to their illegal immigrant parents.
Now, Republicans believe in the sanctity of marriage and the sanctity
and importance of families in America. When someone chooses to violate
United States law and enter the United States illegally without proper
documentation, no matter how noble the cause is believed to be to help
family--obviously that is a noble cause--but if it is done illegally,
without documentation, it is an incredible disservice and affects so
unfairly those who have stood in line, paid money after money, done
everything the right way to gain entrance into the United States
legally.
There is one person to whom I spoke last Thursday that he was married
to a woman that he tried for so long to get legally into the United
States and finally got her into the country legally. It is so grossly
unfair to the millions of people who have come into this country as
immigrants legally. We are a Nation of immigrants. As my friend Steve
King says, there is really not a nation in the world, perhaps, that is
not a nation of immigrants. But the United States certainly is.
One of the big reasons we have been able to become the most free--
until ObamaCare perhaps--but the most free Nation in the world with the
least government dictation and intervention in our private lives, and
been the most blessed country, I believe, even more so than Solomon's
Israel, is because we were a Nation of laws, as the Founders described
it, a Nation where no one was perceived to be above the law.
I even paid a parking ticket because people perceived that I had
violated a law and a National Park policeman who did not know the law,
was ignorant of the law, decided to give it. It was easier to pay the
$25 than it was to help teach the National Park policeman the law on
parking in Washington, D.C. Nobody is above the law. Nobody is supposed
to be above the law.
There are verses throughout the Old Testament and New Testament. So
many of the first hundred years of this Nation's existence had
scriptures quoted from the Old Testament and New Testament as a basis,
or reason, that particular legislation should be passed.
Well, one thing is clear in the Old Testament and New Testament: that
showing partiality, showing favoritism, to anyone--as Leviticus talks
about--whether it is to the very poor or the very wealthy, either way
it is not right; it is wrong.
If we are going to ever attain again moral authority as a Congress,
we have to make sure the law is applied fairly across the board. When
someone chooses to violate our laws by coming into the country, then we
have a President
[[Page 97]]
who took an oath to see that the laws of the United States are carried
out and properly executed. That means everyone who answers to the
President of the United States, including the Department of Homeland
Security, including Customs and Border enforcement, all of DHS, should
be following the law and pushing others to follow the law and seeing
that the law is followed.
But yet we see apparently case after case, shockingly, that Homeland
Security is getting involved in the human trafficking business carrying
children around the country, seeking them out.
{time} 1945
How about we get the parent together with the child in a country
where they are lawfully allowed to be?
How about being a good neighbor to Mexico? Instead of providing
weapons to drug cartels, which have killed hundreds of our neighbors in
Mexico, how about standing up against the drug cartels--not supplying
them weapons, not seeing that drug deals are done, which may help one
cartel over another, but actually being a good neighbor so that Mexico
becomes the country where people want to stay and work?
I have talked to so many Mexicans who really want to live in Mexico,
but they have trouble finding jobs. There is so much corruption in a
country where a police chief or a law enforcement officer or someone
trying to do the right thing or trying to stand up against the drug
cartel can end up with his head on a pike. That is our neighbor. Why
are we not helping our neighbor stop the killing in massive numbers of
our neighbor Mexicans? Instead, we have the Department of Homeland
Security, as found by the Federal courts, to continually be helping
people violate our own laws.
I want families together, but the law needs to be followed. That is
why you have judges, like I was, who have their hearts broken when they
have to enforce laws that they don't always believe in, but it is
because the laws are duly passed and signed into law by the executive
branch, because we took an oath to enforce the law and to follow the
law.
Then it was shocking to read this story in TheBlaze from December 27.
The headline: ``ATF Agent Sends Shock Waves Across Internet with
Explosive Allegations About `Fast and Furious' and Brian Terry's
Death.''
On down in the article, it says:
After the Terry slaying--in talking about Brian Terry, the
Federal agent who was killed--and an attempted cover-up
within the Justice Department, Dodson--in talking about this
ATF agent--provided evidence and testimony to Congress. His
revelations, later verified by an Office of the Inspector
General's report, ignited a national scandal over Fast and
Furious that resulted in a congressional contempt citation
against Attorney General Eric Holder and the replacement of
top ATF and Justice Department officials.
In his book, Dodson uses cautious language to characterize
his account of circumstances surrounding Terry's death,
saying the information is based on firsthand knowledge,
personal opinion and press reports. He asserts that the DEA
had information about and may have orchestrated a large drug
shipment through Peck Canyon that December night.
He was talking about the night Brian Terry was killed.
He alleges that DEA agents shared that intelligence with
FBI counterparts, who advised criminal informants from
another cartel that the load would be ``theirs for the
taking.''
Dodson laid out a strategy in which Federal law enforcement
agencies, like the FBI, allow criminal activity in order to
increase the clout of FBI informants embedded within cartel
organizations. ``If they can get these guys (informants) in a
position so they're closer to the tier 1 or tier 2 guy (in
the cartel), they'll do it . . . ''
Further down, the article says:
``Essentially, the United States Government is involved in
cartel-building,'' Dodson said.
The claims sound eerily familiar to allegations brought
forward by high-ranking Sinaloa Cartel operative Jesus
Vicente Zambada-Niebla, who is currently facing trial in
Chicago on Federal drug charges.
Further down, it says:
``(They) were given carte blanche to continue to smuggle
tons of illicit drugs into Chicago and the rest of the United
States, and were also protected by the United States
Government from arrest and prosecution in return for
providing information against rival cartels which helped
Mexican and United States authorities capture or kill
thousands of rival cartel members,'' the defense motion in
the case reads.
It is incredible what is going on, and it is only appropriate that,
if Congress is to continue funding these agencies and these
departments, we should have--and do have--the right to know what they
are doing with our money. That should also mean getting to the bottom
of Fast and Furious. There should be a select committee to get to the
bottom of what happened in Fast and Furious. Eventually, there should
be mainstream media components that actually do their job for a change,
which is so important to keeping a free nation, by actually going after
the administration they have put in place and demanding answers to the
questions of what happened with Fast and Furious.
We owe our friends to the south, our Mexican neighbors, answers to
what happened. It is outrageous for a government to treat a neighbor
like this. There is no reason that the country of Mexico should not be
one of the top 10 economies in the world. Mexico should be one of the
top 10 economies in the world. They have the natural resources. They
have got people willing to work and who are doing phenomenal work as we
have seen even in this country. They have a beautiful country, but they
need to be rid of the drug cartels. They need to be a nation of laws.
This eerily brings us back to the demand that some who come into this
country illegally make now: we want you to quit being a nation of laws,
ignore the law and say that we are legally here, though we came
illegally. Ironically, if we do that, we are no longer a nation of
laws, which would make us like the nation of Mexico, where graft and
corruption in so many places is the rule of the day, where cronyism is
the rule in so many places, where they don't have the freedom that we
have here from the fear of drug cartels.
I have mentioned a Washington Times story. Unfortunately, there was
one in the Washington Times today, entitled: ``Is Islam a religion of
peace or a religion of war?'' written by Rahat Husain. In this, Mr.
Husain shows that he is either one of the laziest reporters in the
world or that he is one of the biggest liars.
I quote from the article:
Of course, those who seek to vilify more than 1.6 billion
Muslims in the world do so with a serious disregard for logic
or morality. In 2010, Congresswoman Debbie Riddle and
Congressman Louie Gohmert put a theory into the public
discourse, that there was such a thing as a ``terror baby.''
I have never used that term to describe anybody. So, from Mr. Husain,
Mr. Speaker, that is an outrageous, abominable lie.
Now, it is quite possible he could have gotten that from so many of
the media sources that do what they do so well. I go back to a sign
that used to be above a blacksmith's shop. It was a re-creation of an
old blacksmith's shop just south of Fort Benning in a quaint, old
village. The sign above the blacksmith's door said: ``All types of
bending and twisting done here.'' So what happens is that some in the
mainstream, so-called, take a point that I make, twist it into
something I didn't say, create this straw dog that they can beat up
over and over and over and run that use up so much on the Internet
that, if you click on my name, you will see this term, though I have
never used it, and the point I made was a valid point.
This article says:
Despite the moral depravity of referring to infants as
terrorists--
which I never did. Mr. Husain is a liar--
Congressman Gohmert defended the notion and got into a
shouting match with CNN's Anderson Cooper, insisting on the
validity of his idea.
Mr. Husain's writing does not deserve to be considered as serious
literature if he is either that lazy or that significant of a liar. All
he would have to do is research. Hopefully, he did that research, which
would mean he is clearly one of the largest liars around. Now, if
either Anderson Cooper or Mr. Husain or others would do a little
homework--it doesn't take that much--they would
[[Page 98]]
find that something called ``birthright tourism'' is big around the
world. It is significant.
As I pointed out to Anderson Cooper, there had been an article
shortly before that about a Chinese tourist agency that, for a certain
amount of money, would get you a tourist visa into the United States
when you were pregnant. They would help you get your baby born and then
get you an American passport before you left. Then I saw, right after
that, an article where there was a Muslim-owned hotel in New York that
was hurt because they said they were the first ones to come up with
this idea of having, in their case, basically, Muslim pregnant women
come to the United States, have a baby, and then they would help you
get the American passport when you returned to your country.
The point that I was making--and it is still a legitimate point--is
that there are people who hate the United States, who come into this
country, who have a child. Children are a gift from God. They are--that
is why abortion is so wrong--and the responsibility that comes with
having a child: to train them up in a wholesome environment as best you
can, not to hate people. Yet we have children who leave this country
with an American passport and go back to the country where their
parents are citizens, and they are then raised to hate America.
Some may remember that, in 2011, a man named Anwar al-Awlaki, an
American citizen, was killed by a drone in Yemen. Anwar al-Awlaki had
been here on Capitol Hill numerous times. He had friends at the White
House. He had friends in this administration. He had been on Capitol
Hill, leading Muslim staff members in Muslim prayer. Why? How could he
do it? Because he was an American citizen. How was Anwar al-Awlaki an
American citizen? His parents came here on a visa to go to college.
{time} 2000
He was born, returned to Yemen, was raised to hate America, raised to
hate our Western democracy, and as an adult became a terrorist who
incited others to terrorism against the United States.
Perhaps some have heard of a guy named Al-Amoudi. Actually, I had the
paperwork, held it up for the Director of the FBI, Director Mueller,
and he was not aware at all that the Boston mosque that the Boston
bombers attended, were started--we had the paper on the Boston society
that did that. Al-Amoudi was the founder.
Al-Amoudi was a friend and an adviser in the Clinton administration,
but during the Bush administration, he was arrested at Dulles Airport
and later pled guilty and was sentenced to 23 years in prison for
supporting terrorism.
It might be worth noting for someone in Homeland Security or the
State Department that Al-Amoudi, convicted and now imprisoned for
supporting terrorism, while his wife was here on a visa, they had a
child, who is an American citizen.
A man named Morsi was President of Egypt until he began to disregard
the constitution of Egypt, to the extent that people rose up in Egypt
in numbers greater than anywhere in the history of the world and
demanded his ouster. As the Coptic Christian Pope has said, this wasn't
a coup; this was the Egyptian people rising up as never before,
reportedly, over twice the numbers that President Morsi claims voted
for him to make him President.
It appeared he was doing as Chavez had done. It appeared he was
doing, as one Egyptian told me, as the President who was elected in the
Gaza Strip had done. Once he had an election, he pulled all the power
to himself, and they didn't need elections after that. There would
never be anybody defeat him, like Chavez did in Venezuela. They could
see it happening. As one Egyptian told me in Egypt within the last few
weeks, if the Egyptian people had waited another year to try to remove
Morsi from office, they would have been unable, because he would have
pulled that much power unto himself.
So I think accolades should go out to the Egyptian people for rising
up and demanding democracy, demanding the fruition of a true Arab
Spring, and for people who are ignorant or promoting lies, like Mr.
Husain, if you would do some checking, you would find that I have
moderate Muslim friends around the world. Anyone--Muslim, secularist,
any persuasion, race, creed, color, or religion, if they believe in
freedom, they are brothers in liberty. Something I think it would do
well for this administration to learn at some point before it is too
late is, we should be able to work with the enemy of our enemy.
Moderate Muslims in Afghanistan do not want radical Islamists leading
and in charge of Afghanistan again. There is a simple answer to the
problem of us leaving Afghanistan, which will soon become Taliban-run
again, and this administration is bungling--even though the bungling
began in the last administration, in fairness it did--but the final
bungling will be by this administration if we don't take action to
prevent those who fought for this country from believing their loved
ones died in vain. I don't believe they did. They fought for liberty.
But I have heard from too many family members who have lost loved ones
in Afghanistan who have said, Don't let our loved ones have died in
vain.
The Taliban were defeated in a matter of months in Afghanistan, and
we did it with less than 500 embedded special ops and intelligence. We
gave air support and provided some weapons, and they defeated the
Taliban.
The former vice president under Karzai in the first administration,
former Vice President Masood, a friend of mine--a Muslim--rushed out of
his home to embrace me when I got there not too long ago, because he
knew I was his friend. I don't want him to live under radical Islam. He
doesn't want to live under radical Islam.
This friend said, Look, if you could just help us get an amendment to
our constitution. I said, What are you talking about? He said, Under
our constitution that you apparently rubberstamped, in essence, a
strong centralized government was created in a country that has been
and is and will be for the foreseeable future very tribal, very
regional. We tried to make it into a strong centralized government when
what the people wanted was a federalist system where the states, where
the regions had some self autonomy like we are supposed to have in this
country.
He said, If we could elect our own governors. It is a shock to so
many that the constitution that we thought was okay under the Bush
administration allows the President of Afghanistan to appoint the
regional governors, to appoint the mayors, to appoint the chiefs of
police. He appoints the top-level teachers. He appoints a slate of the
legislators for a part of the legislature. He has powerful abilities to
manipulate the purse strings.
What we created in Afghanistan--or helped them create--was a formula
for disaster and corruption. How could you give one man that much
authority to appoint and not expect corruption, when you get to appoint
all the governors. As my friend, former Vice President Masood told me
there at his home, if we could have an amendment that allowed us to
elect our governors, allowed us to elect our mayors, allowed us to
elect--or select, at least--our own chiefs of police, then our regions
would be strong enough to prevent the Taliban from taking back over the
whole country, and we could rally together, as we did before, to
overrun them and run them out of the country.
I said, What makes you think that the United States could help push
an amendment through your own constitution? That needs to happen here
in Afghanistan, I said. He pointed out, Do you have any idea how much
our federal government budget is? I had to admit I didn't know. He
said, around $12.5 billion of your dollars. He said, Do you know how
much Afghanistan provides of our $12.5 billion or so budget? I didn't
know. About $1.5 billion.
Other moderate Muslims there were all in agreement, You need to help
us with this. He said that most of the rest of that $11 billion comes
from the United States. You have the leverage to help us get an
amendment to our constitution.
[[Page 99]]
Instead of trying to work out some messed up Status of Forces
Agreement, as we have seen this administration try to do in Iraq, to no
avail, instead of doing that, why don't we start pushing Karzai and
say, you help get an amendment in there so you don't get to appoint
everybody who is anybody in this country. We will let each state or
each region elect their own governor. Let's get that amendment in
there. Otherwise, we are going to cut every dime of support off. That
might have some sway.
We have the ability, we have the leverage, and we have, for a little
bit longer, before we totally lose it, some moral authority to seek
that on behalf of our moderate Muslim friends in Afghanistan who don't
want to be killed because they fought with us and for us in defeating
the Taliban before we became occupiers, before we gave them a
centralized government that the Taliban can easily take over when we
leave.
We owe them that, and we owe ourselves that, because if we can
empower the enemy of the Taliban to continue to keep the Taliban at bay
in Afghanistan, we have done a great thing. We have helped our country,
and we have helped our moderate Muslim friends in Afghanistan who do
not want to live under Taliban tyranny again, and they don't want to
die and be killed because they helped us and then we abandoned them. We
owe them that.
I hope Mr. Husain that is writing this garbage for The Washington
Times will do a little research. He will also find out, if he did so,
that President Morsi, the Muslim brother who was elected President,
reportedly--some say it was a fraudulent election, or election
results--but anyway, he was made President and then began to abuse the
constitutional powers and tighten the reins around him.
I was told by friends who love Israel that this is really exciting
because Morsi is really our friend. He is really cleaning up the Sinai.
After Morsi was removed, we found out the Sinai has been incredibly
militarized by Morsi. What would you expect of a man who had said that
Jews are descendants of apes and pigs? That is not a friend of Israel.
Yet you have the Egyptian Government now taking action to
demilitarize, to fight the radical Islamists in the Sinai that pose a
threat to the Suez Canal, that pose a threat to our friend, Israel, and
they are actually trying to take action. What did this administration
do? They had promised 10 Apache helicopters to the Morsi presidency, to
that regime.
When the people of Egypt rose up in true democratic form and demanded
and got the ouster of a man trying to become a tyrant, this
administration wanted Morsi put back in place, and even sent a couple
of Republican senators over there to ask for Morsi to be released from
prison. They didn't even know, as General el-Sisi finally admitted to
me in the presence of our Ambassador, that, yes, they had evidence that
Morsi was trying to have a contract to have General el-Sisi killed.
Murdered. Trying to higher a contract killer. That was just one of the
many problems that Morsi created.
President Morsi said he backed off his membership, his participation
in the Muslim Brotherhood. Right. There is video of him having orders
dictated, delivered to him, on what he should do by the supreme leader
there.
What happened when Morsi was removed? The Muslim Brotherhood went
berserk.
{time} 2015
They began burning churches by the dozens, killing Christians,
persecuting Jews and Christians like never before, persecuting moderate
Muslims.
I am so proud of the people of Egypt. They want a democracy. A man
named Amr Moussa was appointed as chairman of the Constitutional
Convention. Incredibly diverse groups there, incredibly diverse
interests; yet they all agreed on this to start out, under Moussa's
leadership, that unless 75 percent of all of those delegates to the
Constitutional Convention agreed on a provision, it wouldn't be there.
As Chairman Moussa pointed out to me personally, he said, you know,
we learned from your Constitution. Basically, he said, you know, our
prior constitution, under Morsi, had no provision for impeachment.
There was no way to lawfully remove him under that constitution, which
was the way Morsi wanted it.
In their new constitution, they have provisions for impeachment. And
this Constitutional Convention was led by moderate Muslim friends like
Amr Moussa. And it was endorsed by the Sheikh of al-Azhar, a very well-
respected Muslim leader, and has been endorsed by so many Muslim
leaders.
They don't want radical Islam in charge. Moderate Muslims can be and
are our friends.
And instead, this administration canceled the order for the 10
Apaches, or at least suspended it. And what is Egypt doing with the
Apaches they already have?
They are fighting radical Islamists in the Sinai, and they are making
sure ships get through the Suez Canal. Well, that should be a worthy
endeavor, worthy of this administration not condemning a true
democracy-in-the-making in Egypt, but trying to help them keep the Suez
Canal open, trying to help them demilitarize the radical Islamists
controlling the Sinai, as a threat to the Suez, to Egypt and to our
friends, Israel and Jordan, and others.
If that Constitutional Convention is approved, which will be voted on
in Egypt January 14 and 15, article 64 is a provision for freedom,
stating that freedom of belief is absolute. You have an absolute
freedom to believe in whatever religious beliefs you care to believe in
without the government's harm.
