[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 1]
[Issue]
[Pages 292-447]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



[[Page 292]]

           HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES--Thursday, January 9, 2014


  The House met at 10 a.m. and was called to order by the Speaker pro 
tempore (Mr. Messer).

                          ____________________




                   DESIGNATION OF SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following 
communication from the Speaker:

                                               Washington, DC,

                                                  January 9, 2014.
       I hereby appoint the Honorable Luke Messer to act as 
     Speaker pro tempore on this day.
                                                  John A. Boehner,
     Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                          ____________________




                          MORNING-HOUR DEBATE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
January 7, 2014, the Chair will now recognize Members from lists 
submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning-hour debate.
  The Chair will alternate recognition between the parties, with each 
party limited to 1 hour and each Member other than the majority and 
minority leaders and the minority whip limited to 5 minutes, but in no 
event shall debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m.

                          ____________________




                    HUMAN TRAFFICKING AWARENESS DAY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Royce) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, this Saturday on January 11, people 
throughout our country here, people throughout the world will be 
observing Human Trafficking Awareness Day. The start of this new year I 
think is a fitting time to focus on the shameful fact that human 
slavery is not a relic of ancient history, that in fact it is with us 
today. It is a brutal reality. A reality faced by more than 20 million 
victims around the world, many of them trafficked for labor, but 
increasingly for underaged girls. For young women, this is a case where 
they are exploited in this trafficking as well.
  Even in my work as chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, I have 
learned that human trafficking is no longer just a problem ``over 
there.'' It is a problem in our communities here. It is a problem in 
developing economies, but also it is a problem in the United States and 
in Europe. It is a scourge even in the communities that we serve here 
and that we represent.
  In my own community in the last two years, the Orange County Human 
Trafficking Task Force assisted 250 victims. Ninety-three percent were 
women, most of them underage, 80 of them from foreign countries. At our 
November field hearing in Fullerton, the Orange County district 
attorney testified that, shockingly--we are speaking now about 
trafficking, sexual trafficking--``shockingly the average age of a 
child being trafficked in this country is 12'' years of age. ``A little 
girl who has not even reached her teens.''
  We also heard from one brave survivor, Angela Guanzon, who was 
trafficked from the Philippines into forced labor in Long Beach, 
California.
  I have heard many other stories from the members of the Human 
Trafficking Congressional Advisory Committee that I established last 
year in my Los Angeles district office. The forum for communicating on 
trafficking between law enforcement, advocates, service organizations, 
and survivors has contributed profoundly to my own knowledge, my own 
understanding of this issue. I encourage my colleagues to get to know 
those on the front lines of the fight against human trafficking. Get to 
know them in their districts and know of their work. You are going to 
be informed, challenged, and inspired by what you learn.
  This January designated as National Slavery and Human Trafficking 
Prevention Month is a perfect time to shine a spotlight on the dark 
issue of trafficking, but awareness is only a first step. More needs to 
be done.
  To that end, I would urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring 
H.R. 3344, the Fraudulent Overseas Recruitment and Trafficking 
Elimination Act, to combat one critical form of recurring abuse: 
namely, that is unscrupulous recruiters. By targeting the recruiters we 
can do a lot--these recruiters who bait foreigners to travel to the 
United States with promises of good jobs, but trap them in sexual 
exploitation or forced labor once they arrive.
  For example, in my home county, the Salvation Army's Network of 
Emergency Trafficking Services reports that a full one-third of their 
clients--33 percent of their clients--were recruited in a foreign 
country by a labor recruiter. They got here and found it was a very 
different job than the one they enlisted for. This represents not only 
an assault on the dignity of the victim but also a subversion of United 
States labor laws and our nonimmigrant visa system.
  In response, this legislation requires that prospective foreign 
workers be given accurate information about the terms of employment and 
be given anti-trafficking protections by U.S. laws. It prohibits 
recruitment fees or hidden charges used as coercive leverage against 
workers. In other words, once you get here to the United States, you 
can't find out afterwards, because they didn't disclose to you, that 
there are fees that you owe. Those fees are no longer allowed. Up front 
the employer pays those fees.
  It requires foreign labor recruiters to register and remain in good 
standing with the Department of Labor, and it provides new incentives 
and enforcement mechanisms to ensure that recruiters and employers 
follow these disclosure and registration requirements.
  Members may contact the Foreign Affairs Committee to join this 
important anti-traffic initiative. I encourage you all to sign on to my 
legislation.
  As people of goodwill around the world observe Human Trafficking 
Awareness Day this weekend, let us move beyond mere awareness, let us 
abolish this injustice, and protect and restore the dignity of those 
who have survived such exploitation.

                          ____________________




                      INTERIM AGREEMENT WITH IRAN

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, our interim agreement with Iran gives us 
an opportunity to unwind seemingly intractable, interrelated conflicts 
throughout the Middle East.
  There is no reason for Congress to complicate by further enhancing 
sanctions now that are already working. We have this 6 months to a year 
window to fashion a longer-term agreement. The fact that we are even 
talking with Iran is the most encouraging signal that we have seen in 
34 years. Let's use this diplomatic window. There are hard-liners in 
both countries, highly suspicious, very negative, who would like to 
blow this agreement up.
  Unless we are willing to invade and occupy Iran, even repeated 
bombing will delay the Iranian nuclear effort by, at best, 4 or 5 
years, maybe less.
  Americans have spent a trillion dollars, lost 4,000 American lives, 
with tens of thousands of wounded, in more than a decade in Iraq, and 
the country is still falling apart. Iran is bigger,

[[Page 293]]

stronger, and more sophisticated. I don't think you can sell that war 
to the American people.
  Congress should calm down and give diplomacy a chance. Let's learn 
about this important country, its 4,000-year history, and our past 
mistakes with Iran, and most important, our common interest.
  The Middle East has long been a simmering cauldron, with a conflict 
suppressed by a lid of repression held down by empire and colonial 
powers. That started to change a century ago with the collapse of the 
Ottoman Empire, and colonial powers trying from afar to influence human 
behavior by drawing lines on maps from European capitals, irrespective 
of religious, tribal, or ethnic realities. It set in motion a series of 
forces that are playing out today with tragic consequences.
  Iran as the dominant Shi'a force in the region could play a huge role 
where we share common interest, in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan for 
instance.
  The current situation is a result of partnerships between Congress 
and the Obama administration that got us to this point where Iran is 
willing to negotiate. Strong, effective sanctions would never have 
worked without careful, artful diplomacy that involved other countries 
like India to help us squeeze Iran. It has worked. Let's claim credit 
and move on to the next steps.
  We could start by trying to learn about each other. Let's promote an 
exchange between Iran and the United States with students, religious 
leaders, maybe even parliamentary members and Members of Congress. 
Let's focus on our shared interest, like Afghanistan, where we had 
earlier cooperation with Iran to help overthrow the Taliban. Let's work 
to make progress with the agreement and beyond.
  The Congress can do this most importantly by leaving it alone. 
Congress shouldn't meddle, Congress shouldn't muddle, Congress 
shouldn't give the Iranian hard-liners who don't want any agreement at 
all an excuse to scuttle it.
  We have an opportunity to improve the most volatile region in the 
world and Congress shouldn't blow that opportunity.

                          ____________________




                    UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) for 5 minutes.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, 48 hours, a million-plus Americans 
received letters in their mailboxes. They weren't overdue tax letters. 
They were not letters suggesting that you are at fault. It was not a 
notice to say that you are no longer an American citizen. It was not a 
letter to say you are now relieved of any responsibility to pay any 
bills or to provide for your family.
  It was a letter denying, or extinguishing, taking away the 
unemployment insurance that most Americans have come to understand 
that, as working Americans, having worked in their life, that they 
would be the recipient of these benefits during a brief lapse or an 
extended lapse of not being able to find work. The chronically 
unemployed percentage is the highest that it has been in decades, and 
therefore, this is not the time to delay.
  I hold in my hand as well a resume of a competent worker, a college 
graduate who has the responsibility to support his family and who has 
been looking for work for 2 years, earnestly, energetically, and 
intensely, and cannot find work.
  The clock is ticking on the 30 hours in the United States Senate, but 
the real concern is my friends in this body. Recognizing that these 
letters deal with people's lives, and to make a representation that all 
is well, unemployment generally is 7 percent. However, it was lower 
than that when President Bush signed the unemployment insurance 
benefits in 2008. These guys, these distinguished Americans, misfits, 
why can't they find work? Twenty thousand-plus are veterans looking for 
work, men and women who served in the United States military, or, as we 
met in the White House on Tuesday, a mother of two distinguished men 
who are serving in Afghanistan.
  So the 1.3 million languish while we are trying to make a 
determination that may not be able to be made. Frankly, I would ask 
that we all be reasonable. I would simply make the point that it is an 
emergency.
  I want to pause for a moment and thank the Houston Apartment 
Association that has worked with me and has sent a letter to all of 
their members asking for those 12,000, some of whom are residents of 
apartments in Harris County, to be sensitive and tolerant of those 
individuals who can document that they were the beneficiaries or the 
recipients of unemployment insurance that was cut off on December 28. I 
want to applaud them for their sensitivity in dealing with those 
particular individuals. I ask mortgage companies and utility companies 
and city water bill companies to be tolerant as well, to be working 
with families who are basically without a lifeline.

                              {time}  1015

  But the issue before us is the fact that these letters have gone to 
people such as this woman, who has looked for work every day. She liked 
her job and was laid off for no fault of her own.
  Right now, we have the opportunity to pass a 3-month emergency 
relief--some of us have introduced bills for 1 year--and then 
contemplate, discuss, and work with what might be the appropriate way 
of funding the continuation.
  No person unemployed, chronically or not, is happy with an 
unemployment benefit check. What they are happy with, Mr. Speaker, is 
the ability to work and to provide for their family.
  So I would make the argument that as we discuss privacy issues on the 
Affordable Care Act, which are already taken care of by CMS, today and 
tomorrow on the floor we should be passing unemployment insurance. I 
ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me, recognizing 
that Americans want to work. Let's help them transition with a bridge 
of unemployment insurance.

                          ____________________




                      OPPOSITION TO UNESCO FUNDING

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) for 5 minutes.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, last November, the U.S. Ambassador to 
the United Nations, Samantha Power, came to meet with my colleagues and 
me who serve on the Foreign Affairs Committee. In that meeting, 
Ambassador Power told us that despite U.S. law that prohibits any 
funding to UNESCO because of its decision to admit a nonexistent state 
of Palestine to its membership, the administration was going to make it 
a priority to seek waiver authority to continue U.S. taxpayer funding 
to UNESCO.
  Indeed, this is coming to fruition. There is a congressional push by 
some to grant the administration this waiver or to seek other ways to 
get around this prohibition.
  I am here today to voice my unconditional and unyielding opposition 
to this push, and I urge my colleagues to join me in removing that in 
the budget that will be before us soon and not allow the administration 
to yet again circumvent U.S. law and to throw away hundreds of millions 
of dollars of U.S. taxpayer money.
  The administration is seeking to not only restore $80 million in 
taxpayer funds to UNESCO for this fiscal year, but it is also seeking 
to pay nearly $250 million more in arrears--dues--that we owed to 
UNESCO, an agency that has an anti-U.S. and an anti-Israel agenda.
  If we restore funding to UNESCO, we are tacitly agreeing with their 
support for Abbas, the PA, the PLO, the nonexistent state of Palestine, 
and the U.N. scheme to undermine the peace process by granting de facto 
recognition to a Palestinian state without it first coming to an 
agreement with Israel to resolve this long conflict.
  A vote to restore any U.S. funding to UNESCO or to give the 
administration any waiver authority to circumvent the existing laws 
that prohibit U.S. funding to UNESCO would not only undermine our 
credibility and set a dangerous precedent; it would further embolden an 
already intransigent Abu Mazen and Palestinian Authority.

[[Page 294]]

  Why do I say ``intransigent''? Because even as we sit here, Mr. 
Speaker, reports indicate that a major holdup in the peace negotiations 
between Secretary Kerry, Israel, and the Palestinian Authority is the 
refusal by Abbas and the PA to recognize Israel as the Jewish State of 
Israel. Is that the kind of member that we want to be associated with 
in UNESCO--one that doesn't even recognize the identity of another 
state? And not just another state, but our closest ally.
  I know that UNESCO is riddled with rogue regimes amongst its ranks, 
including the likes of Cuba, where the callous, brutal, and murderous 
Castro regime has been repressing the rights of 11 million Cubans for 
over half a century; and Syria, where the tyrant Assad has caused the 
deaths of over 130,000 people and brought the Middle East to the very 
brink.
  But if we restore U.S. funding to UNESCO, we are essentially saying 
that this is okay, and, oh, by the way, why not add one more in Abbas? 
There has been a recent spate of terrorist activity against Israel; and 
rather than act like a true leader that seeks peace and a partner in a 
negotiated peace settlement, Abbas was definitely silent when it came 
time to denounce these acts of terror.
  The powers that be at UNESCO don't seem to mind this at all. But not 
us, Mr. Speaker. We are better than that. We aren't about to trade in 
our credibility and our principles as a country for a plaque and 
platitudes for this circumvention. We know that if we concede to UNESCO 
and restore any funding, we would be making a grave mistake, and also 
wasting hundreds of millions of our constituents' dollars on this anti-
U.S. agenda.
  I will continue to fight this push to restore funding to UNESCO in 
any way, and I will continue to rally my colleagues to join me in this 
fight.

                          ____________________




                STRONG START FOR AMERICA'S CHILDREN ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, study after study has 
shown us that investment in quality early education leads to better 
educational outcomes, stronger job earnings, and lower crime rates. 
Decades of research confirm that quality preschool helps prevent 
achievement gaps for low-income children, with long-term benefits for 
our Nation.
  But we don't need research to confirm the importance of quality early 
childhood education. Ask any parent in America if it matters to them. 
The problem is that not enough children have access to it. That is why 
I have introduced the bipartisan bill, Strong Start for America's 
Children Act.
  When Congressman Hanna, Senator Harkin, and I introduced the bill in 
November, we were joined by the sheriff of Minneapolis, a top private-
sector CEO, a retired Air Force General, a parent, and Secretary of 
Education Arne Duncan. These leaders from so many segments of our 
country understand the need for greater Federal investment in high-
quality preschool.
  My legislation proposes an innovative Federal-State partnership to 
increase resources for local school districts and community-based 
programs that provide quality pre-kindergarten for 4-year-olds. It also 
allows funding for educating 3-year-olds. It also allows States to 
spend some of the money on good quality infant and toddler care. The 
bill improves child care quality for infants and toddlers by supporting 
partnerships between child care and Early Head Start.
  Millions of young children from low-income families lack access to 
high-quality preschool programs and child care services. They are on 
waiting lists because of limited public funding. This deepens 
achievement gaps and impedes the Nation's economic workforce success.
  For example, Early Head Start has shown to be an effective, high-
quality program; yet the sad truth is that only 3 percent of the 
eligible children have access to it. Additionally, one in six low-
income families eligible for Federal child care services has access.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not a Democratic issue nor a Republican issue. 
Babies, toddlers, and preschoolers don't know that political parties 
exist. In fact, we are seeing that Republican and Democratic Governors 
from all regions of the country are pushing for more funding for early 
learning in their States. They want to be partners with the Federal 
Government.
  State legislators from both parties in a wide range of States have 
led efforts to support quality preschool. Just recently, we received a 
letter signed by more than 500 State legislators from both parties in 
support of this issue.
  I am also very proud of our partnership with the fellow Republican 
Members of the House, such as Mr. Hanna and Mr. Grimm. We all know that 
the policy makes sense for America's future. We all know what is 
possible in our communities and in our Nation if kids are given a fair 
shot at success.
  The public understands and believes in early childhood education. A 
bipartisan poll released in July found an overwhelming majority of 
Americans supports quality early childhood education and rate it a 
national priority, second to only increasing jobs and economic growth. 
Seven in 10 support the Federal plan to help States and local 
communities provide better early childhood education.
  Members of Congress and other policymakers are also getting on board. 
The bipartisan budget agreement reached last month includes a reserve 
fund for early childhood education, child care, and voluntary home 
visitation. That is yet another acknowledgment by another bipartisan 
group of Members--in this case, budget leaders--that early childhood 
education should be a top priority for the Federal Government. That 
acknowledgment is clearly a step forward, but it isn't enough. Our next 
step must be the enactment of the Strong Start Act.
  With the fiscal year 2014 spending deadline less than a week away, I 
understand that appropriators from both Houses are considering 
increased funding for preschool, as outlined in our bipartisan bill. I 
heartily encourage this course.
  Despite the language used whenever we in Congress talk about budgets, 
funding early childhood education isn't spending. It is an investment, 
and it is an investment that is critical for our Nation's long-term 
economic strength.
  From a better-educated workforce to a reduced need for social 
services, study after study has documented the enormous return on 
investment of early childhood education. We can save between $7 and $12 
for every dollar invested. These are real savings resulting from less 
grade repetition, lower dropout rates, less spending on welfare and 
social services, more tax revenue, and lower incarceration rates.
  As Sheriff Rich Stanek said when we launched the Strong Start for 
America's Children Act:

       I'm the guy you pay later.

  Let's stop spending on the back end what we should be investing in 
the beginning in a child's life.
  For all of these reasons, our bill has the support of more than 60 
national organizations representing pediatricians, law enforcement, 
religious groups, labor unions, business and military leaders, people 
with disabilities, school principals, civil rights leaders, and 
literacy advocates. Now is the time to empower the next generation and 
guarantee a better future for our Nation.

                          ____________________




                          HONORING RON MILLER

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Rigell) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. RIGELL. Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to be here this 
morning and to share with you and our colleagues the story of an 
exceptional American, Ron Miller, who I am proud to say lives in 
Virginia's Second Congressional District, the district I have the 
privilege to serve and represent.
  Ron is 46 years old. He had always planned to go back to school; but 
at age 33, his life was turned upside down. He was diagnosed with Lou 
Gehrig's disease, or ALS, a devastating neurodegenerative disease that 
progressively affects nerves in the brain

[[Page 295]]

and the spinal cord. It is a disease for which, at present, there is no 
cure.
  Ron is paralyzed from the nose down; yet he used eye-gaze computer 
technology to complete his associate's degree in liberal arts, with 
honors, in a bold and courageous effort to bring attention to ALS.
  They have a wonderful staff at the Lake Taylor transitional facility 
where Ron lives, and where the graduation ceremony took place; and I 
saw tears coming down several of the staff members' eyes as they 
watched Ron receive his degree. Actually, the president of Excelsior 
College made the effort to fly down to be with us that day.
  I was deeply honored to be there and to have the privilege of sharing 
the commencement address, but it certainly wasn't my words that 
inspired everyone who was there. It was Ron's words that he shared 
through his computer.
  He didn't talk about himself. He didn't talk about how difficult 
things are for him. He mainly thanked all of those in his life that 
made the degree possible. He talked about the importance of education 
and the importance of finding a cure for ALS.
  I want to share just a small portion of what he shared that day. I 
watched his eyes as they guided the cursor on the screen to the 
``play'' button. When he hit it with his eyes, it actually started the 
computer to speak. He put it this way:

       I ask that you all bear with me as I stumble my way through 
     this. At least I can blame the computer if I mispronounce 
     anything.

  That got a laugh there. He has got a great sense of humor.
  He said:

       Thank you for ensuring I started each class not as a 
     disabled person, but as a differently abled person.

  He thanked all the nurses and the nurses' aides there. He said:

       You are my heroes. First of all, it takes a lot of work for 
     me to look this good.

  He has a great sense of humor.
  He thanked his family and his friends for their love and support.
  Speaking of life, he said:

       It isn't always easy--but life never is. I just have a 
     different set of challenges than most.

  He left us with this quote by John Wooden:

       Do not let what you cannot do interfere with what you can 
     do.

  Powerful words.
  To me, Mr. Speaker, Ron's courage and his remarkable achievement 
represent the very best of the American spirit and the human spirit. It 
is a strong heart that chooses to be grateful for life's simple 
blessings, one that values the gift of friendship, one that embraces 
the pursuit of knowledge, and one that does not rest in a relentless 
pursuit to lessen human suffering, especially for those who will 
follow.
  So I really count it as a high privilege to know Ron and to count him 
as a friend. He is fulfilling his mission to ensure that Americans are 
educated about the challenges that those with ALS face. He has also 
shown us what a person with ALS can accomplish.
  He and many others who are heavily burdened with ALS, and their 
families, are calling attention to the need for improved access. We 
have a wonderful facility in Virginia Beach that is a tremendous asset 
for those who are afflicted with a disease that affects their physical 
mobility and that includes many of our wounded warriors.

                              {time}  1030

  It is JT's Grommet Island. It is right there on Virginia Beach, 
really the first on the east coast that allows people that are mobility 
impaired to get down and experience the joy of being on the water and 
the sun and the sand and just being outside.
  There is a lot more work to be done, and I am so proud of our 
friends, Bruce Thompson and others. His son, Josh, is afflicted with 
ALS, and he led the effort to build that facility that I just mentioned 
there. It is called JT's Grommet Island, and it is named in honor of 
his son, Josh, who is struggling with this, and his family is as well.
  I just want to close my comments today with great respect for those 
who are struggling with this disease and to share with you something 
that Ron has said about his struggle. It is an outlook on life that I 
found profound and inspirational, and I posted it in my home where I 
see it every day. He said this: ``I may have ALS, but ALS does not have 
me.''
  So, Mr. Speaker, may Ron's remarkable achievement and the spirit that 
he exhibits in his life inspire all of us to join him in this worthy 
fight to find a cure for ALS.

                          ____________________




                       THE 50-YEAR WAR ON POVERTY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Speier) for 5 minutes.
  Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Speaker, I am here to speak about unemployment 
insurance and the extension of it to my Republican colleagues. But 
there is no one over here to listen, so maybe they will listen to some 
renowned Republicans talk about what is really important.
  How about Newt Gingrich, who recently said, ``I think every 
Republican should embrace the Pope's core critique that you do not want 
to live on a planet with billionaires and people who do not have any 
food?''
  Or how about John Feehery, a Republican strategist who said, ``What 
does the Republican Party actually believe in? What is its purpose? Is 
it just to have unbridled capitalism without any moral core?''
  Mr. Speaker, this 50-year war on poverty has faced setbacks under the 
leadership of both parties, but the GOP-led House seems to be actively 
engaged in a war on the war on poverty. Congress' inaction has cut off 
1.3 million people from unemployment insurance after Christmas and, 
unless renewed, will cut benefits for another 1.9 million who are 
eligible in 2014.
  Some of my colleagues across the aisle have claimed that this is just 
politics, that unemployment insurance was ``intended to be a temporary 
solution to a very temporary crisis.'' Well, here's a news flash. We 
have been in this crisis since 2008. This is not temporary. This is 
long-term and it is chronic, and it has been caused by the greed of 
billionaires of the likes that we have seen on Wall Street. This is a 
personal nightmare for many of the constituents of my colleagues across 
the aisle. Some of their constituents have written to my office because 
they think their Representative is blind to how they are struggling.
  Now, Margaret Heffernan is a renowned speaker, and she talks about 
mindless blindness. And in many respects, that is what I think we are 
engaged in here, mindless blindness. So here are some of the stories of 
those impacted by the loss of unemployment insurance who live in 
districts of my Republican colleagues, because maybe they will hear me 
and think about who is being hurt by playing politics.
  Payne Springs, Texas, resident Linda Mrosko shared her story with me 
on my congressional Facebook page. Linda was 60 years old when her 
legal secretary job was eliminated. With more than 40 years of work 
experience under her belt--this is not someone sitting on a couch at 
home--40 years of experience as a paralegal secretary, she believed 
unemployment insurance would protect her if she lost her job. Even 
while caring for her 80-year-old mother with breast cancer, Linda 
continued to look for work but got very few interviews. Her 91-year-old 
father then fell ill and died, but Linda continued to look for work, 
even while in mourning and caring for her sick mother. The few 
interviews Linda does get, she is surrounded by people in their 
twenties and thirties and thinks that her age might be keeping her from 
securing a job.
  ``My unemployment ended on December 28. I have no savings. I haven't 
paid rent yet, or electricity, or the car payment, or the phone bill 
because I don't have enough money to make those payments,'' she wrote 
to me.
  Well, Linda, I hope your Republican Congressman reaches out to you 
immediately to explain to you in his own words why you shouldn't have 
your unemployment insurance extended after being employed for 40 years 
in this country.

[[Page 296]]

  Unemployment isn't a temporary problem for Daniel Burrow of 
Beauregard, Alabama. Daniel just hit his 26th week of filed 
unemployment. He lost his job in the auto industry in 2012 while he was 
on medical leave. The 45-year-old has exhausted all his unemployment 
benefits and applied for more than 50 jobs with no luck. His wife 
worries how the family will afford gas for Daniel to go job hunting or 
how the family will pay for necessities not covered by food stamps.
  In Florida, 49-year-old Jim Lanzerio can barely pay his bills while 
he raises his 17-year-old daughter on his own. His unemployment 
insurance will run out in February, and he wonders why Congress cannot 
reach a deal on extending Federal emergency unemployment insurance. He 
has been looking for a job every day since early October and is ``not 
sitting back and waiting. I would go back to work immediately if 
someone offered me a job.''
  This is more than politics for 70,000 individuals in Florida who 
already lost their unemployment insurance. These are just three 
stories. There are 1.3 million more that could be shared here today of 
people who have lost their unemployment insurance on December 28.
  Yesterday was the 50th anniversary of President Johnson's announcing 
a war on poverty. The real question is: Why are our colleagues waging a 
war on the war on poverty?

                          ____________________




                           THE WAR ON POVERTY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Ms. Fudge) for 5 minutes.
  Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to commemorate the 50th 
anniversary of President Lyndon B. Johnson's war on poverty.
  In 1964, President Johnson stood in this Chamber and addressed a 
Congress that represented a nation where more than 25 percent of 
Americans lived in poverty. In his address, President Johnson launched 
an agenda that led to the creation of Medicare, Medicaid, Job Corps, 
Head Start, and nutrition assistance for those who struggle to put food 
on their table.
  His war, and its resulting programs, helped move millions out of 
poverty. From 1967 to 2012, the poverty rate fell from 26 percent to 16 
percent, largely because of the strong safety net programs initiated by 
President Johnson's agenda.
  Yet here we are today, 50 years later, and too many Americans are 
still living on the outskirts of hope because the war on poverty has 
now become a war on the poor. In the last year alone, Congress has 
agreed to indiscriminate, across-the-board cuts known as sequestration 
in an effort to balance the budget, and the House passed a farm bill 
that cut SNAP by $40 billion. Sequestration hurts the very people who 
need help the most by greatly reducing critical funding to programs 
like WIC and Head Start.
  Congress drastically cut one of the most powerful antipoverty 
programs, SNAP, better known as food stamps. That is absurd when, 
according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, SNAP kept 4.9 
million Americans out of poverty in 2012 alone, including 2.2 million 
children.
  Congress has also chosen not to extend unemployment insurance. Even 
though our country continues to lift itself out of the recession, many 
Americans still need our support. Turning our back on the 1.4 million 
Americans who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own is 
unconscionable.
  In an interview yesterday, I was asked to respond to a quote 
regarding unemployment insurance by a Republican, and this is what he 
said. He said:

       We have to introduce the blessing of work to people who 
     have never seen it.

  And let me just say, to be clear, he could not possibly have been 
talking about unemployment insurance, because you have to have worked 
to even receive it. So he obviously doesn't know what unemployment 
insurance is.
  And to my colleague, I say that the American people know that they 
should be blessed with work, but they need meaningful work with a 
living wage.
  I will continue to be a voice for the poor and will always fight on 
behalf of the 46 million Americans trying to survive in households with 
inadequate incomes. Americans need us to open the gates of opportunity 
so they can eat properly, get a quality education, and find good-paying 
jobs.
  So on this 50th anniversary, I am making it clear that the war on 
poverty might be over, but the fight for the poor is not. We must 
reinforce the plans of President Johnson that would ensure all 
Americans can support themselves and their families and have better 
chances to contribute to our economy and our society. This is the way 
we build upon the progress we have made over the past five decades, not 
by taking action to reverse it.
  To paraphrase Dr. King, he says, we have an obligation to those who 
have been left out of the sunlight of opportunity.

                          ____________________




   FOOTBALL SUCCESS IN NORTH CAROLINA'S TENTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. McHenry) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, last month was a big one for North Carolina 
football. You probably are well aware of the exploits of Cam Newton and 
the Carolina Panthers having clinched a playoff berth, but it was 
actually in my district, the Tenth District of North Carolina, in 
western North Carolina that was really the epicenter of football in 
North Carolina in the month of December.
  First, there was Crest High School in Cleveland County representing 
the Boiling Springs and Shelby area. Crest is a perennial powerhouse in 
North Carolina high school football. This year's Charger team was under 
the guidance of Coach Mark Barnes. They rode a 14-game winning streak 
on their way to winning the North Carolina High School Athletic 
Association 3AA West title. While they were upset in the State 
championship game, it was another very impressive season for Coach 
Barnes and his great team.
  While the Crest defeat was disappointing, all was not lost for 
Cleveland County, as another traditional power, Shelby High School, 
also played for a State championship. The Golden Lions went 12-4 this 
year, and capped the season with a 29-7 victory to win the North 
Carolina 2A State football championship. Coach Lance Ware and his team 
continued the proud tradition at Shelby as this marked the school's 
12th State championship--pretty incredible, considering my high school 
has had a hard time just getting one or two.
  Finally, the football success in North Carolina 10 continued in 
Catawba County, where Lenoir-Rhyne University, their football team 
enjoyed their best season in school history. The Bears, coached by Mike 
Houston, won a school record 13 games on their way to earning a spot in 
the NCAA Division II championship game in Florence, Alabama. While they 
lost the championship game, this year's Bears team finished the season 
ranked second in the Nation and provided a thrilling ride for the 
Lenoir-Rhyne campus and Hickory, as a whole. Both the faculty and 
alumni were very excited, and they had a great rally before that game. 
And it actually brought Lenoir-Rhyne onto the national stage for some 
attention as well. It is a great university.
  So I want to congratulate Crest, Shelby, and Lenoir-Rhyne on their 
great successes this last football season. Now it is up to Cam and Luke 
to keep it going for North Carolina football. And, hopefully, the 
Panthers will win.
  Go Panthers.

                          ____________________




                              {time}  1045
 URGING THE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP TO PASS UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE FOR 
                        THE LONG-TERM UNEMPLOYED

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Webster). The Chair recognizes the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis) for 5 minutes.

[[Page 297]]


  Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, as our Nation marks the 
50th anniversary of the war on poverty this week, I rise to urge the 
Republican leadership in the House of Representatives to immediately 
extend unemployment assistance to the long-term unemployed workers who 
continue to struggle to find jobs as our economy recovers from one of 
the worst economic crises in its history.
  The declaration of the war on poverty was a historic moment in our 
Nation's history when we affirmed our national priority to support 
those in need. The war on poverty helped reaffirm that our government 
has a responsibility to protect our citizens, especially during times 
of economic hardship. Providing support and economic opportunity 
creates a stronger citizenry and a stronger country.
  In contrast, the expiration of the emergency unemployment program 
last month undermines the economic security of our citizens and of our 
Nation. The expiration of the emergency unemployment program cut off 
more than 1.3 million Americans from unemployment insurance, with 
approximately 72,000 additional Americans losing benefits each week 
during the first half of 2014.
  In my home State of Illinois, where the unemployment rate remains 
high, at 9.2 percent, an estimated 82,000 Illinoisans lost benefits on 
December 28, with 38,000 of those citizens living in Cook County alone. 
An additional 89,100, or roughly 3,000 Illinoisans a week, will exhaust 
regular benefits without access to emergency benefits in just the first 
half of 2014.
  Failing to help these citizens is an unacceptable failure of 
leadership. Failure to continue emergency unemployment benefits is not 
a theoretical issue for millions of Americans. It is a daily nightmare.
  These Americans lost their jobs through no fault of their own. They 
tirelessly try to find work when the jobs are few and far between. They 
struggle to cover basic food, housing, and transportation costs for 
their families on an average of $290 a week, a pittance which typically 
replaces only half of the average family's expenditures. Failing to 
help these citizens is an unacceptable failure.
  Failure to continue emergency unemployment benefits poses a realistic 
threat to our fragile economic recovery, costing over 200,000 much-
needed jobs and restricting our economic growth. The expiration drained 
over $400 million from State economies. In Illinois alone, the loss of 
an average $313 in the weekly benefit means a negative impact of $25 
million for our citizens.
  Franklin Delano 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 little.'' Congress must 
act quickly to support our citizens and our economic recovery by 
continuing emergency unemployment benefits. The time to do it is now.

                          ____________________




       HONORING THE LIFE OF REPRESENTATIVE ANDY JACOBS OF INDIANA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Messer) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MESSER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to rise to honor the life 
of a great Hoosier, one of Indiana's finest public servants, 
Representative Andy Jacobs. I didn't know Andy as well as some of my 
other Hoosier colleagues, but I met him several times during his three 
decades representing Indiana in Congress, and I certainly knew Andy by 
his stellar reputation.
  What impressed me most about him on those occasions that we met was 
the humbleness with which he approached his job and the respect and 
civility he showed for his constituents and his colleagues, regardless 
of their party affiliation or political ideology. Andy never took 
himself too seriously. He drove a beat-up Oldsmobile and dressed like 
an average guy, which he was.
  This humble and decent man was a fierce advocate for civil rights and 
senior citizens and built a remarkable record of public service on 
behalf of his constituents. That is why he was held in such unusually 
high regard by Republicans and Democrats alike.
  Andy exemplified all that was right about being a public servant. He 
could disagree without being disagreeable. He believed you could lift 
people up without tearing people down. Despite his many years 
representing his constituents in Congress, he refused to become jaded 
and allow what is wrong with politics to stop him from doing what is 
right.
  Representative Andy Jacobs never forgot where he came from and 
personified what being a Hoosier is all about. He was a good man and 
led a great life that left a remarkable legacy.
  I want to extend the thoughts and prayers of the people of Indiana's 
Sixth Congressional District to Andy's wife, children, and to all those 
who knew and loved him. May God comfort and watch over them and 
continue to bless the country that Andy so loved.

                          ____________________




                        BIPARTISANSHIP EVERY DAY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Connolly) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I salute my colleague for those eloquent 
remarks.
  Mr. Speaker, the famed English poet Alfred Tennyson once wrote, 
``Hope smiles from the threshold of the year to come.'' Indeed, let's 
hope that this is the spirit that greets us here in the start of the 
second session of the 113th Congress. Having ended last year on a high 
note with the passage of the bipartisan budget agreement, we should 
resolve to keep that momentum going in this new year.
  Our first order of business should be delivering on the bipartisan 
accord reached before the holidays. Thanks to that agreement, we, for 
the first time, will replace a portion of the indiscriminate cuts of 
sequestration with a more balanced approach. That is particularly 
important in communities like my own in northern Virginia which were 
disproportionately affected because of their strong ties to the Federal 
Government.
  Next week's anticipated appropriations package will increase Federal 
investments in research, innovation, and transportation. That, in turn, 
will help unleash business investments and create jobs, which have 
lagged due to the sense of uncertainty fueled by the political 
brinkmanship here in Congress. Until those dollars produce results, we 
need to work together to extend the current safety net, specifically, 
unemployment insurance and nutrition assistance, to make sure we are 
not leaving our friends and neighbors behind.
  We have made significant strides pushing down the unemployment rate 
to 7 percent, its lowest point in 5 years. We have added more than 8 
million jobs in the past 4 years nationwide. That is still 1.3 million 
short of the number that were there before the Great Recession.
  Equally important, 40 percent of the unemployed are long-term 
unemployed, 2 years or more. This structural unemployment has been 
devastating for those individuals and their families in their 
respective communities. That is why extending emergency unemployment 
benefits is so critically important. This is a lifeline that families 
rely on to keep food on the table.
  More than 1.3 million Americans, including 9,000 in my own home State 
of Virginia and another 39,000 in the Speaker's State of Ohio, have 
already lost benefits because of Congress' inaction. Thousands more 
will see their benefits cut in the coming months. I remind my friends 
on the Republican side of the aisle that both unemployment insurance 
and nutrition assistance provide an immediate and tangible boost to our 
local economies. Pulling that assistance back now would be devastating 
in its effects and would undercut the economic momentum we have worked 
so hard to build these past few months.
  Every dollar in assistance provided to the unemployed generates $1.64 
in the local economy, and similarly, every dollar provided under the 
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

[[Page 298]]

has a multiplier effect of $1.79. These programs have helped keep 
generations of families out of poverty even while income inequality is 
growing worse.
  A recent report shows that nearly half of the Nation's schoolchildren 
now qualify for free and reduced lunches. Those children, who come from 
low-income homes, account for more than half of all of the students in 
17 States, mostly in Republican districts in the South and the West, I 
might add. A decade ago, just four States reported a majority of their 
schoolchildren eligible for free and reduced school lunches.
  While I and many of my colleagues remain hopeful that the House will 
extend these vital supports, we are disheartened to see that the very 
first legislative action scheduled by the House majority in this new 
year is a return to the cynical attack on the Affordable Care Act. 
Ironically, just this week, the actuaries for Medicare and Medicaid 
released a report showing that in the 4 years since the adoption of the 
Affordable Care Act, for the first time ever, national health care 
expenditures have grown at the slowest rate since the government began 
collecting that data 50 years ago. The growth for insurance premiums in 
particular has slowed more than 60 percent, which equates to real 
savings for real workers, real families, and for our government.
  I want to work with my Republican colleagues to ensure proper 
oversight and accountability for the Affordable Care Act, but let's 
hang up this tired routine of trying to chip away or outright repeal 
these essential benefits and protections for families.
  One of our Republican colleagues was quoted in the paper this week as 
saying, ``A lot of Republicans think the big, bipartisan deal was the 
budget agreement'' last year. Working together in a bipartisan fashion 
is not a limited exercise. It is what our citizens expect of us each 
and every day.

                          ____________________




                      IT IS TIME TO RAISE THE WAGE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Al Green) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker and friends, it is no coincidence 
that President Johnson declared a war on poverty within 6 months after 
Dr. King gave his ``I Have a Dream'' speech on the Mall in Washington. 
Whether by accident or whether by design, Dr. King and President 
Johnson worked in tandem with each other. They had something in common: 
they were both intelligent in their own right.
  But intelligence without courage can be intelligence wasted. They 
both understood the politics of their time, but understanding the 
politics of your time without courage can be an understanding wasted. 
It was courage that made the difference in the lives of people for 
decades after they each did what they had to do. I thank God that Dr. 
King and President Johnson acted in tandem and that they both had 
courage.
  The marchers on Washington had 10 demands. Number 8 on that list of 
10 demands was a demand to raise the wage to an amount that people 
could make a living off of, $2 an hour. That $2 an hour, adjusted for 
inflation today, would be $13.39, more than $13 an hour. Mr. Speaker 
and friends, it is time to raise the wage.
  A UC Berkeley Labor Center report in 2013 connoted, denoted, and 
showed that families working in the fast food industry are subsidized 
to the tune of about $7 billion. It is time to raise the wage. That 
same report showed that 63 percent of all families receiving subsidies 
had a working member. It is time to raise the wage.
  Corporate welfare, corporations paying poverty wages, are indirectly 
subsidized with tax dollars when tax dollars provide food stamps, SNAP, 
Medicaid, and other assistance to workers. Indirect corporate subsidies 
will diminish and tax dollars will be saved when we raise the wage.
  Do you like trickle-down economics? If so, you ought to want to raise 
the wage because by raising the wage, we can assure that the earned 
trickle will get down to the worker that has earned it. It is time to 
raise the wage.
  Do you think people should pull themselves up by their bootstraps? 
Then raise the wage, and people will be able to pull themselves up out 
of poverty with their economic bootstraps.
  Can we afford to raise the wage? Mr. Speaker and friends, yes, we 
can. On February 13, 2013, The Washington Post reported that the United 
States has one of the lowest minimum wages among developed countries, 
even though we are among the richest countries in the world. One out of 
every 60 persons is a millionaire. One out of every 11 households is 
worth $1 million. According to the AFL-CIO, CEO pay has gone from $42 
for every $1 a worker made in 1982 to $354 for every dollar a worker 
made in 2012. It is time to raise the wage.

                              {time}  1100

  According to Forbes, the top 25 CEOs of hedge funds--the top 25 
earners at hedge funds--earn more than all 500 of the top CEOs in the 
Fortune 500 combined. It is time to raise the wage.
  In 2007, one CEO made $3 billion; $3 billion is $400 a second. It 
would take a minimum-wage worker working full-time 198,000 years. Some 
things bear repeating: it would take a minimum-wage worker 198,000 
years to make what that CEO made in 1 year. It is time to raise the 
wage.
  If we can pay CEOs $400 a second, we can raise the wage. If we can 
pay corporate CEOs 354 times what workers are making, we can raise the 
wage to $13 an hour.

                          ____________________




           HONORING ANDREW JACOBS, JR., UNITED STATES MARINE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Young) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, a fellow Hoosier, fellow marine 
and fellow patriot died on December 28 in his 81st year. I didn't know 
Andrew Jacobs, Jr., a gentleman who for 30 years represented the 
Indianapolis area in the House of Representatives with great 
distinction. But I am familiar with the qualities of a decent, 
honorable public servant; and Andy Jacobs deserves to be remembered, 
honored, and even emulated by those of us who now serve in this body or 
bother to keep watch on its proceedings.
  He was born February 24, 1932, in Indianapolis. After high school, 
Jacobs joined the United States Marine Corps. He was a plucky marine. 
His country called him to serve in the Korean war. He responded to the 
call of duty, fought bravely, and was wounded in action.
  When Jacobs returned home to Indiana, he enrolled in Indiana 
University, graduating in 1955, and 3 years later he graduated from 
IU's law school.
  Jacobs had a passion for public service. So after completing his 
studies in 1958, the marine kept fighting--fighting for a better 
America first as a sheriff's deputy, then as a lawyer, then as a State 
legislator, and then, beginning in 1965, as a Member of Congress.
  In Congress, Andy Jacobs was a member of the House Ways and Means 
Committee where he fought to balance the Federal budget and simplify 
the Tax Code. He also fought, in the memorable words of journalist 
Colman McCarthy, to ``oppose wars that he believed couldn't be won, 
explained or afforded.''
  Jacobs is survived by countless admirers, a beloved wife of 25 years, 
two sons and two sisters. May each of us honor this fallen marine's 
memory--and his constancy of purpose--by picking up his rifle and doing 
our part to fight for a better America.

                          ____________________




               THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE WAR ON POVERTY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee) for 5 minutes.
  Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to continue with our 
50 floor speeches marking the 50th anniversary of the war on poverty.
  Now, yesterday, we were joined by President Lyndon Baines Johnson and 
Lady Bird Johnson's eldest daughter, Lynda Johnson Robb, to mark the 
50th anniversary of her father's State of the Union speech in which he 
declared an

[[Page 299]]

unconditional war on poverty. She reminded us that this was a 
bipartisan and bicameral effort led by the White House.
  Now, I have shared my own story, reluctantly, in the past of the time 
in my life when I depended on our vital social safety net programs 
during some very difficult times; but my testimony is only one of 
millions of other Americans. Many of you may be familiar with the 
Campaign to Cut Poverty in Half in Ten Years, a project of the Center 
for American Progress, the Coalition on Human Needs, and the Leadership 
Conference on Civil and Human Rights. Now, they are doing phenomenal 
work gathering American stories of those who are living in poverty and 
have been lifted out of poverty, including our own Congressman Pocan's 
constituent, Amy Treptow's story.
  Amy is here today, and I look forward to hearing Congressman Pocan 
read her story later on this House floor. Her story, though, is a true 
representation of the legacy of the war on poverty and the promise of 
the American Dream fulfilled. Her story is not unlike one of my 
constituents in Oakland who visited my office here in D.C. last month. 
After becoming a single mother, Jennifer was forced to stop attending 
her college courses and take a job making minimum wage as a caregiver. 
She relied on CalWIC and food stamps to feed her daughters, and her 
family and friends supported her with her housing and other basic 
needs.
  Today, two of her daughters are graduates of the Head Start program, 
which prepared them to start elementary school where they are currently 
doing very well. And Jennifer was able to finish school and is now 
working to advocate on behalf of other families like hers who had to 
turn to the American people in her time of need. Also, I am reminded 
that one of my former district directors was a graduate of the Head 
Start program. He is doing phenomenal work raising a family and living 
the American Dream.
  These are stories of resilience. They are the stories of millions of 
Americans who are facing homelessness, hunger and unemployment, if it 
weren't for a safety net. In my home State of California, 6.3 million 
people--17 percent--lived in poverty in 2012. And in my district in 
Oakland, California, 18 percent of the residents live below the Federal 
poverty level, including one in four children.
  While the richest segments of our population continue to prosper 
nationally, income inequality traps millions of the working poor in 
poverty. Many low-wage workers must rely on food stamps and Medicaid 
just to survive--which our colleague Congressman Al Green just 
brilliantly laid out--just to survive while CEOs are making 
megabillions with government subsidies.
  As a recent study by the National Poverty Center at the University of 
Michigan showed, in any given month, 1.7 million households live on a 
cash income of less than $2 per day. Now that is comparable to many 
living in the developing world. Yes, $2. I said $2 per day. Now, that 
is here in America, the richest Nation on this Earth.
  In an economy that, despite recent gains, there are three unemployed 
for every one job opening, it is really a shame and a disgrace that 1.3 
million people lost their lifeline as Republicans continue to refuse to 
extend emergency unemployment compensation. Now, these individuals' 
checks should arrive or should have arrived this week. Unfortunately, 
they did not. What in the world are people going to do now? This is 
heartless, it is mean-spirited, and, of course, to add insult to 
injury, many of these people lost about $35 in food stamp benefits last 
November.
  Yes, the economy has gotten better for some, but has left millions 
behind. Fifty years ago, the safety net was put in place just for times 
such as these. That is why it is so important to share stories like 
Jennifer's and like Amy's. Vital social safety net programs are still 
needed. We need to stop this war on the poor. We should have a cease-
fire on the war on the poor. We have a moral and we have an economic 
obligation to make investments in economic opportunity and jobs.

                          ____________________




                              NAFTA AT 20

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for 5 minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, last week marked the 20th anniversary of 
NAFTA's going into effect. The North American Free Trade Agreement was 
a hard-fought fight here in this Congress with a very close vote. In 
1994, when it narrowly passed under a rule not allowing amendment, 
called Fast Track, America was promised that NAFTA would be a great 
jobs boon for our country and our economy. Exactly the reverse has 
happened.
  The NAFTA promises made have all been broken. First, on jobs: the 
administration at the time promised that NAFTA would initially create 
200,000 new jobs. In reality, America has now lost, after 20 years, 
about 1 million jobs related to NAFTA's impact, and the old sucking 
sound actually happened. Our jobs were off-shored, sucked away. More 
than 680,000 American jobs have gone to Mexico alone. Yes, that great 
sucking sound continues to happen.
  About 60 percent of the jobs lost, of the million jobs lost overall, 
were lost to Mexico in the manufacturing sector. These were middle 
class jobs that came from places like Cleveland, Toledo, Pittsburgh, 
Chicago and Buffalo, and the list goes on. They were good paying jobs 
in our country that had provided living wages, medical benefits, and 
employer contributions to retirement programs.
  America was also promised that NAFTA would fuel dynamic trade in 
tearing down trade barriers and creating trade surpluses for our 
country which means that we actually would export more than we imported 
with jobs created as a result. Well, guess what, the trade barriers 
that NAFTA was supposed to tear down have actually created massive 
trade deficits--red ink--for our country.
  If one looks back at the passage of NAFTA, prior to its passage, 
America actually had a trade surplus with Mexico. That is more U.S. 
exports out that Mexico imports in. But then with NAFTA's passage, we 
began to start really going deep into the hole of jobs being off-
shored. And then with other trade agreements like free trade with 
communist China--which isn't free by any measure--we see that America's 
trade deficits have accumulated annually to historic levels never 
experienced by this society before.
  The cost of this has been huge. Since NAFTA took effect, the annual 
U.S. trade deficit has increased by 5 times, a 500 percent increase 
from $98 billion in the red to $534 billion in the red. Each billion 
dollars of trade deficit accounts for anywhere between 5,000 and 10,000 
lost jobs depending if it is in the retail sector or the industrial 
sector. Our cumulative trade deficit over the 20 years due to NAFTA--
get ready for this--is $1.5 trillion. If you want to understand why 
America has a job deficit and a budget deficit at the Federal level, it 
is because we have off-shored so many jobs through these trade 
agreements that are passed under the Fast Track procedure.
  The year before NAFTA took effect, America actually had a $1.6 
trillion trade surplus with Mexico; but every year after NAFTA took 
effect in 1995, that trade surplus with Mexico was turned into a $15.8 
billion trade deficit in the first year. And every single year, it has 
simply gotten worse. By 2012, our trade deficit with Mexico ballooned 
to $61.6 billion. So every year, the hole got deeper. What a failure 
NAFTA is on the jobs front and on the trade front.
  Finally, supporters of NAFTA claimed that NAFTA would open markets 
for American exports to Mexico. I will tell you one thing Ohio saw. 
Ohio saw pork production that used to happen in Ohio platformed down 
near Mexico City where environmental regulations, if they exist at all, 
are certainly not enforced. And we look at companies like Mr. Coffee 
that were sucked out of Cleveland and moved to Mexico. We saw suppliers 
in the automotive industry being relocated from our country to Mexico 
and Canada with U.S. middle class jobs just vaporized one factory, one 
farm at a time. It is as though the lights are being shut out

[[Page 300]]

from coast to coast in neighborhood after neighborhood.
  Mr. Speaker, the legislation that I have introduced, H.R. 191, the 
NAFTA Accountability Act, basically says that these trade agreements 
have to work in America's interest, starting with NAFTA; and where 
these agreements have failed, adjustments must occur in order to stem 
the off-shoring of any jobs so we can begin re-creating middle class 
jobs in this country again. The NAFTA trade model must be replaced, 
fast track must be sidetracked, and jobs in America must be created 
again to rebuild our middle class.

                          ____________________




                              {time}  1115
                   50TH ANNIVERSARY OF WAR ON POVERTY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Heck) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HECK of Washington. Mr. Speaker, 50 years ago this week, in this 
very Chamber, President Lyndon Johnson declared an ``unconditional war 
on poverty.'' The mission the President outlined was grand, but his 
goal for each and every American was modest:

       Help them fulfill their basic hopes--their hopes for a fair 
     chance to make good; their hopes for fair play under the law; 
     their hopes for a full-time job on full-time pay; their hopes 
     for a decent home for their family in a decent community; 
     their hopes for a good school for their children with good 
     teachers; and their hopes for security when faced with 
     sickness or unemployment or old age.

  Fifty years later, the results speak for themselves: The number of 
children living in poverty has dropped by 10 percent; the number of 
seniors living in poverty has plummeted by 32 percent; tens of millions 
of Americans have health insurance because of Medicare and Medicaid; 
the percentage of adults completing high school has skyrocketed from 56 
percent to 88 percent; the share of women in the workforce has 
increased from 42 percent to 64 percent; and each and every single day, 
millions of school children go to school with full stomachs because of 
nutrition assistance.
  We have much as a Nation we can be proud of; and the best way, the 
very best way we can celebrate and honor that progress is to rededicate 
ourselves to the challenges remaining. Because the truth of the matter 
is there are still too many Americans out of work, and there are still 
too many Americans working in jobs that don't pay enough to raise a 
family, and there are still too many Americans working harder for less.
  I don't pretend that there are easy solutions to these problems. 
There is no cure-all, there is no silver bullet Congress can fire, but 
we simply cannot stand down; and we cannot, as President Johnson 
warned, ``fritter and fumble away our opportunity in needless, 
senseless quarrels between Democrats and Republicans.''
  Sound familiar?
  So, Mr. Speaker, on this 50th anniversary of the start of the war on 
poverty, it comes down to one simple question we should have the 
courage to ask ourselves: Are we doing everything we reasonably can to 
strengthen the middle class and help those working to get into it? Let 
me repeat that. Are we doing everything we reasonably can to strengthen 
the middle class and help those working to get into it? And I think we 
should also have the courage to answer that question honestly, and I 
think we all know the answer. It is ``no.'' But we also all know that 
we can. That is the question of our time.
  The question of the day is whether or not we are going to help in 
this way by extending unemployment compensation benefits. The business 
case for this is exceedingly strong. The fact of the matter is that 
there are three people looking for work for every job available. The 
fact of the matter is that long-term unemployment is nearly twice as 
high as it was at each of the times that we ended emergency 
unemployment compensation over the last couple of decades. The business 
case for this is very strong, for those 1.3 million people already 
affected and the 2.6 million or so or more that will be affected in 
this calendar year. The business case is very strong.
  There are those, of course, who will suggest that there are those who 
abuse unemployment compensation. I am not going to quibble about that, 
but I am going to reject the principle that Americans don't want to 
work, don't need to work, and that we are not hardwired to work, and I 
can prove it to you. I can absolutely prove it to you. Stop right now 
and ask yourself, what is the first thing you ask someone when you meet 
them?
  ``What do you do?''
  We define ourselves by our work. It gives us pride. It helps us 
support our family. It makes our communities and neighborhoods 
stronger. Americans want to work. And when they cannot, we ought to be 
there to help them. We can, and we should.

                          ____________________




                 MARKING 50 YEARS OF THE WAR ON POVERTY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Swalwell) for 3\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. SWALWELL of California. Mr. Speaker, 50 years ago, President 
Johnson declared in this Chamber the war on poverty, and this is one 
war that we must continue to wage.
  I want to thank my neighbor in Alameda County who represents Oakland 
and San Leandro and Alameda and Berkeley, Congresswoman Barbara Lee, 
who is Congress' greatest champion today to continue fighting President 
Johnson's war on poverty, and I am grateful to have a mentor in 
Congresswoman Lee who has guided and helped me as I have worked to do 
my part.
  Since President Johnson's declaration, we have made real progress. 
Using an accurate measurement of who is poor in America shows we have 
cut the rate from 25.8 percent in 1967 to 16 percent in 2012, reducing 
by millions the number of Americans who are poor. Unfortunately, this 
war is not yet won. Almost 50 million Americans still live in poverty, 
including over 13 million children. In such an abundant society as 
ours, there is only one word to describe these stark facts, 
``unconscionable,'' and we can do better.
  This Congress should make it a priority to help the poor, the 
economically downtrodden, and the jobless. Their path to economic 
opportunity still remains dim. But this Congress, the people in this 
House, can be their light. If we are going to win the war on poverty, 
there are many battles today that we must win:
  First, we should start by extending unemployment insurance now and 
not putting 1.3 million Americans out in the cold;
  Second, we need to raise our minimum wage so those working hard and 
trying to earn a living can actually do so;
  Third, we must fight harsh cuts to SNAP and Head Start to make sure 
everyone has equal opportunity.
  These are just a few of the small battles that we must win right now 
in the larger war on poverty.
  This is no time to turn back or to retreat. This is a time for a 
surge in our war against poverty. Millions of Americans, including 
children, are counting on us, and we must ask ourselves a few 
questions:
  Has this war been won?
  Has poverty been eradicated across America?
  And is our middle class built out?
  If the answer to any of these questions is ``no,'' then we know what 
we must continue to do. We must fight on, and we must keep fighting 
until we win the war on poverty.

                          ____________________




                                 RECESS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 12(a) of rule I, the 
Chair declares the House in recess until noon today.
  Accordingly (at 11 o'clock and 22 minutes a.m.), the House stood in 
recess.

                          ____________________




                              {time}  1200
                              AFTER RECESS

  The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the 
Speaker at noon.

[[Page 301]]



                          ____________________




                                 PRAYER

  The Chaplain, the Reverend Patrick J. Conroy, offered the following 
prayer:
  Loving God, we give You thanks for giving us another day.
  At the beginning of this new day, we are grateful as individuals and 
as a Nation for the blessings we have been given.
  We ask Your blessing upon the Members of this people's House. May 
they anticipate the opportunities and difficulties that are before 
them, and before so many Americans, with steadfast determination to 
work together toward solutions that will benefit their countrymen.
  Grant that they be worthy of the responsibilities they have been 
given by their constituents and truly the people You have called them 
to be.
  May the walls of disagreement that have divided this assembly be put 
aside and replaced with a spirit of respect and dignity. And may Your 
spirit, O God, be in all of our hearts and minds and encourage us to do 
the works of peace and justice, now and always.
  May all that we do be done for Your greater honor and glory.
  Amen.

                          ____________________




                              THE JOURNAL

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

                          ____________________




                          PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

  The SPEAKER. Will the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes) come 
forward and lead the House in the Pledge of Allegiance.
  Mr. FORBES led the Pledge of Allegiance as follows:

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

                          ____________________




                      ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER

  The SPEAKER. The Chair will entertain up to 15 requests for 1-minute 
speeches on each side of the aisle.

                          ____________________




                         MILITARY COMMISSARIES

  (Mr. FORBES asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute.)
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to media reports 
that have suggested the closure of military commissaries in the United 
States and that that may be under consideration by the Department of 
Defense.
  Our national defense, and the men and women who volunteer to serve, 
are not the cause of our current financial fiscal crisis. Proposals 
that ask them to carry the weight of solving it are unacceptable.
  Commissaries are a vital recruitment and retention tool essential to 
maintaining the all-volunteer force. President Obama recognized this 
fact earlier this year when he visited Camp Pendleton during a furlough 
day and said commissary closures are ``not how a great Nation should be 
treating its military and military families.''
  Each year, commissaries provide an average 31 percent savings for 
military families. Additionally, by allowing the Defense Commissary 
Agency, based out of Fort Lee, Virginia, to purchase products at higher 
volumes, the 178 commissaries in the United States bring down costs 
across all our commissaries.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose any effort to close our commissaries, 
a system that is highly valued by our servicemembers and part of the 
commitment we make to take care of them during and after their time 
volunteering in service to our Nation.

                          ____________________




                         UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

  (Mr. COSTA asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. COSTA. Mr. Speaker, as a representative of the San Joaquin Valley 
of California, I know our economic recovery has been uneven at best. 
Unemployment remains unacceptably high in areas like my district.
  Those on unemployment are not socking taxpayer dollars away for a 
rainy day. Today already is their rainy day. Their benefits go back 
into our economy immediately for basic needs, like food and rent, while 
they look for work.
  After 27 years at an insurance company, Jacqueline of Atwater, 
California, was let go last May. Since then the 53-year-old has 
struggled to find work.
  Another constituent of mine, Luis in Fresno, lost his unemployment 
insurance at the end of December. This father wrote:

       If I don't find a job in the next couple of weeks, then I 
     will not be able to pay my rent or pay for food for my 
     family.

  With all the talk about restoring certainty to our economy, we cannot 
forget that American families drive this economy.
  Now is not the time to take money out of their pockets as they are 
also struggling to recover. Let's restore unemployment with a 
bipartisan effort.

                          ____________________




                            TODAY'S ECONOMY

  (Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio asked and was given permission to address the 
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, while home for Christmas, I 
reflected on the economic challenges America faces and the parallels 
today's economy has with the one Ronald Reagan inherited from Jimmy 
Carter in 1981. Both were characterized by high unemployment and low 
labor-force participation.
  I will paraphrase some of what President Reagan said in first 
Inaugural address:

       Idle industries have cast workers into unemployment, 
     causing human misery and personal indignity. Those who do 
     work are denied a fair return for their labor by a tax system 
     which penalizes successful achievement and keeps us from 
     maintaining full productivity.
       For decades, we have piled deficit upon deficit, mortgaging 
     our future and our children's future for the temporary 
     convenience of present.

  By the end of Ronald Reagan's Presidency, America's unemployment rate 
was 5.4 percent and our economy was the envy of the world. It is time 
we learn from history. As President Reagan said, Government is the 
problem. Individuals, free from the heavy hand of Big Government to 
pursue their dreams, they create prosperity. It is time we revisit the 
simple, sacred truth.

                          ____________________




                      EXTEND UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS

  (Ms. CHU asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute.)
  Ms. CHU. Mr. Speaker, this past Monday was the first time in months 
that 1.3 million out-of-work Americans went to their mailboxes and did 
not find an unemployment check.
  People like Kaitlyn Smith from my State of California, a Marine Corps 
vet and mother of two young children, she said that she had been 
searching for work for months but has not had success. California is 
starting to recover, but it still has 400,000 fewer jobs than it did 
before the downturn. It is especially hard to find jobs in the high 
desert where she lives; but the family can't 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 in July.
  The loss of her benefits will cut even more deeply into the couple's 
income. Kaitlyn says the family is already skimping on basics, 
including heat. She says:

       I have to keep the house at 55 degrees, even though I have 
     two little girls, ages 2\1/2\ and 1\1/2\.

  For Kaitlyn and others like her, we must extend unemployment 
benefits, and we must extend them now.

[[Page 302]]



                          ____________________




                     VISIT TO CHARLIE NORWOOD VAMC

  (Mr. BROUN of Georgia asked and was given permission to address the 
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, this week I went to Augusta, 
Georgia, to participate in an oversight hearing with Chairman Jeff 
Miller of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs. This visit was the 
result of multiple deaths and delays in care reported in the Augusta 
veterans hospital. We must find out what exactly went wrong.
  As both a U.S. Marine and a current medical doctor in the Navy 
Reserves, I take reports of poor care for our veterans very seriously. 
I questioned hospital staff on how, when, and why these lapses in care 
occurred, and who is ultimately responsible.
  While it appears that under new leadership the hospital is heading in 
a positive direction, this is just the beginning of a full 
investigation. We have made promises to our veterans. It is vital that 
we fulfill these promises.
  I have pledged to work to hold those responsible and the VA 
accountable. I am fully committed to making sure that our veterans 
receive world-class health care in Augusta, as well as VA hospitals all 
across the country.

                          ____________________




             FULL FUNDING FOR CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION

  (Mr. HIGGINS asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute.)
  Mr. HIGGINS. Mr. Speaker, the Peace Bridge, located along the 
northern border of my western New York district, facilitates the 
transport of over $30 billion in commerce annually. However, increasing 
wait times and delays pose a significant threat to our Nation's 
economy.
  While I am encouraged by the start of the preinspection pilot at the 
Peace Bridge for commercial vehicles, which would allow trucks entering 
the United States to be prescreened on the Canadian side of the border, 
I am concerned about staffing levels with Customs agents at the border.
  I have called on Customs and Border Protection to increase staffing 
levels at the bridge to facilitate easier accessibility at northern 
border crossings and also encouraged the FY 2014 Homeland Security 
appropriations budget to include full funding for Customs and Border 
Protection officer staffing requests.
  The streamlined flow of people and goods across the border is 
critical to the western New York economy and to the Nation's economy. I 
am committed to fighting to preserve and improve our relationship with 
Canada and our economic relationship.

                          ____________________




                           OBAMACARE SECURITY

  (Mr. HOLDING asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. HOLDING. Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate enough that ObamaCare has 
increased the cost of health care for families across the country. On 
top of the skyrocketing premiums, limited choices for doctors and 
coverage, and regulatory burdens on small business, it is worrisome 
that people's personal information is now being subjected to potential 
fraud in the ObamaCare exchanges.
  The security problems with healthcare.gov go far beyond error 
messages and connection issues. In many cases, the people in charge of 
collecting and processing our most sensitive information haven't been 
fully trained or vetted; and although the administration knew the Web 
site hadn't been properly tested, they launched it anyway, leaving the 
American people vulnerable.
  That is why I introduced H.R. 3652, the No Identity Theft in Health 
Care Act, which would increase penalties for those who abuse their 
access to personal information that Americans are forced to submit when 
signing up for ObamaCare to commit identity theft. I also look forward 
to supporting the Health Exchange Security and Transparency Act later 
this week.
  Mr. Speaker, it is unacceptable that people's personal information is 
at risk. The administration needs to address this.

                          ____________________




          REPEAL OF CUT TO COLA FOR MILITARY RETIREES UNDER 62

  (Ms. BROWNLEY of California asked and was given permission to address 
the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. BROWNLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, on December 23, I introduced 
H.R. 3804, legislation to repeal an ill-conceived provision of the 
budget bill that reduced the cost-of-living adjustment for military 
retirees.
  As a member of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, I believe our 
servicemembers, veterans, and their families must receive the benefits 
they have so honorably earned and deserve. These benefits are owed to 
them without equivocation.
  We should not balance the budget on the backs of military retirees 
who served our country so bravely for decades. They should not be 
punished because of Congress' failure to get our fiscal house in order. 
That is why I urge Speaker Boehner to allow a vote today on my bill, 
H.R. 3804, and repeal this egregious provision.
  Clearly, there is substantial bipartisan support to correct this. 
Let's vote on H.R. 3804 for our military retirees today.

                          ____________________




                       OBAMACARE'S SECURITY RISKS

  (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, last October, a 
constituent living in Columbia received a frightening phone call from a 
gentleman in North Carolina. It appeared the constituent's security 
information was obtained by a stranger while enrolling for health 
insurance under the government health care Web site.
  The American people should not have to worry about personal 
information being compromised due to the government's inability to keep 
a Web site secure. Had the gentleman from North Carolina not contacted 
this South Carolinian, he may have never realized his information was 
being breached.
  ObamaCare is flawed and must be repealed. Because the President and 
Senate refuse to join us in these efforts, the House continues to act. 
Tomorrow, the House will vote on a bill that requires Health and Human 
Services to notify individuals when their personal information is 
stolen or unlawfully accessed.
  We must continue to work to repeal ObamaCare by replacing it with a 
plan to preserve the doctor-patient relationship, as long proposed by 
Congressman Tom Price.
  In conclusion, God bless our troops, and we will never forget 
September the 11th in the global war on terrorism.

                          ____________________




                              {time}  1215
                         CLIMATE CHANGE DENIERS

  (Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia asked and was given permission to address the 
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I urge my Republican colleagues 
to recognize the devastating consequences of air pollution, which is 
causing, or at least contributing to greatly, the drastic changes in 
the Earth's climate.
  Last year we experienced severe record-setting weather across the 
country, yet Republicans and climate deniers argue that no single 
weather event can be proven to have been caused by climate change. 
Paradoxically, climate deniers are now using the extreme cold snap as 
evidence to support their cause, which is to do away with all laws and 
regulations that protect our precious air quality.
  The maddening denial of the link between air quality and climate 
change is reckless, and it is a denial of scientific fact. Our 
posterity deserves more. We know, and 95 percent of scientists agree, 
that climate change leads to more severe weather overall, and the 
evidence is overwhelming.
  Now is the time for a real debate on climate change before another 
devastating year of extreme weather that

[[Page 303]]

takes lives, destroys communities, and wreaks havoc on our society and 
our economy.

                          ____________________




                           HUMAN TRAFFICKING

  (Mr. LANKFORD asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of January 
2014 being National Slavery and Human Trafficking Prevention Month.
  Human trafficking victims suffer repeatedly with no apparent way out. 
An estimated between 100,000 and 300,000 children each year become 
victims in America of this abhorrent practice.
  Many runaway children become victims of human trafficking within 48 
hours of leaving home, and it is crucial that we, as Americans, are 
aware of our surroundings and immediately contact authorities when we 
see anything suspicious around children. Traffickers can be found at 
airports, parking lots, schools, malls, and other places where they 
search for young victims.
  Two years ago, I authored a bill which this House passed, the Senate 
passed, and the President signed at the end of 2012 eliminating 
trafficking on our military bases around the world and our State 
Department facilities around the world.
  We, as Americans, believe every person has value. Every person has 
rights that are given to them by their creator. Mr. Speaker, I would 
encourage every American, if they come into contact with someone that 
they suspect is a victim of human trafficking, to contact the National 
Human Trafficking Hotline at 888-373-7888. Let's help our fellow 
Americans.

                          ____________________




                             CLIMATE CHANGE

  (Mr. MORAN asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, most Americans this week felt as though they 
were living on the North Pole. There was a condition called ``the polar 
vortex'' that became part of our common vernacular. Normal routines 
were disrupted. Schools closed, water mains ruptured, car batteries 
failed, and, tragically, weather-related deaths went up. So it didn't 
take long for conservative commentators to offer this cold weather 
phenomenon as proof that the planet isn't warming, that this is all a 
hoax or some left-wing liberal ideology.
  But the fact is that scientists have told us that the real and 
measurable decline of Arctic sea ice that is the direct result of 
warmer weather and climate change is creating this polar vortex that 
allows weather conditions that normally remain fixed over the Arctic to 
spin out of control. They slip south and they subject us to Arctic-like 
weather conditions.
  Now, this is a fact that we need to recognize and do something about 
or weather conditions are going to become far more common and far more 
severe.

                          ____________________




              ONE OF THE BEST BCS CHAMPIONSHIP GAMES EVER

  (Mr. ROSS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, this past week, the college football season 
culminated in one of the best BCS Championship games ever played when 
the Auburn Tigers took on the FSU Seminoles.
  Even though I am a resident of Florida, I am a graduate of Auburn and 
was, of course, rooting for my Tigers.
  I want to commend Auburn's coach, Gus Malzahn, for taking Auburn from 
worst to first in the SEC and leading his team to play for the national 
championship game. His efforts were nothing short of incredible. He 
made believers not only of his players, but also believers out of all 
of us. He showed us that persistence, discipline, self-confidence, and 
faith in God will lead to success, both individually and as a team.
  I also want to congratulate my friend, Coach Jimbo Fisher of Florida 
State. Coach Fisher is not only a great coach, but he obviously married 
well because his wife, Candi, is also an Auburn alumnus.
  While my heart is always in Auburn, my hat goes off to the Florida 
State Seminoles for a well-earned victory. Congratulations.
  War Eagle.

                          ____________________




                           THE WAR ON POVERTY

  (Ms. KELLY of Illinois asked and was given permission to address the 
House for 1 minute.)
  Ms. KELLY of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate a milestone 
in our Nation's history. Fifty years ago, President Lyndon B. Johnson 
stood before Congress and declared an unconditional war on poverty.
  As we reflect on this war, I am inspired by the progress we have made 
in 50 years. We have expanded economic opportunity, and we have made 
the American Dream a reality for millions. But this is not enough. 
Recent events, like allowing unemployment insurance to expire, remind 
us that the war is not over.
  Even though our economy is recovering from a recession, 10.9 million 
Americans are still struggling to find work. Meanwhile, 16 million 
children live in poverty. And now the 1.3 million Americans who lost 
unemployment insurance have no means to provide for their family while 
they look for work.
  This cannot continue. No child should go to bed hungry, and no family 
should struggle to keep a roof over their heads.
  Fifty years ago we started a war, and yes, we have won many battles. 
But it is time to win the war, and we must start by making sure that 
Americans can continue to meet basic needs as they pursue their dreams. 
So I urge my colleagues to stand with me and extend unemployment 
insurance.

                          ____________________




   THE PROTECTING VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS AND EMERGENCY RESPONDERS ACT

  (Mr. REED asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I rise to highlight yet another of the 
unintended consequences of the Democratic health care law.
  Because of the employer mandate in ObamaCare, our volunteer fire 
departments and emergency response organizations are at risk of having 
their volunteers be considered employees and are, therefore, being 
forced to choose between retaining those volunteers and using their 
precious resources to comply with this mandate or cutting those 
volunteers and the vital services they provide to our communities.
  As I have heard from people in my district, Cattaraugus County Office 
of Emergency Services, the impact would be absolutely detrimental to 
critical services in rural areas like Cattaraugus County.
  I ask Congress to fix this unfair burden on our emergency volunteers 
and support H.R. 3685, the Protecting Volunteer Firefighters and 
Emergency Responders Act, introduced by my good friend, Representative 
Lou Barletta.

                          ____________________




   CELEBRATING THE 90TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE SIKORSKY AIRCRAFT COMPANY

  (Ms. DeLAURO asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to call attention to the 90th 
anniversary of the Sikorsky Aircraft Company, one of the lynchpins of 
our State's advanced industrial base, a pillar of our national defense, 
and the world's premiere helicopter manufacturer.
  Ninety years ago, Russian-born inventor Igor Sikorsky opened the 
Sikorsky Aero Engineering Corporation for business on Long Island. 
Since then, the history of this pioneering company has been a string of 
firsts.
  Sikorsky built the first practical helicopter, the VS-300, in 1939. 
Five years later, a Sikorsky vehicle performed the

[[Page 304]]

first helicopter combat rescue in history, saving soldiers in Burma 
during World War II. In 1945, a Sikorsky helicopter took part in the 
first-ever civilian helicopter rescue, rescuing survivors from a 
sinking vessel in Long Island Sound. And in 1957, Dwight Eisenhower 
took the first Presidential ride in Sikorsky-made Marine One, long one 
of the defining symbols of the American Executive.
  Today, in my State of Connecticut, Sikorsky continues to build the 
best helicopters in the world, including the Black Hawks so critical to 
our national security, and to move the technology of rotor-powered 
aircraft forward.
  To UTC leadership and the almost 16,000 hardworking men and women of 
Sikorsky, congratulations on this anniversary, and here's to many more.

                          ____________________




                        WE CAN'T WAIT ANY LONGER

  (Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to 
address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, this country has 10.9 
million people out of work, many of whom have been out of work for over 
6 months. We can't wait any longer. Families want to work. They want a 
job that will allow them to put food on the table, take family 
vacations, and save for their children's education. And $300 a week 
just won't cut it.
  As we speak, the President has a permit on his desk, one that has 
been ready to sign for almost his entire tenure in office. The Keystone 
XL pipeline is a rare project supported by labor, business, and the 
hardworking taxpayers of this country, and one that has been studied 
and dissected more than most.
  This project is ready to go, and, with the stroke of a pen, Mr. 
President, you can create 40,000 good-paying, stable jobs across this 
country that American families want and deserve. All they need is your 
signature.
  Let's finally create the jobs that politicians love to talk about. 
Get families back to work, where they want to be, and off unemployment.

                          ____________________




                         UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

  (Ms. TITUS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. TITUS. Mr. Speaker, as of the new year, 1.3 million Americans, 
including 17,600 Nevadans, are without a critical economic lifeline--
the emergency unemployment insurance that has helped men and women stay 
out of poverty and keep their families afloat as they look for a job.
  By allowing this program to expire, those already struggling to make 
ends meet are now facing even greater hardship as they are left to 
wonder how to put food on the table, keep a roof over their families' 
heads, or put gas in the car.
  Denying this vital lifeline is not only morally indefensible, it is 
also economically shortsighted. Unemployment insurance benefits not 
only help the individual and their families who receive them, but they 
also boost our economy. Failing to renew this program will weaken 
economic growth and cost our country 240,000 jobs, including almost 
3,000 in Nevada.
  So, for the thousands of Nevadans who lost emergency unemployment 
insurance at the beginning of the year and the 842 more who stand to 
lose their benefits at the end of this week, inaction is unacceptable. 
I urge Speaker Boehner to bring this to the floor and vote in favor.

                          ____________________




            TAKE ACTION ON EMERGENCY UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

  (Mr. MAFFEI asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute.)
  Mr. MAFFEI. Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise to urge the Republican leaders 
to allow a vote on extending unemployment insurance benefits to the 
thousands of workers in my central New York district and the 1.3 
million workers across the country who have lost these benefits.
  Because Congress has failed to act, hundreds of thousands of families 
are not having a happy new year. This important relief provides a 
lifeline to people who worked hard, they played by the rules, and they 
are out of work through no fault of their own. By providing this vital 
but temporary assistance to unemployed workers, this program ensures 
workers and their families are able to make ends meet during their job 
searches.
  Extending unemployment insurance should not be a partisan issue. In 
fact, this program was signed into law by President George W. Bush and 
has been reauthorized several times by members of both political 
parties during the time of economic recovery. If there are reforms 
needed to help get people back to work, then let's make those reforms, 
but don't toss out the whole program.
  Mr. Speaker, our economy is still recovering and thousands of 
hardworking central New Yorkers are still struggling to find a job. 
Failure to extend unemployment insurance hurts the economy across 
central New York and across this country. The Senate has already taken 
bipartisan action on extending unemployment insurance. It is time for 
the House to do the same.
  Mr. Speaker, I just don't understand why we don't just have a vote. 
It would help the economy, and it would help our families.

                          ____________________




                   UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE EXPIRATION

  (Mr. CROWLEY asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, for many people, a new year marks a time of 
hope and optimism. But millions of Americans are, instead, beginning 
this year with fear and worry. They are wondering how they are going to 
make ends meet, pay their rent, or put food on the table. That is 
because they woke up just a few days after Christmas to find that their 
emergency unemployment assistance had been terminated, cutting them off 
from a needed lifeline.
  Now, that is just about the cruelest thing I can think of happening. 
It is mean. It is unnecessary. It is kicking people who are already 
down. It is just plain shameful. It is shameful. And it is not the kind 
of America I believe in.
  Shouldn't we be embracing policies like unemployment insurance that 
keep families afloat? Shouldn't we be looking at our communities, our 
neighbors, and saying, yes, America will be there for you in your time 
of need?
  Yes, we should say that.
  To every one of my colleagues, I say join us in doing the right thing 
and restoring these needed benefits today. We need to do the right 
thing and not the wrong thing, and we need to do that now.

                          ____________________




                              {time}  1230
               COMMUNICATION FROM THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fortenberry) laid before the House the 
following communication from the Clerk of the House of Representatives:

                                              Office of the Clerk,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                  Washington, DC, January 9, 2014.
     Hon. John A. Boehner,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to the permission granted in 
     Clause 2(h) of Rule II of the Rules of the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the Clerk received the following message 
     from the Secretary of the Senate on January 9, 2014 at 9:42 
     a.m.:
       That the Senate passed without amendment H.R. 667.
       That the Senate passed S. 1171.
       With best wishes, I am
           Sincerely,
                                                    Karen L. Haas.

[[Page 305]]



                          ____________________




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2279, REDUCING EXCESSIVE DEADLINE 
  OBLIGATIONS ACT OF 2013; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3362, 
EXCHANGE INFORMATION DISCLOSURE ACT; AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF 
    H.R. 3811, HEALTH EXCHANGE SECURITY AND TRANSPARENCY ACT OF 2014

  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 455 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 455

       Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 2279) to amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act 
     relating to review of regulations under such Act and to amend 
     the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act of 1980 relating to financial responsibility 
     for classes of facilities. The first reading of the bill 
     shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute recommended by the Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce now printed in the bill, it shall be in order to 
     consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment 
     under the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 
     113-30. That amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against that 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. No 
     amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     shall be in order except those printed in part A of the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made 
     in order as original text. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3362) to amend 
     the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to require 
     transparency in the operation of American Health Benefit 
     Exchanges. All points of order against consideration of the 
     bill are waived. The amendment printed in part B of the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution 
     shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall 
     be considered as read. All points of order against provisions 
     in the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and 
     on any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except: (1) one hour of debate, with 40 minutes 
     equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and 
     20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means; 
     and (2) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 3.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3811) to 
     require notification of individuals of breaches of personally 
     identifiable information through Exchanges under the Patient 
     Protection and Affordable Care Act. All points of order 
     against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall 
     be considered as read. All points of order against provisions 
     in the bill are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment 
     thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: 
     (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the 
     chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy 
     and Commerce; and (2) one motion to recommit.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 1 
hour.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 455 provides for the 
consideration of three important bills which were reported by the 
Energy and Commerce Committee: H.R. 2279, the Reducing Excessive 
Deadline Obligations Act of 2013; H.R. 3362, the Exchange Information 
Disclosure Act; and H.R. 3811, the Health Exchange Security and 
Transparency Act of 2014.
  H.R. 2279 is a bill to address the burdensome and outdated deadlines 
for certain rulemaking activities conducted by the Environmental 
Protection Agency under the Solid Waste Disposal Act and the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. 
This provides flexibility for the Environmental Protection Agency in 
order to streamline a process critical to cleaning up sites 
contaminated with certain toxic or hazardous chemicals.
  It further requires the Environmental Protection Agency to evaluate 
existing State or other Federal financial insurance requirements to 
determine whether additional requirements are, in fact, necessary.
  Finally, it requires the owner or operator of a chemical storage site 
to report the presence of such chemicals to the State emergency 
response commissions.
  It is a commonsense piece of legislation to help clean up areas that 
have been polluted and allows for their reclamation or development. 
This could bring jobs and economic benefits to neighborhoods which have 
been so affected.
  As the two health care-related pieces of legislation, these are 
targeted bills to address just a few of the massive problems the 
American public has witnessed over the last few months pertaining to 
the calamitous rollout of the Federal www.healthcare.gov Web site. The 
data obtained by www.healthcare.gov is one of the largest collections 
of personal information ever assembled. It links information between 
seven different Federal agencies, State agencies, and government 
contractors.
  In promising lower costs and widespread health coverage for 
Americans, President Obama failed to mention that the Affordable Care 
Act's mandates and requirements will create large-scale disruption of 
the entire health insurance market. The resulting cancelation of 
insurance plans and high cost for employers to continue providing 
insurance for their workers has left millions of Americans with no 
choice other than to purchase health insurance through the Affordable 
Care Act's exchanges, subjecting their personal information to the 
vulnerable security infrastructure.
  The initial launch of www.healthcare.gov on October 1, 2013, was 
plagued with glitches and errors. Not only did the administration fail 
to establish basic functionality of the Web site, but the initial 
problems really only break the surface of the deeper security threats 
in the underlying law. A multitude of gaps remain in the Web site's 
security infrastructure, making the Web site a wide-open target for 
hackers and identity thieves. These flaws continue to pose a threat to 
the security of Americans' personal data.
  Mr. Speaker, it wasn't that the administration was not alerted to 
these security concerns on the Web site prior to the launch. MITRE 
Corporation, a contractor for the Department of Health and Human 
Services, alerted the agency that 19 unaddressed security 
vulnerabilities plagued the Web

[[Page 306]]

site prior to its launch on October 1. Top officials at the Centers for 
Medicare and Medicaid Services, including the chief information 
security officer, Teresa Fryer, along with the Web site's project 
manager, Tony Trenkle, both refused to sign the Authority to Operate 
license that was necessary to actually launch www.healthcare.gov. 
Despite these known issues, the director of the Centers for Medicare 
and Medicaid Services, Marilyn Tavenner, continued to launch the Web 
site.
  This is much more than a faulty Web site. This is about the American 
people, who cannot trust their government to certify that their 
personal information will be safe on a government-run Web site.
  The security threat goes beyond just an individual's primary 
application. Once an individual's personal information is entered into 
the system, the exchange has the ability to access information within 
the Department of Homeland Security, the Internal Revenue Service, 
Social Security, and the Treasury Department. The administration has 
opened numerous Federal agencies to data breaches and unauthorized 
access.
  Just before the holidays, the entire Nation saw firsthand what a 
massive security breach looks like. Over 40 million Target customers, 
their personal data was compromised by computer hackers who pilfered 
personal financial information and identification.
  Target has gone out of their way to alert customers of the security 
breach. Unfortunately, the Federal Government has no such obligation 
under the law. This is a point that I don't think most people are aware 
of. It is not required. It is not a mandate that you have a Target 
charge card or that you shop at Target, but it is certainly required 
and a mandate that you buy your insurance through www.healthcare.gov. 
This is a coercive Federal policy that now is pulling people into its 
Web site and refuses to provide them the very same protection that we 
demand that the private sector do for a voluntary purchase.
  Instead of following the same requirements placed on the private 
sector, the Federal Government has gone out of their way to avoid 
imposing this basic due diligence in their own exchanges. Even when a 
notification requirement was specifically requested during the 
rulemaking process on the exchanges, the administration just simply 
refused.
  In the March 27, 2012, Federal Register, Department of Health and 
Human Services responded, stating:

       We do not plan to include the specific notification 
     procedures in the final rule. Consistent with this approach, 
     we did not include specific policies for investigation of 
     data breaches in this final rule.

  Furthermore, State laws required that many of the 14 State-run 
insurance exchanges, that they do disclose such information. No such 
law exists for the federally run exchange. Mr. Speaker, I would remind 
you that 36 States rely upon the federally run exchange.
  Look, we have spent hundreds of millions of dollars, taxpayer 
dollars. The American people deserve to know that their personal 
information is protected and to be notified if that protection lapses.
  Let's be honest: www.healthcare.gov is the most talked about Web site 
in years. The massive amounts of personal information that is collected 
through www.healthcare.gov and its ability to access multiple 
government databases creates the perfect environment for targeting by 
hackers.
  Over 16 attempts to hack into the system have already been reported, 
not to mention the many stories that have been reported in the press on 
the mishandling and sharing of individuals' data. Identity theft is a 
threat not only to an individual's credit rating and personal finances 
but also to overall United States security. Most Americans would be 
shocked to learn that this level of protection is not already in place 
for an initiative the size of the Affordable Care Act. Well, today the 
House is working to correct this injustice, protecting Americans when 
the administration has refused to do so.
  The Obama administration has consistently refused to disclose 
detailed data on how many Americans have actually completed the Obama 
Care enrollment process. Now it is more than 3 months after the launch 
of the exchanges, and we just simply do not know how many Americans are 
enrolled in the exchange plan.
  It was the administration who initially defined the success of the 
exchange as the number of Americans who actually enroll in the program. 
The number of enrollments are the only way to evaluate whether the more 
than $1 trillion that was spent on this thing by the administration is 
actually working.
  The President's commitment to an open and transparent government, 
repeated so many times during the passage of the Affordable Care Act, 
represents yet one more broken promise in a long string of broken 
promises.

                              {time}  1245

  Where this administration has failed, the bill before us will require 
the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to provide 
detailed weekly reports to the American people about the enrollment 
number on healthcare.gov. The American people deserve to know what they 
are getting for their hard-earned tax dollars that they have spent on 
the demands of this administration.
  It is the American people who are suffering because of the 
mismanagement and failures of this administration. Today--today--we 
have the opportunity to provide transparency and protect Americans' 
personal information.
  The rule before us today provides for 1 hour of debate equally 
divided between the majority and the minority for each of the bills 
contained in the rule. The minority is further afforded the customary 
motion to recommit on each piece of legislation.
  I want to encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and 
``yes'' on the underlying bills and stand with the millions of 
Americans who are asking and who are demanding that we protect their 
privacy.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank the gentleman, Mr. Burgess, for yielding me the customary 30 
minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule today under which three 
bills are being brought to the floor: H.R. 3811, the Health Exchange 
Security and Transparency Act; H.R. 2279, the Reducing Excessive 
Deadline Obligations Act; and H.R. 3362, the Exchange Information 
Disclosure Act. You wouldn't know by their names what those bills 
actually do. I discuss that, and, more importantly, I plan to discuss, 
Mr. Speaker, what these bills fail to accomplish.
  These misguided and superfluous bills were brought under a very 
restrictive process. Two of them are being brought to the floor under a 
completely closed rule that blocks all efforts by Members to improve 
the legislation. Democrats yesterday on the Rules Committee proposed an 
open rule for these bills allowing Members from both sides of the aisle 
to offer their ideas to make them better, and it was voted down in the 
Rules Committee in a partisan vote.
  Instead of moving forward and tackling challenges like extending 
unemployment, which has been talked about, or passing a jobs bill or an 
infrastructure bill or fixing our broken immigration system or 
reforming our tax system, again, we are discussing bills relating to 
the Affordable Care Act that don't seek to improve the act and make it 
work better for the American people but only add more paperwork and 
bureaucracy and cost to the health care system we already have by 
putting additional requirements on Federal workers and others that are 
working hard to ensure that ObamaCare works for America every day. Of 
the 112 legislative days we have left this year, we need to ensure that 
we spend them wisely, and I don't think that these three bills are a 
good way for us to use 2 days of our time.
  The first bill, H.R. 3362, calls on HHS to publish weekly reports on 
consumer

[[Page 307]]

interactions with healthcare.gov, including the details of all calls 
received by the call center. Now, much of this information is already 
available monthly. There are already reliable updates on enrollment 
numbers and numerous updates on the Web sites and issues consumers have 
encountered. Look, while you are fixing the Web site and getting it 
working is not the time to put additional requirements on those that 
are laboring to ensure that Americans can sign up for affordable health 
care. Again, it is more information about who is calling and what they 
are doing weekly rather than monthly will provide an additional 
workload for those who are trying to make sure that the Web sites are 
functioning for America.
  It will actually make it harder for the Web sites to function by 
having to divert some effort if this were to become law simply to 
building reporting requirements that were mandated by Congress. It is 
almost as if this bill was designed to make the Web site work worse, 
Mr. Speaker, by moving developers and others, without any additional 
resources, away from making the necessary improvements towards building 
entirely new reporting systems just so people can have information 
weekly instead of monthly.
  It would be great, first of all, to have information weekly. I would 
love to have information daily. I would love to have information 
realtime. I used to run an Internet company. It would be wonderful to 
have that information. You have to weigh the costs and benefits and 
say, Is it worth building into this system realtime reporting? What are 
we forgoing by doing that? Is it worth it to say we want the 
information weekly instead of monthly?
  Again, if you are building it from scratch and perhaps if the 
Republicans had offered this as an amendment into the original 
Affordable Care Act, maybe this could have been incorporated in 3 years 
ago and we could have built a system with either realtime or weekly 
reporting. But here where we are today, clearly the top priority needs 
to be that this Web site works well for the American people so they can 
get affordable health care for themselves and their family. That is 
what the American people want.
  Now, let's talk about security and safeguards for consumer 
information. Again, you have the germ of a good idea. Of course, when 
the government has our personal information, we need to make sure that 
there are adequate safeguards. That goes for the IRS, it goes for 
military personnel files, and it goes for the Affordable Care Act, just 
as we want to make sure that when the private sector and companies have 
our personal information that they institute the proper safeguards. And 
there are examples of failure. Mr. Burgess mentioned Target as a 
private-sector example of failure.
  We certainly hope that we have the infrastructure and security in 
place to ensure that there is not a failure of security with regard to 
the Affordable Care Act. But when we are talking about identity theft 
and how to address it, we need to look at where the real problem is. 
What is the leading cause of identity theft? Is it the IRS? Is it the 
Affordable Care Act? Is it the military? No. One of the biggest causes 
of breaches of personal information is our broken immigration system, 
the fact that many immigrants in our country are here with fake 
paperwork, fraudulent Social Security numbers they have purchased or 
stolen--and H.R. 15, the bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform 
package, which in a very similar form has already passed the Senate, 
would address this.
  So if we actually want to reduce identity theft and breaches of 
security and safeguard, Mr. Speaker, personal information for the 
American people, we should address the real problem rather than one of 
many hypothetical problems that, again, is no doubt worthy of 
discussion, but let's address where immigration--where identity theft 
actually occurs.
  According to the Center for Immigration Studies, which has done a lot 
of work on identity theft from those who are here illegally, experts 
suggest that 75 percent of people who are here illegally and working 
use fraudulent Social Security cards to obtain employment. Again, 
Americans are the victims of this theft. Children are prime targets. 
Their report indicates that in Arizona it is estimated that there are 
thousands of children that are victims of identity theft. H.R. 15 
contains mandatory E-Verify, which the Center for Immigration Studies 
says would curb and stop virtually 100 percent of child identity theft.
  So, I mean, if we are serious, Mr. Speaker, about doing something 
about the fact that drivers licenses and Social Security numbers are 
being stolen, well, let's pass immigration reform. Let's make sure that 
people who are working in our country and have a role here have some 
kind of provisional work permit, some prospect of a pathway to 
citizenship over many years or decades, and that we have a mandatory E-
Verify mechanism of checking, a way of verifying at the employer level 
that their paperwork is authentic and it is not, in fact, stolen from 
an innocent American, as it is today. So that would address identity 
theft. That would address fraud.
  We have people today that actually, under our current laws, are 
incentivized to steal information--personal information--from American 
people. Our immigration system is clearly broken. We need to fix it. 
H.R. 15, the House's bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform bill, 
would create a mandatory employment eligibility verification program. 
Currently, only 7 percent of employers in our entire country are 
enrolled in E-Verify to do workplace authentication of those who work 
here.
  So, let's bring this bill to the floor if that is the issue we want 
to address rather than discuss something that is hypothetically of 
concern. Yes, of course, we care about secure information in the 
Affordable Care healthcare.gov site. We care about it in military 
records, and we care about it in the IRS. But, meanwhile, there are 
hundreds of thousands of identities being stolen every day, and that is 
going to continue because this body refuses to bring H.R. 15 to the 
floor of the House, which would make that number almost zero.
  Mr. Speaker, the final bill that this rule brings to the floor is 
H.R. 2279, the Reducing Excessive Deadline Obligations Act. It is 
really a package of three bills that would weaken hazardous waste laws 
like Superfund and the Resource Conservation Recovery Act. It would 
actually limit the EPA's oversight to ensure that the American people 
are safe and healthy.
  Do we need to remind this body that the reason Congress enacted these 
safeguards and Superfund is because of tragedies like Love Canal where 
a residential neighborhood was built on top of 22,000 tons of hazardous 
waste, and due to the exposure, the residents suffered very high rates 
of miscarriages, cancers, and birth defects? The situation was so dire 
that the Federal Government wound up having to evacuate the entire 
community. That is not the America I want to live in, Mr. Speaker. I 
oppose H.R. 2279 because it could lead to more situations like Love 
Canal rather than making sure that the American people are safe and 
healthy in their homes.
  Mr. Speaker, this debate is not really about reporting requirements. 
It is about making healthcare.gov function less effectively. It is not 
really about breaches of our personal information. We can solve a big 
chunk of that by bringing H.R. 15 to the floor of the House. It is not 
really about improving our competitiveness by removing unnecessary EPA 
regulations. It is about risking the health of our families.
  We need to focus on rebuilding our infrastructure, fixing our broken 
immigration system, and making sure that we can protect the health of 
the American people, not jeopardize it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I now would like to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Collins.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, it is a new year. We come down 
and begin this week, and I have made a commitment, as I think many of 
us do, as resolutions on what are we going to do for the new year and 
you always try to learn something new, and today has

[[Page 308]]

been a busy day with meetings and other things. I have learned a lot, 
but I have actually come to the floor today to learn something that was 
amazing to me, and it was not only that a bill that we are talking 
about under this rule would actually be designed to make, that was 
accused of making the ObamaCare Web site worse. I didn't know that was 
possible. And undoubtedly, it can be, but I think it actually helps 
when we look at what we are doing for the country and what we are doing 
as we move forward protecting the interests of the people.
  So it is with that I rise in strong support of the rule and the 
underlying pieces of legislation, and in particular, H.R. 3811, the 
Health Exchange Security and Transparency Act of 2014.
  Even before ObamaCare was signed into law, pundits and politicians 
alike have speculated on the impact it would have on American families. 
Skyrocketing premiums, loss of coverage, and poor quality of care were 
all correctly predicted by many on this side of the aisle.
  We come here today, however, because Americans aren't just faced with 
unaffordable health care and broken Presidential promises--the security 
and privacy of our personal information is at great risk due to 
ObamaCare.
  One of the things that I think is mentioned here and should be noted, 
that protecting the information that is being forced to be given should 
be of our utmost importance and it is not something that should be just 
said is we should be doing other bills. Believe me, I would want to be 
talking about other things too, but this is something important that is 
protecting Americans' interests, and we need to continue to do so.
  I believe that the best health care system is one that is patient 
centered and as far removed from the flawed policies enshrined in 
ObamaCare as possible. Over the upcoming months, I look forward to 
debating the merits of ObamaCare versus true health care reform with my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle. But today is not that day. 
Today we come to the floor simply to say that American families should 
know about breaches of personally identifiable information in the 
ObamaCare exchanges.
  Regardless of the letter of your political affiliation, wouldn't you 
like to be notified if the security of your personal information has 
been compromised? If we get outside the politics of Washington and ask 
our constituents, I firmly believe that answer would be yes. It would 
actually be a resounding yes.
  So as I come to speak in support of this rule, and speaking also with 
the underlying bills and especially when I believe something such as 
protecting the security of our personal information is so important, I 
believe it is also important for us to remember as we start a new year 
that when we come here, people listen, people are concerned about their 
lives, they are concerned about what has gone on.
  And over the past few months, especially when it comes to health 
care, you can go to teachers in Georgia right now who have had their 
health care changed because of the ACA. That has just been an 
interesting mark everywhere I go in listening to people in what is now 
a health care system that they used to have their own insurance is now 
lost into something that they are struggling with; or whether it is the 
identifiable nature of the issues of their information on the Web site 
that possibly could be compromised, to just simply saying that we need 
regulations for our businesses and making sure our environmental 
projects are the ones that are prioritized and not just simply at the 
whim of a certain administration priority.

                              {time}  1300

  What we have got to do here is to continue to look forward to doing 
the people's business and, in doing so, in such a way that matters to 
everyday Americans.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, again the gentleman said there is a risk of 
information being taken from the healthcare.gov site. There is 
potential risk from any site. But every day, there are tens of 
thousands of American identities being stolen because of this body's 
refusal to simply fix our broken immigration system now.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman 
from New York (Ms. Slaughter), the ranking member of the Rules 
Committee.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, the majority has passed so few bills into 
law that it is on pace to become the least-productive Congress in 
history. And, frankly, I think they are a little bit proud of that. The 
inability to govern is directly related to the closed legislative 
process the majority has pursued with vigor over the course of the last 
year.
  At the beginning of the second session of the 113th Congress, the 
majority has practically shuttered the doors of every committee, save 
for the Rules Committee. It is a rare day when a bill proceeds through 
regular order from a committee of jurisdiction to the Rules Committee 
and down to the House floor. In fact, during the first session of the 
113th Congress, major legislation repeatedly originated in the Rules 
Committee and was rushed to the House floor for an up-or-down vote.
  Furthermore, during the first congressional session, the majority 
relied upon closed rules to shut out the minority and diminish the 
chance of any compromise. Under a closed rule, no amendments are 
allowed on the House floor. That cuts out, Mr. Speaker, more than half 
of the people in the United States of America who voted for Democrats.
  During 2013, the majority set new records by approving 19 closed 
rules in a single week and an unprecedented 11 closed rules in a single 
day. Even those with no interest in, or knowledge of, the legislative 
process can understand the impact that such a closed process has on our 
ability to govern.
  Every Member of this Chamber was sent here with a simple duty--to 
represent our constituents to the best of our ability. But, by closing 
down the legislative process, the majority is preventing 200 duly 
elected Members of Congress from being able to do just that. 
Collectively, we members of the minority represent more than 142 
million Americans. Each one of us is entrusted to work on their behalf. 
How can we do that when the majority takes away our ability to 
participate in marking up legislation, amending bills, and having a 
full and open debate?
  The Rules Committee has the unique and powerful ability to open up 
the legislative process and get Congress working again. In our 
committee, we can amend bills, improve legislation, and set the terms 
of debate so every Member of the House can participate in the 
legislative process. That is why I am so dismayed and somewhat 
disgusted at the proposed rule the Rules Committee has carried to the 
floor today.
  Before us is a single resolution for three bills. Under this 
resolution, two of those bills are considered under closed rules, which 
are not amendable, not discussable, and one is considered under a 
structured rule. And that one came up 2 days ago. It has had no 
committee action whatsoever.
  The bill being considered under a structured rule tries to revoke 
virtually all regulatory powers from the EPA, the agency that protects 
our health, our rivers, our air, and our land.
  At the same time, one of the bills being considered under a closed 
rule adds layers of red tape to the Department of Health and Human 
Services and demands that health care navigators provide everything but 
their blood type and family history to Congress on an almost daily 
basis. It is simply designed to slow up the work of signing up 
Americans for the health care that they want and deserve.
  It is very clear this bill is not a serious attempt to serve the 
American people but is a tactic to keep health care navigators from 
doing their work. Instead of moving forward with these go-nowhere 
bills, we should be extending unemployment insurance to the millions of 
Americans struggling to find work. And without unemployment insurance, 
the economy is suffering every single day.

[[Page 309]]

  Just before we left for Christmas, the last day we were here, to end 
the debate on the rule of the budget, we had a vote that we could have 
done to extend the unemployment during the rules debate on the floor. 
That was under the previous question. The vote failed despite the fact 
that every Democrat and a Republican voted for it.
  By the way, this bill was paid for. It was already taken care of by 
excess payments that we pay in agriculture subsidies. It was an 
extension for 3 months, but that was not good enough. So today, you are 
going to have another chance to do just that, to extend the 
unemployment insurance, and I strongly urge my colleagues to do it.
  If my colleagues will join me in voting ``no'' on the previous 
question, a 3-month extension of unemployment benefits will come to the 
floor for an immediate vote. This is the same bipartisan bill that is 
moving forward in the Senate, and it deserves the same consideration 
here in the House.
  Today, more than 1.3 million Americans and their families have lost 
access to unemployment insurance. Soon, it will be over 2 million and, 
by probably the end of March or May, 5 million. For so many, it is 
their only source of income and the only way they can pay their heating 
bills and buy food during these cold winter days.
  We have to stand up for the millions of Americans struggling to get 
by through no fault of their own, because, you remember, in order to be 
eligible for unemployment insurance, you have to prove that you are 
looking for work. So I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on 
the previous question when it comes up so we can have an immediate vote 
to extend unemployment insurance and finally do something in this House 
and through this Rules Committee that will benefit Americans and make 
our constituents know that we count for something.
  Mr. Speaker, the Majority has passed so few bills into law that it is 
on pace to become the least productive Congress in history. This 
inability to govern is directly related to the closed legislative 
process that the Majority has pursued with vigor over the course of the 
last year.
  At the beginning of the 2nd Session of the 113th Congress, the 
Majority has practically shuttered the doors of every committee, save 
for the Rules Committee. It is a rare day when a bill proceeds through 
regular order--from a committee of jurisdiction to the Rules Committee 
and down to the House Floor. In fact, during the first session of the 
113th Congress, major legislation repeatedly originated in the Rules 
Committee and was rushed to the House Floor for an up or down vote.
  Furthermore, during the first Congressional session, the Majority 
relied upon closed rules to shut out the Minority and diminish the 
chance for compromise.
  Under a closed rule, no amendments are allowed on the House Floor. 
During 2013, the Majority set new records by approving 19 closed rules 
in a single week and an unprecedented 11 closed rules in a single day!
  Even those with no interest in, or knowledge of, the legislative 
process can understand the impact that such a closed process has on our 
ability to govern.
  Every member of this chamber was sent here with a simple duty: to 
represent our constituents to the best of our ability.
  Yet by closing down the legislative process, the Majority is 
preventing 200 duly elected Members of Congress from doing just that.
  Collectively, we members of the Minority represent more than 142 
million Americans. Each one of us has been entrusted to work on their 
behalf. How can we do that when the Majority takes away our ability to 
participate in marking up legislation, amending bills and having a full 
and open debate?
  The Rules Committee has the unique and powerful ability to open up 
the legislative process and get Congress working again. In our 
committee we can amend bills, improve legislation, and set the terms of 
debate so that every Member of the House can participate in the 
legislative process.
  That is why I am so dismayed at the proposed rule that the Majority 
in the Rules Committee has carried to the Floor today. Before us is a 
single resolution for three bills. Under this resolution, two bills 
will be considered under closed rules and one will be considered under 
a structured rule.
  The bill being considered under a structured rule tries to revoke 
virtually all regulatory powers from the EPA--the agency that protects 
our health, our rivers and our land.
  At the same time, one of the bills being considered under a closed 
rule adds layers of red tape to the Department of Health and Human 
Services, and demands that healthcare navigators provide everything but 
their blood type and family history to Congress on an almost daily 
basis.
  It is clear that this bill is not a serious attempt to serve the 
American people, but a tactic to keep healthcare navigators from 
providing millions of Americans with access to healthcare.
  Instead of moving forward with these go-nowhere bills, we should be 
extending unemployment insurance to millions of Americans who are still 
struggling to find work.
  Just before we left for Christmas, we had a vote on extending 
unemployment during a rules debate on the floor. That vote failed, 
despite the fact that every Democrat voted for it. As a result, more 
than 1.3 million Americans lost unemployment insurance on December 
28th.
  Today, we will give this chamber another chance to extend 
unemployment insurance--and I strongly urge my colleagues in doing just 
that.
  If my colleagues will join me in voting ``no'' on the previous 
question, a 3-month extension of unemployment benefits will come to the 
floor for an immediate vote. This is the same bipartisan bill that is 
moving forward in the Senate, and it deserves the same consideration 
here in the House.
  Right now, more than 1.3 million Americans have lost access to 
unemployment insurance in the last few weeks. For many, it is their 
only source of income and the only way they can pay their heating bills 
and stay warm during these cold winter days.
  We must stand up for the millions of Americans who are struggling to 
get by in these tough economic times. I strongly urge my colleagues to 
vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we have an immediate vote 
to extend unemployment insurance and finally provide for the millions 
of Americans in need.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 16 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Colorado has 13 minutes remaining.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, it is often said those who don't remember their history 
are doomed to repeat it.
  The Rules Committee is an important function of this House. It is an 
important function of this body. Prior to 3 years ago, the Rules 
Committee was under the jurisdiction of the Democrats. They controlled 
the Rules Committee throughout the entirety of the 111th Congress. You 
may recall, that was the first 2 years of the first Obama term. In 
those 2 years under Speaker Pelosi, this was the first Congress in 
history--the first Congress in the history of the Republic--not to have 
a single bill considered under an open rule process.
  Now, since Republicans resumed the majority at the beginning of 2011, 
31 bills have come under an open rule. The track record may not be 
perfect, but it is inestimably better than what preceded it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I would remind the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Burgess) that this particular rule has two closed rules on two of the 
three bills.
  With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I want to join the Rules Committee and 
thank Members on both sides of the aisle for their hard work, but I 
want to associate myself with Ranking Member Slaughter for recognizing 
that we represent millions of people, and the constant closed-rule 
approach for bills that have not even been heard by committee makes it 
difficult to represent your constituents. So I associate myself with 
her plea for equity and comity.
  I also ask that we recognize that 1.3 million and growing, 3.6 
million, 4,000 a week, of the individuals who worked and invested in 
this Nation have received letters, like my constituent in Houston, 
letters with no offer of assistance but simply that your unemployment 
benefit, insurance benefit, has been canceled. Cancel your life, cancel 
your housing, cancel your food, cancel your medicine, cancel taking 
care of your children, cancel your life.

[[Page 310]]

  And so I believe that it is extremely important that we vote today--
again--and we hope that we will draw bipartisan support, to avoid the 
loss of some 200,000 jobs, to avoid the loss of serving 20,000 military 
veterans who are in fact beneficiaries of unemployment insurance, 1.3 
million Americans, 2 million children impacted, to avoid the loss to 
the American economy. Mr. Speaker, $1.55 is generated by this 
insurance, millions of dollars to be lost.
  And then I would say that it is important to be able to have a rule 
structure, more than a structured rule, more than a closed rule, 
because the bills that are before us today, the underlying bills, I am 
opposed to because my district is impacted by the Superfund.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman.
  The three Superfund bills, no involvement of the Federal Government, 
taking authority away from the Federal Government, having the States 
override the Federal Government on Superfunds. There are neighborhoods 
that are still suffering.
  And then with respect to this issue of privacy, I support the idea; 
but what I would say to my friends, and this privacy with 
healthcare.gov, what I would say to my friends is that we cannot 
continue to chip away at a bill, the Affordable Care Act, where 
millions of people have received health care. Let's work to ensure 
privacy for all of the sites of the Federal Government. Let's not pick 
away at the Affordable Care Act, which has been documented that it is 
secure, healthcare.gov.
  If Republicans wish to help make all of government secure, we are 
ready to do that, but what I would suggest is that this bill is not 
going in the right direction. I ask for a ``no'' vote on the rule and 
on the underlying bills.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I tire of going through this history lesson 
every time we come down to the floor, but may I remind you that when 
the now-Affordable Care Act was passed into law, this was a bill that 
came over to the House from the Senate. Sure enough, the House had sent 
the bill over to the Senate in July of 2009, H.R. 3590. It was a bill 
that dealt with housing. The bill that dealt with housing was amended. 
The amendment read, ``Strike all after the enacting clause and 
insert,'' and the health care language, which was de novo, the health 
care language was inserted.
  Now, to be sure, the House had considered a health care reform bill, 
H.R. 3200. H.R. 3200 has gone to the ether of history. H.R. 3590 passed 
in the Senate, a 60-vote margin on Christmas Eve in 2009, and then was 
thrown over to the House of Representatives. Did we have a hearing on 
H.R. 3590 in the Committee on Energy and Commerce? No, we did not. Did 
they have a hearing in the appropriate subcommittee of Ways and Means 
on H.R. 3590, as amended? No, they did not.
  The bill came to the Rules Committee. It came to the Rules Committee. 
I attempted to offer amendments. I was told, No, thank you. The bill 
was perfect the way it is, doesn't need any changes. This bill that 
affects every man, woman, and child in this country for the next three 
decades in a very unfavorable way was passed without any input from the 
then-minority, the Republicans in the House of Representatives.
  So it is beyond comprehension that we can continue to have these 
arguments about closed processes. This, after all, is the granddaddy of 
all closed processes. And the consequence, the drafting errors, the 
problems embedded in the structure, could not be dealt with during the 
normal legislative process, which is why so much authority has been 
transferred to the executive branch, to the agencies, and why they are 
now essentially writing the laws that affect so many Americans.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding.
  I was listening as a student of history myself to our friend from 
Texas. In that little last bit about affordable health care, he left 
out one little piece of history, which was that the Republicans of both 
the Senate and the House, to a person, decided it a priority to oppose 
the health care reform act no matter what was in it.
  To now come back and say we weren't given an opportunity to amend 
something that we decided we were going to oppose--remember Jim 
DeMint's words: if we can defeat this bill, it will be President 
Obama's Waterloo, no matter what is in it. So we need to remember 
history in its full context.
  And speaking of history, knowing of my distinguished friend's love of 
it, it was almost 35 years ago when the 96th Congress answered the 
cries of communities across the country facing the life-threatening 
effects of hazardous toxic waste. Who can forget, speaking of history, 
the Love Canal disaster in New York or the Valley of the Drums in 
Kentucky, the unexplained increase in the incidence of cancer, birth 
defects, and miscarriages?
  In an overwhelmingly bipartisan effort then, that Congress did the 
right thing by creating the Superfund program, offering communities a 
way to remediate contaminated sites, to protect public health, and hold 
polluters accountable.
  The success of the Superfund is clear: according to the EPA, as of 
April of last year, remedial actions have been completed at more than 
1,145 national priority list sites, and an additional 365 have been 
completely cleaned up and deleted from the list. That is called 
success. That is called a program that is working. That is 70 percent 
of the sites that had been added to the priority list.
  Today, human exposure is under control at 1,361 priority sites and 
contaminated groundwater under control at 1,069 sites.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Yet, despite that success, with communities still in 
need, in process, the House majority wants to peel back that progress 
and repeal what we have done.
  Can the Superfund be improved? Of course. We are committed to do 
that. But the answer isn't letting industry off the hook and leaving 
families exposed to hazardous waste and high cancer rates.
  I urge defeat of this bill.
  I thank my colleague for giving me the extra time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I would point out this bill before us today does not--does not--
change the Superfund, but it does allow States the flexibility to deal 
with problems in their States as they see fit.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on this 50th anniversary of the war on 
poverty, 1.4 million Americans have lost emergency unemployment 
insurance and thousands more stand to lose it each day, each week, that 
Congress fails to act. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer 
an amendment to the rule that will allow the House to consider 
legislation that is identical to the bipartisan measure being 
considered in the Senate and would restore unemployment insurance to 
those who have lost it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Kildee), a leader in the effort to restore unemployment insurance, to 
discuss our proposal.
  Mr. KILDEE. Thank you, Mr. Polis, for the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in defeating the 
previous question, as my colleague said, so that we can immediately 
take up the question of the extension of emergency unemployment to 
millions of Americans who have lost their job and who are seeking to 
find their next opportunity to contribute to our economy and to support 
their families.