What we are seeing here is really, if it works out, the people
approve it, is the beginning of what we saw in Turkey with Ataturk so
many decades ago, when he overran radical Islam and Turkey bloomed and
became a great nation under his leadership and under those who followed
what he set forth.
Article 93 of the new Egyptian Constitution commits that Egypt is
obligated to observe all human rights that Egypt has ever endorsed and
in all treaties to which it has agreed.
Article 235 was shocking to me. In their new constitution, the
moderate Muslims of Egypt, who want a democracy, they felt so badly
about the radical Islamists that make up the Muslim Brotherhood burning
so many churches, persecuting, killing so many Christians, that article
235 requires that the first parliament pass a law to deal with the
churches that were burned to ensure that Egypt rebuilds those churches
for them.
What a statement to the world about the freedom they want to see take
place. That is why it was so moving to people that told me about being
there firsthand during those, the revolutionary masses, as they came
forward by the millions, holding hands, figuratively and literally,
Christians, moderate Muslims, secularists, Jews, saying we don't want
radical Islam.
It is high time this administration began helping the enemy of our
enemy, instead of trying to help our enemy.
As General al-Sisi asked me, are you and the United States still with
us in the war against terror?
He and others commented to the effect that United States leaders do
not seem to believe we are still having to fight terrorists anymore.
They are fighting them in this new government.
Now, to be sure, they have got a long, tough road ahead because they
are already where this nation is heading, with a massive welfare state,
where so many of the citizens are getting giveaways from the
government, where they have tried this idea of redistribution of the
wealth and it has led to many more and more richer people, and much,
much poor people, just as we have seen in this Nation in the last 5
years, and it needs to stop.
Another thing that needs to stop was reported in Breitbart, written
by Frances Martel: ``State Department Whistleblower Has E-Mail
Hacked.'' The story talks about the whistleblower who helped expose
misconduct by Hillary Clinton's security detail had his Gmail account
hacked and key evidence against State Department officials deleted,
according to an exclusive New York Post report.
[[Page 100]]
Diplomatic Security Service Criminal Investigator Richard Higbie had
exposed earlier this year that the State Department allegedly covered
up reports alleging improprieties by Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton's security detail in which they had engaged with prostitutes
abroad. Those reports would have also exposed the Belgian Ambassador's
alleged attempts to solicit. And it goes on.
But the article says the Gmail hack deleted 4 years' worth of
messages, according to Schulman, including significant damning evidence
against high-ranking officials in the State Department. It also
included messages with evidence sent to Members of Congress and their
offices investigating the story. Higbie has called for the FBI to
investigate the hacking, and continues to have unanswered questions
about other strange occurrences since he began to expose the covered-up
investigation.
The article goes on, and that goes hand-in-hand with another story
that was reported in the past 6 months or so of a whistleblower having
her and her husband's home burglarized, and they ended up taking all of
that reporter's files that she had used to expose wrongdoing,
misconduct, within the very department that raided her home and took
her records and won't give them back.
At the same time, this administration continues to send people to the
nation of Israel, the Jewish State, the home where people could come by
the millions after 6 million were killed in the Holocaust of World War
II.
We have the nerve to send people over to the leaders of Israel and
tell them they have got to give away more land, when every time they
have given away land, whether it was northern Israel, that is now
southern Lebanon, or whether it is the Gaza Strip, anything they have
given away ends up being used as a staging area from which to attack
it; and those to whom the land is given use our money we provide for
books to teach their children to hate Jews, to hate Israelis, and to
hate the United States.
As I have said for years, you don't have to pay people to hate you.
They will do it for free. We could make our word good to our veterans
if we just quit paying the people that hate us. Let them hate us for
free. Maybe they would learn to like us and come ask to work with us
and find out we are actually pretty decent people if we quit paying
them to hate us.
The Palestinians, was reported, January 1 in this Jerusalem Post
article, said Palestinians reiterate plans to reject any framework
accord presented by the U.S. And yet we send over a Secretary of State,
well-meaning, and others, to demand Israel give up more land to people
that say they will reject it, but give us more land from which we can
attack you.
I think about the verses in Jeremiah, where the prophecy is there
that there will be grapes grown in the mountains of Samaria, that some
are saying doesn't belong to Israel. Well it used to; 1,600 years
before a man named Mohammed was born, King David was ruling in that
region.
But over the years, over the decades and centuries, people have said,
look, that area, those mountains of Samaria will not grow grapes. That
is ridiculous. And yet in the past couple of years, I have tasted those
grapes. The vineyards are beautiful. They are Israeli, Jewish vineyards
in the mountains of Samaria, just as Jeremiah prophesied would happen,
that God would make it happen.
And we send a Secretary of State over saying, you have got to give
away what you believe God providentially provided to you. We, the
United States, know more than any god you believe in. Give it away.
It has been prophesied. I would hate to go against prophecy.
And yet this article from the Telegraph, Iran Nuclear Deal, Saudi
Arabia warns it will strike out on its own. As Steve King, Michelle
Bachmann and I, Robert Pittenger, traveled to some of the countries in
the Middle East, as others of us traveled around the Middle East back
in September, it is incredible, but this administration, with what it
is doing in Iran, the rest of the Middle East believes is going to
allow Iran to have nukes and Saudi Arabia and our other allies and our
enemies all want nukes, and nuclear proliferation will become just a
rule of thumb, which is why I think this article appeared January 2 in
the Washington Times, showing a comment that makes sense now, but
``Anti-Communist Icon Decries Obama: U.S. No Longer Leads the World.''
This was from Lech Walesa, and he had great hopes for the United
States. He obviously had great hopes for this administration.
He said whatever hope in the world existed that Obama would reclaim
moral leadership for America when elected in 2008 is gone, and instead
the President has failed to bring that dream to fruition, he told CNN.
We have to do everything we can to recreate, to reclaim America's
role, and it seems that Obama would manage that, but he didn't
accomplish that. America did not regain its leadership status. We're
just lucky there were no bigger conflicts in the world, because if it
had had bigger conflicts, then the world would be helpless.
The trouble is, 2014 will be a year in which there are bigger
conflicts, bigger issues. It is time we did the moral thing by our
military veterans. It is time we did the moral thing by stopping the
spending of children and grandchildren and great grandchildren's money.
And it is time we did the moral thing by our friends and quit helping
our friends' enemies hurt our friends.
{time} 2030
We need to regain, as Lech Walesa said, the moral authority we once
had. That can be done, and we need to seize the day and do it.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________
JOBS
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Wenstrup). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 3, 2013, the gentleman from California (Mr.
Garamendi) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority
leader.
Mr. GARAMENDI. I thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is good to return from our 3 weeks back in our districts. I
suspect that most of us spent time talking to our constituents,
observing the good and the bad and the cold and the wet--not in
California, where we have been in the midst of a drought--but working,
as we should, back in our districts and also spending some time with
our families along the way. For me, it was one of those periods of time
where we were reaching out, trying to gain an understanding of the
challenges that face our constituents.
As I returned here today, I realized that in 1964, Mr. Speaker, right
below you on the podium where one of our key assistants is now
standing, a fellow by the name of Lyndon Baines Johnson gave a speech--
here is a picture of him--on January 8, 1964, speaking to a joint
session of Congress. I think it was his first speech after becoming
President, following the tragic assassination of President Kennedy.
There he stood. And among the things he told America was that it was
time for a war, a war on poverty, and he urged the United States to
take on the troubling and continuing issue of poverty in the United
States.
I remember that speech. I was in college at the time. I remember him
standing there, and I remember that challenge, following shortly upon
the challenge that President Kennedy had given us to ask not what our
country could do for us but, rather, what we could do for our country.
So those two things came together, and they have been with me these
many, many years, together with one other very famous and very
important challenge. And this was from Franklin Delano Roosevelt. It is
etched into the marble in his memorial here in Washington, D.C.
President Roosevelt said:
The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the
abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide
enough for those who have too little.
That ethical moral position was taken up by Lyndon Baines Johnson
[[Page 101]]
when he declared the war on poverty 50 years ago--50 years ago--at a
time when seniors in the United States, 47 percent of them, were
impoverished.
I remember well during those years when my father took me to the
county hospital to visit a neighbor, the poverty, the ward, the odor,
the hopelessness.
So what did America do? What did America do to face this challenge?
Well, Social Security was already in place, one of the fundamental
pillars to deal with poverty among seniors. In this Chamber, in the
Senate Chamber, the men and women who then represented the American
people put forward an extraordinary effort to deal with poverty in the
United States. And one of those major second pillars to address poverty
was the establishment of the Medicare program for seniors. Men and
women over 65 years of age were guaranteed that, if they lived to 65 in
the days and years following, they would have a health insurance
program, which was an incredible step forward.
Many other things were done. Programs were put in place for jobs, job
programs across this Nation, in Appalachia, in the Central Valley of
California, and all across this Nation. There was an outpouring of
sympathy, an outpouring of the basic morality of this country took
place.
In 1967, 29 percent of the children in this country were in poverty.
In 2012, it was 19 percent, one out of five. That is far too high. It
is a challenge for our generation.
How did they bring it down from 29 percent to 19 percent? They did it
with government programs of many kinds--Head Start, food stamp
programs, programs dealing with earned income tax credits, which, by
the way, was added during the Nixon period. All of those things
together reduced the poverty. Today, take away those government support
programs for children and we would have 30 percent of the children in
the United States living in poverty.
I would just like to remind my Republican colleagues that what they
have attempted to do this year in their budgets, in their appropriation
proposals, is to reduce those programs that 30 percent of the children
of the United States--nearly one out of three--depend upon to stay out
of poverty. That is not a good idea.
If this is one of our moral compasses, adding to the abundance of
those who have much or providing for those who have too little, if that
is a moral compass, how are we doing? Well, let's look at it. Let's
look at how we are doing.
One of the things that FDR said from the four freedoms: the freedom
from want. As a result of the Great Recession in 2010 and beyond, 46.2
million Americans live below the poverty level, the highest number in
52 years. Food lines in America today are as they were in the 1930s.
Men and women are lining up at the various food programs to get food.
That is America today.
How about the children? How about the children today, those one in
five? Well, let's see. If FDR says the test is not how well the wealthy
are doing but, rather, how the poor are doing, in 2012, the wealthiest
Americans took home the biggest share of income--the biggest share of
income, in 2012--ever recorded in America's history. One out of every
four children in America go to bed at night not knowing where their
next meal comes from.
In my own area, Sacramento, California, as reported by the Sacramento
Bee, the capital's newspaper, the bottom 20 percent of the region's
people lost 27 percent of their income between 2007 and the beginning
of 2013. The bottom 20 percent earned less than $23,000 a year, yet
they lost 27 percent of their income. The next 20 percent, those making
$43,000 down to $23,000 lost 22 percent of their income. The next 20
percent--we are now up to 60 percent--those making between $43,000 and
$71,000 in annual income, lost 15 percent of their income. This is
America today in my area, where the bottom 60 percent have not moved
forward but, rather, have moved backwards. Oh, but if you are in the
top 20 percent, these folks here, they took in 50 percent of all of the
income generated and earned in the Sacramento region. The bottom 20
percent took in 3 percent.
So Franklin Delano Roosevelt, how are we doing with our moral
compass? How are we doing? Are we adding to those who have little or
are we adding to those who have much?
It is clear that, not just in the Sacramento, California, region but
across this Nation, those who have much are doing extraordinarily well
while those who have little are falling further and further behind.
Hmm.
Fifty years ago today, President Lyndon Baines Johnson stood right
there and he declared a war on poverty. And where are we today? We are
not winning that war at all. But there are solutions. There are ways in
which we can deal with this, and one of them is to put a stop to this
kind of situation.
This is a photo taken outside of a workshop that I conducted in
Fairfield, California, for the unemployed. It is a jobs workshop. In a
town of less than 100,000, 1,000 people showed up seeking a job.
Unemployment is very real, and unemployment is a specific cause for the
statistics that indicate growing poverty in America.
These folks want a job. But yet on December 28, 1.2 million
Americans--some of them here in this line--lost their unemployment
insurance. So are they wealthier having lost an average of $265 a week
on a long-term unemployment insurance check or are they poorer? What
are they going to do? Of every one of these people, 2.9 of them are
looking for the one job that exists. So one out of three will find a
job, maybe.
The long-term unemployed have an even greater challenge, and we will
talk about that tonight. We have an enormous challenge here in America.
We have got to put people back to work.
In Solano County, where Fairfield is, 2,640 of the folks that stood
outside searching for a job in early December--by the way, the
temperature there was not below zero, but it was below freezing--they
were standing in the cold, below freezing temperatures for more than an
hour to get in just to have a chance to talk to the 50 or some
employers that were there.
By the way, 50 veterans did get an opportunity to get a job that day.
2,640 long-term unemployed lost their unemployment insurance, and they
don't have a job today. So what of them?
Colusa County, which I also represent, is one of the poorest counties
in America and is also one of the wealthiest counties for those at the
top. A population of 21,244 people lost their unemployment insurance.
{time} 2045
The stories are in the faces of these people desperate to go to work.
We're going to talk today a little bit about that with my colleagues.
A second way in which we can deal with this poverty issue is to deal
with the minimum wage. Yesterday, I had a meeting of my agricultural
advisory committee. I have a very big agricultural district, $3 billion
farm gate. One of the farmers, a conservative fellow, came up to me,
and he talked to me about food stamps. He said, hey, listen. I know
you're working on the farm bill, and I know this issue of farm
subsidies is very much in play, but I'm telling you where I'm coming
from. You can reduce the subsidies, but make sure people have food.
Make sure that the SNAP program, the food program, is in place. I'll
trade the subsidies so people have food. He said--and this was the
interesting part, because I had not heard it from a conservative
before--he said, and raise the minimum wage. Raise the minimum wage.
Interesting. Today, the Federal minimum wage is $7.25. If you were to
use equal dollars, take out the inflation, $7.25 equates to a minimum
wage in 1978--this is Ronald Reagan period, 1978--of $10.60. So in
equal dollars in 1978 the minimum wage was $10.60. Today, it is $7.25.
So you wonder why, why is it that in America today we have food lines?
Why is it in America today that one out of four children goes to bed
hungry worried about where their next meal is going to come from? Why
in America after 50 years with LBJ standing right there and declaring a
war on poverty, that we are where we are today?
[[Page 102]]
Does minimum wage have something to do with it? Oh, yes. Does
unemployment have something to do with it? Oh, yes--and it's going to
be worse tomorrow, as it was on December 29, January 1, January 5, 6,
today the 7th and tomorrow the 8th, when 1.2 million people don't have
that unemployment check and unemployment insurance is gone. By the way,
it will get worse unless this Congress acts on the unemployment
insurance. The statistics are there--right there. By the end of this
year, unless Congress acts to put people back to work--and we can, and
we will talk about that tonight--unless Congress acts to extend the
unemployment insurance, 4.9 million Americans will lose their
unemployment insurance, and this will be the face of America: hungry
children. This will be the face of America: hungry adults and families
without jobs.
This is America. This is the place where we can solve problems. We
have it within our capability as a nation and as an economy to put
people back to work. We can do it if we have the will to do it. It's up
to us to look into the faces of poverty in America, to look at the
children of America, and say, we can address this issue.
We can put people back to work. We can do it now by rebuilding
America's infrastructure. We can pay for the unemployment insurance by
not spending nearly $90 billion this year in Afghanistan for the most
corrupt government on the face of the Earth, $6.8 billion needed to
keep Americans with food, shelter, and clothing. We can take it out of
the pocket of Mr. Karzai and his cronies and still meet the challenges
that my colleague spoke about earlier this evening.
We're making choices here. We can build our infrastructure. We can
pay for the unemployment insurance. We can educate our children. For
those long-term unemployed that need a reeducation, need to have that
job skill, we can do it. When we do it, this economy will grow. The
taxes will flow into the governments of the United States, including
the Federal Government. The deficits will shrink. You leave that long-
term unemployment as high as it is today, and we have put an anchor out
the back of the great economic ship of the United States, and we will
not be able to move forward in a way that addresses this issue, this
fundamental, moral issue of America. Are we providing enough for those
who have too little? Today, we are not, but we can.
Joining me tonight are two of my colleagues. From the east coast is
Paul Tonko. You and I have spent many hours here on the floor
discussing these issues. Joining me is our new colleague from the State
of Nevada (Mr. Horsford). I'd like you to start. I know you had an
experience this last week in your district when you met with people
that were unemployed. Please share with us your view of this issue from
the State of Nevada.
Mr. HORSFORD. Thank you. First, I'd like to extend my appreciation to
my colleague, Mr. Garamendi from California, for laying out the case
for economic mobility. I'm glad that we're beginning to have this
discussion at the beginning of this second session of the 113th
Congress because it's the discussion that the American people
desperately need this Congress to focus on, and you touched on it. Are
we providing enough for the people who have too little? Are we focused
on those who are in the middle class and are striving to be part of the
middle class?
I'm from Nevada. Nevada is currently tied with Rhode Island for the
highest unemployment in the Nation at 9 percent. This is not something
that we're proud of. We like boasting about being the entertainment
capital of the world and the fact that we have some of the most
magnificent natural resources. Unfortunately, the prolonged recession
has hit our State and the people of Nevada to our core, and it's
because, in large part, our economy was a growth economy. For nearly 20
years, year over year, we had double-digit growth, and people were
moving to the great State of Nevada to help us build and to grow.
During the recession, that changed. So, now, thousands, over 100,000,
Nevadans are unemployed and have been, primarily from the construction,
engineering, and architecture sectors of our economy.
Thousands of Nevadans have spent more than a year now doing what many
of us here in Congress maybe haven't had the perspective of
experiencing. So my question to my colleagues tonight is, have you ever
been unemployed? Do you know what it feels like to have to go to a work
center or to spend your days full-time looking for work? Do you know
what it means to submit resume after resume, never to get a call back,
not knowing if it's your skills or some other issue as to why you're
not getting that interview?
Well, thousands of Nevadans have the full-time job right now of
looking for work, and I recently held a meeting at a local work center,
Workforce Connections, and met with constituents who are affected by
this prolonged recession and the discussion that we're having here
tonight about the need to have a priority and a focus on creating jobs
in America again.
They've been affected by the downturn in the economy, and they've
been affected by the expiration of unemployment benefits, many of them.
I promised that when I came back to Congress today that I would share
the story of several of these constituents because too often we talk in
this Chamber as if there aren't people behind the numbers.
There are 1.3 million Americans, our neighbors, who are without
unemployment insurance. Think about that term--insurance, of the
unemployment insurance program, who are relying on this Congress to do
its job so that our neighbors, our friends, and some of our family who
are unemployed cannot be left out and without.
So I just want to share the story of several of these constituents
because I want to put a perspective on who we're talking about. One of
the constituents, her name is Pauline. She's worked in a warehouse
customer service position. She has a degree in bookkeeping.
Unfortunately, after more than 20 years in serving as an accountant,
her skills are outdated, and so as she has looked for current jobs, she
hasn't been able to land one. She was laid off because technology
devalued her position, and there was no longer a need for her services.
She currently lives at a home with her husband and two adult offspring,
who are also looking for work. One of her daughters just got hired,
actually yesterday, as a teacher. She was very proud of that. So do you
know what she is doing after 20 years? She has enrolled in a training
program to update her skills in QuickBooks so that she can add that
certification to her resume, because that's one of the things that the
employers that she's applying for say that they want her to have, this
certification. She's using the unemployment insurance as a bridge while
she's in training to allow her and her family to meet their basic
obligations to keep a roof over their head, to provide food on the
table and to keep the lights on. Those are the basics that are being
funded because of unemployment insurance.
Then there is Alfordeen. She was laid off from the medical industry
after more than 20 years as an administration person. She handled all
of the admissions for this local medical company in southern Nevada.
She is currently looking to obtain her certification for her to meet
the minimum requirements for current positions in her field. She is
also a cancer survivor. She found out she had cancer after she lost her
job, the job that provided her health benefits. She was thankful
because of the Affordable Care Act she now can get insurance again that
she lost because she lost her job. After more than 20 years of caring
for people in the health care industry, she is now relying on
unemployment insurance as a bridge so that she can meet her obligations
while going to school so that she can get back into the career that she
loves, helping other people.
Teresa also was laid off from the medical industry. She is in need of
updated skills and certification in order to find gainful employment.
One of the things that struck me about the stories, listening to
Teresa, Alfordeen, and Pauline, is they all expressed the same concern
that because they've been in the workforce for 20--one was in the
[[Page 103]]
workforce for 30 years--that they feel that they're not being given an
equal shot now in competing for jobs when they go to apply, that they
feel like because of their age, maybe, that they're being looked over
for possible positions.
I think that's a real issue that this Congress needs to confront. I
know that there is legislation by people like Representative Schakowsky
and others who want to bring this issue to this body, and I ask the
Speaker to allow that legislation to be considered.
{time} 2100
There is James, who worked also as a customer service representative
and who is enrolled in a training program to become a medical biller
because he knows that is a demand occupation right now and there are a
ton of openings. Again, he needs to have a certification in order to
get the job.
Then there is Susan, who is currently unemployed, and her
unemployment funds stopped 3 weeks ago. She is a single mother who is
caring for her daughter and receives no child support. She has no
family to rely upon, and she is not eligible nor seeking welfare.
All of the Nevadans that I have met with have had their unemployment
insurance lapse, and they are scrambling to make ends meet. No one,
none of them, wants to live on unemployment insurance forever. In fact,
they all said to a person that they wanted to go to work. Some of them
were in training, and they were using unemployment as a bridge. Others
go to the Workforce Connections office on a regular basis every week
looking for jobs to apply for. None of them are lazy, Mr. Speaker.
When unemployment insurance expires, it doesn't just mean those
struggling to find work won't be able to put food on the table or pay
the rent; it means money that is pumped into our local economy will
also be lost, and that is a serious drag on the economy. So if you
don't want to listen to me talk about the people who are affected
behind the 1.3 million who are losing their unemployment insurance, the
20,000 Nevadans, then maybe you will care that this is a drag on our
economy, and you will do the right thing by extending the unemployment
insurance.
Overall, failing to renew the emergency unemployment compensation
program will cost the economy 200,000 jobs this year, according to the
Congressional Budget Office, including 3,000 jobs in my home State of
Nevada. The expiration of Federal unemployment insurance at the end of
last week is already taking more than $400 million out of pockets of
American job seekers nationwide and in local and State economies. In
Nevada, the total economic benefit lost during the first week of the
insurance expiring was $5.4 million. For every $1 spent on unemployment
insurance, it grows the economy by $1.52, according to Mark Zandi,
chief economist at Moody's Analytics. So there are some 17,600
unemployed workers in Nevada who have lost their unemployment benefits
because this Congress failed to do its job in December when we had an
opportunity to do it.
I urged the Speaker, along with 170 of my colleagues, to not adjourn,
to not go on recess until we completed the work of extending the
unemployment insurance, but that request was not acted upon. So we are
here, and as my colleagues have said, there are things, there are
solutions that we can do to extend the unemployment insurance.
If you want to offset it, if you want to have pay-fors, I would like
to offer a couple of suggestions on how to pay for it. In order to
offset funding for unemployment insurance, Congress could close a
number of corporate tax loopholes, such as eliminating tax incentives
for companies to move jobs overseas. Why is it that we continue to
incentivize major corporations, based on U.S. tax policy, for shipping
jobs overseas when we have Americans who are desperate for work right
here? Why should big CEOs get corporate bonuses at the end of the year
for sending our jobs to other countries when the people in our own
neighborhoods could be performing that work?
The United States loses an estimated $150 billion annually to tax-
avoidance schemes involving tax havens. Many of our largest and most-
profitable corporations paid absolutely no Federal taxes at all in
2011. So Congress could also find revenue by placing caps on commodity
payments or eliminating or reducing subsidies to mega-farms in the farm
bill that is currently being negotiated. So for whatever reason, if my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle think that it is the
constituents I talked about, who get $300 or $400 a week, who are the
problem with the Federal budget, that they are the reason that we have
a Federal deficit, then I would urge you to consider these pay-fors.
Let us end the corporate tax subsidies. Let us end the policies that
ship our jobs overseas, and let's start investing in America and
Americans again. There are reasonable solutions, but that means we have
to come together to get it done. We can't let rigid ideology trump the
practical need to help those in need.
I thank my colleagues, Mr. Garamendi and Mr. Tonko, for being here
tonight, and I am hopeful that the Senate, under the leadership of
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and my U.S. Senator, Republican Dean
Heller, who is a cosponsor on the unemployment insurance bill, extend
it for 3 months. They are working in the Senate to reach an agreement.
I hope that the Speaker and my colleagues in the House will take it up
and vote on it so that none of our neighbors go without unemployment
insurance to provide for themselves or their families.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Horsford, thank you very much for bringing to us
the message from Nevada, the message of compassion and the message of
hope and the challenge that we face. This House is fortunate, as are
the constituents that have elected you, to have your voice heard on the
floor and heard across America.
Now, over the last 3 years, my colleague from New York and I have
talked about jobs, talked about making it in America, and talked about
this problem of unemployment. So joining me now is Paul Tonko from the
great State of New York.
Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Representative Garamendi, for leading us in
this discussion for an hour of focus on solutions that are possible out
there, within our grasp, easily within our grasp. As you and the
gentleman from Nevada (Representative Horsford) have highlighted with a
very, very strong context placed in terms of the human impact here, and
the great compassion with which you spoke, I couldn't help but think
that we are challenged in this given moment by a very daunting series
of questions, most notably: Do we reject our history, or do we respect
our history?
Our history, replete with success stories, perhaps in some of our
darkest, deepest, painful hours, should inspire and direct and
challenge us, guide us in a way that enables us to embrace the
progressive voices of the past and use that in an instructive measure
to move forward with the socially correct thing to be done so as to
respond to those needs of the many, the bulk of the middle-income
community that beacons us to be there and to be there in such a
measure. Do we respect that history? Representative Garamendi shared
the words of President Franklin Roosevelt. Are we willing to add to
those who have plenty? We were challenged by President Johnson in his
message addressing the war on poverty.
Today, as all of these statistics were exchanged by my two
colleagues, I couldn't help but recall the fact that we are reaching
some of the greatest measures of productivity in our business
community, in our industrial settings today. Where is the sharing of
success? Where is the sharing with the middle-income community, the
workers who have produced that sort of productivity? So let me
understand this. The growth of the top 1 percent, the top income strata
of our society, has been exponentially strong, all while we have seen a
diminishing of the growth, the potential growth of our middle-income
community or a flat-lining, all while we have been most productive in
our industry and business settings. Where is the economic justice?
Where
[[Page 104]]
is the sharing that allows for us to enhance that purchasing power of
the middle-income community? That is the economic engine of this
Nation.
So as we are faced with these given statistics, as we are challenged
with these economic times in the post-recession recovery, the moral
compass should guide us, if not our history, replete with success
stories. Do we respect our history or do we reject our history?
I would suggest those progressive voices of the past that led us
through our darkest hours envisioned an outcome that strengthened
everyone in the equation, not playing toward favorites, because, in my
opinion, catering to a small percentage of the population is a
dangerous outcome for them. In order to succeed, in order to continue
to grow and survive, you need to have that strong purchasing power.
We know, we know from statistics, we know from past history that we
should be guided by those economic reforms that enable social and
economic justice to take hold. I look at the impact in New York State:
127,000 people affected when I look at the 20th Congressional District.
In all of the statistics, the numbers swell from 127,000 to another
series of 133,000 that will be affected. As it has been stated earlier
tonight, some economic consequences of $400 million and 200,000 jobs
lost. Are we willing to endure that simply by our lack of
professionalism here? The willingness to walk past those who, through
no fault of their own, are unemployed. Three people pursue every one
available job, and that statistic also is accompanied by the
requirement that you must actively pursue employment. It is part of the
program.
I was visited today, Representative Garamendi, by Vice President
Biden in the 20th Congressional District. He and our governor, Governor
Andrew Cuomo, and our State leadership, Shelly Silver, speaker of the
Assembly with whom I had the pleasure of serving, who has been a great
leader for New York, as has the Governor, and the Senate majority
leader, Dean Skelos, all of whom have shown an interest in
infrastructure, all gathered today in New York in the 20th
Congressional District, specifically at Albany, our State capital. It
was about Superstorm Sandy and the impacts of storms Irene and Lee that
in 2011, for Irene and Lee, and in 2012 with Superstorm Sandy
devastated various regions of New York State. Yes, we need to rebuild,
but you need to do it intelligently and with an order of academics, and
certainly with a strategic planning that accompanies all of that effort
that is effective, efficient, smart government. The Vice President
spoke to the wisdom of investing in infrastructure because commerce
requires it.
Across this great Nation, talk to the midland of America. Without the
appropriate infrastructure, they can't send forth their agricultural
produced products or their manufactured goods. They cannot ship
forward, and so commerce is crippled by our lack of investment in
infrastructure.
{time} 2115
And so with great sensitivity the Vice President spoke, spoke to the
infrastructure needs of New York and that we will utilize these efforts
with the guidance of New York State, with the Governor and the
legislature, to make certain that it is not merely replacing
infrastructure damaged by the ravaging of Mother Nature, but rather
restructuring and reorganizing how we respond to that.
Much of our energy infrastructure, our water-sewer treatment
infrastructure, our manufacturing infrastructure, are along water's
edge, either intercoastal systems or the coastal system itself. We
extended our land into the coastal system and now Mother Nature is
saying, whoa, push back.
But that urgency that came with those storms has us now struggling
with infrastructure investment. Is that what we require in order to
invest in infrastructure? So we need to go forward and make certain
that these down payments on the future strength of this Nation are made
and made sensibly and made in an order of investment, not spending but
investing, where reasonable expectation, justified expectation, of a
return on those hard-earned tax dollars is there. We will see that with
the infrastructure improvement. So much can be done.
I will close with this--not close with this, but----
Mr. GARAMENDI. Take a break.
Mr. TONKO. Take a break, as they say.
You can't have it both ways. You can't deny all these legislative
bills that are advanced to the Congress or initiated by Members of the
House that would speak to job growth. The President has sent forward on
behalf of the administration a number of bills that would grow our
economy, grow the climate to enhance job growth.
You can't reject that agenda and then not reauthorize the
unemployment insurance benefit package. If you are going to do that, if
you are not going to reauthorize, then you need to do the jobs packages
that have been sent here. But to do both, to reject the job packages--
the legislation that would grow that climate--and also reject the
reauthorization of unemployment insurance, reject minimum wage, reject
the SNAP programs, that is harsh. That is not being guided by a moral
compass, and that is not America at her best.
So I would implore with my colleagues on this floor this evening,
with Representative Garamendi, Representative Horsford, I would implore
the leadership of this House to pursue that agenda that provides for
job creation and that speaks to economic justice and that responds with
insensitive measure to those who are unemployed through no fault of
their own who are actively searching for employment.
We need those job-training programs. We need the assistance programs,
so as to maintain the economic comeback from the recession.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Tonko, thank you so very, very much. We have got
about 10 or 12 minutes here. Let's do kind of one of those back and
forth real fast.
I am going to go through a bunch of placards here very, very quickly.
This is part of our job agenda. It is called the Make It In America
agenda. They are trade policies, and we are going to be dealing with a
major one of that.
Mr. Horsford talked about tax policy, critically important; energy
policy, which we have not come to tonight; labor issues; we have
definitely talked about the minimum wage, critically important; equal
dollars. Minimum wage in 1978, Ronald Reagan, was $10.60. Same
purchasing power today at $7.25. Education. We talked a little bit
about the education--not a little bit, Mr. Horsford. You talked a great
deal about the education, reeducation programs. Research, which we
haven't covered today. And, of course, the infrastructure issues.
And by the way--you are using American taxpayer dollars for all of
these things--we ought to be buying American-made products. So we will
make it in America using American taxpayer dollars.
We talked a lot about infrastructure. Every dollar you invest, $1.57,
pumped into the economy, jobs created. Mr. Horsford, you talked about
the unemployment in the building trades, very important. Most people
can go back to work, and this can go immediately.
Oh, by the way, August of this year, unless we fund and expand the
transportation programs in the United States, there will be no more new
bids for transportation programs. This issue is before the Congress
today.
This one, this is what happens when you don't invest in
infrastructure. This is the Interstate 5 bridge in Washington just near
the Canadian border. You talk about commerce, it came to a halt. This
bridge collapsed. More than a couple of thousand bridges in the United
States are in similar jeopardy and could collapse. Major infrastructure
needs to be done.
This is my district. I have 1,100 miles of levees, floods. We have a
Resource Development Act bill in conference--I am fortunate enough to
be on that conference committee--and this is what we must do. We must
improve our levees, we must deal with Superstorm Sandys, and we must
make sure that we are protecting our citizens.
[[Page 105]]
Once again, how do we pay for it? Why are we giving the Karzai
government $3 billion not knowing how they are going to spend it? I
will tell you where you can spend $3 billion. You make sure our levees
are sound and up to date.
Mr. Horsford, would you like to join us and we will do the quick
minutes here.
Mr. HORSFORD. I want to just accentuate--thank you for yielding
time--the need for infrastructure. In my home State of Nevada, as you
indicate, the lifeline of our primary industry, the gaming and tourism
industry, is largely dependent upon a strong infrastructure for people
being able to get to our State to be able to enjoy our entertainment.
We have legislation before this Congress that would do just that by
helping to build a new interstate between Phoenix and Las Vegas, the
two major metropolitan communities in the intermountain west that don't
have a major interstate between them that would help create a corridor
between Mexico and Canada and provide the type of trade and commerce
that would grow our economy. Those are the types of investments that we
desperately need, as well as an investment in our veterans.
A third of my population in the Fourth Congressional District of
Nevada are veterans, people who have served our country with
distinction and honor and now have come back home and cannot find work.
It is why we need to reauthorize the Veterans' Employment and Training
Act, help to provide entrepreneurial and small business funding for
veteran-owned businesses so that they can compete and participate in
the Make It In America agenda that Mr. Garamendi and Mr. Tonko and
other leaders in this body have worked so hard to bring forward.
So I urge the House Republican leadership, we are serious about
solutions for the American people. I didn't come here to be a ``no''
vote or a ``yes'' vote for every piece of legislation. I came here to
work with my colleagues to find solutions to complex problems.
One of the biggest problems that we face is that not enough of our
friends and neighbors can find work. The way to address that is to make
it in America and to support our agenda.
Mr. GARAMENDI. I am delighted that you came here. I think the people
of America as they come to know you over the years that you will serve
here in Congress will share that delight, your wisdom, your ability to
articulate key issues. Thank you so very much for joining us tonight.
Continuing our lightning round, Mr. Tonko.
Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Representative Garamendi.
Quickly, the infrastructure issues are heavy duty. It is not just
traditional roads and bridges. It is airports and rails and subway
systems, it is mass and public transit, but it is also communications,
it is also the energy grid.
We have a system that was designed for regional activity with
monopolies, and now we are transmitting electrons, wheeling electrons
from region to region, State to State, nation to nation. So upgrades
are essential. An infrastructure bank bill could assist in great ways
to make that all happen.
Today, again with the visit of Vice President Biden to the 20th
Congressional District of New York, specifically to Albany, the history
of the Erie Canal was addressed. In the early 1800s, a huge effort was
made, a difficult task, to sell an idea in very difficult times. But it
was again in those difficult times that we had our shining moment, and
what we did was create out of a small town a huge port. We developed a
New York City that we know today as a robust area, metropolitan area.
And the corresponding result: a necklace of communities dubbed ``mill
towns'' that became the epicenters of invention and innovation that
allowed for a manufacturing boom to take hold. While we addressed
quality of life to people, not just in New York, not just in this
country, we inspired a westward movement, and we affected the quality
of life of people around the world.
Often-times--often-times--that growth, that innovation came from blue
collar workers who gave it their all and who suggested to management,
here is a new idea, here is something we can produce in addition to our
ongoing ordinary business.
So what that strikes in my mind is the need to invest in R&D,
research dollars that translate into jobs, taking that innovation, that
intellectual capacity of this Nation, taking all of that brain power we
develop through education and higher ed investment and putting it to
work and allowing us to grow our energy independence by innovation, by
producing energy supplies here as American power and delivering in more
effective, efficient ways where there isn't line laws, where perhaps
there is grid system activity that is localized close to the source
that requires that electricity. Many, many things that we can respond
to if we open ourselves to the innovation, the reform that is
essential, and if we attach to that tax reform policy that is so long
overdue.
It has been a pleasure to join with my colleagues here this evening.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Tonko, somehow I knew from previous experience
here on the floor that you were going to mention the Erie Canal.
Mr. TONKO. The Vice President mentioned it too.
Mr. GARAMENDI. And he did too.
So actually, before the Erie Canal it was George Washington that laid
out an economic growth agenda for the United States. He asked Alexander
Hamilton to prepare a policy on manufacturing, or manufactures as they
called it there. Part of it was the development of a canal system, in
other words, the infrastructure the ports, the canals, and the roads.
In fact, the Constitution says there should be post roads in the United
States.
Much to talk about. Make it in America. Use our tax dollars to buy
American-made products in these areas: trade, taxes, energy, education,
and research.
Oh, by the way, 2 years ago, the President of the United States stood
right there in his State of the Union and said, here is an American
jobs program. Do you know what he talked about? Every one of these
issues.
If this Congress had acted, trains, locomotives, 100 percent American
built in Sacramento, California, and a new contract coming up for even
more of these state-of-the-art locomotives.
Mr. Horsford, end the lightning round, and then we will turn this
back to the Speaker.
Mr. HORSFORD. I just want to conclude by ending where you started,
which is on creating economic mobility for all Americans.
When we talk about innovation, job creation, growing the economy, we
are talking about growing an economy that works for all Americans, for
people who are in the middle class, most importantly, because they are
the engines of our economy, but also those who are striving to be part
of the middle class.
That is why assistance for unemployment insurance and extending
unemployment insurance is so important. It is why providing nutrition
assistance programs for families when they are in need is important,
because they are creators in moving people out of poverty and into the
middle class; and it is what we are focused on when we talk about
making it in America.
We are not saying make it in America for the top 1 percent of the
wealthiest, the elite. We are focused on those who are the engines, who
are the backbone, who have made America great. We can do big things if
we work together as a body to do that.