[[Page 311]]

  I am part of the freshman class. We just began our second year in 
Congress. Something about the 2012 class that I think defines us is 
that we believe that we were sent here by the electorate of 2012 not to 
posture, but to get things done, to take action, to solve problems. 
That is why myself and the rest of the Democratic freshman class 
yesterday sent a letter to Speaker Boehner asking that he immediately 
bring up an extension to the unemployment compensation for so many 
Americans.
  Let's be clear about something, though. Unlike what I have heard from 
so many on the other side, being unemployed is not a choice; it is not 
a lifestyle to be sought. It is a condition that is often 
unanticipated, and it is one that nobody in my district that I know of 
who is unemployed would ever seek to try to maintain.
  I can only speak for the people I represent, but I suspect this is 
true of my colleagues. Folks that we represent back home that are out 
of work would gladly, today, trade unemployment compensation for a job 
that puts them to work and gives them the dignity of work and the 
ability to meet their obligations to their family and their community. 
It is about survival. It is about making your rent payment. It is about 
being able to pay your car payment, to put food on the table for your 
kids. It is about being able to keep the house warm. It is not a 
lifestyle to be sought.
  I think the notion that somehow people who are unemployed want to be 
there is condescending and offensive.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in defeating this previous question 
so that we can immediately take up the work that the American people 
are asking us to take up.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman.
  Mr. KILDEE. And that is to make sure that 1.3 million Americans have 
a chance to support their families until they can find meaningful work. 
Eleven million people since 2008 have been saved from poverty because 
of unemployment compensation. That unemployment extension was supported 
by the vast majority of Members of this House, signed by President 
Bush, with no strings attached.
  What is different about 2014 than what was experienced in 2008? 
Nothing, except that we have the same obligation to those same 
Americans to make sure that they don't go broke, that they don't lose 
their house, that they don't lose their car, that they don't lose their 
family, as a result of the lack of basic decency.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I appreciate this opportunity to comment not only upon this rule 
which provides, of course, for mostly closed rules--no amendments, no 
ability to change or modify, particularly two bills that had no 
hearings, went to no committees, and were reported out doing stuff that 
we did for 2013 almost without exception--but what I really rise to say 
is that I want to urge every Member to vote against the previous 
question.
  Mr. Speaker, I know the American public will hear ``previous 
question.'' What does that mean? The previous question, if defeated, 
will give us the opportunity to put on this floor what the overwhelming 
majority of the American people want on this floor, which I understand 
the gentleman from Michigan, as I just was walking in, I think was 
talking about. That is to deal with the most pressing issue confronting 
this country right now today. That is that we have 1.3 million 
Americans who have simply been dropped through whatever safety net we 
thought we had constructed.
  So, Mr. Speaker, the American public understands, the previous 
question will give us the opportunity, if it is defeated, to put that 
legislation on the floor now, to extend for those 1.3 million people 
the help of the American people who want to do it. In every poll they 
say, no, we ought to have this help.
  When George W. Bush was President of the United States, five times we 
extended unemployment insurance for long-term unemployed--five times--
without paying for it.
  And make no mistake about it; the vote on the previous question is 
whether or not you want to give long-term unemployed who have lost 
their insurance and are having trouble putting food on their tables, if 
you want to give them help, you will vote ``no'' on the previous 
question. Don't hide behind a procedural issue. This is a substantive 
issue. This is an issue of whether we are going to give help now.
  The American public that is for this ought to be looking at it. And 
every Member who votes ``yes'' on the previous question is voting not--
not--to give help to those folks, 1.3 million of them, 20,000 veterans 
who can't find a job. And there is only one job available for every 
three people that are looking for a job.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. That is why George W. Bush extended unemployment. That is 
why we ought to do it. And we can do it. We have the ability to do it. 
Vote ``no'' on the previous question. It is a substantive vote on 
whether or not you want to help the long-term unemployed who have lost, 
as of December 28, 3 days after Christmas, the season of giving and 
caring, whether you want to give them the unemployment insurance that 
they count on to feed themselves and their families and have their 
heads above water.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this rule and urge a vote instead to 
bring to the floor a bill introduced by the ranking member of the ways 
and means committee, my friend Mr. Tierney.
  His bill will do what Congress ought to have done before we left for 
the holidays: extend the emergency unemployment insurance benefits that 
were cut off so suddenly for 1.3 million of our fellow citizens who are 
looking for work.
  It is shameful that Republicans continue to block an extension of 
this lifeline for so many who are struggling to find jobs and are 
facing an extremely difficult job market, where in some places there 
are three job seekers for each open position.
  Democrats will continue to put pressure on our colleagues across the 
aisle to work with us in a bipartisan way to extend these emergency 
benefits while our jobs recovery continues.
  Representative Tierney's bill would extend these benefits for three 
months to allow Congress time to work on a long-term solution.
  There is no reason why 1.3 million people--a number that will grow by 
an average 72,000 a week for as long as Congress fails to act--should 
have to go without the emergency income that supports them and their 
families.
  We need to promote job creation and get our people back to work, 
while at the same time ensuring that we're helping people stay out of 
poverty.
  I call on my Republican friends to join with us in extending these 
emergency benefits right now and then working together to invest in the 
economic competitiveness that will create the jobs we need.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode 
Island (Mr. Cicilline).
  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  In the last 12 days, nearly 1.4 million Americans have been cut off 
from their emergency unemployment benefits. Thousands more Americans 
will lose their benefits every week without congressional action.
  It is unforgiveable that this Congress will adjourn tomorrow without 
addressing this crisis. Instead of offering a solution to extend 
emergency unemployment benefits, this rule does not allow us to address 
this critical issue of extending unemployment insurance immediately.
  The longer we wait to fix this problem, the more serious it becomes 
for the long-term unemployed and their families. Punishing unemployed 
Americans and their families who have been hit hard in this tough 
recession through no fault of their own is just plain wrong.
  My home State Senator, Senator Jack Reed, has offered a proposal in

[[Page 312]]

the Senate. It is a critical step in the right direction to preserve 
this critical lifeline while we work on a long-term solution, and we 
should do the same thing here.
  Surely my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want the 
opportunity to vote on extending unemployment insurance. So I urge my 
colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, to defeat the 
previous question, so we can take up the issue of extending 
unemployment insurance for many Rhode Islanders and Americans all 
across this country who desperately need these benefits.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire, does the gentleman 
have any other speakers? If not, I am prepared to close.
  Mr. POLIS. I am prepared to close.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of 
the amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, 
immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and 
defeat the previous question.
  The Senate has passed a bipartisan, comprehensive immigration bill, 
and the Senate is debating unemployment insurance. Meanwhile, the House 
hasn't dedicated a single second of legislative floor time to any 
immigration reform bill that would address identity theft.
  Let's move forward and pass bills that matter to the American people 
rather than political bills that aren't going anywhere.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, one of the questions for people who have been watching 
this debate, I'm sure one of the questions that they have, is there any 
difference as to how the private sector is treated if and when a data 
breach occurs versus a Federal agency? The simple fact of the matter is 
there is a difference.

                              {time}  1330

  The private sector is governed under State laws and, yes, by some 
Federal regulations as well.
  In fact, earlier this month, in a publication called The Hill, 
entitled, ``Target's data breach sparks calls for action,'' there was 
significant discussion about, perhaps, there being more activity on the 
part of the Federal Trade Commission in protecting consumers who have 
been exposed to a data breach.
  What are the protections for people harmed with a data breach by the 
Federal Government?
  In fact, for that, there is not legislation, there is not a law that 
was signed by any administration, but there is an executive order of 
the President's, dating from May 22, 2007, a so-called OMB Circular.
  The OMB Circular dealing with data breaches under the section 
``Timeliness of the Notification'' reads:

       Agencies should provide notification without unreasonable 
     delay following the discovery of a breach, consistent with 
     the needs of law enforcement and national security and any 
     measures necessary for your agency to determine the scope of 
     the breach and, if applicable, to restore the reasonable 
     integrity of the computerized data system compromise. 
     Decisions to delay notification should be made by the agency 
     head.

  You get the impression that this is, perhaps, a rather open-ended or 
diffuse or poorly defined timeliness of notification for our 
constituents who are harmed by a data breach by a Federal agency. So 
that is one of the problems that we are here today to correct.
  Today's rule provides for the consideration of a critical jobs bill 
and critical security bills to clean up our environment and to protect 
Americans' personal data.
  I certainly want to thank Mr. Gardner, Mr. Terry and Chairman Pitts 
for their thoughtful bills.
  I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying 
pieces of legislation.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:

      An Amendment to H. Res. 455 Offered by Mr. Polis of Colorado

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 4 Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     3824) to extend emergency unemployment benefits. The first 
     reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of 
     order against consideration of the bill are waived. General 
     debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one 
     hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. After 
     general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule. All points of order against 
     provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
     may have been adopted. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions. If the Committee of 
     the Whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution 
     on the bill, then on the next legislative day the House 
     shall, immediately after the third daily order of business 
     under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the 
     Whole for further consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 5. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration the bill as specified in section 4 of this 
     resolution.

        THE VOTE ON THE PREVIOUS QUESTION: WHAT IT REALLY MEANS

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a 
     vote about what the House should be debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous 
     question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an 
     immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no 
     substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' 
     But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the 
     Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in 
     the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, 
     page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous 
     question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally 
     not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I urge an ``aye'' vote on the previous 
question. I yield back the balance of my

[[Page 313]]

time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of adoption.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 226, 
nays 191, not voting 15, as follows:

                              [Roll No. 5]

                               YEAS--226

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--191

     Andrews
     Barber
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Barton
     Cleaver
     Cole
     Gabbard
     Guthrie
     Heck (NV)
     Jones
     McCarthy (NY)
     McClintock
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Schiff

                              {time}  1356

  Messrs. JEFFRIES, VELA, and NADLER changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 5, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``no.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 223, 
noes 186, not voting 23, as follows:

                              [Roll No. 6]

                               AYES--223

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland

[[Page 314]]


     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--186

     Andrews
     Barber
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--23

     Barton
     Becerra
     Cardenas
     Castro (TX)
     Cleaver
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Fattah
     Gabbard
     Guthrie
     Heck (NV)
     Jones
     McCarthy (NY)
     McClintock
     Nunes
     Rogers (KY)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Schiff
     Turner

                              {time}  1406

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 6, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``no.''

                          ____________________




          REDUCING EXCESSIVE DEADLINE OBLIGATIONS ACT OF 2013


                             General Leave

  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks 
and to include extraneous material on H.R. 2279.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 455 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2279.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Yoder) to preside 
over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1409


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 2279) to amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act relating to review of 
regulations under such Act and to amend the Comprehensive Environmental 
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 relating to financial 
responsibility for classes of facilities, with Mr. Yoder in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson) and the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Tonko) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in support of the amendment to 
H.R. 2279, the Reducing Excessive Deadline Obligations, or REDO, Act of 
2013, which also includes my legislation, H.R. 2226, the Federal and 
State Partnership for Environmental Protection Act, and Mr. Latta's 
bill, H.R. 2318, the Federal Facility Accountability Act of 2013.
  Our goal with all three of these bills is to modernize some of the 
environmental laws that we oversee and make sure that the States are 
playing a significant role in implementing them. To do that, we began 
this Congress with a hearing on the role of the States in protecting 
the environment. State environmental protection officials shared their 
experience and expertise with us and helped us better understand the 
complex partnership between the States and the Federal Government as 
States implement Federal laws, such as the Solid Waste Disposal Act, 
and the EPA implements the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation, and Liability Act, or CERCLA or Superfund law, and the 
relation to State environmental protection laws.
  Today we consider three bills that are a logical outgrowth of that 
discussion. The Reducing Excessive Deadline Obligations, or REDO, Act 
of 2013 would give EPA flexibility by correcting two arbitrary action 
deadlines that were written into the Solid Waste Disposal Act and 
CERCLA many years ago.
  RCRA contains a mandate that EPA review and, if necessary, revise all 
RCRA regulations every 3 years. This deadline is unnecessary and 
unworkable in the face of the significant number of regulations that 
currently exist under RCRA.
  The bill would allow the Administrator to review and, if necessary, 
revise regulations as she thinks appropriate. The bill would also lift 
an action deadline in CERCLA requiring EPA to identify, prior to 1984, 
classes of facilities for which to develop financial assurance 
regulations.

                              {time}  1415

  More than 30 years passed without action from the EPA to promulgate 
regulations regarding financial assurance. A lawsuit and court order 
finally prompted the EPA action just a few years ago.
  In the meantime the States and other Federal agencies have long since 
acted, putting in place strong financial assurance requirements of 
their own. That is why the bill also provides that if EPA does get 
around to establishing Federal financial assurance regulations, the 
States requirements would not be preempted.
  The bill also requires the EPA to gather information regarding the 
financial assurance programs of States and other Federal agencies and 
report to Congress regarding whether there is a need for additional 
regulations by the EPA.
  Should the EPA determine there is a need for additional requirements, 
the bill ensures compliance with existing State or Federal requirements 
will count towards compliance with EPA's requirements.
  The Federal Facility Accountability Act would bring the CERCLA waiver 
of sovereign immunity into conformity with the Solid Waste Disposal 
Act, and for that matter the Clean Air Act, by requiring that all 
Federal Superfund sites comply with the same State laws and regulations 
as a private entity. This is not a new concept.
  Legislation has been introduced previously by my friends across the 
aisle to ensure that Federal agencies comply with all Federal and State 
environmental laws, including CERCLA.
  In fact, the Federal Facilities Compliance Act of 1991 had the same 
goal: to make Federal facilities subject to all the same substantive 
and procedural requirements, including enforcement requirements and 
sanctions that

[[Page 315]]

State and local governments and private companies meet.
  The Federal Facility Accountability Act applies the same policy to 
Federal facilities under CERCLA that already applies to Federal 
facilities under the Solid Waste Disposal Act. Some argue that if this 
bill becomes law it will change Federal agencies' spending by forcing 
them to comply with State laws and that CERCLA is different because it 
is retroactive and applies to prior actions of the Federal Government.
  The Solid Waste Disposal Act often applies to past conduct. That's 
why there is a provision for ``corrective measures.'' In fact, the EPA 
has issued multiple guidance documents that describe how Federal 
agencies should harmonize RCRA and CERCLA with respect to cleanups of 
hazardous waste.
  Past conduct, future conduct--the fairness principle is the same. The 
basic question is whether Federal agencies should comply with State 
environmental protection laws just as private companies and State and 
local agencies must do.
  My bill, the Federal and State Partnership for Environment Protection 
Act, does exactly what the title implies and would go a long way toward 
making the States partners with the EPA in cleaning up hazardous waste 
sites.
  CERCLA is implemented by the EPA, but often States are in the best 
position to understand the sites in their State. This bill would allow 
States to play a larger role in the CERCLA process in several ways. The 
bill would allow States to list a site that it believes needs to be on 
the National Priorities List every 5 years and would provide 
transparency to the States if they suggest a site for listing.
  The bill would also allow States to be consulted before the EPA 
selects a remedial action.
  States are on the front lines and understand at the ground level how 
to prioritize environmental actions within their States.
  They often come up with innovative solutions that better fit the 
local problem. We heard examples of that in our hearing on the Role of 
the States in Protecting the Environment.
  CERCLA is a key example of a statute passed more than 30 years ago 
that we can now update and strengthen the Federal-State partnership to 
get sites cleaned up.
  Removing barriers to job creation imposed by Federal Government is a 
cornerstone in our governing philosophy. Cory Gardner, Bob Latta and I 
produced bills to ensure that the Federal Government reduces 
unnecessary red tape, the barriers to job creation, while still keeping 
our environment healthy. These important bills aim to improve the 
Federal and State relationship when dealing with hazardous waste.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                                     Congress of the United States


                                     House of Representatives.

                                  Washington, DC, January 8, 2014.
     Hon. Fred Upton,
     Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce,
     Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Upton, I am writing with respect to H.R. 
     2279, the ``Reducing Excessive Deadline Obligations Act of 
     2013.''
       As you know, H.R. 2279 contains provisions within the 
     Committee on the Judiciary's Rule X jurisdiction. As a result 
     of your having consulted with the Committee and in order to 
     expedite the House's consideration of H.R. 2279, the 
     Committee on the Judiciary will not assert a jurisdictional 
     claim over this bill by seeking a sequential referral. 
     However, this is conditional on our mutual understanding and 
     agreement that doing so will in no way diminish or alter the 
     jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary with respect 
     to the appointment of conferees or to any future 
     jurisdictional claim over the subject matters contained in 
     the bill or similar legislation.
       I would appreciate a response to this letter confirming 
     this understanding with respect to H.R. 2279, and would ask 
     that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be 
     included in the Congressional Record during Floor 
     consideration of H.R. 2279.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Bob Goodlatte,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                    Congress of the United States,


                                     House of Representatives.

                                  Washington, DC, January 8, 2014.
     Hon. Bob Goodlatte,
     Chairman, Committee on Judiciary,
     Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Goodlatte, Thank you for your letter 
     regarding H.R. 2279, the ``Reducing Excessive Deadline 
     Obligations Act of 2013.'' As you noted, there are provisions 
     of the bill that fall within the Committee on the Judiciary's 
     Rule X jurisdiction.
       I appreciate your willingness to forgo action on H.R. 2279, 
     and I agree that your decision is not a waiver of any of the 
     Committee on the Judiciary's jurisdiction over the subject 
     matter contained in this or similar legislation, and that the 
     Committee will be appropriately consulted and involved as the 
     bill or similar legislation moves forward. In addition, I 
     understand the Committee reserves the right to seek the 
     appointment of an appropriate number of conferees to any 
     House-Senate conference involving this or similar 
     legislation, for which you will have my support.
       I will include a copy of your letter and this response in 
     the Congressional Record during consideration of H.R. 2279 on 
     the House floor.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Fred Upton,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  At a time when too many of our citizens are still out of work, our 
Nation's infrastructure is in need of repair, the Tax Code needs 
revision, and when the safety net that provides basic necessities for 
our citizens has a tragic number of holes to close, we are spending our 
time on yet another bill that is headed straight for the legislative 
dust bin.
  It was the high-profile contamination at Love Canal in my home State 
of New York back in 1978 that motivated Congress to address the serious 
public health threat that existed at many sites across this country. 
Toxic contamination of air, of water, and of land from the improper 
handling of disposal of hazardous materials.
  Many of us represent districts that have formerly contaminated sites 
or sites that still remain to be cleaned up.
  Superfund is not a perfect law, but it has, in combination with other 
environmental laws, returned many abandoned, contaminated sites to 
productive use.
  When contaminated, blighted land is transformed, the entire community 
benefits. A long-abandoned former industrial site along the riverfront 
in my district was restored to a popular park. The residents of 
Amsterdam now enjoy a beautiful waterfront area.
  H.R. 2279 does nothing to improve public health or create jobs or 
protect the environment or avoid needless public expenses. In fact, it 
does the opposite.
  Title I of this bill further delays actions that should have been 
taken years ago. Congress included broad authorities for the 
Environmental Protection Agency to ensure that businesses that handle 
hazardous substances were financially able to deal with contamination 
that might result from their activities. This provision remains 
essential to protecting taxpayer interests, and it ensures these 
businesses are acting responsibly.
  EPA's goals within the Superfund program should not stop at cleaning 
up the legacy sites that we have. It should also prevent new sites from 
being contaminated. It should prevent more people from being exposed to 
toxic substances, and it should prevent the property damage, loss of 
revenue, and stigma that communities experience when they are marred by 
these sites.
  H.R. 2279 blocks the Environmental Protection Agency from 
implementing financial responsibility standards that their inspector 
general's office and the Government Accountability Office have advised 
are prudent actions that will avoid unnecessary public expenditures to 
clean up contaminated sites.
  The GAO's last report on this topic indicated that in the 10-year 
period they examined, Federal agencies spent $2.6 billion to reclaim 
abandoned hard-rock mine sites on Federal, State, private, and tribal 
lands.
  So how does H.R. 2279 address this potential $100 million per year 
liability? By blocking EPA from taking recommended steps to avoid these 
potential cleanup costs. We cannot afford to continue this destructive 
policy.
  Under the guise of ``fiscal responsibility,'' the majority voted to 
expand the list of requirements for applicants to the food stamp 
program to include

[[Page 316]]

drug testing and work requirements in addition to the detailed 
examination of an applicant's financial assets already required--all 
this to avoid providing a subsidy of about $1.50 per meal.
  Apparently, it is too much to ask that a business, which could expose 
communities to toxic contamination, leave taxpayers with cleanup costs 
in the tens of millions of dollars, and result in lost local revenue 
and loss of property values, provide the government with assurance that 
it can afford to properly manage or clean up contamination that it 
created. The inconsistency in these policy choices is, indeed, 
incredible.
  Blocking EPA from instituting basic requirements to protect public 
health, community vitality, local economic interests, and taxpayer 
interests provides a massive subsidy to a polluter at great public 
expense.
  Titles II and III of this bill are somewhat of a mystery. I have no 
idea what problems with the Superfund program they propose to fix, but 
we have heard from the administration about serious problems this bill 
would, indeed, create.
  The proponents of this legislation claim that title II will provide 
States more funding, give States a greater role in cleanups, and 
improve cooperation between States and the Federal Government on site 
cleanups, but States already have a significant role. Under current 
law, States can assert greater control over cleanups through a variety 
of mechanisms if they wish to do so.
  The provisions altering the relationship between Federal and State 
government have a number of serious problems. For example, title III 
creates situations in which Federal employees could find themselves in 
a legal mess if caught between conflicting State and Federal direction 
of a cleanup site. This is an issue that was raised when this bill was 
considered by the committee. It was not resolved in committee, and it 
was not resolved before coming here to the House floor.
  This is not the first bill this House has considered that 
demonstrated a disregard for Federal workers. This House has repeatedly 
turned to Federal workers to shoulder an unfair amount of the burden of 
deficit reduction.
  Our erratic appropriation process has made their jobs more difficult, 
even as we have reduced their benefits and frozen their salaries.
  We shut down the government, creating tremendous uncertainty for 
their families and barring people from their workplace. Now we are 
poised to pass a bill that might result in Federal workers being put in 
jail for doing their job.
  Mr. Chair, I have touched on a few of the problems with this 
legislation. This is a poorly crafted bill that offers nothing for the 
public. It will not speed cleanups. It will not save money. It will not 
improve public health. This is bad policy and poorly crafted 
legislation. With that, I urge my colleagues to reject it.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to yield 3 minutes to 
my colleague from Ohio (Mr. Latta).
  Mr. LATTA. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2279 and specifically a 
section of the bill I sponsored referred to as the Federal Facility 
Accountability Act. This commonsense legislation updates CERCLA to 
ensure that Federal facilities are held to the same level of 
accountability as private facilities when it comes to cleaning up the 
release of hazardous substances. This legislation is supported by a 
number of State entities that have had numerous problems with Federal 
facilities skirting their CERCLA cleanup responsibilities.
  As the Department of Environmental Conservation Contaminated Sites 
program in Alaska pointed out during one of our subcommittee hearings, 
a recurring problem is when Federal entities use sovereign immunity as 
a bar to limit or even refute State involvement and oversight of agency 
cleanups. In these instances, the Federal agency is acting as the 
responsible party and the regulator in which they get to determine 
which laws to apply, how safe the remedy needs to be, and they also pay 
the bill. Further, there is inconsistency in how some Federal agencies 
apply their CERCLA authority.
  The Federal Facilities Accountability Act addresses these concerns 
and existing ambiguities by ensuring current and formerly owned Federal 
facilities will have to comply with the same State requirements as a 
private entity doing cleanup under CERCLA and specifically identifies 
the types of State procedural and substantive requirements that are 
applicable to the Federal Government.
  Some of the most pressing environmental problems exist at current and 
former Federal facilities, and States have come a long way in 
developing strong regulatory programs to protect public health, safety, 
and the environment. It makes sense for Federal agencies to comply with 
these State environmental laws and to clean up contamination at Federal 
facilities to the same standards as everyone else.
  With strong independent State enforcement authority, the 
environmental performance of Federal agencies will undoubtedly improve.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2279.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, I now yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the ranking member of the 
Energy and Commerce Committee, the former chair of the Energy and 
Commerce Committee, and a staunch defender in public policy and 
outspoken word for the environment.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from New York (Mr. 
Tonko) for yielding and for his kind words.
  Today the House is considering legislation to reduce the number of 
cleanups of dangerous contaminated sites that can occur each year. It 
is reducing the number of cleanups. At the same time, it is raising the 
cost to the taxpayers and letting polluters escape responsibility.
  This bill is a perfect illustration of what is wrong with the House 
of Representatives. It is a partisan bill, developed through an 
insufficient committee process that erodes landmark public health 
protections for the benefit of big polluters.
  When I first learned that the committee was considering this 
legislation to address the cleanup of contaminated sites on Federal 
land, I was hopeful that this was an issue that could be pursued on a 
bipartisan basis. We should always be looking for ways to improve our 
laws, to be more careful and effective in the use of taxpayer dollars, 
and to better protect public health and the environment. But the Energy 
and Commerce Committee leadership refused to work with the stakeholders 
to develop a workable and credible proposal.

                              {time}  1430

  The Department of Justice and Department of Defense both offered to 
come help us craft new and effective policies, but the chairman of the 
subcommittee refused to even meet with them.
  Even worse, after the hearing on the bill, where a bill was out 
there, we had a hearing on it, the House Republicans added provisions 
that would let private companies avoid accountability for the pollution 
they cause. That means we are voting on legislation today to create new 
hurdles for holding polluters accountable, and we have no legislative 
record to explain it.
  The outcome of enacting this bill should be obvious. If polluters 
don't pay to clean up their pollution, then it just becomes one more 
burden on the taxpayer. And none of us should want that.
  This is the continuation of a disturbing trend. Over the last 3 years 
under Republican control, the House has voted over 400 times to weaken 
environmental laws. Last year, the House voted 51 times to benefit the 
oil and gas industry. From gutting laws that fight climate change to 
repealing rules that cut toxic air pollution, the House Republican 
leadership appears to have no qualms about targeting any public health 
and environmental protection.
  The House Republicans seem to have forgotten we represent all of the 
American people. We represent the parents

[[Page 317]]

who want to know that their children are not being exposed to cancer-
causing pollution. We represent taxpayers who don't want to spend 
millions to clean up a polluted industrial site simply because a big 
corporation decided to walk away. And, yes, we even represent the 
Federal employees who shouldn't have to face the threat of State 
sanctions just for doing their job and following the law as they would 
under this bill.
  The administration strongly opposes this bill because it could delay 
cleanup of contaminated sites with the most urgent human health and 
safety risks. All of the Democrats on the Energy and Commerce Committee 
voted against these bills that have been combined and are being 
presented to us today. We all oppose it because it will increase 
litigation and let polluters off the hook. This bill would be vetoed if 
it ever made its way to the President's desk. Most likely it will never 
see the light of day in the other House.
  This bill might play well with some special interest groups, but it 
should never become law; and I urge all Members to oppose this 
legislation.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I have to respond, I think, 
briefly. I appreciate the ranking member's passion in addressing these 
issues, but we need to clear up what some of the facts actually are.
  CBO has scored these bills and has come back and said that there are 
no significant cost increases associated with these. Furthermore, in 
regards to meeting with the Department of Justice and the Department of 
Defense, that meeting did occur, and the concerns that they raised were 
mainly around criminal liabilities for Federal employees, and that was 
addressed in the final legislation. So I'm not sure why we are still 
debating those issues.
  At this time, I would like to yield 2 minutes to my colleague from 
Colorado (Mr. Gardner).
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for his 
leadership in managing this legislation today. I also thank the 
chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Shimkus of Illinois, for his fine 
work on this legislation.
  I am rising today in support of H.R. 2279, the Reducing Excessive 
Deadline Obligations Act, a package of bills, as we have discussed, 
which includes the Federal Facility Accountability Act by Mr. Latta 
from Ohio and the Federal and State Partnership for Environmental 
Protection Act by Mr. Johnson of Ohio.
  This legislation represents steps to roll back unnecessary and 
overburdensome regulations that are duplicative and unnecessary. The 
bills are aimed to protect the State-Federal partnership when it comes 
to cleaning up hazardous waste sites as quickly and as efficiently as 
possible. Solid waste must be disposed of in a responsible, efficient, 
and environmentally friendly manner; but there is no need for overly 
burdensome regulations that put a strain on businesses.
  While our economy continues to sputter along, commonsense revisions 
of rules and regulations are a vital and critical component of helping 
our State and local economies grow.
  My bill, the REDO Act, does two things. It allows the EPA the 
authority to revise and review the Resource Conservation Recovery Act, 
or RCRA, regulations as appropriate instead of every 3 years as 
required under current law. Even the EPA in written testimony to the 
Energy and Commerce Committee said that this regulation--the regulation 
that we are changing--can pose a significant resource burden on the 
EPA, given the complexity and volume of EPA's RCRA regulations.
  Again, the EPA has problems with the rule. We are simply trying to 
change the rule to give them the power to meet the rule, and that is 
why it is all the more surprising that the President would issue a veto 
threat over a regulation that his own agency has written testimony 
saying they can't comply with it and have problems with it.
  This bill also provides that when the EPA promulgates a financial 
responsibility requirement, existing State or Federal requirements are 
not preempted and EPA's requirement will fill whatever gap may be left 
by the requirements set forth by States and other Federal agencies. If 
EPA does revise requirements, they must submit a report to Congress 
explaining their justification for doing so.
  It is a commonsense bill, commonsense jobs legislation; and I urge 
this Chamber's support.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Waxman).
  Mr. WAXMAN. I thank you for yielding so I can correct the record.
  Bipartisan staff on our committee met with the Department of Justice 
and the Department of Defense to hear a long list of objections they 
had to the bill that was before the markup in committee. When we went 
into the markup in committee, I personally asked in the public session 
if Chairman Shimkus, the chairman of the subcommittee, would meet 
personally with the Department of Justice and Department of Defense 
because they had great concerns about the bill. He said at that markup 
that he would.
  We checked with the Department of Defense, we checked with the 
Department of Justice, and there has been no such meeting. There has 
been some change, but they have not really addressed all the issues 
that I think Members should have been taking into consideration. There 
was really not an attempt, if the gentleman would permit, to work this 
out on a bipartisan basis, to hear what other people had to say about 
it. This bill was driven through and was being written whether we had a 
hearing, written after the hearings where they had a markup, written 
after the markup without getting all the facts; and it is a flawed bill 
as a result of it.
  Thank you for yielding to me.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I'm proud at this point to yield 3 
minutes to my good friend from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meehan).
  Mr. MEEHAN. I thank the gentleman from Ohio.
  Section 106 of this bill requires that the owners and operators of 
facilities holding certain quantities of materials that are included on 
the Department of Homeland Security's Chemicals of Interest list report 
those materials to their State emergency response commissions. And 
while it is absolutely imperative that State and local authorities are 
properly informed about potential hazards in their communities, we have 
to be sure to communicate this information in the most secure, 
responsible, and effective way.
  As chairman of the Homeland Security Committee's Subcommittee on 
Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protection, and Security Technologies, 
this provision concerns me for two particular reasons. First, the 
President has already specifically asked several Federal agencies--this 
is the Department of Homeland Security; the Environmental Protection 
Agency; and ATF, Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms--to assess the 
feasibility of sharing this kind of information with the emergency 
response commissions while they are actually engaged in this activity.
  Section 106 effectively mandates that they share this information 
immediately--before the President has had a chance to make his 
determination. And with sensitive information about the amount, variety 
and location of potentially dangerous materials at issue, this 
directive raises serious security concerns.
  Second, the DHS Chemicals of Interest list is specific to the 
Chemical Facilities Anti-Terrorism Standards program. CFATS has in 
place a required practice of sharing information in a way that ensures 
facility security. I have serious reservations about whether this 
sensitive information could become compromised or subject to broad 
dissemination if section 106 were to become law. Chemical security is 
the responsibility of the Department of Homeland Security, which is 
specifically equipped to protect it.
  Because these concerns have yet to be addressed, I request that the 
committee revisit section 106 during conference with the Senate.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MEEHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).

[[Page 318]]


  Mr. SHIMKUS. I thank my colleague, my friend from Pennsylvania, for 
calling attention to this concern that you raised.
  In our open, deliberative process which we had in the markup, this 
was added as an amendment to the bill by my friends on the other side. 
This was prior to the President's rollout of his working group, prior 
to the President's stated concern about the sensitive nature of this 
information; and so it is one of the few times I would agree with the 
President that this information is very, very sensitive. So it might 
have been inappropriate at that time to accept this portion of the 
bill.
  In our view, protecting this information, especially keeping it away 
from terrorists, is of utmost concern; and I want to assure you that 
this will be our guiding principle as we consider whether to include 
section 106 or any version of it in the final draft of the legislation.
  Mr. MEEHAN. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the chairman emeritus 
of the Energy and Commerce Committee and also the longest-serving 
Member of the House, my good friend from the State of Michigan (Mr. 
Dingell), who was at the table in 1980 to oversee the Superfund and 
knows more about the Superfund than perhaps anyone in the House.
  Mr. DINGELL. I thank my dear friend from New York. I commend him for 
his outstanding service, and I appreciate his yielding this time to me.
  Well, we have a bad bill on the floor. Frankly, I am embarrassed; and 
if I was one of the Republican managers of this bill, I would have a 
red face. Quite honestly, it does nothing except expose Federal 
employees to liability for actually enforcing the law.
  No oversight was conducted to bring about the consideration of this 
legislation. No opportunity was made for the agencies to come forward 
and fully set out their concerns about how this bill is a bad piece of 
legislation.
  As the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, I handled 
the Superfund amendments in the reauthorization acts earlier. In that 
effort, it was a fully bipartisan undertaking, and we worked very 
closely with the Reagan administration, which was present and involved 
in all the conference meetings. The Senate at that time was under 
Republican control. President Reagan signed the act on October 17, 
1986, after overwhelming votes of 386-27 in the House and 88-8 in the 
Senate.
  At the one hearing that we had on this bill, I did not hear any 
support from the majority's witnesses. Most of them seemed to be 
somewhat embarrassed about the legislation and were unable to tell us 
anything that the legislation would accomplish in the public good or 
towards speeding up or improving the enforcement of Superfund.
  It was interesting to note that there was really no identification of 
what the legislation would do to cure the problems that we confront 
with regard to Superfund. The Superfund program has been a fine example 
of success after having had a rocky start, and we have seen substantial 
completion of construction activities at over 70 percent of the 
national priority sites. Thousands of other shorter-term actions have 
also been completed.
  Before charging headlong into solving problems that are not backed up 
with a factual record and with no showing whatsoever of a need for the 
legislation, I recommend that this body first gather the evidence that 
it needs from EPA, from States, from local governments, from industry 
and communities to better understand what, if any, problems need to be 
addressed. Until then, I fail to understand the purpose of this 
legislation other than a device to provide work for members of staff, 
to obfuscate the enforcement of Superfund and to, quite frankly, ignore 
the real problems which exist.
  Superfund is cursed with the fact that it has major difficulty in 
being properly funded because the funding for it has long since 
expired, and now the ability of the Nation to fund the cleanup is not 
available to us. This bill would do nothing to address any of the 
problems that are there to be seen. It is a bad bill. It should be 
rejected.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased now to yield 5 
minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), our chairman.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, well, it is great to be here on the floor 
with my friends as we talk about moving pieces of legislation. It is 
unfortunate that we are no longer a debating society; we are just a 
statement society, whether we are going back to what is true and right 
in language of the bill or what is not.
  Let me talk to folks about how we got to this position.
  Upon becoming subcommittee chairman in the last Congress, I talked to 
members of my committee and staff and I said, There is no perfect piece 
of legislation. There is no perfect piece of law. What are some things 
that we can fix to make this process go better?
  And it wasn't just our ideas; we went to the States. The States have 
a huge responsibility. And I think if people watched the body of 
information of what is coming out of our committee, we have given a lot 
of deference to the States because they are the ones who live closest 
to these locations. So we bring in the Council of the States, the 
Environmental Council of the States and all the stakeholders and we 
say, What is it about the Federal law that drives you crazy and if we 
fixed it would make your life better? Hence, these three pieces of 
legislation that have been rolled into one bill to make it to the 
floor.
  The Reducing Excessive Deadline Obligations Act, it allows the EPA to 
review regulations on solid waste disposal only when necessary. You 
know what the law says; regardless if the law works or not, you have to 
review it every 3 years. And you know what happens when that law is in 
there; regardless if it works, regardless if there are no complaints, 
you have to review it. So that is ripe for litigation. You don't do it 
within the time line, whether you need to or not, let's sue and settle. 
Let's do something.
  So all we are saying is, if the law works, if the regulations are 
good, if there are no complaints, don't have an automatic time line of 
having to review it in 3 years. The States said, Yes, we would like 
that because we are spending more time.
  Part of the problem with the Superfund is huge amounts of money go to 
litigation. Surprise, surprise. We want to get money away from 
litigation to remediation. That is all we are trying to do.
  The bill also requires EPA, prior to developing new financial 
responsibility requirements--and that is the key. What is a financial 
responsibility requirement? What do you have to have available if you 
are going to do this site and in case something goes wrong and you need 
cleanup? What are the financial requirements? What is the bonding you 
need? All we are saying is don't change the rules. And if you are going 
to change the rules for financial bonding while the process and the 
site is being operated, wouldn't it be good to talk to the States and 
let people know that the Federal Government is going to change the 
rules in the operation of a new site? The States said, Good idea. You 
ought to look at that.
  One other part of the bill is the Federal and State Partnership for 
Environmental Protection Act of 2013, which requires the EPA to consult 
with States when undergoing a removal action. So usually what happens 
at a Superfund site, the Federal Government gets involved. They are 
going to help do the majority of the cleanup. But guess who has the 
long-term observation and administration costs of the site? The States 
do. All we are saying is, if we are going to start to remediate in a 
State, let's have the State sit down and work with the EPA so the State 
knows its long-term costs. Pretty simple.
  And the last one, which I always find pretty amazing that my friends 
on the other side are arguing about, protecting the Federal Government 
to pollute. All we are saying is, when the Federal Government has 
polluted a

[[Page 319]]

site, the Federal Government ought to clean it up. We make everyone 
else do it. We hold everyone else responsible. But no, if the Federal 
Government has polluted, we give them immunity. Sovereign immunity. 
They don't have to do anything. So this law says that it is about time 
the Federal Government comply with the same laws that States do and 
other individuals do.
  This is a position my colleagues have had for many, many years. And 
of all the portions of this bill that I thought that they would be all 
for is moving this position that the Federal Government should comply 
with the same laws as everyone else does. And for my colleagues on the 
other side to protect governmental polluters I just find is 
unbelievable.
  So the process was good. We had hearings. We had markups. We had 
amendments agreed to. I am proud of my colleagues in bringing these 
bills to the floor. I am glad of the participation by the States, and I 
look forward to the moving of the bill.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, before I yield, I would like to make a few 
comments.
  I keep hearing from the bill's supporters that the States need and 
want this legislation. I am a little confused by those statements. My 
staff called the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste 
Management Officials, and they do not support the legislation. We also 
called the Environmental Council of the States, which represents the 
State environmental commissioners, and they have not endorsed the 
instant legislation before the House. So I am somewhat confused by the 
statements being made here.
  I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), who 
has fought for many environmental causes through the committee on 
behalf of his home State of New Jersey and, for that matter, for this 
Nation.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague from New 
York, the ranking member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on 
H.R. 2279. This is an unnecessary and ill-advised piece of legislation 
that would significantly weaken our country's hazardous waste laws and 
further shift the burden of cleaning up these sites from the entities 
responsible for the contamination to the taxpayer instead.
  Mr. Chairman, polluters are already not paying their fair share to 
help clean up America's worst toxic sites, and this bill only makes 
things worse. Since 1995 when the Superfund taxes expired, taxpayers 
have shouldered an unreasonable responsibility to pay for these 
cleanups. I have a bill, the Superfund Polluter Pays Act, which would 
reauthorize the original Superfund fees and make polluters, not 
taxpayers, pay the costs of cleaning up Superfund sites. Congress needs 
to reinstate the ``polluter pays'' taxes so the industries most 
responsible for polluting our land and water are held responsible for 
cleaning up our toxic legacy, a legacy which severely affects my home 
State of New Jersey.
  But again we face the prospect of the Republican majority dismantling 
our Nation's critical environmental laws. The bill before us today is 
really a combination of three bills, all of which will hinder hazardous 
cleanup across the country. And I am especially troubled by provisions 
in the bill that enable sites to veto sites from being added to the 
Superfund National Priorities List, as well as the provision that 
weakens the requirement for companies who deal with hazardous materials 
to carry insurance to cover contamination threats. Absent this 
insurance requirement, it will be easier for a company to go bankrupt 
and shirk its responsibility to clean up contamination that it has 
caused.
  Mr. Chairman, cleaning up Superfund sites creates jobs by converting 
the contaminated areas into productive land ready for redevelopment and 
employing engineers, construction workers, and others engaged in the 
cleanup. I have seen this in my home State. New Jersey has more 
Superfund sites than any other State, and my county of Middlesex 
actually has more sites than any other county. But we have cleaned up a 
lot of these sites and created jobs. They are now used for recreation, 
for manufacturing, for shopping centers, so many other things.
  We don't want to weaken the Superfund law. That would be a huge 
mistake. So I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this 
legislation.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, just a couple of quick points of 
clarification.
  My friend and colleague Mr. Tonko and I agree on many things, and we 
have a history of having worked together to hold the EPA to commonsense 
rules, and I appreciate that, but I need to clarify just a couple of 
quick things that my colleague mentioned.
  From the Environmental Council of the States, I have before me a 
letter that I would like to enter into the Record stating that the 
Environmental Council of the States is writing to support many of the 
concepts included in this legislation, on all three pieces of this 
legislation.
  And the other organization, the Association of State and Territorial 
Solid Waste Management Officials, they don't take positions on 
legislation; so no matter what the piece of legislation would be, if 
you call them, they are not going to take a position on it one way or 
another. That does not mean that they do not support this, but they 
simply don't take positions.
  I wanted to make those clarifications for the Record.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                                           ECOS, The Environmental


                                        Council of the States,

                                    Washington, DC, June 18, 2013.
     Re ``CERCLA Bills'' H.R.s 2226, 2318, 2279

     Hon. Fred Upton,
     Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Rayburn House 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Henry Waxman,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Rayburn 
         House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressmen: The Environmental Council of the States 
     (ECOS) is writing to support many of the concepts included in 
     H.R. 2226 The Federal and State Partnership for Environmental 
     Protection Act of 2013, H.R. 2318 The Federal Facility 
     Accountability Act of 2013 H.R. 2279, and The Reducing 
     Excessive Deadline Obligations Act of 2013.
       As stated in our testimony at your hearing on May 17, ECOS 
     supports the expansion of ``consultation with states'' as 
     described in the bills. ECOS especially acknowledges that the 
     bills directly address concerns expressed by the States in 
     our ECOS Resolution on federal facilities operations under 
     RCRA and CERCLA (attached; see especially the bolded items).
       ECOS is a non-partisan, non-profit organization of the 
     state environmental agencies and their leaders, who are our 
     members.
       We ask that you include this letter in the record on this 
     matter. If there is anything else that ECOS can do to assist 
     you in this matter, please do not hesitate to ask.
           Regards,
                                                  R. Steven Brown,
                                               Executive Director.
       Attachment.


                      ON ENVIRONMENTAL FEDERALISM

       Whereas, the states are co-regulators with the federal 
     government in a federal system; and
       Whereas, the meaningful and substantial involvement of the 
     state environmental agencies as partners with the U.S. 
     Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) is critical to 
     both the development and implementation of environmental 
     programs; and
       Whereas, the U.S. Congress has provided by statute for 
     delegation, authorization, or primacy (hereinafter referred 
     to collectively as ``delegation'') of certain federal program 
     responsibilities to states which, among other things, enables 
     states to establish state programs that go beyond the minimum 
     federal program requirements; and
       Whereas, States that have received delegation have 
     demonstrated to the U.S. EPA that they have the independent 
     authority to adopt and they have adopted laws, regulations, 
     and policies at least as stringent as federal laws, 
     regulations, and policies; and
       Whereas, states have further demonstrated their commitment 
     to environmental protection by taking responsibility for 96% 
     of the primary environmental programs which can be delegated 
     to states; and
       Whereas, because of this delegation, the state 
     environmental agencies have a unique position as co-
     regulators and co-funders of these programs; and
       Whereas, the delegation of new federal environmental rules 
     (issued as final and completed actions and published by the 
     U.S. EPA) to the states to implement continues at a steady 
     pace of about 28 per year since spring 2007, for a total of 
     approximately 143 new final rules and completed actions to 
     implement through fall 2011; and

[[Page 320]]

       Whereas, federal financial support to implement 
     environmental programs delegated to the states has declined 
     since 2005; and
       Whereas, cuts in federal and state support adversely 
     affects the states' ability to implement federal programs in 
     a timely manner and to adequately protect human health and 
     the environment; and
       Whereas, states currently perform the vast majority of 
     environmental protection tasks in America, including 96% of 
     the enforcement and compliance actions; and collection of 
     more than 94% of the environmental quality data currently 
     held by the U.S. EPA; and
       Whereas, these accomplishments represent a success by the 
     U.S. EPA and the states working together in ways the U.S. 
     Congress originally envisioned to move environmental 
     responsibility to the states, not an indictment of the U.S. 
     EPA's performance; and
       Whereas, the U.S. EPA provides great value in achieving 
     protection of human health and the environment by fulfilling 
     numerous important functions, including; establishing minimum 
     national standards; ensuring state-to state consistency in 
     the implementation of those national standards; supporting 
     research and providing information; and providing 
     standardized pollution control activities across 
     jurisdictions; and
       Whereas, with respect to program operation, when a program 
     has been delegated to a state and the state is meeting the 
     minimum delegated program requirements, the role of the U.S. 
     EPA is oversight and funding support rather than state-level 
     implementation of programs; and
       Whereas, under some federal programs the U.S. EPA grants to 
     states the flexibility to adjust one-size-fits-all programs 
     to local conditions and to try new procedures and techniques 
     to accomplish agreed-upon environmental program requirements, 
     thereby assuring an effective and efficient expenditure of 
     the taxpayers' money. Now, therefore, be it resolved that the 
     environmental Council of the States: Affirms its continuing 
     support for the protection of human health and the 
     environment by providing for clean air, clean water, and 
     proper handling of waste materials;
       Affirms that states are co-regulators, co-funders and 
     partners with appropriate federal agencies, including the 
     U.S. EPA, and with each other in a federal environmental 
     protection system;
       Affirms the need for adequate funding for both state 
     environmental programs and the U.S. EPA, given the vitally 
     important role of both levels of government;
       Affirms that expansion of environmental authority to the 
     states is to be supported, while preemption of state 
     authority, including preemption that limits the state's 
     ability to establish environmental programs more stringent 
     than federal programs, is to be opposed;
       Supports the authorization or delegation of programs to the 
     states and believes that when a program has been authorized 
     or delegated, the appropriate federal focus should be on 
     program reviews, and, further, believes that the federal 
     government should intervene in such state programs where 
     required by court order or where a state fails to enforce 
     federal rules particularly involving spillovers of harm from 
     one state to another;
       Supports early, meaningful, and substantial state 
     involvement in the development and implementation of 
     environmental statutes, policies, rules, programs, reviews, 
     joint priority setting, budget proposals, budget processes, 
     and strategic planning, and calls upon the U.S. Congress and 
     appropriate federal agencies to provide expanded 
     opportunities for such involvement;
       Specifically calls on U.S. EPA to consult in a meaningful, 
     timely, and concurrent manner with the states' environmental 
     agencies in the priority setting, planning, and budgeting of 
     offices of the U.S. EPA as these offices conduct these 
     efforts;
       Further specifically calls on U.S. EPA to consult in a 
     meaningful and timely manner with the states' environmental 
     agencies regarding the U.S. EPA interpretation of federal 
     regulations, and to ensure that the U.S. EPA has fully 
     articulated its interpretation of federal regulations prior 
     to the U.S. EPA intervention in state programs;
       Believes that such integrated consultation will increase 
     mutual understanding, improve state-federal relations, remove 
     barriers, reduce costs, and more quickly improve the nation's 
     environmental quality;
       Noting the extensive contributions states have made to a 
     clean environment, affirms its belief that where the federal 
     government requires that environmental actions be taken, the 
     federal government ought to fund those actions, and not at 
     the expense of other state programs;
       Affirms that the federal government should be subject to 
     the same environmental rules and requirements, including the 
     susceptibility to enforcement that it imposes on states and 
     other parties;
       Affirms its support for the concept of flexibility and that 
     the function of the federal environmental agency is, working 
     with the states, largely to set goals for environmental 
     accomplishment and that, to the maximum extent possible, the 
     means of achieving those goals should be left primarily to 
     the states; especially as relates to the use of different 
     methods to implement core programs, such as risk-based 
     inspections or multi-media environmental programs, and 
     particularly in the development of new programs which will 
     impact both states and the U.S. EPA; and
       Directs ECOS staff to provide a copy of this resolution to 
     the U.S. EPA Administrator.


     CLARIFICATION OF CERCLA SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY WAIVER FOR FEDERAL 
                               FACILITIES

       Whereas, current and former federal facilities have some of 
     the most pressing environmental problems, such as hazardous 
     substances, unexploded ordnance, radioactive materials, and 
     abandoned mines; and
       Whereas, problems associated with some of these federal 
     facilities pose substantial threats to public health, safety, 
     and the environment; and
       Whereas, ECOS believes the States' regulatory role at 
     federal facilities should be recognized and that federal 
     agency environmental cleanup activities are subject to and 
     should receive the same regulatory oversight as private 
     entities; and
       Whereas, for many contamination actions the federal 
     agencies assert Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) lead agency authority 
     under Executive Order 12580; and
       Whereas, state experience for many contamination actions 
     has shown that assertions of sovereign immunity and CERCLA 
     lead agency authority have led to inappropriate and/or 
     inconsistent interpretation of state law and have not 
     supported cleanup to the same standards as private parties; 
     and
       Whereas, assertions of sovereign immunity and CERCLA lead 
     agency authority hamper consistent state regulatory oversight 
     and responsibility to its citizens; and
       Whereas, a clarification of Executive Order 12580 and/or 
     federal legislation would aid states in implementing 
     regulations which have been duly enacted by the states; and
       Whereas, this resolution fully supports Policy NR-03i 
     (specifically Section 3.5 on ``Natural Resources'') executed 
     by the National Governors' Association. Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved that the Environmental Council of the States 
     (ECOS):
       Requests the Administration revise Executive Order 12580 to 
     clarify that federal facilities are subject to appropriate 
     state regulations and are not unduly shielded by sovereign 
     immunity and lead agency authority;
       Encourages the U.S. Congress act to support the States by 
     the implementation of specific legislation which will without 
     equivocation acknowledge state authority and regulatory 
     responsibility for oversight of removal and cleanup actions 
     at current and formerly owned or operated federal facilities; 
     and
       Authorizes the transmittal of this resolution to the 
     Administration, appropriate congressional committees, federal 
     agencies, and other interested organizations and individuals.

  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, while the Environmental Council of the 
States may have supported some concepts of the bill, they have not 
moved to endorse the bill. I will stand by my statement.
  Next I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), 
a staunch defender of the environment and a good friend.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy 
and leadership here on the floor.
  When I first heard that we were going to be dealing with Superfund 
reforms and modifications, I was originally encouraged. I have been 
working with these issues on the Federal level, and before that, for 
almost 20 years, as a local official dealing with the problems of 
pollution in Superfund sites. I know that there are many challenges to 
the process and that it is chronically and dramatically underfunded. It 
is complex and cumbersome. Many of the participants are not fully 
equipped to be able to manage it. We have learned a little bit in the 
almost 30 years since the legislation was passed, but I am sad to say I 
was very disappointed because, rather than dealing in a thoughtful, 
bipartisan way to try and refine the process, we are actually taking a 
step backward.
  This bill would water down the requirements and provide fewer 
dollars, blurring lines of responsibility. This is not going to help. 
The Superfund tax expired in 1995. Since then, we have been shifting 
the burden away from the petrochemical industry that created these 
problems in the main, shifting it to the general fund taxpayer, a 
scarce and dwindling supply.
  This isn't going to move away from litigation; it is going to make it 
more likely, if it were enacted, by confusing people. Changing the 
rules that people have operated under is not going to be helpful; it is 
going to slow it down further.

[[Page 321]]

  I am deeply concerned that the Department of Defense has not fully 
met its obligation as the largest generator of Superfund sites in the 
United States. I have been on this floor repeatedly attempting to work 
through the budget process and the authorization process for us to step 
up and do right by people.
  I have got a harbor that was the staging area for three wars, and a 
significant amount of the pollution there that we are dealing with is 
as a result of that Defense Department operation. But what we are doing 
here would, according to the Department of Defense, disrupt the 
national priority scheme in which the most contaminated Federal sites 
are cleaned up first. It would increase litigation, delay cleanup, and 
waste already limited resources.
  Now, by pretending that somehow the State government is going to take 
the lead and compel Federal agencies to do things that may in fact be 
contrary to Federal law is not going to speed this process further. It 
is not going to make it easier. It is going to continue what is the 
problem. People today dig in their heels.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. TONKO. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. We haven't actually moved forward to try to work 
carefully, to thoughtfully, in a bipartisan session, refine it. We are 
going ahead and trying to superimpose on top of it things that will 
undercut that effort.
  Now, I am critical of what the Federal Government has done in some 
areas, but as a practical matter, local governments, by failure to 
zone, plan, regulate, and exercise oversight, have often been 
responsible for many of these problems. And they have, in the main, not 
stepped up and been aggressive with the strictest of standards. This 
would superimpose what are potentially less rigorous or, in fact, no 
local standards, be able to cost shift to the Federal Government 
without any interest in providing the resources for the Federal 
Government to do so.
  I would hope that our friends, if they are sincere, would spend time 
with people who are in the trenches and look for ways in a bipartisan, 
thoughtful way to refine the Superfund program so that, in the spirit 
of what originally created the legislation, we can do something that 
will do better by our constituents, better by the environment, and 
better by the taxpayer.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TONKO. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Ellison) who has organized the Environmental Justice Advocates of his 
home State of Minnesota, and is also the chair of the Progressive 
Caucus in the House.
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, the polluter pays. The polluter pays, and 
that is a simple idea with very broad appeal. The company responsible 
for causing the pollution should have to pay for the cleanup. It makes 
sense. This bill would relieve many companies of that responsibility 
when it comes to the most polluted sites in the country. Instead, 
taxpayers will pick up the tab. It is another bailout.
  Currently, if a company is part of an industry with a record of 
pollution, it needs to post a bond or buy insurance. This requirement 
helps to prevent a company from polluting until it goes out of 
business, leaving the taxpayer with the bill for the cleanup.
  H.R. 2279 allows the company to skirt its financial responsibility, 
in essence, to internalize all the money they make while polluting but 
to externalize all of the costs after they are done and leaving 
everyone else to shoulder the burden. That is not free market 
enterprise; that is crony capitalism.
  The bill would also reduce funding for highly contaminated sites. It 
should be increasing funding for the sites so their cleanup does not 
drag on for decades. Less funding is not the answer. Because funding is 
already so short for these Superfund sites, we have to prioritize the 
worst sites for cleanup, and the result is the National Priorities 
List. This bill would disrupt that priority system.
  Mr. Chairman, instead of letting polluters off the hook, we should 
use the money to put people to work by cleaning up the long list of 
toxic sites all over the country that are exposing people to toxic 
waste, pushing down property values, and inhibiting economic growth.
  As I close, I just want to say that this bill, like so many bills 
offered by the majority, rests upon a falsehood, and that is that 
health and safety regulations hurt the economy. They don't. It is not 
true. It is a false statement, and there is no evidence for them to 
prove that it is true. And yet they want us to believe, as these 
companies deregulate and get tax cuts and all these other benefits, 
that they are going to use the extra money they get in order to create 
jobs, which they never do.
  Reject this bill. It is a bad idea.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance 
of my time.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, I have no further speakers, and I am prepared 
to close.
  Mr. Chair, H.R. 2279 is a deeply flawed bill that will increase 
costs, increase litigation, slow down the pace of cleanups, and, 
indeed, put the public at risk. It will do nothing to make cleanups at 
contaminated sites more efficient or more effective.
  The proponent's intended goals for this legislation are not reflected 
in the bill's language. We can, and we should, do much better for 
people living in communities that are dealing with toxic legacies from 
past failures to deal with hazardous substances properly.
  If we want to prevent new Superfund sites from being created and to 
clean up contaminated sites in their communities and convert them from 
liabilities to productive assets, we must reject H.R. 2279. I oppose 
this legislation and urge my colleagues to do the same.
  With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  In closing, I want to go back and revisit just briefly some of the 
cost implications or the allegations of cost implications of today's 
legislation that we are considering.
  CBO carefully analyzed all three of the bills that we are considering 
as part of H.R. 2279 today, and here is what they said:

       CBO estimates that, in some cases, implementing this 
     legislation could affect the pace of discretionary spending 
     if priorities for cleanup activities change. However, CBO 
     expects that total costs to fulfill Federal responsibilities 
     under CERCLA would be little changed under this legislation.

  That was directly from the CBO score for H.R. 2226.

       Based on information from EPA, CBO expects that removing 
     the current requirement to review certain recommendations 
     every 3 years would reduce administrative costs. However, 
     some of those savings in administrative expenses would be 
     offset by spending on the new requirement to report to the 
     Congress any financial responsibility requirements. CBO 
     estimates that, on balance, implementing this legislation 
     would not have a significant net impact on spending that is 
     subject to appropriation over the 2014-2018 period. Enacting 
     H.R. 2279 would not affect direct spending or revenues.

  That was directly from the CBO score for H.R. 2279.
  CBO estimates that enacting this legislation could increase the pace 
of discretionary spending to the extent that Federal agencies 
accelerate spending related to cleanup activities or pay additional 
fines and penalties imposed by the States. However, CBO expects that 
aggregate, long-term costs to fulfill Federal responsibilities under 
CERCLA would be little changed under the legislation.
  In addition, H.R. 2318 could increase direct spending to the extent 
that fines and penalties were paid from the Treasury's Judgment Fund. 
However, CBO expects that any incremental spending from that fund would 
probably be insignificant. CBO estimates that any additional direct 
spending over the 2014-2023 period would be insignificant.
  CBO goes on to say:

       Enacting this legislation would not fundamentally change 
     the Federal Government's responsibility to comply with

[[Page 322]]

     CERCLA. According to the latest financial report of the 
     United States, the Federal Government's current environmental 
     remediation and waste disposal liabilities exceed $300 
     billion (under all environmental laws). Under current law, 
     Federal agencies, in particular the Departments of Defense 
     and Energy, currently spend billions of dollars each year 
     conducting cleanup activities under CERCLA, including 
     reimbursements to State agencies for related services they 
     provide. Based on information from Federal agencies and 
     industry representatives, CBO expects that enacting this 
     legislation could induce Federal agencies to accelerate their 
     compliance activities at some facilities--possibly changing 
     the timing of funding requests for certain projects. As a 
     result, H.R. 2318 might lead to greater compliance costs for 
     Federal facilities for the years immediately following 
     enactment, but the total long-term cost of compliance would 
     not change substantially.

  I just wanted to make that point for the record.
  Finally, I want to urge my colleagues not to be misled by my 
colleague's argument that this bill somehow prevents the EPA from 
enacting financial assurance requirements. It simply does not. More 
than 30 years passed before EPA complied with the requirements of 
CERCLA and started the process of developing financial assurance 
requirements. All this bill does is require the EPA to acknowledge the 
body of law developed by the States and other Federal agencies in the 
more than 30 years since the EPA has failed to act.
  This legislation does not limit EPA from establishing Federal CERCLA 
financial responsibility requirements or from setting a minimum level 
of financial assurance that is required. H.R. 2279 merely ensures that 
existing State and Federal requirements can be used to meet those 
requirements where appropriate and ensures that existing State 
protections that may already exceed a new Federal minimum requirement 
will not be automatically voided.
  The purpose of the provision in the bill requiring the EPA to report 
to Congress before new CERCLA financial responsibility requirements are 
enacted is to make sure that there is a legitimate need for new 
requirements. It does not prevent the EPA from promulgating new 
requirements if they are necessary.
  My colleague argues that the bill is based on a false premise that 
States are implementing adequate financial assurance requirements. The 
bill does not prejudge State financial assurance requirements. What the 
bill does is require the EPA to analyze the existing financial 
assurance requirements, and it directs the EPA to ``fill the gap'' left 
by financial assurance regulations developed by the States or other 
Federal agencies. But make no mistake, if there is a regulatory gap and 
the EPA believes that gap needs to be filled, the EPA is free to enact 
regulations.
  The purpose of financial assurance under 108(b) of CERCLA was to 
prevent the creation of new Superfund sites. The bill provides a 
mechanism for gathering information to decide whether the existing 
State and Federal financial assurance requirements are adequate to 
protect the Federal Government from incurring response costs under 
CERCLA.
  The bill directs the EPA to gather information and report back to us 
before it promulgates any additional requirements. It does not 
otherwise preclude the EPA from enacting rules that the EPA determines 
are necessary. In fact, we understand that the EPA has already been 
gathering this information from the States and other Federal agencies 
like the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service.
  The bill simply sets out a process for us to learn what State and 
other agency requirements are out there and whether there is a need for 
more regulation before the EPA creates yet another layer of regulation. 
Contrary to what my colleagues are saying, the bill does not cut off 
any rulemaking by the EPA.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2279, 
which would needlessly complicate efforts to clean up our most 
dangerous Superfund sites by letting polluters off the hook for cleanup 
costs and creating conflict and confusion between state and federal 
law.
  One in four Americans lives within three miles of a hazardous waste 
site, frequently in vulnerable communities. These sites endanger human 
health, increasing risk for cancer, birth defects, acute poisoning, and 
injury from fire or explosion. They are also blights in communities--
vacant lots and underutilized land that impede economic development.
  Our nations' Superfund law, passed in 1980, gives the Environmental 
Protection Agency the authority to compel polluters to pay to repair 
the damage they caused, either by cleaning up themselves or by 
reimbursing the federal government for its cleanup efforts. The cleanup 
process requires assessing and ranking sites to prioritize the most 
hazardous areas, and working with states and private parties to 
remediate the land.
  Today's bill would undermine the requirement that high-polluting 
industries obtain insurance or post bonds to ensure that areas would be 
cleaned up if they become Superfund sites, reducing the incentive to 
limit contamination and sticking taxpayers with the bill if cleanup is 
necessary. It would prohibit the EPA from enforcing financial 
responsibility requirements in any state that sets its own rules, even 
if those rules are inadequate to protect taxpayers. It also confuses 
federal and state responsibilities on cleanup sites, subjecting federal 
employees to fines or imprisonment if they fail to comply with state 
orders even when they conflict with federal law. This confusion will 
only lead to increased litigation, delay, and wasted resources.
  Superfund sites are dangerous threats to public health and economic 
progress in our most vulnerable communities, and we should be working 
to make the cleanup process as seamless and efficient as possible. This 
legislation would hinder that effort, and I urge a no vote.
  The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
the Committee on Energy and Commerce, printed in the bill, it shall be 
in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment 
under the 5-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 113-30. That amendment 
in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

                               H.R. 2279

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

            TITLE I--REDUCING EXCESSIVE DEADLINE OBLIGATIONS

     SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Reducing Excessive 
     Deadline Obligations Act of 2013''.

     SEC. 102. REVIEW OF REGULATIONS UNDER THE SOLID WASTE 
                   DISPOSAL ACT.

       Section 2002(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 
     6912(b)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) Review of Regulations.--The Administrator shall 
     review, and revise, as the Administrator determines 
     appropriate, regulations promulgated under this Act.''.

     SEC. 103. FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR CLASSES OF FACILITIES 
                   UNDER CERCLA.

       Section 108(b) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9608(b)) 
     is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) by striking ``Not later than three years after the date 
     of enactment of the Act, the President shall'' and inserting 
     ``The President shall, as appropriate,''; and
       (B) by striking ``first'' after ``for which requirements 
     will be''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) by striking ``Financial responsibility may be 
     established'' and inserting ``Owners and operators may 
     establish financial responsibility'';
       (B) by striking ``any one, or any combination, of the 
     following:'' and inserting ``forms of security, including''; 
     and
       (C) by striking ``or qualification'' and inserting ``and 
     qualification''.

     SEC. 104. REPORT TO CONGRESS REGARDING FINANCIAL 
                   RESPONSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS.

       Section 108(b) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9608(b)) 
     is further amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(6) The President may not promulgate any financial 
     responsibility requirement under this subsection without 
     first submitting to Congress a report--
       ``(A) describing each facility or class of facilities to be 
     covered by such requirement;
       ``(B) describing the development of such requirement, why 
     the facility or class of facilities proposed to be covered by 
     such requirement present the highest level of risk of injury, 
     and why the facility or class of facilities is not already 
     covered by adequate financial responsibility requirements;

[[Page 323]]

       ``(C) describing the financial responsibility requirements 
     promulgated by States or other Federal agencies for the 
     facility or class of facilities to be covered by the 
     financial responsibility requirement proposed under this 
     subsection and explaining why the requirement proposed under 
     this subsection is necessary;
       ``(D) describing the exposure to the Fund for response 
     costs resulting from the facility or class of facilities 
     proposed to be covered; and
       ``(E) describing the capacity of the financial and credit 
     markets to provide instruments of financial responsibility 
     necessary to meet such requirement.

     The President shall update any report submitted under this 
     paragraph to reflect any revision of the facilities or 
     classes of facilities to be covered by a financial 
     responsibility requirement that is the subject of such 
     report.''.

     SEC. 105. PREEMPTION OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY 
                   REQUIREMENTS.

       Section 114(d) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9614(d)) 
     is amended to read as follows:
       ``(d) No owner or operator of a vessel or facility who 
     establishes and maintains evidence of financial 
     responsibility associated with the production, 
     transportation, treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous 
     substances pursuant to financial responsibility requirements 
     under any State law or regulation, or any other Federal law 
     or regulation, shall be required to establish or maintain 
     evidence of financial responsibility under this title, unless 
     the President determines, after notice and opportunity for 
     public comment, that in the event of a release of a hazardous 
     substance that is not a federally permitted release or 
     authorized by a State permit, such other Federal or State 
     financial responsibility requirements are insufficient to 
     cover likely response costs under section 104. If the 
     President determines that such other Federal or State 
     financial responsibility requirements are insufficient to 
     cover likely response costs under section 104 in the event of 
     such a release, the President shall accept evidence of 
     compliance with such other Federal or State financial 
     responsibility requirements in lieu of compliance with any 
     portion of the financial responsibility requirements 
     promulgated under this title to which they correspond.''.

     SEC. 106. EXPLOSIVE RISKS PLANNING NOTIFICATION.

       Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the owner or operator of each facility at which 
     substances listed in appendix A to part 27 of title 6, Code 
     of Federal Regulations, as flammables or explosives are 
     present above the screening threshold listed therein shall 
     notify the State emergency response commission for the State 
     in which such facility is located that such substances are 
     present at such facility and of the amount of such substances 
     that are present at such facility.

  TITLE II--FEDERAL AND STATE PARTNERSHIP FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

     SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Federal and State 
     Partnership for Environmental Protection Act of 2013''.

     SEC. 202. CONSULTATION WITH STATES.

       (a) Removal.--Section 104(a)(2) of the Comprehensive 
     Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 
     1980 (42 U.S.C. 9604(a)(2)) is amended by striking ``Any 
     removal action undertaken by the President under this 
     subsection (or by any other person referred to in section 
     122) should'' and inserting ``In undertaking a removal action 
     under this subsection, the President (or any other person 
     undertaking a removal action pursuant to section 122) shall 
     consult with the affected State or States. Such removal 
     action should''.
       (b) Remedial Action.--Section 104(c)(2) of the 
     Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9604(c)(2)) is amended by 
     striking ``before determining any appropriate remedial 
     action'' and inserting ``during the process of selecting, and 
     in selecting, any appropriate remedial action''.
       (c) Selection of Remedial Action.--Section 104(c)(4) of the 
     Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9604(c)(4)) is amended by 
     striking ``shall select remedial actions'' and inserting 
     ``shall, in consultation with the affected State or States, 
     select remedial actions''.
       (d) Consultation With State and Local Officials.--Section 
     120(f) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9620(f)) 
     is amended--
       (1) by striking ``shall afford to'' and inserting ``shall 
     consult with'';
       (2) by inserting ``and shall provide such State and local 
     officials'' before ``the opportunity to participate in''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following: ``If State or local 
     officials make a determination not to participate in the 
     planning and selection of the remedial action, such 
     determination shall be documented in the administrative 
     record regarding the selection of the response action.''.

     SEC. 203. STATE CREDIT FOR OTHER CONTRIBUTIONS.

       Section 104(c)(5) of the Comprehensive Environmental 
     Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 
     9604(c)(5)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A)--
       (A) by inserting ``removal at such facility, or for'' 
     before ``remedial action''; and
       (B) by striking ``non-Federal funds.'' and inserting ``non-
     Federal funds, including oversight costs and in-kind 
     expenditures. For purposes of this paragraph, in-kind 
     expenditures shall include expenditures for, or contributions 
     of, real property, equipment, goods, and services, valued at 
     a fair market value, that are provided for the removal or 
     remedial action at the facility, and amounts derived from 
     materials recycled, recovered, or reclaimed from the 
     facility, valued at a fair market value, that are used to 
     fund or offset all or a portion of the cost of the removal or 
     remedial action.''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``removal or'' after 
     ``under this paragraph shall include expenses for''.

     SEC. 204. STATE CONCURRENCE WITH LISTING ON THE NATIONAL 
                   PRIORITIES LIST.

       (a) Basis for Recommendation.--Section 105(a)(8)(B) of the 
     Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9605(a)(8)(B)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``Not later than 90 days after any 
     revision of the national list, with respect to a priority not 
     included on the revised national list, upon request of the 
     State that submitted the priority for consideration under 
     this subparagraph, the President shall provide to such State, 
     in writing, the basis for not including such priority on such 
     revised national list. The President may not add a facility 
     to the national list over the written objection of the State, 
     unless (i) the State, as an owner or operator or a 
     significant contributor of hazardous substances to the 
     facility, is a potentially responsible party, (ii) the 
     President determines that the contamination has migrated 
     across a State boundary, resulting in the need for response 
     actions in multiple States, or (iii) the criteria under the 
     national contingency plan for issuance of a health advisory 
     have been met.'' after ``the President shall consider any 
     priorities established by the States.''; and
       (2) by striking ``To the extent practicable, the highest 
     priority facilities shall be designated individually and 
     shall be referred to as'' and all that follows through the 
     semicolon at the end, and inserting ``Not more frequently 
     than once every 5 years, a State may designate a facility 
     that meets the criteria set forth in subparagraph (A) of this 
     paragraph, which shall be included on the national list;''.
       (b) State Involvement.--Section 121(f)(1)(C) of the 
     Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9621(f)(1)(C)) is amended by 
     striking ``deleting sites from'' and inserting ``adding sites 
     to, and deleting sites from,''.

     SEC. 205. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL COVENANT LAW.

       Section 121(d)(2)(A)(ii) of the Comprehensive Environmental 
     Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 
     9621(d)(2)(A)(ii)) is amended by striking ``State 
     environmental or facility siting law'' and inserting ``State 
     environmental, facility siting, or environmental covenant 
     law, or under a State law or regulation requiring the use of 
     engineering controls or land use controls,''.

               TITLE III--FEDERAL FACILITY ACCOUNTABILITY

     SEC. 301. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Federal Facility 
     Accountability Act of 2013''.

     SEC. 302. FEDERAL FACILITIES.

       (a) Application to Federal Government.--Section 120(a) of 
     the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9620(a)) is amended in the 
     heading by striking ``of Act''.
       (b) Application of Requirements to Federal Facilities.--
     Section 120(a)(2) of the Comprehensive Environmental 
     Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 
     9620(a)(2)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``preliminary assessments'' and inserting 
     ``response actions'';
       (2) by inserting ``or'' after ``National Contingency 
     Plan,'';
       (3) by striking ``, or applicable to remedial actions at 
     such facilities''; and
       (4) by inserting ``or have been'' before ``owned or 
     operated''.
       (c) Applicability of Laws.--Section 120(a)(4) of the 
     Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9620(a)(4)) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(4) Applicability of laws.--
       ``(A) In general.--Each department, agency, and 
     instrumentality of the United States shall be subject to, and 
     comply with, at facilities that are or have been owned or 
     operated by any such department, agency, or instrumentality, 
     State substantive and procedural requirements regarding 
     response relating to hazardous substances or pollutants or 
     contaminants, including State hazardous waste requirements, 
     in the same manner and to the same extent as any 
     nongovernmental entity.
       ``(B) Compliance.--
       ``(i) In general.--The United States hereby expressly 
     waives any immunity otherwise applicable to the United States 
     with respect to any State substantive or procedural 
     requirement referred to in subparagraph (A).
       ``(ii) Injunctive relief.--Neither the United States, nor 
     any agent, employee, nor officer thereof, shall be immune or 
     exempt from any process or sanction of any State or Federal 
     Court with respect to the enforcement of any injunctive 
     relief under subparagraph (C)(ii).
       ``(iii) Civil penalties.--No agent, employee, or officer of 
     the United States shall be personally liable for any civil 
     penalty under any State

[[Page 324]]

     substantive or procedural requirement referred to in 
     subparagraph (A), or this Act, with respect to any act or 
     omission within the scope of the official duties of the 
     agent, employee, or officer.
       ``(C) Substantive and procedural requirements.--The State 
     substantive and procedural requirements referred to in 
     subparagraph (A) include--
       ``(i) administrative orders;
       ``(ii) injunctive relief;
       ``(iii) civil and administrative penalties and fines, 
     regardless of whether such penalties or fines are punitive or 
     coercive in nature or are imposed for isolated, intermittent, 
     or continuing violations;
       ``(iv) reasonable service charges or oversight costs; and
       ``(v) laws or regulations requiring the imposition and 
     maintenance of engineering or land use controls.
       ``(D) Reasonable service charges or oversight costs.--The 
     reasonable service charges or oversight costs referred to in 
     subparagraph (C) include fees or charges assessed in 
     connection with--
       ``(i) the processing, issuance, renewal, or modification of 
     permits;
       ``(ii) the review of plans, reports, studies, and other 
     documents;
       ``(iii) attorney's fees;
       ``(iv) inspection and monitoring of facilities or vessels; 
     and
       ``(v) any other nondiscriminatory charges that are assessed 
     in connection with a State requirement regarding response 
     relating to hazardous substances or pollutants or 
     contaminants.''.

     SEC. 303. AUTHORITY TO DELEGATE, ISSUE REGULATIONS.

       Section 115 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9615) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new sentence: ``If 
     the President delegates or assigns any duties or powers under 
     this section to a department, agency, or instrumentality of 
     the United States other than the Administrator, the 
     Administrator may review, as the Administrator determines 
     necessary or upon request of any State, actions taken, or 
     regulations promulgated, pursuant to such delegation or 
     assignment, for purposes of ensuring consistency with the 
     guidelines, rules, regulations, or criteria established by 
     the Administrator under this title.''.

  The CHAIR. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a 
substitute shall be in order except those printed in part A of House 
Report 113-322. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order 
printed in the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the 
report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
for division of the question.


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Sinema

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in 
part A of House Report 113-322.
  Ms. SINEMA. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 8, strike lines 13 and 14 and insert the following: 
     ``U.S.C. 9605(a)(8)(B)) is amended by inserting ``Not later 
     than 90 days after''.
       Page 9, line 7, strike ``; and'' and insert a period.
       Page 9, strike lines 8 through 15.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 455, the gentlewoman from 
Arizona (Ms. Sinema) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Arizona.
  Ms. SINEMA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  My amendment would strike language that expands eligibility for the 
National Priorities List in section 204, which is overseen by the 
Environmental Protection Agency.
  My amendment also reinstates language that directs listings of the 
``highest priority facilities'' for cleanup and guarantees that State-
recommended sites receive priority.

                              {time}  1515

  In 2003, an agreement was finalized to provide much-needed cleanup to 
the North Indian Bend Wash site in my district. The site, formerly used 
for industrial production and manufacturing, now spans several housing 
developments in which thousands of Arizona families, students and 
seniors reside.
  Since then, Federal, State, and local stakeholders have worked 
together to put a 25-year plan in place to address soil and water 
contamination at this site, but those plans have not gone 
uninterrupted. In January of 2008, more than 3.5 million gallons of 
contaminated water were mistakenly delivered from this site to homes in 
Paradise Valley, and in July of that same year, irrigation water used 
from this site triggered a study at an elementary school in my district 
to determine if the school grounds had been contaminated.
  The North Indian Bend Wash site is one of many sites across the 
country listed under the National Priorities List, which provides much-
needed funding to assist States with cleanup efforts.
  In keeping with the mission of the National Priorities List, which is 
to protect public health, my amendment protects funding for important 
cleanup projects, like the North Indian Bend Wash, that are taking 
place in hundreds of communities across the country.
  The underlying bill would expand eligibility for the National 
Priorities List, stretching its mission beyond its current financial 
means without providing additional funding to accommodate this 
expansion. My amendment prevents this unfunded expansion.
  In times of financial shortfall, we should ensure that we efficiently 
and responsibly use taxpayers dollars to prioritize projects by need 
and maximize our impact on improving public health. While I agree that 
providing more robust State input is essential to crafting better 
environmental policy, H.R. 2279 would actually repeal language that 
requires the administration to prioritize the most urgent and impactful 
State projects for cleanup.
  I also believe that striking the ``highest priority facilities'' 
language, as called for in the underlying bill, may have the unintended 
consequence of diminishing the statutory role that States would have in 
determining the EPA's cleanup priorities. The underlying bill strikes 
the only clause in the current law that explicitly protects states' 
rights with NPL. Without this language, it is possible that the 
underlying bill could result in the EPA's placing certain projects that 
States have requested at the bottom of its funding priorities on the 
NPL while still following the law. My amendment reinstates this 
language, directing the EPA to make tough choices that necessarily 
respect the interests of our States.
  We all share the desire to work towards commonsense, reasonable 
solutions, using tax dollars wisely, facilitating job growth and 
improving public health. This amendment provides a meaningful fix to 
the underlying bill by preventing an unfunded expansion of the NPL and 
directing the administration to make tough choices that respect the 
rights of States. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, this amendment strikes the 
provision that would allow States to list a site on the National 
Priorities List once every 5 years.
  States have a great deal of experience and expertise in cleaning up 
sites contaminated by hazardous wastes, and States are often in a 
better position to understand the realities of site cleanup in their 
States and to understand the local or regional issues affecting the 
cleanup, but there are times when it would be better addressed by the 
EPA under CERCLA, and there would be a significant delay in the listing 
process. As a result, the bill also allows a State to designate a site 
that meets the criteria for listing to the National Priorities List 
once every 5 years.
  CERCLA currently permits States to list a site on the National 
Priorities List only once. States have taken to calling this their 
``silver bullet.'' Using the silver bullet fast-tracks the listing of a 
site on the NPL and allows States to avoid the often lengthy listing 
process. Some States have already used their silver bullet, while 
others hold onto it and wait for a site that it believes would be 
better addressed by the EPA under CERCLA.
  My colleague indicated in a Dear Colleague letter she circulated 
earlier

[[Page 325]]

today that the bill could result in the EPA's placing silver bullet 
projects at the bottom of the priorities list while still remaining in 
statutory compliance. While I appreciate my colleague's concern, this 
statement is both misleading and incorrect. The reality is that the EPA 
can place a silver bullet site--or any other site for that matter--at 
the bottom of its priority list at any time. This bill does not change 
the EPA's ability to prioritize sites for cleanup.
  CERCLA is very process heavy, and States are often reluctant to wade 
into the drawn-out CERCLA process. They would rather clean up the sites 
themselves and avoid the stigma associated with having a Superfund site 
in their States. However, there are times when the only way to get a 
site cleaned up is to get it on the Superfund list. It is not an easy 
conclusion for States to come to, and States are not clamoring to list 
on the National Priorities List. So any argument that this bill would 
somehow result in an onslaught of new listings by the States would 
simply not play out.
  One of the arguments against allowing States to list a site on the 
NPL is that it will somehow change the EPA's prioritization of how to 
spend its cleanup dollars. Just because a site is listed on the NPL 
does not mean that it will automatically receive funding or will 
somehow jump to the front of the line to receive cleanup dollars. 
Nothing in this bill changes the fact that the EPA sets the priority 
for sites to be cleaned up, and the EPA decides how to spend its 
cleanup dollars.
  Furthermore, if a site is listed and is being cleaned up using 
Federal dollars, States are financially invested in making sure the 
cleanup is done right. States must contribute 10 percent of the overall 
remedial cost and all of the long-term operation and maintenance costs. 
With that, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SINEMA. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Sean Patrick Maloney), my colleague.
  Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support 
of my colleague's amendment requiring the EPA to stay focused on the 
National Priorities List.
  There are nine Superfund sites where I am from in the Hudson Valley 
of New York. Toxic sites once declared uninhabitable are now engines of 
economic development, and I want to credit the good folks at the EPA, 
including my friend Judith Enck, who leads Region 2, but one Hudson 
Valley community with poison in its water has waited over 10 years for 
a solution.
  The EPA began cleanup at the site in Hopewell Junction in 2003 and 
officially added Hopewell to the Superfund National Priorities List in 
2005. Hopewell Junction isn't some abandoned wasteland, and it isn't an 
empty brownfield. It is a community full of children and families who 
need our help and who need our help now. Hopewell could be a 
neighborhood anywhere, a neighborhood in which families shouldn't have 
to choose between clean water and their children's health, between 
selling their houses or staying in a place where they grew up and loved 
but is now contaminated. My neighbors, like Debra Hall, have put blood, 
sweat and tears into this effort for 10 years to try to clean up 
Hopewell--10 years telling anyone who would listen that Hopewell must 
be a priority because they can't wait.
  It is outrageous, and they deserve better from their government. I 
support this amendment to keep our priorities straight, and I urge my 
colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Ms. SINEMA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I share the desire of my Republican colleagues to increase the input 
provided by and the role of States in listing facilities on the 
National Priorities List, but by adding more sites to an already 
overwhelmed program, we may diminish the effectiveness of this 
important program.
  I am also concerned that the underlying bill, by striking the current 
statutory language that directs the EPA to give State-recommended sites 
priority, could have the unintended consequence of decreasing the role 
of States in this process. For these reasons, Mr. Chair, I urge my 
colleagues to support the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, ironically, the EPA often pushes 
States to identify more sites that the EPA can put on the list so that 
the EPA can argue for more cleanup funding. The EPA incentivizes States 
to identify sites that meet the listing criteria by giving the States 
that identify sites more funds to do initial site assessments.
  So the long and short of it is that the EPA wants more sites on the 
NPL, and the EPA wants the States to assist with identifying NPL sites, 
but the EPA does not want to relinquish control over the actual 
selection of the appropriate sites. We are trying to help fix that. 
Again, I urge a ``no'' vote from my colleagues on the Sinema amendment.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. Sinema).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. SINEMA. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Arizona will be 
postponed.


                  Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Tonko

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in 
part A of House Report 113-322.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill, add the following new title:

     TITLE IV--AVOIDING INCREASED LITIGATION AND DELAYS IN CLEANUPS

     SEC. 401. AVOIDING INCREASED LITIGATION AND DELAYS IN 
                   CLEANUPS.

       This Act shall not take effect if any provision thereof 
     would increase the potential for litigation, reduce the 
     amount of funds available for the cleanup of contaminated 
     sites, or delay the implementation of any such cleanup.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 455, the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Tonko) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, my amendment adds a savings clause to H.R. 2279 
to avoid unintended consequences and detrimental impacts on current and 
future site cleanup efforts.
  We certainly know that the actual provisions of the bill trump the 
intended goals of the legislation. If, as the supporters of this bill 
claim, it will not increase litigation, it will not increase costs or 
delay ongoing or future site cleanups, my amendment would have no 
effect. However, if the administration's analysis is correct--and I 
believe it is--my amendment will keep current site cleanups on track 
and ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent efficiently--spent on 
cleaning up contaminated sites and not spent in courtrooms.
  If the committee had taken additional time to do the necessary 
oversight that would enable us to identify the best options for 
improving the Superfund program, my amendment would not be necessary, 
but the many problems with this bill that Democratic members of the 
committee have raised and that are echoed in the administration's 
analysis make my amendment truly necessary.
  As the administration's statement of policy points out, H.R. 2279 
severely reduces the Federal Government's role in the cleanup of 
Federal sites. The Federal Government's ability to set a ``worst 
first'' prioritization agenda for site cleanups is eliminated. The 
Federal Government pays the vast majority of the costs for site 
cleanups on Federal lands and sites on the National

[[Page 326]]

Priorities List. The Federal Government certainly should consult with 
the State on sites within its borders, but especially in cases where 
Federal land, Federal tax dollars, Federal employees, and Federal 
operations are concerned, the Federal Government should have the last 
word.
  My amendment provides a prudent insurance policy to ensure that we do 
not use limited Superfund resources to litigate rather than to 
mitigate. My amendment ensures that we move forward. It ensures that we 
clean up these sites and convert them from revenue liabilities to 
revenue enhancements. It ensures that we reduce public health risks 
from contamination. With that, I urge my colleagues to support my 
amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I am sure my colleague's amendment 
is well-intentioned, and in fact, I agree with him. I do not want to 
see an increase in litigation or a slowdown in the cleanup process or a 
decrease in funds available to clean up Superfund sites, but this 
amendment is not necessary because H.R. 2279 will not do any of those 
things.
  CERCLA has been implemented for over 30 years, and the EPA has 
developed many practices and policies during that time. Some of the 
policies work and are consistently implemented, but many of the 
policies or practices are ineffective or are not consistently applied 
across the EPA regions. The EPA has done a good job of getting 
contaminated sites cleaned up under CERCLA, but that doesn't mean that 
we can't do better.
  States are often in a better position to understand the local and 
regional issues affecting the cleanup, and States are well positioned 
to assist the EPA with all aspects of a response action. By ensuring 
that the States have a meaningful role in the Federal-State partnership 
under CERCLA and by making sure that Federal entities are on a level 
playing field with private entities engaged in CERCLA cleanups, we can 
do better and get more sites cleaned up faster.
  My colleague's amendment implies that the purpose of this bill is to 
thwart cleanup efforts. On the contrary, the purpose of this 
legislation is to make sure sites get cleaned up in a timely fashion by 
enhancing the existing role of the States, which are in the best 
position to assess the conditions at the site. The bill adjusts a top-
down culture of CERCLA cleanups, but the bill does not alter the EPA's 
lead role in implementing CERCLA. States are already involved in the 
CERCLA process. Ensuring that States have a meaningful and substantial 
role will not slow down the cleanup process.
  My colleague's amendment also implies that H.R. 2279 will reduce the 
number of funds available for cleanup. This is simply not the case. 
Congress decides on the amount of money to be appropriated to the EPA 
or to other Federal agencies for cleanups, and that is not changed by 
this legislation. It is up to the Federal agencies to prioritize how 
they spend the appropriated cleanup funds, and nothing in this bill 
changes the way money appropriated for cleanups is spent.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, our colleague and my friend from Ohio 
indicates that this bill will not increase litigation or increase costs 
or delay ongoing or future site cleanups, and so my amendment would not 
affect the measure before the House. So it really is a statement in 
support of the amendment. There is no just reason offered to not 
support the amendment.
  With that, again, I would encourage my colleagues to support the 
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, once again, I want to say how much 
I respect my colleague, Mr. Tonko. We continue to work together, have 
worked together, and have had some successes in holding the EPA 
accountable to the law. I appreciate working with him.
  But this amendment, although well-intentioned, is drafted in such a 
way that makes it impossibly vague. It is indeterminable whether a 
provision of the bill would increase the potential for litigation, and 
I continue to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Tonko amendment.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Tonko).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York will be postponed.


                       Announcement by the Chair

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will now 
resume on those amendments printed in part A of House Report 113-322 on 
which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
  Amendment No. 1 by Ms. Sinema of Arizona.
  Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Tonko of New York.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any 
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Sinema

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 189, 
noes 228, not voting 15, as follows:

                              [Roll No. 7]

                               AYES--189

     Andrews
     Barber
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Garcia
     Gibson
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

[[Page 327]]



                               NOES--228

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallego
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Barton
     Cleaver
     Crowley
     Gabbard
     Garamendi
     Guthrie
     Heck (NV)
     Jones
     McCarthy (NY)
     McClintock
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Smith (WA)

                              {time}  1559

  Messrs. BOUSTANY, BROOKS of Alabama, WHITFIELD, HULTGREN, HUDSON, 
FLEISCHMANN, GOHMERT, LoBIONDO, Mrs. BACHMANN, and Messrs. TERRY and 
GALLEGO changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. LEE of California and Mr. SIRES changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                  Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Tonko

  The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko) on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 190, 
noes 227, not voting 15, as follows:

                              [Roll No. 8]

                               AYES--190

     Andrews
     Barber
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fitzpatrick
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gallego
     Garcia
     Gibson
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--227

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Rahall
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Barton
     Cleaver
     Crowley
     Gabbard
     Garamendi
     Guthrie
     Heck (NV)
     Jones
     McCarthy (NY)
     McClintock
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Smith (WA)

[[Page 328]]



                              {time}  1605

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Collins of Georgia) having assumed the chair, Mr. Yoder, Chair of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2279) to 
amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act relating to review of regulations 
under such Act and to amend the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 relating to financial 
responsibility for classes of facilities, and, pursuant to House 
Resolution 455, he reported the bill back to the House with an 
amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

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

       Mr. PETERS of California, moves to recommit the bill H.R. 
     2279 to the Committee on Energy and Commerce with 
     instructions to report the bill back to the House forthwith 
     with the following amendment:
       At the end of the bill, add the following new title:

TITLE IV--PRESERVING THE POLLUTER PAYS PRINCIPLE AND LIMITING EXPOSURE 
                           TO TOXIC CHEMICALS

     SEC. 401. PRESERVING THE POLLUTER PAYS PRINCIPLE AND LIMITING 
                   EXPOSURE TO TOXIC CHEMICALS.

       This Act shall not take effect if any provision thereof 
     would result in--
       (1) fewer contaminated sites being cleaned up each year, or 
     the responsibility for cleaning up a contaminated site being 
     shifted from the polluter to the taxpayer; or
       (2) greater long-term exposure for vulnerable populations, 
     including populations in pre-schools, elementary and 
     secondary schools, hospitals, and nursing homes within 5 
     miles of contaminated sites, to arsenic, mercury, cadmium, 
     polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), perchlorate, or other toxic 
     substances that pollute drinking water or cause adverse human 
     health effects, such as respiratory disease, cancer, or 
     reproductive disorders.

  Mr. PETERS of California (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask 
unanimous consent that the Clerk dispense with the reading.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PETERS of California. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to 
the bill, which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If 
adopted, the bill will proceed immediately to final passage, as 
amended.
  My amendment simply states that the bill won't take effect if it 
results in fewer cleaned-up sites, if it shifts responsibility from 
polluters to the American taxpayers, and if there is greater exposure 
to carcinogens for schools, hospitals, and nursing homes within 5 miles 
of a contaminated site.
  Mr. Speaker, for too long, we have heard as an article of faith that 
we have to choose between a prosperous economy and a clean environment, 
the idea that we can't have both. That is a false choice.
  People in San Diego and people around the country know that we 
deserve nothing less than both. We need to provide both economic 
opportunity and clean air and water for our future generations.
  In my first career, for 15 years, I practiced environmental law in 
the public and private sectors. Many of my clients were businesses or 
local governments that struggled to understand and follow what they 
felt were overly complex and time-consuming regulatory requirements, 
and from this experience, I have no doubt that overly burdensome red 
tape hurts our economy.
  So I hope that in any case where we can streamline and simplify 
environmental regulations, while still protecting and enhancing the 
health of our rivers, lakes, oceans, and air, that everyone in this 
Congress would be onboard.
  I hope that we all agree that real substantive protections are 
important to ensuring that our drinking water, ocean water, and the 
land we live and farm on are safe for our children, the elderly, and 
our families. These resources are economic assets that we have 
inherited, that we have a responsibility to preserve, and that we must 
be active stewards in protecting.
  At the heart of the Superfund program is the commonsense idea that 
those who caused pollution would pay to clean it up. The underlying 
bill turns away from this basic principle and, instead, puts 
hardworking taxpayers who didn't cause the pollution on the hook for 
the expensive cleanups. That is not right, and it is not a good 
incentive for preventing future contamination.
  The bill creates an unfunded mandate by allowing States to move 
polluted sites off of their regulatory plates to the Federal Superfund 
list, shifting responsibility from corporations and States to the 
Federal taxpayer, and just as the Congress has slashed the Superfund 
budget 40 percent over the last 5 years. If we add more sites to the 
already burdened Federal list, we will certainly delay cleanups at the 
expense of human health and the environment.
  Second, the bill, for the first time ever, would subject our Federal 
employees to unfair penalties and perhaps even imprisonment if, in the 
good faith execution of their duties, they find that they can't comply 
with a State order because it directly conflicts with Federal law. 
Putting Federal workers who are tasked with cleaning up these heavily 
polluted sites in this position is beyond bad management, it is cruelly 
unfair, and it effectively scares employees from doing the very job we 
pay them, as taxpayers, to do.
  Finally, the Department of Defense has serious concerns with the 
bill, as it would make it difficult to clean up many of the nearly 
10,000 Superfund sites on military bases. According to the military, 
the bill would waste money on unnecessary litigation instead of actual 
site cleanup.
  Just north of my district in San Diego, a part of Marine Corps Base 
Camp Pendleton is a Superfund site. Nine areas of soil and groundwater 
have been contaminated by pesticides, metals, herbicides, and more. 
These waters' sources flow into the neighboring Pacific Ocean, and 
every day that we delay the cleanup and restoration of this site, our 
servicemembers, civilians working on the site, and numerous endangered 
species in the region face adverse risks. We cannot let this continue.
  In these lean fiscal times, we must make the most of limited Federal 
resources and taxpayer dollars. This legislation would bring with it 
unnecessary litigation, more spending that doesn't go to fixing the 
problems, exactly the kind of waste we are trying to eliminate from the 
Federal budget.
  My motion to recommit ensures that we are both careful stewards of 
the taxpayer dime and the environment. We must support laws that 
protect human health and the environment and continue to enforce the 
idea that polluters--not hardworking taxpayers--pay for what they 
pollute.
  I call on my colleagues not to fall for the false choice between 
growing the economy and protecting the environment. We can and we must 
do both. Vote ``yes'' on this motion, and stand with me to protect the 
taxpayer, protect children's health, and ensure that

[[Page 329]]

those who cause pollution pay to clean it up.
  Mr. Speaker. I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1615

  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes in 
opposition to the motion.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, our goal with this legislation is 
clear and straightforward. We want to modernize outdated environmental 
laws. The part of the bill that the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Gardner) wrote makes modest, but important, improvements in 
environmental law. It allows the EPA to review and revise its solid 
waste disposal regulations as necessary.
  In a hearing that we had, we asked a mayor from New Jersey, Would you 
rather clean up the trash or revise regulations? The mayor made it 
clear he would rather focus on getting the real work done instead of 
getting bogged down in governmental red tape.
  The part of the bill written by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta) 
says that Federal facilities should behave like anyone else in the 
State and meet the same natural resource protection requirements. Now, 
go figure: requiring the Federal Government to live under the same laws 
that the American people, the States and private-sector businesses have 
to live under. This is not a new concept. It is already the case under 
the Clean Air Act and RCRA. Let's just narrow the gap for the 
Superfund.
  Finally, the portion that I wrote ensures that States have a place at 
the discussion table throughout the process that the EPA set for 
developing remediation plans.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the motion to recommit and a ``yes'' on final 
passage. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. PETERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 5-
minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by a 5-minute 
vote on passage of the bill, if ordered.
  This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 188, 
noes 225, not voting 19, as follows:

                              [Roll No. 9]

                               AYES--188

     Andrews
     Barber
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gallego
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--225

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Barton
     Cleaver
     Crowley
     Gabbard
     Garamendi
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Heck (NV)
     Jones
     McCarthy (NY)
     McClintock
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sinema
     Smith (WA)
     Stockman
     Terry

                              {time}  1623

  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Ms. SINEMA. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 9, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``aye.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. PETERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 225, 
noes 188, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 10]

                               AYES--225

     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis

[[Page 330]]


     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Rahall
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--188

     Andrews
     Barber
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fitzpatrick
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gallego
     Garcia
     Gibson
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Aderholt
     Barton
     Cleaver
     Conyers
     Crowley
     Gabbard
     Garamendi
     Gingrey (GA)
     Guthrie
     Heck (NV)
     Jones
     McCarthy (NY)
     McClintock
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Smith (WA)
     Stockman

                              {time}  1631

  Ms. SINEMA changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 10 on Final 
Passage of H.R. 2279, the Reducing Excessive Deadline Obligations Act 
of 2013, I am not recorded because I was unavoidably detained. Had I 
been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

                          ____________________




           MOMENT OF SILENCE FOR VICENTE ``BEN'' GARRIDO BLAZ

  (Ms. BORDALLO asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute.)
  Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleagues to join 
me here as I deliver this eulogy for a former Member of Congress.
  I rise to pay tribute to the late Vicente ``Ben'' Garrido Blaz, 
Guam's former Congressman and a retired brigadier general in the United 
States Marine Corps. Ben passed away last night at the age of 85.
  Ben was a longtime friend whose lifetime of service to Guam and our 
Nation has been an inspiration to generations. As a survivor of the 
Japanese occupation of Guam during World War II, Ben had a strong sense 
of patriotism and duty to our country. He was commissioned as an 
officer of the Marine Corps in 1951 and went on to become the first 
Chamorro to achieve the rank of brigadier general. In 1984, Ben was 
elected to serve in this House of Representatives, where he represented 
the people of Guam for four terms.
  Throughout my time in Congress, Ben has been a strong source of 
support and guidance. I am grateful for his counsel and friendship, and 
I will miss him dearly.
  I join the people of Guam mourning the loss of Congressman Ben Blaz. 
Our thoughts and prayers are with his sons, Mike and Tom, and their 
families.
  I now ask for the House to observe a moment of silence in remembrance 
of Congressman Blaz.
  I thank my colleagues who have joined me here, Mr. Speaker.

                          ____________________




                      OPPOSITION TO UNESCO FUNDING

  (Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN asked and was given permission to address the House 
for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong opposition to 
attempts in the omnibus budget bill to restore any U.S. funding to 
UNESCO, a corrupt entity that is an extension of an anti-America, anti-
Israel U.N. agenda.
  UNESCO is attempting to pull a bait and switch on the American 
public. It says that it will use our constituents' money on World 
Heritage sites in our districts, but what it really wants is to use the 
funds that it lost when it admitted Palestine to its club.
  UNESCO knew what would happen to it if it admitted Palestine, but the 
agency counted on this administration to give it the money anyway. Not 
only is money fungible, Mr. Speaker, but studies indicate that there is 
no guarantee that this designation of World Heritage site is beneficial 
to the local economy.
  Taxpayer money for UNESCO is included in next week's omnibus budget 
bill. UNESCO must not receive a dime unless it reverses its decision on 
Palestine. I urge my colleagues to see through this guise and to 
continue to support American principles and U.S. law.

                          ____________________




                            KELLOGG LOCKOUT

  (Mr. COHEN asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of discussion recently 
about extending benefits to the unemployed, and it is critical we do 
that.
  I would like to talk about 226 people who are in my district who have 
jobs

[[Page 331]]

but still can't come to work to perform those jobs and get paid. They 
worked at the Kellogg plant in Memphis, making cereal like Corn Flakes 
and Frosted Flakes, but they have been locked out by Kellogg since 
October 22 due to a national contract dispute.
  The company, with sales of $14 billion at last estimate, hopes to 
bring in so-called ``casual'' employees who would be paid less and work 
fewer hours and get fewer benefits than the steady middle class jobs 
that the company offers now.
  I am proud Kellogg is in my district, and I have toured their plant. 
When I am flying out of Memphis, I drive up and down Airways Boulevard. 
I go past the Kellogg plant, and I see those employees out each day, 
day and night, even in 10-degree weather earlier this week. Like the 
post office, they are out in rain, snow, or sleet. I see them on 
holidays, weekends, you name it, fighting for their rights, standing up 
for themselves.
  It is time to end this lockout. Put those people back to work. Let's 
produce our cereal with good Memphis employees.

                          ____________________




                   SEX TRAFFICKING AT THE SUPER BOWL

  (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. Mr. Speaker, the United States is gearing up for 
the next Super Bowl. Unfortunately, so are human sex traffickers. Super 
Bowl Sunday is not just the sporting event of the year; it has also 
become America's traveling human trafficking magnet. Exploiters roam 
the streets looking for prey.
  Last year, while the two teams battled it out on the field, a young 
trafficked girl prayed for her life while sold for sex. These are women 
and children who have been taken as sex slaves, becoming sought-after 
entertainment on Super Bowl weekend.
  New Jersey's efforts toward eliminating this dastardly deed are to be 
commended. Hopefully, they are successful in curbing modern-day slavery 
at the Super Bowl. But this crime ought not to be, not at a major 
sporting event, not in our neighborhood.
  That is why Carolyn Maloney and I have introduced H.R. 3530, the 
Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act, which will go after the 
traffickers and the consumers of this slavery. We need to protect 
victims and prosecute the slave trafficking deviants.
  And that's just the way it is.

                          ____________________




                EXTEND EMERGENCY UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

  (Mr. GARCIA asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GARCIA. Mr. Speaker, our priority in Congress should be to find 
solutions, to boost our economy and get people back to work. While we 
are still working to get our economy back on track, Americans need to 
be able to feed their families and support themselves. It is about 
fairness.
  That is why I urge my colleagues today to extend the emergency 
unemployment insurance. For every dollar spent on unemployment 
insurance, we generate $1.55 in new economic activity in its first 
year, which is why we create more jobs and will get Americans back to 
work.
  In Florida alone, 70,000 people have lost this essential lifeline 
during the holiday season. And if we don't act, this number could 
double in the next 6 months.
  Mr. Speaker, this is simply a question of fairness. It is the right 
thing to do for our families and for our economy.

                          ____________________




                               BROWSE ACT

  (Mr. DUFFY asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about ObamaCare this afternoon 
and the fact that the President came out to the American people and 
said that healthcare.gov was going to work like Amazon and Kayak, Web 
sites where consumers are able to go shop for products, and if they 
find a product that they like, then and only then do they have to put 
in their personal information--their date of birth, their credit card, 
their full name and address.
  Healthcare.gov doesn't work that way. Before Americans can shop for 
products on healthcare.gov, they have to put all of their information--
their address, their date of birth, their Social Security number--into 
a Web site that isn't secure.
  I am introducing the BROWSE Act to make sure that Americans have an 
opportunity to search the Web site, look at products, and only if they 
find a product that they like, only then do they have to put in their 
personal information. Healthcare.gov should work like the rest of the 
Internet and the marketplace.

                          ____________________




                             WAR ON POVERTY

  (Ms. SCHAKOWSKY asked and was given permission to address the House 
for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 50th 
anniversary of President Johnson's announcement of the war on poverty.
  I recently had the opportunity to visit the Lyndon B. Johnson 
Presidential Library and Museum in Austin, Texas, and I was astonished 
by just how much he and the Congress were able to accomplish during his 
time in office. Since 1967, poverty has declined by more than a third. 
Still, 49.7 million Americans live in poverty, including 13.4 million 
children, but the war on poverty and the programs really worked. Here 
are some of them:
  Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act, Head Start, school lunch, child nutrition, migrant 
assistance, Job Corps, legal assistance, small business and rural 
loans, and Indian reservation programs.
  All of those were put into effect and really worked.
  Dana Milbank had an article today in The Washington Post where he 
said, And what is the response to the 50th anniversary? It is the 
Republicans declaring war on the war on poverty, as they have for the 
last 50 years.
  It is time for us to work together and continue to end poverty.

                          ____________________




                              {time}  1645
                      HONORING SERGEANT JACOB HESS

  (Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS asked and was given permission to address the 
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Mr. Speaker, it is with a very heavy heart 
that I rise today to honor the life of Sergeant Jacob Hess.
  Jacob is a 22-year-old American hero--the embodiment of the greatness 
that gave birth to the country he so deeply loved. Raised in a military 
family, after graduating from North Central High School in Spokane, 
Washington, he joined the United States Marine Corps to serve and 
defend this country.
  Jacob lost his life just a few days ago, New Year's Day, while 
supporting Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. He lost his life 
in the name of American freedom. He lost his life to protect all of 
ours.
  He leaves behind a community that admired him, a country that pays 
him homage, and a family that has been forever changed by him. He was a 
son, a brother, and a husband. He says good-bye to the family that got 
the call they hoped they never would.
  May God bless Sergeant Jacob Hess; his mother, Keirsten Lyons; his 
father, Mike Hess; his brother, Cameron; and his wife, Bridget. May God 
bless his family and all the brave men and women who have answered 
America's call to freedom.

                          ____________________




                 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE WAR ON POVERTY

  (Mr. ENYART asked and was given permission to address the House for 1

[[Page 332]]

minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. ENYART. Mr. Speaker, it is the 50th anniversary of the war on 
poverty. Although in many ways it has been a success, economic 
opportunity is still too often a stacked deck. Yesterday, The Wall 
Street Journal stated that J.P. Morgan, the giant Wall Street bank, 
last year paid out nearly $22 billion due to misdeeds and 
misrepresentations.
  The stock market sets new records every day. Wall Street has 
recovered. When will Main Street?
  While this is happening, 41 percent of the unemployed people in my 
district have been out of work for more than 26 weeks. They have run 
out of unemployment because Congress failed to act. The income 
difference between the wealthy and workers is greater than any time 
since the 1920s.
  Mr. Speaker, when will a nation that proclaims itself a bastion of 
freedom, both economic and personal, free the poor from the shackles of 
poverty?

                          ____________________




  CONGRATULATING THE TOP THREE AWARD WINNERS FOR THE 2013 PENN STATE 
          UNIVERSITY CIVIC ENGAGEMENT PUBLIC SPEAKING CONTEST

  (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, I rise today to 
congratulate the top three award winners for the 2013 Penn State 
University Civic Engagement Public Speaking Contest.
  Students for the competition are nominated by their classmates in 
recognition of their speaking performances throughout the semester. In 
total, 1,500 students vie in the competition. Their speeches are what 
Aristotle, who wrote about rhetoric, would classify as 
``deliberative,'' meaning their work is intended to spark public 
dialogue on matters of social or cultural importance.
  The contest is judged by representatives from Pearson, The New York 
Times, Penn State, and the State College community.
  For this year's competition, Amanda Hofstaedter of Chalfont, 
Pennsylvania, won first prize for her piece titled, ``Mandatory GMO 
Labeling: A Win-Win for Companies and Consumers.''
  Sarah Bastian of State College, Pennsylvania, took second place for 
her work titled, ``Driving Down Demand: An Answer for Domestic Minor 
Sex Trafficking.''
  And finally, Prithvi Nilkant of Mars, Pennsylvania, took third place 
for her work entitled, ``Creating a Safer Society for All.''
  Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate these winners, along with all the 
competing students, for not only their hard work, but also for their 
creativity and for their passion for public engagement.

                          ____________________




                      NEXT STEP IN WAR ON POVERTY

  (Mr. CLYBURN asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, in 1964, when President Johnson declared 
war on poverty, this, the richest Nation in the world, had a poverty 
rate of 19 percent. By 1973, 9 years later, that rate had been brought 
down to 11 percent. We were definitely winning the war on poverty.
  Unfortunately, too many politicians found success running down the 
achievements of the war on poverty. Scapegoating ``welfare queens'' 
furthered a narrative that the war on poverty was not worth fighting. 
But nothing could be further from the truth.
  For example, Medicare and Medicaid, two poverty programs, made a 
difference, a tremendous difference, in the health security of older 
Americans. These two antipoverty programs have reduced the poverty rate 
of our senior citizens from over 30 percent to less than 10 percent.
  The Congressional Black Caucus' 10-20-30 initiative targets 
communities of need with effective infrastructure investments. This 
proven approach was pioneered in the Recovery Act of 2009. Expanding 
this effective poverty fighter should be our next step in the long 
march of the war on poverty.