{time} 2130
I know that is what my colleagues are aspiring to do. I am proud to
join you here tonight, and I will continue to work with you and with
anybody from either party who is focused on growing our economy and on
creating true economic mobility for all Americans.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Horsford, thank you so very, very much.
Mr. Tonko, thank you.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to present a true American
agenda.
I yield back the balance of my time.
[[Page 106]]
____________________
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
By unanimous consent, leave of absence was granted to:
Mr. Heck of Nevada (at the request of Mr. Cantor) for today and the
balance of the week on account of mandatory military duty.
Mr. Jones (at the request of Mr. Cantor) for today through January 16
on account of surgical recovery.
Mr. Ruppersberger (at the request of Ms. Pelosi) for today and the
remainder of January on account of medical reasons.
Mr. Van Hollen (at the request of Ms. Pelosi) for today on account of
family medical emergency.
____________________
SENATE ENROLLED BILL SIGNED
The Speaker announced his signature to an enrolled bill of the Senate
of the following title:
S. 1614. To require Certificates of Citizenship and other
Federal documents to reflect name and date of birth
determinations made by a State court and for other purposes.
____________________
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 9 o'clock and 30 minutes
p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow,
Wednesday, January 8, 2014, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.
____________________
EXPENDITURE REPORTS CONCERNING OFFICIAL FOREIGN TRAVEL
Reports concerning the foreign currencies and U.S. dollars utilized
for Official Foreign Travel during the fourth quarter of 2013 pursuant
to Public Law 95-384 are as follows:
REPORT OF EXPENDITURES FOR OFFICIAL FOREIGN TRAVEL, ROBERT KAREM, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, EXPENDED BETWEEN OCT. 31 AND NOV. 9, 2013
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Per diem\1\ Transportation Other purposes Total
---------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar
Name of Member or employee Country Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent
Arrival Departure currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S.
currency\2\ currency\2\ currency\2\ currency\2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Story Karem..................... 10/31 11/2 Lebanon.................. ........... 425.40 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 425.40
11/2 11/5 Turkey................... ........... 2,040.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 2,040.00
11/5 11/7 Egypt.................... ........... 571.60 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 571.60
11/7 11/9 France................... ........... 1,092.75 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,092.75
Total transportation................... 10/31 11/9 ......................... ........... ........... ........... 6,731.90 ........... ........... ........... 6,731.90
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee total.................. ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 10,861.65
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Per diem constitutes lodging and meals.
\2\If foreign currency is used, enter U.S. dollar equivalent; if U.S. currency is used, enter amount expended.
ROBERT STORY KAREM, Dec. 9, 2013.
REPORT OF EXPENDITURES FOR OFFICIAL FOREIGN TRAVEL, DELEGATION TO MEXICO, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, EXPENDED BETWEEN NOV. 20 AND NOV. 24, 2013
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Per diem\1\ Transportation Other purposes Total
---------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar
Name of Member or employee Country Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent
Arrival Departure currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S.
currency\2\ currency\2\ currency\2\ currency\2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon. Michael McCaul.................... 11/21 11/24 Mexico................... ........... 724.00 ........... 1,079.00 ........... ........... ........... 1,803.00
Hon. Gene Green........................ 11/21 11/23 Mexico................... ........... 724.00 ........... 891.00 ........... ........... ........... 1,615.00
Hon. Sean Duffy........................ 11/21 11/23 Mexico................... ........... 724.00 ........... 971.00 ........... ........... ........... 1,695.00
Hon. Joe Barton........................ 11/21 11/23 Mexico................... ........... 724.00 ........... 807.00 ........... ........... ........... 1,531.00
Hon. Zoe Lofgren....................... 11/21 11/23 Mexico................... ........... 724.00 ........... 854.00 ........... ........... ........... 1,578.00
Hon. Henry Cuellar..................... 11/21 11/23 Mexico................... ........... 724.00 ........... 1,414.00 ........... ........... ........... 2,138.00
Hon. Pete Gallego...................... 11/21 11/23 Mexico................... ........... 724.00 ........... 907.00 ........... ........... ........... 1,631.00
Hon. Richard Hudson.................... 11/21 11/24 Mexico................... ........... 724.00 ........... 1,649.00 ........... ........... ........... 2,373.00
Hon. Beto O'Rourke..................... 11/21 11/23 Mexico................... ........... 724.00 ........... 844.00 ........... ........... ........... 1,568.00
Greg Hill.............................. 11/21 11/24 Mexico................... ........... 724.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 724.00
Janice Robinson........................ 11/21 11/23 Mexico................... ........... 724.00 ........... 794.00 ........... ........... ........... 1,518.00
Leah Campos............................ 11/20 11/23 Mexico................... ........... 1,086.00 ........... 794.00 ........... ........... ........... 1,880.00
Rev. Patrick Conroy.................... 11/21 11/23 Mexico................... ........... 724.00 ........... 844.00 ........... ........... ........... 1,568.00
Peter Quilter.......................... 11/21 11/24 Mexico................... ........... 724.00 ........... 879.00 ........... ........... ........... 1,603.00
Charlotte Sellmyer..................... 11/21 11/24 Mexico................... ........... 724.00 ........... 863.00 ........... ........... ........... 1,587.00
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee total.................. ........ .......... ......................... ........... 11,222.00 ........... 13,590.00 ........... ........... ........... 24,812.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Per diem constitutes lodging and meals.
\2\If foreign currency is used, enter U.S. dollar equivalent; if U.S. currency is used, enter amount expended.
HON. MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Dec. 9, 2013.
____________________
____________________
EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC.
Under clause 2 of rule XIV, executive communications were taken from
the Speaker's table and referred as follows:
4383. A letter from the Director, Regulations Policy and
Management Staff, Department of Health and Human Services,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- Citizen Petition
Submission; Technical Amendment [Docket No.: FDA 2013-S-0610]
received December 30, 2013, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
4384. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; Texas; Control of Air Pollution by
Permits for New Construction or Modification; Permits for
Specific Designated Facilities [EPA-R06-OAR-2006-0593; FRL-
9905-07-Region 6] received December 30, 2013, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
4385. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the
Agency's final rule -- Approval of Request for Delegation of
Authority for Prevention of Accidental Release, North Dakota
Department of Agriculture [EPA-R08-OAR-2013-0330, FRL-9904-
88-Region 8] received December 30, 2013, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
4386. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Commerce,
transmitting a certification of export to China; to the
Committee on Foreign Affairs.
4387. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Commerce,
transmitting the annual report for FY 2013 of the
Department's Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS); to the
Committee on Foreign Affairs.
4388. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, Legislative
Affairs, Department of State, transmitting waiver of
requirement to certify conditions under Section 203(e) of the
Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act of 2009; to the
Committee on Foreign Affairs.
4389. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Labor,
transmitting the Semiannual
[[Page 107]]
Report of the Inspector General for the period April 1, 2013
through September 30, 2013; to the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform.
4390. A letter from the U.S. House of Representatives,
Clerk, transmitting List of reports created by the Clerk,
pursuant to Rule II, clause 2(b), of the Rules of the House;
(H. Doc. No. 113-85); to the Committee on House
Administration and ordered to be printed.
4391. A letter from the Secretary, Federal Trade
Commission, transmitting a report on the Pandemic and All-
Hazards Preparedness Act Usage of the Act's Antitrust Laws
Exemption; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
4392. A letter from the Chief, Publications and Regulations
Branch, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's
final rule -- Applicable Federal Rates -- January 2014
received January 3, 2014, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A);
to the Committee on Ways and Means.
4393. A letter from the Chief, Publications and
Regulations, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the
Service's final rule -- FFI Agreement for Participating FFI
and Reporting Model 2 FFI (Rev. Proc. 2014-13) received
January 3, 2014, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Ways and Means.
____________________
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. UPTON: Committee on Energy and Commerce. H.R. 724. A
bill to amend the Clean Air Act to remove the requirement for
dealer certification of new light-duty motor vehicles (Rept.
113-320). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union.
Mr. UPTON: Committee on Energy and Commerce. H.R. 3527. A
bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to reauthorize
the poison center national toll-free number, national media
campaign, and grant program, and for other purposes (Rept.
113-321). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union.
____________________
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. PITTS (for himself, Mr. Aderholt, Mr. Barletta,
Mr. Bilirakis, Mrs. Black, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Brooks
of Alabama, Mr. Burgess, Mr. Calvert, Mr. Campbell,
Mrs. Capito, Mr. Carter, Mr. Cassidy, Mr. Chabot, Mr.
Collins of Georgia, Mr. Cook, Mr. Cotton, Mr.
Crawford, Mr. Culberson, Mr. Rodney Davis of
Illinois, Mr. Duncan of Tennessee, Mrs. Ellmers, Mr.
Farenthold, Mr. Fitzpatrick, Mr. Flores, Mr. Gardner,
Mr. Gerlach, Mr. Gibson, Mr. Gingrey of Georgia, Mr.
Griffin of Arkansas, Mr. Griffith of Virginia, Mr.
Hall, Mr. Harper, Mr. Huizenga of Michigan, Mr.
Johnson of Ohio, Mr. Jones, Mr. Kelly of
Pennsylvania, Mr. Kinzinger of Illinois, Mr. Lance,
Mr. Latta, Mr. Long, Mr. McCaul, Mr. McKinley, Mrs.
McMorris Rodgers, Mr. Meadows, Mr. Meehan, Mrs.
Miller of Michigan, Mr. Neugebauer, Mr. Palazzo, Mr.
Poe of Texas, Mr. Pompeo, Mr. Radel, Mr. Reed, Mr.
Ribble, Mr. Rigell, Mr. Rogers of Michigan, Mr.
Rokita, Mr. Rothfus, Mr. Shuster, Mr. Smith of Texas,
Mr. Stivers, Mr. Terry, Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania,
Mr. Tiberi, Mrs. Wagner, Mr. Walden, Mrs. Walorski,
Mr. Webster of Florida, Mr. Westmoreland, Mr.
Whitfield, Mr. Wilson of South Carolina, Mr. Womack,
and Mr. Woodall):
H.R. 3811. A bill to require notification of individuals of
breaches of personally identifiable information through
Exchanges under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care
Act; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. COFFMAN:
H.R. 3812. A bill to repeal sections 1341 and 1342 of the
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; to the Committee
on Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. CICILLINE:
H.R. 3813. A bill to provide a three-month extension for
the emergency unemployment compensation program, retroactive
to its expiration, and to offset the costs of such extension;
to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the
Committees on Transportation and Infrastructure, and
Agriculture, 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. HUDSON:
H.R. 3814. A bill to amend the Commodity Exchange Act to
require the de minimis quantity of swap dealing needed to
qualify for exemption from designation as a swap dealer to be
changed by a vote of the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission; to the Committee on Agriculture.
By Mr. MARINO:
H.R. 3815. A bill to repeal the Biggert-Waters Flood
Insurance Reform Act of 2012; to the Committee on Financial
Services, and in addition to the Committee on the Budget, 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. NORTON:
H.R. 3816. A bill to amend the District of Columbia Home
Rule Act to eliminate Congressional review of newly-passed
District laws; to the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform, and in addition to the Committee on Rules, 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. SESSIONS:
H. Res. 449. A resolution electing the Chief Administrative
Officer of the House of Representatives; considered and
agreed to.
By Mr. SESSIONS:
H. Res. 450. A resolution providing for a committee to
notify the President of the assembly of the House of
Representatives; considered and agreed to.
By Mr. SESSIONS:
H. Res. 451. A resolution to inform the Senate that a
quorum of the House has assembled; considered and agreed to.
By Mr. SESSIONS:
H. Res. 452. A resolution providing for the hour of meeting
of the House; considered and agreed to.
____________________
PRIVATE BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 3 of rule XII,
Mr. POLIS introduced a bill (H.R. 3817) for the relief
of Jeanette Vizguerra-Ramirez; which was referred 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. PITTS:
H.R. 3811.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, which states that Congress
shall have the power ``to regulate commerce with foreign
nations, and among the several states . . .''
By Mr. COFFMAN:
H.R. 3812.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article I, Sec. 8, Clause 1, of the United States
Constitution
This states that ``Congress shall have power to . . . lay
and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the
debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare
of the United States.''
By Mr. CICILLINE:
H.R. 3813.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article I, Section 8
By Mr. HUDSON:
H.R. 3814.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States
Constitution, as this legislation regulates commerce with
foreign nations, between the states, and with Indian Tribes.
By Mr. MARINO:
H.R. 3815.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
This bill is introduced pursuant to clause 1 of section 8
of article I of the Constitution (the General Welfare Clause)
and clause 18 of section 8 of article I of the Constitution
(the Necessary and Proper Clause).
By Ms. NORTON:
H.R. 3816.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Clause 17 of section 8 of article I of the Constitution.
Mr. POLIS:
H.R. 3817.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution
____________________
ADDITIONAL SPONSORS
Under clause 7 of rule XII, sponsors were added to public bills and
resolutions as follows:
[Submitted January 3, 2014]
H.R. 508: Mr. Maffei.
H.R. 875: Mr. Ribble.
[[Page 108]]
H.R. 2288: Mr. Lowenthal and Mr. Van Hollen.
H.R. 2591: Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.
H.R. 3370: Mr. Yarmuth, Mrs. Napolitano, Mr. Reed, and Mr.
Rigell.
H.Res. 109: Mr. Swalwell of California.
[Submitted January 7, 2014]
H.R. 7: Mr. Crenshaw, Mr. Joyce, Mr. Farenthold, Mr.
Gohmert and Mr. Chabot.
H.R. 24: Mr. Shuster.
H.R. 139: Mr. Walz.
H.R. 164: Mr. Griffin of Arkansas.
H.R. 274: Ms. Moore.
H.R. 337: Mr. Pocan.
H.R. 411: Mr. Runyan and Mr. Cartwright.
H.R. 460: Mr. Ben Ray Lujan of New Mexico.
H.R. 495: Mrs. Brooks of Indiana.
H.R. 498: Mr. Gerlach.
H.R. 503: Mr. Cartwright.
H.R. 515: Ms. Shea-Porter.
H.R. 562: Mr. Takano and Mrs. Beatty.
H.R. 564: Mr. Michaud.
H.R. 645: Mr. Cummings and Mr. Pocan.
H.R. 669: Mr. Ellison.
H.R. 673: Mr. Gowdy.
H.R. 685: Mr. Cramer and Mrs. Christensen.
H.R. 721: Mrs. Brooks of Indiana.
H.R. 724: Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois.
H.R. 808: Mr. McDermott.
H.R. 831: Mr. Wittman.
H.R. 962: Mrs. Beatty.
H.R. 997: Ms. Jenkins.
H.R. 1000: Mrs. Negrete McLeod.
H.R. 1010: Ms. Frankel of Florida, Mrs. Bustos, Mr. Larsen
of Washington, and Mr. Rahall.
H.R. 1024: Mr. Doyle and Ms. Jenkins.
H.R. 1091: Mr. Stockman.
H.R. 1179: Mr. Takano and Mr. Lowenthal.
H.R. 1243: Mr. Cartwright.
H.R. 1281: Ms. Shea-Porter.
H.R. 1303: Mrs. Beatty.
H.R. 1318: Mr. Courtney.
H.R. 1339: Mr. Owens and Mr. Meeks.
H.R. 1428: Mr. Meeks, Mrs. Negrete McLeod, Ms. Clarke of
New York, and Mr. Israel.
H.R. 1518: Mr. Daines, Mr. Reed, Ms. Edwards, and Mr.
Higgins.
H.R. 1563: Mr. Messer, Mr. McIntyre, and Mr. Huelskamp.
H.R. 1588: Mrs. Negrete McLeod.
H.R. 1638: Mr. Amash.
H.R. 1726: Mr. Hultgren.
H.R. 1748: Ms. Tsongas.
H.R. 1761: Ms. McCollum, Mrs. Brooks of Indiana, Mr.
Swalwell of California, and Ms. Kuster.
H.R. 1775: Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania.
H.R. 1795: Mr. Diaz-Balart.
H.R. 1838: Mrs. Kirkpatrick, Mr. Cohen, and Mr. Loebsack.
H.R. 1843: Mr. Capuano.
H.R. 1852: Mr. Rohrabacher, Mrs. Black, and Mr. Paulsen.
H.R. 1869: Mr. McCaul.
H.R. 1875: Ms. Bonamici.
H.R. 1910: Ms. Kelly of Illinois.
H.R. 2037: Mr. Ellison.
H.R. 2053: Mr. McHenry.
H.R. 2066: Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.
H.R. 2073: Ms. Shea-Porter and Ms. Esty.
H.R. 2080: Mr. Holt.
H.R. 2123: Mr. Murphy of Pennsylvania.
H.R. 2199: Mr. Marino.
H.R. 2283: Mr. Tierney.
H.R. 2300: Mr. McHenry.
H.R. 2330: Mr. McGovern.
H.R. 2453: Mr. Lankford and Mr. Collins of New York.
H.R. 2493: Mr. Braley of Iowa.
H.R. 2500: Mr. Hastings of Washington.
H.R. 2510: Mr. Rangel.
H.R. 2529: Mr. Himes.
H.R. 2536: Ms. Bonamici, Ms. Lofgren, Ms. Norton, Mr. Poe
of Texas, Mr. Kind, and Mr. Bentivolio.
H.R. 2553: Ms. Lofgren.
H.R. 2662: Mr. Rigell, Mr. Reed, Mr. Roskam, and Ms. Ros-
Lehtinen.
H.R. 2663: Mr. Honda.
H.R. 2691: Mr. Larson of Connecticut.
H.R. 2726: Mrs. Negrete McLeod.
H.R. 2727: Mr. Al Green of Texas.
H.R. 2753: Mr. Petri.
H.R. 2807: Mr. Barletta and Mr. Pocan.
H.R. 2822: Mrs. Beatty.
H.R. 2847: Mr. Blumenauer.
H.R. 2856: Ms. Shea-Porter.
H.R. 2866: Ms. Kuster and Mr. Visclosky.
H.R. 2909: Mr. Cartwright and Mr. Sablan.
H.R. 2959: Mr. DeSantis, Mrs. Miller of Michigan, Mr.
Cramer, Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas, Mr. Schweikert, Mr. Ross,
Mr. Rahall, Mrs. Brooks of Indiana, Mr. Crenshaw, Mr. Smith
of Texas, and Mr. Kingston.
H.R. 2996: Mrs. Brooks of Indiana and Mr. Johnson of Ohio.
H.R. 3043: Mr. Reed.
H.R. 3090: Ms. Kelly of Illinois.
H.R. 3118: Mr. McGovern.
H.R. 3172: Ms. Bonamici and Mr. McGovern.
H.R. 3179: Mr. Calvert and Mrs. Brooks of Indiana.
H.R. 3211: Mr. Guthrie.
H.R. 3243: Mr. Kind and Mr. Himes.
H.R. 3279: Mr. Cartwright.
H.R. 3306: Mr. Schweikert, Mr. Fortenberry, and Mr. Hanna.
H.R. 3335: Mr. Sessions, Mr. Rogers of Alabama, Mr. Smith
of Texas, Mr. Jones, and Mr. Rahall.
H.R. 3361: Ms. Matsui, Mr. Broun of Georgia, Mr. Keating,
and Mr. Weber of Texas.
H.R. 3362: Mr. Burgess, Mrs. Walorski, and Mr. Lamborn.
H.R. 3390: Mr. Thompson of California.
H.R. 3404: Mr. Ellison.
H.R. 3413: Mr. Amash.
H.R. 3429: Mr. Westmoreland and Mrs. Brooks of Indiana.
H.R. 3461: Mr. Enyart and Mr. Scott of Virginia.
H.R. 3465: Mrs. Beatty.
H.R. 3471: Mrs. Davis of California, Mr. Van Hollen, and
Mr. Israel.
H.R. 3484: Mrs. McCarthy of New York.
H.R. 3485: Mr. Stewart.
H.R. 3488: Mr. Garamendi, Ms. Chu, Ms. Slaughter, Mr.
Doyle, Mr. Murphy of Florida, Mr. Pocan, Mr. Barletta, Mr.
Connolly, Mr. Israel, Mr. Massie, and Mr. Hastings of
Washington.
H.R. 3489: Mr. Grimm and Mr. Labrador.
H.R. 3490: Mr. Schneider, Mrs. Capps, Mr. Diaz-Balart, Mr.
Rigell, Mr. Murphy of Pennsylvania, Mr. Gibson, Ms. Titus,
and Mr. Reed.
H.R. 3493: Mr. Cramer.
H.R. 3499: Mr. Cartwright.
H.R. 3516: Mr. Honda.
H.R. 3527: Ms. Schakowsky.
H.R. 3531: Mr. Goodlatte.
H.R. 3532: Ms. Norton and Mr. Ellison.
H.R. 3541: Mr. Holding, Mr. Ribble, Mr. Gosar, and Mr.
Labrador.
H.R. 3573: Mr. Delaney.
H.R. 3578: Mr. Collins of New York, Mr. Peterson, Mr.
Marchant, and Mr. Griffin of Arkansas.
H.R. 3590: Mr. Gosar, Mr. Bishop of Georgia, Mr.
Thornberry, Mrs. Lummis, Mr. Huizenga of Michigan, Mr.
Westmoreland, and Mrs. Brooks of Indiana.
H.R. 3593: Mr. Gardner.
H.R. 3600: Mr. Michaud, Mr. Jones, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Honda,
Mr. Garcia, Ms. Wilson of Florida, Mrs. Bustos, and Mr.
Murphy of Florida.
H.R. 3633: Mr. Womack.
H.R. 3663: Mr. Mullin and Mrs. Hartzler.
H.R. 3666: Ms. Lee of California.
H.R. 3693: Mr. McKinley.
H.R. 3698: Mr. Roe of Tennessee, Mr. Gibson, and Mr.
Meadows.
H.R. 3708: Mr. Upton and Mr. Conaway.
H.R. 3712: Ms. Michelle Lujan Grisham of New Mexico, Mrs.
Capps, Ms. Slaughter, and Mr. Nadler.
H.R. 3714: Mr. Enyart and Mr. Pocan.
H.R. 3728: Mr. Coble, Ms. Sewell of Alabama, and Mrs.
Bustos.
H.R. 3731: Mr. Cassidy, Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois, and
Mr. Renacci.
H.R. 3732: Mr. Gohmert and Mr. Roe of Tennessee.
H.R. 3745: Ms. Duckworth and Mrs. Capps.
H.R. 3747: Ms. Shea-Porter.
H.R. 3774: Ms. Bonamici.
H.R. 3778: Mr. Bishop of Georgia.
H.R. 3789: Mr. Latta, Mr. Marchant, Mr. Sablan, Mr. Broun
of Georgia, Mr. Michaud, Mrs. Capito, Mr. Cassidy, and Mr.
Reed.
H.R. 3790: Mr. Latta, Mr. Sablan, Mr. Broun of Georgia, and
Mr. Michaud.
H.R. 3793: Ms. Slaughter.
H.R. 3804: Mr. Jones, Mr. Cardenas, and Ms. Lee of
California.
H.R. 3807: Mr. Tiberi.
H. Con. Res. 52: Mr. DeFazio.
H. Res. 34: Mr. Wittman.
H. Res. 147: Mr. Cartwright.
H. Res. 187: Mr. Smith of New Jersey.
H. Res. 190: Mrs. Beatty.
H. Res. 281: Ms. Matsui.
H. Res. 284: Mr. Lowenthal.
H. Res. 412: Mr. Carson of Indiana.
H. Res. 418: Mr. Rangel.
H. Res. 431: Mr. Bridenstine, Mr. Westmoreland, Mr. Hudson,
and Mr. Latta.
H. Res. 440: Mr. Grimm, Ms. DelBene, Mr. McGovern, and Mr.
Bentivolio.
[[Page 109]]
EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS
____________________
A TRIBUTE TO HONOR THE LIFE OF KATHERINE AGNES McMILLAN
______
HON. ANNA G. ESHOO
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, January 7, 2014
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring
the life of an extraordinary woman, Katherine Agnes McMillan, who
passed away at the age of 89 on December 10, 2013. She was the youngest
of nine children born to Irish immigrants, John Patrick and Margaret
Kearns Trumble, and was the Valedictorian of her graduating class at
Sacred Heart Academy.
Katherine McMillan served in the Navy as a nurse, and went on to
serve her community uncommonly well as a devoted RN for 37 years at
Sequoia Hospital where she worked in the Emergency Room and was a
legend there.
After retiring from the nursing profession, Katherine launched a
`latchkey' day care program at St. Pius Catholic Church in Redwood
City, the first of its kind in the Archdiocese of San Francisco. She
provided quality child care for school age children with her trademarks
of professionalism, discipline and caring.
Katherine gave generously of her time and considerable talents at
Serra High School in San Mateo, the school her son Robert attended and
she loved. She became the first woman to earn and be honored with the
``In Via Award'' by this all male school.
Katherine is survived by her beloved daughters, Katherine and Mary,
her son Robert (Julie) and her two adored grandsons, Sean and Kenny.
I had the privilege of knowing Katherine McMillan for over three
decades. With her Irish pride and her Boston accent, she was a force of
nature, a loyal and loving friend, an extraordinary mother, and a woman
of great faith. She lived her faith in all she did, and every day of
her life was guided by it.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the life of a
woman who will be greatly missed by all who had the good fortune to
know her and never be forgotten. Katherine McMillan was a true patriot,
a woman who loved her family deeply and served her community, her
church and her country with great dedication and joy. For this, the
entire U.S. House of Representatives extends its condolences to the
McMillan family.
____________________
CONGRATULATIONS TO FRIDA BAZAN, WINNER OF 1ST HISPANIC HERITAGE MONTH
ESSAY CONTEST
______
HON. BLAKE FARENTHOLD
of texas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, January 7, 2014
Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the winner of the
1st Annual Hispanic Heritage Month Essay Contest for the 27th
Congressional District of Texas.
Ms. Frida Bazan, from El Campo High School, in El Campo, Texas wrote
the winning essay, entitled ``Honoring My Hispanic Heritage.'' I ask
that Ms. Bazan's essay be entered into the Congressional Record. It
reads as follows:
Hispanic Heritage makes a great influence in my life
because it is a way of life. This culture is deeply important
to me because it represents who I am, how I live my life, and
how I view the world. All these characteristics form part of
my life and personality, which I love, and lead me to proudly
say that I am honored to be Hispanic.
Hispanic Heritage Month means celebrating our heritage by
sharing stories and informing others of our traditions and
customs, while honoring where we came from. As we share
stories about the traditional Christmas posadas, Dia de los
Muertos celebrations, and the famous Grito de Independencia,
we let others know more about our lives and at the same time
spread our culture.
As a Hispanic, I have strict, conservative parents who have
made me the person I am today. I have inherited ideas such as
being respectful to our elders, the willingness to work,
attending church, dedicating myself to help others, and above
all being a strong person who overcomes obstacles I may face;
these are important Hispanic characteristics that have been
enforced to me by my parents and grandparents. All this has
helped me during my lifetime and will continue to lead me in
the correct path as I aspire for my life goals. I have many
goals for my future, and my biggest dream is to one day
become a physician assistant and make a difference in
people's lives by helping those in need. My parents have
taught me to use perseverance and never stop fighting for
what I want because I can reach anything I put my mind to,
and I know that with their advice and my hard dedication I
can get very far in life. Hispanics are people who never give
up when it comes to accomplishing their life goals and will
face sacrifices and have dedication to reach their goals and
persuade others to do the same.
Hispanic Heritage may fade away in families who move to
live in the United States and adopt another culture. As a
Hispanic, I consider it my duty to make sure that my heritage
is not forgotten. As my parents have done with our family, I
will ensure that our heritage is protected for generations by
telling others about our traditions and customs. When I have
a family of my own I will tell them all the memorable stories
my parents told me about our family traditions. I will
continue to use traditions, such as the pinatas, language,
posadas, dances, and foods, to keep the Hispanic heritage
alive in my life and inculcate those values to my
descendants.
As a proud Hispanic I will never forget where my family's
roots initiated. Even though I live in a different country
with a different type of life and traditions, my Hispanic
heritage will always remain in my memories and deep in my
heart.
Congratulations to Frida Bazan for writing the winning essay. Thank
you also for your participation in this contest and for sharing some of
your traditions and customs. Best of luck to you in all your future
endeavors.
____________________
IN HONOR OF MR. MARCUS KAUFFMAN
______
HON. RICHARD HUDSON
of north carolina
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, January 7, 2014
Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Marcus
Kauffman, a young man who tragically lost his life after being shot by
home intruders on December 2nd of last year. He fought courageously to
survive for three weeks before succumbing to his injuries.
Marcus Kauffman, often called Marco by friends and loved ones, was an
outstanding citizen. He selflessly served as a volunteer firefighter
with the Scotch Irish Fire Department in Woodleaf, North Carolina. As a
firefighter, Marco heroically put himself in harm's way and displayed
immense dedication to the safety of others. We are fortunate to have
brave men and women like Marco who dedicate and risk their lives as
firemen for our well-being and security.
Marco's life was taken much too soon. He will be remembered for his
extraordinary heroism and devotion to his family in the face of danger.
I applaud Marco for his bravery, and I thank him for his heroic and
selfless actions.
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Kauffman was a proven leader in our community, but
he was also a loving husband, a soon to be father, and a faithful
friend to many. My wife Renee and I will continue to pray for the
family and loved ones of Marco, including his wife Maryann and their
unborn child. I hope that they find peace in this troubling time.
[[Page 110]]
____________________
CONGRATULATIONS TO SHINER HIGH SCHOOL COMANCHE MARCHING BAND
______
HON. BLAKE FARENTHOLD
of texas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, January 7, 2014
Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Shiner High
School Marching Band on an outstanding accomplishment. On Monday,
November 4, 2013, the 70-member Shiner High School marching band took
first place in the 1A division of the state UIL marching contest at the
Alamodome in San Antonio, Texas.
It was the first time in Shiner High School history that the marching
band won the state championship. The band has come close to winning in
the past, placing second at the state level in 2011, and fifth at the
state level in 2007.
Mr. Stephen Krupicka, the Comanche Marching Band director, should be
honored for such extraordinary commitment to these students, leading
the band to such an outstanding victory. To the members of the band,
Congratulations on a job well done! Your hard work and dedication
certainly paid off.
It should also be noted that I am nominating the Comanche Marching
Band to perform at the National Memorial Day Concert Series in
Washington, D.C. in May, 2014. The concert series will commemorate the
70th Anniversary of D-Day May 24th-26th.
Again, Congratulations to the Shiner High School Marching Band. The
community stands behind you in all your future endeavors!
____________________
IN RECOGNITION OF THE RETIREMENT OF COMMAND SERGEANT MAJOR RONALD T.
RILING II
______
HON. MO BROOKS
of alabama
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, January 7, 2014
Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I would like to honor Command
Sergeant Major Ronald T. Riling II, the 14th Command Sergeant Major of
the U.S. Army Materiel Command, on the occasion of his retirement
following 31 years of exemplary service to the United States Army. He
is one of only four Command Sergeants Major of Four Star Commands in
the United States Army.
Command Sergeant Major Riling began his Army career in February 1983
as a 19D Cavalry Scout, completing his One Station Unit Training at
Fort Knox, KY and will conclude his career as the personal advisor to
the Commanding General of the U.S. Army Materiel Command on all
enlisted-related matters; primarily focusing on the quality of life for
Soldiers, Civilians and Families across the command; and Command
Sergeant Major Riling has performed admirably and honorably at home and
abroad.
His career achievements include three successful combat tours, two in
Iraq and one in Haiti. CSM Riling's awards and decorations include the
Silver Star, Legion of Merit (2nd OLC), Bronze Star (1st OLC),
Meritorious Service Medal (Silver OLC), Army Commendation Medal (3rd
OLC), Army Achievement Medal (4th OLC), and many other awards; and as
Command Sergeant Major Riling's career winds down, he will be
remembered for many of his attributes--strength of character, steadfast
courage and superior and compassionate leadership. He will also be
remembered and admired for being a ``Soldier's Soldier''.
As Command Sergeant Major Riling and his wife, Melinda, begin the
next phase of their lives, I am pleased that they are retiring in my
Congressional district. I want to express the warmest regards and
heartfelt gratitude of the Nation for all that they have done and all
that the Riling family has sacrificed to support the defense of the
United States of America.
On behalf of all those touched by his service, we wish Command
Sergeant Major Riling good luck, good ground, and Godspeed. Army
Strong!
____________________
HONORING A-10 PILOTS BRIGADIER GENERAL MACKEY AND LIEUTENANT COLONEL
ROE
______
HON. VICKY HARTZLER
of missouri
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, January 7, 2014
Mrs. HARTZLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the brave
airmen of the 442d Fighter Wing of Whiteman Air Force Base.
Specifically, I want to commend the A-10 pilots who courageously
protected Sergeant Mauricio Alejandro Arias and 16 of his fellow
soldiers as they came under fire while serving in Afghanistan.
I sincerely applaud Colonel James Mackey (now Brigadier General
Mackey) and Lieutenant Colonel Tony Roe for their actions of June 5,
2008, as they provided close air support for 17 soldiers of the 201st
Engineer Battalion of the Kentucky National Guard. The soldiers were
pinned down for a lengthy time by enemy heavy-arms fire and running low
on ammunition when these pilots intervened and suppressed the enemy
threat. Sergeant Arias credits these pilots for saving his and the
lives of 16 fellow soldiers that day and I stand with him in
recognizing the heroic acts of these two pilots.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I ask all my colleagues to join me in
applauding the bravery and commitment to service that General Mackey,
Lieutenant Colonel Roe and the airmen of the 442d Fighter Wing
exemplify. In doing so, they ask for no recognition, yet they protect
our way of life while risking their own and are very deserving of such
recognition.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO GRAND VIEW UNIVERSITY
______
HON. TOM LATHAM
of iowa
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, January 7, 2014
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor the 2013
National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics Football Champions,
the Grand View University Vikings.
Grand View University is one of eighty-five football programs across
the country that compete in the NAIA. Each year, the best teams in the
association qualify for the post-season playoffs to determine a
national champion. Only six years after establishing a football
program, the Grand View University Vikings have expertly developed a
top-tier football team. On December 21, 2013, Grand View obtained its
first-ever national football championship by defeating the top-ranked
University of the Cumberlands by a score of 35-23. The Vikings finished
the 2013 season with a perfect 14-0 record and the top NAIA ranking.
Grand View University's recent success on the football field is
emblematic of its long-held mission for both academics and athletics.
Since its founding in 1896, Grand View has instilled its students with
an uncompromising focus on the traditional Danish perspective of the
``whole person.'' Through this perspective, each of Grand View's 2,300
students is uniquely enabled to reach their potential through high
expectations, smaller class sizes, and greater individual attention
from professors and coaches. It is through this winning formula that
Grand View University has positioned itself among our state's premier
universities.
Mr. Speaker, the pride and excitement that this team has brought to
their campus and to the state of Iowa cannot be understated. The
unrelenting commitment of these coaches and players speaks volumes
about the Iowa work ethic and the rewards of working together. It is
truly an honor to represent the players, coaches and families of this
team in the United States Congress and I invite my colleagues in the
House of Representatives to join me in congratulating our 2013 NAIA
National Champions. I wish President Henning, Coach Woodley, and all
the students of Grand View University continued success, both on and
off the field, for many years to come.
____________________
A TRIBUTE TO HONOR THE LIFE OF THE HONORABLE HOWARD M. HOLTZMANN
______
HON. ANNA G. ESHOO
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, January 7, 2014
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring
the life of an extraordinary man, Judge Howard Holtzmann, who passed
away hours before his 92nd birthday on December 9, 2013.
Howard was the son of the late Lillian Plotz Holtzmann and Jacob L.
Holtzmann. He attended the Poly Prep Country Day School, Yale College
and Yale Law School. He loved all things `Yale' and served it in many
ways for seven decades, earning the prestigious award of the Yale Medal
in 2006. Yale was one of many beneficiaries of Howard Holtzmann's
legendary philanthropy. He endowed the Jewish Chaplaincy at Yale, the
first such position at an American college campus. He also endowed a
professorship in international law and established fellowships in that
field.
[[Page 111]]
Judge Holtzmann, a brilliant attorney, was an original member of the
Iran-United States Claims Tribunal and served as a member of the United
States Delegation to the United Nations Commission on International
Trade Law. An acknowledged expert in arbitration, he wrote and edited
many books and treatises on the subject. He held leadership positions
as a trustee or member of many organizations, including the Jewish
Theological Seminary, St. Bonaventure University, the American Foreign
Law Association, the Environmental Law Institute, Pace Law, the
American Arbitration Association and the New York Weill Cornell
Council.
Judge Holtzmann is survived by his beloved wife, Carol, and his
devoted daughters, Susie and Betsey. He also leaves his grandsons,
McLaren (Jodi), Anthony (Erin) and Abe Noyes, and Jill van Berg (David
Manella), Elizabeth van Berg and Allison van Berg. He also leaves five
great-grandchildren, and at the time of his death was aware that a
sixth was due within days. He also leaves his step-daughter Louise
Mullen (Henry) and his step-son William van Berg. He was preceded in
death by his first wife Anne Fisher Holtzmann and his step-son, Peter
van Berg.
I have the privilege of knowing Judge Holtzmann's daughter, Susie
Richardson, a highly regarded member of the Palo Alto community who has
contributed in countless ways to the civic life of our region. She is a
woman of integrity and conscience, and I'm proud to call her my friend.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the
extraordinary life of Howard M. Holtzmann, a great and good man who
will be deeply missed by all who had the privilege of knowing him. His
humanity, brilliance, patriotism, generosity and his distinguished
family are the legacies he leaves, making our nation stronger and
better. For all this and more, the U.S. House of Representatives
extends its deepest condolences to the entire Holtzmann family.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO ALLEN LAZARD
______
HON. TOM LATHAM
of iowa
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, January 7, 2014
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate
Allen Lazard of Urbandale, Iowa for his participation in the 14th
annual U.S. Army All-American Bowl.