                          ____________________




                   CONGRATULATING GRANDFALLS-ROYALTY

  (Mr. GALLEGO asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Speaker, I couldn't let the first week in Congress 
go by without taking a moment to congratulate Grandfalls-Royalty.
  Grandfalls-Royalty is one of the smallest public schools in Texas, 
with a student head count of about 27 kids. They had 16 of those guys 
in uniform not so long ago to play in the State championship six-man 
football game. I am proud to say that Grandfalls-Royalty defeated 
Milford 73-28.
  Grandfalls-Royalty made their first debut in a State playoff game. It 
was held in the home of the Dallas Cowboys, the $1.2 billion home of 
the Dallas Cowboys. Frankly, it was also called. For the 13th time this 
season, it was called by the 45-point mercy rule. That meant the game 
ended with still 6 minutes and 28 seconds to play in the fourth 
quarter. Quite an accomplishment for a small school, one in west Texas 
that I am very, very proud of.
  Congratulations to Grandfalls-Royalty.

                          ____________________




                         UNCERTAINTY WITH IRAN

  (Mr. QUIGLEY asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, the United States finds itself in a period 
of great uncertainty in the face of a new short-term deal with Iran.
  The fact that Iran has finally come to the negotiating table is only 
proof that sanctions are working. The strength of our sanctions has 
severely devalued Iran's currency, crippled its economy, and forced it 
to finally consider curbing its nuclear program.
  While we are hopeful for a broader deal, it is imperative that the 
United States and the international community remain vigilant. A 
nuclear Iran is the most pressing national security threat not only for 
the United States, but also for our allies in the Middle East, 
especially Israel.
  As talks move forward, our security and the security of our allies in 
the region must remain our number one priority.

                          ____________________




             EMPLOYER MANDATE UNDER THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barr). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 3, 2013, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Rice) 
is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.


                             General Leave

  Mr. RICE of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend 
their remarks and to include extraneous materials on the topic of my 
Special Order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from South Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. RICE of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, back last summer when the 
President unilaterally announced that he was going to not enforce the 
employer mandate under the Affordable Care Act, I was quite surprised 
because the next day there was a news article in The New York Times 
about it. Democratic Senator Tom Harkin was quoted in the article. He 
was one of the architects of the Affordable Care Act. He said, speaking 
of the President: This was the law. How can he do that? How can the 
President simply unilaterally choose to ignore the law?
  Our Founders, Mr. Speaker, designed a system of government based upon 
a separation of powers. The legislative branch enacts the laws and the 
executive branch, the President, enforces those laws. They did that to 
protect our very, very fragile freedom. We cannot allow those 
separations to be eroded. One man who can both make the

[[Page 333]]

laws and enforce the laws is more a monarch than a President.
  Article II, section 3 of the Constitution requires, in part, that the 
President take care to faithfully execute the Nation's laws. In 1792, 
when George Washington was faced with enforcing an unpopular whiskey 
tax, he wrote in a letter that:

       It is my duty to see that these laws are executed. To 
     permit them to be trampled upon with impunity would be 
     repugnant to that duty.

  President Obama, on the other hand, has, throughout his 
administration, picked and chosen which laws or parts thereof he wishes 
to enforce. House Resolution 442 would require the House of 
Representatives to institute a lawsuit against the President to comply 
with this article II, section 3 of the Constitution. It lists four 
specific examples where the President has either failed to enforce the 
laws or has gone beyond the laws as written:
  One is the 1-year delay in the employer mandate under ObamaCare, 
which I mentioned earlier;
  Another is the 1-year extension of the substandard insurance 
policies, which by my definition is any insurance policy anybody would 
really want to buy;
  One is the waiving of the work requirements under the welfare laws; 
and
  One is the granting of deferred removal action to illegal aliens.
  Again, one man empowered to both enact the laws and enforce the laws 
is more a monarch than a President. This is not a Republican issue. 
This is not a Democrat issue. It is not a Tea Party action. This is not 
for messaging. H.R. 442 merely recognizes that no American, including 
the President, is above the law.
  What would we say if the next President came in and said, I don't 
like the Affordable Care Act and, therefore, I am not going to enforce 
the individual mandate, which would gut the law? What would we say if 
President Obama or any other President said, I think the top income tax 
rate is too high and, therefore, I am not going to enforce it, or I am 
not going to enforce the lowest income tax rate? What is the difference 
between those situations and what President Obama is doing right now 
not enforcing the employer mandate under ObamaCare? After all, the 
Supreme Court has ruled that the penalties under ObamaCare are a tax.
  What would we say if a President said, I am not going to enforce this 
tax against my friends but I will against my enemies, or I am not going 
to enforce it against my contributors but I will against everybody 
else? What is the difference between that situation and what the 
President has done granting 1,300 unilateral exemptions to different 
groups under the Affordable Care Act?
  If the President is allowed to make the law or to ignore those laws 
passed by Congress, Congress can just go home; there is no need for the 
legislative branch. In fact, when Congress, following the President's 
lead, when the House of Representatives passed a bill that would delay 
the employer mandate for a year, which the President had already 
announced he was going to do unilaterally, the President threatened to 
veto it.

                              {time}  1700

  At this time, I yield to Representative Martha Roby from Alabama.
  Mrs. ROBY. Thank you so much to my colleague from South Carolina. I 
just want to tell you that, as I travel throughout Alabama's Second 
District, the question I get over and over and over again is: What can 
we do about this executive overreach?
  So I rise, Mr. Speaker, today on behalf of the people of Alabama's 
Second Congressional District to lend my support to Mr. Rice's S.T.O.P. 
Resolution in order to stop this overreaching Presidency. I appreciate 
so much the diligent and thorough work of my colleague's on this 
resolution, and I am proud to sign on as a cosponsor.
  In advancing this resolution, we are seeking to finally stop 
constitutional overreaches by the executive branch and restore the 
separation of powers by bringing legal action against the Obama 
administration to compel the judiciary to rein it in. This resolution 
directs a civil action on behalf of the House of Representatives in 
Federal court in the District of Columbia, challenging four unilateral 
Obama administration actions, as have already been explained, that 
blatantly flout constitutional restraints on the executive branch. I am 
going to mention them again:
  Specifically, these include the lifting of the Affordable Care Act's 
mandated requirements on the type of insurance providers can offer; the 
1-year delay of the health care law's employer mandate; the adoption of 
a policy against deporting certain illegal immigrants, which is counter 
to U.S. immigration and naturalization laws; and the decision to waive 
the ``welfare to work'' laws.
  Mr. Speaker, the Obama administration is certainly not the first 
administration to overstep its constitutional authority as, I would 
say, most Presidents in recent history have pushed the limits of 
executive power, but the actions taken in the last few years have been 
especially blatant and egregious. President Obama and his 
administration have recklessly stretched the scope of the executive 
branch, aggressively imposing by administrative rule or regulation what 
they can't achieve legislatively. When I am at home and am talking with 
my constituents about this, we talk particularly about the promulgation 
of rules. It is just a backdoor attempt to get done what the President 
can't get done here in the Congress.
  Amazingly, in some cases, the administration has moved to delay, 
tweak or to otherwise alter the very health care law he pushed to 
enact, all while dismissing legislative proposals that would have had 
the same effect but would have had the benefit of being legal because 
they would have gone through the Halls of Congress. If allowed to stand 
unchecked, such actions present a dangerous threat to our 
constitutional separation of powers.
  Mr. Speaker, I wish this weren't necessary. I wish President Obama 
and his administration had the self-restraint to act within their 
constitutional bounds, but this administration's pattern of 
aggressively overstepping its authorities to implement policy and win 
political battles leaves us no choice to act. Our constitutional 
restraints on government are not always convenient for political or 
policy goals, but they are necessary for preserving the checks and 
balances that ensure this government still derives its authority from 
the people and not the other way around.
  We know that working through the courts can take time, but the 
judicial branch has shown a greater willingness as of late to rein in 
these overreaches from the Obama administration. Two recent decisions 
that are worth noting have already struck down the Obama 
administration's attempts to flout the law and act outside of the 
constitutionally prescribed role of the executive branch.
  One was the lower court's ruling overturning the President's attempt 
to appoint NLRB members without Senate approval, and the other was a 
rare mandamus order from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals that 
rejected the administration's attempt to simply not enforce laws 
related to Yucca Mountain and nuclear waste.
  Mr. Speaker, this S.T.O.P. Resolution allows the House of 
Representatives to seek the intervention of the judicial branch to rein 
in these executive abuses and reconstitute the separation of power. I 
hope it also sends a message to the Obama administration that this 
body, as one half of a coequal branch of the United States Government, 
is not going to stand by and watch the erosion of this country's 
constitutional framework.
  Again, a sincere thank you to my colleague from South Carolina for 
taking the lead on this, for showing leadership. I am proud to be able 
to state to the people of Alabama's Second District, when asked ``What 
are you doing about this?,'' that this S.T.O.P. Resolution is a step in 
the right direction. So thank you very much.
  Mr. RICE of South Carolina. Thank you, Mrs. Roby.
  I yield to my friend and colleague from Utah (Mr. Stewart).

[[Page 334]]


  Mr. STEWART. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend and colleague Tom 
Rice for introducing this important resolution. I am proud to stand in 
support of this, and I thank him for giving me a few minutes to discuss 
what is a very, very important issue today.
  My friend knows that I was a writer. Before I came to Congress, I 
wrote a number of books. I spent a lot of time writing about and 
studying this great Nation--about the history of this Nation, about the 
history of the world--and I think I know a little bit about some of 
these things. I think one of the most remarkable but underappreciated 
characteristics of General George Washington, who was, I think, a hero 
for many of us, was his deference to the Continental Congress during 
the American Revolution. Although in many cases he knew what needed to 
be done, he always recognized that he derived his authority--he derived 
all of his power--not from himself but from the Congress, and he 
understood that the Congress was the organization and the body that 
held the power and the keys to a successful government.
  It is a lesson, as we have been discussing here tonight, that, 
unfortunately, this President does not seem to appreciate or to even 
understand.
  Our Founding Fathers made it very clear in the Constitution that the 
responsibility of the President was to take care that the laws be 
faithfully executed--not selectively chosen, not preferred or some of 
them ignored, but faithfully executed. It is his constitutional 
responsibility, but time and time again, we have seen this President as 
he ignores this constitutionally mandated responsibility. He prefers to 
pick and to choose which laws he will enforce.
  I would like to quote eminent Judge Michael McConnell, who recently 
wrote:

       The Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, which 
     advises the President on legal and constitutional issues, has 
     repeatedly opined that the President may decline to enforce 
     laws he believes are unconstitutional, but these opinions 
     have always insisted that the President has no authority to 
     refuse to enforce a statute which he simply opposes for 
     policy reasons.

  This has become a very troubling trend for this President. As my 
friend has already pointed out, among other examples, he has already 
declined to enforce immigration laws against a large number of illegal 
immigrants. He has chosen not to enforce work requirements that 
Congress mandated as part of the 1990 welfare reform programs, programs 
which had broad bipartisan support and which everyone recognizes were 
very successful. He has chosen to change the congressional requirements 
that States must meet under No Child Left Behind, and in none of these 
cases did he say he believed the laws were unconstitutional. He simply 
disagreed with the policies and so refused to enforce those laws. Now, 
we may or may not agree with the President on the merits of these 
policies, but as an institution, Congress should be extraordinarily 
concerned that the President is usurping our role as legislators, and 
it is setting a very dangerous precedent.
  The President, for example, went to great lengths to convince the 
Supreme Court and other Americans that the Affordable Care Act was, 
indeed, constitutional. He won that battle, which means he should have 
to enforce this law that he argued was constitutional or, if not, come 
to Congress and ask for changes to the law, but over the last few 
months, we have seen numerous delays and exemptions to ObamaCare 
without any input at all from Congress. Now, once again, regardless of 
your views on the merits of ObamaCare, the President's actions should 
make everyone who respects the separation of power and the role of the 
executive very uncomfortable.
  Can you imagine if Governor Romney had been elected President and if, 
on his first day in office, he had said, ``I am going to delay the 
employer mandate''? Do you think any of my colleagues from across the 
aisle would have supported him in that? Imagine if he had said, again 
as was illustrated before, ``I think that the capital gains tax is too 
high. To get our economy going, I am just not going to enforce the 
capital gains tax for a year.'' I mean, if he had done that, heads 
would have exploded all over Washington, DC.
  Why would that have happened? He doesn't have the authority. The 
Constitution forbids it. We have a President, not a king. I don't want 
this President to act that way. I don't want a Republican President to 
act that way. Our Founding Fathers would be horrified if they were 
alive today and were watching what is happening with our Constitution 
and the growing power of the Presidency. This is dangerous, and it is 
demeaning to our democracy, and it simply must stop. I hope the 
President will remember his constitutionally mandated responsibility to 
enforce all laws, not just those laws that he chooses to enforce 
because he agrees with them.
  Mr. Rice, thank you, sir, for drawing attention to this very 
important issue. Thank you for giving me a few moments to share this 
with you here on the floor of the Congress.
  Mr. RICE of South Carolina. Thank you, Mr. Stewart.
  I yield to my friend from Georgia (Mr. Woodall).
  Mr. WOODALL. I thank my friend from South Carolina. I appreciate his 
making this time available.
  Mr. Speaker, truth be told, this is a leadership hour, so it tends to 
be Republicans down on the floor when it is a Republican leadership 
hour, and it tends to be Democrats down on the floor when it is a 
Democrat leadership hour, but as my friend Mr. Stewart said so well: 
this is not a Republican problem. This is not a President Barack Obama 
problem. This is a ``we, the people'' problem.
  The concern is not that it is President Barack Obama who is saying 
the Affordable Care Act doesn't have to be enforced. The concern is 
that any President could say that any law doesn't have to be enforced. 
Thomas Jefferson said you are not likely to lose your freedoms through 
rebellion; you are likely to lose them little by little by little by 
little. That is why we all have to stand up together.
  Mr. Rice is a freshman from South Carolina. I have only been here for 
two terms myself. I think about some of the giants of this institution, 
not just of the House but of the Senate as well. I think about one of 
my favorite Democratic Senators, Robert Byrd from West Virginia--a 
champion of article I of the Constitution. He was a Democrat second; he 
was an American first, defending the Constitution against Presidents, 
Republican and Democrat, who would take the people's power from Capitol 
Hill and take it down to the executive branch.
  So I want to ask you now--and it may sound frivolous--if we had 
President Mitt Romney in the White House today and if Mitt Romney were 
deciding the Affordable Care Act did not need to be enforced, would you 
still be here on the floor, asking that Congress go to court to reclaim 
congressional powers? I ask my friend.
  Mr. RICE of South Carolina. As you said, Representative Woodall, I am 
an American first and a Republican second, and if the President usurps 
the Constitution, I will call him to task.
  Mr. WOODALL. I confess to you that I went on the Oversight and 
Government Reform Committee--as all of my colleagues know, the 
Oversight and Government Reform Committee is responsible for doing all 
of the oversight over the executive branch--because I was certain Mitt 
Romney was going to win. I said, for far too long, power has been 
leaving the people's hands on Capitol Hill, gravitating down 
Pennsylvania Avenue to the White House, and we in a Republican House 
will be able to do oversight over a Republican President and show the 
American people it is not about Republicans and Democrats; it is about 
article I and article II and about following the process, following the 
law, following the Constitution. It matters. It doesn't matter when 
times are good. It matters when things get dicey, when you begin to 
lose those freedoms little by little.

                              {time}  1715

  I want to ask my friend from South Carolina, because we went through 
this with recess appointments, whether or not there was the ability for 
the President to appoint folks of his choosing to

[[Page 335]]

various positions around the city. And what I read that D.C. court 
opinion to say is what President Obama has done is absolutely 
outrageous. It cannot possibly stand.
  But what Congress allowed President Bush to do and President Clinton 
to do and President Bush before him to do and President Reagan before 
him to do, that was also unconstitutional; and Congress has to step up 
for the powers of the Constitution entrusted in us.
  Is this your understanding?
  Mr. RICE of South Carolina. Representative Woodall, that is exactly 
what this resolution is intended to do. It is intended for Congress to 
take action to enforce the Constitution.
  Representative Woodall, do you hear from your constituents back home 
when you speak to them that the President is breaking the law, and why 
don't you do something about that?
  I do all the time. I think that is a result of the erosion of 
Congress' power--exactly what you are talking about.
  Mr. WOODALL. We should absolutely have arguments on this floor about 
how much money should be spent on this program versus that program, 
whether or not we should authorize a new issue or do away with an old 
issue. Those are those things that divide us.
  But we should be united, Republican, Democrat, House and Senate, over 
these constitutional issues of where does the people's power reside. 
Because if leaders like you, in the absence of Senator Byrd from West 
Virginia, in the absence of Daniel Patrick Moynihan, in the absence of 
some of those greats who formerly preserved the people's power, I don't 
know how it gets preserved.
  I am certain that you face slings and arrows from folks thinking this 
is some sort of partisan stunt: you just don't like this President; you 
just have sour grapes over the last election.
  I have gotten to know you well over your very short time in Congress. 
It is so valuable to me that you put your responsibilities as an 
American first--far above your responsibilities as a Republican--and 
that despite those slings and arrows, the Constitution comes first. It 
may not seem like we need the Constitution to protect us each and every 
day; but when we wake up and realize it is not there, it is going to be 
too late.
  I hope this is something that spreads in a bipartisan way and in a 
bicameral way. We have preserved this Republic, this greatest form of 
government the world has ever known, only because folks have stood up 
when others did not see that necessity.
  We need this. There is the necessity today, and I am grateful to you 
for your leadership.
  Mr. RICE of South Carolina. Thank you, my friend.
  I yield to my friend from Florida (Mr. Yoho).
  Mr. YOHO. I thank my good friend from South Carolina (Mr. Rice), for 
bringing this resolution forward and for his leadership. This is a very 
important issue not only today, but as Mr. Woodall pointed out here, 
also for the future of our Nation--a constitutional Republic, as you so 
eloquently put it.
  Article II, section 3 of the Constitution specifically requires that 
the President:

       Take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

  This does not allow the President to enforce the laws he likes and 
ignore the laws he doesn't. This clause compels the President to ensure 
that all agencies within his executive branch are carrying out the laws 
created by Congress, the people's arm of government.
  The current administration undermines this body on a near daily 
basis; and if it is allowed to continue to do so, as you pointed out, 
the balance of power will no longer exist. In fact, it is rapidly 
slipping away to one side of the balance scales. It is our duty as 
representatives of the American people to speak out about this. And if 
not us, who? And if not now, when?
  The delay of the employer mandate, the extension of the substandard 
insurance policies, and the grant of the deferred removal action to 
certain illegal immigrants are just but a few examples of the executive 
attempting to legislate without Congress.
  Luckily, the Framers instituted a system of checks and balances. This 
Congress has no choice but to turn to the courts. I offer my strong 
support for Congressman Rice's STOP resolution, H.R. 442, which will 
enable the House to bring a civil action against the executive branch 
and allow future legislators to hold the executive branch accountable.
  I think this is the crux of this and this is the important part of 
this. Because it is for all future Presidents. Again, we have to stand 
up and start defending our Constitution.
  This administration, like others before it, has no problem creating 
mandates for the American people, but cannot seem to follow the most 
important mandate of our Nation: the Constitution.
  If you look at this, this simple little book, it is not an epic in 
volume. You can see it. It is very thin. But yet it is an epic in 
ideology of what free men and free women can do, and they are held 
accountable with their government by this little red book.
  The importance of this issue cannot be overstated. We must address 
this now so that all future Presidents will know that they must abide 
by the Constitution. No President, past or present, Democrat or 
Republican, should ever be exempt from the duties laid out by our 
Founding Fathers.
  That is why I support Congressman Rice's STOP resolution, H.R. 442, 
and I urge all my colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats, to 
support this resolution for America and for our Constitution.
  Mr. RICE of South Carolina. Thank you, Mr. Yoho.
  I yield to my friend from Florida (Mr. DeSantis).
  Mr. DeSANTIS. I thank the gentleman from South Carolina.
  When we left in December to go back to our districts for the 
Christmas weekend, I got home and thought, Okay, the President is going 
to do something with ObamaCare as we get close to Christmas. You just 
know anytime you come up on a holiday, some news gets put out. July 3, 
leading into the 4th of July, was the employer mandate delay. The 
grandfather stunt was pulled leading into Thanksgiving.
  And sure enough, December 19, the Obama administration grants a 
``hardship exemption'' from the individual mandate tax penalty to those 
who have seen their plans canceled due to ObamaCare.
  I don't think any of those plans should have been canceled. I offered 
a bill here, and the House passed something similar, to essentially 
grandfather in those plans. The Federal Government shouldn't be forcing 
people out of plans they like. Certainly, things needed to be done 
there.
  But understand how unfair this is. If you had insurance and your 
policy is canceled, and then the ObamaCare replacements are not 
affordable for you, they are saying, Okay, you are fine. No penalty for 
you. But if you are somebody who couldn't have afforded insurance the 
prior year, and now you are told you are forced to go on these 
ObamaCare exchanges, you still have to pay the tax, even though you may 
have been worse off than some of those other folks.
  Or if you are somebody that had employer coverage last year, and now 
maybe going out on your own and you need to buy individual insurance, 
if you end up in the exchanges and you don't find those affordable to 
you, you don't get the same relief.
  When you are talking about arbitrary delays like this, it is 
inherently unfair.
  Now, give the administration some credit. Unlike some of the other 
delays, there is actually a provision in ObamaCare that says people can 
qualify for a hardship exemption from the individual mandate. The 
problem is that in this instance it is ObamaCare itself that 
constitutes the hardship.
  So because ObamaCare is implemented, these people are suffering a 
hardship. Therefore they are exempt from the statute. To me, I think 
that is an abuse of what the statute is supposed to do. Certainly, it 
begs the question, Could you simply delay or grant a suspension of all 
of these provisions of ObamaCare?

[[Page 336]]

  It is interesting because I was reading in the Weekly Standard 
publication, one of the reporters was asking members of the Senate what 
are their limits, what is the principled justification for his conduct.
  And so the reporter asked one Senator:

       How do you determine if the President couldn't do something 
     that it does exceed his authority? Are there any parts of the 
     law that the President does not have the authority to delay 
     or suspend?

  The Senator's response--a Democratic Senator:

       I don't know. I'm not the scholar on that.

  Well, the reporter went to another Democratic Senator and said:

       Are there are any delays the President wouldn't have the 
     authority to make? Could the President potentially suspend 
     the entire law if he wanted to?

  His answer:

       I can't answer a hypothetical.

  The reporter asked again:

       So you can't say if there are any parts of the law he 
     couldn't delay unilaterally?

  The Senator said:

       I can't answer a hypothetical.

  Finally, another Senator told the reporter he doesn't know of any 
legal impediment preventing the executive branch from delaying the 
employer or individual mandates.
  When asked:

       Couldn't a future President just simply come in and suspend 
     the entire law?

  That Senator said:

       I don't want to speculate what a future President might do.

  And so I think those answers, when Senators and the President's own 
party cannot offer any principled justification for the President's 
conduct that would exclude the potential of a President simply delaying 
all provisions of the law, you know that you are not in the realm of 
faithful execution of the law.
  I think it is a challenge. We have talked about it in this Chamber in 
hours like this. We have had hearings in the Judiciary Committee with 
experts--even liberal constitutional law experts--saying that this 
conduct goes beyond what the Founding Fathers intended and what the 
Constitution envisioned.
  I would like to see somebody offer a principled justification for the 
President picking and choosing which parts of the law should be 
enforced and should not be enforced, should be delayed, should be 
suspended, or should be ignored.
  It is interesting, because when you go back and look at the Founding 
Fathers when they created the Constitution, when they created the 
Congress, when they created the executive, at the convention James 
Wilson from Pennsylvania was the one who moved to create a President 
consisting of a single person. And that caused silence in the 
convention hall because they had just rebelled against Britain. And 
although you needed some type of executive power, there were some who 
were a little bit taken aback that you would even have a single 
President, even in a constitutional system. Some of the people said at 
the time that you can't really have a strong President and have a 
republic.
  So this was a huge issue for the Founding Fathers. Clearly, it would 
not have been acceptable to stand up at the Constitutional Convention 
and say, Yes, the President is going to have the authority and duty to 
enforce the laws; but if there are laws he doesn't like, he will be 
able to delay provisions or ignore provisions as he sees fit, as long 
as it is consistent with his overall purpose or political agenda. That 
would not have been acceptable to anybody at the time.
  Can you imagine if when John Adams succeeded George Washington, he 
just started delaying provisions related to the bank of the United 
States or the Jay Treaty? Imagine when Jefferson came in. He ran 
against the Alien and Sedition Act. Some of those were just allowed to 
expire, but they went in and repealed a core portion of the Alien and 
Sedition Act. They didn't just ignore it. The provisions that expired, 
expired; and then they repealed the provisions that were still in 
effect.
  That is the way it is supposed to be done. They would never have 
allowed John Adams or Jefferson to come in and just willy-nilly enforce 
what they wanted to and not enforce what they didn't want to.
  And so part of the frustration of this is Congress is supposed to 
stand up for its authority. I think the House people here realize that 
what the President is doing is not proper constitutional government, 
but the U.S. Senate is just totally out to lunch on this. They are not 
interested in safeguarding their institutional prerogatives, because 
they are putting their political interests ahead of the legislative 
body's authority. That really runs contrary to how the Founders 
envisioned the separation of powers and checks and balances working.
  In Federalist 51 Madison said:

       Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.

  What he meant by that is that, yes, you have separate powers. You 
have an executive, a legislative, and a judicial power. But just 
because you separate them doesn't mean that individual liberties can be 
secure.
  So you have got to give each branch the ability to check the other 
branches. And they were sure they knew people would have different 
partisan allegiances and all that, but they were pretty sure that each 
branch would have the wherewithal and would want to defend its own 
prerogatives.
  And so in this instance, I think what you don't have is a Senate that 
is willing to join with the House, use the power of the purse, use the 
appointment power, advise and consent, all the powers that we have, use 
those until the President starts conforming with the law.

                              {time}  1730

  But we are not there yet. And so this idea of trying to bring this in 
front of courts, we shouldn't have to do that. We should be able to 
defend our own turf. But it is frustrating because we don't have a lot 
of other options at this point.
  So I think that my colleague from South Carolina, you know, I give 
him credit for thinking of what can we actually do that could 
potentially be successful. And so I am hoping that this move will be 
successful.
  But I think, going forward--and this has been a problem before this 
President. He is not the only one who has pulled stunts like this, 
although I think he has gone beyond what any previous President has 
done.
  Ultimately, people in this body and in the other Chamber have got to 
get serious about defending our constitutional responsibility. That 
means holding Presidents accountable who are not in accordance with 
article II, section 3, the ``Take Care'' clause. But it also means not 
delegating so much legislative authority to these bureaucracies when 
they end up essentially legislating, and those rules are imposed on the 
public without Congress saying anything at all about it.
  So, ultimately, the courts cannot save us if we aren't willing to 
save ourselves and protect the authority that the Constitution grants 
us and that we are supposed to exercise on behalf of the people that we 
represent.
  We are, especially in this House, we are the people's House. The 
President gets elected, too, but we are the closest to the people, and 
I think we have got to do a better job of this going forward.
  So I would just tell my friend from South Carolina, Thank you for 
doing this. I know you have signed on. I have a resolution just to say 
that the House doesn't approve of this conduct, because I fear if we 
don't do anything, then we are basically setting a precedent where this 
is going to be unquestioned going forward.
  So I think as much as we can do, even if we are not successful, at 
least we are showing people that we think this is a contested practice, 
and we are not willing to allow this to become something that is 
accepted for future Presidents, Republican or Democrat.
  Mr. RICE of South Carolina. I thank my friend from Florida.
  Separation of powers is fundamental to our form of government. The 
Congress enacts laws. The President enforces the laws. One individual 
who can both make the law and enforce it is more a monarch than a 
President.

[[Page 337]]

  Without the separation of powers, our form of government crumbles. As 
earlier speakers said, the erosion of the separation of powers didn't 
start with President Obama, but it has certainly accelerated. At home I 
am asked all the time, The President is breaking the law; why don't you 
do something about it? This resolution is an attempt to do exactly 
that.
  Nobody would argue that the President has no discretion in enforcing 
the law. Clearly, he does. But in these four instances, he has clearly 
overstepped that discretion.
  I fall back to say, what would we say if the President has the power 
to waive these things, the employer mandate, the penalty under the 
employer mandate, that is a waiver of a tax? What would we say if the 
next President waived the capital gains tax, or waived the maximum 
bracket under the income tax, or waived the income tax for his friends?
  Clearly, that is beyond the discretion of the President. Clearly, 
President Obama has gone beyond his discretion, and Congress needs to 
enforce the Constitution.
  We have 44 cosponsors to our bill so far, but we need the help of the 
American people. We need you to talk to your Representatives. If you 
need more information about our resolution or what you can do, please 
go to my Web site at www.rice.house.gov.
  Thank you for your concern. Thank you for viewing. Let's protect our 
democracy.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members must address their remarks to the 
Chair and not to a perceived viewing audience.

                          ____________________




                  THE CONGRESSIONAL PROGRESSIVE CAUCUS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2013, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on behalf of the 
Congressional Progressive Caucus. During our Special Order hour, we 
want to talk specifically about the need for unemployment insurance 
but, more broadly, about what we need to do to make sure that everyone 
in this country has access to opportunity.
  Just yesterday, we celebrated the 50th anniversary of the war on 
poverty. President Johnson said, during his State of the Union in 1964:

       Unfortunately, many Americans live on the outskirts of 
     hope, some because of their poverty, and some because of 
     their color, and all too many because of both. Our task is to 
     help replace their despair with opportunity.
       This administration today, here and now, declares 
     unconditional war on poverty in America. It will not be a 
     short or easy struggle. No single weapon or strategy will 
     suffice, but we shall not rest until that war is won. The 
     richest nation on Earth can afford to win it. We cannot 
     afford to lose it.

  Those are the words of President Johnson 50 years ago when we started 
the war on poverty in this country. We created Medicare and Medicaid, 
the food stamp program and programs like Head Start. And we have great 
results from those programs.
  In fact, according to a new study, these initial programs, coupled 
with expansion of pro-work and pro-family programs, like the earned 
income tax credit, have helped reduce poverty by nearly 40 percent 
since the 1960s. The poverty line fell from 26 percent in 1967 to 16 
percent in 2012, when the safety net is taken into account.
  Now, while there has been a lot of progress, we still have far too 
many people in this country who are still living in poverty or on the 
brink of living in poverty. Fifteen percent of Americans today are 
living below the poverty line, and that is just $11,490 for an 
individual. 46.5 million people in our country are living in poverty, 
and one in three Americans teeters on the brink of living in poverty. 
That includes 16 million children in this country. That is more than 
700,000 people in my home State of Wisconsin.
  According to the Institute for Research on Poverty at the University 
of Wisconsin, Madison, in Rock County, in my district, a county that I 
share with Congressman Paul Ryan, 22 percent of the children in that 
county are living in poverty.
  We still have vast inequality, income inequality. We have unlivable 
wages. And we still have Members of this body, Mr. Speaker, who want to 
chip away at that very economic security. It almost seems like today it 
is not a war on poverty, but sometimes it seems like there is a war on 
the war on poverty, that we are actually stepping backwards from the 
very improvements we made over the years from 1960.
  In fact, what we noticed that just happened was the not extending of 
the benefits, emergency unemployment benefits back in December, on 
December 28. It has affected 1.3 million Americans. Not only do we have 
issues like that, but we also have an attack on food stamps, where this 
very body has voted to cut $39 billion from the SNAP program, the 
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program--$39 billion--affecting 
millions and millions of Americans.
  We have seen attempts to not allow us to raise the minimum wage, a 
minimum wage that is entirely behind where it should be. If you took 
into consideration where it should be, just for inflation from 1968, 
that minimum wage in 2013 dollars would be at $10.60--not $7.25, at 
$10.60. We are way behind keeping up with inflation.
  Income inequality is at an all-time high. We are finding that incomes 
for the top 1 percent have grown more than 31 percent since 2009, and 
the bottom 99 percent of people, their income has moved less than 1 
percent. So we are in a challenging time.
  We know that there was an economic downfall across the globe, and 
especially hard hit, we feel it in this country. And while we are 
having dual activities happen, jobs are creeping back up, we are having 
progress, but still, 7 percent of people are unemployed.
  And while we have got those jobs creeping up, we still also notice 
that people are being left behind with this economy, and that is 
exactly why we have tried to do things like extending the unemployment 
insurance benefits for people.
  But unfortunately, in this body, in this very body, Mr. Speaker, 
austerity has ruled the day. Austerity has taken place, instead of 
prosperity. Instead of doing measures that would lift people out of 
poverty and help people get a job and help people be able to support 
their families, we are trying to take government down and down and 
down, like they did in Europe, and they have had disastrous results 
from doing that.
  That is not a path out of our current economic condition. We need to 
be investing in our people so that they have those opportunities. They 
can grab a ring at that ladder and get a good job and be able to get 
by. So there are so many things we need to do.
  Unfortunately, these attacks aren't just in this body, in the 
Congress. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, these attacks are even happening 
in the States.
  In my home State of Wisconsin, our Governor, Scott Walker, was 
recently on a CNN program. And when he was asked about extending 
unemployment benefits, his response was, the reason why the White House 
is so actively pursuing this, unemployment insurance, is they want to 
desperately talk about anything but ObamaCare.
  Can you believe the Governor of a State who is 37th in job creation, 
who promised when he was elected to create 250,000 jobs, and he has 
done a portion of that, is somehow trying to say that helping people to 
get out of poverty, helping people to be able to support their family 
with groceries and to be able to pay their rent or mortgage, at a time 
of still having record people who are out of work, while we are trying 
to start getting jobs to come back, at 7 percent, at that time, Mr. 
Speaker, that Governor can still only talk about ObamaCare, as all too 
often this body has done.
  We need to act now. The time to act on this, for this body, is now. 
1.3 million people are currently out of work and trying to get those 
benefits they need so desperately during that period that have been cut 
off. And every week, across the country, 72,000 new Americans will lose 
their benefits if we don't

[[Page 338]]

do something--72,000 thousand people across the country.
  Mr. Speaker, in our Speaker of the House's district alone, you look 
at the largest cities in that district in Ohio: Springfield, Ohio, 
60,000 people, that would be like having your entire city of 
Springfield go unemployed in a single week; in the city of Hamilton, 
62,000 people, 1 week, all out of work; Middleton, 48,000 people, you 
can take that and the surrounding communities, all in 1 week, out of 
work if we don't do something.
  That is why, Mr. Speaker, it is imperative that this body do 
something. 1.3 million Americans have lost these benefits at the end of 
December, including 20,000 military veterans who aren't getting the 
benefits they need. These are hardworking people who are still trying 
to find jobs in this economy, but there are just not enough jobs yet 
available. And in many fields it is even tougher.
  Right now, 24,000 Wisconsinites have lost these important, vital 
lifelines, and the number just keeps going up every single week by 
72,000 people. Yet, Mr. Speaker, the House Republicans adjourned 
Congress on December 12, more than 2 weeks before these benefits were 
set to expire. We could have done something, we could have stayed and 
worked, and instead we didn't. Now, because of that, we have 1.3 
million and counting people who don't have access to these vital 
benefits.
  Now, let's just think about this. Under President Bush, five times we 
extended these benefits without any strings attached like this Congress 
is trying to do to this President, five times, and the unemployment was 
less than the 7 percent we are at right now. It is hypocritical for us 
not to do what we all did together five times under President Bush 
while people are still looking for work.
  The bottom line is you still need this money, not just to pay for 
groceries and to pay for rent or your mortgage, but you need things to 
be able to get a job. If you don't have the ability to pay for gas in 
your car, how are you going to be able to find a job? You need to be 
able to have that car to go to interviews to find a job.

                              {time}  1745

  You need to be able to pay for your phone so you can receive a phone 
call for these jobs. These are all reasons why we need to make sure 
those benefits are available for all too many people in this country.
  There is also what happens to the economy when you don't have these 
benefits in place. Just in the first week since Congress cut off long-
term unemployment, our local economies across America lost $400 million 
of potential economic activity, and that is going to grow every single 
week. So it is a double-whammy: not only the people who are desperately 
looking for work, trying to find that job, not able to find that job, 
but we are also going to have even more people be unemployed because of 
the overall impact that has on the economy.
  It has been said that 200,000 jobs would be lost in 2014, and we are 
going to decrease the gross domestic product simply by not doing these 
benefits. The bottom line is, there are so many reasons why we need to 
do this. Later, I am going to talk more about my State of Wisconsin and 
why it is important.
  I am joined by one of my colleagues here today who is actually the 
cochair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, Representative Raul 
Grijalva. Representative Grijalva has served in Congress for six terms. 
He is a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and he 
also serves on the Committee on Natural Resources, where he is the 
ranking member of the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental 
Regulation.
  He is a tremendous Member of Congress. He has been a mentor to many 
of us who are freshmen, who recently have joined, and is a very strong 
member of our Progressive Caucus, speaking on behalf of each and every 
American who needs opportunity. It is my pleasure to yield now to the 
gentleman from Arizona, Representative Grijalva.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Congressman, let me at the outset thank you for the 
opportunity to provide some clarity to the discussion and the lack of 
debate, many times, in this House about what is really important to the 
American people. That clarity is important to this whole Congress. It 
is important specifically to our Democrats and in particular to the 
Progressive Caucus, of which you are a member, and I want to thank you 
for that and for your efforts.
  The Federal Emergency Unemployment Compensation program expired on 
the 28th because of a lack of action on the part of the majority--the 
majority being the Republicans--cutting off an average weekly benefit 
of $300, as has been stated, to 1.3 million job seekers. Without that 
extension, another 72,000 Americans on average are estimated to lose 
their unemployment insurance every week during the first half of this 
new year.
  All economists agree that providing extended unemployment benefits is 
one of the most effective job creation strategies available during a 
high period of joblessness. In this period of economic uncertainty, 
every $1 of unemployment compensation creates 52 cents in additional 
economic activity beyond that dollar. The nonpartisan Congressional 
Budget Office estimates that extending benefits for another year will 
save 200,000 jobs.
  The failure by the Republicans to extend Federal unemployment 
insurance at the end of last week is already taking more than $400 
million out of the pockets of American job seekers nationwide and State 
economies.
  Unemployment insurance is viewed as a very effective stimulus because 
Americans without jobs tend to spend their unemployment insurance right 
away and on the very basic needs that they and their families need.
  Democrats have called on Congress to extend the Federal emergency 
unemployment insurance program through 2014. Congress must act soon to 
restore those necessary benefits to the unemployed workers and to their 
families.
  This economy still has 1 million fewer jobs than before the Great 
Recession began; 37 percent of the unemployed have been out of work for 
more than 6 months; almost 1.9 million more would lose their 
unemployment benefits in the first half of 2014, as their State 
benefits run out.
  In my State of Arizona, the failure by the GOP, the Republicans, to 
reinstate and extend the unemployment compensation benefits directly 
affected 17,100 unemployed workers in Arizona. An additional 22,500 
unemployed workers will lose their benefits in the first 6 months of 
2014 if this Congress does not act.
  Arizona has an average of an 8.3 percent unemployment rate throughout 
the State. There has been a 20 percent reduction in unemployment 
benefits to these workers since 2011. So we stand a chance, in Arizona, 
to save up to 2,000 jobs and reinstate for 17,000 people their 
unemployment benefits if this Congress were to act now.
  We are here today, with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan) 
managing this hour, to talk about the necessity and the urgency of the 
extension of unemployment benefits that has to be a priority for this 
Congress.
  For those willing workers and their families, it is an essential, 
essential act by this Congress. These workers should not be pawns in 
political gamesmanship or in gotcha strategies by the Republicans to 
try to, in effect, embarrass the President. That does not need to be 
part of this equation. As Mr. Pocan pointed out, this has been dealt 
with in a bipartisan manner. This renewal, regardless of who has been 
in the White House, has been a response to the needs of the American 
people and their workers. I also believe that people receiving 
unemployment should not be subjected to punitive, mean-spirited 
requirements in order to receive that support.
  We need action. We don't need posturing. We don't need empty 
preaching from the majority on extending unemployment benefits. That 
needs to be done and done immediately.
  As we talk about unemployment benefits and their extension, I also 
want to mention that we have to realize that

[[Page 339]]

there is not a subtle or overly covert agenda at work here by the 
majority. We see the nonaction on unemployment, a vital and necessary 
response that, in the past, has been met with bipartisan support. We 
now see cuts amounting to $20 billion in nutrition and basic sustenance 
support for people in need, the SNAP program in the farm bill. That 
cumulative effect of $20 billion will affect many, many families, 
children, and adults throughout this country.
  There is also a growing wage and income inequality and disparity in 
this country. That has been as a consequence of policies in which we 
reward those that are doing well--and God bless them, and they should 
do well, and we should be proud of them--we reward them with tax 
breaks, with loopholes, and with the ability to increase their income 
and their purchasing power while at the same time shifting the burden 
of responsibility for basic services in this country to hardworking, 
middle class people in this country. That income inequality is possibly 
one of the most dangerous economic realities that is happening to this 
Nation, and that, too, is an agenda that is going on and continues to 
go on in the policies and the initiatives that are being promoted by 
the majority party in this House.
  There is a huge need in this country for a livable minimum wage that 
pays people for the actual work that they do. We can't ignore the 
sequester cuts and how they have directly affected child care and the 
ability for parents, and particularly women, to be able to work and 
have some security that their children are being taken care of. The 
cuts in that area, in Head Start, in particular, are going to be 
devastating; early childhood education, the cuts in that area, and the 
freedom that it would provide parents to be able to feel secure about 
being at work while their children are learning and being taken care 
of.
  The cuts in job training and the ability for people to seek new 
careers and change the orientation of where they are working, that has 
been cut. Public education, an investment strategy that, in hard 
economic times, has been critical to our country, again, is being cut. 
Access and affordability of higher education, again, being cut.
  There has been no jobs bill. It was interesting to hear the Speaker 
of the House say the other day that it is the Democrats' fault that 
there is no jobs agenda that has been presented. There has been a jobs 
agenda presented over and over again by a variety of colleagues in this 
House, in the Senate, and by the administration. The inaction and them 
turning their face to that reality has been a consequence of the 
leadership in this House that has refused to deal with that.
  Unemployment benefits are part of a greater crisis, a crisis of 
economic fairness in this country, a crisis that demands that this 
Congress look beyond its own rhetoric and look at the reality.
  In my district, every time in our office people come in seeking help 
from us, and, invariably, the biggest request is, How can I find a job? 
How can I get trained for a new career? How can I get myself in a 
situation where I can go back to work and feel secure in taking care of 
and supporting my family? For single heads of households, it is the 
same issue.
  I would suggest that if we really want to deal with the economics and 
not just provide rhetoric about jobs that we look at the first 
necessary step: extend these unemployment benefits, provide some 
security and some sustainability to millions of workers in this 
country, and then move on to the real agenda, which is to provide some 
fairness to these workers and some opportunities to these workers.
  Again, Congressman Pocan, I appreciate the time and yield back.
  Mr. POCAN. Thank you, Congressman Grijalva, for so articulately 
outlining the austerity policy of the House Republican leadership and 
their stunning lack of ability to get anything done to help the 1.3 
million people who are out of work and the 72,000 Americans each and 
every week that are going to lose their benefits if this House doesn't 
act.
  It is now my pleasure to introduce a stalwart progressive in the U.S. 
Congress, the ranking member of the House Committee on Financial 
Services, as well as a member of the House Steering and Policy 
Committee. She is a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and 
was past chair of the Congressional Black Caucus. It is my honor to now 
yield to Representative Maxine Waters.
  Ms. WATERS. I would certainly like to thank the gentleman from 
Wisconsin, Representative Mark Pocan, for yielding to me, and I 
congratulate him for organizing this Congressional Progressive Caucus 
Special Order on unemployment insurance.
  Fifty years ago this weekend, in his the State of the Union address, 
President Lyndon B. Johnson declared a war on poverty. He introduced 
Federal legislation, even proposed State initiatives that would over 
time improve health, education, nutrition, and access to housing, 
employment, and economic opportunity.
  Although America has changed a great deal since that day, poverty and 
economic inequality are still at the forefront of our Nation's 
problems. They are only exacerbated by the Great Recession. The gap 
between the rich and poor in America has become a chasm. Today, 20 
percent of the income in our country goes to the top 1 percent of 
Americans, and the top 1 percent holds about 40 percent of the 
country's wealth. This inequality is mirrored in our communities, our 
housing and rental markets, and our financial system, where a lack of 
access to banking services often causes working families to have debts 
that spiral out of control.
  Mr. Speaker, inequality in this country has reached a point that for 
many, the American Dream of upward mobility and unlimited economic 
opportunity has been greatly diminished.
  The 2008 financial crisis cost our economy $12 trillion, as millions 
lost their homes and jobs. This destruction of wealth 
disproportionately hurt our Nation's most vulnerable and only widened 
the gap between the rich and the poor. Even the gains from growth 
during the recent recovery have overwhelmingly benefited the wealthiest 
people in society.
  Almost 95 percent of the income gains since the recovery began have 
been captured by the top 1 percent. Meanwhile, the minimum wage has not 
been increased since 2009. Mr. Speaker, this is totally unacceptable. 
Chronic unemployment and poverty still plague many of our communities. 
American families are still struggling to make ends meet. Four million 
Americans have been out of work for 27 weeks or more, and the economy 
still has 1 million fewer jobs than before the Great Recession began.

                              {time}  1800

  Those there are other factors at play. Much of this inequality is a 
result of some of the government policies that we make, and government 
policy can help reverse these alarming trends.
  But instead, our friends on the opposite side of the aisle are 
digging us deeper and deeper into this crisis. They passed the farm 
bill that cuts SNAP nutrition program for low-income families by $40 
billion, and then the Republicans let unemployment insurance for the 
long-term unemployment expire 3 days after Christmas.
  Already, 1.3 million unemployed Americans have lost their Federal 
unemployment insurance. That includes 20,000 military veterans. Each 
day this program sits expired, thousands of additional struggling 
Americans are adversely affected.
  As State benefits are exhausted in the first 6 months of 2014, an 
additional 1.9 million Americans will lose their unemployment 
insurance. In fact, every week another 72,000 job-seekers will lose 
their benefits during the first half of this year.
  Mr. Speaker, unemployment insurance is critical to struggling 
families. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 
unemployment insurance kept 2.5 million people above the poverty line 
in 2012, including 600,000 children.
  Unemployment insurance is good for the economy. According to Moody's 
Analytics, every dollar of unemployment insurance generates $1.55 in 
new

[[Page 340]]

economic activity in the first year. The bipartisan Congressional 
Budget Office estimates that 200,000 jobs could be lost in our economy 
if unemployment insurance is not extended.
  We must act and act immediately to extend unemployment insurance. So 
I call on my Republican colleagues to bring the Emergency Unemployment 
Compensation Extension Act, that is H.R. 3824, to the House floor and 
pass it now.
  With one in five American children living in poverty, it is clear 
that the war on poverty has gone on for far too long. Let's take action 
now to have all Americans share in our Nation's growth and prosperity. 
Let's bring an unemployment extension bill to the floor, and let's 
bring it now. Let's bring a substantive jobs bill to the floor now, and 
let's bring a minimum wage increase to the floor now. American families 
have suffered enough. It is time to restore the American Dream.
  As I wrap up, let me just say this on behalf of the American people. 
I hear these arguments every day from the opposite side of the aisle 
saying if you can continue to extend these unemployment benefits, you 
are simply going to undermine the will for people to go to work. What 
you are going to do is make them comfortable on these unemployment 
benefits, and they won't go look for a job.
  Well, I want to tell you I have not talked to everyone whose on 
unemployment or who needs extended benefits; but I can tell you this, 
American folks want jobs, they want to work, they want to earn a decent 
living, they want to earn wages to take care of their families and 
their children. Their aspirations and their goals are the same as yours 
and mine. They want what America has promised.
  I would say to those who would continue this argument, don't 
disrespect the American people that way. Don't undermine the American 
people that way. Do what you know is right, what makes good sense, and 
let us help out those who are the most vulnerable, who need us now at 
this time so that they can continue to look for jobs, so that they 
continue to aspire to have the American Dream, and I thank you very 
much.
  Mr. POCAN. Thank you so much, Representative Waters. Your efforts 
over the years have been so appreciated by so many, and I hope the 
House Republican leadership will listen to your pleas and bring this to 
a vote.
  It is now my honor to introduce one of my fellow freshmen who has 
rapidly been recognized not only for his hard work and effort, but for 
his skills, and his work on behalf so many across this country. I would 
like to yield some time to my colleague Representative Jeffries.
  Mr. JEFFRIES. I thank the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin, the 
Badger State, for his continued leadership, and each and every week 
when we are in session coming to the floor of the House of 
Representatives and articulating the progressive message for all to 
hear and for the good of the country. I appreciate you yielding some 
time during this Congressional Progressive Caucus Special Order.
  This month we marked the 50th anniversary of the declaration of the 
war on poverty. We know that on January 8, 1964, President Lyndon 
Baines Johnson came to this very Chamber, spoke to a joint session of 
Congress, and laid out a series of initiatives designed to combat 
chronic poverty in this country.
  As a result of this effort, there were many legislative battles that 
were won: in the march toward the creation of a Great Society, 
Medicare, Medicaid, Head Start, school breakfast program, the Food 
Stamp Act, minimum wage enhancement, Job Corps, college work study. 
These were programs all part of that Great Society era enacted between 
1964 and 1966; and taken together with other war on poverty 
initiatives, they managed to rescue millions and millions of Americans 
from their impoverished condition and set them on a pathway toward the 
middle class.
  Over the years, we have attempted to continue that war on poverty 
with great success such that the situation in America now is better 
than it was in 1964; yet we know that the war continues. Instead, it 
seems like as opposed to waging a war on poverty here in this Chamber, 
many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have decided to 
embark on a war against the poor, a war against middle class families 
and senior citizens, those who are striving to realize the full 
potential of the American Dream. And that's why we are also so troubled 
by the failure to extend long-term unemployment benefits.
  Now, I arrived in this Chamber feeling as if I was prepared for the 
experience, given the professional and educational legislative 
experiences that I had had in advance of January 3, 2013. And it has 
been my honor and my privilege to work with such a tremendous class of 
freshmen.
  I have been troubled over the last year by the fact that I appeared 
deficient in one area, and that is in my failure to have any meaningful 
experience in the art of hostage negotiation. But from the very 
beginning that I set forth in this Chamber, it seemed as if those 
skills were necessary in this climate.
  In January of 2013, we had to wait more than 75 days before this 
House would pass a Superstorm Sandy relief package, unprecedented in 
the history of this Congress' response to a natural disaster because 
there were some who put forth a ransom note, demanding offsets, even 
though never had that happened in the history of the Republic.
  Then several months later, in the run-up to October 1, you had an 
Affordable Care Act law passed by this Congress in 2010, signed by the 
President, declared constitutional by the Supreme Court in an opinion 
parenthetically written by Chief Justice John Roberts, and then 
reaffirmed with the overwhelming electoral college election of the 
President in 2012. Notwithstanding any of that, you had folks demanding 
an exchange for keeping the government open: that we either delay, 
destroy, or defund the Affordable Care Act. Again, a ransom note 
exercise.
  Here we are, 1 year removed from my inaugural experience around the 
Superstorm Sandy debacle back again facing an almost unprecedented 
situation where the majority has said, in exchange for us renewing 
long-term unemployment benefits for Americans that reasonable people 
should conclude are in need, not only do we want a pay-for, almost 
unprecedented, the last 17 times that this has been extended, but we 
have got a whole list of ransom demands that we want enacted in order 
for us to rescue these Americans who are in distress.
  I am just hopeful, Mr. Speaker, that we can get together subsequent 
to the United States Senate which has signaled and indicated its 
willingness to move forward, see to it that it shouldn't be the case 
that in exchange for taking a positive step forward in this 
institution, we always have to take two steps backward.
  The positive step would simply be to renew the provision of 
unemployment benefits for the long term, individuals who have been 
working hard to find a job, and then coming together to figure out 
collectively how we can all move forward in the best interest of this 
country and our economy. I am hopeful that that will take place in the 
next day or week, certainly within the month, and we will continue to 
press forward in that regard.
  With that, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for his continued 
leadership.
  Mr. POCAN. Thank you, Representative Jeffries, and thank you for 
articulating, I guess, what I have been feeling also for the last year, 
my lack of hostage-taking skills. I certainly learned some in the last 
12 months serving in this body.
  It is now my pleasure to yield some time to my colleague from 
California, Representative Lucille Roybal-Allard, who is the first 
Mexican American woman to be elected to Congress. She cofounded the 
bipartisan Congressional Study Committee on Public Health. She became 
the first woman to chair the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and serves 
as the chairwoman of their health care task force.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want to

[[Page 341]]

commend Congressman Pocan for his leadership and his hard work on this 
very, very important issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of 1.4 million Americans who lost 
their emergency unemployment insurance during the holiday season and 
the millions of Americans who stand to lose their benefits in 2014 if 
Congress fails to extend unemployment insurance.
  It is an insult to the American worker to oppose the extension of 
these benefits on the premise that emergency unemployment insurance 
provides a disincentive to work and that it makes unemployed Americans 
content to live off of the taxpayer-supported benefits.
  The reality is, Mr. Speaker, that Americans have a strong work ethic 
and are the best and most productive in the world. And the reality is 
that in spite of their efforts to find employment. There are still 1.3 
million fewer jobs today than there were when many of these Americans 
lost their jobs due to our country's economic downturn. It is 
unconscionable to punish those who lost their job through no fault of 
their own and continue to actively seek work.
  With nearly three job-seekers for every available position, American 
workers are unemployed not because they are not motivated to work, but 
because there are simply not enough jobs for everyone who needs one. 
This problem is magnified in my home State of California where there 
are 400,000 fewer jobs available today than there were 6 years ago.
  Unemployment benefits average $300 per week and replace less than 50 
percent of prior earnings. Yet these benefits can make the difference 
between homelessness and hunger. They are often the only means of 
keeping a roof over one's head and putting food on the family table. 
For example, in 2012, unemployment benefits kept an estimated 2.5 
million Americans, including 600,000 children, out of poverty.
  It is also worth noting that unemployment benefits do more than 
provide a critical lifeline for out-of-work Americans. It is estimated 
that each dollar of unemployment insurance generates $1.50 in new 
economic activity. This means our economy is losing $400 million every 
week Congress refuses to extend these benefits.
  The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office also estimates that the 
economy will lose 200,000 jobs if emergency unemployment insurance is 
not extended.
  Unemployment insurance is a moral imperative that will also keep our 
economic recovery moving in the right direction.
  Mr. Speaker, we are a country of hardworking Americans. We must not 
turn our backs on those who need this critical Federal assistance as 
they struggle to find work.

                              {time}  1815

  I strongly urge Speaker Boehner and Leader Cantor to schedule floor 
action on extending emergency unemployment insurance benefits without 
delay.
  Mr. POCAN. Thank you so much.
  It is so important to note that 37 percent of the people who receive 
these benefits have been searching for a job over 6 months, the very 
people who are going to be affected, 72,000 a week if this House 
doesn't act.
  I now yield to another colleague, someone who has been a stalwart 
member of the Progressive Caucus, is the senior whip for the Democratic 
Caucus, and she is currently a member of the Judiciary Committee and 
the Homeland Security Committee and a strong advocate for people who 
are trying to lift themselves out of poverty and find opportunity in 
America.
  It is my pleasure to yield to Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his kind 
leadership, because it is kind leadership, and I am very privileged to 
be very proudly a member of the Progressive Caucus, serving as the vice 
chair liaison on behalf of the Congressional Black Caucus to the 
Progressive Caucus and a member of the Executive Committee and have 
watched this caucus take on hard issues. First, of course, issues that 
dealt with the idea of minimum wage and the underpayment, if you will, 
of Federal contractors paying Federal employees who are contracted to 
them.
  We have understood the distinction of the 99ers versus the 1 percent 
and waged a strong battle to make sure that the 99 percent were heard. 
So today, I want to join the gentleman and say that time is running 
out. Just this week, as I indicated earlier today and the day before, 
those whose benefits were cut off on the 28th are receiving those 
notices or are receiving empty mailboxes just in time for the end of 
the month and the beginning of the monthly bills. Whether it is one's 
mortgage or rent, whether it is the utilities that one has to pay, 
whether it is care of one's elderly parent or children, I can assure 
you that the 1.3 million, 4,000 per week, 12,000 in Harris County, 
66,000 in the State of Texas, are now confronting some very difficult 
times.
  Now, I think it should be known that when we say the term 
``progressive,'' it is also a term that celebrates the greatness of 
America, its diversity, its opportunity and prosperity. I have not 
heard one of our members of the caucus in any way challenge prosperity, 
victory, or success. In fact, I am going to share with my colleagues 
what the Houston Chronicle put on the front page: ``Sales of million-
dollar homes snowball here.''
  That gives a false image of America, congratulating those citizens 
and families who are able because of the greatness of this Nation, 
because of the hard work of themselves and so many who contribute to 
the economy, because of the hard work of those who are now chronically 
unemployed or unemployed who contributed to society and want to 
contribute to society, they are able to be prosperous. It is good news 
for the real estate industry and my friends who are in that industry 
and good news for small businesses, but that clouds the issue and it 
allows people to falsely represent that all is well.
  The chronically unemployed number in the United States is higher than 
it has ever been. It is 2.6 percent, juxtaposed against a 7 percent 
unemployment rate. It varies across America.
  So I want to join the gentleman with a very loud, clarion voice, 
hopefully a voice of clarity, that you can have prosperity. We are a 
capitalistic society. There is good news in Houston. But at the same 
time, when I held an outreach press conference on December 31, fearing 
the worst, that there was a full house of people looking for work, 
people telling their stories of how long they looked for work, and the 
sadness of not being able to find work, and the faith community joining 
in and the social network community indicating they don't know how long 
they are going to last with this added number of individuals. Food 
banks, emergency food stamps and others, they didn't know how long they 
were going to last.
  It is imperative that we have, within these hours, movement by the 
other body, which we congratulate for making the first step. But I 
would like to say this should be an emergency, an emergency vote for a 
3-month extension and then the opportunity to go forward on a more 
deliberative analysis of how we can fund the rest of the time.
  So I would hope--we voted today. Democrats voted to extend the 
unemployment. I hope that the Progressive Caucus' voice will be heard. 
I thank the gentleman because I want the 1.3 million and growing number 
to be able to have the same dignity as those who can celebrate the 
purchase of a million-dollar home, which we don't in any way challenge, 
but we realize that there are people who simply want to be able to make 
that rental payment or mortgage payment. They can do it. Although they 
are making ends meet, they can do it if we recognize the importance of 
giving them that transitional bridge. Pass the unemployment insurance 
benefit now.
  Mr. POCAN. Thank you so much, Representative Jackson Lee. I think you 
clearly explained the dilemma we have.
  While the economy is slowly bouncing back--and this President has 
brought us from a 9.8 percent unemployment rate he inherited down to 7 
percent--and jobs are slowly being created, we still are noticing that 
there

[[Page 342]]

are still people being left behind. We have to recognize that as well.
  I believe Secretary Robert Reich wrote a piece that appeared today 
that explained that so well. Unfortunately, due to income inequality, 
the gap of the percentage of people who are poor, are working but still 
are not earning enough, we need to talk about that as well.
  I now yield to another one of my colleagues, one of my freshman 
colleagues who in fact has been elected by our Democratic class as the 
freshman class president. He serves on the House Committee on Oversight 
and Government Reform where he is the ranking member on the 
Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Job Creation and Regulatory Affairs, 
and is also on the Committee on Natural Resources. It is my honor to 
yield to Representative Matt Cartwright from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. I thank my valued and trusted colleague from 
Wisconsin for granting me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise as a Congressman from Pennsylvania, in fact, a 
Congressman from Scranton, Pennsylvania, the birthplace of Secretary 
Robert Reich, I might add, someone we are very proud of. And I am very 
proud myself to be a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, 
and I rise here to speak in support of a reasonable extension for UI 
benefits with no strings attached.
  I say ``no strings attached'' because every time we have extended 
long-term UI benefits, we have done so with no strings attached, no 
political wrangling, no arm wrestling. ``No strings attached'' means no 
conditions whatsoever. It is the right thing to do because you have to 
do it in a situation like this. In fact, five times during the George 
W. Bush administration, this Nation extended UI benefits on an 
emergency basis with no strings attached, and I see no reason why we 
have to depart from this American precedent today.
  I understand, Mr. Speaker, the importance of fiscal responsibility. 
It is not like there is only one party that understands fiscal 
responsibility. We get that on this side of the aisle, and we get that 
in the Congressional Progressive Caucus as well. But the question is of 
timing. We want to balance the budget. We want to pay down the national 
debt. We get why those things are important, and we know that UI 
benefits can't last forever.
  But the fact of the matter is it is an emergency now. As our dear 
friend, the gentlelady from Texas just styled it, it is an emergency 
now. The reason it is an emergency is the vast number of American 
citizens who are long-term unemployed. Mr. Speaker, 1.3 million on 
December 28 got cut off. In my own district in northeastern 
Pennsylvania, over 6,000 families got cut off on December 28, 3 days 
after Christmas.
  The fact of the matter is this is not American tradition. Since 1959, 
we have never ended long-term UI benefits at a time when so many 
Americans are long-term unemployed. The gentlelady from Houston just 
mentioned it is 2.6 percent long-term unemployed in this country right 
now. Every other time we have cut off long-term UI benefits, it has 
been at a time when the people who are long-term unemployed are way 
less of a percentage. I think the previous highest percentage was 1.3 
percent, in other words, half the percentage that we have now. Now is 
not the right time to cut off people from long-term UI benefits.
  Mr. Speaker, these are real people we are talking about. Before my 
voice entirely gives out, I want to read to you a letter I got from a 
lady named Carol Blankenhorn from Schuylkill Haven in Schuylkill 
County, Pennsylvania, which I proudly represent. Carol writes:

       I am writing because I am a single unemployed mother that 
     does not get any child support and have been supporting 
     myself and my son up until my territory at my job was 
     dissolved. I have been very diligent in my job search, but to 
     no avail. I believed that at least I had 26 weeks of standard 
     benefits, but the emergency extension is so crucial to me and 
     others because of the poor economy and the lack of jobs. I 
     have now received a notice of exhaustion for benefits in 3 
     weeks, and I am devastated. I am not one of those people that 
     are sitting back collecting. I couldn't live with myself. But 
     now as I sit and look at my son 1 week before Christmas, I am 
     beside myself and have no idea how I am to survive. I am 
     urging you to please extend and renew emergency Federal 
     extended unemployment benefits. In closing, I would ask you 
     to please respond to me of your views and intentions on this 
     very important issue.

  That was Carol Blankenhorn, a real person from Schuylkill Haven, 
Pennsylvania. These are real people we are talking about. Leaving aside 
the damage to the economy of stopping UI benefits at this point, 
leaving aside all of the economic realities that favor extending UI 
benefits, remember above all, we are talking about real people and real 
families; and that alone, in the dead of winter, is a great argument 
not to cut people off UI benefits at a time when it is next to 
impossible to find another job.
  I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. POCAN. Thank you so much, Representative Cartwright, for not only 
your long-time advocacy on behalf of so many people, but for sharing 
the personal stories, because I think that is what matters the most.
  Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rothfus). The gentleman has 7 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. POCAN. I have all sorts of stories that I would read but I don't 
have time to from construction workers who are out of work and need 
these benefits, from machinists who are out of work, a surgical nurse 
in Baraboo, Wisconsin. There are so many people who need these 
benefits, and the very stories that Representative Cartwright shared, I 
just have pages of these stories of people across the country who need 
these benefits to continue to get by while they are looking for work. 
They are not lazy. They are not sitting back. They want to work. And in 
this economy, they are doing everything they can to try to, but the 
economy is not ready for some of these people and we have to do 
everything we can.
  I do want to read one story. I had an opportunity this afternoon to 
meet with a constituent from Reedsburg, Wisconsin. She was recently the 
winner of Half in Ten's Our American Story: 50th Anniversary of the War 
on Poverty Storytelling Contest. Her name is Amy Treptow. She was here 
with her daughter, Anna. She has benefited from programs that we have 
put together for people who are lower income. I will read her words:

       I have always worked hard and played by the rules, but I 
     was still living on the brink of poverty. My story is the 
     story of millions in today's economy in which there aren't 
     enough jobs and/or adequate training for the ones that are 
     available. The basic need for more good jobs and training 
     programs seems to be overlooked in today's conversation about 
     poverty.
       I am a veteran and a divorced mother with two children. I 
     went to school to become an elementary schoolteacher but 
     wasn't able to find full-time employment, so I enrolled in a 
     skills enhancement program at my local community action 
     agency in Wisconsin. The program assists low-income adults 
     that are working a minimum of 20 hours per week to gain job 
     skills in order to be able to have a job that pays a living 
     wage with health benefits.

                              {time}  1830

       I was working as a contract teacher making $15,184 a year, 
     which is far below the poverty line for a family of three. 
     Once I enrolled in the program, I started to take coursework 
     to get certified as a reading specialist. The program helped 
     me with the tuition and other school expenses and provided me 
     with case management services. I was also living in section 8 
     housing and received housing counseling, as well as 
     participating in the agency's Family Self-Sufficiency 
     Program. I am now a full-time employee with benefits as a 
     reading specialist instructor helping low-income children, 
     along with two other jobs, and I now own my own home.

  And she goes on.
  By providing these safety nets, the very safety nets that we 
celebrated yesterday on the 50-year anniversary of the war on poverty, 
we have helped someone like Amy and her family lift themselves out of 
poverty, but we have to do that right now in helping others.
  I would like to, at this point, yield some time to my colleague from 
Illinois, someone who has been a mentor to me my entire career in the 
legislature, and so glad to serve with her now in Congress, a very 
staunch Progressive, Representative Jan Schakowsky from the State of 
Illinois.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded not to traffic the

[[Page 343]]

well while another Member is under recognition.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. If that referred to me, I apologize.
  Thank you very much for organizing this hour for the Progressive 
Caucus.
  Mr. Speaker, we are talking about human issues that really don't lend 
themselves to any kind of political label. We are talking about people. 
And I think this is what has hurt me so much is the meanness, the 
meanness.
  I just celebrated my 15th year here in the House of Representatives, 
and I have to tell you that we have disagreed across the aisle on a lot 
of different things, but the demonization of people who are struggling 
just to live a decent life. We are talking about people when we talk 
about the unemployed who aren't looking for the huge fancy job. They 
want to make enough to be able to raise their children comfortably, to 
be able to eat, put a roof over their head, just modest things that add 
up to a decent life.
  Aside from all the arguments on why it is really dumb economically to 
not extend those unemployment benefits, that it will actually cost us 
jobs, 250,000--I don't know what the estimate is--if we don't put money 
in people's pockets that they can go out and spend, why would things 
that used to have a bipartisan consensus not prevail today?
  In 1959, 1962, 1973, 1977, 1985, 1994, and 2003, we extended 
unemployment insurance benefits until the level of long-term 
unemployment--those are people unemployed over 6 months--fell below 1.5 
percent. Today that is 2.6 percent of Americans. That is over 1 million 
Americans.
  What are we doing? Who are we? That is what I asked myself around the 
holidays. We had a lot of cold weather and snow--typical Chicago in 
some ways--and people are celebrating and still going out and shopping 
and Christmas lights and Christmas trees. I was picturing--I know some 
of those families for whom this was so bleak and so unnecessary--that 
we could have, in 5 minutes before we left here, just extended those 
unemployment insurance benefits.
  And you've got that sign there that says: Each week that we fail to 
act, 72,000 more people--that is a pretty hefty small town of people--
will lose their benefits, people who only are qualified for those 
benefits if they are seeking work, three people searching for every job 
that is available in this country.
  You talked to people who have experienced this ultimate sense of 
insecurity: What is going to happen to me and my family? What I hear at 
the end of that story when I talk to people is: I don't know what I am 
going to do. I don't know what I am going to do.
  For many people, the fear of homelessness is just right outside their 
door right now. I don't get it.
  We celebrated the--and I mean celebrated--the 50th anniversary of the 
announcement of the war on poverty and all the things that we did and 
that were supported for many years.
  Thank you.
  Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.

                          ____________________




             HEALTH EXCHANGE SECURITY AND TRANSPARENCY ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2013, the Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Missouri 
(Mrs. Wagner) for 30 minutes.


                             General Leave

  Mrs. WAGNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous materials on the subject of my Special Order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Missouri?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. WAGNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Health 
Exchange Security and Transparency Act, a bill that forces the Federal 
Government to notify individuals if their personal information has been 
stolen or unlawfully accessed through an ObamaCare exchange.
  Since the disastrous rollout of ObamaCare on October 1, we have heard 
story after story, Mr. Speaker, of security threats and privacy 
concerns with the troubled ObamaCare insurance exchanges, from the 
chief information officer at CMS claiming that ``there is also no 
confidence that personable identifiable information will be 
protected,'' to an administrator at CMS saying that the ObamaCare Web 
site ``exposed a level of uncertainty that can be deemed as high 
risk,'' to a computer security expert calling the ObamaCare Web site 
``a hacker's dream.''
  It is clear that the ObamaCare exchanges were never ready to be 
launched, and it is unconscionable that this administration would 
expose millions of Americans' personal information to cyber threats and 
identity theft.
  To make matters worse, there are laws already implemented that 
require private companies to notify innocent victims of these security 
breaches. But President Obama didn't think it was necessary to live by 
the same rules as the private sector and decided to push his failed 
agenda despite senior government officials warning him that his Web 
site was not safe for the American people.
  Every day, Mr. Speaker, I hear from far too many hardworking families 
in Missouri's Second District who have seen their premiums skyrocket, 
wages decreased, insurance coverage canceled of late, and hours cut 
back at work. These families are already suffering from the harsh 
realities of ObamaCare. To make matters worse, they have no idea 
whether their personal information has been stolen or not.
  Just recently, Mary Ann Schaeffer wrote to me from Kirkwood, 
Missouri, about how worried she is that her most intimate information 
could be stolen from the ObamaCare exchanges. And I quote from Mary Ann 
Schaeffer of Kirkwood, Missouri: ``I am concerned about the security of 
my sensitive medical records in a big government database.'' Mary Ann 
is just one of the many people I hear from in the St. Louis region that 
are worried about the devastating consequences of ObamaCare.
  The only way to truly protect the American people from ObamaCare is 
by replacing it with free market-based solutions that expand access 
without destroying our economy, putting the Federal Government between 
you and your doctor, and lowering the quality of our care. The Federal 
Government, Mr. Speaker, should, at the very least, be required to 
report any security breaches on the ObamaCare Web site to those 
innocent victims who, through no fault of their own, trusted a 
government that deceived them.
  Since President Obama decided to delay the implementation of 
ObamaCare for unions and businesses for an entire year, don't you think 
the least he could do is tell hardworking Americans if their personal 
information has been stolen or breached?
  Mr. Speaker, the simple truth is: ObamaCare is wrong for the American 
people, it is wrong for hardworking Missourians, and it is wrong for 
the people of Missouri's Second Congressional District, and it needs to 
be replaced immediately before any more of its harmful provisions are 
implemented.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes,'' a resounding ``yes,'' on this 
commonsense measure.
  I would now, Mr. Speaker, yield to my good friend, the gentlelady 
from Tennessee, Representative Diane Black, who has not only spent 
countless hours championing the Health Exchange Security and 
Transparency Act, but who has tirelessly worked to improve our Nation's 
health care as a small business woman and a nurse in Tennessee and now 
as a Member of Congress.
  Mrs. BLACK. I thank the gentlelady from Missouri, my friend and my 
colleague.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Health Exchange Security 
and Transparency Act, which would provide basic protections on the 
healthcare.gov Web site to help Americans protect themselves from fraud 
and abuse. Unfortunately, we live in a time where

[[Page 344]]

cyber threats are rampant, and we must do what we can to make sure that 
Americans are protected from these threats.
  John Fund at National Review recently wrote this:

       Christmas shoppers were stunned to learn that computer 
     hackers had made off with the names and other personal 
     information of some 40 million Target customers.
       But at least Target informed its customers of the security 
     breach, as it is required by law. Healthcare.gov faces no 
     such requirement--it need never notify customers that their 
     personal information has been hacked or possibly compromised.

  What makes this even worse is that the Department of Health and Human 
Services was asked to include notification provisions in the final 
rules for ObamaCare and they declined. Because of this decision on the 
part of HHS, millions of Americans' names, addresses, phone numbers, 
dates of birth, email addresses, and even Social Security numbers are 
at risk; and if they are breached by the government, they would never 
have to tell them.
  Consider that as Americans who seek health care insurance sign onto 
the Federal exchange, they are inserting their personal information 
into a Web site that has never had a full end-to-end security test. In 
fact, CMS's Chief Information Security Officer, Theresa Fryer, stated 
in a draft memo that the Federal exchange ``does not reasonably meet 
security requirements'' and that ``there is no confidence that personal 
identifiable information will be protected.''
  Even worse, experts at the credit agency Experian recently warned 
that the ``health care industry by far will be the most susceptible to 
publicly disclosed and widely scrutinized data breaches in 2014.''
  So Experian says that it is the health care that stands the greatest 
risk. This prediction was based in part on reports of security risks 
posed by the healthcare.gov Web site since the health care law's 
infrastructure was put together too quickly and haphazardly.
  Mr. Speaker, this Web site was never ready to go on October 1. The 
very least we can do is to require that the Federal Government notify 
someone if their personal information has been hacked. That way, at the 
very least, they have a chance to fend off identity theft and cyber 
attacks and hopefully avoid another nightmare scenario like the one we 
saw that happened to Target shoppers.
  I urge my colleagues in the House to support this bill and for our 
colleagues in the Senate to swiftly send it to the President's desk.

                              {time}  1845

  Mrs. WAGNER. I thank the gentlelady from Tennessee, Representative 
Diane Black, for her supreme leadership in this area. This is her bill. 
This is her piece of legislation. It has been something she has worked 
on tirelessly for years and has seen its exposure in both the private 
sector and now, unfortunately, at the Federal Government level. So I 
thank her for her leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to my good friend, Representative 
Richard Hudson. I thank him very much. He is a freshman Member and a 
dear friend and colleague, a leader in our freshman class. I thank him, 
not only for his work on the Homeland Security and Agriculture 
Committees, but also for the work that he has done in dealing with 
health care on the Education and the Workforce Committee.
  It is now my pleasure to yield to the gentleman from North Carolina, 
Mr. Richard Hudson.
  Mr. HUDSON. I thank the gentlelady.
  Mr. Speaker, I will tell you that my colleague from Missouri has been 
a true leader in Congress.
  It is a real honor to serve with you, and I thank you for your 
leadership, particularly on this important issue.
  ObamaCare is an absolute disaster. We have seen disastrous impacts 
back home in North Carolina with the loss of jobs. I talk to folks 
every day when I go home. I go home every weekend. I travel the 
district. I talk to businesses, and folks tell me that they have never 
sat on more capital. The reason they are doing that is that they don't 
know what the costs of health care are going to be. So we have got 
businesses out there that could be expanding, that could be hiring 
people, but because of this health care law--because of the uncertainty 
created by it, because of the rising costs--we have got businesspeople 
who are not hiring. That is why we are not seeing job growth like we 
ought to see. That is why this is the flattest, longest recession we 
have seen in our country's history.
  This awful health care law is also destroying the greatest health 
care system in the world. We are seeing premiums increase. I get 
letters and emails every day from my constituents who tell me their 
premiums have gone up. I talked to a woman the other day who is working 
three jobs. Her husband is working part-time because he can't find 
full-time work, but she is working three jobs just so she can pay for 
health care. That was before the premium increase.
  Mr. Speaker, we have seen so many folks who have had their plans 
canceled. It has been said that the lie of the century is that, if you 
like your health care, you can keep it. People are seeing their health 
care plans canceled, and it is going to get worse because, when 
businesses have to start looking at whether they can afford to keep 
folks on their health care or not--whether the math adds up for them, 
whether they can afford to do that given all the new, excessive 
mandates--we are going to see more people lose their insurance. It is 
an absolute disaster.
  I am committed to doing everything I can to repeal this law and 
replace it because, at the end of the day, this is about people, and in 
this country--the greatest country in the history of the world--we can 
do better than this. We can offer health care that is the world's best 
quality health care at a price that people can afford, and we can put 
people in charge of their health care decisions, not bureaucrats in 
Washington like this awful law does, so I am committed to repealing 
this law.
  In the meantime, I urge my colleagues to support the bill that is 
coming to the floor tomorrow, a bill that deals with one of the 
disastrous aspects of this law that I haven't mentioned yet, and that 
is the risk to millions of Americans that their personal information 
can be divulged--can be stolen--because of the lack of security on the 
ObamaCare Web site. This is a horrendous problem. Million of Americans 
are at risk, and there is no accountability. So what we are asking for 
is to put that accountability in place, that if people's personal 
information is lost, those folks have to be notified.
  The Federal Government thinks that businesses should live by that 
standard. The Federal Government says that States that have set up 
their exchanges should live by that standard. I say that the Federal 
Government ought to live by the same standard. If that personal 
information is compromised, then the individual should be notified, and 
the government should take responsibility and rectify the situation.
  This is simple, commonsense legislation that I hope my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle, I hope our colleagues in the other body, and I 
hope our President will support. We owe it to the American people to do 
the right thing--to make sure their information is secure. If something 
happens, God forbid, we must do the right thing and notify those 
individuals. We rectify the situation. We take responsibility for it.
  So I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. It is the right 
thing to do by the American people. I urge them to vote ``yes'' 
tomorrow.
  Mrs. WAGNER. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina, 
Representative Richard Hudson, for his leadership in this area and for 
giving voice to not just the Health Exchange Security and Transparency 
Act but to the jobs issue. Certainly, what ObamaCare has done is create 
nothing but a part-time workforce. This is about access to care. It is 
about cost. It is about millions of Americans who have lost their 
coverage. It is about the deception of the American people. It is about 
a government bureaucracy--a Federal bureaucracy--telling the American 
people what is in their best interest.

[[Page 345]]

  You, the American people--your constituents, Congressman Hudson--know 
what is in their best interests when it comes to their health care and 
their most intimate details, whether it has to do with their personal 
medical records and information or whether it has to do with their 
costs, their coverage, their premiums, their copays. There is so much 
that must be repealed and replaced in this law. At the very least, what 
the Federal Government can do is to protect the integrity of their most 
private and personal information.
  I thank the gentleman from North Carolina.
  It is now my great privilege to yield to my good friend, 
Representative James Lankford from Oklahoma. He is our leader and our 
chairman on the Republican Policy Committee, and he is a friend and a 
colleague at the leadership table. I thank him most especially for the 
work that he does on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, 
which is, Mr. Speaker, monitoring the implementation of healthcare.gov 
and of the Affordable Care Act.
  I am now pleased to yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. James 
Lankford.
  Mr. LANKFORD. I thank the gentlelady.
  Mr. Speaker, thank you for your oversight of this evening. The 
gentlelady and I do not agree at all on football, she being from 
Missouri and my being an Oklahoma State fan, but we do agree on this. 
This is a critical area, and it gets to the basic element of what we do 
as a Nation and what a government is supposed to do.
  A government is designed to protect and to serve the people. The 
people don't serve the government. The government serves the people. 
The government is set to allow people to be able to live their lives as 
they choose. Then along comes the Affordable Care Act, where the 
government looks down at the people, literally, and says, ``I am going 
to make better decisions for you. Instead of your choosing your doctor, 
instead of your choosing your hospital, instead of your choosing your 
insurance, I am going to pick a group of insurance policies and 
hospitals and doctors I like as the government, and you get to pick 
from my list.'' It removes those choices from individuals to then set 
up a Web site and say, ``You are required to go on this Web site and 
enter your information on this Web site.''
  Now, Mr. Speaker, I don't know how you handle shopping online, but 
when I shop online, I am careful of what Web sites I go to. I want to 
make sure there are security protocols and there is some backing to 
that so I am not entering information onto some site where I don't know 
how the security is handled. But this one is different. On this one, 
the power of the Federal Government is coming down on an individual to 
say, ``I don't care what you think about the security of this site. 
Enter your information there, and not only enter your information 
there, enter your children's information there.''
  Chief Information Security Officer Teresa Fryer, she is the one who 
was set to be able to sign off on the security protocols for the Web 
site when it was to be launched, but in September, she refused to sign 
off and to put her name onto the exchanges and the data hub and say 
that it was ready to go and that the security was there. In fact, her 
statement was that there was a high risk of security and that there had 
been no end-to-end testing of this site, and she refused to sign off on 
the security. This is the chief information security officer who was 
assigned to oversee that for the government. Instead, it was pushed up 
to Marilyn Tavenner, the Director of CMS, to have to make the signoff 
because the person under her refused to do it.
  Should Americans be concerned in entering their information? 
Absolutely, they should be concerned in entering their information 
because there is still no certification that this is fully tested, 
fully approved and that there are not serious vulnerabilities.
  In the first week that the site was launched, the Federal Government 
brought in what is called a ``white hacker,'' someone who is going to 
come in and test the system, try to hack into the system. Were they 
successful? Absolutely, they were successful. They found multiple 
vulnerabilities in the site, itself, and then reported it back to CMS. 
There are a lot of security vulnerabilities there.
  Is this an issue? Yes, but as ironic as all that is, a government 
that is set up to serve the people is actually trying to protect itself 
and not report when there is a problem.
  You see, when Target had 40 million credit cards stolen in a very 
rare incident for a retailer like that--my family's being one of 
those--we were all notified. We were told, ``You are at risk. Here is 
what has occurred, so go change your credit card. Go protect your 
identity,'' because Target has the responsibility to protect us and to 
be able to let us know you have got a risk.
  The Federal Government right now is saying, ``If someone breaks into 
our system, we have the responsibility to protect the Federal 
Government and not to let anyone know,'' instead of protecting the 
individual. That is government on its head. Government is designed to 
serve and protect the people, not to have them say, ``I can't tell you 
that information because it will look bad for the Federal Government.'' 
No.
  This bill does a basic thing. It says the people are more important 
than the program that the government has set up--the people are--and 
that if their information has been stolen, if there has been a 
compromise to that information, they should be informed of that so that 
they can take the steps that are necessary to make sure they and their 
children who they have entered on their site have their information 
protected in the days ahead.
  This is the right thing to do. This is not some blanket partisan 
issue. We would want this in every aspect of every Web site that the 
Federal Government has, whether that be IRS information, whether that 
be ObamaCare information, whether that be information on an EPA 
computer. If it is compromised, that citizen should know so steps can 
be taken to be able to protect himself. It is a reasonable protection 
for the American people. That is why I think this is a reasonable thing 
to be able to do. Quite frankly, we believe that the Affordable Care 
Act will be completely repealed and that the American people will have 
the ability to choose for themselves again rather than have the Federal 
Government say we are going to make choices for you. Until that day 
comes, it is a reasonable thing to at least begin with this.
  With that, I thank the gentlelady from Missouri. Again, I can't root 
for your football team, but I can stand with you on this issue.
  Mrs. WAGNER. I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from 
Oklahoma, who is a good friend and leader.
  We won't debate the outcome of the Cotton Bowl here in the well of 
the floor today--that will stand on its own merit--but I do appreciate 
his leadership on this very important health care issue. I appreciate 
his leadership on the Republican Policy Committee for our party and the 
work that he does tirelessly to communicate those in a way that is 
about serving the people, which is, at the end of the day, why we are 
here.
  Government should be here to serve the people, and we have not put 
the proper protections in place. What is good enough for the private 
sector and the States ought to be more than good enough for the Federal 
Government. Certainly, the American people are worthy of these kinds of 
protections.
  While I will say over and over again that ObamaCare is wrong for the 
American people--that it is wrong for hardworking Missourians and that 
it is certainly wrong for the people of the Second District--and that 
it needs to be replaced immediately before any more harmful provisions 
are implemented, at the very least, what the government can do is 
require that we report any security breaches on the ObamaCare Web site 
to these innocent victims who, through no fault of their own, trusted a 
government that has once again potentially deceived them.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues again to vote ``yes'' on this 
commonsense measure. Tomorrow, let's all stand for the American people

[[Page 346]]

and in service to them rather than as a government that is not telling 
them what is best for them but is truly serving their interests and 
serving their needs. Please, stand and vote ``yes'' on the Health 
Exchange Security and Transparency Act.
  Mr. Speaker, with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________




                         FINDING COMMON GROUND

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2013, the Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson Lee) for 30 minutes.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me thank the Speaker for his courtesies and the 
leader for her courtesies for the opportunity to share on the floor of 
the House.
  Mr. Speaker, I would offer to say to my colleagues who spoke earlier 
that we all recognize that the Affordable Care Act has generated 
opportunities for 9 million Americans, and it is growing. Let's find 
common ground. We have a law that is legal and affirmed by the United 
States Supreme Court, but it is affirmed by what is most important: 
hungry Americans needing good health care to save their lives and the 
lives of their families.

                              {time}  1900

  Frankly, I believe that there needs to be security for all of the Web 
sites of Federal agencies, rather than have bills that appear to be 
attacking the Affordable Care Act again, after 46 attempts to repeal 
it. Let's find a way that we can work together to secure extensively 
the entire Web sites carefully that are utilized by the Federal 
Government.
  But I have the opportunity and I want to cover, Mr. Speaker, an array 
of issues that I think are important as we begin this new year. I do 
want to wish everyone a happy new year. But as I do so, since I come 
from Houston, and have been a member of the House Science Committee for 
12 years before moving to Homeland Security, I want to congratulate 
NASA and the White House.
  First, NASA, for the miraculous and unbelievable space walk just 
about a week or so ago by two outstanding astronauts. Space walks are 
not often done. They are much more difficult--in fact, extremely 
difficult--than one might imagine, as you watched what seemed to be a 
beautiful effort of activity in space.
  I want to congratulate them. That is science. That is genius. That is 
what these astronauts trained for. They are our neighbors. I was with 
them over the holiday. I want them to know on the floor of the House 
that this was outstanding work.
  I want to congratulate the White House because, as many of us have 
advocated over the years, my colleague who is no longer in the House, 
Congressman Nick Lampson, and myself signed many letters to extend the 
life of the space station. I am very pleased that it is now to extend 
the space station for 4 years. I am optimistic when that 4 years is 
nearing, there will be another assessment that there is more life in 
the international space station--opportunity for major research, 
including, when I was on the Science Committee, cancer research in 
particular, heart disease, stroke, aging. Our former Senator, John 
Glenn, took a second ride into space as a member of the United States 
Senate to test space travel on those who are aging.
  Congratulations to NASA and the international space station. It 
speaks to the genius of America. It speaks to the aspirations and hopes 
of children around the world. It focuses on the emphasis in the United 
States on science, technology, engineering, and math, or STEM. Teachers 
continue to emphasize to our children the importance of those 
disciplines, and it gives us great hope.
  And that is a lot of what I will talk about tonight: hope. For when 
we think of hope, we must have a broad definition that it includes all 
Americans. In fact, I believe from the very moment of the dumping of 
the tea in the Boston Harbor, the Founding Fathers of this Nation, in 
spite of all of the possible inequities like the holding of slaves, had 
hope. They left their places of persecution because they had hope.
  And we have grown through the ages, from the 1600s, 1700s, 1800s, 
1900s, the 20th century, and the 21st century. It has all been around 
hope. We were hopeful the turn of the century, even as World War I was 
flaring. We were hopeful even as the 1928-1929 collapse was happening. 
We were hopeful even with the horrific, heinous acts of World War II, 
with the interment and the Holocaust. But people were hoping that we 
would save people and get out of the dastardliness of that.
  We were hopeful in the fifties. We as African Americans were hopeful 
as we marched in the 1950s and 1960s. We were hopeful with the Thurgood 
Marshall argument before the United States Supreme Court on Brown v. 
Board of Education. We were hopeful.
  Now we come to a situation of wealth inequality. We must assure those 
who fall in that gap of where they are not where they should be, 
through no fault of their own, but because of this increasing gap.
  For example, the wages of those in the top 1 percent--those making 
$352,900-plus--their income grew 281 percent from 1979 to 2007. For the 
bottom 20 percent, their income grew 16 percent, those making less than 
$20,000. For those making $34,000, it grew 23 percent. For those making 
$34,000 to $50,000, 25 percent.
  There is wealth inequality in this Nation.
  Some would argue some of that is inherited wealth, some of that is 
capital gains, some of that is stock revenue. It is wealth inequality.
  I am moved by the words of Justice Brandeis:

       We can either have democracy in this country, or we can 
     have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we 
     can't have both.

  That is not snatching wealth from someone who has worked hard. It is 
to even up the opportunity for that gap--281 percent growth for the 1 
percent, and numbers like 23 and 25 and 38 percent for the working 
middle class. We need to do better.
  And so I think we need to start by stop quarreling about the 
unemployment benefits extension. We did it under President Bush, with 
no offsets, and, as well, for about 5 years with President Bush even 
acknowledging that when people work and invest in this Nation and they 
fall on bad times, give them a transitional bridge.
  Some would say our unemployment is going down. My friends, on the 
chronically unemployed, it is the highest it has ever been, at 2.6 
percent. Now that is growing to 1.3 million in 2013. It will go up to 
3.64 million.
  So I am not asking for the whole piece. I had a bill that said 1 
year. Let's extend it for 3 months on an emergency basis and then begin 
to discuss how we can fund it.
  There are 68,000 jobless workers that are in Texas, and we expect 
that as it grows in 2014 to 1.9 million and more--as I said 3.6 million 
and growing--it will be 106,900 Texans.
  I have spoken to some of those Texans, and I have heard the stories 
of a welder who liked his job, was laid off, through no fault of his 
own, and needs this transitional funding so that he can be presentable 
for a job. Or a person in technology, administrative assistant, or 
somebody who worked in home health.
  I believe that we have a legitimate basis for the creation of 200,000 
jobs--a real dent in the economy and an acknowledgment that the 
unemployment rate in the United States in 2012 was 8.1 percent. States 
range from 3.1 percent, to Texas, which is 6.8 percent. Missouri is 6.9 
percent. We have 5 percent and 5.7 percent. We have 7 percent in 
Alaska. Delaware is 7.1 percent. It goes all over the gamut. The 
individuals are not able to find work because for every job, there are 
three persons looking.
  It generates into inequality of wealth. There is nothing that will 
refute this except for a transitional hand-up for those unemployed. 
And, yes, job creation.
  My good friends, the Republicans, say they passed a bill on job 
creation last year. Yes, they did. And we have a bill on job creation, 
the Jobs bill. That

[[Page 347]]

seems to me a compromise in the making. That seems to me an opportunity 
for us to sit around the table and talk about technology and then talk 
about other aspects of job creation, because people have to be trained 
and retrained.
  This week I will introduce a bill that is studied not as a bill 
introduced by a Democrat, but studied for the substance of the bill, 
called the New Chance for a New Start in Life Act of 2014. This is 
where you invest in people. It creates an opportunity for someone who 
is unemployed and still on their unemployment benefit--remember, they 
have worked and this is unemployment insurance--to get a stipend for 
certain accredited specific job training that ties to the market.
  My friends, all of us are going to say, Well, they are going to take 
their money and they are going to be on the basket weaving training 
program; or they are going to take a truck training program, but they 
have no license. Accredited programs so that person can provide for 
their family and their training can be paid for.
  And we are going to work through accredited social service agencies. 
We are going to partner with cities and nonprofit agencies for 
apprenticeships and internships. Every job is not an apprenticeship. We 
want to work with our friends in the trade and the labor community.
  Unions have done well for America. Thank you for increasing our 
minimum wages and conditions in the workforce. Let's find a way to work 
together, but sometimes it is an internship in an office or an 
engineering company.
  And then we have to provide training and employment enhanced for 
veterans. There are 22,000 veterans included in that large number of 
those who are needing transitional funds. We need to work with 
community colleges and Historically Black Colleges and Hispanic-serving 
institutions to be able to find a way to get chronically unemployed 
persons in the workplace, investing, paying taxes, and loving it every 
moment.
  I have talked to folks who said that the most they want for Christmas 
and the new year is to have the alarm clock go off at 6 a.m. and jump 
out of bed to go to work. How are we going to cut these people off? 
What sense does it make?
  And then it is important to note that added to the component of 
problems that we have is that poverty in America still exists. The 49 
million poverty rate for African Americans and Hispanics greatly 
exceeds the national average. In 2010, 27.4 percent of Blacks and 26.6 
percent of Hispanics were poor, compared to 9.9 percent of non-Hispanic 
Whites and 12.1 percent of Asians.
  That is not targeting quotas. It is going where the problem is.
  You know where else the problem is? Single women of any race, head of 
households. In 2010, 31.6 percent of households headed by single women 
were poor, while 15.8 percent of households headed by single men and 
6.2 percent of married-couple households are in poverty.
  In my district, 18 percent of households in the State of Texas, first 
in 2009 and 2001, ranked second in the highest rate of food insecurity. 
In my district, 151,000-plus families live in poverty.
  To the extent that we can't solve that problem, that is not shameful. 
We have seen the poverty gap close nationwide, even though we know 
children still live in poverty. President Lyndon Baines Johnson, who 
spoke on the war on poverty on January 8, said, We must live for hope, 
as I paraphrase.
  And I worked diligently with programs from VISTA to Medicaid to 
Medicare to job-training programs to infrastructure programs to 
programs allowing young people to go to college. I am a witness of all 
of those programs. Frankly, I worked in the President's summer youth 
program in the hard rumble area of my youth.
  And I have seen Members mention in the last 24 hours how they 
participated in the same programs. They happen now to be Members of the 
United States Congress. I would like to know how many Americans would 
call in the Congress and say, I am a beneficiary of the war on poverty, 
the Great Society.
  Why can't we find common ground to recognize that we can be 
efficient, but we can also invest in people?
  So I raise an ancient philosopher in my remarks on this question:

       Any city, however small, is in fact divided into two, one 
     the city of the poor, the other of the rich; these are at war 
     with one another.

  Plato said that.

                              {time}  1915

  And the question is can we now, in the 21st century, rebut that. Can 
we find a way to have hopeful people who are poor work with hopeful 
people who are rich and find a way to enrich both of them, to give them 
work and to make them shining examples of what America is all about?
  Laying that groundwork, I hope my colleagues will join me on the 
Second Chance Job Act that I have just introduced that will go 
alongside the kinds of incentives in the jobs bill that President Obama 
has offered and the bill that was passed here in the House.
  Why can't we both be on the same page of caring about getting a bill 
passed that both bodies will look at favorably, taking pieces? Why 
can't we get back to legislating again, giving and taking, making 
amendments, finding out what my friend on the other side of aisle 
wants, finding out what we want here, having amendments being accepted, 
making the bill one that is not only through the regular order of the 
committee, but here on the floor of the House, getting amendments that 
would satisfy and work with all of us?
  I think there is more work to do in many, many areas, Mr. Speaker, 
and I would like to continue now to be able to offer some of my 
concerns.
  Last evening, on CNN, there was a recounting of a young lady, 
tragically, who attempted suicide, a young bullying victim, first 
tragically being raped, not being believed, and ultimately coming 
forward. I am sort of summarizing the facts. And then because this 
person was a star athlete in one of the Midwestern States, the town 
turned on this young girl and her friend, bullying everywhere.
  And I think it is time for America and the Congress to make a 
statement on it, a simple statement. I am not asking for much, but I 
have introduced H.R. 2585, the Juvenile Accountability Block Grant 
Reauthorization and the Bullying Prevention and Intervention Act of 
2013. You will be surprised how simple it is:
  To be able to allow groups from all over America, 501(c)(3)s that may 
be under the jurisdiction of faith institutions, youth groups, Boy 
Scouts, Girl Scouts, tennis clubs, social service agencies, schools, to 
put their best practices forward and how they believe they can stem the 
tide of bullying, what kind of intervention, and add to that, cyber 
bullying. It also provides for gang prevention programs, turn our 
children toward socially beneficial pathways.
  I had one Member say to me, What would be wrong with the Congress 
making a unified statement that they want to prevent bullying and they 
want to intervene?
  That is the simple process, four corners of the bill. And research 
studies have shown that approximately 25 percent of school bullies will 
be convicted of a criminal offense in their adult years.
  I believe in intervention. And I would say to my friends who are 
experts, all of the advocacy groups, I believe it would be very 
important if we came together and had this one statement that came out 
of the Congress, that we want parents and schools and communities and 
baseball clubs and basketball clubs and football leagues to understand 
that we have all got to pour our energy into letting children know that 
to live healthy and free of intimidation is a good thing, that have 
your fun somewhere else.
  I don't know whether bullying led to this absurd game of knockout, 
but we have got to take a stand alongside of the personal intervention 
that comes about through the normal community ways.
  Just for the record, it is important to note, 30 percent of U.S. 
students in grades 6 through 10 are involved in

[[Page 348]]

moderate or frequent bullying as bullies, victims, or both. According 
to the results of the first national survey on this subject, bullying 
is increasingly viewed as an important contributor to youth violence, 
including homicide and suicide. One out of four kids is bullied. The 
Justice Department says that in this month, one out of every four kids 
will be abused by another youth.
  Surveys show that 77 percent of students are bullied mentally, 
verbally, and physically. We have to find a way to make a national 
statement. What better way than a Congress that is the symbol of the 
most powerful Nation in the world and the most powerful lawmaking body.
  Why is it so difficult to pass something as simple as that?
  It does not stop us from looking down the future when we have many 
more resources to deal with to put a huge amount of funding in it once 
best practices--once we give the spark plug and get people excited 
about our Federal Government is concerned about this, let's look for 
enhanced best practices. Let's make a statement on this, which I think 
is enormously important.
  I want to quickly, and I hope, as we debate these issues on the 
floor, that there will be Members who will want to have a conversation. 
I want to say, as well, that many of us have experienced violence in 
our communities. I am going to discuss that a little later, but I want 
to say it now. I have had a number of incidences of violence, through 
knives, through guns, in my own school districts in Houston.
  Even though we know that does not define our school districts, I say 
to them, when you have an incident like that, it is not a reflection on 
you, but it is a signal and a sign that the community must come 
together. We will look forward in Houston to putting together a Stop 
Violence Commission under the 18th Congressional District, bringing 
people from the faith community, bringing other leaders, working with 
the Mothers Demand Action, MDA, who have come out every moment to stop 
gun violence, working with mothers and fathers who have had to bury 
their children, funerals that I attended over the holiday or before 
that time frame. I want to tell that mother whose son's funeral that I 
attended, I have not forgotten. We will embrace you, and we will find a 
way that we can sit together and make a difference.
  Let me switch now for a moment--I will come back to that issue--and 
remind us of the humanity of comprehensive immigration reform. I said 
that I had any number of issues that I think are weighing on many of us 
as Members of Congress, weighing on those of us who are doers and want 
to do, and I would venture to say that that is this entire body. But we 
are getting stalled, and for what reason, I don't know.
  But my hometown paper was eager to review H.R. 1417, which is a 
bipartisan product that has come out of the Subcommittee on Border 
Security and Maritime Security, my colleague from Michigan, and out of 
the full committee, with the chairman and ranking member of the full 
committee, a bill that has now been joined under H.R. 15, to put a bill 
forward in the House.
  And I would just ask, why can't we end the suffering of so many, end 
the divide and deportation of so many families, in the thousands, and 
begin to look, as the faith community and business community, 
educational community, health community, research community, business 
community wants us to do?
  Comprehensive immigration reform, Texas is a prime example: 16.4 
percent of Texans are foreign born; 42 percent are Latino or Asian; 
33.2 percent of immigrants in the State are naturalized U.S. citizens; 
11.8 percent are registered voters or new Americans; 87.7 percent of 
children with immigrant parents are U.S. citizens; 75 percent of 
children with immigrant parents are English proficient; 70 percent of 
naturalized citizens have a high school diploma; 61,511 foreign 
students contribute $1.4 billion to the State economy, and they make up 
21 percent of the workforce; 9 percent of the workforce is 
unauthorized.
  We need to get people from underneath the underground economy. We 
need families able to walk the streets together, mothers not being 
dragged out of homes. We need the DREAM Act children to be able to 
raise their heads as U.S. citizens. We need access to citizenship.
  This coming Monday, I will gather at Catholic Charities with people 
from all over the community in Houston, Texas, and we will be standing 
together, raising our voices as humane Americans. We will be speaking 
about Latinos and Asians. We will be speaking about Africans. We will 
be speaking about people from the Caribbean, people from Europe, people 
from Canada, people from Ireland. We will be speaking about people from 
all over the world that happen to be in Houston, Texas.
  It is time to pass comprehensive immigration reform and pass it now.
  I mentioned very quickly that I would be going through a number of 
issues, but let me just turn to the issue of guns.
  Let me pause for a moment and find out how much time I have, Mr. 
Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman has 3 minutes remaining.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me quickly mention that we must stop the 
violence of guns. When we think about 5,740 children being killed by 
guns, I would like, again, for this Congress to look at H.R. 2812, 
which is a bill that deals with stand your ground that we have not 
addressed from the Trayvon Martin case.
  And I would like them, also, to quickly look at gun safety and gun 
access prevention, H.R. 65. I find that a way of being able to come 
together and keeping guns out of the hands of underage children and 
teaching gun safety to parents and children.
  I want to also join with my colleague on the Foreign Affairs 
Committee and mention human trafficking is a major issue. It will be 
commemorated on January 11, but I will be hosting, with the Homeland 
Security Committee, a hearing on human trafficking in Houston, Texas.
  Quickly, I want to make mention of the Congressional Gold Medal that 
I have for Malala, who is a voice of strength, a young teenager gunned 
and shot--I wouldn't say gunned down because she lives in Pakistan, 
only because she wanted girls to have education.
  I ask my colleagues to join myself and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen to insure 
that we do have, if you will, the honor of presenting this to her, 
nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, spoke before the United Nations, 
and I hope that we will do that.
  Let me close, Mr. Speaker, by mentioning two quick things, and that 
is, let us not forget our veterans, enormously important, and let us 
also move quickly for NSA reforms.
  As a member of the Judiciary Committee that helped write the Patriot 
Act, section 215, that was not our interpretation. That was not 
legislative history for trolling mega-data collection. We can be safe 
and secure, and we will be presenting a briefing on privacy and 
security next week in the Judiciary Committee, 2226, at 10:30. I hope 
all of the colleagues will come.
  But I have introduced legislation to make sure that there is a 
people's advocate in the FISA Court, but more importantly, that we 
restrain and find a way to restrain the mega-collection. And I hope the 
President, in the reports that he has just received, will be able to do 
that as well.
  Let me also indicate that internationally, I think this Congress 
should deal with where we are in Syria and where we were in South 
Sudan, two places that I am concerned about, the human cost, if you 
will.
  We have a lot to do, Mr. Speaker. I just gave just small bits this 
evening, but we have a lot to do that we can do together in a 
bipartisan manner.
  And we can look at the Affordable Care Act, just as a point, in 
closing, because it has been so divisive, and look at it that it is 
working. People want insurance. We can do that, and we can make sure 
that, as we do so, Mr. Speaker, then America will see us working 
together. That is what I would like to see happening.
  I have given an array of an agenda that touches the lives of people. 
Let's get to work.

[[Page 349]]

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

                          ____________________




                              {time}  1930
              CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION TO THE MIDDLE EAST

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2013, the Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Minnesota 
(Mrs. Bachmann) for 30 minutes.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As always, it is a privilege 
to be able to come to the great well of the House of Representatives, 
the greatest deliberative body in the history of the world, to be here 
and have an opportunity to bring a voice to the table and to speak to 
the American people as well as my constituents in the Sixth District of 
Minnesota.
  I want to join my colleagues in wishing a happy New Year to all the 
people in the United States. We look forward to a wonderful year in 
2014. There are so many things that are good that we can look forward 
to this year, so many things that this body can get done, that we can 
agree on.
  We can agree on our veterans, standing for them, thanking them, first 
of all, that tonight, as we are here in this Chamber, we have men and 
women across the globe who are laying their lives on the line for us. 
Our prayers are with you, and our prayers are with your families.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I know that I speak for you and for all of our 
colleagues, that we want to let our troops know, there is nothing more 
important than the work that you do to secure our liberty and our 
freedom. We are for you, and we will be standing here for you this 
year, as we have in the past.
  We also stand together in recognition that the first and greatest 
obligation of all of us, as Members of Congress in this Chamber, is to 
secure the safety and security of the American people, the welfare of 
the American people, Mr. Speaker. We do that here domestically, but our 
obligation is to make sure that our national security is held safe here 
in the homeland but also our vital American national security interests 
across the globe.
  To that end, several of my colleagues and myself took a fact-finding 
trip in December. After we had concluded our work in December, we went 
into the Middle East. We took a very extensive journey. This was no 
pleasure trip in any way. This was a working mission. We went first 
into Amsterdam. While we were there, we met an individual who has one 
of the most extensive collections of communist penetration throughout 
the world. It was interesting, as we dialogued with him about communist 
infiltration, what that has meant over the course of history, 
particularly over the last century, and what that means for Americans 
today.
  From there, we journeyed into Cairo, Egypt. While we were there, we 
spoke with leaders of Egypt. There has been a tremendous change that 
has occurred, and we know that literally in just over a week's time, 
people in Egypt will have an opportunity to go to the ballot box and 
vote in a referendum on a brand-new Constitution.
  A very brief recent history of Egypt is that there was an overthrow 
in Egypt of the Mubarak presidency, which had been stable for some 30-
plus years. The people of Egypt spoke. They were very unhappy with 
their government. There was a referendum that had occurred, and during 
that time, the Muslim Brotherhood came to power through the president, 
President Morsi. The Muslim Brotherhood, through the Freedom and 
Justice Party, established a new regime.
  So repulsed were the people of Egypt by the Muslim Brotherhood and 
their tactics during the course of just something over a year that the 
people of Egypt took to the streets, some 33 million people in what 
some people say was the largest human demonstration ever in the history 
of the world because the people of Egypt were outraged at the 
atrocities and the extremism of the Muslim Brotherhood as they were 
displayed across Egypt.
  Really, so much of this so-called Arab Spring has been the 
persecution of Christians, religious minorities, and women, 
particularly in the Middle East region. Nowhere has this been felt more 
than in Egypt, and the people rose up.
  You see, in the Egyptian Constitution, which was put together by the 
Muslim Brotherhood, there was no avenue for the people to remove the 
Muslim Brotherhood president, President Morsi. There was no impeachment 
process like we have in the United States. The only option available to 
the people was to go into the streets and demonstrate and seek the 
removal of the Muslim Brotherhood president. That is what the people 
effectuated.
  In that time, there is now an interim president. His name is 
President Mansour. I met with him numerous times in Cairo. We have had 
very good conversations with interim President Mansour. He told me in 
Egypt, together with my colleagues, that he would not be seeking 
reelection. We also met with General el-Sisi, the head of the military 
in Egypt, trying to maintain order in that country.
  We heard some very good news, and, Mr. Speaker, among the news that 
we heard while we were in Egypt was this: Egypt enjoys the most 
favorable relationship with the Jewish State of Israel that they have 
had in over 35 years. The Obama administration asked Egypt to work 
harder in the Sinai. That is the border, Mr. Speaker, between Egypt and 
Israel.
  The Obama administration asked the Egyptian Government to work to 
clear out al Qaeda and to try to secure that border. You see, Mr. 
Speaker, the Muslim Brotherhood, instead, had been placing more attacks 
through using al Qaeda and al Qaeda elements in various flavors. When 
you think of the old phrase of Baskin-Robbins and its 28 flavors of ice 
cream, there are multiple flavors, if you will, Mr. Speaker, of al 
Qaeda. There is the Al-Nusra Front. There is Jemaah Islamiyah. There is 
one organization after another, but they share the same ideology.
  Much of this ideology makes its way through an organization called 
the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Muslim Brotherhood was actively 
facilitating attacks on Israel through tunnels ruled by Hamas, which is 
essentially another affiliate, a franchise of the Muslim Brotherhood in 
the Gaza region. So whether it was weapons, whether it was attacks, 
whether it was fighters, Israel had its hands full in the Sinai border.
  Now the good news is that General el-Sisi, interim President Mansour 
in Egypt took to heart the request from the Obama administration and, 
for their own survival, worked to take apart the al Qaeda network and 
the strength that there was of jihadist-based fighters on the Sinai, 
and they have been incredibly successful.
  I am pleased to report to you tonight, Mr. Speaker, that what we 
heard from the leadership in Egypt was that over 70 percent of the 
jihadist activity on the Sinai has been silenced, deconstructed, taken 
apart. That means that Israel has had a better time, a more peaceful 
time on its border, but also, this has helped the Egyptian Government 
as well.
  The Nile River in Egypt is kind of a dividing point. You have western 
Egypt. You have eastern Egypt, eastern Egypt being the more violent, 
where it has been essentially a ``wild west,'' if you will, in the 
Sinai. It has been very difficult for securing peace in the Middle 
East, very difficult for Israel, but we have to thank the current 
interim government, under the leadership of President Mansour and under 
the guidance of General el-Sisi in the Sinai region. That is the good 
news. Of all of the turmoil and all of the chaos that there is today in 
the Middle East, this is our bright and shining spot.
  The United States, in my opinion, needs to do everything that we can 
to encourage and foster peace in this region. As I believe that my 
colleagues, whether it is on the Democrat side, on the Republican side, 
whether it is in the House, whether it is in the Senate, this is 
something that we agree upon. We want to see peace in the Middle East, 
peace in the largest Arab country in the Middle East, which would be 
Egypt, but also peace in the Jewish State of Israel, and this is the 
place to forge that peace.
  The good news is to hear that on this very sensitive border, we are 
seeing the

[[Page 350]]

Egyptians working together to make sure that there can be peace to 
fight a common enemy, and that would be al Qaeda and the radical 
elements in this regime. That is good news.
  We went from Cairo, Egypt, where we heard very good news from General 
el-Sisi, very good news from Amr Moussa, who is heading the Committee 
of 50 which is writing the new Constitution that the people of Egypt 
will be voting on in the referendum on January 14 and January 15. I 
believe the people of Egypt will see the wisdom in this new 
Constitution which, by the way, Mr. Speaker, does have a provision for 
impeachment so that the people in Egypt in the future will have an 
opportunity to be able to change their President and their country. 
They also guarantee the freedom of belief in Egypt, and they have a 
dedication to rebuilding the houses of worship that were destroyed by 
the Muslim Brotherhood.
  The Muslim Brotherhood destroyed shops, homes, and places of worship 
of Coptic Christians in Egypt. The government is committed to 
rebuilding the Christian houses of worship in Egypt. This is a 
wonderful advancement for peace and for tolerance in that region of the 
world, and one that I think we should encourage and get behind.
  From there, my colleagues and I, in a delegation which was led by 
Representative Steve King of Iowa--also in attendance was 
Representative Louie Gohmert of Texas and also Representative Robert 
Pittenger of North Carolina--from there, we went on to Beirut, Lebanon, 
which has been a hotbed of violence because Iran has seen an avenue of 
advancement. Working through the terrorist organization Hezbollah, Iran 
has been bringing increased terror between Sunni and Shia in southern 
Lebanon.
  We flew into the airport at Beirut. The airport at Beirut is 
controlled by Hezbollah. There, we met with the ambassador. We met with 
leaders of political parties. It is devastating to hear what they have 
to say about the increased violence.
  A suicide bomber wearing a vest detonated that vest during our time 
when we were there. Obviously we weren't anywhere nearby. We weren't in 
any form of danger, but a vest was detonated. Four people were killed. 
Also, a soldier had shot into Israel and had killed an Israeli soldier 
during the time that we were there. There has been a very, very strong, 
increase in violence. Violence occurred prior to our entry. Violence 
continues to occur, and there are now new reports, Mr. Speaker, of Iran 
bringing even more dangerous, larger deadly weapons into that area, 
again, bringing to the fore the increase in fighting between Sunni and 
Shia.
  That is the kind of pressure that the Jewish State of Israel is 
looking at on its northern border, without even contemplating what is 
happening in Syria.
  Syria, Mr. Speaker, has completely fallen apart. It is in complete 
chaos now, with Assad having estimated to have killed over 200,000 of 
his own people. Now the so-called moderates who were being backed, led 
by General Idris--General Idris has now, reportedly, left Syria, and 
the extremist elements, including al Qaeda, of the Islamist jihadist 
regime are now fighting against Assad.
  So we have two very bad options in Syria today, and very recently, 
these Islamist jihadist fighters took over a weapons cache of very 
dangerous weapons, and they now have control of those weapons.
  Where do we go from here in Syria? It is a very, very difficult 
question.
  We have such utter chaos that Lebanon now is the recipient of the 
greatest number of Syrian refugees on a daily basis. So we have the 
tension of Palestinian refugees who have gone into Lebanon. We have 
Iran, which has its presence through Hezbollah, the terrorist 
organization, very agitated. Some estimates are that as many as 100,000 
missiles are located in people's homes, in schools, in nurseries, in 
nursing homes, embedded in civilian areas right on Israel's northern 
border. There is an utter and complete breakdown and chaos in Syria.
  Then you have all of the tension in Iraq, with increasing battles 
going on, again, between Sunni and Shia in Iraq. Iraq at one point had 
been fairly close to being secured by an American presence. It is has 
now utterly fallen apart.
  There continue to be attacks by the Taliban. A new report just came 
in that the Taliban, presumably, is responsible for six Americans who 
were killed in December. We have Karzai, the head of Afghanistan, who 
is not willing to agree to final settlement terms in Afghanistan to 
have aid and U.S. presence, despite the fact that the United States 
supplies something like 95 percent of the economy in Afghanistan. This 
is the thanks we are getting out of Afghanistan.
  We have that kind of tension and pressure together with numerous 
prisons where the worst of the worst Islamist thug al Qaeda-flavored 
jihadists have been let out of prisons and are going into Syria. From 
Syria, who knows where, again, adding to the pressure on Israel. At the 
same time, we have what, in my mind, was the very dangerous P5+1 
agreement dealing with Iran and dealing with trying to prevent or at 
least stop or at least freeze in place Iran's nuclear program, which 
all of the world knows will be meant to give Iran a nuclear weapon and 
the missile delivery systems capable of delivering those weapons 
against Israel, against Western Europe, and against the United States.