Since 2001, the U.S. Army All-American Bowl has recruited the
nation's top high school football players to participate in a
nationally-televised, all-star football game. From millions of high
school football players across our nation, the U.S. Army All-American
Bowl Selection Committee evaluates thousands of top prospects
throughout the year. After evaluation, the Selection Committee formally
nominates 400 seniors to be considered for the annual game. Ultimately,
only 90 players nationwide will be invited to participate in this
prestigious event.
Allen's selection to the U.S. Army All-American Bowl galvanizes a
remarkable 2013 season for the Urbandale High School senior. As a wide
receiver for the Urbandale J-Hawks, Allen hauled in 49 passes for 1,065
yards and 16 touchdowns. At 6' 5", Allen has continued to be a top-
receiving threat among our state's premier football players and has
been named to Iowa's All-State team for three consecutive years. In
December, Lazard was Iowa's only player to be named to the 2013
American Family Insurance ALL-USA High School Football Team. I am
pleased to report that Mr. Lazard currently plans to take his talents
to Jack Trice Stadium as an Iowa State Cyclone in the coming school
year.
Mr. Speaker, Allen's accomplishments, both on and off the field, are
a testament to the world-class work ethic for which our great state is
renowned. It is an honor to represent Mr. Lazard and his family in the
United States Congress. I invite my colleagues in the House to join me
in congratulating Allen on his outstanding achievements and I wish him
continued success in the years ahead.
____________________
HONORING LOUIS HERMAN ``RED'' KLOTZ OF MARGATE CITY
______
HON. FRANK A. LoBIONDO
of new jersey
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, January 7, 2014
Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Speaker, today I extend my personal congratulations
and the recognition of the U.S. House of Representatives to Louis
Herman ``Red'' Klotz, a basketball legend and long-time resident of
Margate City, New Jersey. At age 93, Red remains active in the sport
for which he has long loved, making him the sport's oldest professional
and one of its most-loved.
Playing well into his 60s and serving as a U.S. International
Ambassador of Goodwill, Red has helped introduce basketball to more
than 100 countries and countless youth around the globe. As the owner
and former player & coach of the Washington Generals, he and his team
have challenged the dominance of their greatest competitor--the Harlem
Globetrotters--for sixty-two consecutive years. And, as if playing over
13,000 exhibition games wasn't a full-time career, Red and his wife
Gloria operated successful businesses in Margate and Atlantic City for
many years.
I join with the greater Margate community and basketball fans
worldwide in honoring Red Klotz for his countless contributions to the
game. While your impressive decades-long past on and off the court is
well-documented, it is your dedication today to the sport and fifty
years in the South Jersey community that define your legacy.
____________________
IN RECOGNITION OF THE NAVAL DIVING AND SALVAGE TRAINING CENTER
______
HON. PAUL A. GOSAR
of arizona
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, January 7, 2014
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the incredible naval
officers and sailors who run the Naval Diving and Salvage Training
Center in Panama City, Florida.
I had the honor of touring this facility and I was privileged to be
escorted by Commander Hung Cao. The deep water training was impressive
and unique. Only the best get selected to train here and it showed. The
dedication, resolve and commitment demonstrated by these service men
was inspiring.
I know our nation is in great hands when I see the high quality
instruction and the effort to train our men to be both highly skilled
and safe. I commend them and I want them to know the people of the
United States need them and appreciate them.
As Commander Cao told me, the ``instructors and staff here are true
American Heroes, who have sacrificed a lot for this country.''
God bless these men and women.
____________________
HONORING THE 100TH BIRTHDAY CELEBRATION OF DR. HECTOR P. GARCIA
______
HON. BLAKE FARENTHOLD
of texas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, January 7, 2014
Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 100th
Birthday Celebration of Dr. Hector P. Garcia as put on by The Dr.
Hector P. Garcia Memorial Foundation. Dr. Garcia was a proud Mexican-
American, a World War II veteran, physician, humanitarian and civil
rights activist.
Dr. Garcia was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1984 by
President Ronald Reagan, and has been recognized by the United States
Army as one of the most influential Hispanics ever to serve. The
American Dream was believed and realized by Dr. Hector P. Garcia. He
inspired those around him to educate themselves, participate in the
democratic process, and work toward positive change.
The Dr. Hector P. Garcia Memorial Foundation was organized to educate
our communities about the continuing historical relevance and legacy of
Dr. Hector P. Garcia. The proceeds from this 100th Birthday Celebration
will be donated to Texas A&M University Corpus Christi for the Dr.
Hector P. Garcia library expansion at the Bell Library.
Dr. Garcia donated his papers in 1990 to Texas A&M University Corpus
Christi and the library expansion is necessary so the papers can be
properly displayed and fully appreciated by the public and the
students.
Though Dr. Garcia was laid to rest in Corpus Christi in 1996 at the
age of 82, his legacy will endure. He was truly an American hero and we
honor him today.
____________________
TO RECOGNIZE THE BUCKS COALITION AGAINST TRAFFICKING
______
HON. MICHAEL G. FITZPATRICK
of pennsylvania
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, January 7, 2014
Mr. FITZPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Bucks
Coalition Against
[[Page 112]]
Trafficking on its one-year anniversary, and to recognize the important
work this local volunteer group is doing to raise awareness on human
trafficking. The Coalition was launched to bring about an end to the
suffering of the victims of this modern-day form of slavery. In
particular, the Bucks Coalition Against Trafficking brings a strong,
informed commitment to this issue as it reaches out to all levels of
government to stop the exploitation of men, women, and children. The
broad-based program includes community education, victim
identification, legislative advocacy, and the prosecution of
traffickers. Pennsylvania's 8th District is grateful for the
Coalition's compassionate plan and its dedication to the awareness of
this horrendous crime, while successfully enlisting the assistance of
individuals, government agencies, and local law enforcement to help
bring justice.
____________________
HONORING THE BEULAH CEMETERY
______
HON. BENNIE G. THOMPSON
of mississippi
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, January 7, 2014
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor one
of the most intact historic properties associated with the growth and
development of the African-American community in the historic Vicksburg
and Warren County, Mississippi, area.
Beulah Cemetery was established in 1884 by the Vicksburg Tabernacle
#19 Independent Order of Brothers and Sisters of Love and Charity, who
bought the land from Harvey and Lucy Shannon for $1,000. It originally
encompassed 52 acres; however, through sales and transfers to the
National Park Service and individuals, the entire property is now 14.5
acres. From its establishment in 1884 until the 1940's, the cemetery
was the most important cemetery for Vicksburg-area African Americans
and remains today a visible landmark for the black community. Blacks
were buried in churchyards or on private land until Beulah Cemetery
became the main cemetery for Vicksburg-area African Americans.
The African American community has historically constituted about
half of Vicksburg's population. Beulah provides significant historical
information about this important group of citizens through its
gravestones. So few historic resources concerning the area of the
African American community remains therefore it's increasing the
significance of Beulah Cemetery.
The cemetery is the final resting place for members of the most
prominent black families in Vicksburg, including ancestors of almost
every native black in the Vicksburg area. The cemetery documents the
existence of generations of people for whom otherwise there might be no
surviving material available.
Among the prominent people buried at Beulah are the founders of the
black funeral homes (Jeffersons/Dillons); G. M. McIntyre, principal of
Cherry Street School and school namesake; Robert Banks Marshall, the
city's first black postal employee; and William Tillmon Jones, Grand
Chancellor of the Knights of Pythias, 1889-1906.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the Beulah
Cemetery as they strive to preserve African American history in the
Vicksburg and Warren County, Mississippi, area.
____________________
OUR UNCONSCIONABLE NATIONAL DEBT
______
HON. MIKE COFFMAN
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, January 7, 2014
Mr. COFFMAN. 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 $17,308,849,523,342.94. We've added
$6,681,972,474,429.86 to our debt in 5 years. This is over $6.6
trillion in debt our nation, our economy, and our children could have
avoided with a balanced budget amendment.
____________________
HONORING AMY C. PERKINS
_____
HON. BENNIE G. THOMPSON
of mississippi
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, January 7, 2014
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Ms.
Amy C. Perkins, who is a remarkable teacher and extraordinary public
servant.
Ms. Perkins was born in Leflore County, MS on January 31, 1976 to
Laura Perkins, a single mother who did not know the importance of
education. Education was never really emphasized to her and her six
siblings. Ms. Perkins older siblings were often taken out of school by
their mother to work in the fields. As a child, Ms. Perkins was not
fascinated by learning because it was never a requirement in her
household. On the verge of dropping out, she was inspired by her 6th
grade teacher. From that point on she knew that she wanted to inspire
students the way that her teacher inspired her.
Ms. Perkins attended Amanda Elzy High School in Greenwood, MS. There
she earned her high school diploma and moved on to her next level of
education. She obtained her first teaching job at Leflore County
Elementary School where she worked as an assistant for a 2nd grade
teacher for four years. During that time she helped empower young
students while working to become a fully certified teacher for the
state of Mississippi.
In 2009, she started teaching as a certified teacher at Woolfolk
Middle School in Yazoo City, Mississippi.
Even though her job was an hour away, she felt that it was worth the
drive. She had an opportunity to teach and inspire. After two years,
she got an offer to teach closer to home at Davis Elementary in
Greenwood, MS. There she is currently a fourth grade Math Teacher.
With her fun and non-traditional teaching style, she empowers
students to enjoy learning. She requests that the lowest achieving
students be challenged to improve their state assessment scores. So
far, this method has been a success. As an employee of the Greenwood
Public School District, Ms. Perkins has received numerous awards. These
awards include: Teacher of the Month 2012, a monetary incentive for
preparing students for state assessment 2011; Teaching Parent of the
Year; and also received an additional monetary incentive for hard work
in the 2011-2012 school year. During that year she had only one out of
eighty students to score below state standards on a state assessment in
mathematics.
Ms. Perkins continues to inspire students both in and out of the
classroom. She volunteers as a cheerleading coach for the Davis
Elementary Cheer Squad. She strives to instill in them the principles
of hard work, dedication, character, and community service. Ms. Perkins
has overcome adversity and set a wonderful example for her two
children.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing a Teacher
Extraordinaire, Ms. Amy C. Perkins for her dedication to serving others
and giving back to the African American community.
____________________
CONGRATULATING THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-WHITEWATER WARHAWKS
______
HON. F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR.
of wisconsin
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, January 7, 2014
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of the
University of Wisconsin-Whitewater's Warhawks, who won the Division III
Football National Championship on December 20, 2013. The Warhawks, led
by quarterback Matt Behrendt and Head Coach Lance Leipold, displayed a
tremendous amount of grit, determination, skill, and athleticism
throughout their undefeated season.
In a battle of two of the best Division III programs, Wisconsin-
Whitewater beat Mount Union in convincing fashion, 52-14. The win
marked the fifth national title for the Warhawks and their first since
2011. The Warhawks have now won 20 straight postseason games dating
back to the 2008 season.
The success of UW Whitewater football has made the residents of
Wisconsin proud and I salute the entire team: Jake Kumerow, Mickey
Morgan, Tyler Huber, Marcus McLin, Zach Howard, Josh Williams, Ryan
Givens, Nick McCullough, Steve Morris, Coleton Hrgich, Joe Worth, Chris
Nelson, Justin Howard, Lake Bachar, Shiloh Weber, Jack Deichl Jr., Matt
Behrendt, Tommy Coughlin, Zack Gehant, Ryan Storto, Shawn Shillcox,
Dylan Morang, Andrew Keister, Joe Paulus, Chris Treptow, Booker Ross,
Jordan Ratliffe, Bennett Young, Zach Mutton, JD Marconi, Dennis Moore,
Nick Patterson, Aaron Williamson, Colin Buck, Robert Johnson, Brady
Grayvold, Jordan Strasburg, Jordan Gruettner, Spencer Jacque, Zach
Schober, Eric Kindler, Ryan Winske, Brandon Bebow, Cole Klotz, Bryan
Spakowicz, Kyle Christensen, Justin Dischler, Kyle Wismer, Zach Nellis,
Ricky Valadez, Paul Foster, Ben Threloff, Ryan Cortez, Jesse DeLorme,
Yuri Pogosyan, Matthew Hoppe, Spencer Shier,
[[Page 113]]
Jamison Cook, Conner Peters, Eli Sloneker, Eric Trautman, Tim Regan,
Harry Green, Austin Jones, Jordan Edgerson, Nick Froland, Nick
Feliciano, Andrew Keel, Griffin Schaefer, Tyler Janczak, Johnny
Wiederholt, Pat Suffield, Evan Kurkowski, Lucas Skibba, Joe Matuschka,
Pat Costello, Weston Wegener, Nick Ryczek, Tony Koepnick, Cole Van
Schyndel, Brent Campbell, Zach Koch, Andrew Fuller, Chris Davis, Collin
Nolen, Brian Washington, Tommy Miller, Logan Solano, Derric Junakin,
Andrew Mulshine, Mykael Bratchett, Kevon Clunis, Brandon Tamsett, John
Flood, Marshall Rutherford, Ryan Kranz, Loussaint Minett, and Zach
Franz.
Winning a national championship is never easy. On behalf of my
Congressional office and my constituents in Wisconsin's fifth district,
I commend the coaches and players at UW Whitewater for their hard work
and dedication, and wish them continued success in the future.
____________________
COMMEMORATING THE LIFE OF THE HONORABLE BILL YOUNG
______
HON. JACK KINGSTON
of georgia
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, January 7, 2014
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of the late
Bill Young. On October 18, 2013, America lost one of its great national
leaders. Bill Young was a gentleman, a passionate advocate for the
military, and a devoted public servant.
During his twenty-two terms in Congress, Bill was the number one
cheerleader for our service men and women. He was especially concerned
for their personal safety and health care for the wounded. In these
times of low public approval for Congress, Bill was the exception. He
was respected by all, and, more importantly, never joined in the
partisan bashing that is all too common in Washington today. He was a
proud Member and executed his job with great pride.
When I was a new member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on
Defense, I was surprised by his offer to visit the military
installations in my district. Though I was new in representing Warner
Robins Air Force Base that year, having Bill come and talk to their
leadership sent a strong signal that they were in good hands. Bill did
the same thing for many other members regardless of party.
I was once returning from an overseas trip with Bill, and we were in
Shannon Airport in Ireland long after it closed. We ran into a group of
soldiers from the Third Infantry Division returning home. Their
reaction to seeing Bill was truly heartwarming. They immediately
recognized him, and came over to greet him and get a picture. I believe
that the reason they admired Bill had less to do with his title or
position, but more to do with how he felt about the military. They knew
Bill Young as one who knew the capability of weapons systems, but
always remembered the young men and women whose lives depended on them.
Part of Bill's charm was that he was well grounded, rooted in a
loving wife and family. He was even tempered, kind hearted, and the
consummate gentleman. He set the tone for the Committee and Congress as
a whole. Bill will be remembered and missed by Congress, the military,
and a grateful nation. God bless his memory and his family.
____________________
HONORING THELMA BROWN-JAMES
______
HON. BENNIE G. THOMPSON
of mississippi
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, January 7, 2014
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mrs.
Thelma Brown-James, who is a remarkable Unsung Hero.
Mrs. Thelma Brown-James was born on April 29, 1955 in Mound Bayou,
Mississippi to the late James and Lora Brown. She is the youngest of
three girls and four boys. Mrs. Brown received her education in the
Mound Bayou School District at I.T.M. Elementary School and in 1973
graduated from John F. Kennedy High School. Also, in 1973 she married
her high school sweetheart, Mr. Jessie James, and they were blessed
with six bundles of joy: Teresa, Jessie Jr., Robby, Lashay, Lakesha and
the late Lamar.
Mrs. Brown was employed with Baxter's Travenol in Cleveland,
Mississippi for 18 years. After leaving Baxter's she furthered her
education in the medical field and earned numerous professional
certifications. She worked as a nurses' assistant and home health nurse
for several medical agencies within the Mississippi Delta.
Mrs. Brown is a faithful member of Fresh Encounter Ministry in
Renova, Mississippi where she volunteers with various auxiliaries.
Being inspired by God, in January 2013 she opened the Goshen Event
Center in Drew, Mississippi to carter to the needs of the children, and
offer other activities to enhance the lives of the citizens of Drew and
the surrounding areas. Her dedication to the service of others has made
her an asset within and outside of her community.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing an unsung
hero, Mrs. Thelma Brown-James, for her dedication to serving others.
____________________
IN HONOR OF STUDENT WINNERS OF WINSLOW TOWNSHIP VETERANS DAY ESSAY
CONTEST
______
HON. ROBERT E. ANDREWS
of new jersey
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, January 7, 2014
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the winners of the
Historical Society of Winslow Township's Veterans Day 2013 Student
Essay Contest.
These nine students, attending Winslow Township Middle School and
Winslow Township High School, wrote essays answering the question ``How
would you thank a soldier for his/her service?'' The moving prose of
these young men and women is a testament to the patriotic spirit of the
citizens of South Jersey. Moreover, these students' awareness of the
sacrifices of our military and their families is precocious and
praiseworthy.
For that reason, Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to submit the names of
the winners to the Congressional Record. From the 7th grade class:
Mary-Elizabeth Jimoh, 1st Place; Jordan Frazier, 2nd Place; Morgan
Chambliss, 3rd Place. From the 8th grade class: Kelli O'Neill, 1st
Place; Deanna Paul, 2nd Place; Aliyah Jones, 3rd Place. From Winslow
Township High School: senior Rebecca Hall, 1st Place; sophomore Joshua
Hansen, 2nd Place; senior Amanda Wellik, 3rd Place.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate these young men and women on
having their essays selected by the Historical Society of Winslow
Township. These students have bright futures ahead of them. It is my
sincere hope that they will carry this abiding respect for the military
and service with them as they continue to learn and grow.
____________________
HONORING WOOLF FUNERAL HOME
______
HON. BENNIE G. THOMPSON
of mississippi
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, January 7, 2014
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a
remarkable funeral home, Woolf Funeral Home.
Woolf Funeral Home was established in 1940 by Henry Woolf in Tunica,
Mississippi. After opening in Tunica and his determination and desire
to offer outstanding service to the bereaved, he opened a funeral home
in Clarksdale, Mississippi.
After the passing of Mr. Henry Woolf in 1958, Woolf Funeral Homes was
purchased by Mr. Ben Brown who continued on the legacy of Mr. Woolf. In
1978 Mr. Brown passed and his son, Willie A. Brown, a retired United
States Air Force veteran and licensed funeral director, became owner.
Mr. Willie Brown's vision to make sure every family they serviced was
special and deserved the best hours of their bereavement. He has,
throughout the years, continued the establishment in the community.
Woolf Funeral Home contributes and participates in numerous community
and charitable organizations.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Woolf
Funeral Home for their dedication in being an outstanding establishment
in the cities of Clarksdale and Tunica and the Counties of Coahoma and
Tunica, Mississippi.
____________________
IN RECOGNITION OF MR. RICK CASE FOLLOWING THE RECENT GRAND OPENING OF
RICK CASE VOLKSWAGEN
______
HON. ALCEE L. HASTINGS
of florida
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, January 7, 2014
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in order to
recognize Mr. Rick Case following the recent grand opening of his
Volkswagen dealership in Davie, Florida, as
[[Page 114]]
well as for the many contributions that his family of auto dealerships
has made to the local community and state's economy as a whole. The new
Volkswagen dealership is Mr. Case's fifth addition to the area known as
``Davie/Weston auto row,'' and creates 200 new jobs, including sales
staff, service technicians, and receptionists.
At eight stories high and 328,000 square feet, Rick Case Volkswagen
claims the title of world's largest auto dealership for the German car
company. Around 800 new and used Volkswagen vehicles are on display in
each of the dealerships showroom floors. Furthermore, the new facility
also features a service center, a cafe and lounge area for customers,
and a floor for offices and staff training. Rick Case Automotive Group
has 15 auto dealerships in Ohio, Georgia, and Florida, featuring a wide
range of makes and models, and is expected to continue its growth.
Competitive customer benefits and employee training have come to be
the hallmark of the Rick Case model. In 2013, Rick Case Automotive
Group was named by Automotive News as its National All-Star Dealer for
the Privately Held Dealer category, an honor received by only one
dealer out of over 17,000 dealers nationwide. In addition, Mr. Case's
commitment to his customers is matched by his dedication to the
community. As a local partner, he has helped to raise millions of
dollars for charities like the Boys and Girls Clubs of America.
The auto dealer industry contributes greatly to our nation's economy
and that of our state and local communities. In particular, auto dealer
sales represent about $47 billion annually. Florida ranks as the third-
largest state in the country in terms of number of vehicles, the sale
of which account for 16 percent of retail sales tax. Furthermore, there
are approximately 850 new car dealers in Florida, providing tens of
thousands of direct jobs and supporting millions more in related
sectors. Auto dealers help many hardworking individuals afford the
vehicles they need to access job opportunities and support their
families.
Mr. Speaker, as our nation continues to recover from the greatest
recession in recent memory, we should recognize American businesses
that are driving job creation and economic growth. Once again, I would
like to congratulate Mr. Rick Case and his wife Rita on the recent
grand opening of their Volkswagen dealership, and wish them much
continued success in the years to come.
____________________
HONORING DOUGLAS L. BRAGG
______
HON. BARBARA LEE
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, January 7, 2014
Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Douglas
L. Bragg for his extraordinary career of public service and leadership
on the occasion of his retirement. Mr. Bragg is retiring after thirty-
four years of dedicated service to the United States Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA), where he has served as Director of the Oakland
VA Regional Office since October 2011.
Mr. Bragg is a Vietnam Era veteran who served in the United States
Air Force from 1970 to 1973. Mr. Bragg began his career with the VA in
1979 at the San Francisco VA Regional Office. In 1986, he took on the
role as a Veterans Benefits Counselor and also served as the station's
outreach coordinator. He was at the forefront of the Regional Office's
response to the Loma Prieta earthquake, as he was primarily responsible
for the outreach efforts to victims of the earthquake.
He joined the Veterans Benefits Administration as a Supervisory Field
Examiner in 1989. In 1994, he accepted a position as a Program Analyst
in the Veterans Assistance Service (VAS) at the VA Central Office in
Washington, DC, where he worked on the Foreign Medical Program,
performed station surveys, and was a member of the VAS Business Process
Reengineering team.
In 1996, Mr. Bragg went on to become an analyst for the Fiduciary
Program on the Policy and Regulations staff. He returned to the field
in 1999 following his appointment as the Assistant Veterans Service
Center Manager at the Washington, DC VA Regional Office. During his
tenure in this position, he was accepted into Leadership VA through the
VA Learning University, the VA's corporate university for VA employees
to develop leadership and other management skills, and graduated in
2002. He became the Acting Veterans Service Center Manager at
Washington Regional Office in 2003.
In 2004, Mr. Bragg joined the management team of the St. Louis VA
Regional Office as the Education Program Manager. He further developed
his leadership credentials while serving as the Acting Assistant
Director in 2007, completing the Leadership for a Democratic Society
course at the Federal Executive Institute in 2007. He was accepted as a
participant in the FY 2007 Assistant Director Development Program.
He served as Assistant Director of the St. Louis VA Regional Office
from 2008 through 2011. He was appointed to the Oakland VA Regional
Office as Director in October 2011. In this capacity, Mr. Bragg has had
the responsibility of overseeing California's 1.8 million veteran
population. From the Oakland VA Regional Office, over 127,000
Californian veterans receive benefits with the total monthly
compensation and payment benefits paid at over $146 million.
Throughout his prolific career with the VA, Mr. Bragg has been
praised for his strategy, strong leadership, integrity and compassion.
He has worked hard to create opportunities for veterans, a critical
commitment that we must continue to honor to make sure our veterans
come home to good jobs and services that are necessary to help
transition successfully into civilian life.
On behalf of the residents of California's 13th Congressional
District, Mr. Douglas Bragg, I salute you. I congratulate you on your
many achievements, and I wish you and your loved ones all the very best
as you transition to this exciting new chapter of life.
____________________
HONORING JIMMY DIXON
______
HON. BENNIE G. THOMPSON
of mississippi
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, January 7, 2014
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a
hardworking and self-motivated black farmer, Mr. Jimmy Dixon, who was
born on June 12, 1953 to the late Colie and Anna Mae Dixon.
Mr. Jimmy Dixon was the 6th child of 12 children, a native of Copiah
County, Mississippi and was born and raised on the farm.
Mr. Jimmy Dixon is passionate about the farming industry. His heart
for farming stems from his late father, Mr. Colic Dixon, Sr. Even
during struggling times for farmers, he and several of his siblings
helped their father to build the legacy to raise cattle and harvest hay
and plant corn, watermelons, okra, peas, sweet potatoes and other
produce. They worked hard to acquire land and equipment. Together they
owned over 300 acres of land.
Mr. Dixon went to Brushy Creek Attendance Center, an all black school
and attended Holtzclaw High School and graduated from Crystal Springs
High School, the first year they segregated in 1971. He joined the U.S.
Army in 1979 and became a Military Policeman. He went to the conflict
in the Persian Gulf in 1990 until 1991 and served in the Gulf War,
receiving an Accommodation Medal Award in 1991 and retired in 1992.
Mr. Dixon is married to Marlene and they have three boys and one girl
along with four grandchildren. He and his family attends Temple of Yah
Hebrew Israelite Assembly in Terry, Mississippi.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Mr. Jimmy
Dixon for his dedication and endurance of successful farming.
____________________
RECOGNIZING THE TIRELESS WORK OF MR. RICHARD A. JOANIS
______
HON. G.K. BUTTERFIELD
of north carolina
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, January 7, 2014
Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize a great American
who has spent his career working to help the underserved in our
country--especially migrant and seasonal farmworkers.
Richard A. Joanis spent 33 years as Executive Director of Telamon
Corporation, one of the nation's most successful nonprofit
organizations operating federal programs. He retires on February 14,
2014 after 44 years of service to farmworkers, elderly and other
disadvantaged populations including major program efforts in Head
Start, adult and youth training and employment, home ownership, housing
rehabilitation, and homeless services.
Mr. Joanis' more than three decade career at Telamon allowed him the
opportunity to serve in many capacities on behalf of those to whom he
gave voice.
He served on the U.S. Department of Labor's National Advisory
Committee on services to migrant and seasonal farmworkers and also
[[Page 115]]
was a member of the Agricultural Employment Work Group set up by the
Secretaries of Agriculture and Labor. Mr. Joanis was former president
of the Association of Farmworker Opportunity Programs, a national
federation of farmworker services organizations, now in its 42nd year.
At Telemon Corporation, Mr. Joanis built the organization from a one-
state operation into a nationally recognized multi-disciplinary non-
profit organization serving America's migrant and seasonal farmworkers,
children, youth and the rural poor in eleven states.
In 2004, in recognition of his accomplishments, Mr. Joanis was
inducted into the Order of the Long Leaf Pine in my great state of
North Carolina.
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Joanis has spent his career building hope, helping
others see their inherent potential, and positively impacting countless
lives by creating an upward trajectory for people around the nation.
Mr. Joanis answered the nation's calling to assist its citizens when
they are most in need.
Through his efforts on behalf of disadvantaged Americans, Mr. Joanis
demonstrated that as citizens we are at our best when we are engaged in
service to others, especially when that service leads to the
empowerment of our fellow citizens and the improvement of our
communities.
I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing and thanking Mr. Joanis
for his tireless work on behalf of those who are less fortunate.
____________________
HONORING MAUDE L. WILLIAMS BALLOU
______
HON. BENNIE G. THOMPSON
of mississippi
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, January 7, 2014
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a
remarkable public servant, Mrs. Maude L. Williams Ballou, who was born
in Fairhope, Alabama, and raised in Mobile. She received a Bachelor of
Science in business administration in 1947 from Southern University in
Baton Rouge, Louisiana. After marrying music instructor, Leonard
Ballou, she and her husband relocated to Montgomery, Alabama in 1952.
Mrs. Ballou met Jo Ann Robinson before the start of the bus boycott and
talked with her about how to obtain better conditions for blacks in
Montogmery.
After Martin Luther King's election as president of the Montgomery
Improvement Association (MIA) at the start of the Montgomery bus
boycott, Maude Ballou became his personal secretary.
After becoming King's secretary at the MIA, Mrs. Ballou helped
coordinate carpools during the boycott. She often responded on King's
behalf to his correspondence. Mrs. Ballou accompanied Dr. King when he
moved to Atlanta in 1960, staying with the King family and assisting
him in establishing his office at the Southern Christian Leadership
Conference headquarters there. Mrs. Ballou left that summer to rejoin
her family in Petersburg, Virginia, where her husband had accepted a
position at Virginia State College.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Mrs. Maude
L. Ballou for her dedication to serving others.
____________________
CELEBRATING THE LIFE ACHIEVEMENTS OF GORDON B. ZACKS
______
HON. PATRICK J. TIBERI
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, January 7, 2014
Mr. TIBERI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and celebrate the life
achievements of Gordon B. Zacks.
Expressing how much Gordy has meant to Central Ohio and the nation is
an impossible task. As a fellow graduate of The Ohio State University,
as an admirer and as a friend of this remarkable person, it gives me
great pleasure to add my personal appreciation and commendation.
Gordy served with distinction as an advisor, confidant, and friend of
U.S. presidents to help change the political landscape of the American
Jewish community and improve U.S. relations on behalf of Israel and its
neighboring Arab states. Gordy worked with three U.S. presidents and
five Israeli Prime Ministers, and his political involvement reached its
highpoint during the Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush presidencies.
Gordy declined an ambassadorship in the Reagan-Bush Administration and
a Cabinet post during the Bush-Quayle Administration in order to serve
as unofficial advisor and confidant to Vice President and subsequently
President Bush. He met privately with Vice President and then President
Bush on a monthly basis to discuss Israeli/American relations, the
Middle East peace process, Soviet Jewry, Ethiopian Jewry, and the
political landscape of the American Jewish community.
Blessed with true ambition, Gordy is also a brilliant businessman who
catapulted R.G. Barry Corporation from a small family firm into an
international footwear industry leader. He joined the Columbus, Ohio-
based company in 1955 and became president in 1965. He was elected CEO
of the company in 1979 and retired in 2004. He is currently the
Chairman of the Board of Directors for the company. Today, R.G. Barry
is the world's largest marketer and supplier of at-and-around-the-home
comfort footwear for men, women and children, under the brand name of
Dearfoams.
Gordy's book Defining Moments--Stories of Character, Courage, and
Leadership profiles remarkable leaders who have made the world a better
place. Gordan Zacks has built his own legacy of leadership and
integrity--the benefits of which have accrued to his family, his
friends and all those who are privileged to know him.
On behalf of the citizens of Ohio's 12th Congressional District, I
would like to thank Gordy for his devotion to the great state of Ohio
and to all of the communities that have benefitted from his invaluable
contributions.
____________________
RESOLUTION TO COMMEMORATE PAM TRUSDALE'S 15TH ANNIVERSARY AS EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF TRAILER MANUFACTURERS
______
HON. LYNN JENKINS
of kansas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, January 7, 2014
Ms. JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize my constituent
and friend, Pam Trusdale, on the occasion of her 15th anniversary as
Executive Director of the National Association of Trailer
Manufacturers. From NATM's headquarters in my Congressional District in
Topeka, Kansas, Pam leads advocacy, outreach and safety-promotion
efforts on behalf of the light and medium duty trailer industry, one
that is responsible for hundreds of thousands of American jobs and
several billion dollars of positive economic output.
The great work NATM does on behalf of its members and the industry at
large would certainly not be possible without Pam's 15 years of
leadership and vision. When she joined the organization in 1998, it was
a fledgling group of a handful of companies who joined together to
better the industry's future. Since that time, membership has expanded
dramatically and NATM's advocacy on behalf of its members in
Washington, D.C. has, as well. Soon, NATM will move into a new
headquarters building in Topeka in order to accommodate its growth in
staff and continue serving its members.
Among the many initiatives in which Pam's leadership has been
instrumental is the creation of NATM's Compliance Verification Program.
Through the Program, NATM's technical staff visits members'
manufacturing plants to ensure the proper procedures are in place to
build trailers that are in accordance with federal safety regulations
and best industry practices. Pam has guided the Program from its
creation through a unanimous vote to make participation mandatory for
membership in the Association. When consumers across the country see
the NATM decal on a dealer's showroom floor, they know instantly they
are purchasing a safety compliant trailer.
In addition to her efforts leading NATM, Pam has also been active in
serving the Topeka community. She currently serves on the Board of
Regents of Washburn University, her alma mater, and is active with the
Kansas Society of Association Executives. She is also a member of the
Stormont-Vail Foundation Advisory Board and past chairwoman of the
Stormont-Vail Foundation Board of Trustees.
Congratulations, Pam, on this milestone. May you and NATM enjoy many
more successful years.
____________________
HONORING JOHN T. HART
______
HON. BENNIE G. THOMPSON
of mississippi
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, January 7, 2014
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a
hardworking and self-motivated 65 year old black farmer, John T. Hart,
who just keeps on going.
[[Page 116]]
Mr. John T. Hart, a native of Holmes County, Mississippi, has been a
farmer most of his life, with the exception of some years that he lived
in Chicago. He left Mississippi, a farmer and relocated back to
Mississippi approximately four decades ago. If it was possible, one
might say that farming is in his DNA. He is just that passionate about
the farming industry. His heart for farming stems from his late father,
Harrison B. (HB) Hart, who was one of the largest African-American
farmers in Holmes County, even during struggling times for farmers.
John Hart and several of his siblings helped their father to build the
legacy.
Today, Mr. Hart still carries on his father's legacy through a
successful farming business of his own. One of his brothers also has a
thriving farming business. To work from before sunup to pitch black
dark is the norm for this hill farmer, who has also farmed hundreds of
acres in the Mississippi Delta. Cotton, corn and soybeans have mainly
been his crops of choice over the years. This year, just for fun, he
has added 20 acres of ``delicious'' watermelons that have become in
popular demand by local and area consumers and grocery businesses.
Just like other industries, the farming business for Mr. Hart and
others have had its share of blows. In a November 22, 2009 New York
Times article by Shaila Dewan titled, ``In Mississippi Delta, a
Promising Summer Washed Away by the Fall,'' Mr. Hart was one of the
featured farmers interviewed for the article about continuous rain that
had damaged farm crops that year for farmers in Mississippi, Alabama,
Georgia, eastern Arkansas, and parts of Louisiana. ``You just keep
going,'' Hart is quoted saying in the article.
Mr. Hart is also a cattle rancher. Yes, the man who has turned dirt
for decades also raises cattle. He owns a herd of cattle from good
stock. How does he do it all with only the help of two farm hands? Only
God knows.
Although the Mississippi farming business has seen its share of ups
and downs, Mr. Hart still remains steadfast to his passion even though
at 65 he could be sitting on the beautiful front porch of their ranch
house with his wife, Prince Ella Edwards Hart, of 44 years, looking out
over the horizon of land God has blessed them with.
Mr. Hart is a graduate of Tchula Attendance Center (now, S.V.
Marshall High School). He and his wife, a retiree in the medical arena,
have three adult children and three grandchildren.
Will this be the year Mr. Hart brings all of his farm's heavy
equipment out of the fields for good, recline in that chair beside his
devoted wife and friends on that front porch? Who knows?
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Mr. John
T. Hart for his impeccable dedication and endurance of successful
farming.
____________________
THE INTRODUCTION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT
______
HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON
of the district of columbia
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, January 7, 2014
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the District of Columbia
Paperwork Reduction Act, to eliminate the wasteful congressional review
process for legislation passed by the District of Columbia Council and
to align longtime congressional practice and the law. The congressional
review process for D.C. bills provides no benefit to Congress, but
imposes substantial costs (in time and money) on the District. Indeed,
Congress effectively abandoned the congressional review process as a
mechanism for overturning D.C. legislation twenty-three years ago, yet
it still requires the D.C. Council to use Kafkaesque make-work
procedures to comply with the abandoned congressional review process
established by the Home Rule Act of 1973.
The bill would eliminate the congressional review process for
legislation passed by the D.C. Council. Congress would lose no
authority it currently exercises because, even upon enactment of my
bill, Congress would retain its authority under clause 17 of section 8
of article I of the U.S. Constitution to amend or overturn any D.C.
legislation at any time.
The congressional review process (30 days for civil bills and 60 days
for criminal bills) includes only those days when both houses of
Congress are in session, delaying D.C. bills from becoming law, often
for many months. The delay forces the D.C. Council to pass most bills
several times, using a cumbersome and complicated process to ensure
that the operations of this large and rapidly changing city continue
uninterrupted, or in the alternative, the lapse of the bill before it
becomes final. The review period, based on legislative, not calendar,
days means, for example, that a 30-day period usually lasts three
calendar months and often much longer because of congressional
recesses. The congressional review period for a bill that changed the
word ``handicap'' to ``disability'' lasted nine months. The Council
estimates that 50-65 percent of the bills the Council passes could be
eliminated if the review period did not exist. To ensure
predictability, the Council often must pass the same legislation in
three forms--emergency (in effect for 90 days), temporary (in effect
for 225 days) and permanent. Moreover, the Council has to carefully
track the days Congress is in session for each piece of legislation it
passes to avoid gaps and to determine when the bills have taken effect.
The Council estimates that it could save 5,000 employee-hours and
160,000 sheets of paper per Council period if the review period were
eliminated.
My bill would do no more than align the Home Rule Act with
congressional practice over the last twenty-three years. Since the Home
Rule Act, of the more than 4,500 legislative acts transmitted to
Congress, only three resolutions disapproving D.C. legislation have
been enacted--in 1979, 1981, and 1991--and two of those mistakenly
involved federal interests in the Height Act and the location of
chanceries. Placing a congressional hold on 4,500 D.C. bills has not
only proven unnecessary, but also a waste of money and time for both
the District and Congress. Instead of using the congressional review
process to overturn D.C. legislation, Congress has preferred to use
appropriations riders. It is particularly unfair to require the D.C.
Council to engage in a labor-intensive and costly process that Congress
has itself long ago abandoned. My bill would only eliminate the
automatic hold placed on D.C. legislation and the need for the D.C.
Council to use a process initially passed for the convenience of
Congress, but one that Congress has since eliminated in all but law.
The bill would promote efficiency and cost savings for the District,
and carry out a policy stressed by Congress of eliminating needless
paperwork and make-work redundancy.
I urge my colleagues to support this good-government measure.