                              {time}  1945

  This is the greatest threat that the world faces today: a nuclear 
Iran. And even while we are here in this Chamber tonight, Mr. Speaker, 
many people think that the 6-month freeze is on tonight, that when 
President Obama went to the microphone--it was about a little after 10 
o'clock at night on a Saturday night--to announce with vigor that we 
had concluded this agreement with Iran and we will now have a 6-month 
freeze, that 6-month period hasn't even started yet. No one knows when 
that 6-month period of a so-called freeze will even start.
  So, Mr. Speaker, what I'm saying, quite frankly, is that as we are 
standing in this Chamber tonight, Iran continues to enrich uranium for 
a nuclear weapon. They are enriching it to 20 percent. That is not a 
small amount. It may sound small. That is a huge leap towards weapons 
grade uranium. They continue to install centrifuges. They have new-
generation centrifuges that can spin to enrich uranium six times faster 
than the current generation.
  Iran hasn't given up one ounce of its storage of enriched uranium. 
They haven't stopped their research and development on their delivery 
systems of their missiles. They haven't stopped research and 
development on the warheads that would go on the tips of missiles to 
deliver a nuclear bomb. They haven't stopped the production on the 
facility of plutonium at Arak. That continues going on. Nothing has 
stopped.
  In fact, the only thing we have heard from Iran is from the Iranian 
leadership. The Parliament has said, why don't we start enriching to 60 
percent? You see, weapons grade is 80 percent. Why don't we up it even 
further? That is what the Parliament is saying today after the 
agreement was signed. The mullahs, the religious leaders that 
effectively control Iran, are saying that this agreement means nothing 
to them. As a matter of fact, the leader of Iran said that they won't 
change one iota of their nuclear program. You see, it is very 
interesting. I think that when madmen speak, the world should listen, 
and Iran is acting in a way that is indicative of the madman of all 
time.
  Currently, Iran's plan is to have domination across the world by the 
use of nuclear weapons to wipe millions of innocent people off the map, 
beginning with the Jewish State of Israel. You see, about 80 percent of 
the people that live in Israel travel to the greater Tel Aviv area for 
their employment. It doesn't take much imagination to see how easy it 
would be for Iran to send multiple nuclear missiles and virtually wipe 
out the Jewish State of Israel.
  But let us never think as Iran calls Israel the Little Satan, Iran 
calls the United States the Great Satan--and we should never delude 
ourselves to think that this is a Middle East-only problem. It isn't, 
Mr. Speaker. I wish I

[[Page 351]]

could say it was. This is a problem the world must deal with.
  During the course of our travels in December for the week that we 
were in the Middle East, we were very disturbed by what we heard from 
various leaders. As a matter of fact, there was one leader that we met 
with in Lebanon during our time there in that very dangerous area--it 
was so dangerous, as a matter of fact, that this leader about a year 
earlier had been shot. There were three snipers--he pointed over a 
wall. They had to build a wall around his house. He is now confined to 
his house, in the compound around his house. It is too dangerous for 
him to even leave. There were three snipers about a mile away that took 
a shot at him while he was in his backyard. He almost lost his life, 
and now he is confined to his backyard.
  This is what he had to say to us, Mr. Speaker, when they were there. 
He told us that, unfortunately, in the last 2 to 3 years, there has 
been virtually no U.S. leadership in the Middle East. That is 
reminiscent of what we heard the former leader, Lech Walesa, of Poland 
tell the world, that the United States is no longer the political 
leader nor the moral leader of the world, that we have effectively 
walked off the world stage and that the world needs the leadership of 
the United States. We heard that repeated by this leader in Lebanon.
  He also told us that the opinion of the United States has gone down 
dramatically in the Middle East. He said he has a brother who is in the 
United States, and it has been a shock for his brother, a very 
intelligent individual in the United States, a shock to see how the 
United States has failed to respond to the rise of Islamic jihadist 
activity in the Middle East and how it is negatively impacting United 
States national security. He said there is no strategy; there is no 
outlook. It seems to be that the United States just acts day to day--no 
strategy.
  Shouldn't our strategy be the security and safety of the American 
people? Shouldn't our strategy--shouldn't our aim be securing American 
vital interests in the Middle East, standing with the best ally we have 
in the world, the Jewish State of Israel? And yet the Middle East 
doesn't have any idea what our strategy is because they are telling us 
it looks like it is ad hoc, day to day. He said, I'm telling you this 
as a friend. He said that prior there were no Russians in the Middle 
East, no Russian influence and presence. He said that now the Russians 
have strengthened and have a very strong presence in the Middle East. 
He said it has been very frustrating in the last 2 or 3 years.
  He said the Arabians have long been our friends, friends of the 
United States. But the Saudi Arabians, he said, no longer seem to trust 
the United States. He said the P5+1 agreement has made Iran stronger 
than ever before. And he told us that Iran is Hezbollah, and so he is 
facing things from Hezbollah every day. He said that there is more 
money available for Hezbollah because we have decreased, we have 
essentially lifted sanctions on Iran. All this has done is free up 
money so more money can go to the terrorist organization Hezbollah in 
Lebanon, and that is being used to hurt Israel, as well.
  Well, whether it is Syria, whether it is Iraq, whether it is Bahrain, 
whether it is Saudi Arabia, all of these countries are wondering what 
in the world the United States is doing. Because what they are saying 
to us is that things are much worse on the ground in the Middle East. 
As the Iranians have only turned their burner off temporarily, they can 
turn it back on again. I quote from him, This makes Iran stronger than 
ever, stronger in the Middle East.
  That is what we heard, Mr. Speaker, on the ground from leaders in 
Lebanon that Iran has been strengthened through this failed P5+1 
agreement.
  From Lebanon, Mr. Speaker, we went down to Tripoli, Libya, to get 
some answers on Benghazi and get some answers on what the P5+1 
agreement will mean in Libya. Well, we spoke with the Prime Minister in 
Libya; we spoke with leaders of the Justice Department and the foreign 
minister, as well. I asked them specifically about Benghazi. I asked 
them why was our FBI prevented from going into Libya--specifically to 
Benghazi--to conduct an investigation for 4 or 5 weeks after the 
terrible tragedy on September 11? And the response that we received was 
that this was a great insult to Libya when this attack occurred and 
that this was an attack against Libya and the Libyan people.
  Now, this compound that was attacked in Benghazi is considered 
sovereign American soil. When Chris Stevens, our Ambassador, was killed 
and the three other Americans--brave Americans--were killed, this was 
an attack on America, on our compound, on our Ambassador and on our 
American soldiers. This was an attack against us--not on Libya--against 
us. There was absolutely no reason why the Libyan Government prevented 
our FBI from coming in on our sovereign territory and conducting an 
investigation.
  Journalists were inside. We know that CNN picked up the Ambassador's 
diaries and walked out with the Ambassador's diaries. Other sensitive 
information was on the ground and people came in and walked away with 
it. But the FBI couldn't get in? This is the only Ambassador in 30 
years to be killed, and we couldn't get in to find out what in the 
world happened, ask people and figure out what is going on? It has been 
over a year. We still don't know who, what, where, when, how, why, and 
how much were we prevented from knowing, because we were kept out of 
that country by over 4 and 5 weeks. It was wrong. And I told that to 
the leadership in Libya when we were there. It was wrong. That needs to 
be rectified. We demand and we expect full cooperation in getting to 
the bottom of Benghazi. That must be done, and that is a bipartisan 
issue. That is not a partisan issue.
  Well, from Libya, we traveled up to Israel where we met with Prime 
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the defense secretary. We were extremely 
grateful for the time we had there. Again, there is no question, the 
Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, told us, that it was the worst day 
in 10 years when the P5+1 agreement was struck--the worst day in 10 
years. No one will be more negatively impacted by a nuclear Iran than 
the Jewish State of Israel.
  Wouldn't you think it would be wise for the United States and for the 
great nations of the world to listen to the concerns of the land that 
is on the slaughtering block when they say, wait a minute, this is the 
worst thing we could do, the P5+1 agreement, because this will not 
prevent, this will not stop Iran from getting a nuclear bomb? That was 
confirmed on this most recent trip when we were with the Prime 
Minister. He is very concerned about that.
  He is also very concerned about the International Criminal Court, as 
well, and the fact that Israel will soon be drawn into the Criminal 
Court. There could be actions taking the United States in. We want to 
be under U.S. law. And we need to maintain the United States as a 
sovereign Nation and our American people subject only to United States 
sovereign law. We don't want the American people subject to some 
international court. The American people must now and for always only 
be subject to the American courts because only here will we be allowed 
to enjoy the protections under the Constitution that we have today. 
That will not happen under the International Criminal Court.
  From Israel, we traveled and went on up to Vienna where we met with 
the International Atomic Energy Agency. This agency is tasked with 
overseeing the P5+1 agreement with Iran. We appreciated our time in 
Vienna; we appreciated being able to speak with those who were present 
to talk about the process, what they will do. But I will tell you, on 
behalf of my colleagues, we didn't leave with a sense that we could 
have complete trust in knowing that the IAEA, while they will perform 
their jobs, that they will be able to completely appreciate when and if 
Iran decides to move into the creation of a nuclear weapon. That is 
something that we can't get wrong. Where do we go if that is wrong?
  Mr. Speaker, if I could ask how much time remains.

[[Page 352]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman's time is expired.
  Mrs. Bachmann. Well, I thank you. I appreciate that, and thank you 
for allowing me time to relate some of my concerns that we heard on our 
recent trip to the Middle East.

                          ____________________




                          SENATE BILL REFERRED

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

       S. 1171. An act to amend the Controlled Substances Act to 
     allow a veterinarian to transport and dispense controlled 
     substances in the usual course of veterinary practice outside 
     of the registered location; to the Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce; in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary 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.

                          ____________________




                          ENROLLED BILL SIGNED

  Karen L. Haas, Clerk of the House, reported and found truly enrolled 
a bill of the House of the following title, which was thereupon signed 
by the Speaker:

       H.R. 667. An act to redesignate the Dryden Flight Research 
     Center as the Neil A. Armstrong Flight Research Center and 
     the Western Aeronautical Test Range as the Hugh L. Dryden 
     Aeronautical Test Range.

                          ____________________




                              ADJOURNMENT

  Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
  The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 7 o'clock and 59 minutes 
p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Friday, January 10, 2014, at 
9 a.m.

                          ____________________




                     EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC.

  Under clause 2 of rule XIV, executive communications were taken from 
the Speaker's table and referred as follows:

       4401. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management 
     Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the 
     Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of 
     Implementation Plans; North Carolina: Non-interference 
     Demonstration for Removal of Federal Low-Reid Vapor Pressure 
     Requirement of the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill Area [EPA-R04-
     OAR-2013-0563; FRL-9904-89-Region 4] received December 30, 
     2013, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on 
     Energy and Commerce.
       4402. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management 
     Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the 
     Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of Air 
     Quality Implementation Plans; Texas; Reasonable Further 
     Progress Plans, Contingency Measures, Motor Vehicle Emission 
     Budgets, and a Vehicle Miles Traveled Offset Analysis for the 
     Houston-Galveston-Brazoria 1997 8-Hour Severe Ozone 
     Nonattainment Area [EPA-R06-OAR-2010-0333; FRL-9904-72-
     Region-6] received December 30, 2013, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 
     801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
       4403. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management 
     Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the 
     Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of Air 
     Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Update of the 
     Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for the Lancaster 1997 8-Hour 
     Ozone Maintenance Area [EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0058; FRL-9904-49-
     Region-3] received December 30, 2013, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 
     801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
       4404. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, Legislative 
     Affairs, Department of State, transmitting the Department's 
     final rule -- Amendment to the International Traffic in Arms 
     Regulations: Third Rule Implementing Export Control Reform 
     (RIN: 1400-AD46) received January 3, 2014, pursuant to 5 
     U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
       4405. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District 
     of Columbia, transmitting Transmittal of D.C. ACT 20-247, 
     ``Controlled Substance, Alcohol Testing, Criminal Background 
     Check and Background Investigation Temporary Amendment Act of 
     2013''; to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
       4406. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District 
     of Columbia, transmitting Transmittal of D.C. ACT 20-248, 
     ``Distillery Pub Licensure Act of 2013''; to the Committee on 
     Oversight and Government Reform.
       4407. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District 
     of Columbia, transmitting Transmittal of D.C. ACT 20-249, 
     ``Campaign Finance Reform and Transparency Amendment Act of 
     2013''; to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
       4408. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District 
     of Columbia, transmitting Transmittal of D.C. ACT 20-251, 
     ``Manufacturers' Sunday Sale Act of 2013''; to the Committee 
     on Oversight and Government Reform.
       4409. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District 
     of Columbia, transmitting Transmittal of D.C. ACT 20-232, 
     ``Prescription Drug Monitoring Program Act of 2013''; to the 
     Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
       4410. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District 
     of Columbia, transmitting Transmittal of D.C. ACT 20-234, 
     ``Transportation Infrastructure Mitigation Temporary 
     Amendment Act of 2013''; to the Committee on Oversight and 
     Government Reform.
       4411. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District 
     of Columbia, transmitting Transmittal of D.C. ACT 20-233, 
     ``YMCA Community Investment Initiative Real Property Tax 
     Exemption Act of 2013''; to the Committee on Oversight and 
     Government Reform.
       4412. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District 
     of Columbia, transmitting Transmittal of D.C. ACT 20-236, 
     ``Department of Health Grant-Making Authority for Clinical 
     Nutritional Home Services Temporary Amendment Act of 2013''; 
     to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
       4413. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District 
     of Columbia, transmitting Transmittal of D.C. ACT 20-235, 
     ``Transportation Infrastructure Improvements GARVEE Bond 
     Financing Temporary Amendment Act of 2013''; to the Committee 
     on Oversight and Government Reform.
       4414. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District 
     of Columbia, transmitting Transmittal of D.C. ACT 20-238, 
     ``Party Officer Elections Temporary Amendment Act of 2013''; 
     to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
       4415. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District 
     of Columbia, transmitting Transmittal of D.C. ACT 20-237, 
     ``Critical Infrastructure Freedom of Information Temporary 
     Amendment Act of 2013''; to the Committee on Oversight and 
     Government Reform.
       4416. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District 
     of Columbia, transmitting Transmittal of D.C. ACT 20-240, 
     ``Board of Elections Nomination Petition Circulator Affidavit 
     Temporary Amendment Act of 2013''; to the Committee on 
     Oversight and Government Reform.
       4417. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District 
     of Columbia, transmitting Transmittal of D.C. ACT 20-239, 
     ``Department of Corrections Central Cellblock Management 
     Clarification Temporary Amendment Act of 2013''; to the 
     Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
       4418. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District 
     of Columbia, transmitting Transmittal of D.C. ACT 20-241, 
     ``Board of Ethics and Government Accountability Amendment Act 
     of 2013''; to the Committee on Oversight and Government 
     Reform.
       4419. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District 
     of Columbia, transmitting Transmittal of D.C. ACT 20-242, 
     ``Patent and Student Empowerment Amendment Act of 2013''; to 
     the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
       4420. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District 
     of Columbia, transmitting Transmittal of D.C. ACT 20-250, 
     ``Prohibition on Government Employee Engagement in Political 
     Activity Amendment Act of 2013''; to the Committee on 
     Oversight and Government Reform.
       4421. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District 
     of Columbia, transmitting Transmittal of D.C. ACT 20-252, 
     ``Manufacturer Tasting Permit Act of 2013''; to the Committee 
     on Oversight and Government Reform.
       4422. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District 
     of Columbia, transmitting Transmittal of D.C. ACT 20-253, 
     ``Funeral and Memorial Service Leave Amendment Act of 2013''; 
     to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
       4423. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District 
     of Columbia, transmitting Transmittal of D.C. ACT 20-254, 
     ``Focused Student Achievement Amendment Act of 2013''; to the 
     Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
       4424. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District 
     of Columbia, transmitting Transmittal of D.C. ACT 20-255, 
     ``Tax Clarity Equity Act of 2013''; to the Committee on 
     Oversight and Government Reform.
       4425. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District 
     of Columbia, transmitting Transmittal of D.C. ACT 20-256, 
     ``Historic Music Cultural Institutions Expansion Tax 
     Abatement Act of 2013''; to the Committee on Oversight and 
     Government Reform.
       4426. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District 
     of Columbia, transmitting Transmittal of D.C. ACT 20-257, 
     ``Fair Student Funding and School-Based Budgeting Amendment 
     Act of 2013''; to the Committee on Oversight and Government 
     Reform.
       4427. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District 
     of Columbia, transmitting Transmittal of D.C. ACT 20-258, 
     ``Closing of a Portion of the Public Alley in Square 858, 
     S.O. 12-03336, Act of 2013''; to the Committee on Oversight 
     and Government Reform.

[[Page 353]]


       4428. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District 
     of Columbia, transmitting Transmittal of D.C. ACT 20-259, 
     ``Earned Sick and Safe Leave Amendment Act of 2013''; to the 
     Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
       4429. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District 
     of Columbia, transmitting Transmittal of D.C. ACT 20-260, 
     ``Tax Exemption for Teacher Awards Temporary Act of 2013''; 
     to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

                          ____________________




         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:

              [Omitted from the Record of January 3, 2014]

       Mr. CONWAY: Committee on Ethics. Annual Report on the 
     Activities of the Committee on Ethics for the One Hundred 
     Thirteenth Congress, First Session (Rept. 113-323). Referred 
     to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the 
     Union.
       Mr. McCAUL: Committee on Homeland Security. H.R. 2952. A 
     bill to amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to make 
     certain improvements in the laws relating to the advancement 
     of security technologies for critical infrastructure 
     protection, and for other purposes; with an amendment (Rept. 
     113-324). 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. TIERNEY (for himself, Mr. Kildee, Mr. Sean 
             Patrick Maloney of New York, Ms. Norton, Mr. DeFazio, 
             Mr. Dingell, Mr. Pallone, Ms. Waters, Mr. Cummings, 
             Mr. Capuano, Mr. Vargas, Ms. Lee of California, Mr. 
             Loebsack, Mr. Garcia, Mr. Cartwright, Ms. Kuster, Ms. 
             Shea-Porter, Mr. Horsford, and Mrs. Kirkpatrick):
       H.R. 3824. A bill to provide for the extension of certain 
     unemployment benefits, and for other purposes; to the 
     Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee 
     on Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be 
     subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 
     consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
     jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
           By Mr. SMITH of Washington (for himself, Mr. Cohen, Mr. 
             Sires, and Ms. Hahn):
       H.R. 3825. A bill to establish the National Freight 
     Mobility Infrastructure Improvement Program to improve 
     freight mobility in the United States, to establish the 
     National Freight Mobility Infrastructure Fund, and for other 
     purposes; to the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and 
     Means, 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. WHITFIELD (for himself, Mr. Aderholt, Mr. Barr, 
             Mr. Barletta, Mr. Barrow of Georgia, Mr. Barton, Mr. 
             Bilirakis, Mr. Brooks of Alabama, Mrs. Capito, Mr. 
             Cassidy, Mr. Conaway, Mr. Cotton, Mr. Cramer, Mr. 
             Crawford, Mr. Daines, Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois, 
             Mrs. Ellmers, Mr. Enyart, Mr. Gardner, Mr. Griffin of 
             Arkansas, Mr. Griffith of Virginia, Mr. Guthrie, Mr. 
             Hall, Mr. Harris, Mrs. Hartzler, Ms. Jenkins, Mr. 
             Johnson of Ohio, Mr. Lamborn, Mr. Latta, Mr. Long, 
             Mrs. Lummis, Mr. Matheson, Mr. McKinley, Mr. Murphy 
             of Pennsylvania, Mr. Olson, Mr. Peterson, Mr. Pitts, 
             Mr. Pompeo, Mr. Rahall, Mr. Roe of Tennessee, Mr. 
             Rogers of Kentucky, Mr. Rokita, Mr. Ross, Mr. 
             Rothfus, Mr. Scalise, Mr. Sensenbrenner, Ms. Sewell 
             of Alabama, Mr. Shimkus, Mr. Smith of Nebraska, Mr. 
             Smith of Missouri, Mr. Stivers, Mr. Terry, Mr. 
             Thompson of Pennsylvania, Mr. Tiberi, Mrs. Wagner, 
             Mrs. Walorski, Mr. Westmoreland, Mr. Womack, Mr. 
             Young of Alaska, and Mr. Young of Indiana):
       H.R. 3826. A bill to provide direction to the Administrator 
     of the Environmental Protection Agency regarding the 
     establishment of standards for emissions of any greenhouse 
     gas from fossil fuel-fired electric utility generating units, 
     and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce.
           By Mr. GRAYSON:
       H.R. 3827. A bill to prohibit the United States from 
     providing financial assistance to Benin until Mr. Mojaidou 
     Soumanou is released from prison; to the Committee on Foreign 
     Affairs.
           By Mr. CARTWRIGHT:
       H.R. 3828. A bill to require the Secretary of Labor, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, 
     to draft disclosures describing the rights and liabilities of 
     customers of domestic care services and require that such 
     services provide such disclosures to customers in any 
     contract for such services; to the Committee on Education and 
     the Workforce.
           By Mr. WEBER of Texas (for himself, Mr. Harris, Mr. 
             Rice of South Carolina, Mr. LaMalfa, Mr. Gohmert, Mr. 
             Hall, Mr. Carter, Mr. Yoho, Mr. Flores, Mr. Wolf, Mr. 
             Latta, Mr. Bishop of Utah, Mr. Pittenger, Mr. 
             Conaway, Mrs. Bachmann, Mr. Fleming, Mr. Lankford, 
             Mr. Bridenstine, Mr. Jordan, Mr. Pitts, Mr. Pompeo, 
             Mr. Neugebauer, Mr. Culberson, Ms. Granger, Mr. Sam 
             Johnson of Texas, Mr. Marchant, Mr. Olson, and Mr. 
             Webster of Florida):
       H.R. 3829. A bill to amend chapter 1 of title 1, United 
     States Code, with regard to the definition of ``marriage'' 
     and ``spouse'' for Federal purposes and to ensure respect for 
     State regulation of marriage; to the Committee on the 
     Judiciary.
           By Mr. CAMP (for himself, Mr. Sessions, and Mr. Nunes):
       H.R. 3830. A bill to establish congressional trade 
     negotiating objectives and enhanced consultation requirements 
     for trade negotiations, to provide for consideration of trade 
     agreements, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Ways 
     and Means, and in addition to the Committees on Rules, and 
     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 Mr. ROE of Tennessee:
       H.R. 3831. A bill to require the Secretary of Veterans 
     Affairs to review the dialysis pilot program implemented by 
     the Department of Veterans Affairs and submit a report to 
     Congress before expanding that program, and for other 
     purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
           By Mr. McDERMOTT:
       H.R. 3832. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social 
     Security Act to modify the surety bond requirement applicable 
     to home health agencies as a condition of participation under 
     Medicare; to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition 
     to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be 
     subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 
     consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
     jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
           By Mr. McDERMOTT:
       H.R. 3833. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social 
     Security Act to modify the Medicare durable medical equipment 
     face-to-face encounter documentation requirement; to the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the 
     Committee on Ways and Means, 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. CRAMER:
       H.R. 3834. A bill to ensure that certain communities may be 
     granted exceptions for floodproofed residential basements for 
     purposes of determining risk premium rates for flood 
     insurance; to the Committee on Financial Services.
           By Mr. DUFFY:
       H.R. 3835. A bill to require new procedures for health care 
     Exchange Web sites with regard to personal information, and 
     for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
           By Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee (for himself, Ms. Speier, 
             Mrs. Black, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Cooper, 
             Mr. DesJarlais, Mr. Fincher, Mr. Fleischmann, and Mr. 
             Roe of Tennessee):
       H.R. 3836. A bill to award a Congressional Gold Medal to 
     Pat Summitt, in recognition of her remarkable career as an 
     unparalleled figure in women's team sports, and for her 
     courage in speaking out openly and courageously about her 
     battle with Alzheimer's; to the Committee on Financial 
     Services.
           By Mr. LUETKEMEYER (for himself, Mr. Enyart, Mr. Rodney 
             Davis of Illinois, and Mrs. Wagner):
       H.R. 3837. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 to protect employees in the building and construction 
     industry who are participants in multiemployer plans, and for 
     other purposes; to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in 
     addition to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, for 
     a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in 
     each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within 
     the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
           By Mr. PAULSEN (for himself and Mr. Kind):
       H.R. 3838. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 to provide a consumer renewable credit for utilities 
     that sell intermittent renewable power; to the Committee on 
     Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Energy 
     and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by 
     the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 
     provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 
     concerned.
           By Mr. RANGEL:
       H.R. 3839. A bill to direct the Secretary of Transportation 
     to establish a grant program to assist the repair and 
     replacement of

[[Page 354]]

     bridges, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure.
           By Mr. THORNBERRY:
       H.R. 3840. A bill to establish the Office of Net Assessment 
     within the Department of Defense; to the Committee on Armed 
     Services.
           By Mr. MILLER of Florida (for himself, Mr. Southerland, 
             Mr. Yoho, Mr. Crenshaw, Ms. Brown of Florida, Mr. 
             DeSantis, Mr. Mica, Mr. Posey, Mr. Grayson, Mr. 
             Webster of Florida, Mr. Nugent, Mr. Bilirakis, Ms. 
             Castor of Florida, Mr. Ross, Mr. Buchanan, Mr. 
             Rooney, Mr. Murphy of Florida, Mr. Radel, Mr. 
             Hastings of Florida, Mr. Deutch, Ms. Frankel of 
             Florida, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Ms. Wilson of 
             Florida, Mr. Diaz-Balart, Mr. Garcia, Ms. Ros-
             Lehtinen, and Mr. Pierluisi):
       H.J. Res. 105. A joint resolution conferring honorary 
     citizenship of the United States on Bernardo de Galvez y 
     Madrid, Viscount of Galveston and Count of Galvez; to the 
     Committee on the Judiciary.
           By Mrs. DAVIS of California (for herself, Mr. Farr, Ms. 
             Lofgren, Mr. Vargas, and Mr. Peters of California):
       H. Con. Res. 73. Concurrent resolution expressing the sense 
     of Congress that a commemorative postage stamp should be 
     issued by the United States Postal Service honoring the 1915 
     Panama-California Exposition, and that the Citizens' Stamp 
     Advisory Committee should recommend to the Postmaster General 
     that such a stamp be issued; to the Committee on Oversight 
     and Government Reform.

                          ____________________




                   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. TIERNEY:
        H.R. 3824.
        Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Article I, Section 8
            By Mr. SMITH of Washington:
        H.R. 3825.
        Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Article I Section 8 Clause 3--``To regulate Commerce with 
     foreign Nations, and among the several States, and within the 
     Indian Tribes.''
            By Mr. WHITFIELD:
        H.R. 3826.
        Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3
       The Congress shall have power to regulate Commerce with 
     foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the 
     Indian Tribes.
            By Mr. GRAYSON:
       H.R. 3827.
        Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.
            By Mr. CARTWRIGHT:
       H.R. 3828.
       Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Article I; Section 8; Clauses 3 and 18 of the U.S. 
     Constitution
            By Mr. WEBER of Texas:
       H.R. 3829.
        Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 of the United States 
     Constitution, which states that ``The 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; but all Duties, Imposts 
     and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;'' 
     and Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18 of the Constitution, 
     which states that Congress shall have power ``To make all 
     Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into 
     Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other powers vested 
     by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, 
     or in any Department or Officer thereof.''
            By Mr. CAMP:
        H.R. 3830.
        Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Section 8 of Article I of the U.S. Constitution.
            By Mr. ROE of Tennessee:
        H.R. 3831.
        Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       The constitutional authority on which this bill rests is 
     the power of Congress as stated in Article 1, Section 8, 
     Clause 18 of the United States Constitution.
            By Mr. McDERMOTT:
        H.R. 3832.
        Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Article I, Section 8
            By Mr. McDERMOTT:
        H.R. 3833.
        Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Article I, Section 8
            By Mr. CRAMER:
        H.R. 3834.
        Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Article 1, section 8, clause 1; and Article 1, section 8, 
     clause 3.
            By Mr. DUFFY:
        H.R. 3835.
        Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Article 1, Section 8: To make all Laws which shall be 
     necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the 
     foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by the 
     Constitution in the Government of the United States or in any 
     Department or Officer thereof.
            By Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee:
        H.R. 3836.
        Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Article I, Section 8, Clause 5.
            By Mr. LUETKEMEYER:
        H.R. 3837.
        Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Pursuant to clause 7 of Rule XII of the Rules of the House 
     of Representatives, I submit the following statement 
     regarding the specific powers granted to Congress in the 
     Constitution of the United States to enact the accompanying 
     bill cited as the ``Vested Employee Pension Benefit 
     Protection Act.''
       The Constitutional authority on which this bill rests is 
     the power of Congress 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, as 
     enumerated in Article I, Section 8, Clause 1. Additionally, 
     Congress has the Constitutional authority to regulate 
     commerce among the States and with Indian Tribes, as 
     enumerated in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3.
            By Mr. PAULSEN:
        H.R. 3838.
        Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Article 1, Section 8.
            By Mr. RANGEL:
        H.R. 3839.
        Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Section 8 of the Constitution--to regulate Commerce.
            By Mr. THORNBERRY:
        H.R. 3840.
        Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, ``The Congress 
     shall have Power . . . To declare War . . .'' and ``To make 
     Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval 
     Forces.''
       This bill would establish an independent organization 
     within the Department of Defense to develop and coordinate 
     net assessments of the military capabilities of the United 
     States compared to potential adversaries in order to identify 
     emerging threats or opportunities. Congressional authority to 
     establish such an office falls within two clauses of Article 
     I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which give Congress the 
     specific power ``To make Rules for the Government and 
     Regulation of the land and naval Forces,'' and, more 
     generally, ``To declare War.'' The organization that would be 
     established by this bill is a function of the ``Government 
     and Regulation of the land and naval Forces'' and 
     Congressional power to declare war.
            By Mr. MILLER of Florida:
        H.J. Res. 105.
        Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Article I. Section 8.

                          ____________________




                          ADDITIONAL SPONSORS

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

       H.R. 7: Mr. Cotton, Mr. Whitfield, and Mr. Austin Scott of 
     Georgia.
       H.R. 60: Ms. Schakowsky.
       H.R. 140: Mr. Hall.
       H.R. 164: Mr. Tierney, Ms. Brown of Florida, and Mr. Gibbs.
       H.R. 176: Mr. Camp.
       H.R. 310: Mr. Joyce.
       H.R. 543: Mr. Duncan of South Carolina.
       H.R. 556: Mr. Carter.
       H.R. 685: Mr. Castro of Texas.
       H.R. 946: Mr. Miller of Florida.
       H.R. 975: Mrs. McCarthy of New York.
       H.R. 1010: Mr. Cartwright, Mr. Meeks, Mr. Owens, Mrs. 
     Lowey, and Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
       H.R. 1094: Mr. Paulsen.
       H.R. 1098: Mr. Gene Green of Texas.
       H.R. 1143: Mr. Cole and Mr. Duncan of South Carolina.
       H.R. 1179: Mr. McHenry and Mr. Joyce.
       H.R. 1186: Mr. Kinzinger of Illinois.
       H.R. 1213: Ms. Edwards.
       H.R. 1309: Mr. Southerland.
       H.R. 1476: Mr. Wittman.
       H.R. 1507: Ms. Hahn and Mr. Barber.
       H.R. 1518: Mr. McKeon and Mr. Mica.
       H.R. 1563: Mr. Smith of Texas and Mr. Veasey.

[[Page 355]]


       H.R. 1692: Mr. Perlmutter.
       H.R. 1717: Mr. LaMalfa.
       H.R. 1750: Mr. Coffman.
       H.R. 1761: Ms. Matsui and Ms. Michelle Lujan Grisham of New 
     Mexico.
       H.R. 1796: Mr. Delaney.
       H.R. 1801: Mr. Lewis.
       H.R. 1812: Mr. Kennedy.
       H.R. 1852: Ms. Pingree of Maine.
       H.R. 1861: Mr. Roskam.
       H.R. 1946: Mr. Pocan.
       H.R. 1950: Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.
       H.R. 2085: Ms. Duckworth.
       H.R. 2300: Mr. Miller of Florida.
       H.R. 2305: Mr. Peters of California.
       H.R. 2444: Mr. Huffman.
       H.R. 2455: Ms. Titus.
       H.R. 2482: Mr. Higgins.
       H.R. 2560: Ms. Duckworth.
       H.R. 2590: Mr. Valadao.
       H.R. 2694: Mr. Joyce.
       H.R. 2703: Mr. Langevin.
       H.R. 2717: Mr. Wenstrup.
       H.R. 2725: Mr. Israel.
       H.R. 2734: Mr. Cicilline.
       H.R. 2780: Mr. McCaul.
       H.R. 2785: Mrs. Negrete McLeod.
       H.R. 2801: Mr. Owens.
       H.R. 2827: Ms. Schakowsky.
       H.R. 2868: Mr. O'Rourke.
       H.R. 2893: Ms. Hahn.
       H.R. 2909: Mr. Huffman.
       H.R. 2914: Mr. Garamendi.
       H.R. 2955: Ms. Schakowsky.
       H.R. 2994: Mr. Williams, Ms. Norton, and Ms. Velazquez.
       H.R. 2998: Mr. Hinojosa and Mr. Lewis.
       H.R. 3040: Mr. Peterson, Mr. Nolan, and Mr. Connolly.
       H.R. 3097: Mr. Cardenas.
       H.R. 3111: Mr. McClintock.
       H.R. 3121: Mr. Rogers of Alabama.
       H.R. 3154: Ms. Jenkins.
       H.R. 3207: Mr. Quigley.
       H.R. 3211: Mr. Kildee.
       H.R. 3279: Mr. Griffith of Virginia.
       H.R. 3303: Mr. Matheson.
       H.R. 3335: Mr. Pompeo.
       H.R. 3344: Mr. Messer, Mr. Al Green of Texas, Mr. Vela, and 
     Ms. Edwards.
       H.R. 3362: Mr. Latta and Mr. Stockman.
       H.R. 3367: Mrs. Wagner.
       H.R. 3377: Mr. Cotton and Mr. Simpson.
       H.R. 3390: Mr. Lowenthal.
       H.R. 3404: Ms. Esty.
       H.R. 3413: Mr. Harper.
       H.R. 3421: Mr. Salmon.
       H.R. 3436: Mr. Latta.
       H.R. 3453: Mr. Kilmer and Mr. Payne.
       H.R. 3461: Mr. Garamendi and Mr. Swalwell of California.
       H.R. 3465: Mr. Gibson.
       H.R. 3478: Mr. Duncan of South Carolina and Mrs. Lummis.
       H.R. 3485: Mr. Stutzman.
       H.R. 3486: Mr. Stockman.
       H.R. 3530: Mr. Swalwell of California.
       H.R. 3546: Mr. Grayson, Mr. Larsen of Washington, Ms. 
     Gabbard, and Mr. Huffman.
       H.R. 3633: Mr. Hudson.
       H.R. 3635: Mr. Weber of Texas, Mr. Franks of Arizona, Mr. 
     LaMalfa, Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr. Mica, Mr. Kelly of 
     Pennsylvania, Mr. Barr, Mr. Lucas, Mr. Miller of Florida, Mr. 
     Sam Johnson of Texas, Mr. Messer, Mr. Mulvaney, Mr. Hudson, 
     Mr. Rice of South Carolina, and Mr. Posey.
       H.R. 3649: Mr. Cardenas.
       H.R. 3685: Mr. Rokita, Mr. Higgins, Mrs. Brooks of Indiana, 
     Mr. Israel, Mr. Peters of Michigan, and Mr. Pittenger.
       H.R. 3686: Mr. Roe of Tennessee, Mr. Gohmert, and Mr. Barr.
       H.R. 3708: Mr. Kline, Mr. Terry, and Mr. Schrader.
       H.R. 3712: Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Engel, Mr. Ryan of Ohio, and 
     Mr. Sean Patrick Maloney of New York.
       H.R. 3717: Mr. Kelly of Pennsylvania, Mr. Coffman, Mr. 
     Turner, Mr. Vargas, and Mr. Roskam.
       H.R. 3724: Mr. Franks of Arizona.
       H.R. 3726: Mr. Veasey, Mr. Ryan of Ohio, and Mr. Dingell.
       H.R. 3731: Mr. Long.
       H.R. 3732: Mr. Griffin of Arkansas, Mr. Southerland, Mr. 
     Barton, Mr. Chabot, Mr. Fleischmann, Mr. DesJarlais, Ms. 
     Granger, Mrs. Hartzler, Mr. LaMalfa, Mr. Radel, Mr. Austin 
     Scott of Georgia, Mrs. Miller of Michigan, Mr. Bishop of 
     Utah, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Stockman, Mr. Williams, Mr. 
     Labrador, Mr. Walberg, Mr. Franks of Arizona, Mr. Weber of 
     Texas, Mr. Hudson, and Mr. Salmon.
       H.R. 3747: Mr. Clay and Mr. Meehan.
       H.R. 3755: Mr. Collins of New York.
       H.R. 3780: Ms. Tsongas.
       H.R. 3787: Mr. Broun of Georgia, Mr. Rooney, Mr. Pittenger, 
     and Mr. Farenthold.
       H.R. 3790: Mr. Harper.
       H.R. 3808: Mr. Thompson of California.
       H.R. 3811: Mr. Yoho.
       H.R. 3819: Mr. Stutzman, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Fincher, Mr. 
     Stivers, Mr. Luetkemeyer, Mr. Pearce, Mr. Huizenga of 
     Michigan, Mr. Griffin of Arkansas, Mr. King of New York, Mr. 
     Cramer, Mr. Hurt, Mr. Harper, and Mr. Nunnelee.
       H. Res. 11: Mr. Cicilline.
       H. Res. 72: Mr. Cicilline.
       H. Res. 97: Mr. Roe of Tennessee and Mr. McKinley.
       H. Res. 135: Mr. Hanna.
       H. Res. 153: Mr. Latta.
       H. Res. 425: Mr. Cotton.
       H. Res. 436: Mr. Carson of Indiana and Mr. Tierney.
       H. Res. 440: Ms. Eshoo, Mr. Vela, Mr. Langevin, Mr. Scott 
     of Virginia, Mr. Tierney, Mr. Connolly, Ms. Hanabusa, Mrs. 
     Capps, Mrs. Bustos, Mr. Heck of Washington, Mr. Visclosky, 
     Mr. Bera of California, Mr. Peterson, Mr. Barrow of Georgia, 
     Mr. Lowenthal, Mr. Huffman, Ms. Matsui, Mr. McNerney, Mr. 
     Honda, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, Ms. Brown of 
     Florida, Ms. Bass, Mr. Cohen, Ms. Moore, Mr. Carson of 
     Indiana, Mrs. Christensen, Mr. Butterfield, Mr. Bishop of 
     Georgia, Mr. Waxman, Mr. Cicilline, Mr. McDermott, Mr. 
     Rahall, Ms. Waters, Mr. Danny K. Davis of Illinois, Mr. 
     Costa, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Vargas, Mr. Becerra, Ms. Wasserman 
     Schultz, Mr. Doggett, and Mr. Blumenauer.
       H. Res. 442: Mr. Barton, Mr. Hudson, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Austin 
     Scott of Georgia, Mr. Westmoreland, Mr. Woodall, Mr. Flores, 
     Mrs. Roby, Mr. Broun of Georgia, Mr. Young of Alaska, Mr. 
     Cramer, Mr. DesJarlais, and Mr. Bentivolio.

                          ____________________




                            PETITIONS, ETC.

  Under clause 3 of rule XII,

       67. The SPEAKER presented a petition of the Municipal 
     Legislature of Aguada, Puerto Rico, relative to Resolution 
     No. 19 requesting that the President grant immediate and 
     unconditional freedom to Oscar Lopez Rivera; which was 
     referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
     
     


[[Page 356]]

                    SENATE--Thursday, January 9, 2014

  The Senate met at 10 a.m. and was called to order by the Honorable 
Brian Schatz, a Senator from the State of Hawaii.
                                 ______
                                 

                                 prayer

  The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, offered the following prayer:
  Let us pray.
  Eternal God, creator of the universe, create hearts within our 
Senators that will make them strong enough to know when they are weak. 
Give them sufficient bravery to choose the more difficult right. Lord, 
inspire them to be gracious in defeat and humble in victory. Give them 
enough integrity to face themselves when they are afraid, as they 
remember that perfect love destroys trepidations. Teach them, O God, 
how to stand up in the storm with complete confidence in the ultimate 
triumph of truth.
  We pray in Your majestic Name. Amen.

                          ____________________




                          PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

  The Presiding Officer led the Pledge of Allegiance, as follows:

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

                          ____________________




              APPOINTMENT OF ACTING PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE

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

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                                        President pro tempore,

                                  Washington, DC, January 9, 2014.
     To the Senate:
       Under the provisions of rule I, paragraph 3, of the 
     Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby appoint the Honorable 
     Brian Schatz, a Senator from the State of Hawaii, to perform 
     the duties of the Chair.
                                                 Patrick J. Leahy,
                                            President pro tempore.

  Mr. SCHATZ thereupon assumed the Chair as Acting President pro 
tempore.

                          ____________________




                   RECOGNITION OF THE MAJORITY LEADER

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

                          ____________________




                                SCHEDULE

  Mr. REID. Following my remarks and those of the Republican leader, 
the Senate will be in a period of morning business with the time until 
noon divided equally. The Republicans will control the first 30 
minutes, and the majority will control the second 30 minutes.
  At noon, all post-cloture time on the motion to proceed to S. 1845, 
the unemployment insurance extension, will expire and the Senate will 
begin consideration of the bill. Senators will be notified when votes 
are scheduled.

                          ____________________




                       UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION

  Mr. REID. Another day has passed and we still have a vast majority of 
Republicans standing in the way of the extension of unemployment 
benefits.
  Some Republican Senators are having conversations about possible 
offsets for a full-year extension. I have said a number of times I 
think we would be ill-advised to have another short-term extension. If 
we are going to have an extension that they are talking about paying 
for, let's do it for 1 year. We don't need to come back and worry about 
this in 3 more months.
  Let's see how they wish to pay for this. We have heard proposals. The 
proposals are, one, to stop people having health care. The other is to 
go after children, the earned-income tax credit for American boys and 
girls. It doesn't sound like a very good idea to me.
  Then we have a number of proposals suggested by another Senator late 
last night that, if we look at it, it is not worth $5 billion. It is 
worth much less than that. To do what has been suggested by one 
Republican Senator would be to devastate the disabled, and that 
wouldn't be appropriate.
  I would be interested if there are other proposals. As I have 
indicated on a number of occasions, I continue to say offsetting the 
cost of emergency unemployment benefits is not something I agree with.
  President Bush extended emergency unemployment insurance five times. 
Not one of these five times was there a whimper from my Republican 
colleagues or certainly Democratic Senators that it should be paid for. 
It wasn't right to offset the cost when President Bush was President, 
and it is not right to offset the cost now that President Obama is in 
the White House.
  We have cut the deficit in half since President Obama took office, 
and overall debt reduction has been even more transparent, almost $3 
trillion. While we must keep up our good work, we have more to do. We 
must solve the Nation's job crisis if we ever hope to solve fiscal 
problems.
  Today's long-term unemployment rate is more than double what it was 
at any time Congress let emergency job assistance expire. Since many 
Republican Senators are insisting that the cost be offset, I am pleased 
to talk, as we all are on this side of the aisle, about a long-term 
emergency extension of unemployment benefits. I repeat, I am waiting to 
hear from my Republican colleagues about how to pay for this extension.
  It has been a week since families already hanging by a thread were 
kicked off of unemployment insurance benefits. Think about this. People 
who have been out of work for month after month learned at the 
beginning of this year they wouldn't get $300 a week.
  Remember, this is not charity. First, they have to lose their job, 
through no fault of their own. Then they have to go out every week, 
look for a job, and have to list where they have gone.
  For every job that is available in America today, there are three 
people looking for that job. I was stunned when I had my news briefing 
this morning when one Republican Senator said: There are so many jobs 
that are unfilled in America today. Let these people go get those jobs. 
Try that one on for size.
  For many the benefits were the only thing preventing them from 
descending into poverty or even becoming homeless. Hundreds of 
thousands of children, as a result of these benefits, have been stopped 
from going into the rolls of the poor.
  These families can't wait any longer for relief. I am optimistic my 
Republican colleagues will help us find a way out of this, and put 
people first and partisanship second.
  Tuesday, House Republican leaders were forced to send a message to 
their Members reminding them these people are out of work, be 
compassionate. Then, of course, the memo came to the Senate.
  Can one imagine having to remind Senators about having compassion for 
people who have been long-term unemployed?
  Yesterday afternoon the Republican leader spoke in this Chamber for a 
long time, 45 minutes. Not once during this discussion were the words 
``jobs,'' ``the economy'' or ``unemployment'' mentioned--not once.
  Middle-class Americans are hurting. We know the rich are getting 
richer, the poor are getting poorer, and the middle class is being 
squeezed.
  During the last 30 years, the middle class has lost 10 percent of the 
earnings they had in the previous 30 years,

[[Page 357]]

whereas the top 1 percent during that same 30-year period had their 
income and wealth triple.
  These people who are struggling out there are working two jobs. Some 
are even trying to do it with three jobs, and some of it is part-time, 
just in an effort to get by. The rest have watched their wages shrink 
at the same time, as I have indicated, as the richest of the rich are 
doing much, much better.
  What beleaguered Americans need is not a memo on basic decency, as 
Republicans got on Tuesday, or a bitter diatribe about the rules of the 
Senate; they need solutions. For 1.3 million Americans today and 5 
million Americans over the course of this year, extending emergency 
unemployment benefits is a solution.
  Raising the minimum wage so a mother or father working two jobs can 
afford the rent and an electric bill in the same month is a solution. 
Investing in job creation and education so the workers of today can 
compete for the jobs of tomorrow is a solution. Whenever my Republican 
colleagues are prepared to stop complaining and start working with 
Democrats to create solutions, we will be here waiting.

                          ____________________




                           ORDER OF PROCEDURE

  Mr. REID. Before my friend, the Republican leader, makes his remarks, 
I ask unanimous consent that the period for morning business be 
extended until 12:30 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 
10 minutes each; further, that the Senate recess from 12:30 p.m. to 
2:15 p.m.; finally, that the previous order with respect to the motion 
to proceed to S. 1845 be modified so all postcloture time on the motion 
to proceed be considered to be expired at 2:15 p.m., rather than the 
earlier time I mentioned.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________




                   RECOGNITION OF THE MINORITY LEADER

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader is recognized.

                          ____________________




                       UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION

  Mr. McCONNELL. For months the Democrats who run Washington have been 
desperate to distract from the pain of ObamaCare. If we listen to them, 
they think they have found something that might work for them.
  The one thing that can actually distract folks from the misery of 
this law is the misery of the economic malaise they have presided over 
for the past 5 years. We truly have to hand it to them in one respect. 
It takes a lot of chutzpah to spend an entire Presidential term pushing 
policies that are supposedly meant to help the little guy and then turn 
around and blame everybody else when they flop.
  But chutzpah won't solve the problem, and the poll-tested talking 
points and failed stimulus ideas we have seen Democrats trot out thus 
far won't do much to improve the plight of millions of Americans 
struggling in today's economy.
  To me that is the real tragedy, because the discussion about how to 
help Americans battle against the odds day after day is a conversation 
we actually should be having. In fact, it is a debate Republicans are 
having. In recent days we have seen several leading Republicans talk 
about how to tackle poverty in the 21st century.
  Unlike the Democrats' outdated ideas from the sixties, Republicans 
are thinking about ways to update our Nation's approach with fresh 
proposals that speak to the situation Americans actually find 
themselves in today, not back in the sixties.
  The Republican approach is to learn from past mistakes. It is about 
turning the left's good intentions into policies that can actually get 
the job done, and it is about moving beyond the treatment of symptoms 
and getting at the underlying problems.
  That is the thinking behind the Economic Freedom Zones Act, which 
Senator Paul and I recently introduced. It aims to shine a light into 
some of the most impoverished corners of our country, to raise up 
cities and families who have been left behind and sometimes literally 
crushed by the outdated ideas from the sixties and to actually do that 
in a way that lasts.
  With this legislation, some of the most disadvantaged areas of our 
country would acquire the ability to apply for economic freedom zone 
status that would help lift the burden of some of the poorest families 
in our country. Small business owners would see fewer government 
regulations, enabling them to create jobs and drive prosperity. 
Entrepreneurs would see punitive tax barriers peeled back, allowing 
them to lead a recovery with new ideas and new energy. Failed 
educational systems would see reforms that lift up disadvantaged 
children, giving new hope to a younger generation. Cities and regions 
that now face a dark future could transform themselves, if they chose, 
almost instantly into magnets for new ideas and for new hope.
  If our Democratic colleagues are serious about their focus on 
economic distress--if it is more than only some poll-tested ObamaCare 
distraction--then I would invite them to work with us on innovative new 
approaches such as this.
  This could allow the Senate, for instance, to consider our proposal 
as an amendment to the unemployment insurance legislation currently on 
the floor, because this is a discussion that needs to be about helping 
people. These economic freedom zones are similar in some ways to the 
Promise Zone initiative recently developed by the Obama administration.
  I was pleased to hear that eight counties in eastern Kentucky will 
soon receive Promise Zone designation. That is why I wrote in support 
of granting this designation last year, because there is no doubt that 
eastern Kentucky is a region that has suffered enormous hardship in 
recent years--much of it, unfortunately, related to the very same Obama 
administration war on coal families. But the promise zone designation 
is a step in the right direction nonetheless. Senator Paul and I will 
be heading to the White House later today for a promise zone event 
because we are encouraged the President is finally--finally--focused on 
a concrete approach to jobs that Members of both parties can support, 
proving that we can accomplish things when we focus on real efforts 
rather than political show votes that are designed to fail.
  Promise zones are something we can build on with far more 
comprehensive approaches, such as Senator Paul's economic freedom zones 
that would reach even more communities in need of revitalization. 
Because let's remember this: Government programs can sometimes help, 
but they can't do everything. The 1960s mindset about how to fight 
poverty needs to change to fit the realities of the 21st century.
  I want to share a sentiment I read yesterday from Thomas Vincent, an 
unemployed coal worker from the very Kentucky county where LBJ launched 
his big-government blitz 50 years ago. This was his take on the so-
called ``war on poverty:'' What good are all these government programs 
if they do not get you a job? It is a feeling, the article noted, that 
is widespread among his neighbors in Martin County.
  This is why Republicans say it is time for modernization and new 
approaches. It is time to give folks such as Thomas real hope. It is 
time to give them more than just good intentions.

                          ____________________




                       RESERVATION OF LEADER TIME

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
leadership time is reserved.

                          ____________________




                            MORNING BUSINESS

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will be in a period of morning business until 12:30, with 
Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each and with 
the time equally divided and controlled by the two leaders or their 
designees, with the Republicans controlling the first 30 minutes and 
the majority controlling the next 30 minutes.

[[Page 358]]

  The Senator from South Dakota.

                          ____________________




                         UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss amendment No. 2622 
I have filed, the Solutions to Long-Term Unemployment Act, that will be 
before the Senate today.
  The bill before the Senate today would extend emergency unemployment 
benefits for the 13th time since 2008. Let me repeat that. Congress has 
enacted or extended emergency unemployment benefits 13 times over the 
past 5 years. At some point you have to start asking yourself: At what 
point does this no longer become an emergency but it becomes permanent? 
We have been doing this now for 5 years. This will be the 13th time.
  Obviously, there are lots of people in a tough economy who are still 
hurting. But what this should say to us is that it is time we started 
not just treating the symptom but fixing the problem we have in America 
today. And the problem we have is a sluggish economy that continues to 
sort of stumble along. We have a chronically high unemployment rate 
with lots of people who have been unemployed for a very long period of 
time. Over that same period, Congress has pushed through ObamaCare, 
raised taxes on job creators, while the administration has pursued 
aggressive regulations that have done little more than drive up costs 
for many of our small businesses.
  So after 13 extensions of unemployment benefits, expensive new 
regulations, and higher taxes, what is the result? Well, today over 37 
percent of unemployed Americans have been out of work for 27 weeks or 
longer. That represents over 4 million men and women who have been most 
impacted by President Obama's failed economic policies.
  I applaud my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle who have 
offered up commonsense, even bipartisan, ideas to pay for the extension 
of emergency unemployment benefits. If we extend these benefits once 
again, I am hopeful we can find an appropriate way to pay for this 
extension and not pass the bill on to our children and grandchildren. 
However, I also have to come to the floor today to challenge all of my 
colleagues to look at solutions to the underlying problem rather than 
simply treating the symptoms of long-term unemployment for yet the 13th 
time.
  The underlying problem is we have 4 million Americans who have not 
been able to find jobs for more than 6 months on account of the 
stagnant Obama economy. That is almost double--double--the amount of 
long-term unemployed Americans relative to prerecession levels. So my 
amendment addresses the underlying problem of long-term unemployment by 
reducing labor costs, increasing worker mobility, and strengthening 
Federal worker training programs.
  First, my amendment would provide much-needed relief from ObamaCare 
for any employer who hires an individual who has been unemployed for 27 
weeks or longer. As we all know, ObamaCare is full of additional costs 
and mandates that are stifling economic growth. The ObamaCare employer 
mandate arguably has the greatest impact on an already weak labor 
market. The impact of this mandate is so great the administration has 
unilaterally delayed it until after the next election. Under this 
mandate, a business with 50 or more employees must provide government-
approved insurance or pay an annual penalty of $2,000 to $3,000 per 
employee. For a smaller or medium-sized business, that is a significant 
deterrent to expanding and hiring more workers.
  Under my amendment, if a business decides to hire someone who has 
been out of work for 27 weeks or longer, that person would be exempt 
from the ObamaCare mandate for as long as he or she works at that 
business.
  Second, my amendment would further reduce labor costs by providing a 
6-month payroll tax holiday for any employer who hires a long-term 
unemployed worker. Employers currently pay a payroll tax of 6.2 percent 
of an employee's wages up to a capped amount known as the Social 
Security wage base. Waiving this tax is an incentive for employers to 
hire those employees often considered to be a higher risk by virtue of 
the fact they have been out of the labor force for an extended period 
of time.
  Consider a job that is paying an annual wage of $40,000. The employer 
payroll tax holiday in my amendment represents a $1,240 incentive for 
the employer to hire a long-term unemployed individual. Or take a 
higher skilled job paying $80,000 annually. A payroll tax holiday 
represents a $2,480 incentive for the employer to hire someone who has 
been unemployed for 27 weeks or longer. When coupled with the ObamaCare 
exemption in my amendment, that is an incentive of roughly $5,000 to 
hire an individual who has been unemployed for an extended period of 
time.
  Third, my amendment addresses a fundamental problem facing the long-
term unemployed by providing relocation assistance to start a job or 
find better opportunities.
  While the national labor market remains weak, there are pockets of 
prosperity across the country. In my home State of South Dakota, we 
have an unemployment rate of 3.6 percent. That is second only to our 
neighbors in North Dakota who are fully embracing the energy 
renaissance which is occurring in the Upper Great Plains and other 
parts of the country. Because of South Dakota's low tax and regulatory 
framework, it consistently makes us one of the best places in the 
United States to start and grow a business. In fact, one of the biggest 
issues we hear from prospective business investors is a concern they 
are not going to have enough workers if they decide to move to my 
State.
  Meanwhile, we have other parts of the Nation that continue to 
struggle with persistently high unemployment rates. Virginia has an 
unemployment rate of 8\1/2\ percent, and Rhode Island has 9 percent. 
The number of job openings and hire rates varies from region to region 
as well. This past summer the rate of job openings in the South was 20 
percent greater than in the Northeast. The same trend exists for hiring 
rates between those two regions.
  Part of a dynamic 21st economy is ensuring a mobile workforce that 
can meet regional demands for good-paying jobs. However, if you have 
someone who has been living off of unemployment benefits for the past 6 
months, that person likely does not have the resources to move to a new 
State for a new job.
  My amendment would provide a low-interest loan of up to $10,000 for 
anyone willing to relocate to a new job or move to a new State with 
better employment opportunities. These loans would have to be repaid 
within 10 years, but no payments would be required for 1 year while 
that individual or family gets back on their feet. Additionally, if the 
new job is eliminated within that first year, through no fault of the 
employee, the loan could be forgiven.
  Finally, my amendment would strengthen and streamline Federal worker 
training programs. We currently have over 50--50--Federal training 
programs across 9 Federal bureaucracies. It is a broken morass of 
programs that isn't helping employers or employees, and it certainly 
isn't an efficient use of taxpayer dollars. Even President Obama, in 
his 2012 State of the Union speech, said he wanted to ``cut through the 
maze of confusing [job] training programs'' and create ``one program'' 
for workers to find the help they need. Unfortunately, like many of the 
President's promises, that turned out to be more talk than action.
  While the President has failed to put forward a real plan to reform 
our worker training programs, the Republican-led House of 
Representatives has acted on a plan to accomplish just that. The House-
passed SKILLS Act includes several critical reforms that ensure workers 
receive the training they need for positions that businesses need 
filled today.
  The SKILLS Act would consolidate 35 redundant and ineffective Federal 
worker programs into a single workforce investment fund that would 
serve as a single source of support for workers, employers, and job 
seekers at the

[[Page 359]]

State level. This legislation creates much-needed flexibility at the 
State level and it empowers Governors and local employers to train 
workers for today's in-demand jobs.
  The SKILLS Act cuts through redtape and eliminates barriers that 
oftentimes keep workers from receiving the training they need when they 
need it. For too long we have been throwing taxpayer dollars at a maze 
of overlapping bureaucracies when we should be providing more targeted 
assistance directly to job seekers. We need to be training our workers 
for the high-tech jobs of today and the jobs that will continue to be 
in demand in the future.
  The SKILLS Act accomplishes these goals, which is why I included it 
in my amendment as a commonsense way to help the long-term unemployed 
try to find work in today's economy.
  There is no one solution to helping the unemployed. However, one 
thing is clear: We need to find ways to make it more attractive for 
employers to invest in and hire workers rather than constantly pushing 
legislation that will raise the cost of doing business in America.
  Let's think for a second about the bills the Democratic majority 
supports or supported in the past. ObamaCare raised the cost of labor, 
it drove up premiums for millions of Americans and made it more 
expensive for employers to hire new employees.
  Raising the minimum wage will raise the cost of hiring new employees 
and only worsen the job prospects for the long-term unemployed.
  The tax increases pushed by Democrats here in the Senate and the 
White House apply to millions of small business owners which 
discourages investment and job growth.
  New environmental regulations are driving up the cost of energy and, 
therefore, the cost of doing business in this country.
  I am not suggesting the provisions in my amendment are the only way 
to make it more economical for employers to hire more workers, but I am 
suggesting if we want more employment, we need to make it less costly, 
not more costly, to hire each additional employee. It seems that nearly 
every policy pursued by the Democratic majority and the White House 
would raise costs on businesses, especially those small businesses 
which create the majority of jobs in this country.
  We have tried the approach of bigger government, higher taxes, and 
more regulations for the last 5 years and it has not worked. Let's try 
something different. Let's have a real debate about how we lower cost 
and make it easier for employers to go out and hire new employees. 
Let's focus our efforts on those who need the most help, such as those 
Americans who have been out of work the longest on account of the 
lagging Obama economy.
  I hope this amendment as well as others that my colleagues will offer 
will have an opportunity to be heard here on the floor of the Senate 
and voted on. What we have going on here now in terms of a process 
doesn't resemble anything like an open process that should allow us to 
openly debate the big issues that affect the American people. This is a 
pocketbook issue. This strikes at the very heart of the quality of 
life, the standard of living, the future economic well-being of 
Americans all across this country.
  I certainly hope the majority leader will allow for an open process 
which will enable us to enter into that debate, to put forward 
proposals--mine, among many others--which could be considered and voted 
on that would actually improve the overall situation of middle-class 
Americans. It is high time we had that debate. I hope we can, and I 
hope the majority will give us that opportunity.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Booker). The Senator from Georgia.

                          ____________________




                          AFFORDABLE CARE ACT

  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, before I make my remarks, I commend the 
Senator from South Dakota and underscore what the Senator said 
regarding the SKILLS Act passed by the House of Representatives.
  I am the ranking member of the labor subcommittee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions. Six years ago the Workforce Investment 
Act expired in its authorization, and for 6 years it has languished in 
the bowels and in the heart of the Senate and the House of 
Representatives, going unauthorized.
  During that same 6-year period of time between 2008 and today, 
America has experienced terrible unemployment, terrible job loss, 
terrible increases in unemployment, and extensions of that 
unemployment.
  The Senator from South Dakota is exactly correct: If we were doing 
our job and reauthorizing programs in the law today--such as the 
Workforce Investment Act--and training people for the skills of the 
21st century and the jobs of the 21st century, we wouldn't be talking 
about unemployment compensation, we wouldn't be talking about the great 
tragedies of America. We would be talking about America's greatest 
prosperity. So I commend the Senator from South Dakota for pointing out 
what is critically important for us to recognize as Members of the U.S. 
Congress.
  I come to the floor, though, to talk about the Affordable Care Act, I 
will tell a couple real-life stories which came to me by email. But 
before I do, my job is to do what the people of Georgia want me to do. 
I have office hours when I am home. I answer my own phone calls. I try 
to respond to the concerns they have. I try to see that people get 
referred to the right place.
  Since January 1, I have dealt with almost nothing but the Affordable 
Care Act--or ObamaCare--and the consequences of that act, and what 
effect it is having on the American people and the people of Georgia--
and, in particular, on the two great promises used on the floor of this 
Senate to sell that legislation to the American people: One, if you 
like your policy, you can keep it; and, if you like your doctor, you 
can keep him or her. Both were clear, unequivocal promises.
  I will tell two stories today that came to my attention which 
illustrate how it was not true. And these are just two of many stories. 
The first is from Jane.

       Congressman, This is not my story but my friend's story, 
     Steve. . . . He has suffered with multiple myeloma for more 
     than 10 years. This is a disease that usually kills within 5 
     years of being diagnosed. But with the excellent health care 
     he has been able to receive through his health care program 
     he has had access to the Mayo Clinic and a myriad of drugs. 
     Now he has been told that his plan will be cancelled since 
     the plan does not meet the minimum standards set forth in the 
     ACA.
       Now he can no longer continue his treatments because the 
     various plans have deemed the drugs he needs to stay alive as 
     experimental. WOW! Really that is just awful and not enough 
     is being said about this government take over of our lives is 
     affecting those that are critically ill.

  And what about the promise made that if we liked our plan we can keep 
it? Steve doesn't have a plan, but he still has multiple myeloma.
  This story comes about the promise that: If you like your doctor, you 
can keep them. This is from Felicia in Alpharetta, GA, a story I hear 
more and more as I travel my State:

       My husband and I are both currently paying individual 
     health care policies as he currently has a small business and 
     I used to own one. He is on a Kaiser HMO and I am on a PPO 
     with Blue Cross Blue Shield. We have both received numerous 
     letters with conflicting information regarding changes to our 
     current policies. We are reasonably intelligent people and 
     yet we cannot figure out what is actually happening with our 
     health care nor do we believe the government has any clue 
     what is happening with this new legislation. Also, in 
     comparing an equivalent Obama care policy to my current 
     policy, I have only 10% of the doctors available in network 
     to what I currently have and of course, my doctors are not in 
     network. Please STOP and REPEAL this ridiculous legislation. 
     I DO NOT SEE ANY EVIDENCE that the government can improve our 
     current health care, only EVIDENCE that it has caused much 
     confusion, created wasted time, wasted money, and driven 
     Americans crazy!

  These are two emails sent to me out of many more I could be reading. 
But it is important for us to understand the impact the Affordable Care 
Act is having on the American people and the people of my State. In 
fact, I will share my personal experience from just over the Christmas 
holidays.

[[Page 360]]

  In December, I enrolled through the DC health care plan to buy my 
health care because all of Congress was moved into the DC health 
exchange to comply with the ObamaCare legislation. I worked hard to try 
and match the same care I had before under plan 105 Blue Cross/Blue 
Shield under the government health care. I couldn't find exactly a good 
enough match of PPO, but I came close--close in everything except 
premium. The premium went up 20 percent. And I think most of the 
American people--certainly people of my age--are realizing the same 
type of experience where premiums are going up and up.
  I would suspect the reason for the Executive order to extend next 
year's open enrollment date beyond the election is in part because the 
administration suspects what I suspect; that is, the realities of less 
enrollment than thought, and fewer young people going into coverage 
than thought is going to mean higher premiums, less access, and less 
affordability.
  But let me share another story which is really poignant. Fortunately, 
I was able to help, but when I found out, it broke my heart. It is a 
story about my grandson Jack and his speech therapist.
  Jack is a great kid, a highly intelligent kid, but had some speech 
problems and so had a special speech therapist named Dr. Tim. Over the 
Christmas holidays I got to meet Dr. Tim, and we were talking about his 
job, what he does as a speech therapist, and about Jack and all of his 
improvements.
  Dr. Tim turned to me and said: I don't want to burden you with my 
personal problems, but my youngest daughter has cystic fibrosis and has 
had it into her teenage years; and I have had health care coverage up 
until a week ago, when I was notified my health coverage would no 
longer pay for the drugs it takes to keep her alive.
  For anybody in this Senate or in America who understands cystic 
fibrosis, it is a terrible debilitating disease of the lungs and people 
never used to live to the age of 21. But because of medicine, health 
care, and breakthroughs in pharmaceutical therapy, people live past the 
age of 21. In fact, we have a Georgian who lived into his 50s before he 
passed from cystic fibrosis. But they cannot live if they don't have 
the pharmaceutical therapy. And there are no substitutes and there are 
no replacements.
  This doctor lost his health care reimbursement for pharmaceuticals 
for cystic fibrosis in part because of the judgments and the 
applicability of the Affordable Care Act. To his credit and to the 
credit of the health care system and the insurance industry, he was 
able to in part replace it but not nearly as close to what he had on 
the policy before.
  These are just a few stories about Americans who are experiencing 
terrible problems because of the change in our health care system.
  The promises we made are not being kept. The promises that were made 
to sell the Affordable Care Act to the American people and to the 
Congress of the United States are not being kept. It is important for 
us to understand that cannot stand. And if what happens next year 
happens as I think it will, costs will skyrocket again for the American 
people, access and affordability will go away or will not be nearly as 
good as it is, and we will have taken a health care system which was 
the envy of the world and turned it into a health care system that is 
the biggest problem in the world.
  I want things to work. I want to help the American people. I want 
them to have access to affordable health care. I want them to have 
access to their doctors and to be able to keep their policy. We need to 
work toward that as we go through the tragedies of the implementation 
in 2014 of the Health Care Act--ObamaCare--which today is America's No. 
1 personal problem for the average American citizen.
  I am grateful for the time, and I yield back the remainder of my 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.

                          ____________________




                           HEALTH CARE COSTS

  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I come here to speak about a couple items. 
We are now in a second-day delay as the majority leader and his caucus 
decide whether Republicans will be allowed to offer alternatives and to 
offer amendments to the proposal before us, and that is extension of 
the Unemployment Insurance Act.
  I was one of six who voted for the motion to proceed for the very 
purpose of achieving the opportunity to offer ideas which I have had 
and to allow others on our side of the aisle to offer their ideas as to 
how we can improve this program, and how we ought to address it at this 
point in our continuing effort to struggle out of the great recession 
now into its fifth year.
  Unemployment is still high in my State--over 7 percent--as a number 
of States, which is unacceptable, and particularly into the fifth year 
after a recession. The growth has been so anemic and so tepid, we are 
sort of staggering our way into a better position.
  Nevertheless, while some people are finding jobs and getting back to 
work, there are many who aren't. That is a serious subject and 
something we ought to be debating and talking about.
  Unemployment insurance is one of the programs which has been proposed 
to help those in need. There are people who are genuinely in need of 
that help and have made every possible effort to get back to work and, 
for many reasons, have not been able to do so. But we also know, and it 
has been documented, that there are many people who have taken 
advantage of this program and basically said, I don't have to work hard 
to get back to work because I am getting enough support from the 
government.
  We have to acknowledge the fact that there are policy issues which 
have to be discussed as we go forward without automatically extending a 
program where we know reforms would make the program better and would 
put us in a better position to help people get back to work and to move 
our economy.
  We also know, working now to just pass a budget for the first time 
here in several years to work off of, the number we agreed on we 
wouldn't go over is now being violated. The very first legislative 
piece which has come before this body violates the budget agreement 
which was agreed to a short time ago. So a number of us would like the 
opportunity to propose ways to offset the spending if this program goes 
forward.
  The combination of those two things--reforms which will allow us to 
continue to support those who are genuinely unable to find work from 
those who are taking advantage of the program and abuse of the program, 
as well as suggestions as to how we can support efforts toward more 
full employment through training programs, through any number of 
initiatives--my colleagues would like to at least talk about, at least 
debate, and at least have a vote on. We are in the minority here. We 
are not sure we are going to win any of those votes. Although I think 
if we make persuasive enough arguments and it makes enough sense, 
perhaps we will.
  Given this 2-day delay in terms of a decision from majority leader 
Harry Reid as to whether to allow us these opportunities, it appears 
that through this tactic of supporting the motion to proceed we have 
literally put the ball in Harry Reid's office and his caucus court as 
to what they want to do.
  We went through the year 2013, and since July, Republicans have been 
offered a total of only four amendments to all the things done in the 
last 6 months of this year. That is not how the Senate is supposed to 
work. That is a dictatorial dictate by the majority leader, 
unprecedented in 200 years or more of operation of this Senate.
  So we are waiting for that decision, and, obviously, that decision 
will have a bearing on my position on this particular issue.
  I would also comment on the fact that lately we have been hearing a 
lot from the President about income inequality, and I anticipate we 
will be hearing a lot more as we move toward the 2014 elections in 
November. There

[[Page 361]]

will be a debate on this, and I hope there will be a debate which 
allows both sides to look at this in a serious way and try to find ways 
to address the issue. But if we do that, I think it is important we 
understand that the President's signature accomplishment, the 
Affordable Care Act--ObamaCare, as it is called--is contributing to the 
problem of income inequality. So any debate on that issue, to be 
factually accurate and to be truthful, needs to incorporate a 
conversation about the impact of ObamaCare.
  As recently as 2012, we were told by the President that the health 
insurance premiums paid by small businesses and individuals ``will go 
down.'' Yet even as the administration recently has admitted that many 
Americans will pay more for health care because of ObamaCare, this week 
the latest report on health spending trends from CMS--the Centers for 
Medicare and Medicaid--disclosed that health care spending in the 
United States rose 3.7 percent in 2012. That is less than it rose in 
previous years, and that is a good sign.
  Many are saying, well, the reason for this is the Affordable Care 
Act. Had we not passed the Affordable Care Act, this wouldn't have 
happened. Apparently, though, they did not read the rest of the report 
because the report also states that the provisions in the Affordable 
Care Act had minimal impact on total national health care spending. So 
while the administration may claim that their bill, ObamaCare, is 
lowering overall health care spending, the report says it has only had 
a minimal impact.
  What is happening is that there are reforms being made through the 
private sector, through the providers, in terms of more efficient, more 
effective ways to deliver health care. That is not operating because of 
the health care act. In fact, the health care act, if we are truthful 
about it, is contributing to the problem of inequality.
  Many Americans are experiencing, despite what the President has said, 
higher premiums or paying outrageous deductibles when they purchase 
coverage through the ObamaCare exchanges. Let's bring this down to a 
personal level because I have been receiving hundreds, actually 
thousands of emails, phone calls, letters, comments that I hear back 
home from Hoosiers who basically say: This ain't working. It is sure 
not working for me.
  But I want to bring it down to the personal level so we can 
understand what individual families are going through at this 
particular time with this mandate imposed upon them relative to their 
health care coverage.
  Thomas from Indianapolis wrote to me and said he went on the 
ObamaCare exchange to take a look at health insurance plans that would 
be available to him and he was, as he said, ``shocked to find that it 
was at least $200 a month.'' That is $2,400 a year more than he had 
been quoted just a few months before from a broker. He added, ``I have 
thought about just going without insurance''--as we know many 
individuals are thinking about and have decided not to sign up for this 
program. Of course, the program is built financially on the fact that 
millions will sign up and that is not happening. I predict that is 
going to break the back of the program. He added:

       I have thought about going without insurance, but my family 
     suggested that I not do that. The Affordable Care Act has 
     created a terrible quandary for me. At this point I feel as 
     if the Federal Government is like a mean Big Brother, making 
     my life miserable.

  William from Granger, IN, emailed me to tell me his wife, who works 
as a part-time nurse, now is no longer offered health care because she 
is part time. So William then decided, OK, I will have to go into the 
exchange and find insurance for my wife and my family and discovered 
that their premiums will rise to $19,076 a year. He goes on to say, 
``So much for `if you like your plan, if you like your doctor . . . 
your costs will go down by $2,500.'''
  Let me repeat that. The President has said your costs are going to go 
down by an average of $2,500 a year. William's costs increased over 
$7,500 a year. That is a $10,500 swing. That is not what was promised.
  Brandy from Cambridge City, IN, told me:

       I have been offered insurance through work at a cost of 
     $318 or $80 a week. I then checked HealthCare.Gov and have 
     been given a quote of $450 a month. I work a minimum wage job 
     and work as many hours as I can to get by as it is. After 
     taxes and child support, neither option is an option that I 
     can afford.

  He also cannot even afford to pay the penalty of the payment.
  These are just a few of the hundreds, if not thousands, of Hoosier 
comments I have heard from people who are experiencing sticker shock 
when they search for so-called affordable care under ObamaCare. I don't 
know if these people are Republicans or Democrats, conservatives, 
moderates, liberals, nonvoters or voters. These are just human beings 
who live in my State, regardless of their political affiliation, who 
are basically saying this thing is killing us. All these examples, 
multiplied by hundreds if not thousands, are contributing to the 
inequality the President is talking about.
  The inescapable truth is that the Democrats forced an unwanted, 
unpopular, and unread--the famous quote from then House Speaker Nancy 
Pelosi--``We have to pass the bill so we can find out what is in it''--
and we are finding out about what is in it--an unwanted, unpopular, and 
unread 2000-plus page, one-size-fits-all health care bill, dictated by 
one party without any support from the minority.
  I am questioning whether this is the best way to deal with health 
care issues. Jamming this thing through on Christmas Eve day in 2009 
has turned out to be a disastrous Christmas gift for the American 
people. Families across our country who are being forced to redirect 
money they would have used to pay rent, to help their children attend 
school, to put food on the table, to pay the electric bills, are 
finding many cannot even do that.
  As we discuss the issue of income inequality, and it appears the 
President is going to want to do that throughout this coming election 
year, let's not pretend that ObamaCare is helping the situation. It is 
not. We need to face up to the fact that the Affordable Care Act--I bet 
the writers of this bill, if they could do it over again, wish they had 
not used the word ``affordable.'' They could call it the health care 
act or health care act for American people or whatever. If they went 
back and rewrote it, I bet you they would drop the word ``affordable,'' 
based on the facts, not the perception, the fact of what this health 
care bill is.
  I suspect they would have wanted to pass this in a bipartisan way so 
that at this point in time they would not have to take full 
responsibility for this act. Too many hard-working American families 
are paying more, not less, for health care because of ObamaCare, and it 
is contributing to the inequality the President continues to talk 
about.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________




                         UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, over the last few days our friends across 
the aisle have been telling the American people that we have a choice 
when it comes to the extension of long-term unemployment benefits. On 
one hand, they are saying we can do exactly what the President, Senator 
Reid, and his allies want, which is to extend benefits for 3 months at 
a cost of $6.5 billion that we will have to borrow from somebody or we 
will do nothing at all.
  Well, I am here to suggest that is a false choice, as President Obama 
likes to say from time to time. We can do better than that. As a matter 
of fact, several of my Republican colleagues have offered their 
suggestions. I have in my hand a list of 23 amendments that would deal 
with everything from improving access to workforce training to finding 
a way to pay for this money that would otherwise have to be borrowed 
from the Chinese or other creditors of the United States and added to 
our $17.3 trillion debt.
  In other words, there are a lot of good ideas. We just have not been 
given the opportunity to debate them and offer these amendments and 
actually do what the Senate used to do. As the

[[Page 362]]

Republican leader said yesterday, we actually used to have committees 
that voted on amendments and then passed bills that came to the floor. 
We used to actually have an open amendment process where people could 
offer their amendments, and then we would debate them and vote on them. 
What a novel idea. That, of course, is called legislating. That is what 
the legislative branch--Congress--is supposed to be doing. That is not 
what we have been doing.
  The majority leader is basically the traffic cop for the Senate 
floor. He is the one who determines whether we have an opportunity to 
have this sort of fulsome debate so we can offer these constructive, 
bipartisan--in many instances--ideas.
  We would like to try to reform our unemployment compensation system 
in order to help grow the economy, help the private sector create jobs, 
and get more people back to work so they don't have to depend on 
extended unemployment insurance. However, if they do find themselves in 
a difficult circumstance, as many Americans unfortunately do, they can 
then go back to school by using the Pell grant, for example, to go to 
our community colleges, which do a fantastic job of helping people 
learn new skills that make them a good fit for the good jobs, of which 
there are many. Unfortunately, there are not enough skilled workers in 
the workforce who are qualified for those jobs.
  To give the Senate a flavor for some of the ideas, my colleague from 
Oklahoma, Senator Coburn, who is always full of a lot of ideas, filed 
an amendment to ensure that people don't claim unemployment insurance 
and Social Security disability benefits simultaneously. If there is a 
case of double dipping, that would seem to be it, and it is an abuse of 
the system. He has filed an amendment that would prevent millionaires 
and billionaires from receiving unemployment checks. I know it is hard 
to believe, but people with incomes of $1 million or more have claimed 
nearly $21 million worth of unemployment benefits in a single year. 
That is unbelievable. What an abuse. That is an insult, really, to 
people who are in dire straits and need help, to know there are people 
gaming the system either by double dipping or being millionaires and 
claiming unemployment benefits. Again, we have borrowed $250 billion to 
pay these extended unemployment benefits since 2008, and there are some 
millionaires and billionaires who are gaming the system for their 
benefit. Why wouldn't we want to fix that? Why wouldn't we want to have 
a vote on those good ideas by our colleague Senator Coburn?
  Meanwhile, our colleague from South Carolina, Senator Scott, has 
filed a commonsense amendment that would define full-time employment as 
a 40-hour workweek for the purposes of ObamaCare. The Presiding 
Officer--and since he walked in, I will pick on my friend from 
Maryland--remembers when we had a number of leaders from organized 
labor who came to the White House and said that ObamaCare is turning 
full-time work into part-time work. Because of the penalties associated 
with the employer mandate and the like, many employers are shifting 
full-time workers into part-time workers. That is not just a concern on 
this side of the aisle; it is a broad concern which impacts a lot of 
people.
  I remember recently being in Tyler, TX, at a diner, and the owner of 
that diner said he tragically had to put a single mom on a 30-hour 
workweek in order to avoid some of the penalties of ObamaCare. So to 
make up for that lost income, she had to go and get a second part-time 
job because of ObamaCare and its unintended consequences. So Senator 
Scott has an amendment that would address that problem.
  I hope the majority leader will rethink his longstanding position--at 
least over the last 6 months--of basically shutting out any other 
constructive ideas not just on this side of the aisle but on the other 
side of the aisle as well, as the Republican leader pointed out 
yesterday.
  In addition, our colleague from Indiana, Senator Coats, has several 
ideas. One would offset the extension of long-term unemployment 
benefits by delaying the individual and employer mandates under 
ObamaCare until 2015. We all recall that the President and this 
administration on its own initiative--I am looking hard to find where 
they have the authority, but nevertheless they did--delayed the 
employer mandate for a year on their own. Well, this would take the 
money saved from delaying the individual employer mandate and use that 
to pay for the extension of unemployment benefits.
  Another amendment would offset the cost of this extension by 
requiring people to provide a Social Security number before they claim 
the child tax credit. All it would do is make them provide a Social 
Security number to make sure that we root out fraud and abuse in the 
child tax credit claims. It would save billions of dollars, and it 
would allow us to pay for this short-term extension of long-term 
unemployment benefits.
  I would also add that I think most people need to be reminded that 
actually the basic program of unemployment insurance covers people for 
up to half a year, but over the last 5 years Congress has extended that 
up to 99 weeks, which is about 2 years. Well, this is supposed to be an 
emergency program, and thankfully the economy is starting to show some 
signs of improvement and growth. So what we need to do is get off of 
this temporary emergency measure and get back to normal circumstances 
and try to find ways to pay our bills and make sure people don't abuse 
the American taxpayer by gaming the system. We need to continue to look 
for ways to help people learn the skills they need in order to get the 
good, high-paying jobs that exist, among other things.
  Well, here is another idea. Our colleague from New Hampshire, Senator 
Ayotte, has filed an amendment that would restore the military pension 
benefits. This is something, if you will remember, that was taken out 
of the Murray-Ryan budget deal that passed before we left for 
Christmas, and I think it is fair to say there is broad bipartisan 
support for restoring those cuts to the military pensions, and Senator 
Ayotte's amendment would do that.
  All of these amendments deserve debate, which I am trying in some 
small way to provide here, but others have their ideas and have their 
way of talking about it, and they also deserve a vote. But, again, the 
majority leader, Senator Reid, is the traffic cop on the Senate floor. 
As Senator McConnell pointed out yesterday, the Senate has been 
dramatically transformed from a place where the Senate was justifiably 
claimed as the greatest deliberative body on the planet but no more.
  We can return to the way the Senate used to be by having this sort of 
constructive, bipartisan, fulsome discussion and vote on good ideas and 
make legislation better and not settle for something less. I said--and 
it is true--that Senators have a right to debate and offer legislation. 
I am not sure many people across America have thought very deeply about 
what that means.
  This isn't about the Presiding Officer's rights as a Senator or my 
rights as a Senator. This is about the rights and the voices of the 26 
million people I represent, because when I am shut out of the process--
when I can't offer amendments and ideas about how to improve 
legislation--they are shut out as well, and that is wrong.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I was unaware there was a time limit. I 
ask unanimous consent for an additional 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CORNYN. I thank the Chair.
  So these amendments represent just a small sample of the ideas our 
side of the aisle has put forward to help the long-term unemployed, 
accelerate job creation, and grow the economy--something I know we all 
want. We all want it, so why not talk about it. Why not vote on these 
ideas. Why not get the Senate back into the position where we have the 
give and take of

[[Page 363]]

ideas and where we come up with the best for the American people.
  A few other amendments my colleagues from Ohio and Kansas, Senator 
Portman and Senator Roberts, have offered would increase accountability 
and much stronger safeguards in the U.S. regulatory system. Regulations 
are what the bureaucracy does. We can't vote for them or against them. 
We can't hold them accountable that way, and they are out of control. 
If someone wants to know why those bills are so important, it is 
because last year the Obama administration imposed $112 billion worth 
of new regulations on the U.S. economy--$112 billion worth of new 
regulations in 2013 alone.
  Our colleague from Alaska, Senator Murkowski, who is the ranking 
member of the energy committee, is rightly concerned about the impact 
of misguided regulations on our energy industry--primarily the oil and 
gas industry--and she has taken the time to draft a bold plan for 
reforming U.S. energy policy that would promote economic growth, job 
creation, national security, and responsible stewardship of our 
environment.
  In conclusion, I wish to recognize--in terms of a summary of some of 
the ideas, 23 of which I have on this card, but I will just mention a 
few of them--the ideas of our colleague from Utah, Senator Mike Lee, 
and his efforts to reform our dysfunctional tax system in a way that 
supports middle class families who are working hard to provide for 
their children. We should agree, as Senator Lee has advocated, that tax 
reform should aim not just to simplify the Tax Code and fuel job 
growth, but also to ease the burden on hard-working, middle-class 
families.
  There are a lot of great ideas out there. I can't think of a better 
time to talk about them than this time, when the President of the 
United States has made a priority of income inequality which, 
unfortunately, has become worse under his administration, not better. 
This has been further exacerbated by burdens such as ObamaCare, which 
we find out is just a bundle of broken promises, including: ``If you 
like what you have, you can keep it.'' ``It will lower costs, not 
increase them.'' We are finding out none of that is true.
  There are a lot of great ideas that we could, working together in the 
interests of the American people, agree on that would actually improve 
their economic situation and help restore the American dream. But what 
is the American dream to somebody who has been out of work and can't 
find work? It is a disappointment to say the least. We need to help 
people to not maintain their dependency on a government benefit in 
perpetuity but to liberate them from that dependency, to help them 
regain their self respect and sense of dignity by finding work and 
providing for themselves and their families, and to live their version 
of the American dream. In the process we all benefit. The Federal 
Government can pay its bills because people are paying taxes because 
they have good jobs, and America will be the same America we inherited 
from our parents and grandparents and, hopefully, we will make it 
better for the next generation and beyond.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.

                          ____________________




                              SOUTH SUDAN

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I have taken the floor of the Senate--and 
when I was a Member of the House, the floor of the House--to talk about 
circumstances that are occurring somewhere in the world where people 
are being killed, displaced; people are being uprooted simply because 
of their ethnicity. Ethnic cleansing has occurred around the world. I 
have taken the opportunity to put a spotlight on it in an effort to say 
that the civilized world needs to bring an end to those types of crimes 
against humanity. I have used the opportunity as a member of the 
Helsinki Commission, and now as chairman of the Helsinki Commission, to 
point out what America's priority needs to be, and that is to be a 
leader in the world to prevent ethnic cleansing.
  Many of us believed, after World War II, that the world would never 
again allow circumstances wherein people were killed simply because of 
the ethnic community to which they belong. I have spoken about Bosnia, 
Rwanda, Darfur, and Syria, and now we see the same thing happening 
again in South Sudan.
  I just came from a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee 
that was convened to discuss the crisis in South Sudan with two 
witnesses: the Honorable Linda Thomas-Greenfield, Assistant Secretary 
of the Bureau of African Affairs, and the Honorable Nancy E. Lindborg, 
Assistant Administrator of the Bureau for Democracy, Conflict, and 
Humanitarian Assistance. These two witnesses were giving an update to 
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee as to the circumstances in South 
Sudan and what we can do to try to bring about a resolution.
  I rise today to discuss the deteriorating circumstances in South 
Sudan. As some of my colleagues may know, ongoing political tensions 
between forces loyal to President Salva Kiir and forces loyal to the 
former Vice President Riek Machar, coupled with preexisting ethnic 
tensions, erupted in violence the night of December 15. I join the 
President and Secretary Kerry in calling for an immediate end to the 
violence in South Sudan. Currently, it is estimated that nearly 200,000 
people have been internally displaced as a result of the conflict, with 
another 32,000 having fled to neighboring States. The U.N. estimates 
that thousands of Sudanese people have been killed since December 15. 
Let me just remind my colleagues that three years ago today the people 
of South Sudan started a voting process that later that year led to 
their independence as the youngest new country in the world.
  Our U.S. Ambassador, Susan Page, has remained in Juba, along with a 
security detail and minimum key personnel. I thank her; it is very 
courageous of her to remain in South Sudan so we have our leadership on 
the ground to try to help the people. I applaud her bravery and 
sacrifice and those who are with her.
  The worsening violence has spurred a humanitarian crisis. The 
President has nominated Ambassador Booth to be our ambassador to that 
region to try to get a peace process started. He is currently in 
Ethiopia trying to get the international community to respond to a 
political solution to South Sudan. The international community has 
responded rapidly, including by working to significantly expand the 
size of the U.N. mission in South Sudan, but since the evacuation of 
foreign aid workers, most humanitarian agencies and the international 
NGOs are heavily reliant on brave South Sudanese staff who put their 
lives at risk to help their people.
  These are large numbers for the country of Sudan--the number of 
people displaced and the number of people killed. Let me share with my 
colleagues one of many examples of the crisis and how it has affected 
people in that region.
  I recently learned that at the onset of the December clashes, one 
local staff person from an American NGO was rounded up, along with 
seven members of his family, and taken to a police station in Juba. He 
ultimately escaped to the U.N. compound, but his family was killed, 
along with more than 200 others. He is from the Nuer ethnic group, 
which now lives in fear of ethnic targeting by members of the country's 
security forces from another ethnic group, the Dinka. Media reports 
also suggest that individuals in uniforms have entered the U.N. bases 
in several locations and forcibly removed civilians taking shelter 
there. On December 21, two U.N. peacekeepers were killed after a group 
attacked a U.N. peacekeeping base that was sheltering 20 civilians.
  There is no safe harbor today in South Sudan. The U.N.'s base can be 
overrun, and people killed because of their ethnicity. The 
international community must respond.
  I remain extremely concerned at the reports out of South Sudan, all 
of which suggest serious crimes against humanity are occurring in the 
country. The world cannot stand by and bear

[[Page 364]]

witness to another ethnic cleansing as we have seen in so many other 
places around the world. We must do all we can to ensure a peaceful 
resolution of the crisis and accountability for war crimes and crimes 
against humanity in South Sudan.
  Our first priority is to get peace on the ground, to stop the 
killings, so people can live in peace. We need to work with the 
international community so humanitarian aid can get to the people who 
need it--and that is very challenging considering that international 
NGOs cannot operate today in South Sudan--and we must hold accountable 
those who have committed crimes against humanity. We have said it over 
and over, but unless we hold accountable those who have perpetrated 
these atrocities, we will see it again and again. U.S. leadership is 
critically important to make sure that we document what has taken place 
and that we bring to justice those who are responsible for the crimes 
that have been committed.
  There is no question that a solution to the crisis in South Sudan 
must be political and not military. We understand that. South Sudan 
again is at a crossroads, and after coming so far, it must choose to 
renounce violence immediately and pursue a path of peaceful 
reconciliation.
  I am encouraged that President Kiir and former President Machar have 
sent negotiators to Ethiopia to participate in mediation talks. While 
these talks are a good first step, in the interim the violence must 
end, and both sides must be committed to negotiating in good faith. It 
is my hope these talks can bring about the bright future so many South 
Sudanese aspire for. The people of South Sudan deserve to understand 
the true meaning of safety and security, of peace, and prosperity. The 
United States stands with the people of South Sudan through these 
difficult times. We must pledge to continue to support those who seek 
peace, democracy, human rights, and justice for all of the citizens of 
the world's newest nation.
  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. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. I ask consent to address the Senate as in morning 
business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. My colleague from South Carolina will join me shortly on 
the floor, but I will make some remarks while I am waiting.
  When the Senator from South Carolina joins me, I ask unanimous 
consent to engage in a colloquy with the Senator from South Carolina.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________




                                FALLUJAH

  Mr. McCAIN. Some of us were in the Senate 10 years ago in 2004 when 
U.S. troops led two major offensives against Al Qaeda and other 
militants in the Iraqi city of Fallujah. Some of us remember how 146 of 
our brave men and women in uniform lost their lives and more than 1,000 
were wounded. Those fights were some of the bloodiest and toughest 
battles since the Vietnam war. Success was costly, but success we had. 
Ten years later, Al Qaeda fighters have once again raised their black 
flags over Fallujah, and they are battling to control other parts of 
Iraq.
  This tragic setback is leaving many of our brave Iraq war veterans--
and especially those who shed their blood, risked their lives, and lost 
their friends in fighting against Fallujah--questioning what their 
sacrifice was worth. Sadly, they find themselves agreeing with 
Congressman Duncan Hunter, a former marine who fought in Fallujah.
  He said:

       We did our job. We did what we were asked to do, and we 
     won. Every single man and woman who fought in Iraq, and 
     especially in those cities, feels a kick in the gut for all 
     they did, because this President decided to squander their 
     sacrifice.

  Prior to 2011, President Obama frequently referred to a responsible 
withdrawal from Iraq, which was based on leaving behind a stable and 
representative government in Baghdad and avoiding a power vacuum that 
terrorists could exploit.
  The President's Deputy National Security Adviser Antony Blinken in 
2012--and I am not making this up--stated that ``Iraq today is less 
violent, more democratic, and more prosperous . . . than any other time 
in history.''
  Based on the President's own markers, the administration is falling 
short of its own goals. The illusion of a stable and representative 
government has been shattered by increasing sectarian tension, and it 
is clear terrorists are exploiting the power vacuum left behind.
  The Obama administration blames Iraqis for failing to grant the 
necessary privileges and immunities for a U.S. force presence beyond 
2011. This is misleading--in fact, false--because as we saw firsthand, 
the administration never took the necessary diplomatic effort to reach 
such an agreement.
  The Senator from South Carolina and I traveled to Iraq in May 2011, 
only several months away from the deadline that our commanders had set 
for the beginning of the withdrawal. We met with all the leaders of 
Iraq's main political blocs and we heard a common message during all of 
these private conversations: Iraqi leaders recognized it was in their 
country's interest to maintain a limited number of U.S. troops to 
continue training and assisting Iraqi security forces beyond 2011.
  But when we asked Ambassador Jeffrey and the Commander of U.S. Forces 
in Iraq Lloyd Austin, while in a meeting with Prime Minister Maliki, 
how many U.S. troops remaining in Iraq would perform and how many the 
administration sought to maintain, they couldn't tell us or the Iraqis. 
The White House still had not made a decision.
  It went on like this for the next few months. By August 2011, leaders 
of Iraq's main political blocs joined together and stated they were 
prepared to enter negotiations to keep some U.S. troops in Iraq. An 
entire month passed and still the White House made no decision. All the 
while, during this internal deliberation, as Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff GEN Martin Dempsey later testified before the Senate 
Armed Services Committee, the size of a potential U.S. force presence 
kept cascading down from upwards of 16,000 to an eventual low of less 
than 3,000. By that point, the force would be able to do little other 
than protect itself, and Prime Minister Maliki and other Iraqi leaders 
realized the political cost of accepting this proposal was not worth 
the benefit.
  To blame this failure entirely on the Iraqis is convenient, but it 
misses the real point. The reason to keep around 10,000 to 15,000 U.S. 
forces in Iraq was not for the sake of Iraq alone. It was first and 
foremost in our national security interest to continue training and 
advising Iraqi forces and to maintain greater U.S. influence in Iraq. 
That core principle should have driven a very different U.S. approach 
to the SOFA--the status of forces agreement--diplomacy.
  The Obama administration should have recognized that after years of 
brutal conflict, Iraqi leaders still lacked trust in one another, and a 
strong U.S. role was required to help Iraqis broker their most 
politically sensitive decisions. For this reason the administration 
should have determined what tasks and troop numbers were in the 
national interest to maintain in Iraq and done so with ample time to 
engage with Iraqis at the highest level of the U.S. Government to shape 
political conditions in Baghdad to achieve our goal.
  We focus on this failure not because U.S. troops would have made a 
decisive difference in Iraq by engaging in unilateral combat operations 
against Al Qaeda and other threats to Iraq's stability. By 2011, U.S. 
forces were no longer in Iraqi cities or engaged in security 
operations. However, residual U.S. troop presence could have assisted

[[Page 365]]

Iraqi forces in their continued fight against Al Qaeda, it could have 
provided a platform for greater diplomatic engagement and intelligence 
cooperation with our Iraqi partners, it could have made Iranian leaders 
think twice about using Iraqi airspace to transit military assistance 
and weapons and arms and equipment to Assad and his forces in Syria 
and, most importantly, it could have maintained the significant 
diplomatic influence the United States at that time possessed in Iraq--
influence that had been and still was essential in guaranteeing Iraq's 
nascent political system, reassuring Iraqi leaders they could resolve 
their differences peacefully and politically, despite their mistrust of 
one another, and checking the authoritarian and sectarian tendencies of 
Prime Minister Maliki and his allies.
  The administration's failure in Iraq has been further compounded by 
its failure in Syria. In Syria, where President Obama has refused to 
take any meaningful action, the initially peaceful protests of early 
2011 were met by horrific violence by the Assad regime.
  This President and this administration have stood back and watched 
while over 130,000 people have been brutally killed and a fourth of the 
population displaced. In his promise to avoid military action and 
reduce the U.S. footprint in the Middle East, we have seen the 
resurgence of Al Qaeda throughout the region, Hezbollah and Iran 
emboldened in Syria, Russia reasserting its principal presence for the 
first time since it was kicked out of Egypt by Egyptian President Sadat 
in 1973, and the destabilization of the region in ways that will 
inevitably reverberate here in America.
  Again, there are those who may applaud President Obama's decision to 
disengage, arguing this isn't America's problem to solve. That the 
United States is fundamentally limited in its ability to influence 
developments in the Middle East is a consistent theme within the 
administration. No one denies there are limits to what the United 
States can do. That is always the case. But as Secretary Hillary 
Clinton told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee as she was leaving 
office:

       Let me underscore the importance of the United States 
     continuing to lead in the Middle East, North Africa and 
     around the world. When America is absent, especially from 
     unstable environments, there are consequences. Extremism 
     takes root, our interests suffer, and our security at home is 
     threatened.

  Nowhere do her words ring more true than in Syria and Iraq today, 
begging the question that by fleeing Iraq and sidestepping Syria has 
the administration helped empower terrorist forces in ways that have 
created long-term threats to U.S. national security? I am afraid it is 
hard to argue the answer is no.
  The administration must recognize its failed policies and change its 
course. America has lost credibility and influence over the past years, 
and we simply can't afford to remain disengaged. It is time that 
America stands and take its rightful role in resolving these conflicts 
to best serve American interests. It is time we adopt a comprehensive 
strategy for addressing the growing threats that are now emanating from 
the region and move forward from a position of strength. A return of Al 
Qaeda to Anbar Province is a sobering reminder for the administration 
that the tide of war is not receding.
  I see my colleague from South Carolina is here. I am sorry I didn't 
realize he had come to the floor. I know the Senator from South 
Carolina and I need to discuss a recent unfortunate development in 
Afghanistan, but before we do, could I recall for my friend from South 
Carolina the many visits--and I have lost count, but many visits--we 
made to Iraq from 2003 really up to 2012, and that one of the most 
interesting visits we had was when we were in Ramadi and Colonel 
MacFarland announced to us that the Sunni sheiks had come over--that 
the major sheik had come over, and he had sent some tanks over--and 
that was the beginning of what we know as the Anbar awakening--a 
turning point in the entire conflict. That, coupled with the surge, 
changed the fortunes of war in Iraq.
  By the way, the surge was opposed vehemently by the President of the 
United States and the former Secretary of State, then Senator Clinton, 
who stated in a hearing with General Petraeus that she would have to 
have a ``willing suspension of disbelief in order to believe that the 
surge would succeed.''
  But setting that aside, later, when we came back again to Fallujah 
and Ramadi, the Senator from South Carolina and I walked down the main 
street of Ramadi--down the main street--with Iraqis everywhere, proving 
the success of the surge in Anbar Province. Yet now, on the same 
streets we walked down--the exact same streets--there are now vehicles 
filled with Al Qaeda, flying the black flag of Al Qaeda.
  The bloodiest war of the conflict that was fought during our entire 
involvement with Iraq was the second battle of Fallujah. There were 95 
brave Americans killed and over 600 wounded. What do we tell these 
young people and their families? What do we tell them? I tell you what 
we have to tell them. We have to tell them their sacrifice was 
squandered by an administration that wanted out and didn't want to 
remain and consolidate the gains that were made through the sacrifice 
of American blood and treasure.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I would be glad to respond to the Senator's comments.
  No. 1, I understand the average American thinks of the wars in Iraq 
and Afghanistan as having been long and difficult wars costing a lot of 
money and a lot of American lives. But the point of the war is to make 
sure that radical Islam is contained and eventually defeated, and that 
is going to take an effort on our part.
  Does it matter that the Al Qaeda flag flies over Fallujah and Ramadi? 
I think it does. I think when Al Qaeda occupies a city anywhere in the 
world, it potentially affects every city throughout the world. Imagine 
the Nazis having come back in Germany and occupying part of Germany. We 
didn't let that happen. We had a following force in Japan and Germany 
to make sure the transition from totalitarian and dictatorial states to 
functioning democracies would occur. We are still in Japan and Germany. 
We are not taking casualties.
  To go into the Mideast and replace dictatorships and think you can do 
it in a matter of months or even a decade is probably not going to hold 
water, quite frankly. The good news is we were in a position in Iraq in 
2010 where if we had left behind a residual force not to be in combat 
but to provide the logistical, air support, training, intelligence 
capabilities missing in the Iraqi Army, this would have been a very 
different outcome.
  And it does matter to my fellow citizens here in the United States. 
If Al Qaeda is on the rise anywhere, it does affect us. Remember 
Afghanistan? Remember when the Russians left and the Taliban took over 
and they invited Al Qaeda and bin Laden in to be their honored guests? 
The rest is history. The reason 3,000 Americans died on 9/11 and not 3 
million is the terrorists, the radical Islamists, Al Qaeda and their 
affiliates can't get the weapons to kill 3 million of us. If they 
could, they would.
  So the goal is to create stability and marginalize Al Qaeda 
throughout the region. Unfortunately, as Senator McCain has predicted 
for a very long time, the absence of a following force allows security 
to break down and the vacuum was filled by the emergence of Al Qaeda in 
Iraq.
  I would like to go over some testimony from June of 2010, when 
General Austin was about to take over from General Odierno the command 
of our operations in Iraq. General Austin told me during my questioning 
that we were inside the 10-yard line when it came to being successful 
in Iraq. In other words, the surge had worked. The surge Senator McCain 
supported during his Presidential campaign worked.
  President Bush made his fair share of mistakes in Iraq, but to his 
undying credit he adjusted policies. We were all in. He gave General 
Petraeus all the troops we had to give and he stood behind General 
Petraeus, and over a 2- or 3-year period there was a phenomenal 
turnaround in the security situation in Iraq. The surge started in late 
2007, early 2008.

[[Page 366]]

  Here is what had existed in 2010 in June. Basically, we were inside 
the 10-yard line, and General Odierno said: I think the next 18 months 
will determine whether we get to the goal line or give the Iraqis an 
opportunity to hit the goal line beyond 2011.
  So we were in a good spot. The surge had worked, and we needed to 
close this thing out. I asked this question back in 2010: What would 
happen if Iraq had become a failed state? Let's say we are inside the 
10-yard line but we are not smart enough to get in the end zone. What 
would happen? Here is what General Odierno said:

       . . . if we had a failed state in Iraq, it would create 
     uncertainty and significant instability probably within the 
     region. Because of the criticality of Iraq, its relationship 
     to Iran, its relationship to the other Arab states in the 
     region, if it became unstable, it could create an environment 
     that could continue to increase the instability.

  I don't believe we are close to that. I believe we are very far away 
from that happening. I think we are definitely on the right path. But 
those are the kinds of things which would happen if we had a complete 
breakdown inside Iraq. Here was a quote:

       The top U.S. commander in Iraq, Army Gen. Lloyd Austin, has 
     said repeatedly that Iraq is not yet fully capable of 
     defending its own air space or land borders, and that it 
     needs help in other areas such as intelligence and logistics.

  Our military commanders were telling us that the surge had worked, 
but we were not there yet.
  Here is what I would like to say to the administration: If you 
believe Iraq was the wrong war to fight and we shouldn't be there, own 
your decision. Don't blame the Iraqis.
  The truth is the administration, led by President Obama, had 
absolutely no desire to leave one person behind in Iraq because this 
was Bush's war and America was tired, and he ran on the idea of ending 
the war in Iraq. When it came time to make that fateful decision about 
a small 10,000 or 12,000, whatever the number was, residual force to 
maintain the gains we fought so hard and to keep Iraq stable, he now 
wants to tell the world it was the Iraqis. I know differently.
  I know, and so does Senator McCain, that this administration made it 
impossible for the Iraqis to say yes because this administration would 
never give the Iraqi Government a troop number from the White House as 
to the size of the force.
  I remember General Austin saying publicly we needed 18,000. The 
bottom line from the Pentagon was somewhere slightly north of 10,000. I 
remember the discussions in the White House got down to 3,500 and it 
was cascading down.
  I remember General Dempsey answering my question as to how the 
numbers were reduced: Was it as a result of the Iraqis saying, no, that 
is too many troops to leave behind in Iraq or were the numbers reduced 
because the White House did not want to have that many people left 
behind? He said the cascading down from 18,000 all the way to 3,500 had 
nothing to do with the Iraqis. It was the uncertainty and unwillingness 
of the White House to commit to a number.
  So what happened? We left the country with 200 U.S. troops advising 
and assisting, no capability. Everything they talked about happening if 
we do not get Iraq right and get into the end zone from the 10-yard 
line in 2010 is happening on steroids. Everything our generals told us 
about what would await Iraq if we didn't get this right is coming true 
at an accelerated pace.
  So I turn it back over to Senator McCain.
  Mr. McCAIN. Could I ask the Senator again: One, Iraq and Syria now 
are in danger of becoming a base for Al Qaeda and movement back and 
forth between that area of Anbar Province, which obviously poses an 
enormous threat, because we know what the ultimate goal of Al Qaeda is.
  Could I also recall for my friend from South Carolina the meeting we 
had with Maliki--after we had met with Allawi, after we had met with 
Barzani, the leader of the Kurds, who all agreed we would get together 
and endorse a U.S. troop presence to remain in Iraq. This 
administration refused--even after we came back and begged them to give 
us a number--refused to give the number, claiming it had to be endorsed 
by their Parliament, which was absolutely false.
  But now we see Iranian aircraft overflying Iraq with weapons and arms 
for Bashar al-Assad. We see Anbar and that area of Syria and Iraq now 
becoming possibly a base for Al Qaeda to operate. We see the two major 
cities in Anbar, Ramadi, and Fallujah--where so much American blood was 
shed--now with vehicles driving around with the black flag of Al Qaeda 
on display.
  I think it is important we make it clear. The Senator from South 
Carolina and I are not advocating sending combat troops back to Iraq. 
That is impossible. It may be an avenue, but it is impossible, and we 
are not advocating that. We are advocating that we give advice, send 
equipment, and we give them some capabilities. We help them with 
intelligence. There are certain places we can help them. But at the 
same time, now Prime Minister Maliki has to reach out to the Sunnis and 
get a reconciliation.
  From the day U.S. troops left Iraq, Maliki began to persecute the 
Sunni. He even charged his own Vice President, who was a Sunni, with 
treason and the Vice President had to leave the country.
  So if any of this is going to work, if we have any influence--and 
have no doubt who has the influence in Iraq today: Iran. But if we have 
any influence, we have to tell Maliki we want to help and we want to 
give him the kind of technical assistance he needs. But he has to reach 
out to the Sunni in the way that took place in the Anbar awakening back 
in 2008. Because without national reconciliation, all the equipment and 
all the assistance we can give the Iraqis will not help.
  So I do blame Prime Minister Maliki. Responsibility lies with his 
behavior toward the Sunni, but we were not there to influence him. We 
were not there. It is not only the kind of assistance we could have 
provided them that they need, but it also is the influence issue. No 
expert on Iraq today will tell you we have anything but a minimal 
influence and Iran has that. If anybody thinks Al Qaeda's control of 
large portions of Iraq and Syria is not a threat to the United States 
of America, then they don't understand the nature of Al Qaeda.
  Mr. GRAHAM. As to the future of how to move forward, Prime Minister 
Maliki with all thought did go to Basra and take on the Shia militia.
  The political gains we made in Iraq are being lost by lack of 
security. If we would have had a residual force, the political momentum 
toward reconciling Iraq would have continued. Without security, people 
go back to their sectarian corners. I would argue that the Sunnis need 
to up their game too.
  But the immediate problem is how do you repel Al Qaeda from Fallujah 
and Ramadi? The way it worked before is you had the Sunni awakening, 
where the Sunni tribal leaders in Anbar had a taste of the Al Qaeda 
agenda and said: No, thank you. They were literally killing children in 
front of their parents for smoking. The stories coming out of Anbar 
Province about the abuse the people of Anbar suffered under Al Qaeda 
control would break your heart. So the Sunni leaders married with 
American military personnel to drive the Al Qaeda elements out of 
Anbar.
  We are not there now. So how do you get Al Qaeda dislodged from Anbar 
Province, Ramadi and Fallujah? You are going to have to get the Sunni 
tribal leaders to work with the Iraqi Army.
  I think now is a good time to send a former military commander of the 
U.S. forces--someone who is retired if that is what is required--to see 
if they can bring these parties together to form a military alliance 
between the Sunni tribal leaders and the Iraqi Army so the weight of 
the Iraqi Army can be brought into this fight. The distrust is high. 
But the way Al Qaeda was defeated in the past was the U.S. military 
working with the Sunni tribal leaders. We are not there.
  Mr. McCAIN. I would argue, I say to the Senator from South Carolina, 
two names which spring to mind would be General Petraeus and Ambassador 
Crocker, probably the two most respected people in Iraq today. Maybe we

[[Page 367]]

are getting into too much detail, but I do agree with him on that.
  Mr. GRAHAM. The bottom line is we have to change the momentum. We are 
not there. But Senator Menendez, to his great credit, is willing to 
release his hold on the sale of Apache helicopters to allow the Iraqi 
military an advantage over Al Qaeda. I think Senator Menendez did the 
right thing.
  So supplying arms in a smart way is part of the strategy to move 
forward. But we have to get the military in Iraq working with the Sunni 
tribal leaders.
  I would ask Senator McCain this question: On the other side of the 
border in Syria is complete chaos, is hell on Earth. I don't know how 
we stabilize Iraq long term until we deal with the dismantling of Syria 
where Al Qaeda occupies the region right across the Iraqi border. How 
does a breakdown in Syria affect Iraq?
  Mr. McCAIN. I don't think there is any doubt, I would say to my 
friend from South Carolina, that this has become an almost safe 
operating area on both sides of the Syria-Iraq border for Al Qaeda.
  It is interesting. There has been a little good news in the last day 
or two; that is, some of the more moderate forces in Syria have struck 
back at this radical Islamist group because of the incredible cruelty 
of al-Nusra and ISIS, which is the radical Islamic group both in Iraq 
and Syria. Interestingly enough, that is being accomplished without any 
U.S. help. Thank God for the other countries such as Saudi Arabia, 
Qatar, and others which have been of assistance to these people. They 
have been driving out some of the more extremist element. We are 
working with the Russians to remove the chemical weapons.
  In Syria today, Bashar al-Assad, from helicopters, is dropping these 
crude cluster bombs which are just shrapnel that kill anybody within 
lethal range. Since dropping it on populated areas, Bashar al-Assad has 
slaughtered innocent men, women, and children.
  So here we are working with the Russians. Today there was a U.N. 
resolution from the Security Council condemning Bashar al-Assad's 
barbaric behavior. Guess who vetoed that. Our friends, the Russians. 
This is the most Orwellian situation in Iraq anybody has ever seen 
throughout history. Russians are working with us to remove chemical 
weapons from Syria and at the same time aircraft from Russia are 
landing full of weapons to kill Syrian men, women, and children. I am 
not sure a Syrian mother can differentiate between her child dying from 
a chemical weapon or dying from one of these cluster bombs that Bashar 
al-Assad is unloading from his helicopters.
  So we have this grandiose idea the Secretary of State and the 
administration have been pushing for months and months to have a Geneva 
II. The first Geneva failed. Does anyone on God's green Earth believe 
that Bashar al-Assad, who is winning, is going to preside over his own 
transition from power? Of course not.
  I will never forget--I am sure the Senator from South Carolina will 
never forget--the testimony of our now still Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff and then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta before the 
Armed Services Committee: Bashar al-Assad inevitably will leave.
  The President of the United States: Bashar al-Assad, it is not a 
matter of when, it is not a matter of whether he will leave but a 
matter of when.
  Meanwhile, the weapons pour in from Iran; Hezbollah, 5,000 of them; 
130,000 people slaughtered, and one-quarter of the population being 
slaughtered, while this administration not only sits by and does 
nothing but the President of the United States says nothing.
  This will go down as one of the most shameful chapters in American 
history. If the policy of this administration is to only focus on 
counterterrorism, get out of the Middle East, and remove any 
involvement of the United States in the Middle East, I can assure my 
colleagues the Middle East will not allow the United States of America 
to not be involved.
  Mr. GRAHAM. If I may just conclude. I have a quote from Speaker 
Boehner, who said he would support the Obama administration if it 
decides to leave troops in Iraq beyond 2011.
  I remember Senator Obama and Senator Clinton not being particularly 
helpful to the mistakes made in Iraq during the Bush administration. In 
fact, the entire election in 2008 and the primary was about Iraq. I 
remember the politics of Candidate Barack Obama, who basically used the 
Iraq war to win the nomination, for lack of a better word. I remember 
during the campaign he talked about Afghanistan being a good war. We 
will talk about Afghanistan later. It is not a happy story either, I am 
afraid.
  But the bottom line is that there was bipartisan support for troop 
presence beyond 2011, a residual force. This administration chose to 
ignore the advice of the commanders, and they created the situation 
where the Iraqis could not say yes. Yet they want history to record 
this being a problem created by the Iraqis for not giving legal 
immunity to U.S. soldiers. History is going to be written about our 
times. How this ends, nobody knows. But I know this: It is not fair to 
say that the reason we have nobody left behind in Iraq is because of 
the Iraqis. It is fair to say that the administration got the result 
they wanted, and they should own that--good, bad, or indifferent. Don't 
create a straw person for the situation that you drove and you created.
  As to Syria, please understand that this whole conflict started when 
people went to the streets peacefully to ask for more political freedom 
after the uprising in Egypt; that this war in Syria did not start with 
a Sunni uprising or Al Qaeda invading the country. The conflict in 
Syria started when the people of Syria, from all walks of life, started 
demanding more from their government, from this dictatorship, and the 
response they received from their government was to use lethal force.
  It has broken down now to a regional conflict where the Iranians are 
backing Assad and you have Sunni Arab States backing parts of the 
opposition and you have Al Qaeda types coming from Iraq and other 
places filling in the vacuum created by this breakdown in Syria.
  At the end of the day, what Senator McCain had been talking about for 
3 years is that once you say Assad has to go--no President should say 
that unless they are willing to make it happen. Assad was on the ropes. 
With just any effort on our part, a no-fly zone to boots on the ground, 
any assistance at all in the last couple of years and Assad would be 
gone, the transition would be well underway. It would have been bloody 
at first, but we would have behind us now a Syria moving toward 
stability because the good news is the average Syrian is not a radical 
Al Qaeda Islamist. Syrians have been living peacefully with each 
other--Christians, Sunnis, and Alawites--for hundreds of years. Now 
Syria has become the central battle for every radical Islamist in the 
region, and it is just sad and sorry to witness.
  But what does it mean to us? It means that if this war continues--our 
friend the King of Jordan is under siege. The Lebanese Ambassador 
testified a couple of weeks ago in our committee that the country is 
saturated. Almost 1 million refugees from Syria have gone to Lebanon. 
There are over 5 million in Lebanon today. They have added almost 1 
million refugees from Syria. They didn't plan to get to 5 million 
people until 2050. The Kingdom of Jordan--the Jordanians have received 
over 600,000 refugees, with no end in sight.
  Syria is not a civil war. Syria is a regional conflict where you have 
proxies backing each side in Syria that are taking the entire region 
into chaos. It is killing Iraq. It is destabilizing Lebanon and Jordan. 
It has to be addressed in an effective way.
  If you want to be President of the United States, certain 
requirements come with the job: having a vision, making tough calls at 
the time when it would matter. On President Obama's watch, you had the 
Arab spring come about and you had a desire by this administration to 
leave the region at any and all costs. Now you have absolute chaos. The 
only way we are going to fix this is for America to get reengaged.

[[Page 368]]

We do not need boots on the ground, but we need leadership.
  It just breaks my heart to see how close we were in 2010. The surge 
did work in spite of opposition from President Obama as Senator and 
Secretary Clinton as Senator. In spite of their vehement opposition, 
the surge did work, and on their watch we are about to lose everything 
we fought for. Al Qaeda is the biggest beneficiary of our withdrawal 
from Iraq. Al Qaeda is the biggest beneficiary of our indifference in 
Syria. Al Qaeda is thriving, and our allies and our friends are in 
retreat.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, thank you for your patience.
  We 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 12:35 p.m., recessed until 2:15 p.m. and 
reassembled when called to order by the Presiding Officer (Ms. 
Heitkamp).

                          ____________________




                            MORNING BUSINESS

  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate be in a 
period of morning business until 3 p.m. today, and that I be recognized 
at 3 p.m., with all other provisions of the previous order remaining in 
effect.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Baucus, Mr. Hatch, and Mr. Portman pertaining to 
the introduction of S. 1900 are printed in today's Record under 
``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I yield back my time.
  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. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________




                      REMEMBERING JAVIER MARTINEZ

  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, many of us have come back from a 
couple of wonderful weeks in our home States, traveling and visiting 
with families, and had the privilege of spending time with loved ones 
and sharing our hopes and plans for the new year. Not everyone was so 
fortunate.
  I rise today to honor the memory of yet another tragic victim of gun 
violence in Connecticut and our country.
  On December 28, in New Haven, shortly before the beginning of this 
new year, one family's time together with their son was cut short when 
Javier Martinez was shot and killed.
  I have his picture here in the Chamber. His memory is with us today, 
as I ask this body to honor him, along with other victims of gun 
violence who have died since Newtown, and those who have died before 
Newtown, and now I ask them to be remembered not only in words but also 
in action by this body, so that Javier shall not have died in vain.
  He was only 18 years old. He was a senior at Common Ground High 
School in New Haven, one of the really extraordinary educational 
institutions in our State.
  His teachers and classmates describe him as a kind, intelligent young 
man who was becoming a leader in the school and in his community.
  He had a bright future. In fact, he had the whole world, his whole 
life ahead of him.
  At Common Ground, a charter school that focuses on sustainability and 
connecting students with natural resources in their own communities, he 
was absolutely thriving.
  I have heard that some of his classmates and teachers at Common 
Ground are perhaps watching right now or will watch at some point, and 
I want to thank them for joining in honoring his memory and continuing 
his work to make our planet, our world, our Nation, and the community 
of New Haven better, and keeping faith with his memory.
  Javier cared about his community and the environment and the issues 
of sustainability and clean air and clean water, and he took action to 
improve the world around him.
  Last summer he participated in a highly competitive internship at the 
Nature Conservancy, where he worked to protect endangered species. A 
director of this program regarded Javier as one of the most outstanding 
participants that the program ever had.
  He spent last spring planting trees--planting trees--with the New 
Haven Urban Resources Initiative. He planted trees that he will never 
sit under, but the world will be better for all that he did--one small 
act, one small part of what Javier did to make New Haven and the world 
better.
  This past fall he joined a crew of West River Stewards, identifying 
and documenting sources of pollution along the West River in the New 
Haven area.
  Not only did he have a bright future ahead of him, but he knew what 
he wanted. He was pursuing the American dream. He was seeking and 
working to make America a better place for him and for his fellow 
students at Common Ground.
  By all accounts he was not only dedicated and hard working, but he 
had a good heart. He had a great sense of himself. He stayed out of 
trouble. He had no criminal record whatsoever, it goes without saying. 
He worked hard at his studies.
  He was loved in New Haven by his classmates, by his teachers, and by 
all who knew him. He had a growing dedication to protecting that world. 
Unfortunately, our society failed to protect him, failed to protect him 
during the simple act of walking home, failed to protect him from gun 
violence, failed to protect him in a neighborhood where he thought he 
would be safe as he walked.
  On that early morning of December 28, shortly before 1 a.m., he was 
found shot to death on the streets of New Haven. In fact, he was 
walking from his house to a friend's house. He did not have a car, so 
his only choice was to walk. He sustained multiple gunshot wounds and 
was pronounced dead at the scene.
  The police are continuing to investigate. Have no doubt that they are 
working hard. The New Haven Police have been extraordinarily responsive 
and responsible in combating gun violence, so I know they are going to 
get answers. Whether they will ever get enough answers to prosecute 
someone remains to be seen. But I know they are dedicated to finding 
out what happened on that night.
  The death of Javier Martinez is a tragedy, heartbreaking. It is 
heartbreaking, as are many of the random deaths in America resulting 
from gun violence. This young man is a testament to our continuing 
responsibility, our obligation, and our opportunity to combat and 
prevent gun violence on the streets and in the neighborhoods across our 
country.
  Just a few weeks ago I spoke on this floor, in this very place, about 
another promising young person from Connecticut who was killed by a 
person with a gun whose name was Erika Robinson. The victim of that 
crime, Erika Robinson, just like Javier, was killed because she was at 
the wrong place at the wrong time.
  We ought to remember some of the other victims. We should keep in 
mind all of the now tens of thousands, just since Newtown, who maybe 
survived but who are changed and challenged in ways they never could 
have envisioned. Their lives have been changed forever.
  Amber Smith, who worked as a manager in a New Haven Burger King 
restaurant, was shot on September 15, 2013, when two robbers entered 
that Burger King.
  The robbers demanded that she open a safe in the business, and one of 
them

[[Page 369]]

shot her in the upper hip and through her leg. She was just 19 years 
old at the time on September 15, 2013.
  She remembers thinking that she was going to die and wondering who 
would take care of her two small children. She almost bled to death but 
was saved, fortunately, by receiving surgery in the emergency room. So 
she survived the shooting, but she lives with the psychological and the 
physical trauma of that shooting every day.
  These random acts of violence may not always make the national news, 
they may not always take a life, but they change lives, and they take 
lives one or two at a time.
  Those shooting deaths of Javier Martinez and Erika Robinson have 
become all too often the mundane evil of our time. The banality of evil 
is found in gun violence, and we seem to accept it all too often with 
indifference as another news item. Yet it should be as repugnant and 
abhorrent and unacceptable as the deaths of 20 innocent children in 
Newtown and 6 great educators because every act of gun violence 
diminishes us as a nation and as a community.
  Our country has come to the point that gun violence can happen 
anywhere. If your life has not been touched by it, there is a near 
certainty that it will be at some point--tragically, unfortunately--
because far too often communities suffer in silence. We need to end 
that silence. We need to end the inaction and the acceptance of this 
mundane and banal evil that lives among us.
  While we have failed to act in this Chamber, even though we had a 
majority of 55 Senators ready to approve very simple, commonsense 
measures to stop gun violence, the President has done what he can 
through executive action, most recently on mental health. I commend him 
for those actions. He has done what he can to strengthen Federal 
background checks for firearms purchases. I thank him for that action.
  These changes are incremental, but they are steps in the right 
direction.
  States have taken the leadership on this issue as well, maybe even 
more so than the Federal Government. My own State of Connecticut, 
laudably, has passed laws to effectively ban, for example, the sale of 
assault weapons.
  But this body and this government need to act. The Federal Government 
has a responsibility that only it can address, because we know that 
guns are trafficked across State lines. Stolen and illegally bought 
guns are trafficked across State lines. No single State can put a stop 
to it.
  We know that without action in this body, mental health will remain 
an unmet need in this country. We know that without action in this 
country, background checks for people who buy firearms will be 
incomplete and inadequate.
  So Javier's death should be a reminder and a call to action. As the 
people of his family and New Haven mourn his death, we should celebrate 
his contributions in making our planet better, in protecting the 
precious resources that, unfortunately, he was unable to enjoy, and 
resolve to protect better the innocent people, particularly our 
children, who at any moment, at any place, may become victims of gun 
violence.

                          ____________________




                     EXTENSION OF MORNING BUSINESS

  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Senate be in morning business for debate only until 3:15; that the 
majority leader be recognized at 3:15, with all other provisions of the 
previous order remaining in effect.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. 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. COATS. 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. COATS. Madam President, we have been discussing, the last couple 
of days, the unemployment insurance issue. A number of us have had 
concerns relative to the effectiveness of the program relative to the 
cost that would undertake and how it would be paid for if it goes 
forward and is extended and the reforms we think would be needed to 
make this a much more effective program. We have not been offered the 
opportunity to do more than just discuss it on the floor. We have not 
been offered the opportunity to offer amendments, offer our ideas, have 
them debated and voted on. It is my understanding that the majority 
leader will be coming to the floor shortly to potentially--well, to 
tell us what the decision is relative to whether we will have that 
opportunity.
  Let me very quickly say I have been working with my colleagues 
Senator Ayotte from New Hampshire and Senator Portman from Ohio. All 
three of us voted for the motion to proceed because we felt this is an 
issue that ought to be discussed and debated, and not simply dismissed, 
and because we would like to make corrections to the program that make 
it more viable.
  We would like to raise the issue of, is there a better way to deal 
with unemployment in this country? We have some amendments that would 
allow us to move and improve and move to what we think is a better way, 
as well as pay for a bill that, without being paid for, exceeds the 
budget agreement we just entered into.
  I offered four amendments. I was not insisting on offering all four. 
They were similar to what my colleagues had offered. The three of us 
want to very briefly speak to these and indicate to our colleagues what 
it is we would be doing. I offered the original bill way last fall, 
which would delay the individual mandate under the Affordable Care Act.
  As we all know, the President has delayed for 1 year the mandates on 
employers who provide health insurance for their employees, but did not 
so do so for individuals, for those who do not have coverage under 
their employer. We did not feel that was fair. Why one entity and not 
the other? It also violated the law that the President took the liberty 
to exercise.
  We are saying: Well, let's at least be fair, that those who are not 
covered by the 1-year delay on the mandate of employers would be 
subject to having to comply and we have--I will not go through all of 
the details, but we have seen the disaster that has happened in terms 
of that rollout.
  My amendment, No. 2611 to this bill, I am going to select out as the 
amendment I am going forward with. My colleagues also have excellent 
ideas. They will be offering those. Frankly, I agree with all of their 
amendments and what they are doing also, so I think we are pretty much 
on the same page.
  This amendment would delay the individual employer mandate under 
ObamaCare for 1 year. The estimated cost savings on this is $35 
billion. I think that is a savings that obviously could be used for a 
number of offsets. I think at this particular point in time, I would 
yield the floor and let my colleague from New Hampshire explain her 
amendment and how the savings would be applied to some very necessary 
things.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Ms. AYOTTE. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Indiana. As he 
said, I, as did my colleague from Indiana and my colleague from Ohio, 
moved to allow this bill to go forward for debate. I thought it was 
important that we have a debate on obviously the situation of 
struggling workers in our country and on the issue of whether to extend 
unemployment benefits for them.
  I have been clear that on the pending bill if there is a way we can 
responsibly pay for this temporary 3-month extension to do that, I 
would be willing to support that--except the current bill does not have 
a way to pay for it--because I do not believe we should be adding to 
our debt, $17 trillion, and our yearly deficits in order to do this.
  But let me say that I have a very commonsense amendment. It is 
amendment No. 2603. Let me say what it is

[[Page 370]]

about. My amendment fixes what is an abuse in our Tax Code. The 
Treasury inspector general found that individuals who are not 
authorized to work in this country are collecting billions of dollars 
in tax refunds by filing for an additional child tax credit. The 
disturbing part about this trend is that there has been a steady 
increase each year of billions of dollars collected by illegal workers 
seeking these refunds.
  Investigations of these tax refunds have found some gross examples of 
fraud; examples of refunds for children, children who do not live in 
the United States of America; examples of fraud of many children who 
may not even exist. For example, in Indiana, they found four 
unauthorized workers claiming over 20 children who lived in a 
residence, fraudulently collecting tens of thousands of taxpayer 
dollars. They found examples of tax refund claims for children who live 
in Mexico, not the United States of America. In North Carolina, 1,000 
tax returns were linked to 8 addresses--1,000 tax returns were linked 
to 8 addresses, refunding $5 million in tax refunds. Another example in 
North Carolina: 398 returns associated with 2 apartments--398 returns, 
refunding $1.9 million to workers who are not authorized to work in our 
country. There was no evidence that the children being claimed either 
lived in the United States of America or even existed, for that matter.
  My amendment is very straightforward in terms of the fix. The filer 
of the tax return who is going to claim the additional child tax credit 
would have to list a Social Security number. This is the same 
requirement for those who claim the earned income tax credit for which 
you can receive a tax refund if you qualify. So it would be simply to 
add that same requirement.
  What the Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated is that we could 
save $20 billion over the next 10 years simply by treating this child 
tax credit just like the earned filers income tax credit, that filers 
would have to use a Social Security number as well.
  What would this $20 billion go for? With this $20 billion, we can pay 
for the recent cuts in the budget that were unfair, where our men and 
women in uniform, military retirees, were singled out for cuts to their 
retirement, to their cost-of-living increases, including, by the way, 
our wounded warriors, those who have medically retired, who got a cut 
to their cost-of-living increase in this recent budget. This was the 
only group that was singled out in this way, those who have taken a 
bullet for our country, many who have done multiple tours for us in 
Afghanistan and Iraq, and some who have suffered horrible wounds, 
including those many of us have had the privilege of visiting at Walter 
Reed. So we can pay for and fix the military retirement cuts, as many 
Members on both sides of the aisle have said we have a commitment to 
do, because we think that was unfair.
  What else can we do with this? We can also pay for the bill pending 
on the floor, the 3 months extension of unemployment benefits for 
American workers who are struggling during this period, who are trying 
to get back to work.
  Finally, we can also take the remainder of the savings and apply it 
to the deficit. Again, fix tax abuse, where there has been fraud, 
rampant fraud found by investigations by requiring a Social Security 
number, such as the earned-income tax credit, and in return it is a 
three-for.
  We can pay for the 3-month unemployment extension on this floor, we 
can fix the unfair cut to military retirees and to our wounded 
warriors, and we can help reduce our deficit.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Warren). The Senator's time has expired.

                          ____________________




                     CONCLUSION OF MORNING BUSINESS

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Morning business is closed.

                          ____________________




           EMERGENCY UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION EXTENSION ACT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, all postcloture time 
with respect to the motion to proceed to S. 1845 is considered expired.
  The clerk will report the bill by title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1845) to provide for the extension of certain 
     unemployment benefits, and for other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. This is similar to ``Groundhog Day'' because this is a 
picture we have already seen in the very lucid speech given by my 
friend from New Hampshire.
  She should have gone back through the Congressional Record. We have 
been through this before.
  We are not going to hurt American children, and that is what it does. 
We have been through this. This is something we have tried to use in 
the past to pay for things that are very unfair to American children.
  The other issue is there have been some efforts made, and good-faith 
efforts made by the Senator from Ohio, to stop double dipping--people 
who are on disability and are drawing unemployment insurance. We agree 
with him. We can take care of that, but it does not save $5.4 or $5.6 
billion.
  The disability community at this point is outraged that anyone will 
even suggest this. We can stop the double dipping. We are happy to join 
with them in doing that, but that savings is a little over $1 billion. 
We are pleased, and that is part of the proposal we will all have in a 
little bit.
  I received a phone call from a person who has done more for helping 
people who are disabled than any person in the history of this body, 
the senior Senator from the State of Iowa. He had been previously 
engaged and he heard about this. Those of us who know Tom Harkin know 
what he does to protect the disabled. I know my friend from Ohio has 
good intentions, but the disability community will never allow this to 
happen, and they are right.
  My friend, the junior Senator from Nevada, as some of us know, has 
had casts on one leg and now the other leg. He has had some surgery on 
his ankles. He has had to replace the Achilles tendons in both of his 
legs. A cast broke, I think it was on his left leg--maybe it was his 
right leg. I don't remember.
  I talked to him this morning and he had to go to the emergency room 
to get his cast replaced. I am waiting to hear from him. I have 
explained this proposal in some detail to him and his staff, but he 
hasn't had an opportunity to speak to his staff since he had to rush to 
the emergency room--at least that is my understanding--so I am waiting 
until he gets back.
  The proposal Senator Reed has come up with extends unemployment 
insurance through mid-November. The package does what the Republicans 
wanted. It is entirely paid for. There are structural changes which 
they have been demanding, and we have done that. It has reforms that 
reduce slightly the number of weeks an unemployed person can remain on 
the unemployment insurance, while all along preserving extending the 
weeks of high-unemployment States.
  The legislation proposed by Senator Jack Reed tightens the rules for 
unemployment insurance. It would include a proposal, much like that 
advocated by the Senator from Ohio Mr. Portman, that would prevent 
people from collecting both unemployment insurance and disability 
insurance at the same time. That is clear.
  Much of this offset is simply an extension of the Murray-Ryan 
agreement we all voted for--or a lot of us voted for earlier. This 
provision would extend the sequester on mandatory programs for another 
year. If Republicans have a complaint about this, don't call and 
complain to Jack Reed. Call Paul Ryan. This is his. This is his idea--
maybe not on this specific issue, but this is his proposal, his idea.
  We believe if it is good enough to help other proposals propounded by 
my Republican friends in the House, it is good enough to help the 
unemployed.
  In this proposal, there has been a desire to address the concerns of 
the Republicans and Democrats. Is it perfect? Of course not, but Jack 
Reed has done a remarkably good job, and we believe this is a sound and 
balanced proposal.
  I would also say this takes care of it for the good part of this 
year. I wish we

[[Page 371]]

could have done it until the first of the year. We can't find enough 
money. I have been waiting here for more than 24 hours for a reasonable 
proposal by my Republican friends to pay for this. We don't have one 
yet.
  We are not going to strip the rights of people who have health 
insurance, and we are certainly not going to go after little boys and 
girls in America who have the child tax credit. There comes a time when 
we have to move forward.
  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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection has been heard.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Is there objection?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, objection was heard.
  The clerk will continue to call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk continued with the call of the roll.
  Mr. PORTMAN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk continued with the call of the roll.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I first of all appreciate everyone's 
cooperation here--patience more than cooperation. We are doing our 
best. I have already said what we are trying to do here, and I will 
repeat just a part of it.
  We have a proposal that is paid for. It is a pay-for that we have 
used and it is something I think is totally valid. The original idea 
came from Paul Ryan, but we have used it on another occasion. This has 
nothing to change that original proposal except to extend it for 1 
year. The proposal of my friend from Ohio--an issue he has alerted us 
to--we think we have taken care of in this amendment. I think it is a 
fine proposal, but the breadth of what he is trying to do is really 
unfair and we can't do that. So we are doing our utmost.
  We have structural changes in this. It is paid for--a pay-for for 
almost to the first of the year, as much money as we are able to find. 
But we have done everything the Republicans have wanted: It is paid 
for, there are structural changes, and we have taken care of the double 
dipping of those in the disability community on unemployment.


                           Amendment No. 2631

  Mr. REID. Madam President, on behalf of Senator Reed of Rhode Island 
I have an amendment at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for Mr. Reed of Rhode 
     Island, proposes an amendment numbered 2631.

  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays on that amendment, Madam 
President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays are ordered.


                Amendment No. 2632 to Amendment No. 2631

  Mr. REID. I have a second-degree amendment at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2632 to amendment No. 2631.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end, add the following:
       This Act shall become effective 1 day after enactment.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. REID. I have a cloture motion on the Reed of Rhode Island 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. 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 amendment No. 2631 to S. 1845, a bill to provide for 
the extension of certain unemployment benefits, and for other purposes.
         Harry Reid, Jack Reed (RI), Martin Heinrich, Richard 
           Blumenthal, Michael F. Bennet, Richard J. Durbin, Patty 
           Murray, Max Baucus, Debbie Stabenow, Bill Nelson, Amy 
           Klobuchar, Thomas R. Carper, Edward J. Markey, 
           Benjamain L. Cardin, Sheldon Whitehouse, Charles E. 
           Schumer, Patrick J. Leahy.


                Motion to Commit With Amendment No. 2633

  Mr. REID. Madam President, I have a motion to commit on S. 1845 and 
it has instructions.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] moves to commit the bill 
     to the Committee on Finance with instructions to report back 
     forthwith with an amendment numbered 2633.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end, add the following:
       This Act shall become effective 3 days after enactment.

  Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays on that motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays are ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2634

  Mr. REID. I have an amendment to the instructions at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2634 to the instructions of the motion to commit S. 
     1845.

  The amendment is as follows:

       In the amendment, strike ``3 days'' and insert ``4 days''.

  Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays, Madam President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays are ordered.


                Amendment No. 2635 to Amendment No. 2634

  Mr. REID. I have a second-degree amendment at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2635 to amendment No. 2634.

  The amendment is as follows:

       In the amendment, strike ``4 days'' and insert ``5 days''.


                             Cloture Motion

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

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on S. 1845, a bill to 
     provide for the extension of certain unemployment benefits, 
     and for other purposes.
         Harry Reid, Jack Reed, Amy Klobuchar, Elizabeth Warren, 
           Richard J. Durbin, Sheldon Whitehouse, Edward J. 
           Markey, Tammy Baldwin, Patrick J. Leahy, Christopher A. 
           Coons, Barbara A. Mikulski, Patty Murray, Mark R. 
           Warner, Mazie K. Hirono, Christopher Murphy, Tom 
           Harkin, Sherrod Brown.

  Mr. REID. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

[[Page 372]]


  Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous that the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. I thank the Chair.
  Madam President, I tried to be recognized before the majority leader 
decided to fill the tree, which means taking away the opportunity for 
amendments to be offered--although there will be an attempt in a moment 
to offer some. I am disappointed in that, because I think we were very 
close to reaching an agreement which would have enabled us to move 
forward with allowing Senators on both sides of the aisle to offer some 
of their ideas on the unemployment insurance extension.
  Recall. This is an important debate we are having for the American 
people. It is about whether we go beyond the roughly 26 weeks in 
unemployment insurance to having an emergency extension again. On this 
side of the aisle, there were a few of us who, in fact, crossed over to 
vote with the entire Democratic majority to say let's have that debate. 
We thought we were doing so in good faith in that there would actually 
be a debate on two issues. One is whether it should be paid for and how 
it should be paid for, which I will address in a second, but second is 
how we should reform the unemployment insurance program and do other 
appropriate policies to get at the underlying problem, which is a 
record level, a record number of Americans who are long-term 
unemployed.
  Clearly what we are doing isn't working, and we believe this is an 
opportunity for us to help improve the program to actually address the 
real problem. The President of the United States wants us to do that. 
He called me on Monday and told me he had hoped we would be able to 
address this issue by voting for the motion to proceed to begin the 
debate so that over the next few months, while we had a short-term 
extension of this program, there could be even more detailed 
discussions about how to improve the legislation and how to add other 
elements to it--specifically, on how to give people who are long-term 
unemployed the skills they need to access the jobs that are available. 
Unfortunately, we are not going to have that opportunity now, it 
appears, to have the debate over how to pay for it, what the pay-fors 
ought to be, and, again, how to improve the program.
  But let me say this is unfortunate, because we had 60 votes to 
proceed. That includes certainly three of us who are here on the floor 
today, and all three of us are willing to move forward with this with a 
reasonable provision to pay for this over the 3 months, and again, 
during that period to come up with a better and improved unemployment 
insurance program. We were not part of the discussion as to the pay-for 
that the majority leader has just put forward.
  I appreciate his good faith in wanting to include one of the 
proposals I had in my amendment. I honestly do appreciate that. I will 
say the offset he has put in, which I have just learned about because I 
didn't have an opportunity to see until now, has an important 
difference--a difference between what was just offered in the new 
Democratic proposal and what is in my proposal. My proposal, which I 
have come to the floor to talk about three times now, has been 
previously proposed by the House. It says that if you get unemployment 
insurance or you get trade adjustment assistance, then you also do not 
receive Social Security disability insurance in that same month.
  Why? Because these programs are mutually exclusive. If you are on 
Social Security disability--SSDI--that means you are not working, by 
definition. If you are working and lose your job, you are then 
continuing to look for work and you get TAA. If you have lost your job 
and you are continuing to look for work, which is required, you get 
unemployment insurance.
  This is why this same general program is laid out in the President's 
budget, and in fact it is something I believe the administration 
supports in others.
  The proposal the Democrats included says that if you receive 
unemployment insurance in the month you receive Social Security, then 
your SSDI is reduced by the amount of unemployment insurance received.
  Why does that matter? It is not the same. And it matters because the 
proposal the majority leader has proposed it saves a lot less money. 
According to the Congressional Budget Office, my proposal would save 
about $5.4 billion; theirs, as I understand it from the distinguished 
majority leader today, will save about $1 billion.
  So again, I appreciate his wanting to include it, and I think it is 
in the same spirit as the amendment I offered, but honestly we haven't 
had the chance to talk about this. I tried today to sit down with the 
Democratic sponsor of the underlying legislation, the other Senator 
Reed, who in good faith said he wanted to talk about it, but we haven't 
been able to schedule that. So we have not had the discussion. So we 
are just learning today what is again the sort of take-it-or-leave-it 
proposal that is in the majority leader's proposal in filling the tree.
  There is a possibility, I think procedurally--and the majority has 
expressed some interest in looking at this--in taking that agreement 
and altering it somewhat over the next couple of days, because the 
cloture would not ripen, as I understand it, until Monday afternoon, 
but that still doesn't give all of our other colleagues a chance to 
offer their good ideas, and there are a bunch of them out there.
  The Senator from New Hampshire offered hers day before yesterday, and 
she talked about it today on the floor, where she wants to take away 
some of the existing missed payments that are in the child tax credit. 
I would think all of us would want to do that--to preserve child tax 
credits for those who are truly eligible. For those who are not 
eligible, obviously, they shouldn't have access to it. It seems like a 
sensible amendment to me. I am a cosponsor of that amendment.
  Senator Coats raised his ideas today, and I think he has some good 
ideas that ought to be debated.
  So my hope is we would be able to go back to where we were prior to 
filling the tree and to say let's have a discussion. It can be limited. 
I think there are a very limited number of amendments.
  I see the distinguished Republican whip on the floor, and he 
indicated to me today there are something under 20 amendments offered 
by the Republican side. I don't know how many of those have actually 
been filed, but it seems to me we could have had a good debate on that 
and still should.
  So my hope is that we can come up with a solution here. I do think it 
is going to require us providing some opportunity for other people to 
be engaged, and specifically those who want to get to a solution, which 
is a lot of people on this side of the aisle and that side of the 
aisle--both sides of the aisle. Let's sit down and talk. We are adults. 
We have been elected by millions of people to represent them, and it is 
our responsibility, indeed our commitment to them, we would sit down 
across the aisle and work these things out, as you would in any other 
relationship--in your marriage, in your business, with your neighbors.
  We had some discussion about this yesterday, that for some reason in 
the Senate it seems we are unable to have even the most basic level of 
discussion and debate. So I am open to that. I had hoped to do it 
today. I put my ideas out there; parts of them have been accepted, and 
I appreciate that, but, frankly, not the way we had laid it out in my 
own amendment. I do believe, if we have the opportunity, if we were to 
back up and to actually solve this problem, meaning to provide what the 
President says he wants, which is a 3-month extension of long-term 
unemployment, we can sit down, roll up our sleeves as Republicans and 
Democrats, and come up with a better way to address what is a crisis in 
this country,

[[Page 373]]

which is more long-term unemployed people than ever in the history of 
our country.
  Those people are hurting, and clearly the current system isn't 
working. So to just extend it is not the answer. The answer is to allow 
the Senate to do its job; that is, to reform these programs so they 
work for the people we represent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. It is the same time and time again. Things are never quite 
right. They want to offer amendments. We have been waiting here since 
Monday for pay-fors. The only pay-for we have heard realistically to 
take care of this is something everyone knows we disagree with--to take 
away health care benefits from the American people.
  The proposal by my friend from Ohio is not a good proposal. It hurts 
people who are disabled, and that is the fact. We have stopped dual 
payments. That is what our amendment does.
  This is something we have been going through--the American people 
have been going through now for years.
  My friend worked with the senior Senator from New Hampshire on energy 
efficiency. Now, if that wasn't quite a show. I had conversations on 
numerous occasions: Yeah, we have it all taken care of. Republicans are 
trying to move forward on this.
  It went on for weeks and weeks. We never got anything done.
  So we are where we are. Democrats don't need a memo to tell them to 
have a good conscience about people who are disabled, to be 
compassionate about people who are unemployed. We don't need a memo. We 
know that people who are long-term unemployed are desperate for help. 
We are compassionate. We don't need a memo to tell us that.
  The American people want to know where we stand. Are we going to 
extend unemployment benefits for people who have been out of work for a 
long time? That is the issue before this body. And we have bent over 
backward, through Jack Reed, to come up with a proposal to pay for 
this, to get rid of this issue for this year. We have structural 
changes in this amendment. We have a pay-for which came from Paul Ryan, 
the Republican Vice Presidential candidate this last election cycle. He 
is chairman of the Budget Committee. So I think we have done a yeoman's 
job through Jack Reed, we need to move on, and that is what we are 
going to do.
  If there is a proposal my friend has--and we know his expertise, but 
the problem with his expertise is it is never quite right. It is almost 
but not quite right.
  So the time is now to fish or cut bait. And they can make all the 
motions they want to try to complain about ``We didn't offer enough 
amendments. We need to be more like the Senate used to be.'' Well, I 
know what the Senate used to be because I was a used-to-be Senator, and 
it doesn't work the way it used to not because of anything we do wrong 
but because of the obstruction of President Obama's agenda. Every day 
it is more obstruction.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, would the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. REID. Of course.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask the distinguished majority leader 
whether it is the position of his caucus and his position personally 
that people ought to be able to collect unemployment compensation and 
disability benefits simultaneously?
  Mr. REID. No. And that is why Jack Reed's proposal stops it.
  Mr. CORNYN. I would further ask the majority leader, it is my 
understanding that the amendment of the distinguished Senator from Ohio 
would discontinue the simultaneous collection of disability and 
unemployment benefits. But the majority leader objects to that 
amendment and instead is blocking that amendment and other amendments 
by the Republican side of the aisle by one which changes the effective 
date of the bill 1 day. In other words, it is purely a blocker 
amendment, has zero substance whatsoever, and does nothing to improve 
the underlying bill.
  Mr. REID. Is there a question in all of this?
  Mr. CORNYN. Isn't that right?
  Mr. REID. Is what right?
  Mr. CORNYN. What I just said.
  Mr. REID. No, it is not right, because what the amendment of the 
Senator from Ohio does is hurt people who are disabled. Part of Jack 
Reed's amendment stops people from drawing both benefits at the same 
time.
  Mr. CORNYN. I would ask the distinguished majority leader one more 
question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. I would be happy to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Is the majority leader aware there are 24 Republican 
amendments on file, almost all of which deal with the underlying bill 
in an attempt to either improve workforce education and training, 
provide other reforms to the unemployment compensation system, or 
otherwise help the economy recover so that people won't have to depend 
on unemployment insurance and they can get a job? Is the majority 
leader aware that there are those amendments and those ideas on this 
side of the aisle?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. I don't know the exact number, but there are always a lot 
of proposed amendments around. What I would say is this: Rather than 
continually denigrating our economy, our President, and, frankly, I 
believe, our country, I think we should have some more constructive 
things around here.
  For example, we had today a conversation for 1\1/2\ hours with 
Chairman Bernanke. He is going to be there until the first of next 
month. It was a very good discussion. He talked about the vibrancy of 
this economy now. He said, as we have been saying here, it is not as 
good as it should be, but with a little bit of help, it would be on 
fire. Now, why isn't it on fire? Because of the obstruction over here.
  As the Presiding Officer knows, the new Fed chair, Chairman Yellen, 
has also said unemployment benefits are a great impetus in helping the 
economy. For every $1 put into the economy in unemployment benefits, we 
get $1.50 back.
  This bill recognizes that these benefits don't go on forever. That is 
why we make structural changes. We would be happy anytime to sit down 
and have a good discussion with the senior Senator from Texas and 
anyone else to talk about things we can do.
  We have had a lot of programs that deal with job retraining. In 1998 
when we did that, it wasn't a bad deal. Here it is all these many years 
later, and of course we need to sit down and talk about ways to improve 
retraining. This whole country needs that. That is also something 
Chairman Bernanke said today.
  So I repeat, let's start being constructive around here, and instead 
of talking about how terrible things are, let's talk about how things 
are improving. We have had 8 million new jobs since Obama has been 
President. We have a lot of good things that have happened. Has it been 
perfect? Not even close to perfect.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Would the majority leader yield for a question?
  Mr. REID. Of course.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Is it the majority leader's intent to allow votes on 
any Republican amendments?
  Mr. REID. On what?
  Mr. McCONNELL. On the bill we were just discussing.
  Mr. REID. This is Thursday. We have been waiting since Monday to get 
a proposal from the minority, the Republicans, as to what they believe 
would be a good way to pay for this.
  Nothing, other than whack ObamaCare. So the answer is that we are 
where we are now. We have tried a number of different ways on many 
different pieces of legislation to say, OK, let's just do germane 
amendments. No. How about relevant amendments? No. How about having a 
specific number of amendments and giving the minority more than the 
majority? No, can't do that either. We want unlimited amendments on 
everything. As a result of that, we have continued obstruction

[[Page 374]]

which has taken place in this body for 5 years. It is time we get back 
to legislating the way we used to.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Is the answer to my question, I would say to the 
majority leader, no?
  Mr. REID. The answer to the Senator's question is no.
  Mr. McCONNELL. No.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I wish to make two corrections quickly 
and then yield to my colleague from Indiana.
  One is that the proposal I did offer had nothing to do with 
ObamaCare, as I thought the majority leader understood, and others do 
not, including the amendment from the Senator from New Hampshire. So we 
do have a number of amendments and a number of good ideas. We had a 
debate.
  Second, it is in the President's budget. So if it is such a terrible 
proposal, I am surprised the President would have proposed it.
  Mr. REID. Would my friend yield for a question?
  Mr. PORTMAN. Of course.
  Mr. REID. Does the Senator also understand that in the President's 
budget, he calls for revenue, does he not?
  Mr. PORTMAN. Yes, he does. He calls for major tax increases.
  Mr. REID. And my friend would also acknowledge that when Presidents 
submit these budgets, don't they propose a budget rather than 
nitpicking different pieces of the budget one at a time?
  Mr. PORTMAN. The Senator is correct. After having put together a 
budget myself, I would say you have to stand by all those policies. And 
I think if we were to call on the Office of Management and Budget or 
the Treasury Department, they would tell you they stand by these 
proposals. So, yes, it is a package, but they put them in because they 
think they are good policy.
  So my point is that we have some good ideas not related to ObamaCare, 
since that seems to be an objection by the majority leader, and I hope 
we can work something out. I do think there is an opportunity for us to 
do so. But I don't think we can do it unless there is a little bit of 
give-and-take and some discussion, at least, which we have not been 
able to have yet.
  With that, I yield for my friend from Indiana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. COATS. Madam President, I will be brief. I know my colleagues 
probably have travel plans. But this is something we had earnestly 
hoped that by six of us supporting the motion to proceed, we would have 
the opportunity to offer an amendment, debate that amendment, and have 
our colleagues vote on that amendment.
  For the majority leader to simply say--and I quote him: I have looked 
at these amendments that Republicans have offered, and none of them are 
reasonable.
  Isn't that something this body is supposed to achieve by something 
called a vote? Do we have one person here who runs the place and says: 
I will decide whether your amendment is not reasonable. And if I decide 
your amendment is reasonable, along with all the other 23, then we 
won't have any vote or debate or the ability to offer any amendment 
whatsoever.
  I thought the way we settle things here as to whether this body 
thought something was reasonable or helpful or might correct some of 
the inequities which have been talked about here was decided by a vote 
of 100 Senators. But it has been decided by the decision of one Senator 
who has the power to do what he is doing. But this just perpetuates.
  The majority leader said he has been waiting since Monday for 
Republicans to offer a pay-for. I was down here Tuesday offering four 
options to pay for.
  I know the majority leader doesn't sit in the office and come to the 
floor when I come down to speak or turn on the television, but I think 
his staff would have told him: Well, Coats has four pay-fors.
  And I said: I am not asking for all four, Mr. Leader. You select the 
one you think best fits the thoughts and ideas and values of your 
caucus.
  So I put four out. The majority leader said we are delaying time. We 
have been waiting for nearly 2 days now for the majority leader to make 
up his mind in terms of what he wanted to do.
  The three of us who were listed as surprise votes for the motion to 
proceed weren't even asked to be part of any negotiations. We were 
trying to look for a solution to the problem, come together and have 
something to offer to our colleagues to vote on, but we weren't even 
asked to be part of that.
  So here we are. I am representing the people of Indiana. Their voice 
is shut down. I don't even have the ability to offer an amendment, 
which my constituents sent me here to do. They didn't send me here just 
to be told: Sit down and forget it; one person decides. So I am very 
disappointed.
  With that, in the interest of time I ask unanimous consent to call up 
my amendment No. 2611.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. If he will just withhold--and he can offer his amendment--I 
do want to say this. We get nowhere with dueling amendments. We have 
learned that in the past. Dueling amendments don't do the trick.
  The issue is pronounced, it is here before us, and we went a step 
further. In the past we haven't paid for this. Five times, President 
Bush signed bills extending unemployment benefits not paid for.
  Again, we have done a good job reducing the debt. We have a lot more 
we can do, but we have reduced it almost $3 trillion already. The issue 
now before us is are we going to extend benefits for people who have 
been unemployed for a long time. That is the question. We bent over 
backward to try to come up with a compromise, a bipartisan piece of 
legislation. I repeat, it is paid for with a Paul Ryan pay-for. There 
are structural changes. It is a pretty good deal. I am very 
disappointed we are at a point now where we have been for 5 years. 
Nothing is ever quite good enough. They always want more amendments. 
They always want more amendments.
  But the issue is before us. Is this body going to vote to extend 
unemployment benefits paid for with Paul Ryan's pay-for and with 
structural changes or are they going to turn their back on people who 
are desperate?
  Mr. COATS. Madam President, may I ask the majority leader to yield 
for just one question?
  Mr. REID. Sure.
  Mr. COATS. The majority leader just said this body gets nowhere by 
offering amendments. Does he mean throughout this year it is worthless, 
meaningless for Republicans to offer any amendments to any bill to try 
to make improvements to the bills or to try to make their voice heard 
or the voice of the people I represent, the people of Indiana, heard on 
this floor?
  Mr. REID. My friend, the Senator from Indiana, is of those Senators 
who used to be here when the good old times were here. We didn't have 
``gotcha'' amendments. Every amendment offered, with rare exception, is 
a ``gotcha'' amendment. That is not what we do here.
  I have been waiting since Monday to get pay-fors as to how we can 
extend unemployment benefits for people. They come up with stuff that 
doesn't even pay for 3 months' worth of extensions. Amendments are 
important, but I think we have to go back to the time when Senator 
Coats was here the first time and start working together to get things 
done in this body.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. COATS. Madam President, this is 100 percent different from the 
time I was here the first time. We were able to offer any amendment to 
any bill at any time and the majority leader, both Republicans and 
Democrats, allowed us to do that. This is the first time I have had the 
experience of not being able to offer an amendment.
  I think I heard the majority leader object, but I was not sure. Did 
he object to my unanimous consent request?

[[Page 375]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coons). The objection was heard.
  Mr. REID. I was there, just like my friend. Things were different 
then, they certainly were, because we did not have hundreds of 
filibusters that would take place. Filibuster was something that was 
used rarely. In those days would you ever filibuster the Secretary of 
Defense or all the other Cabinet officers? Of course you would not. 
That is why action had to be taken.
  But what my Republican friends have to realize is that filibuster is 
not a right, it is a privilege. It has been abused. My friend can 
lecture me, and I am happy to listen to his many lectures, but I was 
here. I know how things used to work and what has gone on in the last 5 
years would never have taken place in those days.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Will the majority leader yield for a question?
  Mr. REID. Yes.
  Mr. McCONNELL. He brings up the Secretary of Defense frequently. Was 
the Secretary of Defense defeated or confirmed?
  Mr. REID. No, he was only delayed while we had two wars going on in 
this country.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Has a member of the President's Cabinet ever been 
defeated on a filibuster in the history of the Senate?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, in response to the question of my friend, in 
fact what has happened--and we find this with the judges--they stall 
for weeks, months, and sometimes years. When the vote comes it is 
pretty good, but in the meantime they have done significant damage to 
this institution and our country by stalling and making it so the 
President of the United States has a very difficult time doing his job 
because he doesn't have his people there when he needs them.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask my friend, the majority leader, then is what he 
finds offensive the fact that there are debates about these matters? 
Since none of these members are being defeated, what is the issue? I am 
having a hard time understanding it. Is it the fact that there is 
controversy, that there is debate? Since none of them are being 
defeated, is he also suggesting we have no controversy about anybody 
sent by the President of the United States?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, of course that is a question that is a great 
big softball--of course not. We need debate. We need good, strong 
debate about nominations and everything else. But what we don't need is 
hours and days and weeks and months of obstruction. That is what we 
have here.
  My friend, the Republican leader, is picturing to everyone within the 
sound of his voice something that doesn't exist. There has been 
obstruction that has been carried to an extent that no one ever dreamed 
would happen in this great Republic.
  That is what the objection is. The objection is to obstruction. Was 
it only a debate when my Republican colleagues decided the DC Circuit--
some say the most important court in this country, even, some say, more 
important than the Supreme Court--when they decided there were vacant 
seats there and for 5 years held up filling those seats? Is that a 
debate? No. It is obstruction.
  If we turn to the dictionary and look up ``obstruction,'' they would 
point right over here.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Will the majority leader yield for another question?
  Since he has conceded that no Cabinet members have been defeated 
prior to the decision of the majority leader to break the rules of the 
Senate to change the rules of the Senate, is it not the case that 215 
of President Barack Obama's judges have been confirmed and only 2 have 
been defeated?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, during the time we have been a country, and 
I don't know exactly long it has been, more than 230 years--I can't 
come up with it this second--there have been 23 district court nominees 
filibustered. Twenty of them have been during the 5 years of the Obama 
administration, and that example is throughout the government.
  The American people know what is taking place in this body. They can 
try to paint over a picture that things are just fine, all we are doing 
is wanting a little bit of debate. There has been stalling, obstruction 
that is untoward and never considered. I just can't imagine how my 
Republican colleagues can justify what they have done. But they do. I 
accept that.
  But we have an issue before this body. Again, they are trying to 
divert attention and go to how many amendments, what are the rules. The 
issue before this body is whether the long-term unemployed get an 
extension of their benefits. As we speak, there are people all over 
this country who are desperate to be able to get $300 a week to be able 
to survive for another week, hoping they will find a job. The sad part 
about that--my friends say we need to do something about making sure 
these people fill these vacant jobs. There are lots of places people 
find work. For every job opening there are three people unemployed 
trying to find a job.
  I have answered the question to the best of my ability.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, my friend from Indiana had a consent 
request? Oh, I wanted my friend from Indiana to know I was not trying 
to object to something he has a right to do.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, let me just say I share in the comments of 
my colleague from Indiana and my colleague from Ohio. The three of us 
voted in good faith to debate this bill. I did so because I thought we 
should try to debate this issue; that both sides, if they had an idea 
about how to pay for this in a responsible way, we should bring it 
forward. When I hear the majority leader say I have been waiting since 
Monday, I filed an amendment on Tuesday. That amendment is 
straightforward. That amendment is one that would fix fraud in our Tax 
Code that came to light in 2011 in a Treasury IG report. What it would 
simply require is those who seek the additional child tax credit to 
file a Social Security number just like those who seek the earned-
income tax credit in this country.
  Why is that? Because the investigations of this tax refund people 
receive found they were claiming it for people who, No. 1, were 
basically not authorized to work in this country but were claiming it 
and, second, for children who may not even exist. Investigations found 
that for children who do not even live in this country. So a 
commonsense amendment that--by the way, would it pay for it? It would 
pay for 3 months of unemployment insurance for American workers and for 
this issue we have before this Chamber. It would pay for it to fix the 
military retirement cuts to the COLAs--that also impacted our wounded 
warriors--that were done in the most recent budget that were unfair, 
that Members of both sides of the aisle have come together to say we 
should fix and agree it is unfair.
  What else would it do? It would reduce the deficit. What I hear from 
the majority leader is: I hear that idea. We have heard that before. 
You may have heard it before, but we have not been allowed a vote on 
it.
  Are they so afraid of having a vote on something such as this that 
the people of New Hampshire whom I represent can't get a vote on, 
trying to fix this abuse in our Tax Code, on trying to solve this issue 
pending on the floor and to pay for it so we do not add to our $17 
trillion in debt?
  By the way, is it so unreasonable? I happened to sign a letter from a 
Member of the Democratic conference who, after the Treasury IG report 
was issued that I am citing, was equally as concerned as I am about 
this abuse in the Tax Code, in fact, described it as improper payments 
and said it seemed reasonable to presume that unauthorized workers were 
not eligible for this tax credit and called on the Commissioner of the 
IRS--this is a respected Member of the Democratic conference who 
expressed concerns about it. That Member said: ``We need to stop these 
unauthorized payments immediately.''
  That was in 2011 and we cannot even get a vote on this? We can 
reasonably disagree, but the only way we can express those 
disagreements in this body,

[[Page 376]]

as my colleagues have said, is to be allowed to vote and to be able to 
represent our States and to get votes on amendments.
  With that, I will ask unanimous consent to call up my amendment No. 
2603.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, talk about fiddling while Rome burns. If 
you are one of the 1.3 million people in this country, 222,000 in my 
State, whose house is burning down because they are going to lose the 
safety net of $300 a week to feed their family, to take care of their 
kids, to heat their homes, and my colleague talks about letters? I will 
tell you about a letter I got from a woman who sets her thermostat at 
55 degrees and she has a 2-year-old and a 1-year-old, and all they do 
on that side is complain that their amendments, they are so important--
24 of them. They know they are all partisan.
  We are trying to work on a bipartisan solution. Somebody explain to 
me why the Republicans never objected to extending unemployment so many 
times when George W. Bush was President. Not a one. It was fine.
  So do we make economic policy by who is in the White House or by the 
needs of our people?
  This idea of going after children is one of the worst ideas I have 
ever heard, and I am shocked. I am shocked. You are going to hurt 
children. You are going to take food out of their mouths. It is 
outrageous. If there are abuses, I say to my friend, put those people 
in jail.
  If there were one corrupt Senator--and there could be and there might 
be and there was in the past--and every one of us got painted with that 
brush, which is what the Senator did in her speech, is to taint every 
poor child who happens to benefit from that credit. Let us not go down 
that partisan route. Let us support our leader and let us work through 
the weekend to come up with a plan. I think the majority leader has 
one.
  I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard. The Senator from New 
Hampshire.
  Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I would say, first of all, I voted in good 
faith, one of six Republicans, to debate this bill to solve this 
problem. I cannot get a vote. If the Senator from California objects to 
this amendment, then why don't we vote on it? This is nothing about 
protecting children--unless the Senator is trying to protect children 
who may not exist or trying to protect children who do not live in the 
United States of America. This is about protecting abuse within the Tax 
Code which, again--I have a letter from a Member of her caucus who 
recognized this problem as well, based on a Treasury IG report done 
during this administration. This amendment is about protecting the 
American taxpayer, and the American taxpayer needs some protection in 
this body when it comes to tax fraud.
  Let me say that we need to be able to have votes on behalf of our 
States and on behalf of the American people, and if we disagree, let's 
vote them down. I don't see what the issue is unless they are worried 
it is going to pass because it just makes too much sense.
  I have a parliamentary inquiry. Is it correct that no Senator is 
permitted to offer an amendment to the unemployment insurance bill 
while the majority leader's motion to commit with instructions with 
further amendments is pending?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Ms. AYOTTE. I have a further parliamentary inquiry. If a motion to 
table the Reid motion to commit with a further amendment is successful, 
would there still be Reid amendments pending that would prevent me from 
offering my amendment or any of my colleagues from offering their 
amendments which would pay for this and improve it and try to address 
the problems we are supposed to be debating on this floor?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Ms. AYOTTE. I have an important amendment, and that amendment would 
fix the abuse within the Tax Code that has been identified by a 
Treasury IG report and subsequent investigations. My amendment would 
pay for this 3-month unemployment extension for American workers--those 
who are struggling to find work. It is an amendment that would fix the 
unfair cuts to our military retirees and wounded warriors. I am 
concerned about the $17 trillion in debt and what it will do to the 
future of our children and this country, and this amendment would 
reduce the deficit as well.
  I would ask for a vote on my amendment, amendment No. 2603, but in 
order for the Senate to consider my important amendment and amendments 
that my colleagues have talked about--and I hope amendments on the 
other side that we should be voting on--I move to table the pending 
Reid motion to commit with instructions, and I ask for the yeas and 
nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Casey) 
is necessarily absent.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. 
Moran), and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul).
  The result was announced--yeas 42, nays 54, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 3 Leg.]

                                YEAS--42

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Lee
     Manchin
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--54

     Baldwin
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Coons
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Casey
     Coburn
     Moran
     Paul
  The motion was rejected.

                          ____________________




NOMINATION OF ROBERT LEON WILKINS TO BE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR 
          THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT--MOTION TO PROCEED

  Mr. REID. I now move to proceed to the motion to reconsider the vote 
by which cloture was not invoked on the nomination of Robert Leon 
Wilkins to be a U.S. Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Casey) 
and the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Inhofe), the

[[Page 377]]

Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. 
Paul).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Markey). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 41, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 4 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

     Baldwin
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Coons
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--41

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Lee
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Boxer
     Casey
     Coburn
     Inhofe
     Moran
     Paul
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion upon the table.
  The motion to lay upon the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

                          ____________________




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
cloture was not invoked on the Wilkins nomination.
  I ask unanimous consent that the next votes be 10 minutes in 
duration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) 
and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Casey) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Inhofe), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), and the Senator from 
Kentucky (Mr. Paul).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 54, nays 40, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 5 Ex.]

                                YEAS--54

     Baldwin
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Coons
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--40

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Lee
     McCain
     McConnell
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Boxer
     Casey
     Coburn
     Inhofe
     Moran
     Paul
  The motion was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. This will be the last vote today. The next vote will be 
Monday, January 13, 2014, at 5:30 p.m.

                          ____________________




                             CLOTURE MOTION

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, pursuant to rule 
XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion.

                             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 nomination of 
     Robert Leon Wilkins, of the District of Columbia, to be 
     United States Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia 
     Circuit.
         Harry Reid, Patrick J. Leahy, Tom Udall, Mark Begich, 
           Brian Schatz, Al Franken, Barbara Boxer, Richard J. 
           Durbin, Christopher A. Coons, Tammy Baldwin, Debbie 
           Stabenow, Benjamin L. Cardin, Sheldon Whitehouse, Patty 
           Murray, Barbara A. Mikulski, Kirsten E. Gillibrand, Tom 
           Harkin.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
nomination of Robert Leon Wilkins, of the District of Columbia, to be 
United States Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit, shall 
be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. HATCH (when his name was called). ``Present.''

  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) 
and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Casey) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Inhofe), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), and the Senator from 
Kentucky (Mr. Paul).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 55, nays 38, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 6 Ex.]

                                YEAS--55

     Baldwin
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Collins
     Coons
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--38

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Graham
     Grassley
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Lee
     McCain
     McConnell
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Hatch
       

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Boxer
     Casey
     Coburn
     Inhofe
     Moran
     Paul
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 55, the nays are 
38, and one Senator responded ``Present.'' Upon reconsideration, the 
motion is agreed to.

                          ____________________




NOMINATION OF ROBERT LEON WILKINS TO BE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR 
                    THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the nomination.
  The assistant bill clerk read the nomination of Robert Leon Wilkins, 
of

[[Page 378]]

the District of Columbia, to be United States Circuit Judge for the 
District of Columbia Circuit.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as we begin 2014, I hope we can set aside 
our differences and do what is best for this country by confirming 
qualified nominees to fill critical vacancies facing our Federal 
judiciary. We can do this today by voting to end the filibuster of 
Judge Robert Wilkins, who has been nominated to serve on the U.S. Court 
of Appeals for the DC Circuit. Judge Wilkins was nominated last June, 
and it is time that he received an up-or-down vote on his nomination. 
Last month, before we adjourned the Senate, we were able to confirm two 
other exceptional nominees to this court--Patricia Millett and Nina 
Pillard. Once Judge Wilkins is confirmed, the DC Circuit, which is 
often considered to be the second most important court in the Nation, 
will finally be operating at full strength. The American people deserve 
no less.
  Judge Wilkins is an outstanding nominee. He was unanimously confirmed 
to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia less than 3 
years ago. He has presided over hundreds of cases and issued 
significant decisions in various areas of the law, including in the 
fields of administrative and constitutional law. Prior to serving on 
the bench, he was a partner for nearly 10 years in private practice and 
served more than 10 years as a public defender in the District of 
Columbia.
  During his time at the Public Defender Service, Judge Wilkins served 
as the lead plaintiff in a racial profiling case, which arose out of an 
incident in which he and three family members were stopped and detained 
while returning from a funeral in Chicago. This lawsuit led to landmark 
settlements that required systematic statewide compilation and 
publication of highway traffic stop-and-search data by race. These 
settlements inspired an Executive order by President Clinton, 
legislation in the House and Senate, and legislation in at least 28 
States prohibiting racial profiling or requiring data collection.
  Despite the progress made in the past several decades, the struggle 
to diversify our Federal bench continues. If confirmed, Judge Wilkins 
would be only the sixth African American to have ever served on the DC 
Circuit.
  Judge Wilkins earned the ABA's highest possible rating of unanimously 
``well qualified.'' He also has the support of the National Bar 
Association, the Nation's largest professional association of African 
American lawyers and judges, as well as several other prominent legal 
organizations. I ask unanimous consent to include a list of support in 
the Record.
  I urge my fellow senators to end the filibuster on this outstanding 
nominee. This Nation will be better off with Judge Robert Wilkins 
serving on the DC Circuit.
  I would also note that on December 31, 2013, before the new year, 
Chief Justice Roberts once again issued his annual year-end report on 
the Federal judiciary. In this report, he focused on the significant 
financial strain on our Federal courts. The cuts from sequestration 
have had a real impact for Americans seeking justice and pose real 
threats to the dedicated public servants who work in our Nation's 
Federal courts as well as to members of the public. I hope that we can 
return to regular order in our appropriations process and ensure that 
our courts have the resources they require. As the Chief noted, the 
Federal Judiciary's entire budget ``consumes only the tiniest sliver of 
Federal revenues, just two-tenths of 1 percent of the Federal 
government's total outlays.'' We receive the benefit of the greatest 
judicial system in the world for less than 1 percent of our entire 
Federal budget. It makes no sense to indiscriminately cut services from 
our independent Federal judiciary. There are better and smarter ways to 
save taxpayer dollars.
  Another threat facing our courts which is unaddressed in the Chief's 
year-end report are the continuing vacancies experienced by the Federal 
courts. Over the last year, the number of vacancies has hovered around 
90 because obstruction in Congress has led to filibuster after 
filibuster of qualified nominees. And the unfortunate action taken by 
Republicans at the end of the first session of this Congress will only 
mean further delay in filling these vacancies--Republicans, for the 
first time ever, refused to allow any currently pending judicial 
nominees to be held over so that they could be ready for immediate 
action this year. For purely political reasons, Senate Republicans are 
forcing us to duplicate work this year that we already completed in 
2013. In the jurisdiction of the Senate Judiciary Committee alone, more 
than 65 judicial and executive nominees were returned to the President 
and had to be renominated this week. It is a waste of taxpayer dollars 
and valuable resources that could be spent addressing the difficult 
issues facing our Nation. We must not take for granted that we have the 
greatest justice system in the world, and ensuring this continues 
requires the Senate to fulfill its constitutional duty of advice and 
consent.
  Fortunately, due to the procedural posture of the nomination from 
last year, we did not have to send the nomination of Robert Wilkins to 
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit back to the President for 
renomination. I thank the majority leader for prioritizing this 
nomination in the first week of the second session of this Congress. I 
hope my fellow Senators will join me today to end the filibuster of the 
nomination of this good man to serve on this important court.


                            Vote Explanation

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I was unable to attend the roll 
call vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Robert 
Wilkins to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the D.C. Circuit. Had I been 
present for this vote and the two related procedural votes, I would 
have voted aye.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
recognized to proceed as though in morning business for 15 minutes, but 
prior to that I be able to yield to Senator Reed of Rhode Island for 5 
minutes and that not be counted against my time; and that I then be 
recognized after he is done.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, the Senator from Michigan is recognized and yields 
to the Senator from Rhode Island.


                         Unemployment Insurance

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I wish to thank the Senator from Michigan, 
my chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and I simply wish to make 
a few comments about this afternoon's proceedings with respect to 
unemployment insurance. The reason we were here, and we can't lose 
sight of that, is that 1.3 million Americans, as of December 28, lost 
their extended unemployment benefits. They are without the modest 
support of roughly $300 to $350 a week. Every week, 73,000 more 
Americans lose this support. We are going to see this number grow and 
grow and grow and grow while we talk and talk and talk and talk.
  Along with Senator Heller, we proposed a very straightforward 
mechanism: a 90 day extension and picking up retroactively those who 
had lost it, unpaid for, so we could work on some of the difficult 
issues my colleagues have all explored this afternoon.
  In listening to my colleagues, we made the determination there was a 
sincere concern and desire on the part of my Republican colleagues 
particularly that any extension of benefits be paid for. Most 
frequently, we don't pay for these benefits. We have on occasion, but 
most times we consider it emergency spending. We go ahead and authorize 
the payments and we don't offset it. But the concern was raised 
repeatedly and very strenuously that these benefits should be paid for. 
Also, there were several proposals to do that.
  So working closely with my colleagues, we considered the best 
approach for it was not simply to bring up the Reed-Heller bill, the 90 
day extension, but to respond as best we could to these concerns. So 
the provision we brought up today is fully offset, but it goes beyond 
90 days because the simple logic was that going through the travail of 
finding pay-fors is not something we want to do every

[[Page 379]]

90 days. It is something we should do seriously but for as long as 
possible. So our provision would be able to carry these benefits 
through to the middle of November, and it required finding offsets.
  The other thing we have heard from our Republican colleagues is that 
we shouldn't use any revenue--no tax provisions. In the Democratic 
caucus we have seen this extension of extended unemployment insurance 
benefits come up so many times under Republican Presidents and 
Democratic Presidents completely unpaid for. But also in terms of 
seriously and thoughtfully balancing the way we pay for provisions, we 
have many times suggested, which I think is commonsense, let's have a 
mix of revenue and other provisions--spending provisions. Let's do 
that; 50-50 or some fair combination. In fact, I think the American 
people would see that as the most sensible approach to doing the work 
of government. But once again we yielded to the perceptions and the 
demands, in some respects, that there be no revenue provisions in this 
bill.
  As a result, we had to look for a series of pay-fors that didn't 
involve revenues. That was a deliberate attempt to reach across and to 
say: We hear you. You want it fully paid for, you want no spending, and 
you want provisions that will not involve revenue. So we proposed a 
major provision--an extension of the mandatory sequestration--that was 
included in the budget agreement and that had overwhelming support in 
the Senate--for a bit over an additional year, which gained us, 
roughly--and these are rough figures--about $17 billion.
  Then we took one of the provisions that was offered by my colleague 
Senator Portman, who has been working very assiduously and very 
thoughtfully on these issues, with respect to the double collection of 
both SSDI benefits and unemployment compensation benefits and we tried 
to focus it and make it narrower, and that resulted in $1 billion, 
giving us sufficient funds to carry this program through--if we voted 
today, starting as soon as the House passed it--all the way to the 
middle of November. That is where we are today.
  We still are open to alternatives to try to deal with this issue. I 
know many of my colleagues on the Democratic side have a long list of 
revenue provisions. In fact, Chairman Levin has, through his work, a 
list of what many would call--many Americans--egregious loopholes that 
corporations enjoy. But certainly there are other ways to pay for this. 
But we are still trying to work through this.
  We are still trying to find a bipartisan approach to deal with the 
issue of the moment, the crisis of the moment, and that is 1.4 million 
Americans today--and that number is growing--who worked hard and 
through no fault of their own lost their job and who are now struggling 
to get by with a modest $300 or $350 a week.
  One final point. This is a crisis of the moment. I know some of my 
colleagues are talking about an issue--the issue of military pensions--
that doesn't become effective, as I understand it, until 2015. There 
are other ways to deal with it. But that is a fair position to advance 
at any time, and I have great sympathy for that position.
  I would hate to see other issues, systematic reform of our training 
programs--which takes time, effort, and focused attention by committees 
typically--essentially prevent a response to the immediate crisis of 
people who are without jobs, who are desperately looking, and now don't 
have very modest support to pay for their rent, pay for their heat, and 
provide some support for their families.
  We are still engaged. We will have a vote Monday. I hope we can 
succeed on that procedural vote. Regardless, we are going to come back 
and back, because this number of Americans--growing each week by 
approximately 70,000--needs our response, not just our comments on the 
floor of the Senate.
  I yield back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.


                                  Iraq

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the current situation in Iraq is deeply 
disturbing. The violence there is a human tragedy, and the resurgence 
of Al Qaeda-affiliated forces in Fallujah and elsewhere represents a 
threat not just to the people of Iraq but to our own security and that 
of our friends and allies in the region. So I very much share in 
concerns many of us have expressed about recent developments in Iraq.
  The United States has announced it will expedite military assistance, 
including delivery of unmanned aerial vehicles and HELLFIRE missiles. 
That is appropriate. The administration has stepped up intelligence 
sharing to help Iraq security forces in their fight. That is 
appropriate. The administration is holding ongoing conversations with 
Iraq about other ways in which the United States might assist, and that 
is appropriate.
  One form that assistance might take is in the sale of weapons such as 
attack helicopters to Iraq. The issue is not whether such aircraft 
would help Iraq fight violent extremists; they would. The question is 
whether the Maliki government would use those aircraft, for instance, 
only against violent extremists, and whether we receive credible 
assurances that such weapons will be used to target Iraq's real enemies 
and not to further sectarian political objectives. With credible 
assurances, it would be appropriate to provide Iraq such assistance.
  What it is wrong to do is to blame the Obama administration for the 
political failures of Iraqi leaders. Blaming the administration for 
failures and decisions by the Iraqi Government ignores not only 
history, it also leads to policy approaches that would not be in our 
interest or in the interests of the Iraqi people.
  For example, here is what Senator McCain and Senator Graham said 
recently:

       When President Obama withdrew all U.S. forces from Iraq in 
     2011, over the objections of our military leaders and 
     commanders on the ground, many of us predicted that the 
     vacuum would be filled by America's enemies and would emerge 
     as a threat to U.S. national security interests. Sadly, that 
     reality is now clearer than ever.

  That argument ignores some important history. First, it ignores the 
fact that the 2011 withdrawal date for U.S. forces in Iraq was not set 
by President Obama but by President Bush. In December of 2008, just 
before he left office, President Bush signed an agreement with the 
Iraqi Government that called for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraqi 
cities in 2009, and the complete withdrawal of U.S. forces by the end 
of 2011. President Bush himself, standing next to Prime Minister Maliki 
in Baghdad as they announced their agreement, said, ``The agreement 
lays out a framework for the withdrawal of American forces in Iraq.'' 
So the 2011 withdrawal date was set by President Bush, not by President 
Obama.
  As to whether our military commanders objected to our withdrawal from 
Iraq, here is what happened: While there was no mention from President 
Bush or Prime Minister Maliki when they announced their agreement of a 
U.S. troop presence after 2011, Secretary Gates and others discussed 
the possibility of some U.S. forces remaining in Iraq after 2011. Then, 
during 2011, the Obama administration entered into negotiations with 
the Iraqi Government with the goal of keeping some U.S. troops, in 
limited roles, in Iraq to assist Iraqi security forces after the 2011 
withdrawal date set by President Bush. I and many other Members of 
Congress supported the idea of continuing a smaller, specialized U.S. 
military assistance force. While there was disagreement in the 
administration over the size of a residual force, what decided the 
issue wasn't how many troops would remain; rather, it was the Iraqi 
Government's refusal to agree to legal protections for U.S. troops, 
whatever their number. In the absence of such protections, it was the 
opinion of the military leaders that no U.S. forces should remain in 
Iraq, regardless of whether the number was 3,500 or 20,000.
  At a November 2011 Armed Services Committee hearing, I asked General 
Dempsey, then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, about the 
importance of legal protections for our troops as part of any agreement 
to keep troops in

[[Page 380]]

Iraq after 2011. This is what the questions and answers were:

       Sen. Levin: Are you willing to have those forces remain 
     without an agreement relative to immunity for those troops?
       Gen. Dempsey: No, sir, I am not. . . . It was the 
     recommendation, advice and strong belief of the Joint Chiefs 
     that we should not leave service men and women there without 
     protections.
       Sen. Levin: And why is that?
       Gen. Dempsey: Because the--of the many institutions in Iraq 
     that are still evolving and immature. The Iraqi judicial 
     system is certainly among those. And we did not believe it 
     was--it was appropriate, prudent to leave service men and 
     women without judicial protections in a country that still 
     had the challenge, as we know it has, and a very immature 
     judicial system.

  Later in that same hearing, I asked General Dempsey if our commanders 
on the ground in Iraq shared that opinion. He responded:

       It was the topic of many secure video teleconferences and 
     engagements person to person. . . . I can state that they 
     also believed we needed the protections, both General Austin 
     and General Mattis, in order to leave our troops there.

  Before our committee in February of 2013, General Austin, our 
commander on the ground in Iraq during the 2011 negotiations, testified 
that there were extensive discussions with Iraq about a continuing U.S. 
troop presence. He testified:

       We worked with the Iraqi leadership all the way up until 
     the point in time when they decided they weren't going to be 
     able to give us the protections that we needed to keep our 
     troops there.

  As Secretary Panetta put it before our committee, the key moment in 
the negotiations was ``once [the Iraqis] made the decision that they 
were not going to provide any immunities for any level of force that we 
would have there.''
  So our military leaders were very much unwilling to leave any U.S. 
forces on the ground in Iraq if they could be subjected to the 
vicissitudes of the Iraqi judicial system. It is therefore wrong to say 
that the withdrawal took place ``over the objections of our military 
leaders.'' It was Iraq's refusal to grant important legal protections 
to our troops that decided the matter.
  This criticism of the administration's Iraq policy also understates 
the importance of factors that have come to the forefront since the 
2011 withdrawal. Foremost among these has been an Iraqi Government that 
has repeatedly pursued a sectarian agenda, disenfranchised Sunni 
Iraqis, failed to address Kurdish concerns over the status of Kirkuk 
and the hydrocarbons law, and alienated moderate Shia Iraqis who seek a 
more democratic and inclusive government. Prime Minister Maliki's 
governance shortfalls has stoked the sectarian tensions on which Al 
Qaeda and other extremist groups try to capitalize.
  Many Members of Congress have made clear that it is extremely 
difficult to support more robust assistance to the Iraqi Government 
unless the Iraqi leadership places the good of their country ahead of 
sectarian politics and unless it produces a practical strategy for 
governing Iraq on a more inclusive and less sectarian basis.
  For example, last October, I joined five colleagues--Senators McCain, 
Menendez, Corker, Inhofe, and Graham--in writing to President Obama, 
expressing our concern about deteriorating conditions in Iraq.
  I ask unanimous consent that our October 29, 2013, letter be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                 Washington, DC, October 29, 2013.
     Hon. Barack Obama,
     President of the United States,
     The White House, Washington, DC.
       Dear President Obama: We are deeply concerned about the 
     deteriorating situation in Iraq. As Iraqi Prime Minister 
     Nouri al-Maliki visits Washington this week, we urge you to 
     press him to formulate a comprehensive political and security 
     strategy that can stabilize the country, enable Iraq to 
     realize its vast potential, and help to safeguard our 
     nation's enduring national security interests in Iraq.
       By nearly every indicator, security conditions in Iraq have 
     dramatically worsened over the past two years. Al-Qaeda in 
     Iraq has returned with a vengeance: It has regenerated the 
     manpower, terrorist infrastructure, resources, and safe 
     havens to sustain and increase the tempo and intensity of 
     attacks and to penetrate deeper into all parts of Iraq than 
     at any time in recent years. Indeed, an analysis this month 
     by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy found, ``In 
     2010, the low point for the al-Qaeda effort in Iraq, car 
     bombings declined to an average of 10 a month and multiple 
     location attacks occurred only two or three times a year. In 
     2013, so far there has been an average of 68 car bombings a 
     month and a multiple-location strike every 10 days.'' The 
     United Nations estimates that more than 7,000 civilians have 
     been killed in Iraq thus far this year--a level of violence 
     not seen since the worst days of 2008.
       What's worse, the deteriorating conflict in Syria has 
     enabled al-Qaeda in Iraq to transform into the larger and 
     more lethal Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), which 
     now has a major base for operations spanning both Iraq and 
     Syria. As the situation in both countries grows worse, and as 
     ISIS gathers strength, we are deeply concerned that Al-Qaeda 
     could use its new safe haven in Iraq and Syria to launch 
     attacks against U.S. interests and those of our friends and 
     allies.
       Unfortunately, Prime Minister Maliki's mismanagement of 
     Iraqi politics is contributing to the recent surge of 
     violence. By too often pursuing a sectarian and authoritarian 
     agenda, Prime Minister Maliki and his allies are 
     disenfranchising Sunni Iraqis, marginalizing Kurdish Iraqis, 
     and alienating the many Shia Iraqis who have a democratic, 
     inclusive, and pluralistic vision for their country. This 
     failure of governance is driving many Sunni Iraqis into the 
     arms of Al-Qaeda in Iraq and fueling the rise of violence, 
     which in turn is radicalizing Shia Iraqi communities and 
     leading many Shia militant groups to remobilize. These were 
     the same conditions that drove Iraq toward civil war during 
     the last decade, and we fear that fate could befall Iraq once 
     again.
       We therefore urge you to take the following steps as Prime 
     Minister Maliki visits Washington:
       First, we believe the Prime Minister's visit is an 
     important opportunity to reengage with the American people 
     about the continuing strategic importance of Iraq. Though the 
     war in Iraq is over, Americans need to understand that the 
     United States has an enduring national security interest in 
     the development of a sovereign, stable, and democratic Iraq 
     that can secure its own citizens and territory, sustain its 
     own economic growth, resolve its own internal disputes 
     through inclusive and pluralistic politics, and cooperate as 
     a strategic partner of the United States--a vision of our 
     relationship that was best expressed in the 2008 Strategic 
     Framework Agreement.
       Second, we urge you to make clear to Prime Minister Maliki 
     that the extent of Iran's malign influence in the Iraqi 
     government is a serious problem in our bilateral 
     relationship, especially for the Congress. Published reports 
     demonstrate that the Iranian regime uses Iraqi airspace to 
     transit military assistance into Syria to support Assad and 
     his forces. Furthermore, attacks against the residents of 
     Camp Ashraf in Iraq are reprehensible, especially because the 
     Iraqi government pledged to protect these people. Prime 
     Minister Maliki must understand that actions such as these 
     need to stop. Not only do they make it difficult for Iraq's 
     friends in the United States to build public support, 
     especially in the Congress, to enhance our strategic 
     partnership, but they also undermine Iraq's standing as a 
     responsible member of the international community.
       Third, we encourage you to step up our counterterrorism 
     support for Iraq. It is in our national security interest to 
     enhance the effectiveness of Iraq's security forces, 
     especially through greater intelligence sharing. However, in 
     addition to our aforementioned concerns, we must see more 
     evidence from Prime Minister Maliki that U.S. security 
     assistance and arms sales are part of a comprehensive Iraqi 
     strategy that addresses the political sources of the current 
     violence and seeks to bring lasting peace to the country.
       This leads us to the final and most important point that we 
     urge you to stress with Prime Minister Maliki: If he devises 
     and implements a real governance strategy for Iraq, the 
     United States is ready to provide the appropriate support to 
     help that strategy succeed. Iraq's challenges will never be 
     solved through security operations alone. Indeed, as the 
     United States learned through its own hard experience in 
     Iraq, applying security solutions to political problems will 
     only make those problems worse.
       It is essential that you urge Prime Minister Maliki to 
     adopt a strategy to address Iraq's serious problems of 
     governance. Such a strategy should unite Iraqis of every sect 
     and ethnicity in a reformed constitutional order, based on 
     the rule of law, which can give Iraqis a real stake in their 
     nation's progress, marginalize Al-Qaeda in Iraq and other 
     violent extremists, and bring lasting peace to the country. 
     To be effective, an Iraqi political strategy should involve 
     sharing greater national power and revenue with Sunni Iraqis, 
     reconciling with Sunni leaders, and ending de-Baathification 
     and other policies of blanket retribution. It should include 
     agreements with the Kurdistan Regional Government to share 
     hydrocarbon revenues and resolve territorial disputes. And it 
     requires a clear commitment that the elections scheduled for 
     next year will happen

[[Page 381]]

     freely, fairly, and inclusively in all parts of Iraq, and 
     that the necessary preparations will be taken.
       If Prime Minister Maliki were to take actions such as 
     these, he could cement his legacy as the leader who 
     safeguarded his country's sovereignty and laid the foundation 
     for the new Iraq. In this endeavor, Prime Minister Maliki and 
     our other Iraqi partners would have our support, including 
     appropriate security assistance, and we would encourage you 
     to provide U.S. diplomatic support at the highest levels to 
     help Iraqis reach the necessary political agreements before 
     the 2014 elections. However, if Prime Minister Maliki 
     continues to marginalize the Kurds, alienate many Shia, and 
     treat large numbers of Sunnis as terrorists, no amount of 
     security assistance will be able to bring stability and 
     security to Iraq. That is not a legacy we want for Prime 
     Minister Maliki, and that is not an outcome that would serve 
     America's national interests.
           Sincerely,
     Carl Levin.
     John McCain.
     Robert Menendez.
     Bob Corker.
     James M. Inhofe.
     Lindsey Graham.

  Mr. LEVIN. In our letter, written as Prime Minister Malaki was 
visiting Washington, we supported an increase in support for Iraq's 
counterterrorism efforts. But we made clear that the Iraqi Government 
must provide a practical plan for using such aid and provide assurances 
relative to whom advanced weapons would be used against. We wrote 
President Obama as follows:

       It is in our national security interest to enhance the 
     effectiveness of Iraq's security forces, especially through 
     greater intelligence sharing. However . . . we must see more 
     evidence from Prime Minister Maliki that U.S. security 
     assistance and arms sales are part of a comprehensive Iraqi 
     strategy that addresses the political sources of the current 
     violence and seeks to bring lasting peace to the country.

  We further wrote:

       This leads us to the final and most important point that we 
     urge you to stress with Prime Minister Maliki: If he devises 
     and implements a real governance strategy for Iraq, the 
     United States is ready to provide the appropriate support to 
     help that strategy succeed.

  And:

       If Prime Minister Maliki continues to marginalize the 
     Kurds, alienate many Shia, and treat large numbers of Sunnis 
     as terrorists, no amount of security assistance will be able 
     to bring stability and security to Iraq.

  It is a tragedy for the Iraqi people and a real security concern for 
the United States that Prime Minister Maliki has yet to produce a 
strategy for broadly based governance in Iraq. We should not forget the 
2011 withdrawal date for American troops from Iraq was negotiated by 
President Bush. We should not forget the decision to reject an ongoing 
U.S. troop presence after 2011 was Iraq's, because of Iraq's refusal to 
assure us that our troops would have protections from Iraqi courts and 
prosecution. We should not forget that our military leaders supported 
the decision not to leave our troops in Iraq without legal protections 
from Iraqi prosecution. We should not forget that while an ongoing 
relationship is in our interests, no amount of military equipment from 
us will protect the Iraqi people if their government continues to place 
sectarian goals ahead of sound governance.
  So we should use opportunities to assist Iraq in its struggle against 
violent extremism and for stability and security, but Iraq's fate 
ultimately rests with its people and their leaders.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of Colorado). The Senator from 
Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when I 
conclude my remarks, Senator Murkowski of Alaska be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I have been honored to serve with 
Senator Levin on the Armed Services Committee. He does an excellent 
job. He has spent a lot of time and many hours working to try to help 
us be successful in Iraq and other areas of national defense.
  I think Generals Dempsey and Austin were right to say we could not 
keep our troops there unless they had immunity from local prosecutions. 
But as I recall the net feeling about the President's decision to 
withdraw from continued negotiations on this contentious issue, the 
military felt this was not wise--at least many of them did--and they 
believed that had we continued to pursue negotiations, we may have been 
able to reach the kind of agreement which would allow us to help the 
Iraqi Government be stable and successful. Pulling out as we did always 
seemed to me to be too rapid, too precipitous, and created dangers 
which could place at risk that which our soldiers fought and died for. 
I do believe that is what happened. It is a tragic thing.
  I was in Falluja, not long after that bitter battle. We had hundreds 
wounded and almost 100 killed. The Marines performed with such valor 
and courage. It was one of the great, courageous performances of the 
U.S. Marine Corps. It is sad, sad to me to see that today Al Qaeda is 
flying its flag in parts of that city. It is a tragedy. It did not 
maintain the faith that we ought to have maintained with those that we 
in Congress directed to go out and fight this war and to be successful. 
Maybe yet something can be done successfully to deal with this 
situation, which I feel deeply about.


                         unemployment insurance

  Mr. SESSIONS. I am here to share some thoughts about the remarks 
delivered today by President Obama on the growing problem of poverty 
and our chronic unemployment that has occurred during the 6 years of 
his Presidency, after he has declared that the recession is over and 
was over. Just this week the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, said 
that ``the rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer 
and the middle class is under siege.''
  Wages are not doing well. Americans in large numbers are not doing 
well, and they are hurting. Washington Democrats, led by the President, 
are now proposing increased unemployment insurance and new wage-price 
controls, wage controls to mandate wages that have to be paid, to treat 
the consequences of a failed economy--a stagnant, slow-growth economy 
that is not creating jobs. These words and actions represent an 
admission that the White House economic agenda has been a disaster for 
poor and middle class people. It has not worked.
  I know he believed it would work. I know he has advocated these 
policies. I know he promised that they would work. But they are not 
working. Worst still, the President remains fully committed to the 
policy regime that he has been advocating, and that is not working. 
These policies have failed, not just for the last 5 years; they have 
failed for the last 50 years. They will never work. The President and 
Majority Leader Reid are correct, a nervous American business community 
is hoarding profits because they don't know what the future is going to 
be like. Those struggling to get by are feeling the results of 
corporate cost cutting and the policies that we are seeing executed by 
the government are impacting this situation negatively. They just are.
  I know the people proposing these solutions think they are caring 
about people who are hurting today. But if we care about them, we will 
use our heads as well as our hearts, and we will think through as to 
how to make growth occur in our economy, how to help jobs be created, 
how to have wages rise instead of stagnating or declining.
  Mr. President, $16 trillion has been spent fighting poverty since the 
war on poverty began 50 years ago, yet where do we stand today? Mr. 
President, 47 million Americans are on food stamps, 91.5 million are 
outside the labor force not working, and 46 million are living in 
poverty. In low-income communities the pain is especially severe. For 
example, in the city of Baltimore, 1 in 3 residents receives food 
stamps. In Chicago, 51 percent of the city's children live in a single-
parent family. In Detroit, almost 1 in 3 households had not had a 
single person working at any time throughout the year--almost 1 in 3 
households. The city's violent crime rate is among the worst in the 
country. More than half of all Detroit children live in poverty.
  The welfare bureaucracy that the left is determined to defend and 
expand is failing our fellow Americans. It is just not working. We can 
do better. We

[[Page 382]]

have to do better. No longer can we define compassion by how much money 
we spend on poverty but by how many people we lift out of poverty.
  The amount of money State and Federal governments spend on the 
welfare bureaucracy each year amounts to more than $1 trillion. That is 
a huge sum. It is twice the Defense Department budget. If all these 
funds were converted to cash and mailed to every household in poverty, 
it would equate to $60,000 per household. Yet as the President now 
admits, chronic poverty and a widening income gap is the new normal.
  We have huge bureaucracies, huge multiple conflicting programs, and 
programs that are not working and are not helping the people we are 
supposed to help. They just are not.
  Isn't it time that we broke from decades of policies that are proven 
not to work? Imagine how much better it would be if we combined dozens 
of overlapping welfare programs into a single credit with better 
oversight standards focused on the goal of helping people become 
financially self-sufficient. We need fresh approaches. We have to have 
fresh approaches. I believe it will happen. The sooner it happens the 
better off this country will be and the better off poor people will be.
  But all we get from the White House are the stale policies of 
yesterday. What is the agenda the President persists in pushing? 
Consider the cornerstones of the President's economic agenda, the 
things he has been pushing in the Senate and the Congress and 
advocating unilaterally through the powers of the executive President--
some beyond all law, it seems to me. These are the things he has 
consistently advocated for. He wants a government healthcare takeover, 
and that is proven to be a job killer. It is killing jobs and two-
thirds of the jobs this year that have been created were part-time and 
in large part that has been a reaction to the Affordable Care Act.
  What else? He has a hostility, a consistent hostility to the 
production of American energy, which makes the country more wealthy, to 
produce our own energy rather than transferring our wealth abroad, to 
buy energy from abroad. It creates jobs in America, high-paying jobs.
  We have proposals for more and more taxes and more and more 
regulations that make it more difficult for U.S. workers to compete in 
the global marketplace. It makes it harder for their companies to be 
able to export and therefore create more American jobs.
  We have a lawless immigration policy that undermines American workers 
and their wages. It just does. They can say whatever they want to say, 
but the bill that passed the Senate, the comprehensive immigration 
bill, would have doubled the number of guest workers. Some say: Well, 
Jeff, they are just going to be agricultural workers. That is not so. 
Only a small number are going to be agricultural workers. They are 
going to be a million-plus workers traveling around the country taking 
jobs all over America--twice as many lawfully as would be the case 
under current law. This is supposed to be immigration reform? This is 
supposed to help American workers find a job or have a pay raise?
  We have a weak trade policy. We have to stand up for the American 
workers on the world stage and make sure that our trading partners are 
accepting our products like we accept their products, and if they do 
not, we have to defend the interests of the American worker. That is 
the way to help them have more jobs and better pay.
  We have a welfare bureaucracy that penalizes work. The President is 
proposing more massive spending, creating more debt. He has had the 
greatest debt increases in the history in our country. That is 
destroying and weakening growth in America. It places a cloud over the 
American economy, as experts have told us.
  These policies have been the order of the day for 5 years. That is 
what we heard. We need to spend more, we need to invest more, and we 
need to tax more. We have had more regulations than we have ever had in 
American history. We have had trillion dollar deficits the likes of 
which we have never seen before, and people wonder why the economy is 
not doing well.
  We blocked oil production in the gulf for an inordinate period of 
time and are only slowly allowing that to occur. We blocked a Canadian 
pipeline that would create thousands of American jobs. We blocked 
energy production on Federal lands. We make it harder for energy 
production on private lands to occur, and we wonder why we cannot 
create sufficient jobs and growth. We need lower-cost energy, cheaper 
energy. That is good for the economy. Falling natural gas prices have 
been a help because of new techniques in the production of natural gas.
  These statist, leftist policies have been tried in America before, 
and they have been tried throughout the world for decades, and they 
will never work. Taxes, regulating, more government, and taking over 
the healthcare industry will not create prosperity and jobs in America. 
It just won't. If it would, we would be doing so much better.
  Since the President has entered office we have added an incredible $7 
trillion to the debt of the United States, and what do we have to show 
for that? Real wages are lower today than they were in 1999. Take-home 
pay has fallen for 5 consecutive years. Average household wealth is 60 
percent lower today than it was in 2007; 1.3 million fewer people are 
working today than in 2007. Have we had a recovery? We have fewer 
people working today than we had 6 years ago, and every month we add 
150,000 or more people, basically, to the age cohort of Americans that 
could be working, because the population is increasing that much. So 
you have to create real jobs to stay ahead of just normal population 
growth. There is 1.3 million fewer people working today, even though 
the population has grown by 14.5 million. There are 1.3 million fewer 
people who are working today than in 2007, even though the population 
has grown 14.5 million. That is not good.
  So the President is right to be worried about the health of the 
American middle class and lower-income workers in America. It sure has 
not been going well. I know he thought his statist ideas would work, 
and he pushed them steadfastly. He had a Senate that rubber stamped for 
2 years what he wanted, including a $800 billion stimulus bill that was 
supposed to create jobs and prosperity in America, every penny of that 
borrowed.
  If we continue down this road, I fear we are going to sentence an 
entire generation of young Americans to poverty, joblessness, and 
stagnant economic growth in our economy. Majority Leader Reid said this 
week that, ``We should realize that today there is only one job 
available for three people seeking a job. Think about it.''
  I agree that we absolutely must think about that. We should think 
seriously about it. My first thought is this. Since three people are 
looking for every one job that is open, then why has the President 
embraced an immigration bill that would double the flow of guest 
workers into America? They will take jobs that would be available for 
American workers. Why? That is what I think about.
  As David Cameron, the prime minister of the United Kingdom, said 
recently: Immigration cannot be a substitute for training our own 
workforce. Is there something wrong with him saying that? Isn't that an 
honest, correct statement, speaking for the interest of the average 
Briton?
  We need to help struggling Americans get off welfare, off 
unemployment, and into good-paying jobs.
  We have a loose labor market. We don't have a tight labor market. 
Byron York recently wrote an excellent column. He showed that the very 
same companies that signed letters to the President and the Congress 
demanding more guest workers are laying off American workers by the 
thousands. Big companies are signing letters that demand more workers, 
and they are laying off thousands of workers. It is a fact. He listed 
them. There were 10 or 15 companies. Some of them laid off thousands of 
people the very year they wrote to this Congress demanding more foreign 
workers. So now we have to extend unemployment benefits because

[[Page 383]]

people can't find jobs. We have to pass a law to set the wage so the 
wage can be higher because it is not going up through the natural free 
market as it should if we had a normal market for labor.
  Whom do we work for? I know who I work for, and that is the hard-
working people of Alabama and the United States. I don't work for the 
masters of the universe. They are demanding more workers from Congress 
when millions of Americans are unemployed.
  America is not an oligarchy. House Republicans need to firmly tell 
this President that we work for the American people. We reject any 
immigration plan that puts special interests or corporate interests 
before working Americans. They need to say: We are going to defend the 
working people of this country. They are not being defended in the 
Senate by the Democratic majority, that is for sure, with regard to the 
immigration policy.
  A small group of CEOs don't get to set immigration policy for the 
country, no matter how much money they have. How many ads do they buy? 
We are not going to enrich the political class at the expense of the 
middle class, and we will reject the immigration bill that passed the 
Senate.
  That is one of the things we could do to help improve job prospects 
for Americans. It wouldn't cost us a dime. We wouldn't have to borrow 
money. It would actually get people off welfare and food stamps. It 
would put them back into the workforce, and put us on a better path.
  If we want to reverse the middle-class decline, we need a new 
economic vision. We need concrete steps to restore opportunity to the 
American people without adding a penny to the national debt. We need 
policies that work to create prosperity without borrowing and creating 
more debt. We just have to do that.
  What are some of the things that we can do? Produce more American 
energy. We can turn the welfare office into a job-training center. We 
can do this. We are going to have to do this. We are going to have to 
move people from dependence to independence. We need to streamline the 
Tax Code and make it more growth oriented, which will help us to be 
more competitive worldwide. We need to eliminate every Washington 
regulation that is not needed. These are regulations that kill jobs and 
kill competitiveness.
  We need to enforce trade rules with our partners that defend the 
legitimate interest of U.S. workers. We need to enforce an immigration 
policy that serves the national interest--the people's interest--and 
protects jobs for Americans. We need to make our government leaner and 
more accountable. Our government needs to do more for less just like 
good businesses and good corporations and good companies are doing all 
over America. We need to do that with our government. That will help 
the economy.
  We need to balance the Federal budget, restore the confidence of the 
American people, the world financial community, the vitality and the 
future of America, and spare our children from a lifetime of debt.
  These are all positive steps that are true to our constitutional 
heritage and our legacy of freedom and opportunity. Those are the 
things we should be doing and we can do. They are all steps that will 
create more jobs and more growth without borrowing money, and these are 
all steps that will lift millions out of poverty, and help struggling 
Americans realize the dream of financial independence.
  I don't know what the President was thinking when he talked about a 
few little promise zones--is that what he called them--around the 
country. This is somehow going to deal with the unemployment problem in 
America?
  He announced this today. I haven't had a chance to study it yet, but 
these are just a few spots on the map of the country. This is not going 
to have any kind of systemic impact on our declining growth and the 
weak recovery we are seeing today. If the recovery doesn't exceed 2 
percent GDP growth per year, it will not create jobs faster than the 
population grows.
  I am afraid we are not in a good position there. We are not seeing 
the growth that we had, and experts are predicting slow growth in the 
years to come. We have to get off the path we are on and get on the 
path to growth, job creation, and prosperity. We have to make sure our 
American citizens are trained, skilled, and moved into good jobs so 
they can be independent and take care of their families without being 
dependent on the government of the United States.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.


                       unemployment compensation

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, it has been a disappointing week here 
in the Senate. I started out the week feeling pretty good and 
optimistic. I had a major presentation before the Brookings 
Institution. I talked about the enormous potential in this country for 
energy production and the fact that we are at the highest level of 
energy production domestically than we have been in 20 years and what 
great prospects we have for that. When we talk about jobs and economic 
opportunity, it is really one of the bright spots out there.
  Of course, the debate this week has been over unemployment 
compensation and the extension, initially proposed by the President to 
be a 3-month extension--an emergency, temporary extension. I was one of 
six Republicans who came together and said: This is an important 
conversation for us to be having at this particular point in time.
  As we know, the long-term employment benefits expired on December 28, 
2013. It impacted over 1 million Americans around the country. In my 
home State of Alaska about 6,500 people lost long-term benefits at the 
end of the year, and it was one of these cold turkey things. Those who 
still had eligibility for certain benefits were cut off hard. There was 
no tapering down. This is hard.
  Back here in Washington, DC, we have been living with some pretty 
cold weather. It is cold weather all the time in Alaska at this time of 
the year. It is hard to be out of work. It is expensive to keep your 
homes heated. It is expensive to live there, and so I recognize that 
the safety nets we put in place are important. It is important for us 
to have discussions and debates so we can argue and compromise on the 
issue of long-term employment benefits. That is a conversation we 
should have. I wanted to have that debate.
  I wanted the opportunity for full-on amendments so we could bring up 
good ideas, such as, good ideas about reform and perhaps tying benefits 
to job training, retooling, giving people that opportunity to move 
forward, and debate about how we pay for it. There have been times when 
we extended long-term unemployment benefits with an offset, and then 
there have been times when we extended it on an emergency basis with no 
offset. But let's talk about it, let's debate it, and let's put up some 
amendments.
  I was part of that group that really thought we would not only be 
able to talk, but that we would actually be able to weigh in as Members 
representing our States, presenting our ideas, and speaking for our 
constituents on issues that are very important around the country. 
Usually in a body such as the Senate, actions don't happen unless there 
is an opportunity to vote on issues.
  So this afternoon when I listened to the majority leader's statement, 
he said very clearly that we weren't going to have any amendments on 
the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Extension Act. In fact, his 
words were: We get nowhere with doing amendments. I find that so 
disturbing.
  I have only been in the Senate for 10 years, but what I have seen in 
my 10 years is a change in the process--a change in an institution 
where we are no longer taking the good ideas from this side and the 
good ideas from the other side through an amendment process--or even 
from a committee process for that matter--and building better policy 
based on the good ideas that we all have.
  Why would we be afraid to vote on amendments? They may take us a 
little bit longer throughout the day to go through. It disrupts our 
schedules. My

[[Page 384]]

schedule is to work for the people of Alaska, and if that business 
isn't conducted here through debate and voting, then what is it? What 
is it?
  I was really quite discouraged after the exchange on the floor 
earlier. Colleagues have worked hard to come up with some good 
proposals. These are not ``gotcha'' amendments as was suggested by the 
majority leader.
  I think the proposal of the Senator from Ohio--a proposal that is 
actually contained in the President's budget proposal--was absolutely 
legitimate. So to suggest that it is an amendment without merit is not 
fair.
  At the end of the day, don't we judge the merit of an amendment, of 
an idea or of a proposal by presenting it to the body for a vote?
  If we truly are at that point where we are simply not going to amend 
bills, that we are simply going to vote straight up or down on a bill 
that has been presented to us--probably not even out of the committee 
process but more likely from the majority leader's chambers--that is a 
tough place for us to be as a body. That is not what this process is 
all about.
  The minority leader reminded us yesterday that we can do better. We 
can do better as an institution, but we sure didn't demonstrate that 
today.
  I want to work with my colleagues on the issue of unemployment 
compensation. I want to be able to recognize that compassion that we 
show for other Americans who are dealing with great difficulty right 
now. I want to try to move this country forward with policies that are 
good and strong and create those jobs.


                                 Energy

  When I started my comments, I talked about energy production being 
that bright light. Look at what is happening in the State of North 
Dakota where, boy, anybody who wants a job can get one. In fact, they 
can get two or three jobs.
  They are ground zero in this type of oil revolution. Their 
unemployment rate was 2.7 percent last October. There has been a lot of 
back-and-forth going on about Keystone and its potential for providing 
direct jobs, direct and indirect end use jobs around the country--
42,000 jobs around the country. Wouldn't that be helpful?
  When we talk about our opportunities in this country, we need to be 
putting in place policies that help advance jobs and job creation and 
the wealth then that comes with it. We can and must be doing more.
  One of the areas we need to address is where this administration, in 
my view, has seen some real policy failures; that is, in restricting 
access to Federal lands for resource development, blocking and slowing 
the permitting process. We need to be doing more. The President has 
touted the gains made in energy production. But I think it is important 
to recognize that most of those gains have been on private and State 
lands. The Presiding Officer and I know there are enormous resources on 
our Federal lands. Let's access them. Let's access them safely and in 
an environmentally responsible way but in a way that is going to help 
our economy, help the job situation in this country. I feel we can do 
so much more. I am hopeful again that we will, in this body, in this 
institution, be able to work together to solve some of the issues that 
confront us. But, again, I am disappointed.
  I did not come to the floor this evening to talk about the comments 
made earlier on where we are in the amendment process and not being 
able to advance an amendment process. But my colleagues can tell I care 
deeply about this institution. I care deeply about our responsibility 
to govern around here. I am not convinced we are governing to our 
ability. We need to make some changes, and it only comes when we 
acknowledge that those changes have to come and that cooperation has to 
come from both sides.


                        Emergency Connector Road

  Tonight I come to the floor to talk about a decision that came out of 
the Department of Interior the day before Christmas Eve. This is a 
decision that in my view is absolutely unconscionable, and it is a 
decision that was made by the Secretary of the Interior the afternoon 
of December 23, in which she rejected a medical emergency connector 
road between two very remote Alaskan communities, the community of King 
Cove and Cold Bay.
  I have thought long and hard about my public comments to my 
colleagues in the Senate because I have spoken out about this at home 
and I was very direct. I was very direct about my anger, my 
disappointment, and my frustration. I recognize I have to work with 
folks in this administration, and when we are talking about the 
Secretary of the Interior, I recognize she is effectively Alaska's 
landlord. I need to be able to figure out a way to get along with her. 
But I have to tell my colleagues that this was absolutely a heartless 
decision by Secretary Jewell. It was a decision that she alone made, 
and it will only serve to endanger the Alaskan Native village residents 
of King Cove.
  With the decision the Secretary made, she has put the interests of 
certain environmental groups and the alleged peace and comfort of the 
birds, the waterfowl in the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge above the 
lives of hundreds of Alaskans, because 950 Alaskans live in King Cove. 
By the Secretary's act of denying this short road needed to ensure the 
people of King Cove reliable and safe access to an all-weather airport 
in nearby Cold Bay, Secretary Jewell has effectively turned her back on 
the Aleut people of western Alaska. She has discarded her duty to 
uphold the trust responsibility the Federal Government owes to its 
Native peoples.
  The uncle of the Presiding Officer served as Secretary of the 
Interior. He knew full well that trust responsibility. It is a high 
trust and the Secretary has turned her back on the Native people out in 
King Cove.
  To add insult to what could very well be real injury or even death, 
Secretary Jewell did this on the day before Christmas Eve. On the day 
before Christmas Eve, I received a voice mail message from the 
Secretary telling me that she later in that afternoon was going to deny 
the road to King Cove. What was I doing? I was doing the exact same 
thing most of the people around me were doing--we were at the last 
minute getting ready for Christmas. I was in the parking lot of a Fred 
Meyer store going inside to get Scotch tape and wrapping paper.
  The decision made by the Secretary is one that goes beyond building a 
10-mile, one-lane, gravel, noncommercial-use road between King Cove and 
Cold Bay. This decision makes clear to us in Alaska that our lives--the 
lives of the people, the human beings who are there--just don't seem to 
matter to the Secretary. It is clear to me that either she does not 
understand or she does not care about the most basic needs of our 
remote residents, and it is quite clear that we have, once again, 
received unfair treatment at the hands of our Federal Government.
  Sometimes it just feels as though those on the outside, whether it is 
the Federal Government, back here, 4,000 miles away from home, that 
there is this sense that Alaskans need to be protected from themselves. 
Quite honestly, that is offensive. Quite frankly, I have a very hard 
time believing that if this same situation occurred somewhere in the 
lower 48, the decision would be the same. The fact is we are out of 
sight, we are out of mind. There are only 720,000 people in Alaska. 
There are only 950 people, or thereabouts, in King Cove. Who is going 
to be upset? Well, I am upset. I am upset. Not only have the people of 
King Cove been wronged, but the people of Alaska have been wronged. 
This is not a decision that is going to just go away because we all got 
caught up in the Christmas holidays. This is not going to be something 
the people of Alaska or this Senator will forget, because we are not 
done.
  I have been to this floor many times--many times--in fact, I think 
the Presiding Officer has been in the chair on previous occasions--when 
I have come to call attention to this lifesaving road and the land 
exchange that was approved by Congress, signed into law by the 
President. I feel as though I have told this story so many times I 
don't need to remind folks, but I am going to provide a brief 
refresher.