____________________
HONORING WILLIESTINE ``PEGGY'' LARK
______
HON. BENNIE G. THOMPSON
of mississippi
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, January 7, 2014
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a
remarkable unsung hero, Mrs. Williestine ``Peggy'' Lark, a woman who is
truly worthy of admiration.
Mrs. Lark is a wife, a mother, a grandmother, an educator, a mentor,
and a friend who exemplifies true womanhood through her virtuous
lifestyle. She has dedicated her life to empowering the lives of her
family and community.
Mrs. Lark is the third of twelve children born in the small town of
Monticello, MS. She has always desired to pursue a good education and
become successful in life. After completing high school, she attended
Mississippi Valley State University located in Itta Bena, MS. Mrs. Lark
was the first in her family to graduate from college. After receiving
her degree, she became a teacher in Durant Public Schools. In 1969, she
married and started a family there in Durant, MS.
While raising her children, Denise, Monica and LaRonica, Mrs. Lark
instilled in them the value of being well-educated. She lived by
example and continued to pursue her education as well. She received her
Master's Degree in Education in 1979 and continued to further her
education with degrees from both Jackson State University and Delta
State University. Mrs. Lark was relentlessly involved in her daughters'
education and committed to supporting them in their extracurricular
activities. She also voluntarily took on mentoring children in her
community as well as the students she taught. With her support and
encouragement, many of her students have successful careers. Among them
are her daughters--Denise, who is an elementary school principal and
Monica, a high school teacher.
In the year of 1995, Mrs. Lark lost her daughter, LaRonica to a car
accident. Although this was a trying time for her, she thrived by
sharing herself with the children in
[[Page 117]]
her community. Even through her daughter's death, she allowed her
daughter to become an organ donor and donated her heart.
Today, Mrs. Lark is active in her grandchildren's education and
encourages them to volunteer in their schools and community. Her
grandchildren are honor students--one of who has graduated from high
school attends college on scholarship, with an ACT score of 25. Her
grandson and two granddaughters volunteer every summer in programs for
youth.
Mrs. Lark is retired from teaching after 35 years in the Durant
Public Schools system. She is presently the coordinator of the after-
school tutorial program at the Community Students Learning Center in
Lexington, MS, where she teaches and inspires children from her
``heart''. She can often be found voluntarily transporting community
children to summer programs and activities throughout the community.
In Mrs. Lark's personal time, she often opens up her home to mentor,
tutor, feed, and reward children for their achievements. She is also a
devoted Christian and Sunday school teacher. She loves to help children
learn, be creative, and feel good about themselves.
There is nothing more picturesque than the smile that Mrs. Lark wears
for each child's accomplishments. She has the gift of making people
feel good about themselves and finds the time to teach and inspire
those around her, giving others the ability to wear that same smile
that she wears everyday.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing an unsung
hero, Mrs. Williestine ``Peggy'' Lark, for her dedication to serving
others.
____________________
CELEBRATING THE 100TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE SIGNING OF THE SMITH-LEVER
ACT, THE FOUNDING LEGISLATION OF THE NATIONWIDE COOPERATIVE EXTENSION
SYSTEM
______
HON. BILL FLORES
of texas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, January 7, 2014
Mr. FLORES. Mr. Speaker, whereas May 8, 2014 marks the centennial of
the signing of the Smith-Lever Act of 1914, which established
Cooperative Extension, the nationwide transformational education system
operating through land-grant universities in partnership with federal,
state and local governments.
Whereas U.S. Senator Hoke Smith of Georgia and U.S. Representative A.
F. Lever of South Carolina authored the Smith-Lever Act to expand the
``vocational, agricultural and home demonstration programs in rural
America'' by bringing the research-based knowledge of the land-grant
universities to people where they live and work.
Whereas Cooperative Extension is a critical component of the three-
part land-grant university mission and works collaboratively with
research, particularly the Agricultural Experiment Station System and
academic programs in 106 colleges and universities, including
historically black, Native American and Hispanic-serving institutions;
in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and six U.S. territories to
reach traditional and underserved audiences in all communities.
Whereas the Cooperative Extension System continues to receive federal
programmatic leadership and support enabled by the Smith Lever Act and
other legislation through the U.S. Department of Agriculture's National
Institute of Food and Agriculture.
Whereas Cooperative Extension's research-based education for farmers
and ranchers helped establish the United States as a leading
agricultural-producing nation in the world.
Whereas since 1924, when the clover emblem was adopted by USDA to
represent 4-H, Cooperative Extension's nationwide youth development
program has reached millions of youth and helped prepare them for
responsible adulthood.
Whereas Cooperative Extension prepares people for healthy, productive
lives through sustained education, such as the Expanded Food and
Nutrition Education Program, breaking the cycle of poverty and reducing
expenditures for federal and state assistance programs.
Whereas Cooperative Extension provides rapid response to disasters
and emergencies through the Extension Disaster Education Network and
other similar efforts by providing real-time alerts and resources so
Extension educators can respond to urgent needs resulting from
hurricanes, floods, oil spills, fire, drought, pest outbreaks and
infectious diseases affecting humans, livestock and crops.
Whereas Cooperative Extension translates science-based research for
practical application through local and online learning networks where
educators are uniquely available to identify emerging research
questions, connect with land-grant university faculty to find answers
and encourage application of findings to improve economic and social
conditions.
Whereas Cooperative Extension engages with rural and urban learners
through practical, community-based and online approaches, resulting in
the acquisition of knowledge, skills and motivation to strengthen the
profitability of animal and plant production systems, protect natural
resources, help people make healthful lifestyle choices, ensure a safe
and abundant food supply, encourage community vitality and grow the
next generation of leaders.
Whereas many states and land-grant institutions are celebrating and
commemorating the centennial of the signing of the historic Act.
Therefore, be it resolved, that the United States House of
Representatives:
Recognizes the significance of the Smith-Lever Act to the
establishment of Cooperative Extension nationwide.
Encourages the people of the United States to observe and celebrate
the centennial with a focus on launching an innovative and sustainable
future for Cooperative Extension.
Honors the university faculty and local educators who dedicate
careers to providing trusted education to help people, families, youth,
businesses and communities solve problems, develop skills and build a
better future.
Expresses its appreciation to Cooperative Extension volunteers who
provide thousands of hours to promote excellence for 4-H, Master
Gardeners, family and consumer sciences and other programs in their
communities.
Encourages the continued collaboration and cooperation among federal,
state and local governments to ensure Cooperative Extension's
sustainability as the nation's premiere nonformal educational network.
Celebrates the millions of youth, adults, families, farmers,
ranchers, community leaders and others who engage in Cooperative
Extension learning opportunities designed to extend knowledge and
change lives.
____________________
HONORING ROGERS BENJAMIN MORRIS, SR.
______
HON. BENNIE G. THOMPSON
of mississippi
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, January 7, 2014
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a
remarkable farmer and hero, Mr. Rogers Benjamin Morris, Sr., who is a
resident of Mound Bayou, MS.
His father, Mr. Ajax Julius Morris, Sr., was a fortunate man. His
parents afforded him the opportunity to attend Alcorn State College,
currently known today as Alcorn State University, during a time when
most African Americans received very little or, in many instances, no
educational opportunities at all. Also, his wife, Rowena Bell Morris,
attended Natchez College. In 1974, after rearing and formally educating
all five of their children, Mrs. Morris returned to college at
Mississippi Valley State University and graduated with a degree in
education at the ``tender age of 68.''
As staunch proponents of hard work and educational excellence, Mr.
and Mrs. Morris worked unstintingly to ensure that their three sons and
two daughters received the best education possible. Among those five
children was Rogers Benjamin Morris, Sr., the youngest in the family.
He was born on November 9, 1945, in the small, rural community of
Winterville, MS, where he received his early education.
In 1964, he graduated as salutatorian from O'Bannon High School, in
Greenville, MS. In 1968, he graduated from Jackson State University
with a Bachelor's Degree in Biology and a Minor in Chemistry. In 1972,
Mr. Morris received a Master of Science Degree in Environmental Health
from the University of Cincinnati and furthered his education toward a
master's degree in Public Health from the University of Michigan in Ann
Arbor.
As a youngster growing up on a farm, he learned what it meant to work
hard and persevere; these qualities helped direct his career back to
the family farm more than 35 years ago. Realizing that farming involves
a lot more than the growing of crops, he taught his own sons farm work
during the early stages of their lives, thereby providing them with
experiences that cultivated and shaped their character, as well as
careers.
In the early 1900s his grandfather acquired over 100 acres of land in
Washington County, MS--land that has remained in the family for over a
century. Presently, as a third generation farmer, he farms this land,
in addition to over 600 other acres of crops in the region. As the
owner of Morris Farms, he produces corn, rice, soybeans and wheat. He
manages some timber and raises sweet potatoes.
[[Page 118]]
Mr. Morris is a member of the Mound Bayou First Baptist Church where
he serves as a deacon and chairman of the Board of Trustees, and a
member of the sanctuary choir. He is also a member of the Shelby-
Bolivar County Credit Union and a past member of the Mound Bayou School
District Board of Trustees. As a member of the Bolivar County Farm
Bureau and Delta Council of Mississippi, he has an opportunity to
communicate the needs of farmers to all political and apiculture
leaders. He is the assistant secretary of the National Black Growers
Council, an organization that defines its mission as, ``We simply love
farming''.
Mr. Morris states that ``We smile knowing the food and fiber we
produce feed and clothe the world. We farm on lands handed down from
generation to generation. We constantly integrate technology . . . .
The organization confers with industry leaders to strengthen their
mission of improving the efficiency, productivity, and sustainability
of Black row crop farmers.''
One of Mr. Morris' greatest concerns is the lack of job opportunities
for young people in the community. Sweet potato farming allows him to
employ a limited number of persons in planting and harvesting.
In June of 2007 a reporter, Carol Guzy, shadowed Mr. Morris for a day
on the farm and he was featured in an article in the Washington Post
newspaper which detailed the plight of small Black farmers. On July 12-
14, 2012, he was selected to present on the African American Farmers'
Panel at the Urban-Ag Academy conference in Des Moines, IA.
Mr. Morris has been married to Mrs. DeVoyce Morris for 44 years and
they are the proud parents of four adult sons, Rogers Benjamin Morris,
Jr., Jeremy Kyle, Justin and Bertrand. They are gracious grandparents
of three granddaughters, Jordan, Sydnee and Nia Marie and one grandson,
Kyle Rogers.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing an amazing
farmer, Mr. Roger Morris for his dedication in agriculture.
____________________
TO RECOGNIZE SHUJI MARUYAMA SENSEI
______
HON. MICHAEL G. FITZPATRICK
of pennsylvania
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, January 7, 2014
Mr. FITZPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, the House is pleased to recognize Shuji
Maruyama Sensei, the founder of Kokikai Aikido, on the 45th anniversary
of the introduction of Aikido to the greater Philadelphia region. Mr.
Maruyama, who is acknowledged as one of the world's greatest living
martial artists, brought Aikido to the United States 45 years ago. Now,
at the age when most men are considering retirement, Shuji continues to
educate his students and lead Kokikai Aidido on a successful path in
the U.S. It is understood that this self-defense training system
provides personal realization and ethical self-defense. The students of
Aikido learn that as they become stronger, a peaceful resolution of
conflict becomes more, not less, possible. So on this special
anniversary, I am pleased to acknowledge Mr. Maruyama's personal
achievements and the beneficial role Kokikai Aikido has played in
enriching the lives of men and women in Bucks County, Pennsylvania and
the United States.
____________________
HONORING JERRY L. SMITH
______
HON. BENNIE G. THOMPSON
of mississippi
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, January 7, 2014
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr.
Jerry L. Smith, who is a remarkable Small Black Farmer, businessman and
public servant.
Mr. Jerry L. Smith was born in Leflore County, Mississippi on August
29, 1961 to Emma Lee and Elone Smith, Sr. He is the 7th child of
twelve.
Mr. Smith attended Amanda Elzy High School. He was reared on a farm
with his family. He and his brothers helped his father to farm part-
time until their father decided to stop. He and his brothers took over
the farming business and started the Smith's Brother Farm in the early
1980's. Later one of Mr. Smith's brothers was killed and one became
disabled. He then continued the farming business under the present name
Smith's Farm.
Well known for his early start of hard work, Mr. Smith started
working as a city landscaper in Sidon, MS when he was still in high
school under the leadership of Mr. Alford. His next job was with
Leflore County Road Department in 1979 where he is presently employed
now as County Road Manager.
Mr. Smith has served in many capacities contributing to this society.
He served 10 years on the Leflore County United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) Board. He currently serves on the Deacon and Trustee
Board at Bell Chapel M.B. Church, on the Leflore County Sheriff
Department, a Sidon Board Alderman, Yazoo Levy Board, Sidon Volunteer
Fire Chief, and self-employed small farmer. As a farmer he has produced
cotton, soybeans, and wheat.
Mr. Smith is married to the former Joyce Marie Thomas and they are
the proud parents of Jeremy Smith and Jayla Smith.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing a Small
Business Farmer Extraordinaire, Mr. Jerry L. Smith, for his dedication
to serving others and giving back to his communities by producing crops
through his farming business.
____________________
THE RETIREMENT OF WAYNE S. BROWN
______
HON. JOHN CONYERS, JR.
of michigan
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, January 7, 2014
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the retirement of
Wayne S. Brown, the Director of Music and Opera at the National
Endowment for the Arts (NEA), who is stepping down from his position
this week. Mr. Brown is a well-loved and integral part of the NEA, and
both he and his record of accomplishments will be greatly missed.
The NEA recognizes and supports a wide range of music, from classical
to contemporary, including America's native art form: jazz. It works
with performing ensembles and music presenting institutions to enrich
the cultural lives of Americans. As Director of the NEA's efforts in
this area, he has provided critical guidance for countless chamber
music ensembles; choruses; early music programs; jazz ensembles; music
festivals; symphony orchestras and opera companies.
Mr. Brown has been with the NEA since 1997, having previously served
as musical producer for the Cultural Olympiad in Atlanta, Georgia for
the 1996 Olympic Games, and as executive director of the Louisville
Orchestra where he has managed thousands of music and opera grants. He
has also overseen national music initiatives, including the NEA Jazz
Masters Fellowships, the nation's highest award in jazz; the NEA Opera
Honors, celebrating individuals who have made extraordinary
contributions to opera in America; and Great American Voices, which
brings vocal ensembles from opera companies to our men and women in
uniform.
During his time he has not only been an administrator; he has been a
leader in strengthening the NEA's largest discipline program and its
ties with the broader music and opera community. His colleagues offer
effusive praise for his accomplishments, his knowledge, and his steady
judgment.
While the NEA is sad to see Mr. Brown go, as a Detroiter and lover of
music and the arts, I am very proud to say he will be bringing his
record of achievement to our city, where he will be the President of
the Michigan Opera Theater at the Detroit Opera House. As Detroiters
face great challenges ahead, I'm reassured to know that Mr. Brown will
be bringing decades of experience to a city with a long and rich
tradition of cherishing the arts. We are happy to welcome him home to
where he first began his career in music and opera as an assistant
manager with the Detroit Symphony Orchestra.
____________________
CONGRATULATING THE UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA ON THEIR 2014 FIESTA
BOWL VICTORY
______
HON. ALAN GRAYSON
of florida
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, January 7, 2014
Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the University
of Central Florida (UCF) Knights for their victory in the 2014 Fiesta
Bowl. UCF is the youngest school to compete in a Bowl Championship
Series game. Despite being considered a 17-point underdog against their
opponent, Baylor University, the UCF Knights won the Fiesta Bowl with
an impressive 52-42 victory. Since its founding in 1963, UCF has become
a prominent institution capable of competing on a national level in all
aspects of university life. This most recent victory is a milestone for
UCF, and a great way to celebrate the school's 50th anniversary.
[[Page 119]]
____________________
HONORING THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF GERALD BLACK
______
HON. HENRY CUELLAR
of texas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, January 7, 2014
Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the contributions of
the late Gerald Black, former Pleasanton Express news editor and United
States Navy veteran. Mr. Black served in the U.S. Navy for 27 years and
contributed to the community through his distinguished career as a
writer and as an editor for 19 years in Pleasanton, Texas.
Mr. Black was born on March 30, 1946 in San Antonio, Texas and passed
away due to heart complications on November 23, 2013. His accomplished
career as a news editor stemmed from his humble beginnings. His
childhood was spent in Kingsville, Texas with his parents Raymond Elmer
and Corrine Byrne. Mr. Black was described as a big hearted, gentle
loving, hard worker. This reflected during his college years where he
held several jobs for the local radio station, college newspaper, as
well as a staff photographer. Soon after, he enlisted in the United
States Navy, where he was stationed in New Orleans, Memphis, Atlanta
and California. Throughout his time in the Navy, Mr. Black continued
his work in journalism. Finally, in July 1993, Mr. Black came to the
Pleasanton Express where he wrote feature articles and was a
photographer covering county and law enforcement news. His work for
Pleasanton Express would lead him to win several awards throughout his
career.
His efforts were helpful to many, including the Atascosa Water
Watchers, where he would often attend Evergreen Underground Water
Conservation District meetings. As a result of his continued support of
the Atascosa water preservation efforts in the local newspaper, he was
nicknamed ``Mr. Neptune''. Finally in 2012, he retired after nearly two
decades of work in journalism.
Mr. Speaker, I am honored to have had this time to recognize the late
Gerald Wayne Black, former Pleasanton Express news editor, on his
career and community involvement. He has contributed his time,
knowledge and efforts to journalism, our country, and serving his
community.
____________________
RECOGNIZING THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA
______
HON. ALAN GRAYSON
of florida
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, January 7, 2014
Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the University of
Central Florida (UCF) on its 50th anniversary. Founded as Florida
Technical University, UCF has grown to prominence over the past 50
years. UCF is now the second largest university in the nation,
educating almost 60,000 undergraduates and graduates each year.
UCF continuously strives for academic excellence. U.S. News and World
Report ranks UCF as a top ``up-and-coming'' university, while The
Princeton Review rated UCF as one of the best values in the country.
UCF is also home to world-renowned programs like the Institute for
Simulation and Training and the College of Optics & Photonics, both of
which are leading the way in their respective fields.
Under the direction of President John C. Hitt, UCF recently opened
its College of Medicine in Lake Nona Medical City. The medical school,
in partnership with other research institutions in the Medical City,
promises to make Central Florida a destination for medical research.
The College of Medicine joins the Rosen College of Hospitality
Management, located near the region's most popular attractions, in
providing specialized education to UCF students. UCF has become
``America's Partnership University,'' working closely with governments,
nonprofit organizations, and industry to prepare students for their
chosen careers.
UCF is also committed to achieving diversity and accessibility. UCF
students come from all 50 states and 148 countries. The University's
student body is comprised of a minority population of nearly 40
percent, and 10 percent of students are adult learners. To increase
accessibility, the college offers numerous online courses, including 69
entirely web-based degree and certification programs.
Perhaps fitting for a university on the rise, the UCF Knights
recently won their first Bowl Championship Series (BCS) game, the 2014
Fiesta Bowl. They are the youngest university ever to win a BCS game.
It is my pleasure to recognize UCF for its accomplishments over the
last 50 years. I congratulate the hard-working faculty and outstanding
students that make UCF a destination for our nation's best and
brightest young minds. Go Knights!