[[Page 385]]

  The recent story of King Cove actually started pretty well. Congress 
came together almost 5 years ago to give the Interior Secretary reason 
and authority to act in the public interest when it comes to providing 
access. But as is so often the case, this has become yet another 
terrible example of the interests of our people put at risk by their 
own Federal Government. So back in 2009 we passed--I introduced 
legislation--we passed legislation that proposed to add more than 
56,000 acres of State and tribal land to the Izembek Refuge in exchange 
for a 206-acre road corridor through a corner of the refuge. Again, I 
wish to repeat the numbers because some people say I must have 
forgotten a zero: In exchange for 56,000 acres of State and tribal 
land, a 206-acre road corridor. In addition to the fact that this is 
basically a 300-to-1 exchange that was offered, there was agreement 
that this road would be so limited--so limited as to have an 
infinitesimally small impact on the refuge. The people of King Cove are 
not insensitive to the fact that this is a very rich ecosystem out 
there. This is a very rich area. This is where the birds come through. 
They have no interest in harming or damaging the refuge.
  So the agreement was for a one-lane, between 10 and 11 miles long, 
gravel road, severely restricted by law--restricted by law; not just an 
agreement where the mayor says, oh, during my tenure, we are not going 
to use it for commercial purposes. This is in law: noncommercial 
purposes, one-lane, 11-mile-long gravel road. In addition, there were 
going to be roping corridors so that if a vehicle is on the road, it 
wouldn't be able to go off the road and onto the refuge and lay tire 
marks or impact the refuge at all.
  The Department of Interior EIS clearly showed that the actual acreage 
inside the refuge to be impacted by fill material was just around 2.7 
acres. Again, think about the exchange. They are giving up 56,000 acres 
in exchange for a 206-acre road corridor and, of that, the impact by 
fill material is just about 2.7 acres. So consider also that the 
exchange would have added 2,300 acres of eelgrass beds to the refuge.
  This is prime habitat and feed for the black brant, and this was 
something that clearly Secretary Jewell felt was very valuable because 
she chose to place higher value on those black brants than she did on 
human and wildlife values. That 2,300 acres, then, is about 20 times 
more than the eelgrass that the EIS said might have been impacted by 
erosion as a result of the road. So the rejection of this exchange just 
dumbfounds me. I don't understand it.
  The State of Alaska and the local tribal groups were willing to give 
up 56,000 acres of land. Keep in mind, these are lands that were given 
to them under the Native Land Claims Settlement Act. These lands 
represent who they are, and they are willing to give up 56,000 acres of 
it for a lousy one-lane, 11-mile gravel, noncommercial-use road. That 
is how much this road meant to them, because it was more than a road. 
It was a lifesaving connector. It was a way for them to get to an all-
weather airport, the second longest runway in the State of Alaska that 
was built during World War II; an amazing runway, actually, that isn't 
encumbered by the topography and the weather as the King Cove Airport 
is.
  So you have a people who are desperate for a solution, so desperate 
for their solution that they are willing to give up their lands. The 
most prized thing the Native people have in our State are the lands 
around them, and they are willing to exchange them for a small road 
corridor--a 300 to 1 exchange--and the proposed land that would have 
been provided to the Federal Government is pristine land that is 
valuable for the waterfowl, for the wildlife, certainly would enhance 
and benefit the refuge.
  But Secretary Jewell said no to this. She said no to this 300 to 1 
exchange--an exchange that would enhance the habitat for the birds she 
wants to protect. It really makes you wonder: Has there ever been such 
a lopsided land exchange that has been rejected by the Federal 
Government?
  The former head of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Dale Hall, was 
the one who largely picked the lands and had approved of this exchange 
back in 2006--long before this legislation was ever introduced. So the 
Federal agencies, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the head of the 
Fish and Wildlife Service had looked at all this and said: OK, in order 
to get this corridor, there is going to have to be some exchange, so 
let's figure out what it is going to be. He gave his blessing to that 
back in 2006.
  But what this does speak to is how strongly Alaskans feel about 
protecting the health and safety of our residents, and rightly so. I 
would submit to you, Mr. President, if Secretary Jewell and the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service truly had--truly had--the best interests of 
both the human residents and the birds of the Izembek Refuge in mind, 
they would have recognized that adding 56,000 acres, while taking out 
just 206 acres--and, then again, of that, the amount that would have 
actually been impacted by fill is 2.7 acres--I think they would provide 
far greater benefit to the refuge than any small, single-lane, gravel, 
noncommercial road ever possibly could subtract.
  The legislation directed the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to 
conduct an EIS for the road. So the 2009 legislation that passed the 
House, that passed the Senate, that was signed into law by the 
President, directed Fish and Wildlife to conduct an EIS. That agency 
prepared a faulty EIS. They failed to adhere to the underlying law, 
choosing a ``no action'' alternative and failing to adequately account 
for health and human safety when selecting the preferred alternative. 
This is more evidence of systematic disregard for the well-being of the 
Aleut who have lived in this region for thousands of years.
  I also want to touch very briefly upon Interior's trust 
responsibility to Alaska Native peoples. The Assistant Secretary for 
Indian Affairs, Kevin Washburn, went to King Cove. He visited. He 
actually spent 2 days there. In fact, they actually had some pretty 
stinky weather when he was there, and I think he saw firsthand what the 
residents of King Cove deal with in getting in and out. The Assistant 
Secretary wrote a report for Secretary Jewell. It was not made public 
until after the Secretary announced her decision, which I think was 
unfortunate. But again, back to the trust responsibility--the 
responsibility that the Federal Government has to protect the health 
and safety of Native Americans.
  But here you have the Fish and Wildlife Service, you have Assistant 
Secretary Washburn, and now, finally, Secretary Jewell, who had the 
opportunity to encourage or actually make a decision that would improve 
the lives of the residents of King Cove. They turned their backs on 
these people, and they diminished the hopes of these first peoples.
  The EIS, which recommended no action--no action--to help the people 
of King Cove has a clear negative impact on the health and safety of 
Alaska Natives who live in that village. The official report that was 
prepared by Mr. Washburn regarding his visit to King Cove, I believe, 
was inadequate--wholly inadequate--and, quite frankly, very weak.
  He, the Assistant Secretary, is viewed as a leading legal scholar on 
Native trust responsibility. I truly have high hopes for him because I 
believe that his heart clearly is in that right place. But his report 
falls woefully short of his duty to the Aleut people, and I expected 
more of him--truly I did--and I know the people of King Cove deserve 
better.
  The health and safety of the people of King Cove is not some 
speculative issue. We are not just talking about, oh, the weather is 
bad there or somebody might get hurt. The fact of the matter is that 
since 1980, 18 people have died, and they have died because of medevac 
delays or because of the dangers connected with the medevac flights out 
of the fishing village.
  It is not easy to get in and out of King Cove. They have an airstrip, 
yes, they do, but they are surrounded on three sides by mountains, and 
a valley on one and the ocean on another. The Coast Guard describes 
medevacs into King Cove as one of the more frightening, more 
challenging operations

[[Page 386]]

that the Coast Guard is tasked to do. You might say, why is the Coast 
Guard doing medevacs? Well, because medevac flights from Anchorage--
some 600 miles away--cannot get in. They say: The risk to us to fly in 
for somebody who is in the midst of a difficult labor and needs to get 
out to the nearest hospital--which is Anchorage, 600 miles away--is too 
great or we are not willing to risk our lives. So whom do you call? You 
call the Coast Guard.
  In 2012, the Coast Guard was called in, I believe, five times, at a 
cost of up to $210,000 to the taxpayers per trip, to bring in a crew to 
medevac that individual out. So if you can fly in--if the Coast Guard 
is able to do it, they will be there. But, in the meantime, you have 
had people die, and you have had planes crash.
  If you cannot get out, the alternative is--because there is no road; 
there is no 10-mile, one-lane, gravel, noncommercial-use connector 
road--you can go across the water. Think about it. If the weather is 
bad enough up in the air, think about what it is doing down in that 
ocean. It is pretty tough.
  So you can come across the water for hours in 15-, 20-foot seas, but 
then, once you get over to Cold Bay, it is not like they can just load 
you into a nice airplane on the runway there. You have to get docked, 
and up off the dock to get to the airport.
  The fact of the matter is King Cove and Cold Bay--it is a little bit 
rustic out there. What is in this picture I have in the Chamber is 
probably a little difficult to see. This is the top of the dock at 
night. This is about a 20-foot drop to the ocean here. You have metal 
ladders that you climb up, if you are able. But if you are able, you 
probably do not need to be medevaced out. A person with a heart 
condition, how is he climbing up this metal ladder--as the waves are 
crashing against him in the dark and in the wind? What you are seeing 
here is basically a sled that has been hoisted up on a crane, swinging 
around in the wind in the dark.
  I do not have the picture here of the elder who had suffered a heart 
condition and could not make it up the steps. They could not hoist him 
up. They put him in a crab pot and hauled him up by crane on to the top 
of the dock so that they could then take him to the airport, where he 
was safely evacuated out and made it to Anchorage.
  As I say, when we are talking about the health and safety of the 
people of King Cove, it is not speculative. People are dying. People 
have died. People are afraid to fly. The testimony that the Secretary 
heard, that my colleagues have heard--as the people of King Cove have 
come back, they have said: Enough.
  The Secretary, in her visit to King Cove in August, stood before the 
schoolchildren there at an assembly--and she is very good with 
children, and it was good to watch the exchange--but those children 
spoke up to her and told her why they needed a road out of King Cove. 
To hear a child say: We need a road so that I am not afraid to fly and 
because I don't want anyone to die. This is an issue, again, where the 
stories we have heard, the Secretary has heard--because I was there 
with her; we heard the stories together--they are heartwrenching. They 
bring tears to your eyes. The people, the families who have lived with 
this have been devastated. The Secretary heard all this, and yet it 
seems that she has just chosen to ignore the voices of those children, 
the stories of those elders, the pictures of an elder being hauled up 
in a crab pot so he can make a medevac to Anchorage.
  I want my colleagues to know here in the Senate, as well as the 
administration, that I am not going to let this issue die. There is a 
simple reason why. Because I am not willing to let anyone in King Cove 
suffer or die because they do not have emergency access out of their 
village.
  This decision rested squarely on the shoulders of Secretary Jewell, 
who then announced this devastating news only hours before Christmas 
Eve--a heartless decision delivered at a heartless time. The Secretary 
said to me that there is no good time to deliver bad news, and I would 
agree. But the timing of this decision was solely hers. There was no 
deadline within which she had to act. She chose to announce it on 
Monday afternoon, at 3 p.m., Washington, DC time, knowing that everyone 
was going to be skating out of here for the holidays, hoping that 
everyone was going to be distracted with their family events, hoping 
that no one was going to be watching. She knew that the people of King 
Cove would be upset. She knew that I would be upset--but less than a 
thousand people, she thinks. That is not how you do things. It is not 
how you do things.
  The people of King Cove are without hope right now for one reason; 
and that is because of this decision from the Secretary. I have come 
here to tell the Senate what happened to them in what was supposed to 
be--what was supposed to be--a season of joy and celebration. I 
truthfully cannot use strong enough words to show the depth of my anger 
for this decision.
  I cannot fathom why she came to it, why she was willing to sign her 
name to it. But I, for one, never thought that we would see a day 
where, under the guise of making a public interest determination, a 
Cabinet Secretary would so blatantly disregard the public's health and 
safety. But we have.
  So the question now is, does it stand? Are we going to do what we 
know is right and make sure that those who live in King Cove are 
protected? I have my answer. I am going to stand in solidarity with the 
people of King Cove and others in Alaska and across the country whose 
well-being is put at risk by misguided government decisions, devoid of 
proper balance between human and wildlife considerations.
  I have not yet identified every opportunity I may have to draw 
attention to, resist, and seek redress from Secretary Jewell's bad 
decision.
  An obvious and perhaps an easy step would be to introduce yet another 
bill. But I am not willing to concede that the last word has been 
spoken on the law, the law we enacted in 2009. That law passed after a 
great deal of effort. There was debate. There was significant 
compromise as I have outlined. But that was a law we had all 
negotiated. I do not believe that law has been properly implemented. 
Who knows how and whether the courts may address that injustice.
  A messaging bill might get some attention. But I am concerned that 
its immediate consequence may be to legitimize in the eyes of many a 
bad decision we should be fighting rather than accepting. I think the 
people of King Cove deserve better.
  The Department of Interior needs more balance. The U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service needs better direction. I am not ruling out any 
possible remedy. In this case, Alaskans have been made the victim. But 
I think that all Americans are at risk from this kind of unbalanced 
decisionmaking. I pledge to my colleagues and my constituents that I am 
going to keep fighting for what is right, both morally and legally.
  This fight is not over. Again, the attention is drawn to the 
residents of King Cove and a small connector road in a very remote part 
of our country. But I do think it is emblematic of the bigger struggle, 
the bigger fight we are seeing as a State with our own agencies, with 
our own Federal Government.
  I have taken a great deal of time this evening. I appreciate the 
Presiding Officer's attention as I have made my case. I am certain the 
administration is listening to my words as well. As I indicated at the 
outset, in Alaska we have no choice but to figure out how we deal with 
our agencies because they consume, they occupy so much of how we are 
even able to move forward as a State. I will continue to do what I can 
to work with this administration in a manner that is going to benefit 
the people whom I work for. But I will always put the health and safety 
and best interests of Alaskans first.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page 387]]

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


                         unemployment insurance

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, today has been an eventful day on the 
unemployment compensation front. We began the day working with 
Republican colleagues to put together what we thought was an amendment 
they would join us in pushing forward. But surprisingly and 
disappointingly to me, those whom we worked with were unable to join on 
the amendment.
  I am disappointed for a number of reasons, not the least of which is 
we gave the Republicans what they wanted. It is entirely paid for. The 
amendment made structural reforms in the unemployment compensation 
bill, which is something they said they wanted. The amendment includes 
a proposal, much like that advocated by Senator Portman, that would 
prevent people from collecting both unemployment insurance and 
disability insurance at the same time.
  Our amendment includes an offset that is Paul Ryan's offset. It was 
the same thing we used in the Murray-Ryan budget agreement this body 
supported a few weeks ago.
  So it is totally paid for with something Paul Ryan suggested and we 
adopted a short period of time ago. It makes structural reforms they 
said they wanted--maybe not all of them, but it made structural 
reforms. It is hard to understand why they cannot take yes for an 
answer. Maybe it is because they do not want the legislation passed. It 
is possible.
  But I have not given up. I have discussions with a number of 
Republican colleagues this evening. They said they are going to try to 
come up with something else. I certainly hope that is the case. We need 
to understand that there are 1.4 million Americans hurting. It is hard 
for me to comprehend why something that meets the outlines of what we 
understood they wanted is not good enough.
  Maybe they do not like it because it does not give them an 
opportunity to--I withdraw that. I think we have had enough talk here 
today. I am not going to add to that. All I wish to close the Senate 
with tonight is it is very unfortunate for a lot of people who are 
truly hurting.
  It is paid for with something that is certainly standard around here. 
We won't be able to use that anymore. States won't be able to use the 
same money anymore, but it doesn't affect the budget in any way. It 
doesn't raise the deficit one penny. It sounds as if it is a very good 
deal to help 1.4 million people.
  Explain to somebody who is on long-term unemployment in the State of 
Colorado, State of Illinois, State of anyplace, and they will say they 
didn't vote for this because they didn't get to offer unlimited 
amendments, even though there was a proposal that wouldn't run up the 
deficit one penny. It was all paid for. It is hard for me to comprehend 
that. We could explain it to someone, but it is their job to explain 
it, not mine. My explanation is that it is something the American 
people want, need, and should have.

                          ____________________




                            MORNING BUSINESS

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

                          ____________________




                   VERMONT ARMY NATIONAL GUARD AWARD

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as the U.S. mission in Afghanistan winds 
down this year, one thing can be said with certainty: The dedication 
and service our men and women in uniform is unparalleled. It will truly 
be with the thanks of a grateful nation that our troops will finally 
withdraw from Afghanistan by year's end.
  This weekend, that appreciation will be front and center in Vermont, 
when the 3rd Battalion, 172nd Infantry Regiment, Mountain, will receive 
the Valorous Unit Award for extraordinary heroism in action, against an 
armed enemy of the United States, during their 2010 deployment to 
Afghanistan. The Mountain Battalion, as they are known, led Task Force 
Avalanche in Paktia, a province in western Afghanistan, and they were 
responsible for security in an area the size of Delaware so that aid 
and development efforts could go forward.
  In the best tradition of the ever ready Green Mountain Boys, the 
Mountain Battalion knows a thing or two about operating in mountainous 
terrain. They are the only unit in the U.S. Army specifically designed 
to neutralize the enemy in a mountainous terrain--expertise that proved 
invaluable as they supported seven forward operating bases and combat 
outposts spread throughout the mountains of Paktia. Upon their arrival 
in 2010, in advance of the parliamentary elections, they found many 
unsecure roads and zones. The men and women of the Mountain Battalion 
helped to neutralize supply lines and occupied formerly safe zones to 
provide a level of security during the election that increased voter 
turnout in those districts by 15 percent. In large part because of 
their efforts, Paktia province held the distinction of being the only 
province that cycle with zero civilian casualties during the election.
  Throughout their deployment, the men and women of Task Force 
Avalanche formed close partnerships with their counterparts in the 
Afghan National Security Force, living and operating together. They 
credit success in increasing proficiency and dedication of these forces 
in Paktia to the close relationship they forged. When the area of 
operations was hit hard by flooding, it was the Mountain Battalion and 
their Afghan partners who were there to respond for the civilians 
facing devastation. They even dispatched a platoon across the border to 
Pakistan to help flood victims--a border more often in the news for the 
crossing of foreign fighters and the Haqqani Network. The Task Force 
trained more than 50 Afghan National Army medics, who in turn provided 
care to U.S. personnel as well. These medics are just one part of the 
lasting contribution left by the Mountain Battalion in Paktia.
  Also remaining in Afghanistan as a testament to their valor are 2 
schools, 4 mosques, a community center, and 22 other projects. The 
Mountain Battalion is estimated to have contributed $700,000 into the 
local economy in money and jobs, and it is further estimated that 
almost 30,000 Afghans were beneficiaries of humanitarian assistance 
alone after the floods. Despite having been one of the most chaotic 
provinces in Afghanistan, our Green Mountain Boys left Paktia a better 
place for the people who live there, and they did so in partnership 
with the people who live there.
  Through 5 months in Paktia, these men and women led 4,300 combat 
patrols, 9 air assault operations, and 65 named operations. A total of 
600 individuals were awarded combat badges, 26 individuals were awarded 
the Purple Heart, and, tragically, 2 of these brave soldiers sacrificed 
their lives. Those who returned home brought with them the wisdom and 
experience of their deployment. As a Vermonter, I could not be more 
proud of these men and women. They and the mission they so ably 
performed help define what valor means.
  Importantly, this incredible unit is a National Guard unit. Made up 
of citizen soldiers from Vermont, Maine, and New Hampshire, the men and 
women of the 3rd Battalion, 172nd Infantry Regiment, Mountain returned 
from their distinguished service and went back to their jobs and their 
neighborhoods throughout Vermont and New England. This story was 
duplicated repeatedly in Afghanistan and also in Iraq. Because of 
soldiers like these, today's National Guard is a ready and reliable 
component of America's fighting force, indistinguishable on the 
battlefield from their Active Duty counterparts, and trusted with 
essential missions.
  I congratulate the Mountain Battalion of the Vermont National Guard 
on the Valorous Unit Award. You make us proud. You have given us and 
you have renewed and built upon an incredible legacy.

[[Page 388]]



                          ____________________




                        TRIBUTE TO LOIS McCLURE

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to 
commemorate the outstanding achievements of Ms. Lois McClure, voted the 
2013 Vermonter of the Year by The Burlington Free Press.
  I am honored to count Lois among my closest friends. Marcelle and I 
are constantly inspired by her deep and sustained commitment to Vermont 
and to those of us who call it home.
  As I have worked in public service, I have often looked for guidance 
in the breadth and depth of Lois McClure's philanthropic work. Year 
after year, Lois has found just the right points of leverage for her 
work to make Vermont a better place.
  Lois McClure continues to build on a legacy of support for the arts, 
cultural and historic preservation, and environmental conservation, and 
yet her most meaningful work may be the help that she has provided 
Vermonters confronting serious medical problems. Whether or not they 
recognize it, many, many Vermonters have Lois in their corner as they 
fight back against cancer and other serious illness.
  The Leahy Center for Lake Champlain, the Lake Champlain Maritime 
Museum, the Visiting Nurses Association, the American Cancer Society of 
Vermont, Fletcher Allen Health Care, and many other Vermont 
institutions are able to better serve Vermonters today because of 
Lois's commitment.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article 
about this exceptional Vermonter who has dedicated her life to 
improving her community and the lives of those around her.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

            [From the Burlington Free Press, Dec. 31, 2013]

                2013 Vermonter of the Year: Lois McClure

       The true measure of an act of philanthropy can be taken in 
     the lasting impact of what the initial donation set in 
     motion.
       Years after the act of giving, the efforts and institutions 
     Lois McClure has chosen to support continue their good work.
       McClure's engagement reflects a broad range, many with a 
     common theme a focus on building a better life for people of 
     all ages in her community.
       For her life-long commitment to enriching people's lives in 
     ways big and small, the Burlington Free Press editorial board 
     names philanthropist Lois McClure 2013 Vermonter of the Year.
       Over the years, McClure has built a legacy of generosity 
     and caring, started decades ago with her late husband, J. 
     Warren ``Mac'' McClure, former owner of the Burlington Free 
     Press who sold the newspaper to the Gannett Co. in 1971.
       The McClure name can be seen on buildings throughout 
     Burlington and the surrounding area speaking to the long 
     record of giving for which this couple has long been known in 
     this community.
       Lois McClure carried on the work after her husband's death 
     in 2004, and clearly made her own mark on her friends and 
     neighbors, as well as people who may never have heard her 
     name. These are just some of McClure's good works.
       She continues to serve as a director of the J. Warren and 
     Lois McClure Foundation founded in 1995, which focuses on 
     improving access for Vermonters to higher education and life-
     long learning.
       She is a major benefactor of the ECHO Lake Aquarium and 
     Science Center--Leahy Center for Lake Champlain on the 
     Burlington waterfront, a wonderland to children, especially, 
     who explore what lies beneath the waters of the lake.
       The Lake Champlain Maritime Museum named its schooner Lois 
     McClure in honor of her support for the effort to build a 
     replica of a sailing canal boat that plied the Broad Lake in 
     the early 1860s.
       McClure, along with her husband, have long been 
     enthusiastic supporters of the Shelburne Museum, and she has 
     made generous gifts to organizations ranging from the 
     Burlington Community Land Trust to the Vermont Historical 
     Society.
       Following a $1 million donation to the Visiting Nurse 
     Association in 2006, McClure told the Free Press, ``I get a 
     kick out of donating money and seeing that money make a 
     difference.'' Yet among all her giving, the realization of a 
     temporary home for cancer patients and their families who are 
     receiving treatment at near-by Fletcher Allen Health Care 
     perhaps became McClure's signature project.
       The American Cancer Society's Hope Lodge opened in 
     Burlington in 2008, named the Lois McClure-Bee Tabakin 
     Building in honor of McClure and her long-time friend who 
     each lost a daughter to cancer.
       The call for nominations for Vermonter of the Year asked 
     readers to ``Think of someone who has made a difference this 
     year or through a lifetime of work; someone who stepped up in 
     a time of need or proved to be a leader; someone whose acts 
     or accomplishments embodied the best of Vermont.''
       McClure has been nominated by readers many times over the 
     years. In 2006, Jane Osborne McKnight wrote in a particularly 
     telling nominating letter, ``I have never met Lois, but have 
     admired her good works for many years. . . . She has 
     personally enriched our cultural life in Vermont and 
     furthered our understanding of Vermont history. These are 
     good deeds that will be felt, undoubtedly, for many 
     generations.''
       McClure has lived a life that embodies the best qualities 
     of a Vermonter who looks out for her neighbor and lives for 
     the betterment of her community.
       The Burlington Free Press' imminent departure from the 
     College Street building it has occupied since the 1830s 
     creates an appropriate occasion to give McClure the applause 
     she deserves. The paper once owned by McClure's family is 
     moving soon into new quarters on Bank Street.
       McClure has built a legacy of making a real difference to 
     many people.
       The Burlington Free Press names Lois McClure--a friend to 
     Vermonters, today and for generations to come--2013 Vermonter 
     of the Year.

                          ____________________




                       HONORING OUR ARMED FORCES


              Chief Warrant Officer Two Randy L. Billings

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, on December 19, 2013, Chief Warrant 
Officer Two Billings gave the ultimate sacrifice to our country while 
serving as a U.S. Army UH-60 Blackhawk helicopter pilot in support of 
the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan. Chief 
Warrant Officer Two Billings' sacrifice brings great credit upon his 
family, his home State of Oklahoma, and his country. On January 9, 
2014, a U.S. flag was flown above the U.S. Capitol in honor of CW2 
Randy L. Billings and for his sacrifice to our Country.''

                          ____________________




                         ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS

                                 ______
                                 

                        HOCKEY WEEK IN FAIRBANKS

 Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I wish to recognize Hockey Week in 
Fairbanks, a terrific annual celebration that takes place every winter. 
It has become so popular it will run for 10 days, from January 31 to 
February 9, 2014. During our long Alaskan winters, we welcome 
entertainment that celebrations like this offer and the outdoor and 
indoor activity that hockey represents.
  Ice hockey has long been a popular sport all over Alaska, with 
leagues that run all year for players of all age groups. Due to the 
commitment and interest of players, coaches, and boosters, a Fairbanks 
Hockey Hall of Fame was established to honor those who helped develop 
the sport in Interior Alaska. Because of the foresight and enthusiasm 
of the hall's board, they also sponsor hockey week.
  The activities during 2014 hockey week are varied. There is the 
popular ``Wear Your Jersey to School Day,'' tournaments for youth, puck 
shooting, a contest for the best backyard rink, ice sculptures with 
hockey themes, and much more. Typical of the civic spirit of the 
organizers and partisans, they sponsor reading programs in elementary 
schools and conduct blood donation drives as well, during the week.
  This year, the organizers have attracted a major exhibit. The 
outreach program of the Hockey Hall of Fame in Toronto will send 
artifacts from its collection to be on display in Fairbanks and, later, 
in Anchorage. Fans will see jerseys, sticks, skates, and many other 
items belonging to some of the greats who have played professionally.
  Each year, the celebration seems to top the previous year's. One of 
the reasons it does is because of the major force behind the event: 
Randy Zarnke, the president of the Fairbanks Hockey Hall of Fame. The 
year after he wrote a book about Fairbanks hockey pioneers in 2005, he 
started this remarkable celebration. I am happy to add my thanks for 
his leadership.

                          ____________________




                    TRIBUTE TO MARIE AND JOHN NOLAN

 Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I wish to congratulate Marie and 
John

[[Page 389]]

``Jack'' Nolan of Lincoln, NE, on their 70th wedding anniversary. Their 
commitment to one another and their devotion to family and faith are an 
inspiration.
  Jack Nolan and Marie Barrett met in Pennington, NJ, where Jack and 
Marie's brothers were classmates at Pennington Prep School. Jack and 
Marie became friends and then started to date. They kept dating as Jack 
left for college to play center for Temple University's football team 
in Philadelphia, PA. After the bombing of Pearl Harbor on December 7, 
1941, and the U.S. entrance into the war, Jack volunteered for Army Air 
Forces Aviation. In an instant, Jack was no longer playing football for 
Temple but, rather, beginning his primary training in San Antonio, 
Texas.
  Jack's move to San Antonio would be the first of many moves to 
follow. After completing flight school and additional trainings, he was 
sent to B-25 bomber school in Greenville, SC. During this time, Jack 
and Marie wrote letters and remained devoted to one another. Jack knew 
that he would soon be sent overseas to fight in World War II, but he 
had one last thing to do at home: Marry Marie. Marie traveled on a 
troop train to Greenville, SC, and married Jack on January 6, 1944. 
Three weeks later, Jack was sent to fight in New Guinea.
  After his service in New Guinea, Jack and Marie were moved to Pampa, 
TX, and then to Enid, OK, where he taught others to fly the B-25 
bombers. World War II ended while they were living in Enid. After the 
war, Jack remained in the Air Force, continuing his service to our 
great Nation. I am told that Marie and Jack like to reminisce about 
their more than 20 moves throughout his military career. They lived in 
numerous places across the United States, and Jack spent more than a 
year in Japan. Marie's support of Jack and his military service was 
unwavering. She remained focused on her husband, faith, and growing 
family.
  His last assignment was at Richards-Gebaur Air Force Base in Kansas 
City, MO. After his retirement from the Air Force in the early 1960s, 
Marie and Jack remained in Kansas City. Jack coordinated emergency 
preparedness for the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. Marie served 
as a church secretary at St. Elizabeth Catholic Church in Kansas City. 
They called Kansas City home for 30 years.
  Since 1990, they have lived in Lincoln, NE. Being active in their 
church and community and helping others has always been of great 
importance to them. Marie and Jack have been blessed with four 
children, six grandchildren and four great-grandchildren. The family 
has shared that they are grateful for Jack and Marie's relentless love, 
example of faith in action, and encouragement. Their partnership as 
husband and wife sets a great example for others to follow. 
Congratulations to Marie and Jack on seventy years of marriage. May God 
bless them always.

                          ____________________




                     REMEMBERING RICHARD E. GUTTING

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize a man 
who, although not a constituent, was very important to my State. 
Richard E. Gutting Jr., who died on Christmas Eve, spent over 40 years 
working in and for the commercial seafood industry. As many of my 
colleagues are aware, the seafood harvesting and processing industry is 
the largest private sector employer in Alaska. The seafood industry is 
crucial to the economic health of Alaska and employs more than 63,000 
workers in my State, and overall Alaska's fisheries support over 
165,000 American jobs.
  The successful development and growth of the modern U.S. seafood 
industry is the result of the hard work of many individuals, and Dick 
played an important role in many key areas. He was recognized as the 
foremost U.S. expert on seafood safety and trade policies, and he 
continued to dedicate his time and energy to the seafood industry right 
until the weeks before he passed, publishing a daily update on seafood 
trade developments.
  Dick's long career in both government and the private sector 
coincided with a period of rapid development and expansion of my 
State's seafood industry. In the 1960s we were focused mostly on salmon 
and watched as foreign fleets took a wide variety of marine resources 
from the waters off our shores. The passage of the Fishery Conservation 
and Management Act--now the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
Management Act--on which Dick provided advice and counsel, was a 
crucial step in allowing U.S. citizens to utilize the fisheries 
resources just off our shores. His work at the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, at the National Fisheries Institute, 
NFI, and in private law practice helped not just Alaskans but the 
seafood industry throughout the country.
  During his long tenure at NFI, Dick frequently testified before 
Congress on issues of great importance to the Nation's commercial 
seafood industry. His legal and policy insights, combined with his calm 
demeanor, made him a valued advisor to ocean policy leaders such as 
Senator Ted Stevens, Congressman Don Young, and my father, Senator 
Frank Murkowski, as they crafted legislation necessary to develop U.S. 
fisheries while also promoting the consumption of seafood. He also 
helped mentor an entire generation of both governmental and private 
sector policy leaders in the commercial seafood industry. Many of those 
people are now in significant positions in government, academia and the 
private sector, and they continue to benefit from what they learned 
from Dick.
  Above all, Dick loved seafood, and he loved to share his passion for 
promoting seafood throughout the country and the world. That is 
something that as an Alaskan I understand very well, and I appreciate 
his contributions to my State and to the country.
  Although Dick is no longer with us, we are left with his many 
contributions to the responsible growth of the domestic seafood 
industry. Our system of fishery management and our robust global trade 
in seafood products have in many ways been shaped by Dick's four 
decades of work. These professional achievements, combined with the 
love and admiration of family and friends, form a legacy that anyone 
would be proud to leave behind. He will be missed by many Alaskans and 
by the entire seafood industry.

                          ____________________




                      MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT

  Messages from the President of the United States were communicated to 
the Senate by Mr. Pate, 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.)

                          ____________________




                        MESSAGES FROM THE HOUSE

  At 12:04 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered 
by Mr. Novotny, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has 
passed the following bills, in which it requests the concurrence of the 
Senate:

       H.R. 724. An act to amend the Clean Air Act to remove the 
     requirement for dealer certification of new light-duty motor 
     vehicles.
       H.R. 3527. An act 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.
       H.R. 3628. An act to eliminate certain unnecessary 
     reporting requirements and consolidate or modify others, and 
     for other purposes.


                          Enrolled Bill Signed

  At 2:17 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered 
by Mrs. Cole, one of its reading clerks, announced that the Speaker had 
signed the following enrolled bill:

       H.R. 667. An act to redesignate the Dryden Flight Research 
     Center as the Neil A. Armstrong Flight Research Center and 
     the Western Aeronautical Test Range as the Hugh L. Dryden 
     Aeronautical Test Range.


[[Page 390]]


  The enrolled bill was subsequently signed by the President pro 
tempore (Mr. Leahy).

                          ____________________




                           MEASURES REFERRED

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

       H.R. 724. An act to amend the Clean Air Act to remove the 
     requirement for dealer certification of new light-duty motor 
     vehicles; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
       H.R. 3628. An act to eliminate certain unnecessary 
     reporting requirements and consolidate or modify others, and 
     for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
     and Transportation.

                          ____________________




                   EXECUTIVE AND OTHER COMMUNICATIONS

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

       EC-4193. A communication from the Assistant Secretary, 
     Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting, 
     pursuant to law, a report relative to a proposed permanent 
     transfer of major defense equipment to a Middle Eastern 
     country (OSS 2013-1926); to the Committee on Foreign 
     Relations.
       EC-4194. A communication from the Acting Assistant 
     Secretary, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, Department 
     of State, transmitting, pursuant to law, an addendum to a 
     certification, of the proposed sale or export of defense 
     articles and/or defense services to a Middle East country 
     regarding any possible effects such a sale might have 
     relating to Israel's Qualitative Military Edge over military 
     threats to Israel (OSS-2013-1936); to the Committee on 
     Foreign Relations.
       EC-4195. A communication from the Acting Assistant 
     Secretary, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, Department 
     of State, transmitting, pursuant to law, an addendum to a 
     certification, of the proposed sale or export of defense 
     articles and/or defense services to a Middle East country 
     regarding any possible effects such a sale might have 
     relating to Israel's Qualitative Military Edge over military 
     threats to Israel (OSS-2013-1935); to the Committee on 
     Foreign Relations.
       EC-4196. A communication from the Assistant Secretary, 
     Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting, 
     pursuant to law, a report prepared by the Department of State 
     on progress toward a negotiated solution of the Cyprus 
     question covering the period August 1, 2013 through September 
     30, 2013; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
       EC-4197. A communication from the Assistant Secretary, 
     Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting, 
     pursuant to law, a report relative to sections 36(c) and 
     36(d) of the Arms Export Control Act (DDTC 13-166); to the 
     Committee on Foreign Relations.
       EC-4198. A communication from the Assistant Secretary, 
     Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting, 
     pursuant to law, a report relative to sections 36(c) and 
     36(d) of the Arms Export Control Act (DDTC 13-158); to the 
     Committee on Foreign Relations.
       EC-4199. A communication from the Assistant Legal Adviser 
     for Treaty Affairs, Department of State, transmitting, 
     pursuant to the Case-Zablocki Act, 1 U.S.C. 112b, as amended, 
     the report of the texts and background statements of 
     international agreements, other than treaties (List 2013-
     0202--2013-0204); to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
       EC-4200. A communication from the Assistant Secretary, 
     Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting, 
     pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment to 
     the International Traffic in Arms Regulations: Third Rule 
     Implementing Export Control Reform'' (RIN1400-AD46) received 
     during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the 
     President of the Senate on January 2, 2014; to the Committee 
     on Foreign Relations.
       EC-4201. A communication from the President of the United 
     States to the President Pro Tempore of the United States 
     Senate, transmitting, consistent with the War Powers Act, a 
     report relative to the deployment of U.S. forces to support 
     the security of U.S. personnel and our Embassy in South 
     Sudan; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
       EC-4202. A communication from the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to 
     a violation of the Antideficiency Act that occurred in the 
     Office of the Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding 
     (OFCGCR) appropriation, Treasury Appropriation Fund Symbol 
     7090116; to the Committee on Appropriations.
       EC-4203. A communication from the Director of the 
     Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
     Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule 
     entitled ``2,5-Furandione, polymer with ethenylbenzene, 
     reaction products with polyethylene-polypropylene glycol 2-
     aminopropyl Me ether; Tolerance Exemption'' (FRL No. 9902-90) 
     received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of 
     the President of the Senate on December 27, 2013; to the 
     Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
       EC-4204. A communication from the Director of the 
     Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
     Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule 
     entitled ``Copper Sulfate Pentahydrate; Exemption from the 
     Requirement of a Tolerance'' (FRL No. 9904-30) received 
     during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the 
     President of the Senate on December 27, 2013; to the 
     Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
       EC-4205. A communication from the Director of the 
     Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
     Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule 
     entitled ``Isopyrazam; Pesticide Tolerances'' (FRL No. 9903-
     53) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office 
     of the President of the Senate on December 27, 2013; to the 
     Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
       EC-4206. A communication from the Director of the 
     Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
     Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule 
     entitled ``Extension of Tolerances for Emergency Exemptions 
     (Multiple Chemicals)'' (FRL No. 9904-15) received during 
     adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of 
     the Senate on December 27, 2013; to the Committee on 
     Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
       EC-4207. A communication from the Director of Defense 
     Procurement and Acquisition Policy, Department of Defense, 
     transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled 
     ``Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: 
     Photovoltaic Devices'' ((RIN0750-AI18) (DFARS Case 2014-
     D006)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the 
     Office of the President of the Senate on December 27, 2013; 
     to the Committee on Armed Services.
       EC-4208. A communication from the Director of Defense 
     Procurement and Acquisition Policy, Department of Defense, 
     transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled 
     ``Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Trade 
     Agreements Thresholds'' ((RIN0750-AI17) (DFARS Case 2013-
     D032)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the 
     Office of the President of the Senate on December 27, 2013; 
     to the Committee on Armed Services.
       EC-4209. A communication from the Assistant Secretary of 
     Defense (Special Operations/Low-Intensity Conflict), 
     transmitting, pursuant to law, the fiscal year 2013 annual 
     report on the Regional Defense Combating Terrorism Fellowship 
     Program; to the Committee on Armed Services.
       EC-4210. A communication from the Assistant Secretary of 
     the Army (Acquisition, Logistics and Technology), 
     transmitting, pursuant to law, an annual report relative to 
     the Department's Chemical Demilitarization Program (CDP); to 
     the Committee on Armed Services.
       EC-4211. A communication from the Acting Deputy Secretary, 
     Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, 
     the six-month periodic report on the national emergency with 
     respect to North Korea that was declared in Executive Order 
     13466 of June 26, 2008; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, 
     and Urban Affairs.
       EC-4212. A communication from the Acting Deputy Secretary, 
     Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, 
     the six-month periodic report on the national emergency with 
     respect to blocking property of the Government of the Russian 
     Federation relating to the disposition of highly enriched 
     uranium extracted from nuclear weapons that was declared in 
     Executive Order 13617 of June 25, 2012; to the Committee on 
     Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
       EC-4213. A communication from the Secretary of the 
     Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, a six-month periodic 
     report on the national emergency that was declared in 
     Executive Order 12947 with respect to terrorists who threaten 
     to disrupt the Middle East peace process; to the Committee on 
     Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
       EC-4214. A communication from the Deputy Secretary of the 
     Securities and Exchange Commission, transmitting, pursuant to 
     law, the report of a rule entitled ``Removal of Certain 
     References to Credit Ratings Under the Investment Company 
     Act'' (RIN3235-AL02) received during adjournment of the 
     Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on 
     December 27, 2013; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and 
     Urban Affairs.
       EC-4215. A communication from the Counsel, Legal Division, 
     Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, transmitting, 
     pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Appraisals 
     for Higher-Priced Mortgage Loans'' ((RIN3170-AA11) (Docket 
     No. CFPB-2013-0020)) received in the Office of the President 
     of the Senate on January 6, 2014; to the Committee on 
     Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
       EC-4216. A communication from the Acting Deputy Secretary, 
     Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, 
     the six-month periodic report on the national emergency with 
     respect to the Western Balkans that was declared in Executive 
     Order 13219 of June 26, 2001; to the Committee on Banking, 
     Housing, and Urban Affairs.

[[Page 391]]


       EC-4217. A communication from the Comptroller of the 
     Currency, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant 
     to law, the Office of the Comptroller's 2012 Annual Report to 
     Congress; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
     Affairs.
       EC-4218. A communication from the Chairman and President of 
     the Export-Import Bank, transmitting, pursuant to law, a 
     report relative to transactions involving U.S. exports to 
     Ireland; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
     Affairs.
       EC-4219. A communication from the Chairman and President of 
     the Export-Import Bank, transmitting, pursuant to law, a 
     report relative to transactions involving U.S. exports to 
     Russia; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
     Affairs.
       EC-4220. A communication from the Chairman and President of 
     the Export-Import Bank, transmitting, pursuant to law, a 
     report relative to transactions involving U.S. exports to the 
     United Arab Emirates; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, 
     and Urban Affairs.
       EC-4221. A communication from the Counsel, Legal Division, 
     Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, transmitting, 
     pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Truth in 
     Lending (Regulation Z): Adjustment to Asset-Size Exemption 
     Threshold'' (12 CFR Part 1026) received in the Office of the 
     President of the Senate on January 6, 2014; to the Committee 
     on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
       EC-4222. A communication from the Counsel, Legal Division, 
     Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, transmitting, 
     pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Home 
     Mortgage Disclosure (Regulation C): Adjustment to Asset-Size 
     Exemption Threshold'' (12 CFR Part 1003) received during 
     adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of 
     the Senate on January 3, 2014; to the Committee on Banking, 
     Housing, and Urban Affairs.
       EC-4223. A communication from the Deputy Secretary of the 
     Securities and Exchange Commission, transmitting, pursuant to 
     law, the report of a rule entitled ``Removal of Certain 
     References to Credit Ratings Under the Securities and 
     Exchange Act of 1934'' (RIN3235-AL14) received during 
     adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of 
     the Senate on December 27, 2013; to the Committee on Banking, 
     Housing, and Urban Affairs.
       EC-4224. A communication from the Secretary of the 
     Securities and Exchange Commission, transmitting, pursuant to 
     law, the report of a rule entitled ``Prohibitions and 
     Restrictions on Proprietary Trading and Certain Interests In 
     and Relationships With, Hedge Funds and Private Equity 
     Funds'' (RIN3235-AL07) received during adjournment of the 
     Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on 
     December 27, 2013; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and 
     Urban Affairs.

                          ____________________




                    EXECUTIVE REPORTS OF COMMITTEES

  The following executive reports of nominations were submitted:

       By Mr. LEVIN for the Committee on Armed Services.
       *Jessica Garfola Wright, of Pennsylvania, to be Under 
     Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness.
       *Jo Ann Rooney, of Massachusetts, to be Under Secretary of 
     the Navy.
       *Jamie Michael Morin, of Michigan, to be Director of Cost 
     Assessment and Program Evaluation, Department of Defense.
       *Frank G. Klotz, of Virginia, to be Under Secretary for 
     Nuclear Security.
       By Mr. LEAHY for the Committee on the Judiciary.
       Robert L. Hobbs, of Texas, to be United States Marshal for 
     the Eastern District of Texas for the term of four years.
       Gary Blankinship, of Texas, to be United States Marshal for 
     the Southern District of Texas for the term of four years.
       Amos Rojas, Jr., of Florida, to be United States Marshal 
     for the Southern District of Florida for the term of four 
     years.
       Peter C. Tobin, of Ohio, to be United States Marshal for 
     the Southern District of Ohio for a term of four years.
       Kevin W. Techau, of Iowa, to be United States Attorney for 
     the Northern District of Iowa for the term of four years.
       Andrew Mark Luger, of Minnesota, to be United States 
     Attorney for the District of Minnesota for the term of four 
     years.

  *Nomination was reported with recommendation that it be confirmed 
subject to the nominee's commitment to respond to requests to appear 
and testify before any duly constituted committee of the Senate.
  (Nominations without an asterisk were reported with the 
recommendation that they be confirmed.)

                          ____________________




              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 Ms. KLOBUCHAR (for herself, Mr. Hoeven, and Mr. 
             Johnson of South Dakota):
       S. 1899. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     to provide a consumer renewable credit for a utility that 
     sells renewable power, and for other purposes; to the 
     Committee on Finance.
           By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself and Mr. Hatch):
       S. 1900. A bill to establish congressional trade 
     negotiating objectives and enhanced consultation requirements 
     for trade negotiations, to provide for consideration of trade 
     agreements, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
     Finance.
           By Mr. MENENDEZ (for himself and Mr. Corker):
       S. 1901. A bill to authorize the President to extend the 
     term of the nuclear energy agreement with the Republic of 
     Korea until March 19, 2016; to the Committee on Foreign 
     Relations.
           By Mr. BARRASSO (for himself, Mr. Johanns, Mr. Coburn, 
             Mr. Cochran, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Moran, Mr. Hatch, Mrs. 
             Fischer, Mr. Scott, and Mr. Burr):
       S. 1902. 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 Health, Education, Labor, and 
     Pensions.
           By Mr. WARNER:
       S. 1903. A bill to provide greater fee disclosures for 
     consumers who have prepaid cards, and for other purposes; to 
     the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
           By Mr. LEE:
       S. 1904. A bill to amend the eligibility requirements for 
     funding under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965; 
     to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
           By Mr. MANCHIN (for himself and Mr. Hoeven):
       S. 1905. A bill to provide direction to the Administrator 
     of the Environmental Protection Agency regarding the 
     establishment of standards for emissions of any greenhouse 
     gas from fossil fuel-fired electric utility generating units, 
     and for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and 
     Public Works.
           By Mr. WARNER (for himself, Mr. Cornyn, and Mr. Kaine):
       S. 1906. A bill to establish the Office of Net Assessment 
     within the Department of Defense; to the Committee on Armed 
     Services.
           By Mr. KIRK (for himself, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Moran, Mr. 
             Toomey, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Enzi, and Mr. Wicker):
       S. 1907. A bill to amend a provision of the Bank Holding 
     Company Act of 1956 regarding prohibitions on investments in 
     certain funds to clarify that such provision shall not be 
     construed to require the divestiture of certain 
     collateralized debt obligations backed by trust-preferred 
     securities or debt securities of collateralized loan 
     obligations; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
     Affairs.
           By Mr. CORNYN (for himself, Mr. Thune, Mr. Vitter, Mr. 
             Portman, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Graham, Mr. Burr, 
             Mr. Crapo, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Boozman, Mr. Inhofe, and 
             Mr. Johanns):
       S. 1908. A bill to allow reciprocity for the carrying of 
     certain concealed firearms; to the Committee on the 
     Judiciary.
           By Mr. SCOTT (for himself and Mr. Alexander):
       S. 1909. A bill to expand opportunity through greater 
     choice in education, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
     on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
           By Mr. ALEXANDER (for himself and Mr. Corker):
       S. 1910. A bill to award a Congressional Gold Medal to Pat 
     Summitt, in recognition of her remarkable career as an 
     unparalleled figure in women's team sports, and for her 
     courage in speaking out openly and courageously about her 
     battle with Alzheimer's; to the Committee on Banking, 
     Housing, and Urban Affairs.
           By Mr. SCOTT (for himself, Mr. Burr, and Mr. Coburn):
       S. 1911. A bill to reform and strengthen the workforce 
     investment system of the Nation to put Americans back to work 
     and make the United States more competitive in the 21st 
     century, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, 
     Education, Labor, and Pensions.
           By Mr. MANCHIN (for himself and Mr. Wicker):
       S. 1912. A bill to clarify that certain banking entities 
     are not required to divest from collateralized debt 
     obligations backed by trust preferred securities under the 
     Volcker Rule; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
     Affairs.

                          ____________________




                         ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS


                                 S. 41

  At the request of Ms. Cantwell, the name of the Senator from South 
Dakota (Mr. Thune) was added as a cosponsor of S. 41, a bill to provide 
a permanent deduction for State and local general sales taxes.

[[Page 392]]




                                 S. 127

  At the request of Mr. Heller, the name of the Senator from South 
Dakota (Mr. Thune) was added as a cosponsor of S. 127, a bill to 
provide a permanent deduction for State and local general sales taxes.


                                 S. 217

  At the request of Mrs. Murray, the name of the Senator from Hawaii 
(Mr. Schatz) was added as a cosponsor of S. 217, a bill to amend the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to require the Secretary 
of Education to collect information from coeducational elementary 
schools and secondary schools on such schools' athletic programs, and 
for other purposes.


                                 S. 946

  At the request of Mr. Wicker, the name of the Senator from Arizona 
(Mr. Flake) was added as a cosponsor of S. 946, a bill to prohibit 
taxpayer funded abortions, and for other purposes.


                                S. 1174

  At the request of Mr. Blumenthal, the name of the Senator from New 
Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1174, a bill to 
award a Congressional Gold Medal to the 65th Infantry Regiment, known 
as the Borinqueneers.


                                S. 1306

  At the request of Mr. Reed, the name of the Senator from New Mexico 
(Mr. Heinrich) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1306, a bill to amend the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 in order to improve 
environmental literacy to better prepare students for postsecondary 
education and careers, and for other purposes.


                                S. 1383

  At the request of Mr. Blumenthal, the name of the Senator from Oregon 
(Mr. Merkley) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1383, a bill to provide 
subsidized employment for unemployed, low-income adults, provide summer 
employment and year-round employment opportunities for low-income 
youth, and carry out work-related and educational strategies and 
activities of demonstrated effectiveness, and for other purposes.


                                S. 1406

  At the request of Ms. Ayotte, the name of the Senator from Maine (Mr. 
King) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1406, a bill to amend the Horse 
Protection Act to designate additional unlawful acts under the Act, 
strengthen penalties for violations of the Act, improve Department of 
Agriculture enforcement of the Act, and for other purposes.


                                S. 1410

  At the request of Mr. Durbin, the name of the Senator from Maine (Mr. 
King) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1410, a bill to focus limited 
Federal resources on the most serious offenders.


                                S. 1431

  At the request of Mr. Wyden, the name of the Senator from Georgia 
(Mr. Isakson) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1431, a bill to 
permanently extend the Internet Tax Freedom Act.


                                S. 1590

  At the request of Mr. Alexander, the name of the Senator from Alabama 
(Mr. Sessions) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1590, a bill to amend the 
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to require transparency in 
the operation of American Health Benefit Exchanges.


                                S. 1719

  At the request of Mrs. Murray, the name of the Senator from Tennessee 
(Mr. Alexander) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1719, 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.


                                S. 1733

  At the request of Ms. Klobuchar, the name of the Senator from Arizona 
(Mr. McCain) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1733, a bill to stop 
exploitation through trafficking.


                                S. 1737

  At the request of Mr. Harkin, the name of the Senator from North 
Dakota (Ms. Heitkamp) was added as a cosponsor 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. 1798

  At the request of Mr. Warner, the names of the Senator from Ohio (Mr. 
Brown), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy) and the Senator from 
Maryland (Ms. Mikulski) 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. 1846

  At the request of Mr. Menendez, the name of the Senator from Maine 
(Ms. Collins) 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. 1848

  At the request of Mr. Roberts, the name of the Senator from Alabama 
(Mr. Sessions) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1848, a bill to amend 
section 1303(b)(3) of Public Law 111-148 concerning the notice 
requirements regarding the extent of health plan coverage of abortion 
and abortion premium surcharges.


                                S. 1881

  At the request of Mr. McConnell, his name was added as a cosponsor of 
S. 1881, a bill to expand sanctions imposed with respect to Iran and to 
impose additional sanctions with respect to Iran, and for other 
purposes.
  At the request of Mr. Menendez, the names of the Senator from 
Mississippi (Mr. Cochran), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo), the 
Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby) and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. 
Sessions) were added as cosponsors of S. 1881, supra.


                              S. RES. 317

  At the request of Mr. Sessions, the name of the Senator from Texas 
(Mr. Cruz) was added as a cosponsor of S. Res. 317, a resolution 
expressing the sense of the Senate on the continuing relationship 
between the United States and Georgia.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 2603

  At the request of Ms. Ayotte, the name of the Senator from Alaska 
(Ms. Murkowski) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 2603 intended 
to be proposed to S. 1845, a bill to provide for the extension of 
certain unemployment benefits, and for other purposes.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 2608

  At the request of Mr. Blumenthal, the name of the Senator from Oregon 
(Mr. Merkley) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 2608 intended 
to be proposed to S. 1845, a bill to provide for the extension of 
certain unemployment benefits, and for other purposes.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 2613

  At the request of Mr. Portman, the names of the Senator from New 
Hampshire (Ms. Ayotte), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss) and 
the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski) were added as cosponsors of 
amendment No. 2613 intended to be proposed to S. 1845, a bill to 
provide for the extension of certain unemployment benefits, and for 
other purposes.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 2626

  At the request of Mr. Sessions, the names of the Senator from 
Arkansas (Mr. Boozman), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee) and the Senator 
from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter) were added as cosponsors of amendment No. 
2626 intended to be proposed to S. 1845, a bill to provide for the 
extension of certain unemployment benefits, and for other purposes.

                          ____________________




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself and Mr. Hatch):
  S. 1900. A bill to establish congressional trade negotiating 
objectives and enhanced consultation requirements for trade 
negotiations, to provide for consideration of trade agreements, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, 52 years ago, in 1962, President John 
Kennedy signed the Trade Expansion Act into law. At the signing he 
spoke about the importance of trade to the United States and its 
partners abroad, on how

[[Page 393]]

it helps secure our preeminence in a global economy.
  Here is what he said:

       We now have the means to make certain that we build our 
     strength together and that we can maintain this preeminence.

  His words still ring true today. International trade is a cornerstone 
of our economy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, my friend from Montana is absolutely 
right. International trade is crucial to America's economy. Last year 
exports supported 9.8 million American jobs, including 25 percent of 
all manufacturing jobs.
  Jobs created through trade are good jobs. On average, U.S. plants 
that export overseas pay their workers up to 18 percent more than 
nonexporting plants. They increase employment 2 to 4 percent faster 
than nonexporting plants. But we can do even better.
  More than 95 percent of the world's population and 80 percent of the 
world's purchasing power is outside of the United States. To succeed in 
today's world, our farmers, ranchers, and job creators must be able to 
fairly access the world market.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I hope everyone listened to my good friend's words. He 
made very important points about statistics that I think most Americans 
are unaware of, and if they would think about it more, they would 
realize the importance of trade.
  We export so much more now. Exporting is such a large percent of our 
economy and offers such good-paying jobs that, frankly, I am perplexed 
more Americans don't want to work harder to get trade agreements passed 
so we can export more and get more good-paying jobs in America.
  I must say that today we have a bold plan to strengthen our trade 
ties with nations across the Pacific and in Europe.
  What is our goal? Our goal is to seize new export opportunities so 
that we can boost our economy and create jobs here at home. We all know 
the big to-and-fro here with unemployment insurance. The key is to have 
fewer people unemployed. How does that happen? More good-paying jobs.
  But there is a big first step we need to take before we can act on 
our trade agenda. What is that? It is Trade Promotion Authority, 
otherwise known as TPA.
  That is why this afternoon Senator Hatch and I introduced the 
Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities Act of 2014.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Our bill will help guarantee these landmark trade deals 
get done--and get done right.
  First, the bill updates TPA by addressing 21st century issues. What 
are these issues? Nonscientific barriers to U.S. agricultural products, 
unfair competition from state-owned enterprises, arbitrary localization 
barriers which require U.S. companies to turn over their intellectual 
property or locate facilities in a foreign country in order to access 
foreign markets, and unnecessary restrictions on digital trade and data 
which flows across borders.
  Mr. BAUCUS. That is right. Our bill also addresses critical issues 
such as labor, environment, and innovation and for the first time 
currency manipulation. Our bill addresses it.
  Senator Hatch and I worked with our good friend from the other body, 
the Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp, to carefully craft 
these negotiating objectives and ensure that Congress is a full partner 
in trade negotiations.
  Our bill helps lay out in clear terms what Congress's priorities are 
for trade. It is our opportunity to tell the administration and our 
partners overseas what we must see in an agreement if it is going to be 
approved by Congress.
  It boosts congressional oversight, increases transparency in trade 
negotiations, and it gives every Member of Congress the right to a 
strong voice in the process.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I want to praise the distinguished 
chairman of the Ways and Means Committee over in the House. He has 
worked long and hard on these issues and is not only a great partner to 
the two of us but to every Senator.
  What the Senator from Montana just said is absolutely right. Our bill 
empowers Congress, but it also empowers our negotiators. Its approval 
will help them conclude high-standard agreements that will open new 
markets for U.S. exports, ultimately bringing jobs and economic growth 
to the United States.
  Lastly, before I turn back to the chairman, I just want to say again 
how critical this legislation is for our Nation and to commend my 
friend from Montana, the distinguished chairman of the Finance 
Committee, for working to make Trade Promotion Authority a reality. He 
has always been a tremendous leader on international trade, and I am 
glad to stand by his side to ensure that the Finance Committee and the 
Senate considers this job-creating legislation in a fair, thorough, and 
expeditious manner.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I thank very much my good friend from 
Utah. As President Kennedy said 52 years ago, this is about working 
with our trade partners to build strength together. It is about 
maintaining U.S. preeminence. That is why TPA is so important--because 
it makes our job-creating trade agenda work, and it helps to secure our 
future.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I am happy to be on the floor to hear the 
news from Senator Hatch and Senator Baucus that they have reached an 
agreement on trade promotion authority. I wish to congratulate them on 
that, working with Chairman Camp on the House side.
  This is incredibly important. These two Senators have worked closely 
together, as Republican and Democrat, over the last few months with the 
administration to put in place the opportunity for American workers, 
American farmers, and American service providers to be able to sell 
their goods and their services on a level playing field by opening more 
markets for U.S. products. I congratulate them. It is sad to me that 
for the past 5 or 6 years we haven't had trade promotion authority, and 
without their strong efforts we still wouldn't have it today.
  It has been noted that this administration, the Obama administration, 
is the first one since FDR not to have asked for even the ability to 
open these markets through what is called trade promotion authority and 
its predecessors until last March. So until last spring they hadn't 
even asked for it. They did ask for it, and thanks to the hard work of 
these two Senators and Congressman Camp, we are now going to have that 
opportunity. This gives our workers, our farmers, and our service 
providers the ability to access these markets Senator Baucus and 
Senator Hatch spoke about.
  It is critical to economic growth. If we look at the growth in the 
last two or three recoveries, much of it was because of expanding 
exports. We all believe the current level of economic growth is 
disappointing. It is anemic growth. We are looking at long-term 
unemployment being at historic levels, as we have spoken about on the 
floor all week. One solution, clearly, is for the United States to do 
more exporting, and we can't do that without trade promotion authority.
  I speak as a former U.S. Trade Representative who had the honor of 
traveling the world representing our great country. I will tell my 
colleagues, when we got down to the negotiating across the table with 
another country in terms of how to knock down both tariff and nontariff 
barriers to trade, if they didn't know there was an ability with an up-
or-down vote to get that trade agreement done in the U.S. Congress with 
something like trade promotion authority, they would not have put their 
last and best offer on the table. That is a reality.
  Our system is different from most systems in countries around the 
world.

[[Page 394]]

We have to have trade promotion authority--that has been our 
experience--in order to get these trade agreements done to help knock 
down barriers to the people in the United States who make the best 
products in the world, who provide the best services in the world and 
are just looking for a fair shake and a level playing field.
  So these two Senators, by doing this today, have opened up the 
possibility now for us to have trade agreements that give us the 
opportunity to grow our economy and create, as they both said, good-
paying jobs and good benefits, and I congratulate them for that.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, will my colleague from Ohio yield?
  Mr. PORTMAN. I am happy to yield to my colleague and ranking member 
from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I wish to compliment the distinguished 
Senator because he served as the US Trade Representative. He traveled 
all over the world. He understands how important these issues are. He 
understands that without TPA, we wouldn't be able to get these 
particular trade agreements done. He understands how hard we have 
worked to try to come up with language we could all accept in spite of 
some of the proclivities of this administration.
  He worked diligently with both sides of the aisle on these issues as 
the U.S. Trade Representative and continues to as a member of the 
Senate Finance Committee. I am so grateful we have him on the Senate 
Finance Committee, with all of his knowledge and his experience, to be 
able to help us on these particular issues.
  I was a little nonplussed last week when one of the leading trade 
union presidents in this country got on television and was decrying 
international trade. I made the point a little bit earlier that it 
means tremendous numbers of jobs, high-paying jobs, growth in our 
economy. It is hard for me to understand why anybody in the union 
movement would be against these free-trade policies. They basically 
allow us to export our goods while, yes, we import others, but that is 
what free trade is all about.
  I wish to personally express my very high opinion of the 
distinguished Senator from Ohio because I can tell my colleagues that 
we are so lucky to have him in the Senate with all of his experience in 
this particular area but in many other areas as well. He was at OMB as 
well. There are very few Senators in this body who can claim they have 
experience equivalent to that of our distinguished friend from Ohio. I 
personally express my admiration and my resolve to help him help those 
on the other side of the aisle understand how important his words are 
here today, how important it is to have free trade, and how important 
it is to have trade promotion authority so we can have free trade.
  Every President since FDR--including him--has been for trade 
promotion authority--every President.
  There is a fear around here amongst some of the Democrats that the 
unions are going to turn against them. My gosh, the Unions are going to 
be main beneficiaries of major trade legislation. It is hard for me to 
comprehend how they can even make a semi-argument against this matter. 
Hopefully, they will realize this is in their interests, too, because 
it puts us in the real world, getting real jobs that have higher pay 
than we wouldn't otherwise get if we didn't have these free-trade 
agreements and if we aren't able to get TPA passed. I suspect we will 
get this passed in large measure. I think, with the distinguished 
chairman of the committee, my friend who has just spoken, will be one 
of the main reasons why we do.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, will the Senator from Ohio yield for a 
question?
  Mr. PORTMAN. I am glad to yield.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, first of all, I wish to ask my good friend 
from Ohio if he could expand on what I think is a very important point, 
and it is namely this: With the world becoming more competitive and 
with globalization, it is evermore important for the United States of 
America to strive ahead and to keep working to develop good products, 
good high-technology products, and to compete in the world. I believe, 
frankly, when we are treading water, we are sinking. We have to keep 
moving ahead if we are going to make products and boost incomes and 
help the American people.
  That leads me to another point. If the Senator could tell us a little 
more and explain to, frankly, some people who may not realize this, 
what is involved in TPP. What is TPP? Of course, we need trade 
promotion authority in order to get TPP.
  Isn't it important, isn't it critical, isn't it crucial that the 
United States include a strong Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement not 
only for economic reasons but also for geopolitical reasons to show to 
the world, to show to Asian countries that are wondering where the 
United States is--is the United States going to show up? Is the United 
States going to maintain its presence in Asia? What will happen if we 
don't pass trade promotion authority? How will that affect the Trans-
Pacific Partnership negotiations, and what effect will that have on 
other countries in Asia and their perception of the United States?
  My understanding is--and we know this better than anybody--that 
unfortunately President Obama was unable to travel to Southeast Asia to 
attend the ASEAN conference, and many people around the world are 
wondering whether the United States is going to show up anymore in 
Asia.
  If the Senator could address how important is it that we engage 
countries in the Pacific as we negotiate a Trans-Pacific Partnership, 
including the economic reasons, but also if he could address the 
geopolitical issue, the degree to which it is important for the United 
States to negotiate a successful agreement and to be there, to show up.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the question from my 
colleague from Montana. I will say just based on his question that we 
are going to miss his wisdom and his experience on the trade issue. He 
takes some political risks sometimes, I know, as he did in coming up 
with an agreement on trade promotion authority, because there are many 
on both sides of the aisle--especially his side of the aisle--who take 
a different view of this issue. He has been willing to help to educate 
them as to why this is in the interests of Montana farmers and ranchers 
and workers.
  Senator Hatch spoke earlier about the impact of trade on the people 
he represents.
  My colleague is absolutely right. The trade promotion authority 
enables us to take that step toward things such as the Trans-Pacific 
Partnership, called TPP--a lot of alphabet soup here with TPA to TPP. 
That is important, as the Senator just said, because this is the 
fastest growing region of the world--these are the Pacific countries, 
countries in South American but also in Asia; it is where the majority 
of the global GDP is now; and it is an area where, frankly, because of 
China's strong interest in trade, other countries in the region are 
looking to the United States to provide not only a market but also to 
help them with regard to their own markets; therefore, more U.S. 
exports, more of that, as my colleague said. The best technology in the 
world is in the United States, the best products in the world that are 
made here--to be able to export to those countries. So they want to 
have this relationship with us.
  As a future Ambassador to China, I will stipulate that I think the 
Senator from Montana understands this issue very well. But what this 
Trans-Pacific Partnership does is two things.
  No. 1, it expands trade in an area of the world that again is the 
fastest growing part of our globe and a place where the tariffs and 
nontariff barriers are higher, relatively speaking, than they are here. 
In other words, by lowering barriers we get a relative advantage.
  This agreement also, I hope, will deal with the currency issue, as my 
colleagues have negotiated in this trade promotion authority, which I 
support. This is pioneering work they have done in this area. We have 
to ensure that currency levels are appropriate, that there are not 
unfair trade advantages being given by countries that depreciate their 
currency by interfering in it.

[[Page 395]]

  So I believe it is about trade, and that is very important for our 
workers and our farmers and our service providers, but, second, it does 
have this geopolitical element where those countries in the Asia 
Pacific area are allies of ours and are looking to us to develop a 
stronger relationship on the commercial side but also on the 
intergovernmental side to be able to ensure that the U.S. role 
continues in that area.
  I think this TPA that these Senators have negotiated today that they 
are announcing is incredibly important because it is the first step 
toward the Trans-Pacific Partnership and other agreements we can 
complete, as we just have recently under the old TPA, with South Korea, 
with Panama, with Colombia--countries where we are seeing expansion of 
exports as well as a stronger relationship with key countries in the 
region.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, if I might ask one more question very 
briefly, and that is this. One more opportunity here with trade 
promotion authority--with trade promotion authority, clearly we are 
going to get a Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, and without trade 
promotion authority, we won't. Other countries will go their ways in 
the Pacific and wonder, where is the United States?
  There is another issue in addition to that. I wonder whether my good 
friend would agree with this. Not only does trade promotion authority 
enable our country to negotiate trade agreements with the Pacific--
TPP--but isn't it also true that it allows the United States, with the 
passage of the TPA, to negotiate with European countries? And doesn't 
that mean that between Asia TPP and TTIP with the European countries, 
that it is about 70 percent of world trade and is an opportunity for 
the United States to lead in the harmonization of trade provisions and 
regulatory provisions not only in Asia and in the Pacific but also in 
Europe? It is an opportunity to lead? And if we don't pass TPA, is the 
United States squandering a huge opportunity to lead here in a way that 
would raise productivity and raise incomes not just in our country but 
in other countries of the world?
  Mr. PORTMAN. Reclaiming my time, the Senator is absolutely right. The 
alternative is not to pass a trade promotion authority and to have 
continue to happen what has frankly been going on over the last 6 or 7 
years, which is these other countries around the world are actively 
negotiating agreements, as the Senator from Montana says, using their 
own standards but also opening markets for their workers, their 
farmers, and their service providers, and cutting us out of market 
share.
  So what has happened is the European Union, the Chinese, the 
Canadians, and others have been actively pursuing agreements while we 
have been on the sidelines because we have not had trade promotion 
authority. So not only does this give us an opportunity, with this 
possible agreement with the European Union--which would be an agreement 
not like a free trade agreement but would be a partnership on 
investment, on standards, on being sure there is a harmonization that 
is more like the beneficial metrics that we use in this country that 
can help both in our economy and, as the Senator says, globally--none 
of this can happen without us being able to say we are going to have 
the possibility of taking trade agreements to the Congress for an up-
or-down vote--a fair vote. Every one of these agreements will have to 
be voted on separately because in these other countries they will not 
put that last, best offer on the table until they know that. They are 
not going to be nickeled and dimed and amended to death as they get to 
the Congress. That is just reality.
  We have to get off the sidelines. We have to get reengaged. We have 
to help our economy, our workers to get their fair share, to get their 
market share. Right now we are losing that market share, as literally 
over 100 trade agreements have been negotiated while we have been 
sitting on the sidelines without having trade promotion authority on 
both bilateral and regional agreements.
  So the Senator is absolutely correct. This is a great opportunity for 
us to, frankly, take this anemic economy and give it a little shot in 
the arm. It is part of an overall effort we ought to be doing to 
provide the kind of economic opportunity we all want for the people we 
represent.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I am happy to yield to the Senator from 
Utah.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I think we should all be listening to this 
man, this Senator from Ohio, who has had a wealth of experience not 
just in budget matters but also especially in these trade matters.
  There are 11 countries in the TPP, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and 
we would like to come to an agreement on it. There are 28 different 
countries in the European agreement on TTIP that we would like to bring 
to fruition, and you can go on from there.
  Having said that, I cannot compliment my friend from Ohio enough. But 
I also want to pay tribute to our chairman of the committee. He is 
willing to do this. He believes in it. He has had plenty of witness 
that this is the way to do good trade, and he is willing to stand up 
and see that it is done. I cannot think of a better sendoff to China as 
the new Ambassador--as soon as we finally finish these confirmation 
proceedings--than having passed TPA, which enables us to do free trade 
agreements all over the world and enables our fellow countries to 
realize that we can get it done.
  I want to pay tribute to the chairman, as well as my colleague from 
Ohio, for their work in this area, and to say that this country will be 
much the better once we pass TPA and then get these trade agreements 
done so the United States resumes its role in the world as the world's 
chief economic competitor, and doing it in a way that would benefit the 
whole world but, more importantly, benefit this country.
  So I want to thank my colleague from Montana, and my colleague from 
Ohio as well. My colleague from Montana is going to be here at least a 
little bit longer, and hopefully we can get this passed in his honor. I 
think he deserves that honor. I know the distinguished Senator from 
Ohio and myself will do everything in our power to assist in this 
matter.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Senator.

                          ____________________




                   AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED AND PROPOSED

       SA 2627. Mr. SCOTT 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.
       SA 2628. Mr. PORTMAN (for himself and Mr. Bennet) submitted 
     an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 
     1845, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
       SA 2629. Ms. COLLINS submitted an amendment intended to be 
     proposed by her to the bill S. 1845, supra; which was ordered 
     to lie on the table.
       SA 2630. 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 2631. Mr. REID (for Mr. Reed) proposed an amendment to 
     the bill S. 1845, supra.
       SA 2632. Mr. REID proposed an amendment to amendment SA 
     2631 proposed by Mr. Reid (for Mr. Reed) to the bill S. 1845, 
     supra.
       SA 2633. Mr. REID proposed an amendment to the bill S. 
     1845, supra.
       SA 2634. Mr. REID proposed an amendment to amendment SA 
     2633 proposed by Mr. Reid to the bill S. 1845, supra.
       SA 2635. Mr. REID submitted an amendment intended to be 
     proposed to amendment SA 2634 proposed by Mr. Reid to the 
     amendment SA 2633 proposed by Mr. Reid to the bill S. 1845, 
     supra.
       SA 2636. Mr. PRYOR submitted an amendment intended to be 
     proposed by him to the bill S. 1845, supra; which was ordered 
     to lie on the table.
       SA 2637. Mr. SCOTT (for himself, Mr. Burr, and Mr. Coburn) 
     submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the 
     bill S. 1845, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
       SA 2638. Mr. REID (for Mr. Nelson) submitted an amendment 
     intended to be proposed by Mr. Reid to the resolution S. Res. 
     312, urging the Government of Iran to fulfill their promises 
     of assistance in this case of

[[Page 396]]

     Robert Levinson, one of the longest held United States 
     civilians in our Nation's history.
       SA 2639. Mr. REID (for Mr. Nelson) submitted an amendment 
     intended to be proposed by Mr. Reid to the resolution S. Res. 
     312, supra.

                          ____________________




                           TEXT OF AMENDMENTS

  SA 2627. Mr. SCOTT 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. __. MODIFICATION OF DEFINITION OF FULL-TIME EMPLOYEE.

       (a) Full-time Equivalents.--Paragraph (2)(E) of section 
     4980H(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by 
     striking ``by 120'' and inserting ``by 174''.
       (b) Full-time Employees.--Paragraph (4)(A) of section 
     4980H(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by 
     striking ``30 hours'' and inserting ``40 hours''.
                                 ______
                                 
  SA 2628. Mr. PORTMAN (for himself and Mr. Bennet) 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:

       Add at the end the following:

                    TITLE II--WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT

     SEC. 201. STEERING FEDERAL TRAINING DOLLARS TOWARD SKILLS 
                   NEEDED BY INDUSTRY.

       (a) Definitions.--Section 101 of the Workforce Investment 
     Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2801) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(54) Credential.--
       ``(A) Industry-recognized.--The term `industry-recognized', 
     used with respect to a credential, means a credential that is 
     sought or accepted by employers within the industry sector 
     involved as recognized, preferred, or required for 
     recruitment, screening, hiring, or advancement. If a 
     credential is not yet available for a certain skill that is 
     so sought or accepted, completion of an industry-recognized 
     training program shall be considered to be an industry-
     recognized credential, for the purposes of this paragraph.
       ``(B) Nationally portable.--The term `nationally portable,' 
     used with respect to credential, means a credential that is 
     sought or accepted as described in subparagraph (A) across 
     multiple States.
       ``(C) Regionally relevant.--The term `regionally relevant,' 
     used with respect to a credential, means a credential that is 
     determined by the Governor and the head of the State 
     workforce agency to be sought or accepted as described in 
     subparagraph (A) in that State and neighboring States.
       ``(55) State workforce agency.--The term `State workforce 
     agency' means the lead State agency with responsibility for 
     workforce investment activities carried out under subtitle 
     B.''.
       (b) Youth Activities.--Section 129(c)(1)(C) of the 
     Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2854(c)(1)(C)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating clauses (ii) through (iv) as clauses 
     (iii) through (v), respectively; and
       (2) inserting after clause (i) the following:
       ``(ii) training, with priority consideration given, after 
     consultation with the Governor and the head of the State 
     workforce agency and beginning not later than 6 months after 
     the date of enactment of the Emergency Unemployment 
     Compensation Extension Act, to programs that lead to an 
     industry-recognized, nationally portable, and regionally 
     relevant credential, if the local board determines that such 
     programs are available and appropriate;''.
       (c) General Employment and Training Activities.--Section 
     134(d)(4)(F) of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 
     U.S.C. 2864(d)(4)(F)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(iv) Priority for programs that provide an industry-
     recognized, nationally portable, and regionally relevant 
     credential.--In selecting and approving programs of training 
     services under this section, a one-stop operator and 
     employees of a one-stop center referred to in subsection (c) 
     shall, after consultation with the Governor and the head of 
     the State workforce agency and beginning not later than 6 
     months after the date of enactment of the Emergency 
     Unemployment Compensation Extension Act, give priority 
     consideration to programs (approved by the appropriate State 
     agency and local board in conjunction with section 122) that 
     lead to an industry-recognized, nationally portable, and 
     regionally relevant credential.
       ``(v) Rule of construction.--Nothing in clause (iv) or 
     section 129(c)(1)(C) shall be construed to require an entity 
     with responsibility for selecting or approving a workforce 
     investment activities program to select a program that leads 
     to a credential specified in clause (iv).''.
       (d) State Administration.--
       (1) General employment and training activities.--Section 
     122(b)(2)(D) of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 
     U.S.C. 2842(b)(2)(D)) is amended--
       (A) in clause (ii), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) in clause (iii), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(iv) in the case of a provider of a program of training 
     services that leads to an industry-recognized, nationally 
     portable, and regionally relevant credential, that the 
     program leading to the credential meets such quality criteria 
     (which may be accreditation by a State-recognized, third 
     party accrediting agency) as the Governor (in consultation 
     with representatives of the relevant industry sectors and 
     labor groups) shall establish not later than 6 months after 
     the date of enactment of the Emergency Unemployment 
     Compensation Extension Act.''.
       (2) Youth activities.--Section 123 of the Workforce 
     Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2843) is amended by 
     inserting ``(including such quality criteria (which may be 
     accreditation by a State-recognized, third party accrediting 
     agency) as the Governor (in consultation with representatives 
     of the relevant industry sectors and labor groups) shall 
     establish not later than 6 months after the date of enactment 
     of the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Extension Act for 
     a training program that leads to an industry-recognized, 
     nationally portable, and regionally relevant credential)'' 
     after ``plan''.
       (e) Report on Industry-recognized Credentials.--Section 122 
     of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2842) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(j) Report on Industry-recognized Credentials.--
       ``(1) Data collection.--Each State shall submit to the 
     Secretary data on programs determined, under section 
     129(c)(1)(C) or 134(d)(4)(F)(iv), to lead to industry-
     recognized and regionally relevant credentials, and on the 
     need of that State for such credentials.
       ``(2) Report.--Based on data provided by the States under 
     paragraph (1), the Secretary shall annually compile the data 
     and prepare a report identifying industry-recognized 
     credentials that are regionally relevant or nationally 
     portable. The report shall include information on the needs 
     of each State and of the Nation for such credentials.
       ``(3) Availability.--The Secretary shall make the report 
     available and easily searchable on a website.
       ``(4) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection 
     shall be construed as an official endorsement of a credential 
     by the Department of Labor.''.

     SEC. 202. ESTABLISHING INCENTIVES FOR ACCOUNTABILITY.

       (a) Program.--Subtitle B of title I of the Workforce 
     Investment Act of 1998 is amended by inserting after section 
     112 (29 U.S.C. 2822) the following:

     ``SEC. 112A. PAY FOR PERFORMANCE PILOT PROGRAM.

       ``(a) Establishment.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of the Emergency Unemployment Compensation 
     Extension Act, the Secretary of Labor shall establish a Pay 
     for Performance pilot program. The Secretary shall select not 
     fewer than 5 States, including at least 1 rural State and at 
     least 1 non-rural State, to participate in the pilot program 
     by carrying out a Pay for Performance State program.
       ``(2) Voluntary nature of program.--Nothing in this 
     subtitle shall be construed to require a State to participate 
     in the pilot program without the State's consent.
       ``(3) Definition.--In this subsection, the term `rural 
     State' means a State that has a population density of 52 or 
     fewer persons per square mile, or a State in which the 
     largest county has fewer than 150,000 people, as determined 
     on the basis of the most recent decennial census of 
     population conducted pursuant to section 141 of title 13, 
     United States Code.
       ``(b) Submission of Plans.--To be eligible to participate 
     in the pilot program, a State shall submit to the Secretary 
     and obtain approval of a Pay for Performance plan described 
     in section 112(e) as a supplement to the State plan described 
     in section 112. The State shall submit the supplement in 
     accordance with such process as the Secretary may specify 
     after consultation with States.
       ``(c) Implementation.--
       ``(1) In general.--In a State that carries out a Pay for 
     Performance State program, the State shall reserve and the 
     local areas shall use the amount described in paragraph (2) 
     to provide a portion of the training services authorized 
     under section 134(d)(4) (referred to in this section as 
     `training services') under the State's Pay for Performance 
     plan, in addition to the other requirements of this Act.
       ``(2) Amount.--The amount reserved under paragraph (1) 
     shall be--
       ``(A) a portion of not more than 25 percent, as determined 
     by the State, of the funds available to be allocated under 
     section 133(b) within the State, and estimated by the State 
     to be available for training services, for the fiscal year 
     involved; and
       ``(B) a portion of not more than 17.5 percent, as 
     determined by the State, of the

[[Page 397]]

     grant funds awarded under section 211(b) for the State (which 
     portion shall be taken from the funds described in paragraphs 
     (2) and (3) of section 222(a)) for the fiscal year involved.
       ``(d) Training and Technical Assistance.--The Secretary 
     shall provide, by grant or contract, training and technical 
     assistance to States, and local areas in States, carrying out 
     a Pay for Performance State program.
       ``(e) State Reports.--Each State carrying out a Pay for 
     Performance State program shall annually prepare and submit 
     to the Secretary a report regarding the performance of the 
     State on the outcome measures described in section 
     112(e)(2)(C).
       ``(f) Evaluations.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the 
     conclusion of the transition period described in section 
     112(e)(2)(H), the Secretary shall enter into an arrangement 
     for an entity to carry out an independent evaluation of Pay 
     for Performance State programs carried out under this 
     subtitle.
       ``(2) Contents.--For each Pay for Performance State 
     program, the entity shall evaluate the program design and 
     performance on the outcome measures, evaluate (wherever 
     possible) the level of satisfaction with the program among 
     employers and employees benefiting from the program, and 
     estimate public returns on investment, including such returns 
     as reduced dependence on public assistance, reduced 
     unemployment, and increased tax revenue paid by participants 
     exiting the program for employment.
       ``(3) Report.--The entity shall prepare a report containing 
     the results of the evaluation, and submit the report to the 
     Secretary, not later than 18 months after the conclusion of 
     the transition period.
       ``(g) Report to Congress.--Not later than 3 months after 
     the submission of the report described in subsection (f)(3), 
     the Secretary shall prepare and submit to Congress a report 
     that contains the results of the evaluations described in 
     subsection (f) and recommendations. The recommendation shall 
     include the Secretary's opinions concerning whether the pilot 
     program should be continued and whether the pay for 
     performance model should be expanded within this Act, and 
     related considerations.
       ``(h) Performance.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), 
     section 136 of this Act shall not apply to a State, or a 
     local area in a State, with respect to activities carried out 
     through a Pay for Performance State program.
       ``(2) Fiscal and management accountability information 
     systems.--Section 136(f)(1) shall apply with respect to 
     reporting and monitoring of the use of funds under this 
     section for activities described in paragraph (1).''.
       (b) Pay for Performance Plan.--Section 112 of the Workforce 
     Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2822) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(e) Pay for Performance Plans.--
       ``(1) In general.--For a State seeking to carry out a Pay 
     for Performance State program (referred to in this subsection 
     as a `State program') under the pilot program described in 
     section 112A, the State plan shall include a plan supplement, 
     consisting of a Pay for Performance plan developed by the 
     State and local areas in the State.
       ``(2) Contents.--The Pay for Performance plan shall, with 
     respect to the State program--
       ``(A) provide for technical support to local areas and 
     providers in order to carry out a pay for performance model, 
     which shall at a minimum provide assistance with data 
     collection and data entry requirements;
       ``(B) specify target populations who are eligible to 
     receive training services authorized under section 134(d)(4) 
     (referred to in this subsection as `training services') 
     through the State program, with appropriate consideration of 
     and participation targets for special participant populations 
     that face multiple barriers to employment, as defined in 
     section 134(d)(4)(G)(iv);
       ``(C) specify employment placement, employment retention, 
     and earnings outcome measures and timetables for each target 
     population;
       ``(D) provide for curricula in terms of competencies 
     required for education and career advancement that are, where 
     feasible, tied to industry-recognized credentials and related 
     standards (where the quality of the program leading to the 
     credential or standard is recognized by the State or local 
     area involved), or State licensing requirements;
       ``(E) describe how the State or local areas will provide 
     information to participants in the State program about 
     appropriate support services, where feasible, including 
     career assessment and counseling, case management, child 
     care, transportation, financial aid, and job placement 
     services;
       ``(F) specify a fixed amount that, except as provided in 
     subparagraph (H), local areas in the State will pay to 
     providers of training services in the State program, for each 
     eligible participant who achieves the applicable outcome 
     measures or is an excepted participant described in 
     subparagraph (G)(i), according to the timetables described in 
     subparagraph (C), which amount--
       ``(i) shall represent 115 percent of the historical cost of 
     providing training services to a participant under this 
     subtitle, as established by the State or local area involved; 
     and
       ``(ii) may vary by target population;
       ``(G) provide assurances that--
       ``(i) no funds reserved for the State program will be paid 
     to a provider for a participant who does not achieve the 
     outcome measures according to the timetables, except for a 
     participant who does not achieve the outcome measures through 
     no fault of the provider, as determined by the Governor in 
     consultation with the head of the State board, relevant local 
     boards, and at least 1 representative of the State's 
     providers of training services; and
       ``(ii) each local area in the State will reallocate funds 
     not paid to a provider, because the achievement described in 
     clause (i) did not occur, for further activities under the 
     State program in the local area; and
       ``(H) specify a transition period of not more than 1 year 
     during which the reserved funds may be paid to providers of 
     training services based on the previous year's performance on 
     the core indicators of performance described in 
     136(b)(2)(A)(i), in order to enable the providers to begin to 
     provide services under the State program and adjust to a pay 
     for performance model, including adjusting by--
       ``(i) developing partnerships with local employers; and
       ``(ii) seeking financial support and volunteer services 
     from private sector sources.
       ``(3) Approval.--In determining whether to approve the plan 
     supplement, the Secretary shall consider the quality of the 
     data system the State will use to track performance on 
     outcome measures in carrying out a Pay for Performance 
     plan.''.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Use of funds.--Section 211(b)(2) of the Workforce 
     Investment Act of 1998 (20 U.S.C. 9211(b)(2)) is amended by 
     inserting ``or training services in accordance with section 
     112A(c)'' before the period at the end.
       (2) Funding.--Section 223(a) of the Workforce Investment 
     Act of 1998 (20 U.S.C. 9223(a)) is amended--
       (A) by redesignating paragraph (8) as paragraph (12), and 
     moving that paragraph to the end of that section 223(a); and
       (B) by inserting after paragraph (7) the following:
       ``(8) Providing training services in accordance with 
     section 112A(c).''.
                                 ______
                                 
  SA 2629. Ms. COLLINS 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. __. DEFINITION OF FULL-TIME EMPLOYEE.

       Section 4980H(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2)(E), by striking ``by 120'' and 
     inserting ``by 174''; and
       (2) in paragraph (4)(A) by striking ``30 hours'' and 
     inserting ``40 hours''.
                                 ______
                                 
  SA 2630. 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:

       On page 6, after line 11, add the following:

     SEC. ___. REDUCTION IN SHARE OF CROP INSURANCE PREMIUM PAID 
                   BY FEDERAL CROP INSURANCE CORPORATION.

       (a) In General.--Section 508(e)(2) of the Federal Crop 
     Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(e)(2)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (B)(i), by striking ``67'' and 
     inserting ``55'';
       (2) in subparagraph (E)(i), by striking ``55'' and 
     inserting ``24'';
       (3) in subparagraph (F)(i), by striking ``48'' and 
     inserting ``17'';
       (4) in subparagraph (G)(i), by striking ``38'' and 
     inserting ``13'';
       (5) by redesignating subparagraphs (C) through (G) as 
     subparagraphs (G) through (K), respectively; and
       (6) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following:
       ``(C) In the case of additional coverage equal to or 
     greater than 55 percent, but less than 60 percent, of the 
     recorded or appraised average yield indemnified at not 
     greater than 100 percent of the expected market price, or a 
     comparable coverage for a policy or plan of insurance that is 
     not based on individual yield, the amount shall be equal to 
     the sum of--
       ``(i) 46 percent of the amount of the premium established 
     under subsection (d)(2)(B)(i) for the coverage level 
     selected; and
       ``(ii) the amount determined under subsection (d)(2)(B)(ii) 
     for the coverage level selected to cover operating and 
     administrative expenses.
       ``(D) In the case of additional coverage equal to or 
     greater than 60 percent, but less than 65 percent, of the 
     recorded or appraised average yield indemnified at not 
     greater

[[Page 398]]

     than 100 percent of the expected market price, or a 
     comparable coverage for a policy or plan of insurance that is 
     not based on individual yield, the amount shall be equal to 
     the sum of--
       ``(i) 38 percent of the amount of the premium established 
     under subsection (d)(2)(B)(i) for the coverage level 
     selected; and
       ``(ii) the amount determined under subsection (d)(2)(B)(ii) 
     for the coverage level selected to cover operating and 
     administrative expenses.
       ``(E) In the case of additional coverage equal to or 
     greater than 65 percent, but less than 70 percent, of the 
     recorded or appraised average yield indemnified at not 
     greater than 100 percent of the expected market price, or a 
     comparable coverage for a policy or plan of insurance that is 
     not based on individual yield, the amount shall be equal to 
     the sum of--
       ``(i) 42 percent of the amount of the premium established 
     under subsection (d)(2)(B)(i) for the coverage level 
     selected; and
       ``(ii) the amount determined under subsection (d)(2)(B)(ii) 
     for the coverage level selected to cover operating and 
     administrative expenses.
       ``(F) In the case of additional coverage equal to or 
     greater than 70 percent, but less than 75 percent, of the 
     recorded or appraised average yield indemnified at not 
     greater than 100 percent of the expected market price, or a 
     comparable coverage for a policy or plan of insurance that is 
     not based on individual yield, the amount shall be equal to 
     the sum of--
       ``(i) 32 percent of the amount of the premium established 
     under subsection (d)(2)(B)(i) for the coverage level 
     selected; and
       ``(ii) the amount determined under subsection (d)(2)(B)(ii) 
     for the coverage level selected to cover operating and 
     administrative expenses.''.
       (b) Budgetary Effects.--The budgetary effects of this 
     section, for the purpose of complying with the Statutory Pay-
     As-You-Go Act of 2010, shall be determined by reference to 
     the latest statement titled ``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO 
     Legislation'' for this section, submitted for printing in the 
     Congressional Record by the Chairman of the Senate Budget 
     Committee, provided that such statement has been submitted 
     prior to the vote on passage.
                                 ______
                                 
  SA 2631. Mr. REID (for Mr. Reed) proposed an amendment to the bill S. 
1845, to provide for the extension of certain unemployment benefits, 
and for other purposes; as follows:

       Strike sections 2 through 6 and insert the following:

     SEC. 2. EXTENSION AND MODIFICATION OF EMERGENCY UNEMPLOYMENT 
                   COMPENSATION PROGRAM.

       (a) Extension.--Section 4007(a)(2) of the Supplemental 
     Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 110-252; 26 U.S.C. 3304 
     note) is amended by striking ``January 1, 2014'' and 
     inserting ``November 16, 2014''.
       (b) Modifications Relating to Weeks of Emergency 
     Unemployment Compensation.--
       (1) Number of weeks in first tier beginning after december 
     28, 2013.--Section 4002(b) of such Act is amended--
       (A) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4);
       (B) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) in the heading, by inserting ``, and weeks ending 
     before december 30, 2013'' after ``2012''; and
       (ii) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by inserting 
     ``, and before December 30, 2013'' after ``2012''; and
       (C) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
       ``(3) Special rule relating to amounts established in an 
     account as of a week ending after december 29, 2013.--
     Notwithstanding any provision of paragraph (1), in the case 
     of any account established as of a week ending after December 
     29, 2013--
       ``(A) paragraph (1)(A) shall be applied by substituting `24 
     percent' for `80 percent'; and
       ``(B) paragraph (1)(B) shall be applied by substituting `6 
     times' for `20 times'.''.
       (2) Number of weeks in second tier beginning after december 
     28, 2013.--Section 4002(c) of such Act is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(5) Special rule relating to amounts added to an account 
     as of a week ending after december 29, 2013.--Notwithstanding 
     any provision of paragraph (1), if augmentation under this 
     subsection occurs as of a week ending after December 29, 
     2013--
       ``(A) paragraph (1)(A) shall be applied by substituting `24 
     percent' for `54 percent'; and
       ``(B) paragraph (1)(B) shall be applied by substituting `6 
     times' for `14 times'.''.
       (c) Funding.--Section 4004(e)(1) of the Supplemental 
     Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 110-252; 26 U.S.C. 3304 
     note) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (I), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in subparagraph (J), by inserting ``and'' at the end; 
     and
       (3) by inserting after subparagraph (J) the following:
       ``(K) the amendments made by subsections (a) and (b) of 
     section 2 of the Emergency Unemployment Compensation 
     Extension Act;''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the 
     American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (Public Law 112-240).

     SEC. 3. TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF EXTENDED BENEFIT PROVISIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 2005 of the Assistance for 
     Unemployed Workers and Struggling Families Act, as contained 
     in Public Law 111-5 (26 U.S.C. 3304 note), is amended--
       (1) by striking ``December 31, 2013'' each place it appears 
     and inserting ``November 15, 2014''; and
       (2) in subsection (c), by striking ``June 30, 2014'' and 
     inserting ``May 15, 2015''.
       (b) Extension of Matching for States With No Waiting 
     Week.--Section 5 of the Unemployment Compensation Extension 
     Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-449; 26 U.S.C. 3304 note) is 
     amended by striking ``June 30, 2014'' and inserting ``May 15, 
     2015''.
       (c) Extension of Modification of Indicators Under the 
     Extended Benefit Program.--Section 203 of the Federal-State 
     Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970 (26 U.S.C. 
     3304 note) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (d), by striking ``December 31, 2013'' 
     and inserting ``November 15, 2014''; and
       (2) in subsection (f)(2), by striking ``December 31, 2013'' 
     and inserting ``November 15, 2014''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the 
     American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (Public Law 112-240).

     SEC. 4. EXTENSION OF FUNDING FOR REEMPLOYMENT SERVICES AND 
                   REEMPLOYMENT AND ELIGIBILITY ASSESSMENT 
                   ACTIVITIES.

       (a) In General.--Section 4004(c)(2)(A) of the Supplemental 
     Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 110-252; 26 U.S.C. 3304 
     note) is amended by striking ``through fiscal year 2014'' and 
     inserting ``through August 15 of fiscal year 2015''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the 
     American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (Public Law 112-240).

     SEC. 5. ADDITIONAL EXTENDED UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS UNDER THE 
                   RAILROAD UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT.

       (a) Extension.--Section 2(c)(2)(D)(iii) of the Railroad 
     Unemployment Insurance Act (45 U.S.C. 352(c)(2)(D)(iii)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``June 30, 2013'' and inserting ``May 15, 
     2014''; and
       (2) by striking ``December 31, 2013'' and inserting 
     ``November 15, 2014''.
       (b) Clarification on Authority to Use Funds.--Funds 
     appropriated under either the first or second sentence of 
     clause (iv) of section 2(c)(2)(D) of the Railroad 
     Unemployment Insurance Act shall be available to cover the 
     cost of additional extended unemployment benefits provided 
     under such section 2(c)(2)(D) by reason of the amendments 
     made by subsection (a) as well as to cover the cost of such 
     benefits provided under such section 2(c)(2)(D), as in effect 
     on the day before the date of enactment of this Act.
       (c) Funding for Administration.--Out of any funds in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, there are appropriated 
     to the Railroad Retirement Board $250,000 for administrative 
     expenses associated with the payment of additional extended 
     unemployment benefits provided under section 2(c)(2)(D) of 
     the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act by reason of the 
     amendments made by subsection (a), to remain available until 
     expended.

     SEC. 6. FLEXIBILITY FOR UNEMPLOYMENT PROGRAM AGREEMENTS.

       (a) Flexibility.--
       (1) In general.--Subsection (g) of section 4001 of the 
     Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 110-252; 26 
     U.S.C. 3304 note) shall not apply with respect to a State 
     that has enacted a law before December 1, 2013, that, upon 
     taking effect, would violate such subsection.
       (2) Effective date.--Paragraph (1) is effective with 
     respect to weeks of unemployment beginning on or after 
     December 29, 2013.
       (b) Permitting a Subsequent Agreement.--Nothing in title IV 
     of the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 110-
     252; 26 U.S.C. 3304 note) shall preclude a State whose 
     agreement under such title was terminated from entering into 
     a subsequent agreement under such title on or after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act if the State, taking into 
     account the application of subsection (a), would otherwise 
     meet the requirements for an agreement under such title.

     SEC. 7. REDUCTION IN 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:


 ``reduction in benefits based on receipt of unemployment compensation

       ``Sec. 224A  (a)(1) If for any month prior to the month in 
     which an individual attains retirement age (as defined in 
     section 216(l)(1))--
       ``(A) such individual is entitled to benefits under section 
     223, and
       ``(B) such individual is entitled for such month to 
     unemployment compensation,


[[Page 399]]


     the total of the individual's benefits under section 223 for 
     such month and of any benefits under section 202 for such 
     month based on the individual's wages and self-employment 
     income shall be reduced (but not below zero) by the total 
     amount of unemployment compensation received by such 
     individual for such month.
       ``(2) The reduction of benefits under paragraph (1) shall 
     apply to any past-due benefits under section 223 for any 
     month in which the individual was entitled to--
       ``(A) benefits under such section, and
       ``(B) unemployment compensation.
       ``(b) If any unemployment compensation is payable to an 
     individual on other than a monthly basis (including a benefit 
     payable as a lump sum to the extent that it is a commutation 
     of, or a substitute for, such periodic compensation), the 
     reduction under this section shall be made at such time or 
     times and in such amounts as the Commissioner of Social 
     Security (referred to in this section as the `Commissioner') 
     determines will approximate as nearly as practicable the 
     reduction prescribed by subsection (a).
       ``(c) Reduction of benefits under this section shall be 
     made after any applicable reductions under section 203(a) and 
     section 224, but before any other applicable deductions under 
     section 203.
       ``(d)(1) Subject to paragraph (2), if the Commissioner 
     determines that an individual may be eligible for 
     unemployment compensation which would give rise to a 
     reduction of benefits under this section, the Commissioner 
     may require, as a condition of certification for payment of 
     any benefits under section 223 to any individual for any 
     month and of any benefits under section 202 for such month 
     based on such individual's wages and self-employment income, 
     that such individual certify--
       ``(A) whether the individual has filed or intends to file 
     any claim for unemployment compensation, and
       ``(B) if the individual has filed a claim, whether there 
     has been a decision on such claim.
       ``(2) For purposes of paragraph (1), the Commissioner may, 
     in the absence of evidence to the contrary, rely upon a 
     certification by the individual that the individual has not 
     filed and does not intend to file such a claim, or that the 
     individual has so filed and no final decision thereon has 
     been made, in certifying benefits for payment pursuant to 
     section 205(i).
       ``(e) Whenever a reduction in total benefits based on an 
     individual's wages and self-employment income is made under 
     this section for any month, each benefit, except the 
     disability insurance benefit, shall first be proportionately 
     decreased, and any excess of such reduction over the sum of 
     all such benefits other than the disability insurance benefit 
     shall then be applied to such disability insurance benefit.
       ``(f)(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 of the amount of 
     the reduction, if any, required by this section in 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.
       ``(g) 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, and the total 
     amount of unemployment compensation to which an individual is 
     entitled shall be determined prior to any applicable 
     reduction under State law based on the receipt of benefits 
     under section 202 or 223.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 224(a) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 424a(a)) is amended, in the matter 
     preceding paragraph (1), by striking ``the age of 65'' and 
     inserting ``retirement age (as defined in section 
     216(l)(1))''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsections (a) 
     and (b) shall apply to benefits payable for months beginning 
     on or after the date that is 12 months after the date of 
     enactment of this section.

     SEC. 8. EXTENSION OF DIRECT SPENDING REDUCTIONS FOR FISCAL 
                   YEAR 2024.

       Section 251A(6)(B) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 901a(6)(B)) is amended 
     in the matter preceding clause (i) by striking ``for fiscal 
     year 2022 and for fiscal year 2023'' and inserting ``for each 
     of fiscal years 2022, 2023, and 2024''.

     SEC. 9. BUDGETARY EFFECTS.

       (a) PAYGO Scorecard.--The budgetary effects of this Act 
     shall not be entered on either PAYGO scorecard maintained 
     pursuant to section 4(d) of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act 
     of 2010 (2 U.S.C. 933(d)).
       (b) Senate PAYGO Scorecard.--The budgetary effects of this 
     Act shall not be entered on any PAYGO scorecard maintained 
     for purposes of section 201 of S. Con. Res. 21 (110th 
     Congress).
                                 ______
                                 
  SA 2632. Mr. REID proposed an amendment to amendment SA 2631 proposed 
by Mr. Reid (for Mr. Reed) to the bill S. 1845, to provide for the 
extension of certain unemployment benefits, and for other purposes; as 
follows:

       At the end, add the following:
       This Act shall become effective 1 day after enactment.
                                 ______
                                 
  SA 2633. Mr. REID proposed an amendment to the bill S. 1845, to 
provide for the extension of certain unemployment benefits, and for 
other purposes; as follows:

       At the end, add the following:
       This Act shall become effective 3 days after enactment.
                                 ______
                                 
  SA 2634. Mr. REID proposed an amendment to amendment SA 2633 proposed 
by Mr. Reid to the bill S. 1845, to provide for the extension of 
certain unemployment benefits, and for other purposes; as follows:

       In the amendment, strike ``3 days'' and insert ``4 days''.
                                 ______
                                 
  SA 2635. Mr. REID submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to 
amendment SA 2634 proposed by Mr. Reid to the amendment SA 2633 
proposed by Mr. Reid to the bill S. 1845, to provide for the extension 
of certain unemployment benefits, and for other purposes; as follows:

       In the amendment, strike ``4 days'' and insert ``5 days''.
                                 ______
                                 
  SA 2636. Mr. PRYOR 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. REQUIREMENT FOR PARTICIPATION IN PUBLIC SERVICE AS A 
                   CONDITION FOR RECEIPT OF EXTENDED UNEMPLOYMENT 
                   BENEFITS.

       (a) In General.--Section 3304 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (relating to approval of State unemployment 
     compensation laws) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in paragraph (18), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) by redesignating paragraph (19) as paragraph (20); and
       (C) by inserting after paragraph (18) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(19) extended compensation, including any such 
     compensation under a temporary program, shall not be payable 
     to an individual for any week in which such individual does 
     not perform at least 10 hours of public service (as described 
     in subsection (g)); and''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(g) Public Service.--
       ``(1) In general.--For purposes of subsection (a)(19), the 
     term `public service' means unpaid service by an individual 
     to a Federal, State, or local agency (as permitted in 
     accordance with applicable Federal, State, and local law), 
     with tangible evidence to be provided to the State agency by 
     the individual on a weekly basis demonstrating that the 
     individual has performed such service during the previous 
     week.
       ``(2) Exceptions.--For purposes of the public service 
     requirement under subsection (a)(19), an individual shall be 
     deemed to have satisfied such requirement for that week if 
     the individual--
       ``(A) provides tangible evidence to the State agency 
     demonstrating that such individual was unable to perform the 
     required public service for that week due to an illness or 
     family emergency;
       ``(B) is a parent of a qualifying child (as defined in 
     section 152(c)) and provides tangible evidence to the State 
     agency demonstrating an inability to perform the required 
     number of hours of public service due to responsibility for 
     child care; or
       ``(C) provides tangible evidence of a bona fide attempt to 
     perform public service and, pursuant to such criteria as is 
     determined appropriate by the State agency, is determined to 
     be unable to perform such service due to a lack of available 
     public service opportunities in the area in which the 
     individual resides.
       ``(3) Performance of work activities.--
       ``(A) In general.--The total number of hours of public 
     service required under subsection (a)(19) shall be reduced by 
     1 hour for each hour during that week that an individual 
     performs work activities.
       ``(B) Definition of work activities.--For purposes of 
     subparagraph (A), the term `work activities' has the same 
     meaning as provided under subsection (d) of section 407 of 
     the Social Security Act, except that such activities shall 
     not include job searching, as described in paragraph (6) of 
     such subsection.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     amendments made by this section shall take effect on the date 
     that is 6 months after the date of the enactment of this Act.

[[Page 400]]

       (2) Delay permitted if state legislation required.--In the 
     case of a State which the Secretary of Labor determines 
     requires State legislation (other than legislation 
     appropriating funds) in order for the State law to meet the 
     additional requirements imposed by the amendments made by 
     subsection (a), the State law shall not be regarded as 
     failing to comply with the requirements of section 
     3304(a)(19) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as added by 
     such amendments, solely on the basis of the failure of the 
     State law to meet such additional requirements before the 1st 
     day of the 1st calendar quarter beginning after the close of 
     the 1st regular session of the State legislature that begins 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act. For purposes of 
     the previous sentence, in the case of a State that has a 2-
     year legislative session, each year of such session shall be 
     deemed to be a separate regular session of the State 
     legislature.
                                 ______
                                 
  SA 2637. Mr. SCOTT (for himself, Mr. Burr, and Mr. Coburn) 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, insert the following:

    TITLE II--SUPPORTING KNOWLEDGE AND INVESTING IN LIFELONG SKILLS

     SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Supporting Knowledge and 
     Investing in Lifelong Skills Act'' or the ``SKILLS Act''.

     SEC. 202. REFERENCES.

       Except as otherwise expressly provided, wherever in this 
     title an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an 
     amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other provision, the 
     amendment or repeal shall be considered to be made to a 
     section or other provision of the Workforce Investment Act of 
     1998 (29 U.S.C. 2801 et seq.).

     SEC. 203. APPLICATION TO FISCAL YEARS.

       Except as otherwise provided, this title and the amendments 
     made by this title shall apply with respect to fiscal year 
     2015 and succeeding fiscal years.

     Subtitle A--Amendment to the Workforce Investment Act of 1998

              CHAPTER 1--WORKFORCE INVESTMENT DEFINITIONS

     SEC. 206. DEFINITIONS.

       Section 101 (29 U.S.C. 2801) is amended--
       (1) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
       ``(2) Adult education and family literacy education 
     activities.--The term `adult education and family literacy 
     education activities' has the meaning given the term in 
     section 203.'';
       (2) by striking paragraphs (13) and (24);
       (3) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (12) as 
     paragraphs (3) through (14), and paragraphs (14) through (23) 
     as paragraphs (15) through (24), respectively;
       (4) by striking paragraphs (52) and (53);
       (5) by inserting after ``In this title:'' the following new 
     paragraphs:
       ``(1) Accrued expenditures.--The term `accrued 
     expenditures' means--
       ``(A) charges incurred by recipients of funds under this 
     title for a given period requiring the provision of funds for 
     goods or other tangible property received;
       ``(B) charges incurred for services performed by employees, 
     contractors, subgrantees, subcontractors, and other payees; 
     and
       ``(C) other amounts becoming owed, under programs assisted 
     under this title, for which no current services or 
     performance is required, such as amounts for annuities, 
     insurance claims, and other benefit payments.
       ``(2) Administrative costs.--The term `administrative 
     costs' means expenditures incurred by State boards and local 
     boards, direct recipients (including State grant recipients 
     under subtitle B and recipients of awards under subtitles C 
     and D), local grant recipients, local fiscal agents or local 
     grant subrecipients, and one-stop operators in the 
     performance of administrative functions and in carrying out 
     activities under this title that are not related to the 
     direct provision of workforce investment activities 
     (including services to participants and employers). Such 
     costs include both personnel and non-personnel expenditures 
     and both direct and indirect expenditures.'';
       (6) in paragraph (3) (as so redesignated), by striking 
     ``Except in sections 127 and 132, the'' and inserting 
     ``The'';
       (7) by amending paragraph (5) (as so redesignated) to read 
     as follows:
       ``(5) Area career and technical education school.--The term 
     `area career and technical education school' has the meaning 
     given the term in section 3(3) of the Carl D. Perkins Career 
     and Technical Education Act of 2006 (20 U.S.C. 2302(3)).'';
       (8) in paragraph (6) (as so redesignated), by inserting 
     ``(or such other level as the Governor may establish)'' after 
     ``8th grade level'';
       (9) in paragraph (10)(C) (as so redesignated), by striking 
     ``not less than 50 percent of the cost of the training'' and 
     inserting ``a significant portion of the cost of training, as 
     determined by the local board involved (or, in the case of an 
     employer in multiple local areas in the State, as determined 
     by the Governor), taking into account the size of the 
     employer and such other factors as the local board or 
     Governor, respectively, determines to be appropriate'';
       (10) in paragraph (11) (as so redesignated)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A)(ii)(II), by striking ``section 
     134(c)'' and inserting ``section 121(e)'';
       (B) in subparagraph (B)(iii)--
       (i) by striking ``134(d)(4)'' and inserting ``134(c)(4)''; 
     and
       (ii) by striking ``intensive services described in section 
     134(d)(3)'' and inserting ``work ready services described in 
     section 134(c)(2)'';
       (C) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``or'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (D) in subparagraph (D), by striking the period and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (E) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(E)(i) is the spouse of a member of the Armed Forces on 
     active duty for a period of more than 30 days (as defined in 
     section 101(d)(2) of title 10, United States Code) who has 
     experienced a loss of employment as a direct result of 
     relocation to accommodate a permanent change in duty station 
     of such member; or
       ``(ii) is the spouse of a member of the Armed Forces on 
     active duty (as defined in section 101(d)(1) of title 10, 
     United States Code) who meets the criteria described in 
     paragraph (12)(B).'';
       (11) in paragraph (12)(A) (as redesignated)--
       (A) by striking ``and'' after the semicolon and inserting 
     ``or'';
       (B) by striking ``(A)'' and inserting ``(A)(i)''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(ii) is the spouse of a member of the Armed Forces on 
     active duty for a period of more than 30 days (as defined in 
     section 101(d)(2) of title 10, United States Code) whose 
     family income is significantly reduced because of a 
     deployment (as defined in section 991(b) of title 10, United 
     States Code, or pursuant to paragraph (4) of such section), a 
     call or order to active duty pursuant to a provision of law 
     referred to in section 101(a)(13)(B) of title 10, United 
     States Code, a permanent change of station, or the service-
     connected (as defined in section 101(16) of title 38, United 
     States Code) death or disability of the member; and'';
       (12) in paragraph (13) (as so redesignated), by inserting 
     ``or regional'' after ``local'' each place it appears;
       (13) in paragraph (14) (as so redesignated)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``section 122(e)(3)'' 
     and inserting ``section 122'';
       (B) by striking subparagraph (B), and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(B) work ready services, means a provider who is 
     identified or awarded a contract as described in section 
     117(d)(5)(C); or'';
       (C) by striking subparagraph (C); and
       (D) by redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (C);
       (14) in paragraph (15) (as so redesignated), by striking 
     ``adult or dislocated worker'' and inserting ``individual'';
       (15) in paragraph (20), by striking ``The'' and inserting 
     ``Subject to section 116(a)(1)(E), the'';
       (16) in paragraph (25)--
       (A) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``higher of--'' and 
     all that follows through clause (ii) and inserting ``poverty 
     line for an equivalent period;'';
       (B) by redesignating subparagraphs (D) through (F) as 
     subparagraphs (E) through (G), respectively; and
       (C) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the following:
       ``(D) 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.);'';
       (17) in paragraph (32), by striking ``the Republic of the 
     Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia,'';
       (18) by amending paragraph (33) to read as follows:
       ``(33) Out-of-school youth.--The term `out-of-school youth' 
     means--
       ``(A) an at-risk youth who is a school dropout; or
       ``(B) an at-risk youth who has received a secondary school 
     diploma or its recognized equivalent but is basic skills 
     deficient, unemployed, or underemployed.'';
       (19) in paragraph (38), by striking ``134(a)(1)(A)'' and 
     inserting ``134(a)(1)(B)'';
       (20) in paragraph (41), by striking ``, and the term means 
     such Secretary for purposes of section 503'';
       (21) in paragraph (43), by striking ``clause (iii) or (v) 
     of section 136(b)(3)(A)'' and inserting ``section 
     136(b)(3)(A)(iii)'';
       (22) by amending paragraph (49) to read as follows:
       ``(49) Veteran.--The term `veteran' has the same meaning 
     given the term in section 2108(1) of title 5, United States 
     Code.'';
       (23) by amending paragraph (50) to read as follows:
       ``(50) Career and technical education.--The term `career 
     and technical education' has the meaning given the term in 
     section 3 of the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical 
     Education Act of 2006 (20 U.S.C. 2302).'';
       (24) in paragraph (51), by striking ``, and a youth 
     activity''; and

[[Page 401]]

       (25) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(52) At-risk youth.--Except as provided in subtitle C, 
     the term `at-risk youth' means an individual who--
       ``(A) is not less than age 16 and not more than age 24;
       ``(B) is a low-income individual; and
       ``(C) is an individual who is one or more of the following:
       ``(i) A secondary school dropout.
       ``(ii) A youth in foster care (including youth aging out of 
     foster care).
       ``(iii) A youth offender.
       ``(iv) A youth who is an individual with a disability.
       ``(v) A migrant youth.
       ``(53) Industry or sector partnership.--The term `industry 
     or sector partnership' means a partnership of--
       ``(A) a State board or local board; and
       ``(B) one or more industry or sector organizations, and 
     other entities, that have the capability to help the State 
     board or local board determine the immediate and long-term 
     skilled workforce needs of in-demand industries or sectors 
     and other occupations important to the State or local 
     economy, respectively.
       ``(54) Industry-recognized credential.--The term `industry-
     recognized credential' means a credential that is sought or 
     accepted by companies within the industry sector involved, 
     across multiple States, as recognized, preferred, or required 
     for recruitment, screening, or hiring and is awarded for 
     completion of a program listed or identified under subsection 
     (d) or (i) of section 122, for the local area involved.
       ``(55) Pay-for-performance contract strategy.--The term 
     `pay-for-performance contract strategy' means a strategy in 
     which a pay-for-performance contract to provide a program of 
     employment and training activities incorporates provisions 
     regarding--
       ``(A) the core indicators of performance described in 
     subclauses (I) through (IV) and (VI) of section 
     136(b)(2)(A)(i);
       ``(B) a fixed amount that will be paid to an eligible 
     provider of such employment and training activities for each 
     program participant who, within a defined timetable, achieves 
     the agreed-to levels of performance based upon the core 
     indicators of performance described in subparagraph (A), and 
     may include a bonus payment to such provider, which may be 
     used to expand the capacity of such provider;
       ``(C) the ability for an eligible provider to recoup the 
     costs of providing the activities for a program participant 
     who has not achieved those levels, but for whom the provider 
     is able to demonstrate that such participant gained specific 
     competencies required for education and career advancement 
     that are, where feasible, tied to industry-recognized 
     credentials and related standards, or State licensing 
     requirements; and
       ``(D) the ability for an eligible provider that does not 
     meet the requirements under section 122(a)(2) to participate 
     in such pay-for-performance contract and to not be required 
     to report on the performance and cost information required 
     under section 122(d).
       ``(56) Recognized postsecondary credential.--The term 
     `recognized postsecondary credential' means a credential 
     awarded by a provider of training services or postsecondary 
     educational institution based on completion of all 
     requirements for a program of study, including coursework or 
     tests or other performance evaluations. The term means an 
     industry-recognized credential, a certificate of completion 
     of a registered apprenticeship program, or an associate or 
     baccalaureate degree from an institution described in section 
     122(a)(2)(A)(i).
       ``(57) Registered apprenticeship program.--The term 
     `registered apprenticeship program' means a program described 
     in section 122(a)(2)(B).''.

      CHAPTER 2--STATEWIDE AND LOCAL WORKFORCE INVESTMENT SYSTEMS

     SEC. 211. PURPOSE.

       Section 106 (29 U.S.C. 2811) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following: ``It is also the purpose of this subtitle 
     to provide workforce investment activities in a manner that 
     enhances employer engagement, promotes customer choices in 
     the selection of training services, and ensures 
     accountability in the use of taxpayer funds.''.

     SEC. 212. STATE WORKFORCE INVESTMENT BOARDS.

       Section 111 (29 U.S.C. 2821) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) by striking subparagraph (B);
       (ii) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (B); 
     and
       (iii) in subparagraph (B) (as so redesignated)--

       (I) by amending clause (i)(I), by striking ``section 
     117(b)(2)(A)(i)'' and inserting ``section 117(b)(2)(A)'';
       (II) by amending clause (i)(II) to read as follows:
       ``(II) represent businesses, including large and small 
     businesses, each of which has immediate and long-term 
     employment opportunities in an in-demand industry or other 
     occupation important to the State economy; and'';
       (III) by striking clause (iii) and inserting the following:

       ``(iii) a State agency official responsible for economic 
     development; and'';

       (IV) by striking clauses (iv) through (vi);
       (V) by amending clause (vii) to read as follows:

       ``(vii) such other representatives and State agency 
     officials as the Governor may designate, including--

       ``(I) members of the State legislature;
       ``(II) representatives of individuals and organizations 
     that have experience with respect to youth activities;
       ``(III) representatives of individuals and organizations 
     that have experience and expertise in the delivery of 
     workforce investment activities, including chief executive 
     officers of community colleges and community-based 
     organizations within the State;
       ``(IV) representatives of the lead State agency officials 
     with responsibility for the programs and activities that are 
     described in section 121(b) and carried out by one-stop 
     partners; or
       ``(V) representatives of veterans service organizations.''; 
     and
       (VI) by redesignating clause (vii) (as so amended) as 
     clause (iv); and

       (B) by amending paragraph (3) to read as follows:
       ``(3) Majority.--A \2/3\ majority of the members of the 
     board shall be representatives described in paragraph 
     (1)(B)(i).'';
       (2) in subsection (c), by striking ``(b)(1)(C)(i)'' and 
     inserting ``(b)(1)(B)(i)'';
       (3) by amending subsection (d) to read as follows:
       ``(d) Functions.--The State board shall assist the Governor 
     of the State as follows:
       ``(1) State plan.--Consistent with section 112, the State 
     board shall develop a State plan.
       ``(2) Statewide workforce development system.--The State 
     board shall review and develop statewide policies and 
     programs in the State in a manner that supports a 
     comprehensive statewide workforce development system that 
     will result in meeting the workforce needs of the State and 
     its local areas. Such review shall include determining 
     whether the State should consolidate additional amounts for 
     additional activities or programs into the Workforce 
     Investment Fund in accordance with section 501(e).
       ``(3) Workforce and labor market information system.--The 
     State board shall develop a statewide workforce and labor 
     market information system described in section 15(e) of the 
     Wagner-Peyser Act (29 U.S.C. 49l-2(e)), which may include 
     using information collected under Federal law other than this 
     Act by the State economic development entity or a related 
     entity in developing such system.
       ``(4) Employer engagement.--The State board shall develop 
     strategies, across local areas, that meet the needs of 
     employers and support economic growth in the State by 
     enhancing communication, coordination, and collaboration 
     among employers, economic development entities, and service 
     providers.
       ``(5) Designation of local areas.--The State board shall 
     designate local areas as required under section 116.
       ``(6) One-stop delivery system.--The State board shall 
     identify and disseminate information on best practices for 
     effective operation of one-stop centers, including use of 
     innovative business outreach, partnerships, and service 
     delivery strategies.
       ``(7) Program oversight.--The State board shall conduct the 
     following program oversight:
       ``(A) Reviewing and approving local plans under section 
     118.
       ``(B) Ensuring the appropriate use and management of the 
     funds provided for State employment and training activities 
     authorized under section 134.
       ``(C) Preparing an annual report to the Secretary described 
     in section 136(d).
       ``(8) Development of performance measures.--The State board 
     shall develop and ensure continuous improvement of 
     comprehensive State performance measures, including State 
     adjusted levels of performance, as described under section 
     136(b).'';
       (4) by striking subsection (e) and redesignating subsection 
     (f) as subsection (e);
       (5) in subsection (e) (as so redesignated), by inserting 
     ``or participate in any action taken'' after ``vote'';
       (6) by inserting after subsection (e) (as so redesignated), 
     the following:
       ``(f) Staff.--The State board may employ staff to assist in 
     carrying out the functions described in subsection (d).''; 
     and
       (7) in subsection (g), by inserting ``electronic means 
     and'' after ``on a regular basis through''.

     SEC. 213. STATE PLAN.

       Section 112 (29 U.S.C. 2822)--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``127 or''; and
       (B) by striking ``5-year strategy'' and inserting ``3-year 
     strategy'';
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by amending paragraph (4) to read as follows:
       ``(4) information describing--
       ``(A) the economic conditions in the State;
       ``(B) the immediate and long-term skilled workforce needs 
     of in-demand industries, small businesses, and other 
     occupations important to the State economy;
       ``(C) the knowledge and skills of the workforce in the 
     State; and
       ``(D) workforce development activities (including education 
     and training) in the State;'';

[[Page 402]]

       (B) by amending paragraph (7) to read as follows:
       ``(7) a description of the State criteria for determining 
     the eligibility of training services providers in accordance 
     with section 122, including how the State will take into 
     account the performance of providers and whether the training 
     services relate to in-demand industries and other occupations 
     important to the State economy;'';
       (C) by amending paragraph (8) to read as follows:
       ``(8)(A) a description of the procedures that will be taken 
     by the State to assure coordination of, and avoid duplication 
     among, the programs and activities identified under section 
     501(b)(2); and
       ``(B) a description of and an assurance regarding common 
     data collection and reporting processes used for the programs 
     and activities described in subparagraph (A), which are 
     carried out by one-stop partners, including--
       ``(i) an assurance that such processes use quarterly wage 
     records for performance measures described in section 
     136(b)(2)(A) that are applicable to such programs or 
     activities; or
       ``(ii) if such wage records are not being used for the 
     performance measures, an identification of the barriers to 
     using such wage records and a description of how the State 
     will address such barriers within 1 year of the approval of 
     the plan;'';
       (D) in paragraph (9), by striking ``, including comment by 
     representatives of businesses and representatives of labor 
     organizations,'';
       (E) in paragraph (11), by striking ``under sections 127 and 
     132'' and inserting ``under section 132'';
       (F) by striking paragraph (12);
       (G) by redesignating paragraphs (13) through (18) as 
     paragraphs (12) through (17), respectively;
       (H) in paragraph (12) (as so redesignated), by striking 
     ``111(f)'' and inserting ``111(e)'';
       (I) in paragraph (13) (as so redesignated), by striking 
     ``134(c)'' and inserting ``121(e)'';
       (J) in paragraph (14) (as so redesignated), by striking 
     ``116(a)(5)'' and inserting ``116(a)(3)'';
       (K) in paragraph (16) (as so redesignated)--
       (i) in subparagraph (A)--

       (I) in clause (ii)--

       (aa) by striking ``to dislocated workers''; and
       (bb) by inserting ``and additional assistance'' after 
     ``rapid response activities'';

       (II) in clause (iii), by striking ``134(d)(4)'' and 
     inserting ``134(c)(4)'';
       (III) by striking ``and'' at the end of clause (iii);
       (IV) by amending clause (iv) to read as follows:

       ``(iv) how the State will serve the employment and training 
     needs of dislocated workers (including displaced homemakers), 
     low-income individuals (including recipients of public 
     assistance such as supplemental nutrition assistance program 
     benefits pursuant to the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 
     U.S.C. 2011 et seq.)), long-term unemployed individuals 
     (including individuals who have exhausted entitlement to 
     Federal and State unemployment compensation), English 
     learners, homeless individuals, individuals training for 
     nontraditional employment, youth (including out-of-school 
     youth and at-risk youth), older workers, ex-offenders, 
     migrant and seasonal farmworkers, refugees and entrants, 
     veterans (including disabled and homeless veterans), and 
     Native Americans; and''; and

       (V) by adding at the end the following new clause:

       ``(v) how the State will--

       ``(I) consistent with section 188 and Executive Order No. 
     13217 (42 U.S.C. 12131 note), serve the employment and 
     training needs of individuals with disabilities; and
       ``(II) consistent with sections 504 and 508 of the 
     Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794, 794d), include the 
     provision of outreach, intake, assessments, and service 
     delivery, the development of performance measures, the 
     training of staff, and other aspects of accessibility for 
     individuals with disabilities to programs and services under 
     this subtitle;''; and

       (ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``to the extent 
     practicable'' and inserting ``in accordance with the 
     requirements of the Jobs for Veterans Act (Public Law 107-
     288) and the amendments made by such Act''; and
       (L) by striking paragraph (17) (as so redesignated) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(17) a description of the strategies and services that 
     will be used in the State--
       ``(A) to more fully engage employers, including small 
     businesses and employers in in-demand industries and 
     occupations important to the State economy;
       ``(B) to meet the needs of employers in the State; and
       ``(C) to better coordinate workforce development programs 
     with economic development activities;
       ``(18) a description of how the State board will convene 
     (or help to convene) industry or sector partnerships that 
     lead to collaborative planning, resource alignment, and 
     training efforts across a targeted cluster of multiple firms 
     for a range of workers employed or potentially employed by 
     the industry or sector--
       ``(A) to encourage industry growth and competitiveness and 
     to improve worker training, retention, and advancement in the 
     industry or sector;
       ``(B) to address the immediate and long-term skilled 
     workforce needs of in-demand industries, small businesses, 
     and other occupations important to the State economy; and
       ``(C) to address critical skill gaps within and across 
     industries and sectors;
       ``(19) a description of how the State will utilize 
     technology, to facilitate access to services in remote areas, 
     which may be used throughout the State;
       ``(20) a description of the State strategy and assistance 
     to be provided by the State for encouraging regional 
     cooperation within the State and across State borders, as 
     appropriate;
       ``(21) a description of the actions that will be taken by 
     the State to foster communication, coordination, and 
     partnerships with nonprofit organizations (including public 
     libraries, community, faith-based, and philanthropic 
     organizations) that provide employment-related, training, and 
     complementary services, to enhance the quality and 
     comprehensiveness of services available to participants under 
     this title;
       ``(22) a description of the process and methodology for 
     determining--
       ``(A) one-stop partner program contributions for the costs 
     of infrastructure of one-stop centers under section 
     121(h)(1); and
       ``(B) the formula for allocating such infrastructure funds 
     to local areas under section 121(h)(3);
       ``(23) a description of the strategies and services that 
     will be used in the State to assist at-risk youth and out-of-
     school youth in acquiring the education and skills, 
     credentials (including recognized postsecondary credentials, 
     such as industry-recognized credentials), and employment 
     experience to succeed in the labor market, including--
       ``(A) training and internships in in-demand industries or 
     occupations important to the State and local economy;
       ``(B) dropout recovery activities that are designed to lead 
     to the attainment of a regular secondary school diploma or 
     its recognized equivalent, or other State-recognized 
     equivalent (including recognized alternative standards for 
     individuals with disabilities); and
       ``(C) activities combining remediation of academic skills, 
     work readiness training, and work experience, and including 
     linkages to postsecondary education and training and career-
     ladder employment; and
       ``(24) a description of--
       ``(A) how the State will furnish employment, training, 
     including training in advanced manufacturing, supportive, and 
     placement services to veterans, including disabled and 
     homeless veterans;
       ``(B) the strategies and services that will be used in the 
     State to assist in and expedite reintegration of homeless 
     veterans into the labor force; and
       ``(C) the veterans population to be served in the State.'';
       (3) in subsection (c), by striking ``period, that--'' and 
     all that follows through paragraph (2) and inserting 
     ``period, that the plan is inconsistent with the provisions 
     of this title.''; and
       (4) in subsection (d), by striking ``5-year'' and inserting 
     ``3-year''.

     SEC. 214. LOCAL WORKFORCE INVESTMENT AREAS.

       Section 116 (29 U.S.C. 2831) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by amending paragraph (1) to read as follows:
       ``(1) In general.--
       ``(A) Process.--In order to receive an allotment under 
     section 132, a State, through the State board, shall 
     establish a process to designate local workforce investment 
     areas within the State. Such process shall--
       ``(i) support the statewide workforce development system 
     developed under section 111(d)(2), enabling the system to 
     meet the workforce needs of the State and its local areas;
       ``(ii) include consultation, prior to the designation, with 
     chief elected officials;
       ``(iii) include consideration of comments received on the 
     designation through the public comment process as described 
     in section 112(b)(9); and
       ``(iv) require the submission of an application for 
     approval under subparagraph (B).
       ``(B) Application.--To obtain designation of a local area 
     under this paragraph, a local or regional board (or consortia 
     of local or regional boards) seeking to take responsibility 
     for the area under this Act shall submit an application to a 
     State board at such time, in such manner, and containing such 
     information as the State board may require, including--
       ``(i) a description of the local area, including the 
     population that will be served by the local area, and the 
     education and training needs of its employers and workers;
       ``(ii) a description of how the local area is consistent or 
     aligned with--

       ``(I) service delivery areas (as determined by the State);
       ``(II) labor market areas; and
       ``(III) economic development regions;

       ``(iii) a description of the eligible providers of 
     education and training, including postsecondary educational 
     institutions such as community colleges, located in the local 
     area

[[Page 403]]

     and available to meet the needs of the local workforce;
       ``(iv) a description of the distance that individuals will 
     need to travel to receive services provided in such local 
     area; and
       ``(v) any other criteria that the State board may require.
       ``(C) Priority.--In designating local areas under this 
     paragraph, a State board shall give priority consideration to 
     an area proposed by an applicant demonstrating that a 
     designation as a local area under this paragraph will result 
     in the reduction of overlapping service delivery areas, local 
     market areas, or economic development regions.
       ``(D) Alignment with local plan.--A State may designate an 
     area proposed by an applicant as a local area under this 
     paragraph for a period not to exceed 3 years.
       ``(E) References.--For purposes of this Act, a reference to 
     a local area--
       ``(i) used with respect to a geographic area, refers to an 
     area designated under this paragraph; and
       ``(ii) used with respect to an entity, refers to the 
     applicant.'';
       (B) by amending paragraph (2) to read as follows:
       ``(2) Technical assistance.--The Secretary shall, if 
     requested by the Governor of a State, provide the State with 
     technical assistance in making the determinations required 
     under paragraph (1). The Secretary shall not issue 
     regulations governing determinations to be made under 
     paragraph (1).'';
       (C) by striking paragraph (3);
       (D) by striking paragraph (4);
       (E) by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (3); and
       (F) in paragraph (3) (as so redesignated), by striking 
     ``(2) or (3)'' both places it appears and inserting ``(1)'';
       (2) by amending subsection (b) to read as follows:
       ``(b) Single States.--Consistent with subsection (a), the 
     State board of a State may designate the State as a single 
     State local area for the purposes of this title.''; and
       (3) in subsection (c)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by adding at the end the following: 
     ``The State may require the local boards for the designated 
     region to prepare a single regional plan that incorporates 
     the elements of the local plan under section 118 and that is 
     submitted and approved in lieu of separate local plans under 
     such section.''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``employment statistics'' 
     and inserting ``workforce and labor market information''.

     SEC. 215. LOCAL WORKFORCE INVESTMENT BOARDS.

       Section 117 (29 U.S.C. 2832) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) in subparagraph (A)--

       (I) by striking ``include--'' and all that follows through 
     ``representatives'' and inserting ``include 
     representatives'';
       (II) by striking clauses (ii) through (vi);
       (III) by redesignating subclauses (I) through (III) as 
     clauses (i) through (iii), respectively (and by moving the 
     margins of such clauses 2 ems to the left);
       (IV) by striking clause (ii) (as so redesignated) and 
     inserting the following:

       ``(ii) represent businesses, including large and small 
     businesses, each of which has immediate and long-term 
     employment opportunities in an in-demand industry or other 
     occupation important to the local economy; and''; and

       (V) by striking the semicolon at the end of clause (iii) 
     (as so redesignated) and inserting ``; and''; and

       (ii) by amending subparagraph (B) to read as follows:
       ``(B) may include such other individuals or representatives 
     of entities as the chief elected official in the local area 
     may determine to be appropriate, including--
       ``(i) the superintendent or other employee of the local 
     educational agency who has primary responsibility for 
     secondary education, the presidents or chief executive 
     officers of postsecondary educational institutions (including 
     a community college, where such an entity exists), or 
     administrators of local entities providing adult education 
     and family literacy education activities;
       ``(ii) representatives of community-based organizations 
     (including organizations representing individuals with 
     disabilities and veterans, for a local area in which such 
     organizations are present); or
       ``(iii) representatives of veterans service 
     organizations.'';
       (B) in paragraph (4)--
       (i) by striking ``A majority'' and inserting ``A \2/3\ 
     majority''; and
       (ii) by striking ``(2)(A)(i)'' and inserting ``(2)(A)''; 
     and
       (C) in paragraph (5), by striking ``(2)(A)(i)'' and 
     inserting ``(2)(A)'';
       (2) in subsection (c)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking subparagraph (C); and
       (B) in paragraph (3)(A)(ii), by striking ``paragraphs (1) 
     through (7)'' and inserting ``paragraphs (1) through (8)'';
       (3) by amending subsection (d) to read as follows:
       ``(d) Functions of Local Board.--The functions of the local 
     board shall include the following:
       ``(1) Local plan.--Consistent with section 118, each local 
     board, in partnership with the chief elected official for the 
     local area involved, shall develop and submit a local plan to 
     the Governor.
       ``(2) Workforce research and regional labor market 
     analysis.--
       ``(A) In general.--The local board shall--
       ``(i) conduct, and regularly update, an analysis of--

       ``(I) the economic conditions in the local area;
       ``(II) the immediate and long-term skilled workforce needs 
     of in-demand industries and other occupations important to 
     the local economy;
       ``(III) the knowledge and skills of the workforce in the 
     local area; and
       ``(IV) workforce development activities (including 
     education and training) in the local area; and

       ``(ii) assist the Governor in developing the statewide 
     workforce and labor market information system described in 
     section 15(e) of the Wagner-Peyser Act (29 U.S.C. 49l-2(e)).
       ``(B) Existing analysis.--In carrying out requirements of 
     subparagraph (A)(i), a local board shall use an existing 
     analysis, if any, by the local economic development entity or 
     related entity.
       ``(3) Employer engagement.--The local board shall meet the 
     needs of employers and support economic growth in the local 
     area by enhancing communication, coordination, and 
     collaboration among employers, economic development entities, 
     and service providers.
       ``(4) Budget and administration.--
       ``(A) Budget.--
       ``(i) In general.--The local board shall develop a budget 
     for the activities of the local board in the local area, 
     consistent with the requirements of this subsection.
       ``(ii) Training reservation.--In developing a budget under 
     clause (i), the local board shall reserve a percentage of 
     funds to carry out the activities specified in section 
     134(c)(4). The local board shall use the analysis conducted 
     under paragraph (2)(A)(i) to determine the appropriate 
     percentage of funds to reserve under this clause.
       ``(B) Administration.--
       ``(i) Grant recipient.--The chief elected official in a 
     local area shall serve as the local grant recipient for, and 
     shall be liable for any misuse of, the grant funds allocated 
     to the local area under section 133, unless the chief elected 
     official reaches an agreement with the Governor for the 
     Governor to act as the local grant recipient and bear such 
     liability.
       ``(ii) Designation.--In order to assist in administration 
     of the grant funds, the chief elected official or the 
     Governor, where the Governor serves as the local grant 
     recipient for a local area, may designate an entity to serve 
     as a local grant subrecipient for such funds or as a local 
     fiscal agent. Such designation shall not relieve the chief 
     elected official or the Governor of the liability for any 
     misuse of grant funds as described in clause (i).
       ``(iii) Disbursal.--The local grant recipient or an entity 
     designated under clause (ii) shall disburse the grant funds 
     for workforce investment activities at the direction of the 
     local board, pursuant to the requirements of this title. The 
     local grant recipient or entity designated under clause (ii) 
     shall disburse the funds immediately on receiving such 
     direction from the local board.
       ``(C) Staff.--The local board may employ staff to assist in 
     carrying out the functions described in this subsection.
       ``(D) Grants and donations.--The local board may solicit 
     and accept grants and donations from sources other than 
     Federal funds made available under this Act.
       ``(5) Selection of operators and providers.--
       ``(A) Selection of one-stop operators.--Consistent with 
     section 121(d), the local board, with the agreement of the 
     chief elected official--
       ``(i) shall designate or certify one-stop operators as 
     described in section 121(d)(2)(A); and
       ``(ii) may terminate for cause the eligibility of such 
     operators.
       ``(B) Identification of eligible training service 
     providers.--Consistent with this subtitle, the local board 
     shall identify eligible providers of training services 
     described in section 134(c)(4) in the local area, annually 
     review the outcomes of such eligible providers using the 
     criteria under section 122(b)(2), and designate such eligible 
     providers in the local area who have demonstrated the highest 
     level of success with respect to such criteria as priority 
     eligible providers for the program year following the review.
       ``(C) Identification of eligible providers of work ready 
     services.--If the one-stop operator does not provide the 
     services described in section 134(c)(2) in the local area, 
     the local board shall identify eligible providers of such 
     services in the local area by awarding contracts.
       ``(6) Program oversight.--The local board, in partnership 
     with the chief elected official, shall be responsible for--
       ``(A) ensuring the appropriate use and management of the 
     funds provided for local employment and training activities 
     authorized under section 134(b); and
       ``(B) conducting oversight of the one-stop delivery system, 
     in the local area, authorized under section 121.

[[Page 404]]

       ``(7) Negotiation of local performance measures.--The local 
     board, the chief elected official, and the Governor shall 
     negotiate and reach agreement on local performance measures 
     as described in section 136(c).
       ``(8) Technology improvements.--The local board shall 
     develop strategies for technology improvements to facilitate 
     access to services authorized under this subtitle and carried 
     out in the local area, including access in remote areas.'';
       (4) in subsection (e)--
       (A) by inserting ``electronic means and'' after ``regular 
     basis through''; and
       (B) by striking ``and the award of grants or contracts to 
     eligible providers of youth activities,'';
       (5) in subsection (f)--
       (A) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking ``section 134(d)(4)'' 
     and inserting ``section 134(c)(4)''; and
       (B) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
       ``(2) Work ready services; designation or certification as 
     one-stop operators.--A local board may provide work ready 
     services described in section 134(c)(2) through a one-stop 
     delivery system described in section 121 or be designated or 
     certified as a one-stop operator only with the agreement of 
     the chief elected official and the Governor.'';
       (6) in subsection (g)(1), by inserting ``or participate in 
     any action taken'' after ``vote''; and
       (7) by striking subsections (h) and (i).

     SEC. 216. LOCAL PLAN.

       Section 118 (29 U.S.C. 2833) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``5-year'' and inserting 
     ``3-year'';
       (2) by amending subsection (b) to read as follows:
       ``(b) Contents.--The local plan shall include--
       ``(1) a description of the analysis of the local area's 
     economic and workforce conditions conducted under subclauses 
     (I) through (IV) of section 117(d)(2)(A)(i), and an assurance 
     that the local board will use such analysis to carry out the 
     activities under this subtitle;
       ``(2) a description of the one-stop delivery system in the 
     local area, including--
       ``(A) a description of how the local board will ensure--
       ``(i) the continuous improvement of eligible providers of 
     services through the system; and
       ``(ii) that such providers meet the employment needs of 
     local businesses and participants; and
       ``(B) a description of how the local board will facilitate 
     access to services described in section 117(d)(8) and 
     provided through the one-stop delivery system consistent with 
     section 117(d)(8);
       ``(3) a description of the strategies and services that 
     will be used in the local area--
       ``(A) to more fully engage employers, including small 
     businesses and employers in in-demand industries and 
     occupations important to the local economy;
       ``(B) to meet the needs of employers in the local area;
       ``(C) to better coordinate workforce development programs 
     with economic development activities; and
       ``(D) to better coordinate workforce development programs 
     with employment, training, and literacy services carried out 
     by nonprofit organizations, including public libraries, as 
     appropriate;
       ``(4) a description of how the local board will convene (or 
     help to convene) industry or sector partnerships that lead to 
     collaborative planning, resource alignment, and training 
     efforts across multiple firms for a range of workers employed 
     or potentially employed by a targeted industry or sector--
       ``(A) to encourage industry growth and competitiveness and 
     to improve worker training, retention, and advancement in the 
     targeted industry or sector;
       ``(B) to address the immediate and long-term skilled 
     workforce needs of in-demand industries, small businesses, 
     and other occupations important to the local economy; and
       ``(C) to address critical skill gaps within and across 
     industries and sectors;
       ``(5) a description of how the funds reserved under section 
     117(d)(4)(A)(ii) will be used to carry out activities 
     described in section 134(c)(4);
       ``(6) a description of how the local board will coordinate 
     workforce investment activities carried out in the local area 
     with statewide workforce investment activities, as 
     appropriate;
       ``(7) a description of how the local area will--
       ``(A) coordinate activities with the local area's 
     disability community, and with transition services (as 
     defined under section 602 of the Individuals with 
     Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1401)) provided under 
     that Act by local educational agencies serving such local 
     area, to make available comprehensive, high-quality services 
     to individuals with disabilities;
       ``(B) consistent with section 188 and Executive Order No. 
     13217 (42 U.S.C. 12131 note), serve the employment and 
     training needs of individuals with disabilities, with a focus 
     on employment that fosters independence and integration into 
     the workplace; and
       ``(C) consistent with sections 504 and 508 of the 
     Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794, 794d), include the 
     provision of outreach, intake, assessments, and service 
     delivery, the development of performance measures, the 
     training of staff, and other aspects of accessibility for 
     individuals with disabilities to programs and services under 
     this subtitle;
       ``(8) a description of the local levels of performance 
     negotiated with the Governor and chief elected official 
     pursuant to section 136(c), to be--
       ``(A) used to measure the performance of the local area; 
     and
       ``(B) used by the local board for measuring performance of 
     the local fiscal agent (where appropriate), eligible 
     providers, and the one-stop delivery system, in the local 
     area;
       ``(9) a description of the process used by the local board, 
     consistent with subsection (c), to provide an opportunity for 
     public comment prior to submission of the plan;
       ``(10) a description of how the local area will serve the 
     employment and training needs of dislocated workers 
     (including displaced homemakers), low-income individuals 
     (including recipients of public assistance such as 
     supplemental nutrition assistance program benefits pursuant 
     to the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et 
     seq.)), long-term unemployed individuals (including 
     individuals who have exhausted entitlement to Federal and 
     State unemployment compensation), English learners, homeless 
     individuals, individuals training for nontraditional 
     employment, youth (including out-of-school youth and at-risk 
     youth), older workers, ex-offenders, migrant and seasonal 
     farmworkers, refugees and entrants, veterans (including 
     disabled veterans and homeless veterans), and Native 
     Americans;
       ``(11) an identification of the entity responsible for the 
     disbursal of grant funds described in section 
     117(d)(4)(B)(iii), as determined by the chief elected 
     official or the Governor under such section;
       ``(12) a description of the strategies and services that 
     will be used in the local area to assist at-risk youth and 
     out-of-school youth in acquiring the education and skills, 
     credentials (including recognized postsecondary credentials, 
     such as industry-recognized credentials), and employment 
     experience to succeed in the labor market, including--
       ``(A) training and internships in in-demand industries or 
     occupations important to the local economy;
       ``(B) dropout recovery activities that are designed to lead 
     to the attainment of a regular secondary school diploma or 
     its recognized equivalent, or other State-recognized 
     equivalent (including recognized alternative standards for 
     individuals with disabilities); and
       ``(C) activities combining remediation of academic skills, 
     work readiness training, and work experience, and including 
     linkages to postsecondary education and training and career-
     ladder employment;
       ``(13) a description of--
       ``(A) how the local area will furnish employment, training, 
     including training in advanced manufacturing, supportive, and 
     placement services to veterans, including disabled and 
     homeless veterans;
       ``(B) the strategies and services that will be used in the 
     local area to assist in and expedite reintegration of 
     homeless veterans into the labor force; and
       ``(C) the veteran population to be served in the local 
     area;
       ``(14) a description of--
       ``(A) the duties assigned to the veteran employment 
     specialist consistent with the requirements of section 
     134(f);
       ``(B) the manner in which the veteran employment specialist 
     is integrated into the one-stop career system described in 
     section 121;
       ``(C) the date on which the veteran employment specialist 
     was assigned; and
       ``(D) whether the veteran employment specialist has 
     satisfactorily completed related training by the National 
     Veterans' Employment and Training Services Institute; and
       ``(15) such other information as the Governor may 
     require.''; and
       (3) in subsection (c)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``such means'' and 
     inserting ``electronic means and such means''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``, including 
     representatives of business and representatives of labor 
     organizations,''.

     SEC. 217. ESTABLISHMENT OF ONE-STOP DELIVERY SYSTEM.

       Section 121 (29 U.S.C. 2841) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by striking subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(A) Roles and responsibilities of one-stop partners.--
     Each entity that carries out a program or activities 
     described in subparagraph (B) shall--
       ``(i) provide access through a one-stop delivery system to 
     the program or activities carried out by the entity, 
     including making the work ready services described in section 
     134(c)(2) that are applicable to the program or activities of 
     the entity available at one-stop centers (in addition to any 
     other appropriate locations);
       ``(ii) use a portion of the funds available to the program 
     or activities of the entity to maintain the one-stop delivery 
     system, including payment of the costs of infrastructure of 
     one-stop centers in accordance with subsection (h);

[[Page 405]]

       ``(iii) enter into a local memorandum of understanding with 
     the local board, relating to the operation of the one-stop 
     delivery system, that meets the requirements of subsection 
     (c); and
       ``(iv) participate in the operation of the one-stop 
     delivery system consistent with the terms of the memorandum 
     of understanding, the requirements of this title, and the 
     requirements of the Federal laws authorizing the program or 
     activities carried out by the entity.'';
       (B) in paragraph (1)(B)--
       (i) by striking clauses (ii), (v), and (vi);
       (ii) by redesignating clauses (iii) and (iv) as clauses 
     (ii) and (iii), respectively;
       (iii) by redesignating clauses (vii) through (xii) as 
     clauses (iv) through (ix), respectively;
       (iv) in clause (ii), as so redesignated, by striking 
     ``adult education and literacy activities'' and inserting 
     ``adult education and family literacy education activities''
       (v) in clause (viii), as so redesignated, by striking 
     ``and'' at the end;
       (vi) in clause (ix), as so redesignated, by striking the 
     period and inserting ``; and''; and
       (vii) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(x) subject to subparagraph (C), programs authorized 
     under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 601 et seq.).'';
       (C) by inserting after paragraph (1)(B) the following:
       ``(C) Determination by the governor.--Each entity carrying 
     out a program described in subparagraph (B)(x) shall be 
     considered to be a one-stop partner under this title and 
     carry out the required partner activities described in 
     subparagraph (A) unless the Governor of the State in which 
     the local area is located provides the Secretary and 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services written notice of a 
     determination by the Governor that such an entity shall not 
     be considered to be such a partner and shall not carry out 
     such required partner activities.''; and
       (D) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) in subparagraph (A)(i), by striking ``section 
     134(d)(2)'' and inserting ``section 134(c)(2)''; and
       (ii) in subparagraph (B)--

       (I) by striking clauses (i), (ii), and (v);
       (II) in clause (iv), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (III) by redesignating clauses (iii) and (iv) as clauses 
     (i) and (ii), respectively; and
       (IV) by adding at the end the following:

       ``(iii) employment and training programs administered by 
     the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration;
       ``(iv) employment and training programs carried out by the 
     Administrator of the Small Business Administration;
       ``(v) employment, training, and literacy services carried 
     out by public libraries; and
       ``(vi) other appropriate Federal, State, or local programs, 
     including programs in the private sector.'';
       (2) in subsection (c)(2), by amending subparagraph (A) to 
     read as follows:
       ``(A) provisions describing--
       ``(i) the services to be provided through the one-stop 
     delivery system consistent with the requirements of this 
     section, including the manner in which the services will be 
     coordinated through such system;
       ``(ii) how the costs of such services and the operating 
     costs of such system will be funded, through cash and in-kind 
     contributions, to provide a stable and equitable funding 
     stream for ongoing one-stop system operations, including the 
     funding of the costs of infrastructure of one-stop centers in 
     accordance with subsection (h);
       ``(iii) methods of referral of individuals between the one-
     stop operator and the one-stop partners for appropriate 
     services and activities, including referrals for training for 
     nontraditional employment; and
       ``(iv) the duration of the memorandum of understanding and 
     the procedures for amending the memorandum during the term of 
     the memorandum, and assurances that such memorandum shall be 
     reviewed not less than once every 3-year period to ensure 
     appropriate funding and delivery of services under the 
     memorandum; and'';
       (3) in subsection (d)--
       (A) in the heading for paragraph (1), by striking 
     ``Designation and certification'' and inserting ``Local 
     designation and certification'';
       (B) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) by striking ``section 134(c)'' and inserting 
     ``subsection (e)'';
       (ii) by amending subparagraph (A) to read as follows:
       ``(A) shall be designated or certified as a one-stop 
     operator through a competitive process; and''; and
       (iii) in subparagraph (B), by striking clause (ii) and 
     redesignating clauses (iii) through (vi) as clauses (ii) 
     through (v), respectively; and
       (C) in paragraph (3), by striking ``vocational'' and 
     inserting ``career and technical'';
       (4) by amending subsection (e) to read as follows:
       ``(e) Establishment of One-Stop Delivery System.--
       ``(1) In general.--There shall be established in a State 
     that receives an allotment under section 132(b) a one-stop 
     delivery system, which shall--
       ``(A) provide the work ready services described in section 
     134(c)(2);
       ``(B) provide access to training services as described in 
     paragraph (4) of section 134(c), including serving as the 
     point of access to career enhancement accounts for training 
     services to participants in accordance with paragraph (4)(F) 
     of such section;
       ``(C) provide access to the activities carried out under 
     section 134(d), if any;
       ``(D) provide access to programs and activities carried out 
     by one-stop partners that are described in subsection (b); 
     and
       ``(E) provide access to the data and information described 
     in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 15(a)(1) of the 
     Wagner-Peyser Act (29 U.S.C. 49l-2(a)(1)).
       ``(2) One-stop delivery.--At a minimum, the one-stop 
     delivery system--
       ``(A) shall make each of the programs, services, and 
     activities described in paragraph (1) accessible at not less 
     than one physical center in each local area of the State; and
       ``(B) may also make programs, services, and activities 
     described in paragraph (1) available--
       ``(i) through a network of affiliated sites that can 
     provide one or more of the programs, services, and activities 
     to individuals; and
       ``(ii) through a network of eligible one-stop partners--

       ``(I) in which each partner provides one or more of the 
     programs, services, and activities to such individuals and is 
     accessible at an affiliated site that consists of a physical 
     location or an electronically- or technologically-linked 
     access point; and
       ``(II) that assures individuals that information on the 
     availability of the work ready services will be available 
     regardless of where the individuals initially enter the 
     statewide workforce investment system, including information 
     made available through an access point described in subclause 
     (I).

       ``(3) Specialized centers.--The centers and sites described 
     in paragraph (2) may have a specialization in addressing 
     special needs.''; and
       (5) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(g) Certification of One-Stop Centers.--
       ``(1) In general.--
       ``(A) In general.--The State board shall establish 
     objective procedures and criteria for certifying, at least 
     once every 3 years, one-stop centers for the purpose of 
     awarding the one-stop infrastructure funding described in 
     subsection (h).
       ``(B) Criteria.--The criteria for certification of a one-
     stop center under this subsection shall include--
       ``(i) meeting the expected levels of performance for each 
     of the corresponding core indicators of performance as 
     outlined in the State plan under section 112;
       ``(ii) meeting minimum standards relating to the scope and 
     degree of service integration achieved by the center, 
     involving the programs provided by the one-stop partners; and
       ``(iii) meeting minimum standards relating to how the 
     center ensures that eligible providers meet the employment 
     needs of local employers and participants.
       ``(C) Effect of certification.--One-stop centers certified 
     under this subsection shall be eligible to receive the 
     infrastructure funding authorized under subsection (h).
       ``(2) Local boards.--Consistent with the criteria developed 
     by the State, the local board may develop, for certification 
     referred to in paragraph (1)(A), additional criteria or 
     higher standards on the criteria referred to in paragraph 
     (1)(B) to respond to local labor market and demographic 
     conditions and trends.
       ``(h) One-Stop Infrastructure Funding.--
       ``(1) Partner contributions.--
       ``(A) Provision of funds.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, as determined under subparagraph (B), a 
     portion of the Federal funds provided to the State and areas 
     within the State under the Federal laws authorizing the one-
     stop partner programs described in subsection (b)(1)(B) and 
     participating additional partner programs described in 
     subsection (b)(2)(B), for a fiscal year shall be provided to 
     the Governor by such partners to carry out this subsection.
       ``(B) Determination of governor.--
       ``(i) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (C), the 
     Governor, in consultation with the State board, shall 
     determine the portion of funds to be provided under 
     subparagraph (A) by each one-stop partner and in making such 
     determination shall consider the proportionate use of the 
     one-stop centers in the State by each such partner, the costs 
     of administration for purposes not related to one-stop 
     centers for each such partner, and other relevant factors 
     described in paragraph (3).
       ``(ii) Special rule.--In those States where the State 
     constitution places policy-making authority that is 
     independent of the authority of the Governor in an entity or 
     official with respect to the funds provided for adult 
     education and family literacy education activities authorized 
     under title II and for postsecondary career and technical 
     education activities authorized under the Carl D. Perkins 
     Career and Technical Education Act of 2006 (20 U.S.C. 2301 et 
     seq.), the determination described in clause (i) with respect 
     to the corresponding 2 programs shall be

[[Page 406]]

     made by the Governor with the appropriate entity or official 
     with such independent policy-making authority.
       ``(iii) Appeal by one-stop partners.--The Governor shall 
     establish a procedure for the one-stop partner administering 
     a program described in subsection (b) and subparagraph (A) to 
     appeal a determination regarding the portion of funds to be 
     provided under this paragraph on the basis that such 
     determination is inconsistent with the requirements described 
     in the State plan for the program or with the requirements of 
     this paragraph. Such procedure shall ensure prompt resolution 
     of the appeal.
       ``(C) Limitations.--
       ``(i) Provision from administrative funds.--The funds 
     provided under this paragraph by a one-stop partner shall be 
     provided only from funds available for the costs of 
     administration under the program administered by such 
     partner, and shall be subject to the limitations with respect 
     to the portion of funds under such program that may be used 
     for administration.
       ``(ii) Federal direct spending programs.--

       ``(I) In general.--A program that provides Federal direct 
     spending under section 250(c)(8) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 900(c)(8)) 
     shall not, for purposes of this paragraph, be required to 
     provide more than the maximum amount determined under 
     subclause (II).
       ``(II) Maximum amount.--The maximum amount for the program 
     is the amount that bears the same relationship to the costs 
     referred to in paragraph (2) for the State as the use of the 
     one-stop centers by such program bears to the use of such 
     centers by all one-stop partner programs in the State.

       ``(2) Allocation by governor.--From the funds provided 
     under paragraph (1), the Governor shall allocate funds to 
     local areas in accordance with the formula established under 
     paragraph (3) for the purposes of assisting in paying the 
     costs of infrastructure of one-stop centers certified under 
     subsection (g).
       ``(3) Allocation formula.--The State board shall develop a 
     formula to be used by the Governor to allocate the funds 
     provided under paragraph (1) to local areas. The formula 
     shall include such factors as the State board determines are 
     appropriate, which may include factors such as the number of 
     centers in a local area that have been certified, the 
     population served by such centers, and the performance of 
     such centers.
       ``(4) Costs of infrastructure.--For purposes of this 
     subsection, the term `costs of infrastructure' means the 
     nonpersonnel costs that are necessary for the general 
     operation of a one-stop center, including the rental costs of 
     the facilities involved, and the costs of utilities and 
     maintenance, and equipment (including assistive technology 
     for individuals with disabilities).
       ``(i) Other Funds.--
       ``(1) In general.--In addition to the funds provided under 
     subsection (h), a portion of funds made available under 
     Federal law authorizing the one-stop partner programs 
     described in subsection (b)(1)(B) and participating 
     additional partner programs described in subsection 
     (b)(2)(B), or the noncash resources available under such 2 
     types of programs, shall be used to pay the costs relating to 
     the operation of the one-stop delivery system that are not 
     paid for from the funds provided under subsection (h), to the 
     extent not inconsistent with the Federal law involved. Such 
     portion shall be used to pay for costs including--
       ``(A) costs of infrastructure (as defined in subsection 
     (h)) that are in excess of the funds provided under 
     subsection (h);
       ``(B) common costs that are in addition to the costs of 
     infrastructure (as so defined); and
       ``(C) the costs of the provision of work ready services 
     applicable to each program.
       ``(2) Determination and standards.--The method for 
     determining the appropriate portion of funds and noncash 
     resources to be provided by each program under paragraph (1) 
     shall be determined as part of the memorandum of 
     understanding under subsection (c). The State board shall 
     provide standards to facilitate the determination of 
     appropriate allocation of the funds and noncash resources to 
     local areas.''.

     SEC. 218. IDENTIFICATION OF ELIGIBLE PROVIDERS OF TRAINING 
                   SERVICES.

       Section 122 (29 U.S.C. 2842) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 122. IDENTIFICATION OF ELIGIBLE PROVIDERS OF TRAINING 
                   SERVICES.

       ``(a) Eligibility.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Governor, after consultation with 
     the State board, shall establish criteria and procedures 
     regarding the eligibility of providers of training services 
     described in section 134(c)(4) to receive funds provided 
     under section 133(b) for the provision of such training 
     services and be included on the list of eligible providers of 
     training services described in subsection (d).
       ``(2) Providers.--Subject to the provisions of this 
     section, to be eligible to receive the funds and be included 
     on the list, the provider shall be--
       ``(A) a postsecondary educational institution that--
       ``(i) is eligible to receive Federal funds under title IV 
     of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq.); 
     and
       ``(ii) provides a program that leads to a recognized 
     postsecondary credential;
       ``(B) an entity that carries out programs under the Act of 
     August 16, 1937 (commonly known as the `National 
     Apprenticeship Act'; 50 Stat. 664, chapter 663; 29 U.S.C. 50 
     et seq.); or
       ``(C) another public or private provider of a program of 
     training services.
       ``(3) Inclusion in list of eligible providers.--A provider 
     described in subparagraph (A) or (C) of paragraph (2) shall 
     comply with the criteria and procedures established under 
     this subsection to be eligible to receive the funds and be 
     included on the list. A provider described in paragraph 
     (2)(B) shall be eligible to receive the funds and be included 
     on the list with respect to programs described in paragraph 
     (2)(B) for so long as the provider remains certified by the 
     Secretary of Labor to carry out the programs.
       ``(b) Criteria.--
       ``(1) In general.--The criteria established by the Governor 
     pursuant to subsection (a) shall take into account--
       ``(A) the performance of providers of training services 
     with respect to the performance measures described in section 
     136, measures for other matters for which information is 
     required under paragraph (2), and other appropriate measures 
     of performance outcomes for those participants receiving 
     training services under this subtitle;
       ``(B) whether the training programs of such providers 
     relate to in-demand industries or occupations important to 
     the local economy;
       ``(C) the need to ensure access to training services 
     throughout the State, including in rural areas;
       ``(D) the ability of the providers to offer programs that 
     lead to a recognized postsecondary credential, and the 
     quality of such programs;
       ``(E) the performance of the providers as reflected in the 
     information such providers are required to report to State 
     agencies with respect to other Federal and State programs 
     (other than the program carried out under this subtitle), 
     including one-stop partner programs; and
       ``(F) such other factors as the Governor determines are 
     appropriate.
       ``(2) Information.--The criteria established by the 
     Governor shall require that a provider of training services 
     submit appropriate, accurate, and timely information to the 
     State for purposes of carrying out subsection (d), with 
     respect to participants receiving training services under 
     this subtitle in the applicable program, including--
       ``(A) information on recognized postsecondary credentials 
     received by such participants;
       ``(B) information on costs of attendance for such 
     participants;
       ``(C) information on the program completion rate for such 
     participants; and
       ``(D) information on the performance of the provider with 
     respect to the performance measures described in section 136 
     for such participants.
       ``(3) Renewal.--The criteria established by the Governor 
     shall also provide for a review on the criteria every 3 years 
     and renewal of eligibility under this section for providers 
     of training services.
       ``(4) Local criteria.--A local board in the State may 
     establish criteria in addition to the criteria established by 
     the Governor, or may require higher levels of performance 
     than required on the criteria established by the Governor, 
     for purposes of determining the eligibility of providers of 
     training services under this section in the local area 
     involved.
       ``(5) Limitation.--In carrying out the requirements of this 
     subsection, no entity may disclose personally identifiable 
     information regarding a student, including a Social Security 
     number, student identification number, or other identifier, 
     without the prior written consent of the parent or student in 
     compliance with section 444 of the General Education 
     Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1232g).
       ``(c) Procedures.--The procedures established under 
     subsection (a) shall--
       ``(1) identify--
       ``(A) the application process for a provider of training 
     services to become eligible under this section; and
       ``(B) the respective roles of the State and local areas in 
     receiving and reviewing applications and in making 
     determinations of eligibility based on the criteria 
     established under this section; and
       ``(2) establish a process, for a provider of training 
     services to appeal a denial or termination of eligibility 
     under this section, that includes an opportunity for a 
     hearing and prescribes appropriate time limits to ensure 
     prompt resolution of the appeal.
       ``(d) Information To Assist Participants in Choosing 
     Providers.--In order to facilitate and assist participants 
     under chapter 5 in choosing providers of training services, 
     the Governor shall ensure that an appropriate list of 
     providers determined eligible under this section in the 
     State, including information provided under subsection (b)(2) 
     with respect to such providers, is provided to the local 
     boards in the State and is made available to such 
     participants and to members of the public through the one-
     stop delivery system in the State.
       ``(e) Enforcement.--

[[Page 407]]

       ``(1) In general.--The procedures established under this 
     section shall provide the following:
       ``(A) Intentionally supplying inaccurate information.--Upon 
     a determination, by an individual or entity specified in the 
     procedures, that a provider of training services, or 
     individual providing information on behalf of the provider, 
     intentionally supplied inaccurate information under this 
     section, the eligibility of such provider under this section 
     shall be terminated for a period of time that is not less 
     than 2 years.
       ``(B) Substantial violations.--Upon a determination, by an 
     individual or entity specified in the procedures, that a 
     provider of training services substantially violated any 
     requirement under this title, the eligibility of such 
     provider under this section shall be terminated for a period 
     of time that is not less than 10 years.
       ``(C) Repayment.--A provider of training services whose 
     eligibility is terminated under subparagraph (A) or (B) shall 
     be liable for the repayment of funds received under chapter 5 
     during a period of noncompliance described in such 
     subparagraph. For purposes of subparagraph (A), that period 
     shall be considered to be the period beginning on the date on 
     which the inaccurate information described in subparagraph 
     (A) was supplied, and ending on the date of the termination 
     described in subparagraph (A).
       ``(2) Construction.--Paragraph (1) shall be construed to 
     provide remedies and penalties that supplement, but do not 
     supplant, other civil and criminal remedies and penalties.
       ``(f) Agreements With Other States.--A State may enter into 
     an agreement with another State, on a reciprocal basis, to 
     permit eligible providers of training services to accept 
     career enhancement accounts provided in the other State.
       ``(g) Recommendations.--In developing the criteria 
     (including requirements for related information) and 
     procedures required under this section, the Governor shall 
     solicit and take into consideration the recommendations of 
     local boards and providers of training services within the 
     State.
       ``(h) Opportunity To Submit Comments.--During the 
     development of the criteria and procedures, and the list of 
     eligible providers required under this section, the Governor 
     shall provide an opportunity for interested members of the 
     public to submit comments regarding such criteria, 
     procedures, and list.
       ``(i) On-the-Job Training or Customized Training 
     Exception.--
       ``(1) In general.--Providers of on-the-job training or 
     customized training shall not be subject to the requirements 
     of subsections (a) through (d).
       ``(2) Collection and dissemination of information.--A one-
     stop operator in a local area shall collect such performance 
     information from on-the-job training and customized training 
     providers as the Governor may require, determine whether the 
     providers meet such performance criteria as the Governor may 
     require, and disseminate information identifying providers 
     that meet the criteria as eligible providers, and the 
     performance information, through the one-stop delivery 
     system. Providers determined to meet the criteria shall be 
     considered to be identified as eligible under this section, 
     to be providers of the training services involved.''.

     SEC. 219. GENERAL AUTHORIZATION.

       Chapter 5 of subtitle B of title I is amended--
       (1) by striking the heading for chapter 5 and inserting the 
     following: ``EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING ACTIVITIES''; and
       (2) in section 131 (29 U.S.C. 2861)--
       (A) by striking ``paragraphs (1)(B) and (2)(B) of''; and
       (B) by striking ``adults, and dislocated workers,'' and 
     inserting ``individuals''.

     SEC. 220. STATE ALLOTMENTS.

       Section 132 (29 U.S.C. 2862) is amended--
       (1) by amending subsection (a) to read as follows:
       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall--
       ``(1) reserve \1/2\ of 1 percent of the total amount 
     appropriated under section 137 for a fiscal year, of which--
       ``(A) 50 percent shall be used to provide technical 
     assistance under section 170; and
       ``(B) 50 percent shall be used for evaluations under 
     section 172;
       ``(2) reserve 1 percent of the total amount appropriated 
     under section 137 for a fiscal year to make grants to, and 
     enter into contracts or cooperative agreements with Indian 
     tribes, tribal organizations, Alaska Native entities, Indian-
     controlled organizations serving Indians, or Native Hawaiian 
     organizations to carry out employment and training 
     activities;
       ``(3) reserve not more than 25 percent of the total amount 
     appropriated under section 137 for a fiscal year to carry out 
     the Jobs Corps program under subtitle C;
       ``(4) reserve not more than 3.5 percent of the total amount 
     appropriated under section 137 for a fiscal year to--
       ``(A) make grants to State boards or local boards to 
     provide employment and training assistance to workers 
     affected by major economic dislocations, such as plant 
     closures, mass layoffs, or closures and realignments of 
     military installations; and
       ``(B) provide assistance to Governors of States with an 
     area that has suffered an emergency or a major disaster (as 
     such terms are defined in paragraphs (1) and (2), 
     respectively, of section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford 
     Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 
     5122)) to provide disaster relief employment in the area; and
       ``(5) from the remaining amount appropriated under section 
     137 for a fiscal year (after reserving funds under paragraphs 
     (1) through (4)), make allotments in accordance with 
     subsection (b) of this section.''; and
       (2) by amending subsection (b) to read as follows:
       ``(b) Workforce Investment Fund.--
       ``(1) Reservation for outlying areas.--
       ``(A) In general.--From the amount made available under 
     subsection (a)(5) for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall 
     reserve not more than \1/4\ of 1 percent to provide 
     assistance to the outlying areas.
       ``(B) Restriction.--The Republic of Palau shall cease to be 
     eligible to receive funding under this paragraph upon 
     entering into an agreement for extension of United States 
     educational assistance under the Compact of Free Association 
     (approved by the Compact of Free Association Amendments Act 
     of 2003 (Public Law 108-188) after the date of enactment of 
     the SKILLS Act.
       ``(2) States.--
       ``(A) In general.--After determining the amount to be 
     reserved under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall allot the 
     remainder of the amount referred to in subsection (a)(5) for 
     a fiscal year to the States pursuant to subparagraph (B) for 
     employment and training activities and statewide workforce 
     investment activities.
       ``(B) Formula.--Subject to subparagraphs (C) and (D), of 
     the remainder--
       ``(i) 25 percent shall be allotted 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;
       ``(ii) 25 percent shall be allotted on the basis of the 
     relative number of individuals in the civilian labor force in 
     each State, compared to the total number of such individuals 
     in all States;
       ``(iii) 25 percent shall be allotted on the basis of the 
     relative number of individuals in each State who have been 
     unemployed for 15 weeks or more, compared to the total number 
     of individuals in all States who have been unemployed for 15 
     weeks or more; and
       ``(iv) 25 percent shall be allotted on the basis of the 
     relative number of disadvantaged youth in each State, 
     compared to the total number of disadvantaged youth in all 
     States.
       ``(C) Minimum and maximum percentages.--
       ``(i) Minimum percentage.--The Secretary shall ensure that 
     no State shall receive an allotment under this paragraph 
     for--

       ``(I) each of fiscal years 2015 through 2017, that is less 
     than 100 percent of the allotment percentage of the State for 
     fiscal year 2013; and
       ``(II) fiscal year 2018 and each succeeding fiscal year, 
     that is less than 90 percent of the allotment percentage of 
     the State for the fiscal year preceding the fiscal year 
     involved.

       ``(ii) Maximum percentage.--Subject to clause (i), the 
     Secretary shall ensure that no State shall receive an 
     allotment under this paragraph for--

       ``(I) each of fiscal years 2015 through 2017, that is more 
     than 130 percent of the allotment percentage of the State for 
     fiscal year 2013; and
       ``(II) fiscal year 2018 and each succeeding fiscal year, 
     that is more than 130 percent of the allotment percentage of 
     the State for the fiscal year preceding the fiscal year 
     involved.

       ``(D) Small state minimum allotment.--Subject to 
     subparagraph (C), the Secretary shall ensure that no State 
     shall receive an allotment under this paragraph for a fiscal 
     year that is less than \1/5\ of 1 percent of the remainder 
     described in subparagraph (A) for the fiscal year.
       ``(E) Definitions.--For the purpose of the formula 
     specified in this paragraph:
       ``(i) Allotment percentage.--The term `allotment 
     percentage'--

       ``(I) used with respect to fiscal year 2013, means the 
     percentage of the amounts allotted to States under title I of 
     this Act, title V of the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 
     U.S.C. 3056 et seq.), the Women in Apprenticeship and 
     Nontraditional Occupations Act (29 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.), 
     sections 4103A and 4104 of title 38, United States Code, and 
     sections 1 through 14 of the Wagner-Peyser Act (29 U.S.C. 49 
     et seq.), as such provisions were in effect for fiscal year 
     2013, that is received under such provisions by the State 
     involved for fiscal year 2013; and
       ``(II) used with respect to fiscal year 2017 or a 
     succeeding fiscal year, means the percentage of the amounts 
     allotted to States under this paragraph for the fiscal year, 
     that is received under this paragraph by the State involved 
     for the fiscal year.

       ``(ii) Area of substantial unemployment.--The term `area of 
     substantial unemployment' means any area that is of 
     sufficient size and scope to sustain a program of workforce 
     investment activities carried out under this subtitle and 
     that has an average rate of unemployment of at least 7 
     percent for the most recent 12 months, as determined by the 
     Secretary. For purposes of this

[[Page 408]]

     clause, determinations of areas of substantial unemployment 
     shall be made once each fiscal year.
       ``(iii) Disadvantaged youth.--The term `disadvantaged 
     youth' means an individual who is not less than age 16 and 
     not more than age 24 who receives an income, or is a member 
     of a family that receives 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.

       ``(iv) Individual.--The term `individual' means an 
     individual who is age 16 or older.''.

     SEC. 221. WITHIN STATE ALLOCATIONS.

       Section 133 (29 U.S.C. 2863) is amended--
       (1) by amending subsection (a) to read as follows:
       ``(a) Reservations for Statewide Workforce Investment 
     Activities.--
       ``(1) Statewide employment and training activities.--The 
     Governor of a State shall reserve not more than 15 percent of 
     the total amount allotted to the State under section 
     132(b)(2) for a fiscal year to carry out the statewide 
     activities described in section 134(a).
       ``(2) Statewide rapid response activities and additional 
     assistance.--Of the amount reserved under paragraph (1) for a 
     fiscal year, the Governor of the State shall reserve not more 
     than 25 percent for statewide rapid response activities and 
     additional assistance described in section 134(a)(4).
       ``(3) Statewide grants for individuals with barriers to 
     employment.--Of the amount reserved under paragraph (1) for a 
     fiscal year, the Governor of the State shall reserve 15 
     percent to carry out statewide activities described in 
     section 134(a)(5).
       ``(4) State administrative cost limit.--Not more than 5 
     percent of the funds reserved under paragraph (1) may be used 
     by the Governor of the State for administrative costs of 
     carrying out the statewide activities described in section 
     134(a).'';
       (2) by amending subsection (b) to read as follows:
       ``(b) Within State Allocation.--
       ``(1) Methods.--The Governor, acting in accordance with the 
     State plan, and after consulting with chief elected officials 
     in the local areas in the State, shall--
       ``(A) allocate the funds that are allotted to the State 
     under section 132(b)(2) and not reserved under subsection 
     (a), in accordance with paragraph (2)(A); and
       ``(B) award the funds that are reserved by the State under 
     subsection (a)(3) through competitive grants to eligible 
     entities, in accordance with section 134(a)(1)(C).
       ``(2) Formula allocations for the workforce investment 
     fund.--
       ``(A) Allocation.--In allocating the funds described in 
     paragraph (1)(A) to local areas, a State shall allocate--
       ``(i) 25 percent on the basis described in section 
     132(b)(2)(B)(i);
       ``(ii) 25 percent on the basis described in section 
     132(b)(2)(B)(ii);
       ``(iii) 25 percent on the basis described in section 
     132(b)(2)(B)(iii); and
       ``(iv) 25 percent on the basis described in section 
     132(b)(2)(B)(iv),
     except that a reference in a section specified in any of 
     clauses (i) through (iv) to `each State' shall be considered 
     to refer to each local area, and to `all States' shall be 
     considered to refer to all local areas.
       ``(B) Minimum and maximum percentages.--
       ``(i) Minimum percentage.--The State shall ensure that no 
     local area shall receive an allocation under this paragraph 
     for--

       ``(I) each of fiscal years 2015 through 2017, that is less 
     than 100 percent of the allocation percentage of the local 
     area for fiscal year 2013; and
       ``(II) fiscal year 2018 and each succeeding fiscal year, 
     that is less than 90 percent of the allocation percentage of 
     the local area for the fiscal year preceding the fiscal year 
     involved.

       ``(ii) Maximum percentage.--Subject to clause (i), the 
     State shall ensure that no local area shall receive an 
     allocation for a fiscal year under this paragraph for--

       ``(I) each of fiscal years 2015 through 2017, that is more 
     than 130 percent of the allocation percentage of the local 
     area for fiscal year 2013; and
       ``(II) fiscal year 2018 and each succeeding fiscal year, 
     that is more than 130 percentage of the allocation percentage 
     of the local area for the fiscal year preceding the fiscal 
     year involved.

       ``(C) Definitions.--For the purpose of the formula 
     specified in this paragraph, the term `allocation 
     percentage'--
       ``(i) used with respect to fiscal year 2013, means the 
     percentage of the amounts allocated to local areas under 
     title I of this Act, title V of the Older Americans Act of 
     1965 (42 U.S.C. 3056 et seq.), the Women in Apprenticeship 
     and Nontraditional Occupations Act (29 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.), 
     sections 4103A and 4104 of title 38, United States Code, and 
     sections 1 through 14 of the Wagner-Peyser Act (29 U.S.C. 49 
     et seq.), as such provisions were in effect for fiscal year 
     2013, that is received under such provisions by the local 
     area involved for fiscal year 2013; and
       ``(ii) used with respect to fiscal year 2017 or a 
     succeeding fiscal year, means the percentage of the amounts 
     allocated to local areas under this paragraph for the fiscal 
     year, that is received under this paragraph by the local area 
     involved for the fiscal year.'';
       (3) in subsection (c)--
       (A) by amending paragraph (1) to read as follows:
       ``(1) In general.--The Governor may, in accordance with 
     this subsection, reallocate to eligible local areas within 
     the State amounts that are allocated under subsection (b) for 
     employment and training activities and that are available for 
     reallocation.'';
       (B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``paragraph (2)(A) or (3) 
     of subsection (b) for such activities'' and inserting 
     ``subsection (b) for such activities'';
       (C) by amending paragraph (3) to read as follows:
       ``(3) Reallocations.--In making reallocations to eligible 
     local areas of amounts available pursuant to paragraph (2) 
     for a program year, the Governor shall allocate to each 
     eligible local area within the State an amount based on the 
     relative amount allocated to such local area under subsection 
     (b)(2) for such activities for such prior program year, as 
     compared to the total amount allocated to all eligible local 
     areas in the State under subsection (b)(2) for such 
     activities for such prior program year.''; and
       (D) in paragraph (4), by striking ``paragraph (2)(A) or (3) 
     of''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(d) Local Administrative Cost Limit.--Of the amount 
     allocated to a local area under this section for a fiscal 
     year, not more than 10 percent of the amount may be used by 
     the local board involved for the administrative costs of 
     carrying out local workforce investment activities in the 
     local area under this chapter.''.

     SEC. 222. USE OF FUNDS FOR EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING 
                   ACTIVITIES.

       Section 134 (29 U.S.C. 2864) is amended--
       (1) by amending subsection (a) to read as follows:
       ``(a) Statewide Employment and Training Activities.--
       ``(1) In general.--
       ``(A) Distribution of statewide activities.--Funds reserved 
     by a Governor for a State as described in section 133(a)(1) 
     and not reserved under paragraph (2) or (3) of section 
     133(a)--
       ``(i) shall be used to carry out the statewide employment 
     and training activities described in paragraph (2); and
       ``(ii) may be used to carry out any of the statewide 
     employment and training activities described in paragraph 
     (3).
       ``(B) Statewide rapid response activities and additional 
     assistance.--Funds reserved by a Governor for a State as 
     described in section 133(a)(2) shall be used to provide the 
     statewide rapid response activities and additional assistance 
     described in paragraph (4).
       ``(C) Statewide grants for individuals with barriers to 
     employment.--Funds reserved by a Governor for a State as 
     described in section 133(a)(3) shall be used to award 
     statewide grants for individuals with barriers to employment 
     on a competitive basis, and carry out other activities, as 
     described in paragraph (5).
       ``(2) Required statewide employment and training 
     activities.--A State shall use funds referred to in paragraph 
     (1)(A) to carry out statewide employment and training 
     activities, which shall include--
       ``(A) disseminating the State list of eligible providers of 
     training services described in section 122(d), information 
     identifying eligible providers of on-the-job training and 
     customized training described in section 122(i), and 
     performance information and program cost information 
     described in section 122(b)(2);
       ``(B) supporting the provision of work ready services 
     described in subsection (c)(2) in the one-stop delivery 
     system;
       ``(C) implementing strategies and services that will be 
     used in the State to assist at-risk youth and out-of-school 
     youth in acquiring the education and skills, recognized 
     postsecondary credentials, and employment experience to 
     succeed in the labor market;
       ``(D) conducting evaluations under section 136(e) of 
     activities authorized under this chapter in coordination with 
     evaluations carried out by the Secretary under section 172;
       ``(E) providing technical assistance to local areas that 
     fail to meet local performance measures;
       ``(F) operating a fiscal and management accountability 
     system under section 136(f); and
       ``(G) carrying out monitoring and oversight of activities 
     carried out under this chapter.
       ``(3) Allowable statewide employment and training 
     activities.--A State may use funds referred to in paragraph 
     (1)(A) to carry out statewide employment and training 
     activities which may include--
       ``(A) implementing innovative programs and strategies 
     designed to meet the needs of all employers in the State, 
     including small employers, which may include incumbent worker 
     training programs, sectoral and industry cluster strategies 
     and partnership initiatives, career ladder programs, micro-
     enterprise and entrepreneurial training and support programs, 
     utilization of effective business intermediaries, activities 
     to improve linkages between the one-stop delivery

[[Page 409]]

     system in the State and all employers (including small 
     employers) in the State, and other business services and 
     strategies that better engage employers in workforce 
     investment activities and make the workforce investment 
     system more relevant to the needs of State and local 
     businesses, consistent with the objectives of this title;
       ``(B) providing incentive grants to local areas--
       ``(i) for regional cooperation among local boards 
     (including local boards in a designated region as described 
     in section 116(c));
       ``(ii) for local coordination of activities carried out 
     under this Act; and
       ``(iii) for exemplary performance by local areas on the 
     local performance measures;
       ``(C) developing strategies for effectively integrating 
     programs and services among one-stop partners;
       ``(D) carrying out activities to facilitate remote access 
     to services provided through a one-stop delivery system, 
     including facilitating access through the use of technology;
       ``(E) incorporating pay-for-performance contract strategies 
     as an element in funding activities under this section and 
     providing technical support to local areas and eligible 
     providers in order to carry out such a strategy, which may 
     involve providing assistance with data collection and data 
     entry requirements;
       ``(F) carrying out the State option under subsection 
     (f)(8); and
       ``(G) carrying out other activities authorized under this 
     section that the State determines to be necessary to assist 
     local areas in carrying out activities described in 
     subsection (c) or (d) through the statewide workforce 
     investment system.
       ``(4) Statewide rapid response activities and additional 
     assistance.--A State shall use funds reserved as described in 
     section 133(a)(2)--
       ``(A) to carry out statewide rapid response activities, 
     which shall include provision of rapid response activities, 
     carried out in local areas by the State or by an entity 
     designated by the State, working in conjunction with the 
     local boards and the chief elected officials in the local 
     areas; and
       ``(B) to provide additional assistance to local areas that 
     experience disasters, mass layoffs, or plant closings, or 
     other events that precipitate substantial increases in the 
     number of unemployed individuals, carried out in local areas 
     by the State or by an entity designated by the State, working 
     in conjunction with the local boards and the chief elected 
     officials in the local areas.
       ``(5) Statewide grants for individuals with barriers to 
     employment.--
       ``(A) In general.--Of the funds reserved as described in 
     section 133(a)(3), the Governor of a State--
       ``(i) may reserve up to 5 percent to provide technical 
     assistance for, and conduct evaluations as described in 
     section 136(e) of, the programs carried out under this 
     paragraph; and
       ``(ii) using the remainder, shall award grants on a 
     competitive basis to eligible entities (that meet specific 
     performance outcomes and criteria established by the 
     Governor) described in subparagraph (B) to carry out 
     employment and training programs authorized under this 
     paragraph for individuals with barriers to employment.
       ``(B) Eligible entity defined.--For purposes of this 
     paragraph, the term `eligible entity' means an entity that--
       ``(i) is a--

       ``(I) local board or a consortium of local boards;
       ``(II) nonprofit entity, for-profit entity, or a consortium 
     of nonprofit or for-profit entities; or
       ``(III) consortium of the entities described in subclauses 
     (I) and (II);

       ``(ii) has a demonstrated record of placing individuals 
     into unsubsidized employment and serving hard-to-serve 
     individuals; and
       ``(iii) agrees to be reimbursed primarily on the basis of 
     meeting specified performance outcomes and criteria 
     established by the Governor.
       ``(C) Grant period.--
       ``(i) In general.--A grant under this paragraph shall be 
     awarded for a period of 1 year.
       ``(ii) Grant renewal.--A Governor of a State may renew, for 
     up to 4 additional 1-year periods, a grant awarded under this 
     paragraph.
       ``(D) Eligible participants.--To be eligible to participate 
     in activities under this paragraph, an individual shall be a 
     low-income individual age 16 or older.
       ``(E) Use of funds.--An eligible entity receiving a grant 
     under this paragraph shall use the grant funds for programs 
     of activities that are designed to assist eligible 
     participants in obtaining employment and acquiring the 
     education and skills necessary to succeed in the labor 
     market. To be eligible to receive a grant under this 
     paragraph for an employment and training program, an eligible 
     entity shall submit an application to a State at such time, 
     in such manner, and containing such information as the State 
     may require, including--
       ``(i) a description of how the strategies and activities of 
     the program will be aligned with the State plan submitted 
     under section 112 and the local plan submitted under section 
     118, with respect to the area of the State that will be the 
     focus of the program under this paragraph;
       ``(ii) a description of the educational and skills training 
     programs and activities the eligible entity will provide to 
     eligible participants under this paragraph;
       ``(iii) how the eligible entity will collaborate with State 
     and local workforce investment systems established under this 
     title in the provision of such programs and activities;
       ``(iv) a description of the programs of demonstrated 
     effectiveness on which the provision of such educational and 
     skills training programs and activities are based, and a 
     description of how such programs and activities will improve 
     education and skills training for eligible participants;
       ``(v) a description of the populations to be served and the 
     skill needs of those populations, and the manner in which 
     eligible participants will be recruited and selected as 
     participants;
       ``(vi) a description of the private, public, local, and 
     State resources that will be leveraged, with the grant funds 
     provided, for the program under this paragraph, and how the 
     entity will ensure the sustainability of such program after 
     grant funds are no longer available;
       ``(vii) a description of the extent of the involvement of 
     employers in such program;
       ``(viii) a description of the levels of performance the 
     eligible entity expects to achieve with respect to the 
     indicators of performance for all individuals specified in 
     section 136(b)(2);
       ``(ix) a detailed budget and a description of the system of 
     fiscal controls, and auditing and accountability procedures, 
     that will be used to ensure fiscal soundness for the program 
     provided under this paragraph; and
       ``(x) any other criteria the Governor may require.'';
       (2) by amending subsection (b) to read as follows:
       ``(b) Local Employment and Training Activities.--Funds 
     allocated to a local area under section 133(b)--
       ``(1) shall be used to carry out employment and training 
     activities described in subsection (c); and
       ``(2) may be used to carry out employment and training 
     activities described in subsection (d).'';
       (3) by striking subsection (c);
       (4) by redesignating subsections (d) and (e), as 
     subsections (c) and (d), respectively;
       (5) in subsection (c) (as so redesignated)--
       (A) by amending paragraph (1) to read as follows:
       ``(1) In general.--Funds allocated to a local area under 
     section 133(b) shall be used--
       ``(A) to establish a one-stop delivery system as described 
     in section 121(e);
       ``(B) to provide the work ready services described in 
     paragraph (2) through the one-stop delivery system in 
     accordance with such paragraph; and
       ``(C) to provide training services described in paragraph 
     (4) in accordance with such paragraph.'';
       (B) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) in the heading, by striking ``Core services'' and 
     inserting ``Work ready services'';
       (ii) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A)--

       (I) by striking ``(1)(A)'' and inserting ``(1)'';
       (II) by striking ``core services'' and inserting ``work 
     ready services''; and
       (III) by striking ``who are adults or dislocated workers'';

       (iii) by redesignating subparagraph (K) as subparagraph 
     (V);
       (iv) by redesignating subparagraphs (B) through (J) as 
     subparagraphs (C) through (K), respectively;
       (v) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following:
       ``(B) assistance in obtaining eligibility determinations 
     under the other one-stop partner programs through activities, 
     where appropriate and consistent with the authorizing statute 
     of the one-stop partner program involved, such as assisting 
     in--
       ``(i) the submission of applications;
       ``(ii) the provision of information on the results of such 
     applications; and
       ``(iii) the provision of intake services and 
     information;'';
       (vi) by amending subparagraph (E), as so redesignated, to 
     read as follows:
       ``(E) labor exchange services, including--
       ``(i) job search and placement assistance, and where 
     appropriate, career counseling;
       ``(ii) appropriate recruitment services for employers, 
     including small employers, in the local area, which may 
     include services described in this subsection, including 
     provision of information and referral to specialized business 
     services not traditionally offered through the one-stop 
     delivery system; and
       ``(iii) reemployment services provided to unemployment 
     claimants, including claimants identified as in need of such 
     services under the worker profiling system established under 
     section 303(j) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     503(j));'';
       (vii) in subparagraph (F), as so redesignated, by striking 
     ``employment statistics'' and inserting ``workforce and labor 
     market'';
       (viii) in subparagraph (G), as so redesignated, by striking 
     ``and eligible providers of youth activities described in 
     section 123,'';
       (ix) in subparagraph (H), as so redesignated, by inserting 
     ``under section 136'' after ``local performance measures'';

[[Page 410]]

       (x) in subparagraph (J), as so redesignated, by inserting 
     ``and information regarding the administration of the work 
     test for the unemployment compensation system'' after 
     ``compensation'';
       (xi) by amending subparagraph (K), as so redesignated, to 
     read as follows:
       ``(K) assistance in establishing eligibility for programs 
     of financial aid assistance for education and training 
     programs that are not funded under this Act and are available 
     in the local area;''; and
       (xii) by inserting the following new subparagraphs after 
     subparagraph (K), as so redesignated:
       ``(L) the provision of information from official 
     publications of the Internal Revenue Service regarding 
     Federal tax credits, available to participants in employment 
     and training activities, and relating to education, job 
     training, and employment;
       ``(M) comprehensive and specialized assessments of the 
     skill levels and service needs of workers, which may 
     include--
       ``(i) diagnostic testing and use of other assessment tools; 
     and
       ``(ii) in-depth interviewing and evaluation to identify 
     employment barriers and appropriate employment goals;
       ``(N) development of an individual employment plan, to 
     identify the employment goals, appropriate achievement 
     objectives, and appropriate combination of services for the 
     participant;
       ``(O) group counseling;
       ``(P) individual counseling and career planning;
       ``(Q) case management;
       ``(R) short-term pre-career services, including development 
     of learning skills, communications skills, interviewing 
     skills, punctuality, personal maintenance skills, and 
     professional conduct, to prepare individuals for unsubsidized 
     employment or training;
       ``(S) internships and work experience;
       ``(T) literacy activities relating to basic work readiness, 
     information and communication technology literacy activities, 
     and financial literacy activities, if the activities involved 
     are not available to participants in the local area under 
     programs administered under the Adult Education and Family 
     Literacy Act (20 U.S.C. 2901 et seq.);
       ``(U) out-of-area job search assistance and relocation 
     assistance; and''; and
       (C) by amending paragraph (3) to read as follows:
       ``(3) Delivery of services.--The work ready services 
     described in paragraph (2) shall be provided through the one-
     stop delivery system and may be provided through contracts 
     with public, private for-profit, and private nonprofit 
     service providers, approved by the local board.'';
       (D) in paragraph (4)--
       (i) by amending subparagraph (A) to read as follows:
       ``(A) In general.--Funds described in paragraph (1)(C) 
     shall be used to provide training services to individuals 
     who--
       ``(i) after an interview, evaluation, or assessment, and 
     case management, have been determined by a one-stop operator 
     or one-stop partner, as appropriate, to--

       ``(I) be in need of training services to obtain or retain 
     employment; and
       ``(II) have the skills and qualifications to successfully 
     participate in the selected program of training services;

       ``(ii) select programs of training services that are 
     directly linked to the employment opportunities in the local 
     area involved or in another area in which the individual 
     receiving such services are willing to commute or relocate; 
     and
       ``(iii) who meet the requirements of subparagraph (B).''; 
     and
       (ii) in subparagraph (B)(i), by striking ``Except'' and 
     inserting ``Notwithstanding section 479B of the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087uu) and except'';
       (iii) by amending subparagraph (D) to read as follows:
       ``(D) Training services.--Training services authorized 
     under this paragraph may include--
       ``(i) occupational skills training;
       ``(ii) on-the-job training;
       ``(iii) skill upgrading and retraining;
       ``(iv) entrepreneurial training;
       ``(v) education activities leading to a regular secondary 
     school diploma or its recognized equivalent in combination 
     with, concurrently or subsequently, occupational skills 
     training;
       ``(vi) adult education and family literacy education 
     activities provided in conjunction with other training 
     services authorized under this subparagraph;
       ``(vii) workplace training combined with related 
     instruction;
       ``(viii) occupational skills training that incorporates 
     English language acquisition;
       ``(ix) customized training conducted with a commitment by 
     an employer or group of employers to employ an individual 
     upon successful completion of the training; and
       ``(x) training programs operated by the private sector.'';
       (iv) by striking subparagraph (E) and redesignating 
     subparagraphs (F) and (G) as subparagraphs (E) and (F), 
     respectively; and
       (v) in subparagraph (E) (as so redesignated)--

       (I) in clause (ii)--

       (aa) in the matter preceding subclause (I), by striking 
     ``subsection (c)'' and inserting ``section 121'';
       (bb) in subclause (I), by striking ``section 122(e)'' and 
     inserting ``section 122(d)'' and by striking ``section 
     122(h)'' and inserting ``section 122(i)''; and
       (cc) in subclause (II), by striking ``subsections (e) and 
     (h)'' and inserting ``subsections (d) and (i)''; and

       (II) by striking clause (iii) and inserting the following:

       ``(iii) Career enhancement accounts.--An individual who 
     seeks training services and who is eligible pursuant to 
     subparagraph (A), may, in consultation with a case manager, 
     select an eligible provider of training services from the 
     list or identifying information for providers described in 
     clause (ii)(I). Upon such selection, the one-stop operator 
     involved shall, to the extent practicable, refer such 
     individual to the eligible provider of training services, and 
     arrange for payment for such services through a career 
     enhancement account.
       ``(iv) Coordination.--Each local board may, through one-
     stop centers, coordinate career enhancement accounts with 
     other Federal, State, local, or private job training programs 
     or sources to assist the individual in obtaining training 
     services from (notwithstanding any provision of this title) 
     eligible providers for those programs and sources.
       ``(v) Assistance.--Each local board may, through one-stop 
     centers, assist individuals receiving career enhancement 
     accounts in obtaining funds (in addition to the funds 
     provided under this section) from other programs and sources 
     that will assist the individual in obtaining training 
     services.''; and
       (vi) in subparagraph (F) (as so redesignated)--

       (I) in the subparagraph heading, by striking ``individual 
     training accounts'' and inserting ``career enhancement 
     accounts'';
       (II) in clause (i), by striking ``individual training 
     accounts'' and inserting ``career enhancement accounts'';
       (III) in clause (ii)--

       (aa) by striking ``an individual training account'' and 
     inserting ``a career enhancement account'';
       (bb) by striking ``subparagraph (F)'' and inserting 
     ``subparagraph (E)'';
       (cc) in subclause (II), by striking ``individual training 
     accounts'' and inserting ``career enhancement accounts'';
       (dd) in subclause (II), by striking ``or'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (ee) in subclause (III), by striking the period and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (ff) by adding at the end the following:

       ``(IV) the local board determines that it would be most 
     appropriate to award a contract to a postsecondary 
     educational institution that has been identified as a 
     priority eligible provider under section 117(d)(5)(B) in 
     order to facilitate the training of multiple individuals in 
     in-demand industries or occupations important to the State or 
     local economy, that such contract may be used to enable the 
     expansion of programs provided by a priority eligible 
     provider, and that such contract does not limit customer 
     choice.'';
       (IV) in clause (iii), by striking ``adult or dislocated 
     worker'' and inserting ``individual''; and
       (V) in clause (iv)--

       (aa) by redesignating subclause (IV) as subclause (V); and
       (bb) by inserting after subclause (III) the following:

       ``(IV) Individuals with disabilities.'';

       (6) in subsection (d) (as so redesignated)--
       (A) by amending paragraph (1) to read as follows:
       ``(1) Discretionary one-stop delivery activities.--
       ``(A) In general.--Funds allocated to a local area under 
     section 133(b)(2) may be used to provide, through the one-
     stop delivery system--
       ``(i) customized screening and referral of qualified 
     participants in training services to employers;
       ``(ii) customized employment-related services to employers 
     on a fee-for-service basis;
       ``(iii) customer supports, including transportation and 
     child care, to navigate among multiple services and 
     activities for special participant populations that face 
     multiple barriers to employment, including individuals with 
     disabilities;
       ``(iv) employment and training assistance provided in 
     coordination with child support enforcement activities of the 
     State agency carrying out subtitle D of title IV of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 651 et seq.);
       ``(v) incorporation of pay-for-performance contract 
     strategies as an element in funding activities under this 
     section;
       ``(vi) activities to facilitate remote access to services 
     provided through a one-stop delivery system, including 
     facilitating access through the use of technology; and
       ``(vii) activities to carry out business services and 
     strategies that meet the workforce investment needs of local 
     area employers, as determined by the local board, consistent 
     with the local plan under section 118.'';
       (B) by striking paragraphs (2) and (3); and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Incumbent worker training programs.--
       ``(A) In general.--The local board may use funds allocated 
     to a local area under section 133(b)(2) to carry out 
     incumbent worker training programs in accordance with this 
     paragraph.

[[Page 411]]

       ``(B) Training activities.--The training programs for 
     incumbent workers under this paragraph shall be carried out 
     by the local area in conjunction with the employers of such 
     workers for the purpose of assisting such workers in 
     obtaining the skills necessary to retain employment and avert 
     layoffs.
       ``(C) Employer match required.--
       ``(i) In general.--Employers participating in programs 
     under this paragraph shall be required to pay a proportion of 
     the costs of providing the training to the incumbent workers 
     of the employers. The local board shall establish the 
     required payment toward such costs, which may include in-kind 
     contributions.
       ``(ii) Calculation of match.--The wages paid by an employer 
     to a worker while they are attending training may be included 
     as part of the required payment of the employer.''; and
       (7) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Priority for Placement in Private Sector Jobs.--In 
     providing employment and training activities authorized under 
     this section, the State board and local board shall give 
     priority to placing participants in jobs in the private 
     sector.
       ``(f) Veteran Employment Specialist.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (8), a local board 
     shall hire and employ one or more veteran employment 
     specialists to carry out employment, training, supportive, 
     and placement services under this subsection in the local 
     area served by the local board.
       ``(2) Principal duties.--A veteran employment specialist in 
     a local area shall--
       ``(A) conduct outreach to employers in the local area to 
     assist veterans, including disabled veterans, in gaining 
     employment, including--
       ``(i) conducting seminars for employers; and
       ``(ii) in conjunction with employers, conducting job search 
     workshops, and establishing job search groups; and
       ``(B) facilitate the furnishing of employment, training, 
     supportive, and placement services to veterans, including 
     disabled and homeless veterans, in the local area.
       ``(3) Hiring preference for veterans and individuals with 
     expertise in serving veterans.--Subject to paragraph (8), a 
     local board shall, to the maximum extent practicable, employ 
     veterans or individuals with expertise in serving veterans to 
     carry out the services described in paragraph (2) in the 
     local area served by the local board. In hiring an individual 
     to serve as a veteran employment specialist, a local board 
     shall give preference to veterans and other individuals in 
     the following order:
       ``(A) To service-connected disabled veterans.
       ``(B) If no veteran described in subparagraph (A) is 
     available, to veterans.
       ``(C) If no veteran described in subparagraph (A) or (B) is 
     available, to any member of the Armed Forces transitioning 
     out of military service.
       ``(D) If no veteran or member described in subparagraph 
     (A), (B), or (C) is available, to any spouse of a veteran or 
     a spouse of a member of the Armed Forces transitioning out of 
     military service.
       ``(E) If no veteran or member described in subparagraph 
     (A), (B), or (C) is available and no spouse described in 
     paragraph (D) is available, to any other individuals with 
     expertise in serving veterans.
       ``(4) Administration and reporting.--
       ``(A) In general.--Each veteran employment specialist shall 
     be administratively responsible to the one-stop operator of 
     the one-stop center in the local area and shall provide, at a 
     minimum, quarterly reports to the one-stop operator of such 
     center and to the Assistant Secretary for Veterans' 
     Employment and Training for the State on the specialist's 
     performance, and compliance by the specialist with Federal 
     law (including regulations), with respect to the--
       ``(i) principal duties (including facilitating the 
     furnishing of services) for veterans described in paragraph 
     (2); and
       ``(ii) hiring preferences described in paragraph (3) for 
     veterans and other individuals.
       ``(B) Report to secretary.--Each State shall submit to the 
     Secretary an annual report on the qualifications used by each 
     local board in the State in making hiring determinations for 
     a veteran employment specialist and the salary structure 
     under which such specialist is compensated.
       ``(C) Report to congress.--The Secretary shall submit to 
     the Committee on Education and the Workforce and the 
     Committee on Veterans' Affairs of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Health, Education, 
     Labor, and Pensions and the Committee on Veterans' Affairs of 
     the Senate an annual report summarizing the reports submitted 
     under subparagraph (B), and including summaries of outcomes 
     achieved by participating veterans, disaggregated by local 
     areas.
       ``(5) Part-time employees.--A part-time veteran employment 
     specialist shall perform the functions of a veteran 
     employment specialist under this subsection on a halftime 
     basis.
       ``(6) Training requirements.--Each veteran employment 
     specialist described in paragraph (2) shall satisfactorily 
     complete training provided by the National Veterans' 
     Employment and Training Institute during the 3-year period 
     that begins on the date on which the employee is so assigned.
       ``(7) Specialist's duties.--A full-time veteran employment 
     specialist shall perform only duties related to employment, 
     training, supportive, and placement services under this 
     subsection, and shall not perform other non-veteran-related 
     duties if such duties detract from the specialist's ability 
     to perform the specialist's duties related to employment, 
     training, supportive, and placement services under this 
     subsection.
       ``(8) State option.--At the request of a local board, a 
     State may opt to assume the duties assigned to the local 
     board under paragraphs (1) and (3), including the hiring and 
     employment of one or more veteran employment specialists for 
     placement in the local area served by the local board.''.

     SEC. 223. PERFORMANCE ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM.

       Section 136 (29 U.S.C. 2871) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by amending paragraphs (1) and (2) to read as follows:
       ``(1) In general.--For each State, the State performance 
     measures shall consist of--
       ``(A)(i) the core indicators of performance described in 
     paragraph (2)(A); and
       ``(ii) additional indicators of performance (if any) 
     identified by the State under paragraph (2)(B); and
       ``(B) a State adjusted level of performance for each 
     indicator described in subparagraph (A).
       ``(2) Indicators of performance.--
       ``(A) Core indicators of performance.--
       ``(i) In general.--The core indicators of performance for 
     the program of employment and training activities authorized 
     under sections 132(a)(2) and 134, the program of adult 
     education and family literacy education activities authorized 
     under title II, and the program authorized under title I of 
     the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 720 et seq.), other 
     than section 112 or part C of that title (29 U.S.C. 732, 
     741), shall consist of the following indicators of 
     performance (with performance determined in the aggregate and 
     as disaggregated by the populations identified in the State 
     and local plan in each case):

       ``(I) The percentage and number of program participants who 
     are in unsubsidized employment during the second full 
     calendar quarter after exit from the program.
       ``(II) The percentage and number of program participants 
     who are in unsubsidized employment during the fourth full 
     calendar quarter after exit from the program.
       ``(III) The difference in the median earnings of program 
     participants who are in unsubsidized employment during the 
     second full calendar quarter after exit from the program, 
     compared to the median earnings of such participants prior to 
     participation in such program.
       ``(IV) The percentage and number of program participants 
     who obtain a recognized postsecondary credential (such as an 
     industry-recognized credential or a certificate from a 
     registered apprenticeship program), or a regular secondary 
     school diploma or its recognized equivalent (subject to 
     clause (ii)), during participation in or within 1 year after 
     exit from the program.
       ``(V) The percentage and number of program participants 
     who, during a program year--

       ``(aa) are in an education or training program that leads 
     to a recognized postsecondary credential (such as an 
     industry-recognized credential or a certificate from a 
     registered apprenticeship program), a certificate from an on-
     the-job training program, a regular secondary school diploma 
     or its recognized equivalent, or unsubsidized employment; and
       ``(bb) are achieving measurable basic skill gains toward 
     such a credential, certificate, diploma, or employment.

       ``(VI) The percentage and number of program participants 
     who obtain unsubsidized employment in the field relating to 
     the training services described in section 134(c)(4) that 
     such participants received.

       ``(ii) Indicator relating to credential.--For purposes of 
     clause (i)(IV), program participants who obtain a regular 
     secondary school diploma or its recognized equivalent shall 
     be included in the percentage counted as meeting the 
     criterion under such clause only if such participants (in 
     addition to obtaining such diploma or its recognized 
     equivalent), within 1 year after exit from the program, have 
     obtained or retained employment, have been removed from 
     public assistance, or have begun an education or training 
     program leading to a recognized postsecondary credential.
       ``(B) Additional indicators.--A State may identify in the 
     State plan additional indicators for workforce investment 
     activities authorized under this subtitle.''; and
       (B) in paragraph (3)--
       (i) in subparagraph (A)--

       (I) in the heading, by striking ``and customer satisfaction 
     indicator'';
       (II) in clause (i), by striking ``and the customer 
     satisfaction indicator described in paragraph (2)(B)'';
       (III) in clause (ii), by striking ``and the customer 
     satisfaction indicator of performance, for the first 3'' and 
     inserting ``, for all 3'';

[[Page 412]]

       (IV) in clause (iii)--

       (aa) in the heading, by striking ``for first 3 years''; and
       (bb) by striking ``and the customer satisfaction indicator 
     of performance, for the first 3 program years'' and inserting 
     ``for all 3 program years'';

       (V) in clause (iv)--

       (aa) by striking ``or (v)'';
       (bb) by striking subclause (I) and redesignating subclauses 
     (II) and (III) as subclauses (I) and (II), respectively; and
       (cc) in subclause (I) (as so redesignated)--
       (AA) by inserting ``, such as unemployment rates and job 
     losses or gains in particular industries'' after ``economic 
     conditions''; and
       (BB) by inserting ``, such as indicators of poor work 
     experience, dislocation from high-wage employment, low levels 
     of literacy or English proficiency, disability status 
     (including disability status among veterans), and welfare 
     dependency,'' after ``program'';

       (VI) by striking clause (v) and redesignating clause (vi) 
     as clause (v); and
       (VII) in clause (v) (as so redesignated),

       (aa) by striking ``described in clause (iv)(II)'' and 
     inserting ``described in clause (iv)(I)''; and
       (bb) by striking ``or (v)''; and
       (ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``paragraph (2)(C)'' 
     and inserting ``paragraph (2)(B)'';
       (2) in subsection (c)--
       (A) by amending clause (i) of paragraph (1)(A) to read as 
     follows:
       ``(i) the core indicators of performance described in 
     subsection (b)(2)(A) for activities described in such 
     subsection, other than statewide workforce investment 
     activities; and'';
       (B) in clause (ii) of paragraph (1)(A), by striking 
     ``(b)(2)(C)'' and inserting ``(b)(2)(B)''; and
       (C) by amending paragraph (3) to read as follows:
       ``(3) Determinations.--In determining such local levels of 
     performance, the local board, the chief elected official, and 
     the Governor shall ensure such levels are adjusted based on 
     the specific economic conditions (such as unemployment rates 
     and job losses or gains in particular industries), or 
     demographic characteristics or other characteristics of the 
     population to be served, in the local area.'';
       (3) in subsection (d)--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) by striking ``127 or'';
       (ii) by striking ``and the customer satisfaction 
     indicator'' each place it appears; and
       (iii) in the last sentence, by inserting before the period 
     the following: ``, and on the amount and percentage of the 
     State's annual allotment under section 132 the State spends 
     on administrative costs and on the amount and percentage of 
     its annual allocation under section 133 each local area in 
     the State spends on administrative costs'';
       (B) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) by striking subparagraphs (A), (B), and (D);
       (ii) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (A);
       (iii) by redesignating subparagraph (E) as subparagraph 
     (B);
       (iv) in subparagraph (B), as so redesignated--

       (I) by striking ``(excluding participants who received only 
     self-service and informational activities)''; and
       (II) by striking ``and'' at the end;

       (v) by striking subparagraph (F);
       (vi) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) with respect to each local area in the State--
       ``(i) the number of individuals who received work ready 
     services described in section 134(c)(2) and the number of 
     individuals who received training services described in 
     section 134(c)(4), during the most recent program year and 
     fiscal year, and the preceding 5 program years, disaggregated 
     (for individuals who received work ready services) by the 
     type of entity that provided the work ready services and 
     disaggregated (for individuals who received training 
     services) by the type of entity that provided the training 
     services, and the amount of funds spent on each of the 2 
     types of services during the most recent program year and 
     fiscal year, and the preceding 5 fiscal years;
       ``(ii) the number of individuals who successfully exited 
     out of work ready services described in section 134(c)(2) and 
     the number of individuals who exited out of training services 
     described in section 134(c)(4), during the most recent 
     program year and fiscal year, and the preceding 5 program 
     years, disaggregated (for individuals who received work ready 
     services) by the type of entity that provided the work ready 
     services and disaggregated (for individuals who received 
     training services) by the type of entity that provided the 
     training services; and
       ``(iii) the average cost per participant of those 
     individuals who received work ready services described in 
     section 134(c)(2) and the average cost per participant of 
     those individuals who received training services described in 
     section 134(c)(4), during the most recent program year and 
     fiscal year, and the preceding 5 program years, disaggregated 
     (for individuals who received work ready services) by the 
     type of entity that provided the work ready services and 
     disaggregated (for individuals who received training 
     services) by the type of entity that provided the training 
     services; and
       ``(D) the amount of funds spent on training services and 
     discretionary activities described in section 134(d), 
     disaggregated by the populations identified under section 
     112(b)(16)(A)(iv) and section 118(b)(10).'';
       (C) in paragraph (3)(A), by striking ``through 
     publication'' and inserting ``through electronic means''; and
       (D) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) Data validation.--In preparing the reports described 
     in this subsection, each State shall establish procedures, 
     consistent with guidelines issued by the Secretary, to ensure 
     the information contained in the reports is valid and 
     reliable.
       ``(5) State and local policies.--
       ``(A) State policies.--Each State that receives an 
     allotment under section 132 shall maintain a central 
     repository of policies related to access, eligibility, 
     availability of services, and other matters, and plans 
     approved by the State board and make such repository 
     available to the public, including by electronic means.
       ``(B) Local policies.--Each local area that receives an 
     allotment under section 133 shall maintain a central 
     repository of policies related to access, eligibility, 
     availability of services, and other matters, and plans 
     approved by the local board and make such repository 
     available to the public, including by electronic means.'';
       (4) in subsection (g)--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``or (B)''; and
       (ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``may reduce by not 
     more than 5 percent,'' and inserting ``shall reduce''; and
       (B) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
       ``(2) Funds resulting from reduced allotments.--The 
     Secretary shall return to the Treasury the amount retained, 
     as a result of a reduction in an allotment to a State made 
     under paragraph (1)(B).'';
       (5) in subsection (h)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``or (B)''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) in subparagraph (A), by amending the matter preceding 
     clause (i) to read as follows:
       ``(A) In general.--If such failure continues for a second 
     consecutive year, the Governor shall take corrective actions, 
     including the development of a reorganization plan. Such plan 
     shall--'';
       (ii) by redesignating subparagraphs (B) and (C) as 
     subparagraphs (C) and (D), respectively;
       (iii) by inserting after subparagraph (A), the following:
       ``(B) Reduction in the amount of grant.--If such failure 
     continues for a third consecutive year, the Governor shall 
     reduce the amount of the grant that would (in the absence of 
     this subparagraph) be payable to the local area under such 
     program for the program year after such third consecutive 
     year. Such penalty shall be based on the degree of failure to 
     meet local levels of performance.'';
       (iv) in subparagraph (C)(i) (as so redesignated), by 
     striking ``a reorganization plan under subparagraph (A) may, 
     not later than 30 days after receiving notice of the 
     reorganization plan, appeal to the Governor to rescind or 
     revise such plan'' and inserting ``corrective action under 
     subparagraph (A) or (B) may, not later than 30 days after 
     receiving notice of the action, appeal to the Governor to 
     rescind or revise such action''; and
       (v) in subparagraph (D) (as so redesignated), by striking 
     ``subparagraph (B)'' each place it appears and inserting 
     ``subparagraph (C)'';
       (6) in subsection (i)--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``subsection 
     (b)(2)(C)'' and inserting ``subsection (b)(2)(B)''; and
       (ii) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``(b)(3)(A)(vi)'' and 
     inserting ``(b)(3)(A)(v)'';
       (B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``the activities 
     described in section 502 concerning''; and
       (C) in paragraph (3), by striking ``described in paragraph 
     (1) and in the activities described in section 502'' and 
     inserting ``and activities described in this subsection''; 
     and
       (7) by adding at the end the following new subsections:
       ``(j) Use of Core Indicators for Other Programs.--
     Consistent with the requirements of the applicable 
     authorizing laws, the Secretary shall use the core indicators 
     of performance described in subsection (b)(2)(A) to assess 
     the effectiveness of the programs described in section 
     121(b)(1)(B) (in addition to the programs carried out under 
     chapter 5) that are carried out by the Secretary.
       ``(k) Establishing Pay-for-Performance Incentives.--
       ``(1) In general.--At the discretion of the Governor of a 
     State, a State may establish an incentive system for local 
     boards to implement pay-for-performance contract strategies 
     for the delivery of employment and training activities in the 
     local areas served by the local boards.
       ``(2) Implementation.--A State that establishes a pay-for-
     performance incentive system shall reserve not more than 10 
     percent of the total amount allotted to the State under 
     section 132(b)(2) for a fiscal year to provide

[[Page 413]]

     funds to local areas in the State whose local boards have 
     implemented a pay-for-performance contract strategy.
       ``(3) Evaluations.--A State described in paragraph (2) 
     shall use funds reserved by the State under section 133(a)(1) 
     to evaluate the return on investment of pay-for-performance 
     contract strategies implemented by local boards in the 
     State.''.

     SEC. 224. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       Section 137 (29 U.S.C. 2872) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 137. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out the 
     activities described in section 132, $5,945,639,000 for 
     fiscal year 2015 and each of the 6 succeeding fiscal 
     years.''.

                          CHAPTER 3--JOB CORPS

     SEC. 226. JOB CORPS PURPOSES.

       Paragraph (1) of section 141 (29 U.S.C. 2881(1)) is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(1) to maintain a national Job Corps program for at-risk 
     youth, carried out in partnership with States and 
     communities, to assist eligible youth to connect to the 
     workforce by providing them with intensive academic, career 
     and technical education, and service-learning opportunities, 
     in residential and nonresidential centers, in order for such 
     youth to obtain regular secondary school diplomas and 
     recognized postsecondary credentials leading to successful 
     careers in in-demand industries that will result in 
     opportunities for advancement;''.

     SEC. 227. JOB CORPS DEFINITIONS.

       Section 142 (29 U.S.C. 2882) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) in the paragraph heading, by striking ``Applicable one-
     stop'' and inserting ``One-stop'';
       (B) by striking ``applicable'';
       (C) by striking ``customer service''; and
       (D) by striking ``intake'' and inserting ``assessment'';
       (2) in paragraph (4), by striking ``before completing the 
     requirements'' and all that follows and inserting ``prior to 
     becoming a graduate.''; and
       (3) in paragraph (5), by striking ``has completed the 
     requirements'' and all that follows and inserting the 
     following: ``who, as a result of participation in the Job 
     Corps program, has received a regular secondary school 
     diploma, completed the requirements of a career and technical 
     education and training program, or received, or is making 
     satisfactory progress (as defined under section 484(c) of the 
     Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1091(c))) toward 
     receiving, a recognized postsecondary credential (including 
     an industry-recognized credential) that prepares individuals 
     for employment leading to economic self-sufficiency.''.

     SEC. 228. INDIVIDUALS ELIGIBLE FOR THE JOB CORPS.

       Section 144 (29 U.S.C. 2884) is amended--
       (1) by amending paragraph (1) to read as follows:
       ``(1) not less than age 16 and not more than age 24 on the 
     date of enrollment;'';
       (2) in paragraph (3)(B), by inserting ``secondary'' before 
     ``school''; and
       (3) in paragraph (3)(E), by striking ``vocational'' and 
     inserting ``career and technical education and''.

     SEC. 229. RECRUITMENT, SCREENING, SELECTION, AND ASSIGNMENT 
                   OF ENROLLEES.

       Section 145 (29 U.S.C. 2885) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in paragraph (2)(C)(i) by striking ``vocational'' and 
     inserting ``career and technical education and training''; 
     and
       (B) in paragraph (3)--
       (i) by striking ``To the extent practicable, the'' and 
     inserting ``The'';
       (ii) in subparagraph (A)--

       (I) by striking ``applicable''; and
       (II) by inserting ``and'' after the semicolon;

       (iii) by striking subparagraphs (B) and (C); and
       (iv) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) organizations that have a demonstrated record of 
     effectiveness in placing at-risk youth into employment.'';
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``and agrees to such 
     rules'' after ``failure to observe the rules''; and
       (ii) by amending subparagraph (C) to read as follows:
       ``(C) the individual has passed a background check 
     conducted in accordance with procedures established by the 
     Secretary, which shall include--
       ``(i) a search of the State criminal registry or repository 
     in the State where the individual resides and each State 
     where the individual previously resided;
       ``(ii) a search of State-based child abuse and neglect 
     registries and databases in the State where the individual 
     resides and each State where the individual previously 
     resided;
       ``(iii) a search of the National Crime Information Center;
       ``(iv) a Federal Bureau of Investigation fingerprint check 
     using the Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification 
     System; and
       ``(v) a search of the National Sex Offender Registry 
     established under the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety 
     Act of 2006 (42 U.S.C. 16901 et seq.).''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) Individuals convicted of a crime.--An individual 
     shall be ineligible for enrollment if the individual--
       ``(A) makes a false statement in connection with the 
     criminal background check described in paragraph (1)(C);
       ``(B) is registered or is required to be registered on a 
     State sex offender registry or the National Sex Offender 
     Registry established under the Adam Walsh Child Protection 
     and Safety Act of 2006 (42 U.S.C. 16901 et seq.); or
       ``(C) has been convicted of a felony consisting of--
       ``(i) homicide;
       ``(ii) child abuse or neglect;
       ``(iii) a crime against children, including child 
     pornography;
       ``(iv) a crime involving rape or sexual assault; or
       ``(v) physical assault, battery, or a drug-related offense, 
     committed within the past 5 years.'';
       (3) in subsection (c)--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) by striking ``2 years'' and inserting ``year''; and
       (ii) by striking ``an assignment'' and inserting ``a''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking 
     ``, every 2 years,'';
       (ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``and'' at the end; 
     and
       (iii) in subparagraph (C)--

       (I) by inserting ``the education and training'' after 
     ``including''; and
       (II) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``; 
     and''; and

       (iv) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) the performance of the Job Corps center relating to 
     the indicators described in paragraphs (1) and (2) in section 
     159(c), and whether any actions have been taken with respect 
     to such center pursuant to section 159(f).''; and
       (4) in subsection (d)--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking 
     ``is closest to the home of the enrollee, except that the'' 
     and inserting ``offers the type of career and technical 
     education and training selected by the individual and, among 
     the centers that offer such education and training, is 
     closest to the home of the individual. The'';
       (ii) by striking subparagraph (A); and
       (iii) by redesignating subparagraphs (B) and (C) as 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively; and
       (B) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``that offers the career 
     and technical education and training desired by'' after 
     ``home of the enrollee''.

     SEC. 230. JOB CORPS CENTERS.

       Section 147 (29 U.S.C. 2887) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking ``vocational'' both 
     places it appears and inserting ``career and technical''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) in subparagraph (A)--

       (I) by striking ``subsections (c) and (d) of section 303 of 
     the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 
     (41 U.S.C. 253)'' and inserting ``subsections (a) and (b) of 
     section 3304 of title 41, United States Code''; and
       (II) by striking ``industry council'' and inserting 
     ``workforce council'';

       (ii) in subparagraph (B)(i)--

       (I) by amending subclause (II) to read as follows:
       ``(II) the ability of the entity to offer career and 
     technical education and training that the workforce council 
     proposes under section 154(c);'';
       (II) in subclause (III), by striking ``is familiar with the 
     surrounding communities, applicable'' and inserting 
     ``demonstrates relationships with the surrounding 
     communities, employers, workforce boards,'' and by striking 
     ``and'' at the end;
       (III) by amending subclause (IV) to read as follows:
       ``(IV) the performance of the entity, if any, relating to 
     operating or providing activities described in this subtitle 
     to a Job Corps center, including the entity's demonstrated 
     effectiveness in assisting individuals in achieving the 
     primary and secondary indicators of performance described in 
     paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 159(c); and''; and
       (IV) by adding at the end the following new subclause:
       ``(V) the ability of the entity to demonstrate a record of 
     successfully assisting at-risk youth to connect to the 
     workforce, including by providing them with intensive 
     academic, and career and technical education and training.''; 
     and

       (iii) in subparagraph (B)(ii)--

       (I) by striking ``, as appropriate''; and
       (II) by striking ``through (IV)'' and inserting ``through 
     (V)'';

       (2) in subsection (b), by striking ``In any year, no more 
     than 20 percent of the individuals enrolled in the Job Corps 
     may be nonresidential participants in the Job Corps.'';
       (3) by amending subsection (c) to read as follows:
       ``(c) Civilian Conservation Centers.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Job Corps centers may include 
     Civilian Conservation Centers,

[[Page 414]]

     operated under an agreement between the Secretary of Labor 
     and the Secretary of Agriculture, that are located primarily 
     in rural areas. Such centers shall adhere to all the 
     provisions of this subtitle, and shall provide, in addition 
     to education, career and technical education and training, 
     and workforce preparation skills training described in 
     section 148, programs of work experience to conserve, 
     develop, or manage public natural resources or public 
     recreational areas or to develop community projects in the 
     public interest.
       ``(2) Selection process.--The Secretary shall select an 
     entity that submits an application under subsection (d) to 
     operate a Civilian Conservation Center on a competitive 
     basis, as provided in subsection (a).''; and
       (4) by striking subsection (d) and inserting the following:
       ``(d) Application.--To be eligible to operate a Job Corps 
     center under this subtitle, an entity shall submit an 
     application to the Secretary at such time, in such manner, 
     and containing such information as the Secretary may require, 
     including--
       ``(1) a description of the program activities that will be 
     offered at the center, including how the career and technical 
     education and training reflect State and local employment 
     opportunities, including in in-demand industries;
       ``(2) a description of the counseling, placement, and 
     support activities that will be offered at the center, 
     including a description of the strategies and procedures the 
     entity will use to place graduates into unsubsidized 
     employment upon completion of the program;
       ``(3) a description of the demonstrated record of 
     effectiveness that the entity has in placing at-risk youth 
     into employment, including past performance of operating a 
     Job Corps center under this subtitle;
       ``(4) a description of the relationships that the entity 
     has developed with State and local workforce boards, 
     employers, State and local educational agencies, and the 
     surrounding communities in an effort to promote a 
     comprehensive statewide workforce investment system;
       ``(5) a description of the strong fiscal controls the 
     entity has in place to ensure proper accounting of Federal 
     funds, and a description of how the entity will meet the 
     requirements of section 159(a);
       ``(6) a description of the strategies and policies the 
     entity will utilize to reduce participant costs;
       ``(7) a description of the steps taken to control costs in 
     accordance with section 159(a)(3);
       ``(8) a detailed budget of the activities that will be 
     supported using funds under this subtitle;
       ``(9) a detailed budget of the activities that will be 
     supported using funds from non-Federal resources;
       ``(10) an assurance the entity will comply with the 
     administrative cost limitation included in section 151(c);
       ``(11) an assurance the entity is licensed to operate in 
     the State in which the center is located; and
       ``(12) an assurance the entity will comply with and meet 
     basic health and safety codes, including those measures 
     described in section 152(b).
       ``(e) Length of Agreement.--The agreement described in 
     subsection (a)(1)(A) shall be for not longer than a 2-year 
     period. The Secretary may renew the agreement for 3 1-year 
     periods if the entity meets the requirements of subsection 
     (f).
       ``(f) Renewal.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary 
     may renew the terms of an agreement described in subsection 
     (a)(1)(A) for an entity to operate a Job Corps center if the 
     center meets or exceeds each of the indicators of performance 
     described in section 159(c)(1).
       ``(2) Recompetition.--
       ``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the 
     Secretary shall not renew the terms of the agreement for an 
     entity to operate a Job Corps center if such center is ranked 
     in the bottom quintile of centers described in section 
     159(f)(2) for any program year. Such entity may submit a new 
     application under subsection (d) only if such center has 
     shown significant improvement on the indicators of 
     performance described in section 159(c)(1) over the last 
     program year.
       ``(B) Violations.--The Secretary shall not select an entity 
     to operate a Job Corps center if such entity or such center 
     has been found to have a systemic or substantial material 
     failure that involves--
       ``(i) a threat to the health, safety, or civil rights of 
     program participants or staff;
       ``(ii) the misuse of funds received under this subtitle;
       ``(iii) loss of legal status or financial viability, loss 
     of permits, debarment from receiving Federal grants or 
     contracts, or the improper use of Federal funds;
       ``(iv) failure to meet any other Federal or State 
     requirement that the entity has shown an unwillingness or 
     inability to correct, after notice from the Secretary, within 
     the period specified; or
       ``(v) an unresolved area of noncompliance.
       ``(g) Current Grantees.--Not later than 60 days after the 
     date of enactment of the SKILLS Act and notwithstanding any 
     previous grant award or renewals of such award under this 
     subtitle, the Secretary shall require all entities operating 
     a Job Corps center under this subtitle to submit an 
     application under subsection (d) to carry out the 
     requirements of this section.''.

     SEC. 231. PROGRAM ACTIVITIES.

       Section 148 (29 U.S.C. 2888) is amended--
       (1) by amending subsection (a) to read as follows:
       ``(a) Activities Provided Through Job Corps Centers.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each Job Corps center shall provide 
     enrollees with an intensive, well-organized, and supervised 
     program of education, career and technical education and 
     training, work experience, recreational activities, physical 
     rehabilitation and development, and counseling. Each Job 
     Corps center shall provide enrollees assigned to the center 
     with access to work ready services described in section 
     134(c)(2).
       ``(2) Relationship to opportunities.--
       ``(A) In general.--The activities provided under this 
     subsection shall be targeted to helping enrollees, on 
     completion of their enrollment--
       ``(i) secure and maintain meaningful unsubsidized 
     employment;
       ``(ii) complete secondary education and obtain a regular 
     secondary school diploma;
       ``(iii) enroll in and complete postsecondary education or 
     training programs, including obtaining recognized 
     postsecondary credentials (such as industry-recognized 
     credentials and certificates from registered apprenticeship 
     programs); or
       ``(iv) satisfy Armed Forces requirements.
       ``(B) Link to employment opportunities.--The career and 
     technical education and training provided shall be linked to 
     the employment opportunities in in-demand industries in the 
     State in which the Job Corps center is located.''; and
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in the subsection heading, by striking ``Education and 
     Vocational'' and inserting ``Academic and Career and 
     Technical Education and'';
       (B) by striking ``may'' after ``The Secretary'' and 
     inserting ``shall''; and
       (C) by striking ``vocational'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``career and technical''; and
       (3) by amending paragraph (3) of subsection (c) to read as 
     follows:
       ``(3) Demonstration.--Each year, any operator seeking to 
     enroll additional enrollees in an advanced career training 
     program shall demonstrate, before the operator may carry out 
     such additional enrollment, that--
       ``(A) participants in such program have achieved a 
     satisfactory rate of completion and placement in training-
     related jobs; and
       ``(B) such operator has met or exceeded the indicators of 
     performance described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 
     159(c) for the previous year.''.

     SEC. 232. COUNSELING AND JOB PLACEMENT.

       Section 149 (29 U.S.C. 2889) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``vocational'' and 
     inserting ``career and technical education and'';
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by striking ``make every effort to arrange to''; and
       (B) by striking ``to assist'' and inserting ``assist''; and
       (3) by striking subsection (d).

     SEC. 233. SUPPORT.

       Subsection (b) of section 150 (29 U.S.C. 2890) is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(b) Transition Allowances and Support for Graduates.--The 
     Secretary shall arrange for a transition allowance to be paid 
     to graduates. The transition allowance shall be incentive-
     based to reflect a graduate's completion of academic, career 
     and technical education or training, and attainment of a 
     recognized postsecondary credential, including an industry-
     recognized credential.''.

     SEC. 234. OPERATIONS.

       Section 151 (29 U.S.C. 2891) is amended--
       (1) in the header, by striking ``operating plan.'' and 
     inserting ``operations.'';
       (2) in subsection (a), by striking ``In General.--'' and 
     inserting ``Operating Plan.--'';
       (3) by striking subsection (b) and redesignating subsection 
     (c) as subsection (b);
       (4) by amending subsection (b) (as so redesignated)--
       (A) in the heading by inserting ``of Operating Plan'' after 
     ``Availability''; and
       (B) by striking ``subsections (a) and (b)'' and inserting 
     ``subsection (a)''; and
       (5) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(c) Administrative Costs.--Not more than 10 percent of 
     the funds allotted under section 147 to an entity selected to 
     operate a Job Corps center may be used by the entity for 
     administrative costs under this subtitle.''.

     SEC. 235. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION.

       Section 153 (29 U.S.C. 2893) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 153. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION.

       ``The director of each Job Corps center shall encourage and 
     cooperate in activities to establish a mutually beneficial 
     relationship between Job Corps centers in the State and 
     nearby communities. Such activities may include the use of 
     any local workforce development boards established under 
     section 117 to provide a mechanism for joint discussion of 
     common problems and for planning programs of mutual 
     interest.''.

[[Page 415]]



     SEC. 236. WORKFORCE COUNCILS.

       Section 154 (29 U.S.C. 2894) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 154. WORKFORCE COUNCILS.

       ``(a) In General.--Each Job Corps center shall have a 
     workforce council appointed by the Governor of the State in 
     which the Job Corps center is located.
       ``(b) Workforce Council Composition.--
       ``(1) In general.--A workforce council shall be comprised 
     of--
       ``(A) business members of the State board described in 
     section 111(b)(1)(B)(i);
       ``(B) business members of the local boards described in 
     section 117(b)(2)(A) located in the State;
       ``(C) a representative of the State board described in 
     section 111(f); and
       ``(D) such other representatives and State agency officials 
     as the Governor may designate.
       ``(2) Majority.--A \2/3\ majority of the members of the 
     workforce council shall be representatives described in 
     paragraph (1)(A).
       ``(c) Responsibilities.--The responsibilities of the 
     workforce council shall be--
       ``(1) to review all the relevant labor market information, 
     including related information in the State plan described in 
     section 112, to--
       ``(A) determine the in-demand industries in the State in 
     which enrollees intend to seek employment after graduation;
       ``(B) determine the skills and education that are necessary 
     to obtain the employment opportunities described in 
     subparagraph (A); and
       ``(C) determine the type or types of career and technical 
     education and training that will be implemented at the center 
     to enable the enrollees to obtain the employment 
     opportunities; and
       ``(2) to meet at least once a year to reevaluate the labor 
     market information, and other relevant information, to 
     determine any necessary changes in the career and technical 
     education and training provided at the center.''.

     SEC. 237. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.

       Section 156 (29 U.S.C. 2896) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 156. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO CENTERS.

       ``(a) In General.--From the funds reserved under section 
     132(a)(3), the Secretary shall provide, directly or through 
     grants, contracts, or other agreements or arrangements as the 
     Secretary considers appropriate, technical assistance and 
     training for the Job Corps program for the purposes of 
     improving program quality.
       ``(b) Activities.--In providing training and technical 
     assistance and for allocating resources for such assistance, 
     the Secretary shall--
       ``(1) assist entities, including those entities not 
     currently operating a Job Corps center, in developing the 
     application described in section 147(d);
       ``(2) assist Job Corps centers and programs in correcting 
     deficiencies and violations under this subtitle;
       ``(3) assist Job Corps centers and programs in meeting or 
     exceeding the indicators of performance described in 
     paragraph (1) and (2) of section 159(c); and
       ``(4) assist Job Corps centers and programs in the 
     development of sound management practices, including 
     financial management procedures.''.

     SEC. 238. SPECIAL PROVISIONS.

       Section 158(c)(1) (29 U.S.C. 2989(c)(1)) is amended by 
     striking ``title II of the Federal Property and 
     Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 481 et seq.)'' 
     and inserting ``chapter 5 of title 40, United States Code,''.

     SEC. 239. PERFORMANCE ACCOUNTABILITY MANAGEMENT.

       Section 159 (29 U.S.C. 2899) is amended--
       (1) in the section heading, by striking ``management 
     information'' and inserting ``performance accountability and 
     management'';
       (2) in subsection (a)(3), by inserting before the period at 
     the end the following: ``, or operating costs for such 
     centers result in a budgetary shortfall'';
       (3) by striking subsections (c) through (g); and
       (4) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
       ``(c) Indicators of Performance.--
       ``(1) Primary indicators.--The annual primary indicators of 
     performance for Job Corps centers shall include--
       ``(A) the percentage and number of enrollees who graduate 
     from the Job Corps center;
       ``(B) the percentage and number of graduates who entered 
     unsubsidized employment related to the career and technical 
     education and training received through the Job Corps center, 
     except that such calculation shall not include enrollment in 
     education, the military, or volunteer service;
       ``(C) the percentage and number of graduates who obtained a 
     recognized postsecondary credential, including an industry-
     recognized credential or a certificate from a registered 
     apprenticeship program; and
       ``(D) the cost per successful performance outcome, which is 
     calculated by comparing the number of graduates who were 
     placed in unsubsidized employment or obtained a recognized 
     postsecondary credential, including an industry-recognized 
     credential, to total program costs, including all operations, 
     construction, and administration costs at each Job Corps 
     center.
       ``(2) Secondary indicators.--The annual secondary 
     indicators of performance for Job Corps centers shall 
     include--
       ``(A) the percentage and number of graduates who entered 
     unsubsidized employment not related to the career and 
     technical education and training received through the Job 
     Corps center;
       ``(B) the percentage and number of graduates who entered 
     into postsecondary education;
       ``(C) the percentage and number of graduates who entered 
     into the military;
       ``(D) the average wage of graduates who are in unsubsidized 
     employment--
       ``(i) on the first day of employment; and
       ``(ii) 6 months after the first day;
       ``(E) the number and percentage of graduates who entered 
     unsubsidized employment and were retained in the unsubsidized 
     employment--
       ``(i) 6 months after the first day of employment; and
       ``(ii) 12 months after the first day of employment;
       ``(F) the percentage and number of enrollees compared to 
     the percentage and number of enrollees the Secretary has 
     established as targets in section 145(c)(1);
       ``(G) the cost per training slot, which is calculated by 
     comparing the program's maximum number of enrollees that can 
     be enrolled in a Job Corps center at any given time during 
     the program year to the number of enrollees in the same 
     program year; and
       ``(H) the number and percentage of former enrollees, 
     including the number dismissed under the zero tolerance 
     policy described in section 152(b).
       ``(3) Indicators of performance for recruiters.--The annual 
     indicators of performance for recruiters shall include the 
     measurements described in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) 
     and subparagraphs (F), (G), and (H) of paragraph (2).
       ``(4) Indicators of performance of career transition 
     service providers.--The annual indicators of performance of 
     career transition service providers shall include the 
     measurements described in subparagraphs (B) and (C) of 
     paragraph (1) and subparagraphs, (B), (C), (D), and (E) of 
     paragraph (2).
       ``(d) Additional Information.--The Secretary shall collect, 
     and submit in the report described in subsection (f), 
     information on the performance of each Job Corps center, and 
     the Job Corps program, regarding--
       ``(1) the number and percentage of former enrollees who 
     obtained a regular secondary school diploma;
       ``(2) the number and percentage of former enrollees who 
     entered unsubsidized employment;
       ``(3) the number and percentage of former enrollees who 
     obtained a recognized postsecondary credential, including an 
     industry-recognized credential;
       ``(4) the number and percentage of former enrollees who 
     entered into military service; and
       ``(5) any additional information required by the Secretary.
       ``(e) Methods.--The Secretary shall collect the information 
     described in subsections (c) and (d), using methods described 
     in section 136(f)(2) and consistent with State law, by 
     entering into agreements with the States to access such data 
     for Job Corps enrollees, former enrollees, and graduates.
       ``(f) Transparency and Accountability.--
       ``(1) Report.--The Secretary shall collect and annually 
     submit to the Committee on Education and the Workforce of the 
     House of Representatives and the Committee on Health, 
     Education, Labor and Pensions of the Senate, and make 
     available to the public by electronic means, a report 
     containing--
       ``(A) information on the performance of each Job Corps 
     center, and the Job Corps program, on the performance 
     indicators described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection 
     (c);
       ``(B) a comparison of each Job Corps center, by rank, on 
     the performance indicators described in paragraphs (1) and 
     (2) of subsection (c);
       ``(C) a comparison of each Job Corps center, by rank, on 
     the average performance of all primary indicators described 
     in paragraph (1) of subsection (c);
       ``(D) information on the performance of the service 
     providers described in paragraphs (3) and (4) of subsection 
     (c) on the performance indicators established under such 
     paragraphs; and
       ``(E) a comparison of each service provider, by rank, on 
     the performance of all service providers described in 
     paragraphs (3) and (4) of subsection (c) on the performance 
     indicators established under such paragraphs.
       ``(2) Assessment.--The Secretary shall conduct an annual 
     assessment of the performance of each Job Corps center which 
     shall include information on the Job Corps centers that--
       ``(A) are ranked in the bottom 10 percent on the 
     performance indicator described in paragraph (1)(C); or
       ``(B) have failed a safety and health code review described 
     in subsection (g).
       ``(3) Performance improvement.--With respect to a Job Corps 
     center that is identified under paragraph (2) or reports less 
     than 50 percent on the performance indicators described in 
     subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of

[[Page 416]]

     subsection (c)(1), the Secretary shall develop and implement 
     a 1 year performance improvement plan. Such a plan shall 
     require action including--
       ``(A) providing technical assistance to the center;
       ``(B) changing the management staff of the center;
       ``(C) replacing the operator of the center;
       ``(D) reducing the capacity of the center; or
       ``(E) closing the center.
       ``(4) Closure of job corps centers.--Job Corps centers that 
     have been identified under paragraph (2) for more than 4 
     consecutive years shall be closed. The Secretary shall 
     ensure--
       ``(A) that the proposed decision to close the center is 
     announced in advance to the general public through 
     publication in the Federal Register and other appropriate 
     means; and
       ``(B) the establishment of a reasonable comment period, not 
     to exceed 30 days, for interested individuals to submit 
     written comments to the Secretary.
       ``(g) Participant Health and Safety.--The Secretary shall 
     enter into an agreement with the General Services 
     Administration or the appropriate State agency responsible 
     for inspecting public buildings and safeguarding the health 
     of disadvantaged students, to conduct an in-person review of 
     the physical condition and health-related activities of each 
     Job Corps center annually. Such review shall include a 
     passing rate of occupancy under Federal and State 
     ordinances.''.

                      CHAPTER 4--NATIONAL PROGRAMS

     SEC. 241. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.

       Section 170 (29 U.S.C. 2915) is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (b);
       (2) by striking:
       ``(a) General Technical Assistance.--'';
       (3) by redesignating paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) as 
     subsections (a), (b), and (c) respectively, and moving such 
     subsections 2 ems to the left, and conforming the casing 
     style of the headings of such subsections to the casing style 
     of the heading of subsection (d), as added by paragraph (7) 
     of this section;
       (4) in subsection (a) (as so redesignated)--
       (A) by inserting ``the training of staff providing rapid 
     response services and additional assistance, the training of 
     other staff of recipients of funds under this title, 
     assistance regarding accounting and program operation 
     practices (when such assistance would not be duplicative to 
     assistance provided by the State), technical assistance to 
     States that do not meet State performance measures described 
     in section 136,'' after ``localities,''; and
       (B) by striking ``from carrying out activities'' and all 
     that follows up to the period and inserting ``to implement 
     the amendments made by the SKILLS Act'';
       (5) in subsection (b) (as so redesignated)--
       (A) by striking ``paragraph (1)'' and inserting 
     ``subsection (a)'';
       (B) by striking ``, or recipient of financial assistance 
     under any of sections 166 through 169,''; and
       (C) by striking ``or grant recipient'';
       (6) in subsection (c) (as so redesignated), by striking 
     ``paragraph (1)'' and inserting ``subsection (a)''; and
       (7) by inserting, after subsection (c) (as so 
     redesignated), the following:
       ``(d) Best Practices Coordination.--The Secretary shall--
       ``(1) establish a system through which States may share 
     information regarding best practices with regard to the 
     operation of workforce investment activities under this Act; 
     and
       ``(2) evaluate and disseminate information regarding best 
     practices and identify knowledge gaps.''.

     SEC. 242. EVALUATIONS.

       Section 172 (29 U.S.C. 2917) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``the Secretary shall 
     provide for the continuing evaluation of the programs and 
     activities, including those programs and activities carried 
     out under section 171'' and inserting ``the Secretary, 
     through grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements, shall 
     conduct, at least once every 5 years, an independent 
     evaluation of the programs and activities funded under this 
     Act'';
       (2) by amending subsection (a)(4) to read as follows:
       ``(4) the impact of receiving services and not receiving 
     services under such programs and activities on the community, 
     businesses, and individuals;'';
       (3) by amending subsection (c) to read as follows:
       ``(c) Techniques.--Evaluations conducted under this section 
     shall utilize appropriate and rigorous methodology and 
     research designs, including the use of control groups chosen 
     by scientific random assignment methodologies, quasi-
     experimental methods, impact analysis and the use of 
     administrative data. The Secretary shall conduct an impact 
     analysis, as described in subsection (a)(4), of the formula 
     grant program under subtitle B not later than 2016, and 
     thereafter shall conduct such an analysis not less than once 
     every 4 years.'';
       (4) in subsection (e), by striking ``the Committee on Labor 
     and Human Resources of the Senate'' and inserting ``the 
     Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the 
     Senate'';
       (5) by redesignating subsection (f) as subsection (g) and 
     inserting after subsection (e) the following:
       ``(f) Reduction of Amounts Authorized to Be Appropriated 
     for Late Reporting.--If a report required to be transmitted 
     to Congress under this section is not transmitted on or 
     before the time period specified for that report, amounts 
     authorized to be appropriated under this title shall be 
     reduced by 10 percent for the fiscal year that begins after 
     the date on which the final report required under this 
     section is required to be transmitted and reduced by an 
     additional 10 percent each subsequent fiscal year until each 
     such report is transmitted to Congress.''; and
       (6) by adding at the end, the following:
       ``(h) Public Availability.--The results of the evaluations 
     conducted under this section shall be made publicly 
     available, including by posting such results on the 
     Department's website.''.

                       CHAPTER 5--ADMINISTRATION

     SEC. 246. REQUIREMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS.

       Section 181 (29 U.S.C. 2931) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)(6), by striking ``, including 
     representatives of businesses and of labor organizations,'';
       (2) in subsection (c)(2)(A), in the matter preceding clause 
     (i), by striking ``shall'' and inserting ``may'';
       (3) in subsection (e)--
       (A) by striking ``training for'' and inserting ``the entry 
     into employment, retention in employment, or increases in 
     earnings of''; and
       (B) by striking ``subtitle B'' and inserting ``this Act'';
       (4) in subsection (f)(4), by striking ``134(a)(3)(B)'' and 
     inserting ``133(a)(4)''; and
       (5) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(g) Salary and Bonus Limitation.--
       ``(1) In general.--No funds provided under this title shall 
     be used by a recipient or subrecipient of such funds to pay 
     the salary and bonuses of an individual, either as direct 
     costs or indirect costs, at a rate in excess of the rate 
     prescribed in level II of the Executive Schedule under 
     section 5315 of title 5, United States Code.
       ``(2) Vendors.--The limitation described in paragraph (1) 
     shall not apply to vendors providing goods and services as 
     defined in OMB Circular A-133.
       ``(3) Lower limit.--In a case in which a State is a 
     recipient of such funds, the State may establish a lower 
     limit than is provided in paragraph (1) for salaries and 
     bonuses of those receiving salaries and bonuses from a 
     subrecipient of such funds, taking into account factors 
     including the relative cost of living in the State, the 
     compensation levels for comparable State or local government 
     employees, and the size of the organizations that administer 
     the Federal programs involved.
       ``(h) General Authority.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Employment and Training 
     Administration of the Department of Labor (referred to in 
     this Act as the `Administration') shall administer all 
     programs authorized under title I and the Wagner-Peyser Act 
     (29 U.S.C. 49 et seq.). The Administration shall be headed by 
     an Assistant Secretary appointed by the President by and with 
     the advice and consent of the Senate. Except for title II and 
     the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 701 et seq.), the 
     Administration shall be the principal agency, and the 
     Assistant Secretary shall be the principal officer, of such 
     Department for carrying out this Act.
       ``(2) Qualifications.--The Assistant Secretary shall be an 
     individual with substantial experience in workforce 
     development and in workforce development management. The 
     Assistant Secretary shall also, to the maximum extent 
     possible, possess knowledge and have worked in or with the 
     State or local workforce investment system or have been a 
     member of the business community.
       ``(3) Functions.--In the performance of the functions of 
     the office, the Assistant Secretary shall be directly 
     responsible to the Secretary or the Deputy Secretary of 
     Labor, as determined by the Secretary. The functions of the 
     Assistant Secretary shall not be delegated to any officer not 
     directly responsible, both with respect to program operation 
     and administration, to the Assistant Secretary. Any reference 
     in this Act to duties to be carried out by the Assistant 
     Secretary shall be considered to be a reference to duties to 
     be carried out by the Secretary acting through the Assistant 
     Secretary.''.

     SEC. 247. PROMPT ALLOCATION OF FUNDS.

       Section 182 (29 U.S.C. 2932) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (c)--
       (A) by striking ``127 or''; and
       (B) by striking ``, except that'' and all that follows and 
     inserting a period; and
       (2) in subsection (e)--
       (A) by striking ``sections 128 and 133'' and inserting 
     ``section 133''; and
       (B) by striking ``127 or''.

     SEC. 248. FISCAL CONTROLS; SANCTIONS.

       Section 184(a)(2) (29 U.S.C. 2934(a)(2)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(A)'' and all that follows through 
     ``Each'' and inserting ``Each''; and
       (2) by striking subparagraph (B).

     SEC. 249. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

       Section 185 (29 U.S.C. 2935) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (c)--
       (A) in paragraph (2), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (B) in paragraph (3), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; and''; and

[[Page 417]]

       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) shall have the option to submit or disseminate 
     electronically any reports, records, plans, or other data 
     that are required to be collected or disseminated under this 
     title.''; and
       (2) in subsection (e)(2), by inserting ``and the Secretary 
     shall submit to the Committee on Education and the Workforce 
     of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Health, 
     Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate,'' after 
     ``Secretary,''.

     SEC. 250. ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.

       Section 189 (29 U.S.C. 2939) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (g)--
       (A) by amending paragraph (1) to read as follows:
       ``(1) In general.--Appropriations for any fiscal year for 
     programs and activities carried out under this title shall be 
     available for obligation only on the basis of a program year. 
     The program year shall begin on October 1 in the fiscal year 
     for which the appropriation is made.''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) in the first sentence, by striking ``each State'' and 
     inserting ``each recipient (except as otherwise provided in 
     this paragraph)''; and
       (ii) in the second sentence, by striking ``171 or'';
       (2) in subsection (i)--
       (A) by striking paragraphs (2) and (3);
       (B) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (2);
       (C) by amending paragraph (2)(A), as so redesignated--
       (i) in clause (i), by striking ``; and'' and inserting a 
     period at the end;
       (ii) by striking ``requirements of subparagraph (B)'' and 
     all that follows through ``any of the statutory or regulatory 
     requirements of subtitle B'' and inserting ``requirements of 
     subparagraph (B) or (D), any of the statutory or regulatory 
     requirements of subtitle B''; and
       (iii) by striking clause (ii); and
       (D) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) Expedited process for extending approved waivers to 
     additional states.--The Secretary may establish an expedited 
     procedure for the purpose of extending to additional States 
     the waiver of statutory or regulatory requirements that have 
     been approved for a State pursuant to a request under 
     subparagraph (B), in lieu of requiring the additional States 
     to meet the requirements of subparagraphs (B) and (C). Such 
     procedure shall ensure that the extension of such a waiver to 
     additional States is accompanied by appropriate conditions 
     relating to the implementation of such waiver.
       ``(E) External conditions.--The Secretary shall not require 
     or impose new or additional requirements, that are not 
     specified under this Act, on a State in exchange for 
     providing a waiver to the State or a local area in the State 
     under this paragraph.''.

     SEC. 251. STATE LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY.

       Section 191(a) (29 U.S.C. 2941(a)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``consistent with the provisions of this 
     title'' and inserting ``consistent with State law and the 
     provisions of this title''; and
       (2) by striking ``consistent with the terms and conditions 
     required under this title'' and inserting ``consistent with 
     State law and the terms and conditions required under this 
     title''.

     SEC. 252. GENERAL PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS.

       Section 195 (29 U.S.C. 2945) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (7), by inserting at the end the 
     following:
       ``(D) Funds received under a program by a public or private 
     nonprofit entity that are not described in subparagraph (B), 
     such as funds privately raised from philanthropic 
     foundations, businesses, or other private entities, shall not 
     be considered to be income under this title and shall not be 
     subject to the requirements of this paragraph.'';
       (2) by striking paragraph (9);
       (3) by redesignating paragraphs (10) through (13) as 
     paragraphs (9) through (12), respectively;
       (4) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
       ``(13) Funds provided under this title shall not be used to 
     establish or operate stand-alone fee-for-service enterprises 
     that compete with private sector employment agencies within 
     the meaning of section 701(c) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 
     (42 U.S.C. 2000e(c)), except that for purposes of this 
     paragraph, such an enterprise does not include a one-stop 
     center.
       ``(14) Any report required to be submitted to Congress, or 
     to a Committee of Congress, under this title shall be 
     submitted to both the chairmen and ranking minority members 
     of the Committee on Education and the Workforce of the House 
     of Representatives and the Committee on Health, Education, 
     Labor, and Pensions of the Senate.''.

     SEC. 253. FEDERAL AGENCY STAFF AND RESTRICTIONS ON POLITICAL 
                   AND LOBBYING ACTIVITIES.

       Subtitle E of title I (29 U.S.C. 2931 et seq.) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new sections:

     ``SEC. 196. FEDERAL AGENCY STAFF.

       ``The Director of the Office of Management and Budget 
     shall--
       ``(1) not later than 60 days after the date of the 
     enactment of the SKILLS Act--
       ``(A) identify the number of Federal government employees 
     who, on the day before the date of enactment of the SKILLS 
     Act, worked on or administered each of the programs and 
     activities that were authorized under this Act or were 
     authorized under a provision listed in section 401 of the 
     SKILLS Act; and
       ``(B) identify the number of full-time equivalent employees 
     who on the day before that date of enactment, worked on or 
     administered each of the programs and activities described in 
     subparagraph (A), on functions for which the authorizing 
     provision has been repealed, or for which an amount has been 
     consolidated (if such employee is in a duplicate position), 
     on or after such date of enactment;
       ``(2) not later than 90 after such date of enactment, 
     publish the information described in paragraph (1) on the 
     Office of Management and Budget website; and
       ``(3) not later than 1 year after such date of enactment--
       ``(A) reduce the workforce of the Federal Government by the 
     number of full-time equivalent employees identified under 
     paragraph (1)(B); and
       ``(B) submit to Congress a report on how the Director 
     carried out the requirements of subparagraph (A).

     ``SEC. 197. RESTRICTIONS ON LOBBYING AND POLITICAL 
                   ACTIVITIES.

       ``(a) Lobbying Restrictions.--
       ``(1) Publicity restrictions.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), no funds 
     provided under this Act shall be used or proposed for use, 
     for--
       ``(i) publicity or propaganda purposes; or
       ``(ii) the preparation, distribution, or use of any kit, 
     pamphlet, booklet, publication, electronic communication, 
     radio, television, or video presentation designed to support 
     or defeat the enactment of legislation before the Congress or 
     any State or local legislature or legislative body.
       ``(B) Exception.--Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to--
       ``(i) normal and recognized executive-legislative 
     relationships;
       ``(ii) the preparation, distribution, or use of the 
     materials described in subparagraph (A)(ii) in presentation 
     to the Congress or any State or local legislature or 
     legislative body (except that this subparagraph does not 
     apply with respect to such preparation, distribution, or use 
     in presentation to the executive branch of any State or local 
     government); or
       ``(iii) such preparation, distribution, or use of such 
     materials, that are designed to support or defeat any 
     proposed or pending regulation, administrative action, or 
     order issued by the executive branch of any State or local 
     government.
       ``(2) Salary payment restriction.--No funds provided under 
     this Act shall be used, or proposed for use, to pay the 
     salary or expenses of any grant or contract recipient, or 
     agent acting for such recipient, related to any activity 
     designed to influence the enactment or issuance of 
     legislation, appropriations, regulations, administrative 
     action, or an executive order proposed or pending before the 
     Congress or any State government, or a State or local 
     legislature or legislative body, other than for normal and 
     recognized executive-legislative relationships or 
     participation by an agency or officer of a State, local, or 
     tribal government in policymaking and administrative 
     processes within the executive branch of that government.
       ``(b) Political Restrictions.--
       ``(1) In general.--No funds received by a participant of a 
     program or activity under this Act shall be used for--
       ``(A) any partisan or nonpartisan political activity or any 
     other political activity associated with a candidate, or 
     contending faction or group, in an election for public or 
     party office; or
       ``(B) any activity to provide voters with transportation to 
     the polls or similar assistance in connection with any such 
     election.
       ``(2) Restriction on voter registration activities.--No 
     funds under this Act shall be used to conduct voter 
     registration activities.
       ``(3) Definition.--For the purposes of this subsection, the 
     term `participant' includes any State, local area, or 
     government, nonprofit, or for-profit entity receiving funds 
     under this Act.''.

                     CHAPTER 6--STATE UNIFIED PLAN

     SEC. 256. STATE UNIFIED PLAN.

       Section 501 (20 U.S.C. 9271) is amended--
       (1) by amending subsection (a) to read as follows:
       ``(a) General Authority.--The Secretary shall receive and 
     approve State unified plans developed and submitted in 
     accordance with this section.'';
       (2) by amending subsection (b) to read as follows:
       ``(b) State Unified Plan.--
       ``(1) In general.--A State may develop and submit to the 
     Secretary a State unified plan for 2 or more of the 
     activities or programs set forth in paragraph (2). The State 
     unified plan shall cover one or more of the activities or 
     programs set forth in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph 
     (2) and shall cover one or more of the activities or programs 
     set forth in subparagraphs (C) through (N) of paragraph (2).
       ``(2) Activities and programs.--For purposes of paragraph 
     (1), the term `activity or

[[Page 418]]

     program' means any 1 of the following 14 activities or 
     programs:
       ``(A) Activities and programs authorized under title I.
       ``(B) Activities and programs authorized under title II.
       ``(C) Programs authorized under title I of the 
     Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 710 et seq.).
       ``(D) Secondary career and technical education programs 
     authorized under the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical 
     Education Act of 2006 (20 U.S.C. 2301 et seq.).
       ``(E) Postsecondary career and technical education programs 
     authorized under the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical 
     Education Act of 2006.
       ``(F) Activities and programs authorized under title II of 
     the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2251 et seq.).
       ``(G) Programs and activities authorized under the Act of 
     August 16, 1937 (commonly known as the `National 
     Apprenticeship Act'; 50 Stat. 664, chapter 663; 29 U.S.C. 50 
     et seq.).
       ``(H) Programs authorized under the Community Services 
     Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9901 et seq.).
       ``(I) Programs authorized under part A of title IV of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
       ``(J) Programs authorized under State unemployment 
     compensation laws (in accordance with applicable Federal 
     law).
       ``(K) Work programs authorized under section 6(o) of the 
     Food and Nutrition Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2015(o)).
       ``(L) Activities and programs authorized under title I of 
     the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 
     5301 et seq.).
       ``(M) Activities and programs authorized under the Public 
     Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3121 et 
     seq.).
       ``(N) Activities authorized under chapter 41 of title 38, 
     United States Code.'';
       (3) by amending subsection (d) to read as follows:
       ``(d) Approval.--
       ``(1) Jurisdiction.--In approving a State unified plan 
     under this section, the Secretary shall--
       ``(A) submit the portion of the State unified plan covering 
     an activity or program described in subsection (b)(2) to the 
     head of the Federal agency who exercises administrative 
     authority over the activity or program for the approval of 
     such portion by such Federal agency head; or
       ``(B) coordinate approval of the portion of the State 
     unified plan covering an activity or program described in 
     subsection (b)(2) with the head of the Federal agency who 
     exercises administrative authority over the activity or 
     program.
       ``(2) Timeline.--A State unified plan shall be considered 
     to be approved by the Secretary at the end of the 90-day 
     period beginning on the day the Secretary receives the plan, 
     unless the Secretary makes a written determination, during 
     the 90-day period, that details how the plan is not 
     consistent with the requirements of the Federal statute 
     authorizing an activity or program described in subsection 
     (b)(2) and covered under the plan or how the plan is not 
     consistent with the requirements of subsection (c)(3).
       ``(3) Scope of portion.--For purposes of paragraph (1), the 
     portion of the State unified plan covering an activity or 
     program shall be considered to include the plan described in 
     subsection (c)(3) and any proposal described in subsection 
     (e)(2), as that part and proposal relate to the activity or 
     program.''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Additional Employment and Training Funds.--
       ``(1) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this subsection to 
     reduce inefficiencies in the administration of federally 
     funded State and local employment and training programs.
       ``(2) In general.--In developing a State unified plan for 
     the activities or programs described in subsection (b)(2), 
     and subject to paragraph (4) and to the State plan approval 
     process under subsection (d), a State may propose to 
     consolidate the amount, in whole or part, provided for the 
     activities or programs covered by the plan into the Workforce 
     Investment Fund under section 132(b) to improve the 
     administration of State and local employment and training 
     programs.
       ``(3) Requirements.--A State that has a State unified plan 
     approved under subsection (d) with a proposal for 
     consolidation under paragraph (2), and that is carrying out 
     such consolidation, shall--
       ``(A) in providing an activity or program for which an 
     amount is consolidated into the Workforce Investment Fund--
       ``(i) continue to meet the program requirements, 
     limitations, and prohibitions of any Federal statute 
     authorizing the activity or program; and
       ``(ii) meet the intent and purpose for the activity or 
     program; and
       ``(B) continue to make reservations and allotments under 
     subsections (a) and (b) of section 133.
       ``(4) Exceptions.--A State may not consolidate an amount 
     under paragraph (2) that is allocated to the State under--
       ``(A) the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education 
     Act of 2006 (20 U.S.C. 2301 et seq.); or
       ``(B) title I of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 
     710 et seq.).''.

       Subtitle B--Adult Education and Family Literacy Education

     SEC. 261. AMENDMENT.

       Title II (20 U.S.C. 9201 et seq.) is amended to read as 
     follows:

       ``TITLE II--ADULT EDUCATION AND FAMILY LITERACY EDUCATION

     ``SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

       ``This title may be cited as the `Adult Education and 
     Family Literacy Education Act'.

     ``SEC. 202. PURPOSE.

       ``It is the purpose of this title to provide instructional 
     opportunities for adults seeking to improve their literacy 
     skills, including their basic reading, writing, speaking, and 
     mathematics skills, and support States and local communities 
     in providing, on a voluntary basis, adult education and 
     family literacy education programs, in order to--
       ``(1) increase the literacy of adults, including the basic 
     reading, writing, speaking, and mathematics skills, to a 
     level of proficiency necessary for adults to obtain 
     employment and self-sufficiency and to successfully advance 
     in the workforce;
       ``(2) assist adults in the completion of a secondary school 
     education (or its equivalent) and the transition to a 
     postsecondary educational institution;
       ``(3) assist adults who are parents to enable them to 
     support the educational development of their children and 
     make informed choices regarding their children's education 
     including, through instruction in basic reading, writing, 
     speaking, and mathematics skills; and
       ``(4) assist adults who are not proficient in English in 
     improving their reading, writing, speaking, listening, 
     comprehension, and mathematics skills.

     ``SEC. 203. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this title:
       ``(1) Adult education and family literacy education 
     programs.--The term `adult education and family literacy 
     education programs' means a sequence of academic instruction 
     and educational services below the postsecondary level that 
     increase an individual's ability to read, write, and speak 
     English and perform mathematical computations leading to a 
     level of proficiency equivalent to at least a secondary 
     school completion that is provided for individuals--
       ``(A) who are at least 16 years of age;
       ``(B) who are not enrolled or required to be enrolled in 
     secondary school under State law; and
       ``(C) who--
       ``(i) lack sufficient mastery of basic reading, writing, 
     speaking, and mathematics skills to enable the individuals to 
     function effectively in society;
       ``(ii) do not have a secondary school diploma or its 
     equivalent and have not achieved an equivalent level of 
     education; or
       ``(iii) are English learners.
       ``(2) Eligible agency.--The term `eligible agency'--
       ``(A) means the primary entity or agency in a State or an 
     outlying area responsible for administering or supervising 
     policy for adult education and family literacy education 
     programs in the State or outlying area, respectively, 
     consistent with the law of the State or outlying area, 
     respectively; and
       ``(B) may be the State educational agency, the State agency 
     responsible for administering workforce investment 
     activities, or the State agency responsible for administering 
     community or technical colleges.
       ``(3) Eligible provider.--The term `eligible provider' 
     means an organization of demonstrated effectiveness that is--
       ``(A) a local educational agency;
       ``(B) a community-based or faith-based organization;
       ``(C) a volunteer literacy organization;
       ``(D) an institution of higher education;
       ``(E) a public or private educational agency;
       ``(F) a library;
       ``(G) a public housing authority;
       ``(H) an institution that is not described in any of 
     subparagraphs (A) through (G) and has the ability to provide 
     adult education, basic skills, and family literacy education 
     programs to adults and families; or
       ``(I) a consortium of the agencies, organizations, 
     institutions, libraries, or authorities described in any of 
     subparagraphs (A) through (H).
       ``(4) English language acquisition program.--The term 
     `English language acquisition program' means a program of 
     instruction--
       ``(A) designed to help English learners achieve competence 
     in reading, writing, speaking, and comprehension of the 
     English language; and
       ``(B) that may lead to--
       ``(i) attainment of a secondary school diploma or its 
     recognized equivalent;
       ``(ii) transition to success in postsecondary education and 
     training; and
       ``(iii) employment or career advancement.
       ``(5) Family literacy education program.--The term `family 
     literacy education program' means an educational program 
     that--
       ``(A) assists parents and students, on a voluntary basis, 
     in achieving the purpose of this title as described in 
     section 202; and

[[Page 419]]

       ``(B) is of sufficient intensity in terms of hours and of 
     sufficient quality to make sustainable changes in a family, 
     is evidence-based, and, for the purpose of substantially 
     increasing the ability of parents and children to read, 
     write, and speak English, integrates--
       ``(i) interactive literacy activities between parents and 
     their children;
       ``(ii) training for parents regarding how to be the primary 
     teacher for their children and full partners in the education 
     of their children;
       ``(iii) parent literacy training that leads to economic 
     self-sufficiency; and
       ``(iv) an age-appropriate education to prepare children for 
     success in school and life experiences.
       ``(6) Governor.--The term `Governor' means the chief 
     executive officer of a State or outlying area.
       ``(7) Individual with a disability.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `individual with a disability' 
     means an individual with any disability (as defined in 
     section 3 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990).
       ``(B) Individuals with disabilities.--The term `individuals 
     with disabilities' means more than one individual with a 
     disability.
       ``(8) English learner.--The term `English learner' means an 
     adult or out-of-school youth who has limited ability in 
     reading, writing, speaking, or understanding the English 
     language, and--
       ``(A) whose native language is a language other than 
     English; or
       ``(B) who lives in a family or community environment where 
     a language other than English is the dominant language.
       ``(9) Integrated education and training.--The term 
     `integrated education and training' means services that 
     provide adult education and literacy activities contextually 
     and concurrently with workforce preparation activities and 
     workforce training for a specific occupation or occupational 
     cluster. Such services may include offering adult education 
     services concurrent with postsecondary education and 
     training, including through co-instruction.
       ``(10) Institution of higher education.--The term 
     `institution of higher education' has the meaning given the 
     term in section 101 of the Higher Education Act of 1965.
       ``(11) Literacy.--The term `literacy' means an individual's 
     ability to read, write, and speak in English, compute, and 
     solve problems at a level of proficiency necessary to obtain 
     employment and to successfully make the transition to 
     postsecondary education.
       ``(12) Local educational agency.--The term `local 
     educational agency' has the meaning given the term in section 
     9101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
       ``(13) Outlying area.--The term `outlying area' has the 
     meaning given the term in section 101 of this Act.
       ``(14) Postsecondary educational institution.--The term 
     `postsecondary educational institution' means--
       ``(A) an institution of higher education that provides not 
     less than a 2-year program of instruction that is acceptable 
     for credit toward a bachelor's degree;
       ``(B) a tribally controlled community college; or
       ``(C) a nonprofit educational institution offering 
     certificate or apprenticeship programs at the postsecondary 
     level.
       ``(15) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary 
     of Education.
       ``(16) State.--The term `State' means each of the several 
     States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and 
     the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
       ``(17) State educational agency.--The term `State 
     educational agency' has the meaning given the term in section 
     9101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
       ``(18) Workplace literacy program.--The term `workplace 
     literacy program' means an educational program that is 
     offered in collaboration between eligible providers and 
     employers or employee organizations for the purpose of 
     improving the productivity of the workforce through the 
     improvement of reading, writing, speaking, and mathematics 
     skills.

     ``SEC. 204. HOME SCHOOLS.

       ``Nothing in this title shall be construed to affect home 
     schools, whether or not a home school is treated as a home 
     school or a private school under State law, or to compel a 
     parent engaged in home schooling to participate in adult 
     education and family literacy education activities under this 
     title.

     ``SEC. 205. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
     title, $606,294,933 for fiscal year 2015 and for each of the 
     6 succeeding fiscal years.

                    ``Subtitle A--Federal Provisions

     ``SEC. 211. RESERVATION OF FUNDS; GRANTS TO ELIGIBLE 
                   AGENCIES; ALLOTMENTS.

       ``(a) Reservation of Funds.--From the sums appropriated 
     under section 205 for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall 
     reserve 2.0 percent to carry out section 242.
       ``(b) Grants to Eligible Agencies.--
       ``(1) In general.--From the sums appropriated under section 
     205 and not reserved under subsection (a) for a fiscal year, 
     the Secretary shall award a grant to each eligible agency 
     having a State plan approved under section 224 in an amount 
     equal to the sum of the initial allotment under subsection 
     (c)(1) and the additional allotment under subsection (c)(2) 
     for the eligible agency for the fiscal year, subject to 
     subsections (f) and (g).
       ``(2) Purpose of grants.--The Secretary may award a grant 
     under paragraph (1) only if the eligible agency involved 
     agrees to expend the grant in accordance with the provisions 
     of this title.
       ``(c) Allotments.--
       ``(1) Initial allotments.--From the sums appropriated under 
     section 205 and not reserved under subsection (a) for a 
     fiscal year, the Secretary shall allot to each eligible 
     agency having a State plan approved under section 224--
       ``(A) $100,000, in the case of an eligible agency serving 
     an outlying area; and
       ``(B) $250,000, in the case of any other eligible agency.
       ``(2) Additional allotments.--From the sums appropriated 
     under section 205, not reserved under subsection (a), and not 
     allotted under paragraph (1), for a fiscal year, the 
     Secretary shall allot to each eligible agency that receives 
     an initial allotment under paragraph (1) an additional amount 
     that bears the same relationship to such sums as the number 
     of qualifying adults in the State or outlying area served by 
     the eligible agency bears to the number of such adults in all 
     States and outlying areas.
       ``(d) Qualifying Adult.--For the purpose of subsection 
     (c)(2), the term `qualifying adult' means an adult who--
       ``(1) is at least 16 years of age;
       ``(2) is beyond the age of compulsory school attendance 
     under the law of the State or outlying area;
       ``(3) does not have a secondary school diploma or its 
     recognized equivalent; and
       ``(4) is not enrolled in secondary school.
       ``(e) Special Rule.--
       ``(1) In general.--From amounts made available under 
     subsection (c) for the Republic of Palau, the Secretary shall 
     award grants to Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the 
     Northern Mariana Islands, or the Republic of Palau to carry 
     out activities described in this title in accordance with the 
     provisions of this title as determined by the Secretary.
       ``(2) Termination of eligibility.--Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, the Republic of Palau shall be 
     eligible to receive a grant under this title until an 
     agreement for the extension of United States education 
     assistance under the Compact of Free Association for the 
     Republic of Palau becomes effective.
       ``(f) Hold-Harmless Provisions.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding subsection (c) and 
     subject to paragraph (2), for--
       ``(A) fiscal year 2015, no eligible agency shall receive an 
     allotment under this title that is less than 90 percent of 
     the allotment the eligible agency received for fiscal year 
     2012 under this title; and
       ``(B) fiscal year 2016 and each succeeding fiscal year, no 
     eligible agency shall receive an allotment under this title 
     that is less than 90 percent of the allotment the eligible 
     agency received for the preceding fiscal year under this 
     title.
       ``(2) Ratable reduction.--If, for any fiscal year the 
     amount available for allotment under this title is 
     insufficient to satisfy the provisions of paragraph (1), the 
     Secretary shall ratable reduce the payments to all eligible 
     agencies, as necessary.
       ``(g) Reallotment.--The portion of any eligible agency's 
     allotment under this title for a fiscal year that the 
     Secretary determines will not be required for the period such 
     allotment is available for carrying out activities under this 
     title, shall be available for reallotment from time to time, 
     on such dates during such period as the Secretary shall fix, 
     to other eligible agencies in proportion to the original 
     allotments to such agencies under this title for such year.

     ``SEC. 212. PERFORMANCE ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM.

       ``Programs and activities authorized under this title are 
     subject to the performance accountability provisions 
     described in paragraph (2)(A) and (3) of section 136(b) and 
     may, at a State's discretion, include additional indicators 
     identified in the State plan approved under section 224.

                     ``Subtitle B--State Provisions

     ``SEC. 221. STATE ADMINISTRATION.

       ``Each eligible agency shall be responsible for the 
     following activities under this title:
       ``(1) The development, submission, implementation, and 
     monitoring of the State plan.
       ``(2) Consultation with other appropriate agencies, groups, 
     and individuals that are involved in, or interested in, the 
     development and implementation of activities assisted under 
     this title.
       ``(3) Coordination and avoidance of duplication with other 
     Federal and State education, training, corrections, public 
     housing, and social service programs.

     ``SEC. 222. STATE DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS; MATCHING 
                   REQUIREMENT.

       ``(a) State Distribution of Funds.--Each eligible agency 
     receiving a grant under this title for a fiscal year--
       ``(1) shall use not less than 82.5 percent of the grant 
     funds to award grants and contracts under section 231 and to 
     carry out section 225, of which not more than 10 percent of

[[Page 420]]

     such amount shall be available to carry out section 225;
       ``(2) shall use not more than 12.5 percent of the grant 
     funds to carry out State leadership activities under section 
     223; and
       ``(3) shall use not more than 5 percent of the grant funds, 
     or $65,000, whichever is greater, for the administrative 
     expenses of the eligible agency.
       ``(b) Matching Requirement.--
       ``(1) In general.--In order to receive a grant from the 
     Secretary under section 211(b), each eligible agency shall 
     provide, for the costs to be incurred by the eligible agency 
     in carrying out the adult education and family literacy 
     education programs for which the grant is awarded, a non-
     Federal contribution in an amount that is not less than--
       ``(A) in the case of an eligible agency serving an outlying 
     area, 12 percent of the total amount of funds expended for 
     adult education and family literacy education programs in the 
     outlying area, except that the Secretary may decrease the 
     amount of funds required under this subparagraph for an 
     eligible agency; and
       ``(B) in the case of an eligible agency serving a State, 25 
     percent of the total amount of funds expended for adult 
     education and family literacy education programs in the 
     State.
       ``(2) Non-federal contribution.--An eligible agency's non-
     Federal contribution required under paragraph (1) may be 
     provided in cash or in kind, fairly evaluated, and shall 
     include only non-Federal funds that are used for adult 
     education and family literacy education programs in a manner 
     that is consistent with the purpose of this title.

     ``SEC. 223. STATE LEADERSHIP ACTIVITIES.

       ``(a) In General.--Each eligible agency may use funds made 
     available under section 222(a)(2) for any of the following 
     adult education and family literacy education programs:
       ``(1) The establishment or operation of professional 
     development programs to improve the quality of instruction 
     provided pursuant to local activities required under section 
     231(b).
       ``(2) The provision of technical assistance to eligible 
     providers of adult education and family literacy education 
     programs, including for the development and dissemination of 
     evidence based research instructional practices in reading, 
     writing, speaking, mathematics, and English language 
     acquisition programs.
       ``(3) The provision of assistance to eligible providers in 
     developing, implementing, and reporting measurable progress 
     in achieving the objectives of this title.
       ``(4) The monitoring and evaluation of the quality of, and 
     the improvement in, adult education and literacy activities.
       ``(5) The provision of technology assistance, including 
     staff training, to eligible providers of adult education and 
     family literacy education programs, including distance 
     education activities, to enable the eligible providers to 
     improve the quality of such activities.
       ``(6) The development and implementation of technology 
     applications or distance education, including professional 
     development to support the use of instructional technology.
       ``(7) Coordination with other public programs, including 
     programs under title I of this Act, and other welfare-to-
     work, workforce development, and job training programs.
       ``(8) Coordination with existing support services, such as 
     transportation, child care, and other assistance designed to 
     increase rates of enrollment in, and successful completion 
     of, adult education and family literacy education programs, 
     for adults enrolled in such activities.
       ``(9) The development and implementation of a system to 
     assist in the transition from adult basic education to 
     postsecondary education.
       ``(10) Activities to promote workplace literacy programs.
       ``(11) Other activities of statewide significance, 
     including assisting eligible providers in achieving progress 
     in improving the skill levels of adults who participate in 
     programs under this title.
       ``(12) Integration of literacy, instructional, and 
     occupational skill training and promotion of linkages with 
     employees.
       ``(b) Coordination.--In carrying out this section, eligible 
     agencies shall coordinate where possible, and avoid 
     duplicating efforts, in order to maximize the impact of the 
     activities described in subsection (a).
       ``(c) State-Imposed Requirements.--Whenever a State or 
     outlying area implements any rule or policy relating to the 
     administration or operation of a program authorized under 
     this title that has the effect of imposing a requirement that 
     is not imposed under Federal law (including any rule or 
     policy based on a State or outlying area interpretation of a 
     Federal statute, regulation, or guideline), the State or 
     outlying area shall identify, to eligible providers, the rule 
     or policy as being imposed by the State or outlying area.

     ``SEC. 224. STATE PLAN.

       ``(a) 3-Year Plans.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each eligible agency desiring a grant 
     under this title for any fiscal year shall submit to, or have 
     on file with, the Secretary a 3-year State plan.
       ``(2) State unified plan.--The eligible agency may submit 
     the State plan as part of a State unified plan described in 
     section 501.
       ``(b) Plan Contents.--The eligible agency shall include in 
     the State plan or any revisions to the State plan--
       ``(1) an objective assessment of the needs of individuals 
     in the State or outlying area for adult education and family 
     literacy education programs, including individuals most in 
     need or hardest to serve;
       ``(2) a description of the adult education and family 
     literacy education programs that will be carried out with 
     funds received under this title;
       ``(3) an assurance that the funds received under this title 
     will not be expended for any purpose other than for 
     activities under this title;
       ``(4) a description of how the eligible agency will 
     annually evaluate and measure the effectiveness and 
     improvement of the adult education and family literacy 
     education programs funded under this title using the 
     indicators of performance described in section 136, including 
     how the eligible agency will conduct such annual evaluations 
     and measures for each grant received under this title;
       ``(5) a description of how the eligible agency will fund 
     local activities in accordance with the measurable goals 
     described in section 231(d);
       ``(6) an assurance that the eligible agency will expend the 
     funds under this title only in a manner consistent with 
     fiscal requirements in section 241;
       ``(7) a description of the process that will be used for 
     public participation and comment with respect to the State 
     plan, which--
       ``(A) shall include consultation with the State workforce 
     investment board, the State board responsible for 
     administering community or technical colleges, the Governor, 
     the State educational agency, the State board or agency 
     responsible for administering block grants for temporary 
     assistance to needy families under title IV of the Social 
     Security Act, the State council on disabilities, the State 
     vocational rehabilitation agency, and other State agencies 
     that promote the improvement of adult education and family 
     literacy education programs, and direct providers of such 
     programs; and
       ``(B) may include consultation with the State agency on 
     higher education, institutions responsible for professional 
     development of adult education and family literacy education 
     programs instructors, representatives of business and 
     industry, refugee assistance programs, and faith-based 
     organizations;
       ``(8) a description of the eligible agency's strategies for 
     serving populations that include, at a minimum--
       ``(A) low-income individuals;
       ``(B) individuals with disabilities;
       ``(C) the unemployed;
       ``(D) the underemployed; and
       ``(E) individuals with multiple barriers to educational 
     enhancement, including English learners;
       ``(9) a description of how the adult education and family 
     literacy education programs that will be carried out with any 
     funds received under this title will be integrated with other 
     adult education, career development, and employment and 
     training activities in the State or outlying area served by 
     the eligible agency;
       ``(10) a description of the steps the eligible agency will 
     take to ensure direct and equitable access, as required in 
     section 231(c)(1), including--
       ``(A) how the State will build the capacity of community-
     based and faith-based organizations to provide adult 
     education and family literacy education programs; and
       ``(B) how the State will increase the participation of 
     business and industry in adult education and family literacy 
     education programs;
       ``(11) an assessment of the adequacy of the system of the 
     State or outlying area to ensure teacher quality and a 
     description of how the State or outlying area will use funds 
     received under this subtitle to improve teacher quality, 
     including evidence-based professional development to improve 
     instruction; and
       ``(12) a description of how the eligible agency will 
     consult with any State agency responsible for postsecondary 
     education to develop adult education that prepares students 
     to enter postsecondary education without the need for 
     remediation upon completion of secondary school equivalency 
     programs.
       ``(c) Plan Revisions.--When changes in conditions or other 
     factors require substantial revisions to an approved State 
     plan, the eligible agency shall submit the revisions of the 
     State plan to the Secretary.
       ``(d) Consultation.--The eligible agency shall--
       ``(1) submit the State plan, and any revisions to the State 
     plan, to the Governor, the chief State school officer, or the 
     State officer responsible for administering community or 
     technical colleges, or outlying area for review and comment; 
     and
       ``(2) ensure that any comments regarding the State plan by 
     the Governor, the chief State school officer, or the State 
     officer responsible for administering community or technical 
     colleges, and any revision to the State plan, are submitted 
     to the Secretary.

[[Page 421]]

       ``(e) Plan Approval.--The Secretary shall--
       ``(1) approve a State plan within 90 days after receiving 
     the plan unless the Secretary makes a written determination 
     within 30 days after receiving the plan that the plan does 
     not meet the requirements of this section or is inconsistent 
     with specific provisions of this subtitle; and
       ``(2) not finally disapprove of a State plan before 
     offering the eligible agency the opportunity, prior to the 
     expiration of the 30-day period beginning on the date on 
     which the eligible agency received the written determination 
     described in paragraph (1), to review the plan and providing 
     technical assistance in order to assist the eligible agency 
     in meeting the requirements of this subtitle.

     ``SEC. 225. PROGRAMS FOR CORRECTIONS EDUCATION AND OTHER 
                   INSTITUTIONALIZED INDIVIDUALS.

       ``(a) Program Authorized.--From funds made available under 
     section 222(a)(1) for a fiscal year, each eligible agency 
     shall carry out corrections education and education for other 
     institutionalized individuals.
       ``(b) Uses of Funds.--The funds described in subsection (a) 
     shall be used for the cost of educational programs for 
     criminal offenders in correctional institutions and for other 
     institutionalized individuals, including academic programs 
     for--
       ``(1) basic skills education;
       ``(2) special education programs as determined by the 
     eligible agency;
       ``(3) reading, writing, speaking, and mathematics programs;
       ``(4) secondary school credit or diploma programs or their 
     recognized equivalent; and
       ``(5) integrated education and training.
       ``(c) Priority.--Each eligible agency that is using 
     assistance provided under this section to carry out a program 
     for criminal offenders within a correctional institution 
     shall give priority to serving individuals who are likely to 
     leave the correctional institution within 5 years of 
     participation in the program.
       ``(d) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Correctional institution.--The term `correctional 
     institution' means any--
       ``(A) prison;
       ``(B) jail;
       ``(C) reformatory;
       ``(D) work farm;
       ``(E) detention center; or
       ``(F) halfway house, community-based rehabilitation center, 
     or any other similar institution designed for the confinement 
     or rehabilitation of criminal offenders.
       ``(2) Criminal offender.--The term `criminal offender' 
     means any individual who is charged with, or convicted of, 
     any criminal offense.

                     ``Subtitle C--Local Provisions

     ``SEC. 231. GRANTS AND CONTRACTS FOR ELIGIBLE PROVIDERS.

       ``(a) Grants and Contracts.--From grant funds made 
     available under section 222(a)(1), each eligible agency shall 
     award multi-year grants or contracts, on a competitive basis, 
     to eligible providers within the State or outlying area that 
     meet the conditions and requirements of this title to enable 
     the eligible providers to develop, implement, and improve 
     adult education and family literacy education programs within 
     the State.
       ``(b) Local Activities.--The eligible agency shall require 
     eligible providers receiving a grant or contract under 
     subsection (a) to establish or operate--
       ``(1) programs that provide adult education and literacy 
     activities;
       ``(2) programs that provide integrated education and 
     training activities; or
       ``(3) credit-bearing postsecondary coursework.
       ``(c) Direct and Equitable Access; Same Process.--Each 
     eligible agency receiving funds under this title shall ensure 
     that--
       ``(1) all eligible providers have direct and equitable 
     access to apply for grants or contracts under this section; 
     and
       ``(2) the same grant or contract announcement process and 
     application process is used for all eligible providers in the 
     State or outlying area.
       ``(d) Measurable Goals.--The eligible agency shall require 
     eligible providers receiving a grant or contract under 
     subsection (a) to demonstrate--
       ``(1) the eligible provider's measurable goals for 
     participant outcomes to be achieved annually on the core 
     indicators of performance described in section 136(b)(2)(A);
       ``(2) the past effectiveness of the eligible provider in 
     improving the basic academic skills of adults and, for 
     eligible providers receiving grants in the prior year, the 
     success of the eligible provider receiving funding under this 
     title in exceeding its performance goals in the prior year;
       ``(3) the commitment of the eligible provider to serve 
     individuals in the community who are the most in need of 
     basic academic skills instruction services, including 
     individuals with disabilities and individuals who are low-
     income or have minimal reading, writing, speaking, and 
     mathematics skills, or are English learners;
       ``(4) the program is of sufficient intensity and quality 
     for participants to achieve substantial learning gains;
       ``(5) educational practices are evidence-based;
       ``(6) the activities of the eligible provider effectively 
     employ advances in technology, and delivery systems including 
     distance education;
       ``(7) the activities provide instruction in real-life 
     contexts, including integrated education and training when 
     appropriate, to ensure that an individual has the skills 
     needed to compete in the workplace and exercise the rights 
     and responsibilities of citizenship;
       ``(8) the activities are staffed by well-trained 
     instructors, counselors, and administrators who meet minimum 
     qualifications established by the State;
       ``(9) the activities are coordinated with other available 
     resources in the community, such as through strong links with 
     elementary schools and secondary schools, postsecondary 
     educational institutions, local workforce investment boards, 
     one-stop centers, job training programs, community-based and 
     faith-based organizations, and social service agencies;
       ``(10) the activities offer flexible schedules and support 
     services (such as child care and transportation) that are 
     necessary to enable individuals, including individuals with 
     disabilities or other special needs, to attend and complete 
     programs;
       ``(11) the activities include a high-quality information 
     management system that has the capacity to report measurable 
     participant outcomes (consistent with section 136) and to 
     monitor program performance;
       ``(12) the local communities have a demonstrated need for 
     additional English language acquisition programs, and 
     integrated education and training programs;
       ``(13) the capacity of the eligible provider to produce 
     valid information on performance results, including 
     enrollments and measurable participant outcomes;
       ``(14) adult education and family literacy education 
     programs offer rigorous reading, writing, speaking, and 
     mathematics content that are evidence based; and
       ``(15) applications of technology, and services to be 
     provided by the eligible providers, are of sufficient 
     intensity and duration to increase the amount and quality of 
     learning and lead to measurable learning gains within 
     specified time periods.
       ``(e) Special Rule.--Eligible providers may use grant funds 
     under this title to serve children participating in family 
     literacy programs assisted under this part, provided that 
     other sources of funds available to provide similar services 
     for such children are used first.

     ``SEC. 232. LOCAL APPLICATION.

       ``Each eligible provider desiring a grant or contract under 
     this title shall submit an application to the eligible agency 
     containing such information and assurances as the eligible 
     agency may require, including--
       ``(1) a description of how funds awarded under this title 
     will be spent consistent with the requirements of this title;
       ``(2) a description of any cooperative arrangements the 
     eligible provider has with other agencies, institutions, or 
     organizations for the delivery of adult education and family 
     literacy education programs; and
       ``(3) each of the demonstrations required by section 
     231(d).

     ``SEC. 233. LOCAL ADMINISTRATIVE COST LIMITS.

       ``(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), of the amount 
     that is made available under this title to an eligible 
     provider--
       ``(1) at least 95 percent shall be expended for carrying 
     out adult education and family literacy education programs; 
     and
       ``(2) the remaining amount shall be used for planning, 
     administration, personnel and professional development, 
     development of measurable goals in reading, writing, 
     speaking, and mathematics, and interagency coordination.
       ``(b) Special Rule.--In cases where the cost limits 
     described in subsection (a) are too restrictive to allow for 
     adequate planning, administration, personnel development, and 
     interagency coordination, the eligible provider may negotiate 
     with the eligible agency in order to determine an adequate 
     level of funds to be used for noninstructional purposes.

                    ``Subtitle D--General Provisions

     ``SEC. 241. ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.

       ``Funds made available for adult education and family 
     literacy education programs under this title shall supplement 
     and not supplant other State or local public funds expended 
     for adult education and family literacy education programs.

     ``SEC. 242. NATIONAL ACTIVITIES.

       ``The Secretary shall establish and carry out a program of 
     national activities that may include the following:
       ``(1) Providing technical assistance to eligible entities, 
     on request, to--
       ``(A) improve their fiscal management, research-based 
     instruction, and reporting requirements to carry out the 
     requirements of this title;
       ``(B) improve its performance on the core indicators of 
     performance described in section 136;
       ``(C) provide adult education professional development; and
       ``(D) use distance education and improve the application of 
     technology in the classroom, including instruction in English 
     language acquisition for English learners.
       ``(2) Providing for the conduct of research on national 
     literacy basic skill acquisition levels among adults, 
     including the number of

[[Page 422]]

     adult English learners functioning at different levels of 
     reading proficiency.
       ``(3) Improving the coordination, efficiency, and 
     effectiveness of adult education and workforce development 
     services at the national, State, and local levels.
       ``(4) Determining how participation in adult education, 
     English language acquisition, and family literacy education 
     programs prepares individuals for entry into and success in 
     postsecondary education and employment, and in the case of 
     prison-based services, the effect on recidivism.
       ``(5) Evaluating how different types of providers, 
     including community and faith-based organizations or private 
     for-profit agencies measurably improve the skills of 
     participants in adult education, English language 
     acquisition, and family literacy education programs.
       ``(6) Identifying model integrated basic and workplace 
     skills education programs, including programs for English 
     learners coordinated literacy and employment services, and 
     effective strategies for serving adults with disabilities.
       ``(7) Initiating other activities designed to improve the 
     measurable quality and effectiveness of adult education, 
     English language acquisition, and family literacy education 
     programs nationwide.''.

            Subtitle C--Amendments to the Wagner-Peyser Act

     SEC. 266. AMENDMENTS TO THE WAGNER-PEYSER ACT.

       Section 15 of the Wagner-Peyser Act (29 U.S.C. 49l-2) is 
     amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 15. WORKFORCE AND LABOR MARKET INFORMATION SYSTEM.

       ``(a) System Content.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary of Labor (referred to in 
     this section as the `Secretary'), in accordance with the 
     provisions of this section, shall oversee the development, 
     maintenance, and continuous improvement of a nationwide 
     workforce and labor market information system that includes--
       ``(A) statistical data from cooperative statistical survey 
     and projection programs and data from administrative 
     reporting systems that, taken together, enumerate, estimate, 
     and project employment opportunities and conditions at 
     national, State, and local levels in a timely manner, 
     including statistics on--
       ``(i) employment and unemployment status of national, 
     State, and local populations, including self-employed, part-
     time, and seasonal workers;
       ``(ii) industrial distribution of occupations, as well as 
     current and projected employment opportunities, wages, 
     benefits (where data is available), and skill trends by 
     occupation and industry, with particular attention paid to 
     State and local conditions;
       ``(iii) the incidence of, industrial and geographical 
     location of, and number of workers displaced by, permanent 
     layoffs and plant closings; and
       ``(iv) employment and earnings information maintained in a 
     longitudinal manner to be used for research and program 
     evaluation;
       ``(B) information on State and local employment 
     opportunities, and other appropriate statistical data related 
     to labor market dynamics, which--
       ``(i) shall be current and comprehensive;
       ``(ii) shall meet the needs identified through the 
     consultations described in subparagraphs (C) and (D) of 
     subsection (e)(1); and
       ``(iii) shall meet the needs for the information identified 
     in section 121(e)(1)(E) of the Workforce Investment Act of 
     1998 (29 U.S.C. 2841(e)(1)(E));
       ``(C) technical standards (which the Secretary shall 
     publish annually) for data and information described in 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B) that, at a minimum, meet the 
     criteria of chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code;
       ``(D) procedures to ensure compatibility and additivity of 
     the data and information described in subparagraphs (A) and 
     (B) from national, State, and local levels;
       ``(E) procedures to support standardization and aggregation 
     of data from administrative reporting systems described in 
     subparagraph (A) of employment-related programs;
       ``(F) analysis of data and information described in 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B) for uses such as--
       ``(i) national, State, and local policymaking;
       ``(ii) implementation of Federal policies (including 
     allocation formulas);
       ``(iii) program planning and evaluation; and
       ``(iv) researching labor market dynamics;
       ``(G) wide dissemination of such data, information, and 
     analysis in a user-friendly manner and voluntary technical 
     standards for dissemination mechanisms; and
       ``(H) programs of--
       ``(i) training for effective data dissemination;
       ``(ii) research and demonstration; and
       ``(iii) programs and technical assistance.
       ``(2) Information to be confidential.--
       ``(A) In general.--No officer or employee of the Federal 
     Government or agent of the Federal Government may--
       ``(i) use any submission that is furnished for exclusively 
     statistical purposes under the provisions of this section for 
     any purpose other than the statistical purposes for which the 
     submission is furnished;
       ``(ii) disclose to the public any publication or media 
     transmittal of the data contained in the submission described 
     in clause (i) that permits information concerning an 
     individual subject to be reasonably inferred by either direct 
     or indirect means; or
       ``(iii) permit anyone other than a sworn officer, employee, 
     or agent of any Federal department or agency, or a contractor 
     (including an employee of a contractor) of such department or 
     agency, to examine an individual submission described in 
     clause (i),
     without the consent of the individual, agency, or other 
     person who is the subject of the submission or provides that 
     submission.
       ``(B) Immunity from legal process.--Any submission 
     (including any data derived from the submission) that is 
     collected and retained by a Federal department or agency, or 
     an officer, employee, agent, or contractor of such a 
     department or agency, for exclusively statistical purposes 
     under this section shall be immune from the legal process and 
     shall not, without the consent of the individual, agency, or 
     other person who is the subject of the submission or provides 
     that submission, be admitted as evidence or used for any 
     purpose in any action, suit, or other judicial or 
     administrative proceeding.
       ``(C) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this section shall 
     be construed to provide immunity from the legal process for 
     such submission (including any data derived from the 
     submission) if the submission is in the possession of any 
     person, agency, or entity other than the Federal Government 
     or an officer, employee, agent, or contractor of the Federal 
     Government, or if the submission is independently collected, 
     retained, or produced for purposes other than the purposes of 
     this Act.
       ``(b) System Responsibilities.--
       ``(1) In general.--The workforce and labor market 
     information system described in subsection (a) shall be 
     planned, administered, overseen, and evaluated through a 
     cooperative governance structure involving the Federal 
     Government and States.
       ``(2) Duties.--The Secretary, with respect to data 
     collection, analysis, and dissemination of workforce and 
     labor market information for the system, shall carry out the 
     following duties:
       ``(A) Assign responsibilities within the Department of 
     Labor for elements of the workforce and labor market 
     information system described in subsection (a) to ensure that 
     all statistical and administrative data collected is 
     consistent with appropriate Bureau of Labor Statistics 
     standards and definitions.
       ``(B) Actively seek the cooperation of other Federal 
     agencies to establish and maintain mechanisms for ensuring 
     complementarity and nonduplication in the development and 
     operation of statistical and administrative data collection 
     activities.
       ``(C) Eliminate gaps and duplication in statistical 
     undertakings, with the systemization of wage surveys as an 
     early priority.
       ``(D) In collaboration with the Bureau of Labor Statistics 
     and States, develop and maintain the elements of the 
     workforce and labor market information system described in 
     subsection (a), including the development of consistent 
     procedures and definitions for use by the States in 
     collecting the data and information described in 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B) of subsection (a)(1).
       ``(E) Establish procedures for the system to ensure that--
       ``(i) such data and information are timely;
       ``(ii) paperwork and reporting for the system are reduced 
     to a minimum; and
       ``(iii) States and localities are fully involved in the 
     development and continuous improvement of the system at all 
     levels.
       ``(c) National Electronic Tools To Provide Services.--The 
     Secretary is authorized to assist in the development of 
     national electronic tools that may be used to facilitate the 
     delivery of work ready services described in section 
     134(c)(2) of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 
     2864(c)(2)) and to provide workforce and labor market 
     information to individuals through the one-stop delivery 
     systems described in section 121 and through other 
     appropriate delivery systems.
       ``(d) Coordination With the States.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary, working through the 
     Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Employment and Training 
     Administration, shall regularly consult with representatives 
     of State agencies carrying out workforce information 
     activities regarding strategies for improving the workforce 
     and labor market information system.
       ``(2) Formal consultations.--At least twice each year, the 
     Secretary, working through the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 
     shall conduct formal consultations regarding programs carried 
     out by the Bureau of Labor Statistics with representatives of 
     each of the Federal regions of the Bureau of Labor 
     Statistics, elected (pursuant to a process established by the 
     Secretary) from the State directors affiliated with State 
     agencies that perform the duties described in subsection 
     (e)(1).
       ``(e) State Responsibilities.--
       ``(1) In general.--In order to receive Federal financial 
     assistance under this section, the Governor of a State 
     shall--

[[Page 423]]

       ``(A) be responsible for the management of the portions of 
     the workforce and labor market information system described 
     in subsection (a) that comprise a statewide workforce and 
     labor market information system;
       ``(B) establish a process for the oversight of such system;
       ``(C) consult with State and local employers, participants, 
     and local workforce investment boards about the labor market 
     relevance of the data to be collected and disseminated 
     through the statewide workforce and labor market information 
     system;
       ``(D) consult with State educational agencies and local 
     educational agencies concerning the provision of workforce 
     and labor market information in order to meet the needs of 
     secondary school and postsecondary school students who seek 
     such information;
       ``(E) collect and disseminate for the system, on behalf of 
     the State and localities in the State, the information and 
     data described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of subsection 
     (a)(1);
       ``(F) maintain and continuously improve the statewide 
     workforce and labor market information system in accordance 
     with this section;
       ``(G) perform contract and grant responsibilities for data 
     collection, analysis, and dissemination for such system;
       ``(H) conduct such other data collection, analysis, and 
     dissemination activities as will ensure an effective 
     statewide workforce and labor market information system;
       ``(I) actively seek the participation of other State and 
     local agencies in data collection, analysis, and 
     dissemination activities in order to ensure complementarity, 
     compatibility, and usefulness of data;
       ``(J) participate in the development of, and submit to the 
     Secretary, an annual plan to carry out the requirements and 
     authorities of this subsection; and
       ``(K) utilize the quarterly records described in section 
     136(f)(2) of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 
     2871(f)(2)) to assist the State and other States in measuring 
     State progress on State performance measures.
       ``(2) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this section shall 
     be construed as limiting the ability of a Governor to conduct 
     additional data collection, analysis, and dissemination 
     activities with State funds or with Federal funds from 
     sources other than this section.
       ``(f) Nonduplication Requirement.--None of the functions 
     and activities carried out pursuant to this section shall 
     duplicate the functions and activities carried out under the 
     Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006 
     (20 U.S.C. 2301 et seq.).
       ``(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section 
     $60,153,000 for fiscal year 2015 and each of the 6 succeeding 
     fiscal years.''.

             Subtitle D--Repeals and Conforming Amendments

     SEC. 271. REPEALS.

       The following provisions are repealed:
       (1) Chapter 4 of subtitle B of title I, and sections 123, 
     155, 166, 167, 168, 169, 171, 173, 173A, 174, 192, 194, 502, 
     503, and 506 of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998, as in 
     effect on the day before the date of enactment of the SKILLS 
     Act.
       (2) Title V of the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 
     3056 et seq.).
       (3) Sections 1 through 14 of the Wagner-Peyser Act (29 
     U.S.C. 49 et seq.).
       (4) The Twenty-First Century Workforce Commission Act (29 
     U.S.C. 2701 note).
       (5) Public Law 91-378, 16 U.S.C. 1701 et seq. (popularly 
     known as the ``Youth Conservation Corps Act of 1970'').
       (6) Section 821 of the Higher Education Amendments of 1998 
     (20 U.S.C. 1151).
       (7) The Women in Apprenticeship and Nontraditional 
     Occupations Act (29 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.).
       (8) Sections 4103A and 4104 of title 38, United States 
     Code.

     SEC. 272. AMENDMENTS TO OTHER LAWS.

       Section 104(k)(6)(A) of the Comprehensive Environmental 
     Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 
     9604(k)(6)(A)) is amended by striking ``training, research, 
     and'' and inserting ``research and''.
        (a) Amendments to the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008.--
       (1) Definition.--Section 3(t) of the Food and Nutrition Act 
     of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2012(t)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``means (1) the agency'' and inserting the 
     following: ``means--
       ``(A) the agency'';
       (B) by striking ``programs, and (2) the tribal'' and 
     inserting the following: ``programs;
       ``(B) the tribal'';
       (C) by striking ``this Act.'' and inserting the following: 
     ``this Act; and
       ``(C) in the context of employment and training activities 
     under section 6(d)(4), a State board as defined in section 
     101 of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 
     2801).''.
       (2) Eligible households.--Section 5 of the Food and 
     Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2014) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (d)(14) by striking ``section 
     6(d)(4)(I)'' and inserting ``section 6(d)(4)(C)'', and
       (B) in subsection (g)(3), in the first sentence, by 
     striking ``constitutes adequate participation in an 
     employment and training program under section 6(d)'' and 
     inserting ``allows the individual to participate in 
     employment and training activities under section 6(d)(4)''.
       (3) Eligibility disqualifications.--Section 6(d)(4) of the 
     Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2015(d)(4)) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(D) Employment and training.--
       ``(i) Implementation.--Each State agency shall provide 
     employment and training services authorized under section 134 
     of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2864) to 
     eligible members of households participating in the 
     supplemental nutrition assistance program in gaining skills, 
     training, work, or experience that will increase their 
     ability to obtain regular employment.
       ``(ii) Statewide workforce development system.--Consistent 
     with subparagraph (A), employment and training services shall 
     be provided through the statewide workforce development 
     system, including the one-stop delivery system authorized by 
     the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2801 et 
     seq.).
       ``(iii) Reimbursements.--

       ``(I) Actual costs.--The State agency shall provide 
     payments or reimbursement to participants served under this 
     paragraph for--

       ``(aa) the actual costs of transportation and other actual 
     costs (other than dependent care costs) that are reasonably 
     necessary and directly related to the individual 
     participating in employment and training activities; and
       ``(bb) the actual costs of such dependent care expenses as 
     are determined by the State agency to be necessary for the 
     individual to participate in employment and training 
     activities (other than an individual who is the caretaker 
     relative of a dependent in a family receiving benefits under 
     part A of title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 
     et seq.) in a local area where an employment, training, or 
     education program under title IV of that Act is in 
     operation), except that no such payment or reimbursement 
     shall exceed the applicable local market rate.

       ``(II) Service contracts and vouchers.--In lieu of 
     providing reimbursements or payments for dependent care 
     expenses under clause (i), a State agency may, at the option 
     of the State agency, arrange for dependent care through 
     providers by the use of purchase of service contracts or 
     vouchers or by providing vouchers to the household.
       ``(III) Value of reimbursements.--The value of any 
     dependent care services provided for or arranged under clause 
     (ii), or any amount received as a payment or reimbursement 
     under clause (i), shall--

       ``(aa) not be treated as income for the purposes of any 
     other Federal or federally assisted program that bases 
     eligibility for, or the amount of benefits on, need; and
       ``(bb) not be claimed as an employment-related expense for 
     the purposes of the credit provided under section 21 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 21).''.
       (4) Administration.--Section 11(e)(19) of the Food and 
     Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2020(e)(11) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(S) the plans of the State agency for providing 
     employment and training services under section 6(d)(4);''.
       (5) Administrative cost-sharing and quality control.--
     Section 16(h) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 
     2025(h)) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``carry out employment 
     and training programs'' and inserting ``provide employment 
     and training services to eligible households under section 
     6(d)(4)''; and
       (ii) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``operating an 
     employment and training program'' and inserting ``providing 
     employment and training services consistent with section 
     6(d)(4)'';
       (B) in paragraph (3)--
       (i) by striking ``participation in an employment and 
     training program'' and inserting ``the individual 
     participating in employment and training activities''; and
       (ii) by striking ``section 6(d)(4)(I)(i)(II)'' and 
     inserting ``section 6(d)(4)(C)(i)(II)'';
       (C) in paragraph (4), by striking ``for operating an 
     employment and training program'' and inserting ``to provide 
     employment and training services''; and
       (D) by striking paragraph (5) and inserting the following:
       ``(E) Monitoring.--
       ``(i) In general.--The Secretary, in conjunction with the 
     Secretary of Labor, shall monitor each State agency 
     responsible for administering employment and training 
     services under section 6(d)(4) to ensure funds are being 
     spent effectively and efficiently.
       ``(ii) Accountability.--Each program of employment and 
     training receiving funds under section 6(d)(4) shall be 
     subject to the requirements of the performance accountability 
     system, including having to meet the State performance 
     measures described in section 136 of the Workforce Investment 
     Act (29 U.S.C. 2871).''.
       (6) Research, demonstration, and evaluations.--Section 17 
     of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2026) is 
     amended--
       (A) in subsection (b)--

[[Page 424]]

       (i) in paragraph (1)(B)(iv)(III)(dd), by striking ``, 
     (4)(F)(i), or (4)(K)'' and inserting ``or (4)''; and
       (ii) by striking paragraph (3); and
       (B) in subsection (g), in the first sentence in the matter 
     preceding paragraph (1)--
       (i) by striking ``programs established'' and inserting 
     ``activities provided to eligible households''; and
       (ii) by inserting ``, in conjunction with the Secretary of 
     Labor,'' after ``Secretary''.
       (7) Minnesota family investment project.--Section 22(b)(4) 
     of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2031(b)(4)) 
     is amended by striking ``equivalent to those offered under 
     the employment and training program''.
       (b) Amendments to Section 412 of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act.--
       (1) Conditions and considerations.--Section 412(a) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1522(a)) is 
     amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) in subparagraph (A)(i), by striking ``make available 
     sufficient resources for employment training and placement'' 
     and inserting ``provide refugees with the opportunity to 
     access employment and training services, including job 
     placement,''; and
       (ii) in subparagraph (B)(ii), by striking ``services;'' and 
     inserting ``services provided through the Workforce 
     Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2801 et seq.);'';
       (B) in paragraph (2)(C)(iii)(II), by inserting ``and 
     training'' after ``employment'';
       (C) in paragraph (6)(A)(ii)--
       (i) by striking ``insure'' and inserting ``ensure'';
       (ii) by inserting ``and training'' after ``employment''; 
     and
       (iii) by inserting after ``available'' the following: 
     ``through the one-stop delivery system under section 121 of 
     the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2841)''; and
       (D) in paragraph (9), by inserting ``the Secretary of 
     Labor,'' after ``Education,''.
       (2) Program of initial resettlement.--Section 412(b)(2) of 
     such Act (8 U.S.C. 1522(b)(2)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``orientation, instruction'' and inserting 
     ``orientation and instruction''; and
       (B) by striking ``, and job training for refugees, and such 
     other education and training of refugees, as facilitates'' 
     and inserting ``for refugees to facilitate''.
       (3) Project grants and contracts for services for 
     refugees.--Section 412(c) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1522(c)) is 
     amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) in subparagraph (A)(i), by inserting ``and training'' 
     after ``employment''; and
       (ii) by striking subparagraph (C);
       (B) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking ``paragraph--'' and 
     all that follows through ``in a manner'' and inserting 
     ``paragraph in a manner''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) In carrying out this section, the Director shall 
     ensure that employment and training services are provided 
     through the statewide workforce development system, as 
     appropriate, authorized by the Workforce Investment Act of 
     1998 (29 U.S.C. 2801 et seq.). Such action may include--
       ``(i) making employment and training activities described 
     in section 134 of such Act (29 U.S.C. 2864) available to 
     refugees; and
       ``(ii) providing refugees with access to a one-stop 
     delivery system established under section 121 of such Act (29 
     U.S.C. 2841).''.
       (4) Cash assistance and medical assistance to refugees.--
     Section 412(e) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1522(e)) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (2)(A)(i), by inserting ``and training'' 
     after ``providing employment''; and
       (B) in paragraph (3), by striking ``The'' and inserting 
     ``Consistent with subsection (c)(3), the''.
       (c) Amendments Relating to the Second Chance Act of 2007.--
       (1) Federal prisoner reentry initiative.--Section 231 of 
     the Second Chance Act of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 17541) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a)(1)(E)--
       (i) by inserting ``the Department of Labor and'' before 
     ``other Federal agencies''; and
       (ii) by inserting ``State and local workforce investment 
     boards,'' after ``community-based organizations,'';
       (B) in subsection (c)--
       (i) in paragraph (2), by striking at the end ``and'';
       (ii) in paragraph (3), by striking at the end the period 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (iii) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(D) to coordinate reentry programs with the employment 
     and training services provided through the statewide 
     workforce investment system under subtitle B of title I of 
     the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2811 et 
     seq.).''; and
       (C) in subsection (d), by adding at the end the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(F) Interaction with the workforce investment system.--
       ``(i) In general.--In carrying out this section, the 
     Director shall ensure that employment and training services, 
     including such employment and services offered through 
     reentry programs, are provided, as appropriate, through the 
     statewide workforce investment system under subtitle B of 
     title I of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 
     2811 et seq.), which may include--

       ``(I) making employment and training services available to 
     prisoners prior to and immediately following the release of 
     such prisoners; or
       ``(II) providing prisoners with access by remote means to a 
     one-stop delivery system under section 121 of the Workforce 
     Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2841) in the State in which 
     the prison involved is located.

       ``(ii) Service defined.--In this paragraph, the term 
     `employment and training services' means those services 
     described in section 134 of the Workforce Investment Act of 
     1998 (29 U.S.C. 2864) offered by the Bureau of Prisons, 
     including--

       ``(I) the skills assessment described in subsection 
     (a)(1)(A);
       ``(II) the skills development plan described in subsection 
     (a)(1)(B); and
       ``(III) the enhancement, development, and implementation of 
     reentry and skills development programs.''.

       (2) Duties of the bureau of prisons.--Section 4042(a) of 
     title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) by redesignating subparagraphs (D) and (E), as added by 
     section 231(d)(1)(C) of the Second Chance Act of 2007 (Public 
     Law 110-199; 122 Stat. 685), as paragraphs (6) and (7), 
     respectively, and adjusting the margin accordingly;
       (B) in paragraph (6), as so redesignated, by redesignating 
     clauses (i) and (ii) as subparagraphs (A) and (B), 
     respectively, and adjusting the margin accordingly;
       (C) in paragraph (7), as so redesignated--
       (i) in clause (ii), by striking ``Employment'' and 
     inserting ``Employment and training services (as defined in 
     paragraph (6) of section 231(d) of the Second Chance Act of 
     2007), including basic skills attainment, consistent with 
     such paragraph'';
       (ii) by striking clause (iii); and
       (D) by redesignating clauses (i), (ii), (iv), (v), (vi), 
     and (vii) as subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), (D), (E), and (F), 
     respectively, and adjusting the margin accordingly.
       (d) Amendments to the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 
     Streets Act of 1968.--Section 2976 of the Omnibus Crime 
     Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3797w) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``vocational'' and 
     inserting ``career and technical education (as defined in 
     section 3 of the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical 
     Education Act of 2006 (20 U.S.C. 2302)) and training'';
       (B) by redesignating paragraphs (4), (5), (6), and (7) as 
     paragraphs (5), (6), (7), and (8), respectively; and
       (C) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(D) coordinating employment and training services 
     provided through the statewide workforce investment system 
     under subtitle B of title I of the Workforce Investment Act 
     of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2811 et seq.), including a one-stop 
     delivery system under section 121 of such Act (29 U.S.C. 
     2841), for offenders upon release from prison, jail, or a 
     juvenile facility, as appropriate;'';
       (2) in subsection (d)(2), by inserting ``, including local 
     workforce investment boards established under section 117 of 
     the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2832),'' 
     after ``nonprofit organizations'';
       (3) in subsection (e)--
       (A) in paragraph (3), by striking ``victims services, and 
     employment services'' and inserting ``and victim services'';
       (B) by redesignating paragraphs (4) and (5) as paragraphs 
     (5) and (6), respectively; and
       (C) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(D) provides employment and training services through the 
     statewide workforce investment system under subtitle B of 
     title I of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 
     2811 et seq.), including a one-stop delivery system under 
     section 121 of such Act (29 U.S.C. 2841);''; and
       (4) in subsection (k)--
       (A) in paragraph (1)(A), by inserting ``, in accordance 
     with paragraph (2)'' after ``under this section'';
       (B) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs 
     (3) and (4), respectively; and
       (C) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(B) Employment and training.--The Attorney General shall 
     require each grantee under this section to measure the core 
     indicators of performance as described in section 
     136(b)(2)(A) of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 
     U.S.C. 2871(b)(2)(A)) with respect to the program of such 
     grantee funded with a grant under this section.''.
       (e) Conforming Amendments to Title 38, United States 
     Code.--Title 38, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in section 3672(d)(1), by striking ``disabled veterans' 
     outreach program specialists under section 4103A'' and 
     inserting ``veteran employment specialists appointed under 
     section 134(f) of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998'';
       (2) in the table of sections at the beginning of chapter 
     41, by striking the items relating to sections 4103A and 
     4104;
       (3) in section 4102A--
       (A) in subsection (b)--
       (i) by striking paragraphs (5), (6), and (7); and
       (ii) by redesignating paragraph (8) as paragraph (5);

[[Page 425]]

       (B) by striking subsections (c) and (h);
       (C) by redesignating subsections (d), (e), (f), and (g) as 
     subsections (c), (d), (e), and (f); and
       (D) in subsection (e)(1) (as so redesignated)--
       (i) by striking ``, including disabled veterans' outreach 
     program specialists and local veterans' employment 
     representatives providing employment, training, and placement 
     services under this chapter in a State''; and
       (ii) by striking ``for purposes of subsection (c)'';
       (4) in section 4104A--
       (A) in subsection (b)(1), by striking subparagraph (A) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(i) the appropriate veteran employment specialist (in 
     carrying out the functions described in section 134(f) of the 
     Workforce Investment Act of 1998);''; and
       (B) in subsection (c)(1), by striking subparagraph (A) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(i) collaborate with the appropriate veteran employment 
     specialist (as described in section 134(f)) and the 
     appropriate State boards and local boards (as such terms are 
     defined in section 101 of the Workforce Investment Act of 
     1998 (29 U.S.C. 2801));'';
       (5) in section 4109--
       (A) in subsection (a), by striking ``disabled veterans' 
     outreach program specialists and local veterans' employment 
     representative'' and inserting ``veteran employment 
     specialists appointed under section 134(f) of the Workforce 
     Investment Act of 1998''; and
       (B) in subsection (d)(1), by striking ``disabled veterans' 
     outreach program specialists and local veterans' employment 
     representatives'' and inserting ``veteran employment 
     specialists appointed under section 134(f) of the Workforce 
     Investment Act of 1998''; and
       (6) in section 4112(d)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``disabled veterans' 
     outreach program specialist'' and inserting ``veteran 
     employment specialist appointed under section 134(f) of the 
     Workforce Investment Act of 1998''; and
       (B) by striking paragraph (2) and redesignating paragraph 
     (3) as paragraph (2).

     SEC. 273. CONFORMING AMENDMENT TO TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       The table of contents in section 1(b) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this 
     Act is as follows:

``Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

                ``TITLE I--WORKFORCE INVESTMENT SYSTEMS

             ``Subtitle A--Workforce Investment Definitions

``Sec. 101. Definitions.

     ``Subtitle B--Statewide and Local Workforce Investment Systems

``Sec. 106. Purpose.

                     ``Chapter 1--State Provisions

``Sec. 111. State workforce investment boards.
``Sec. 112. State plan.

                     ``Chapter 2--Local Provisions

``Sec. 116. Local workforce investment areas.
``Sec. 117. Local workforce investment boards.
``Sec. 118. Local plan.

         ``Chapter 3--Workforce Investment Activities Providers

``Sec. 121. Establishment of one-stop delivery systems.
``Sec. 122. Identification of eligible providers of training services.

            ``Chapter 5--Employment and Training Activities

``Sec. 131. General authorization.
``Sec. 132. State allotments.
``Sec. 133. Within State allocations.
``Sec. 134. Use of funds for employment and training activities.

                    ``Chapter 6--General Provisions

``Sec. 136. Performance accountability system.
``Sec. 137. Authorization of appropriations.

                        ``Subtitle C--Job Corps

``Sec. 141. Purposes.
``Sec. 142. Definitions.
``Sec. 143. Establishment.
``Sec. 144. Individuals eligible for the Job Corps.
``Sec. 145. Recruitment, screening, selection, and assignment of 
              enrollees.
``Sec. 146. Enrollment.
``Sec. 147. Job Corps centers.
``Sec. 148. Program activities.
``Sec. 149. Counseling and job placement.
``Sec. 150. Support.
``Sec. 151. Operations.
``Sec. 152. Standards of conduct.
``Sec. 153. Community participation.
``Sec. 154. Workforce councils.
``Sec. 156. Technical assistance to centers.
``Sec. 157. Application of provisions of Federal law.
``Sec. 158. Special provisions.
``Sec. 159. Performance accountability and management.
``Sec. 160. General provisions.
``Sec. 161. Authorization of appropriations.

                    ``Subtitle D--National Programs

``Sec. 170. Technical assistance.
``Sec. 172. Evaluations.

                      ``Subtitle E--Administration

``Sec. 181. Requirements and restrictions.
``Sec. 182. Prompt allocation of funds.
``Sec. 183. Monitoring.
``Sec. 184. Fiscal controls; sanctions.
``Sec. 185. Reports; recordkeeping; investigations.
``Sec. 186. Administrative adjudication.
``Sec. 187. Judicial review.
``Sec. 188. Nondiscrimination.
``Sec. 189. Administrative provisions.
``Sec. 190. References.
``Sec. 191. State legislative authority.
``Sec. 193. Transfer of Federal equity in State employment security 
              real property to the States.
``Sec. 195. General program requirements.
``Sec. 196. Federal agency staff.
``Sec. 197. Restrictions on lobbying and political activities.

            ``Subtitle F--Repeals and Conforming Amendments

``Sec. 199. Repeals.
``Sec. 199A. Conforming amendments.

       ``TITLE II--ADULT EDUCATION AND FAMILY LITERACY EDUCATION

``Sec. 201. Short title.
``Sec. 202. Purpose.
``Sec. 203. Definitions.
``Sec. 204. Home schools.
``Sec. 205. Authorization of appropriations.

                    ``Subtitle A--Federal Provisions

``Sec. 211. Reservation of funds; grants to eligible agencies; 
              allotments.
``Sec. 212. Performance accountability system.

                     ``Subtitle B--State Provisions

``Sec. 221. State administration.
``Sec. 222. State distribution of funds; matching requirement.
``Sec. 223. State leadership activities.
``Sec. 224. State plan.
``Sec. 225. Programs for corrections education and other 
              institutionalized individuals.

                     ``Subtitle C--Local Provisions

``Sec. 231. Grants and contracts for eligible providers.
``Sec. 232. Local application.
``Sec. 233. Local administrative cost limits.

                    ``Subtitle D--General Provisions

``Sec. 241. Administrative provisions.
``Sec. 242. National activities.

          ``TITLE III--WORKFORCE INVESTMENT-RELATED ACTIVITIES

                    ``Subtitle A--Wagner-Peyser Act

``Sec. 301. Definitions.
``Sec. 302. Functions.
``Sec. 303. Designation of State agencies.
``Sec. 304. Appropriations.
``Sec. 305. Disposition of allotted funds.
``Sec. 306. State plans.
``Sec. 307. Repeal of Federal advisory council.
``Sec. 308. Regulations.
``Sec. 309. Employment statistics.
``Sec. 310. Technical amendments.
``Sec. 311. Effective date.

               ``Subtitle B--Linkages With Other Programs

``Sec. 321. Trade Act of 1974.
``Sec. 322. Veterans' employment programs.
``Sec. 323. Older Americans Act of 1965.

``Subtitle D--Application of Civil Rights and Labor-Management Laws to 
                      the Smithsonian Institution

``Sec. 341. Application of civil rights and labor-management laws to 
              the Smithsonian Institution.

           ``TITLE IV--REHABILITATION ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1998

``Sec. 401. Short title.
``Sec. 402. Title.
``Sec. 403. General provisions.
``Sec. 404. Vocational rehabilitation services.
``Sec. 405. Research and training.
``Sec. 406. Professional development and special projects and 
              demonstrations.
``Sec. 407. National Council on Disability.
``Sec. 408. Rights and advocacy.
``Sec. 409. Employment opportunities for individuals with disabilities.
``Sec. 410. Independent living services and centers for independent 
              living.
``Sec. 411. Repeal.
``Sec. 412. Helen Keller National Center Act.
``Sec. 413. President's Committee on Employment of People With 
              Disabilities.
``Sec. 414. Conforming amendments.

                     ``TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS

``Sec. 501. State unified plan.
``Sec. 504. Privacy.
``Sec. 505. Buy-American requirements.
``Sec. 507. Effective date.''.

        Subtitle E--Amendments to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973

     SEC. 276. FINDINGS.

       Section 2(a) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 
     701(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (5), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (6), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(7) there is a substantial need to improve and expand 
     services for students with disabilities under this Act.''.

     SEC. 277. REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMINISTRATION.

       (a) Rehabilitation Services Administration.--The 
     Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 701 et seq.) is 
     amended--
       (1) in section 3(a) (29 U.S.C. 702(a))--

[[Page 426]]

       (A) by striking ``Office of the Secretary'' and inserting 
     ``Department of Education'';
       (B) by striking ``President by and with the advice and 
     consent of the Senate'' and inserting ``Secretary''; and
       (C) by striking ``, and the Commissioner shall be the 
     principal officer,'';
       (2) by striking ``Commissioner'' each place it appears 
     (except in section 21) and inserting ``Director'';
       (3) in section 12(c) (29 U.S.C. 709(c)), by striking 
     ``Commissioner's'' and inserting ``Director's'';
       (4) in section 21 (29 U.S.C. 718)--
       (A) in subsection (b)(1)--
       (i) by striking ``Commissioner'' the first place it appears 
     and inserting ``Director of the Rehabilitation Services 
     Administration'';
       (ii) by striking ``(referred to in this subsection as the 
     `Director')''; and
       (iii) by striking ``The Commissioner and the Director'' and 
     inserting ``Both such Directors''; and
       (B) by striking ``the Commissioner and the Director'' each 
     place it appears and inserting ``both such Directors'';
       (5) in the heading for subparagraph (B) of section 
     100(d)(2) (29 U.S.C. 720(d)(2)), by striking ``commissioner'' 
     and inserting ``director'';
       (6) in section 401(a)(1) (29 U.S.C. 781(a)(1)), by 
     inserting ``of the National Institute on Disability and 
     Rehabilitation Research'' after ``Director'';
       (7) in the heading for section 706 (29 U.S.C. 796d-1), by 
     striking ``commissioner'' and inserting ``director''; and
       (8) in the heading for paragraph (3) of section 723(a) (29 
     U.S.C. 796f-2(a)), by striking ``commissioner'' and inserting 
     ``director''.
       (b) Effective Date; Application.--The amendments made by 
     subsection (a) shall--
       (1) take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act; 
     and
       (2) apply with respect to the appointments of Directors of 
     the Rehabilitation Services Administration made on or after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, and the Directors so 
     appointed.

     SEC. 278. DEFINITIONS.

       Section 7 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 705) 
     is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (35) through (39) as 
     paragraphs (36) through (40), respectively;
       (2) in subparagraph (A)(ii) of paragraph (36) (as 
     redesignated by paragraph (1)), by striking ``paragraph 
     (36)(C)'' and inserting ``paragraph (37)(C)''; and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (34) the following:
       ``(35)(A) The term `student with a disability' means an 
     individual with a disability who--
       ``(i) is not younger than 16 and not older than 21;
       ``(ii) has been determined to be eligible under section 
     102(a) for assistance under this title; and
       ``(iii)(I) is eligible for, and is receiving, special 
     education under part B of the Individuals with Disabilities 
     Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1411 et seq.); or
       ``(II) is an individual with a disability, for purposes of 
     section 504.
       ``(B) The term `students with disabilities' means more than 
     1 student with a disability.''.

     SEC. 279. CARRYOVER.

       Section 19(a)(1) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 
     U.S.C. 716(a)(1)) is amended by striking ``part B of title 
     VI,''.

     SEC. 280. TRADITIONALLY UNDERSERVED POPULATIONS.

       Section 21 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 
     718) is amended, in paragraphs (1) and (2)(A) of subsection 
     (b), and in subsection (c), by striking ``VI,''.

     SEC. 281. STATE PLAN.

       Section 101(a) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 
     721(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (10)--
       (A) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``on the eligible 
     individuals'' and all that follows and inserting ``of 
     information necessary to assess the State's performance on 
     the core indicators of performance described in section 
     136(b)(2)(A) of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 
     U.S.C. 2871(b)(2)(A)).''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (E)(ii), by striking ``, to the extent 
     the measures are applicable to individuals with 
     disabilities'';
       (2) in paragraph (11)--
       (A) in subparagraph (D)(i), by inserting before the 
     semicolon the following: ``, which may be provided using 
     alternative means of meeting participation (such as 
     participation through video conferences and conference 
     calls)''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(G) Coordination with assistive technology programs.--The 
     State plan shall include an assurance that the designated 
     State unit and the lead agency or implementing entity 
     responsible for carrying out duties under the Assistive 
     Technology Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.) have 
     developed working relationships and coordinate their 
     activities.'';
       (3) in paragraph (15)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A)--
       (i) in clause (i)--

       (I) in subclause (II), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (II) in subclause (III), by adding ``and'' at the end; and
       (III) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(IV) students with disabilities, including their need for 
     transition services;'';

       (ii) by redesignating clauses (ii) and (iii) as clauses 
     (iii) and (iv), respectively; and
       (iii) by inserting after clause (i) the following:
       ``(ii) include an assessment of the transition services 
     provided under this Act, and coordinated with transition 
     services provided under the Individuals with Disabilities 
     Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.), about the extent to 
     which those 2 types of services meet the needs of individuals 
     with disabilities;''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (B)(ii), by striking ``and under part B 
     of title VI'';
       (C) in subparagraph (D)--
       (i) by redesignating clauses (iii), (iv), and (v) as 
     clauses (iv), (v), and (vi), respectively;
       (ii) by inserting after clause (ii) the following:
       ``(iii) the methods to be used to improve and expand 
     vocational rehabilitation services for students with 
     disabilities, including the coordination of services designed 
     to facilitate the transition of such students from the 
     receipt of educational services in school to the receipt of 
     vocational rehabilitation services under this title or to 
     postsecondary education or employment;''; and
       (iii) in clause (v), as redesignated by clause (i) of this 
     subparagraph, by striking ``evaluation standards'' and 
     inserting ``performance standards'';
       (4) in paragraph (22)--
       (A) in the paragraph heading, by striking ``state plan 
     supplement'';
       (B) by striking ``carrying out part B of title VI, 
     including''; and
       (C) by striking ``that part to supplement funds made 
     available under part B of'';
       (5) in paragraph (24)--
       (A) in the paragraph heading, by striking ``contracts'' and 
     inserting ``grants''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (A)--
       (i) in the subparagraph heading, by striking ``Contracts'' 
     and inserting ``Grants''; and
       (ii) by striking ``part A of title VI'' and inserting 
     ``section 109A''; and
       (6) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(25) Collaboration with industry.--The State plan shall 
     describe how the designated State agency will carry out the 
     provisions of section 109A, including--
       ``(A) the criteria such agency will use to award grants 
     under such section; and
       ``(B) how the activities carried out under such grants will 
     be coordinated with other services provided under this title.
       ``(26) Services for students with disabilities.--The State 
     plan shall provide an assurance satisfactory to the Secretary 
     that the State--
       ``(A) has developed and implemented strategies to address 
     the needs identified in the assessments described in 
     paragraph (15), and achieve the goals and priorities 
     identified by the State in that paragraph, to improve and 
     expand vocational rehabilitation services for students with 
     disabilities on a statewide basis in accordance with 
     paragraph (15); and
       ``(B) from funds reserved under section 110A, shall carry 
     out programs or activities designed to improve and expand 
     vocational rehabilitation services for students with 
     disabilities that--
       ``(i) facilitate the transition of students with 
     disabilities from the receipt of educational services in 
     school, to the receipt of vocational rehabilitation services 
     under this title, including, at a minimum, those services 
     specified in the interagency agreement required in paragraph 
     (11)(D);
       ``(ii) improve the achievement of post-school goals of 
     students with disabilities, including improving the 
     achievement through participation (as appropriate when career 
     goals are discussed) in meetings regarding individualized 
     education programs developed under section 614 of the 
     Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1414);
       ``(iii) provide career guidance, career exploration 
     services, job search skills and strategies, and technical 
     assistance to students with disabilities;
       ``(iv) support the provision of training and technical 
     assistance to State and local educational agencies and 
     designated State agency personnel responsible for the 
     planning and provision of services to students with 
     disabilities; and
       ``(v) support outreach activities to students with 
     disabilities who are eligible for, and need, services under 
     this title.''.

     SEC. 282. SCOPE OF SERVICES.

       Section 103 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 
     723) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking paragraph (15) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(15) transition services for students with disabilities, 
     that facilitate the achievement of the employment outcome 
     identified in the individualized plan for employment 
     involved, including services described in clauses (i) through 
     (iii) of section 101(a)(26)(B);'';
       (2) in subsection (b), by striking paragraph (6) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(6)(A)(i) Consultation and technical assistance services 
     to assist State and local educational agencies in planning 
     for the transition of students with disabilities from

[[Page 427]]

     school to post-school activities, including employment.
       ``(ii) Training and technical assistance described in 
     section 101(a)(26)(B)(iv).
       ``(B) Services for groups of individuals with disabilities 
     who meet the requirements of clauses (i) and (iii) of section 
     7(35)(A), including services described in clauses (i), (ii), 
     (iii), and (v) of section 101(a)(26)(B), to assist in the 
     transition from school to post-school activities.''; and
       (3) in subsection (b), by inserting at the end the 
     following:
       ``(7) The establishment, development, or improvement of 
     assistive technology demonstration, loan, reutilization, or 
     financing programs in coordination with activities authorized 
     under the Assistive Technology Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 3001 et 
     seq.) to promote access to assistive technology for 
     individuals with disabilities and employers.''.

     SEC. 283. STANDARDS AND INDICATORS.

       (a) In General.--Section 106 of the Rehabilitation Act of 
     1973 (29 U.S.C. 726) is amended--
       (1) in the section heading, by striking ``evaluation 
     standards'' and inserting ``performance standards'';
       (2) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:
       ``(a) Standards and Indicators.--The performance standards 
     and indicators for the vocational rehabilitation program 
     carried out under this title--
       ``(1) shall be subject to paragraphs (2)(A) and (3) of 
     section 136(b) of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 
     U.S.C. 2871(b)); and
       ``(2) may, at a State's discretion, include additional 
     indicators identified in the State plan submitted under 
     section 101.''; and
       (3) in subsection (b)(2)(B), by striking clause (i) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(i) on a biannual basis, review the program improvement 
     efforts of the State and, if the State has not improved its 
     performance to acceptable levels, as determined by the 
     Director, direct the State to make revisions to the plan to 
     improve performance; and''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 107 of the 
     Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 727) is amended--
       (1) in subsections (a)(1)(B) and (b)(2), by striking 
     ``evaluation standards'' and inserting ``performance 
     standards''; and
       (2) in subsection (c)(1)(B), by striking ``an evaluation 
     standard'' and inserting ``a performance standard''.

     SEC. 284. EXPENDITURE OF CERTAIN AMOUNTS.

       Section 108(a) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 
     728(a)) is amended by striking ``under part B of title VI, 
     or''.

     SEC. 285. COLLABORATION WITH INDUSTRY.

       The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 is amended by inserting 
     after section 109 (29 U.S.C. 728a) the following:

     ``SEC. 109A. COLLABORATION WITH INDUSTRY.

       ``(a) Eligible Entity Defined.--For the purposes of this 
     section, the term `eligible entity' means a for-profit 
     business, alone or in partnership with one or more of the 
     following:
       ``(1) Community rehabilitation program providers.
       ``(2) Indian tribes.
       ``(3) Tribal organizations.
       ``(b) Authority.--A State shall use not less than one-half 
     of one percent of the payment the State receives under 
     section 111 for a fiscal year to award grants to eligible 
     entities to pay for the Federal share of the cost of carrying 
     out collaborative programs, to create practical job and 
     career readiness and training programs, and to provide job 
     placements and career advancement.
       ``(c) Awards.--Grants under this section shall--
       ``(1) be awarded for a period not to exceed 5 years; and
       ``(2) be awarded competitively.
       ``(d) Application.--To receive a grant under this section, 
     an eligible entity shall submit an application to a 
     designated State agency at such time, in such manner, and 
     containing such information as such agency shall require. 
     Such application shall include, at a minimum--
       ``(1) a plan for evaluating the effectiveness of the 
     collaborative program;
       ``(2) a plan for collecting and reporting the data and 
     information described under subparagraphs (A) through (C) of 
     section 101(a)(10), as determined appropriate by the 
     designated State agency; and
       ``(3) a plan for providing for the non-Federal share of the 
     costs of the program.
       ``(e) Activities.--An eligible entity receiving a grant 
     under this section shall use the grant funds to carry out a 
     program that provides one or more of the following:
       ``(1) Job development, job placement, and career 
     advancement services for individuals with disabilities.
       ``(2) Training in realistic work settings in order to 
     prepare individuals with disabilities for employment and 
     career advancement in the competitive market.
       ``(3) Providing individuals with disabilities with such 
     support services as may be required in order to maintain the 
     employment and career advancement for which the individuals 
     have received training.
       ``(f) Eligibility for Services.--An individual shall be 
     eligible for services provided under a program under this 
     section if the individual is determined under section 
     102(a)(1) to be eligible for assistance under this title.
       ``(g) Federal Share.--The Federal share for a program under 
     this section shall not exceed 80 percent of the costs of the 
     program.''.

     SEC. 286. RESERVATION FOR EXPANDED TRANSITION SERVICES.

       The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 is amended by inserting 
     after section 110 (29 U.S.C. 730) the following:

     ``SEC. 110A. RESERVATION FOR EXPANDED TRANSITION SERVICES.

       ``Each State shall reserve not less than 10 percent of the 
     funds allotted to the State under section 110(a) to carry out 
     programs or activities under sections 101(a)(26)(B) and 
     103(b)(6).''.

     SEC. 287. CLIENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

       Section 112(e)(1) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 
     U.S.C. 732(e)(1)) is amended by redesignating subparagraph 
     (D) as subparagraph (E) and inserting after subparagraph (C) 
     the following:
       ``(D) The Secretary shall make grants to the protection and 
     advocacy system serving the American Indian Consortium under 
     the Developmental Disabilities and Bill of Rights Act of 2000 
     (42 U.S.C. 15001 et seq.) to provide services in accordance 
     with this section, as determined by the Secretary. The amount 
     of such grants shall be the same as the amount provided to 
     territories under this subsection.''.

     SEC. 288. RESEARCH.

       Section 204(a)(2)(A) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 
     U.S.C. 764(a)(2)(A)) is amended by striking ``VI,''.

     SEC. 289. TITLE III AMENDMENTS.

       Title III of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 771 
     et seq.) is amended--
       (1) in section 301(a) (21 U.S.C. 771(a))--
       (A) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``and'' at the end;
       (B) by striking paragraphs (3) and (4); and
       (C) by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (3);
       (2) in section 302 (29 U.S.C. 772)--
       (A) in subsection (g)--
       (i) in the heading, by striking ``And In-Service 
     Training''; and
       (ii) by striking paragraph (3); and
       (B) in subsection (h), by striking ``section 306'' and 
     inserting ``section 304'';
       (3) in section 303 (29 U.S.C. 773)--
       (A) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ``section 306'' and 
     inserting ``section 304''; and
       (B) in subsection (c)--
       (i) in paragraph (4)--

       (I) by amending subparagraph (A)(ii) to read as follows:

       ``(ii) to coordinate activities and work closely with the 
     parent training and information centers established pursuant 
     to section 671 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education 
     Act (20 U.S.C. 1471), the community parent resource centers 
     established pursuant to section 672 of such Act (29 U.S.C. 
     1472), and the eligible entities receiving awards under 
     section 673 of such Act (20 U.S.C. 1473); and''; and

       (II) in subparagraph (C), by inserting ``, and demonstrate 
     the capacity for serving,'' after ``serve''; and

       (ii) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(8) Reservation.--From the amount appropriated to carry 
     out this subsection for a fiscal year, 20 percent of such 
     amount or $500,000, whichever is less, shall be reserved to 
     carry out paragraph (6).'';
       (4) by striking sections 304 and 305 (29 U.S.C. 774, 775); 
     and
       (5) by redesignating section 306 (29 U.S.C. 776) as section 
     304.

     SEC. 290. REPEAL OF TITLE VI.

       Title VI of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 795 
     et seq.) is repealed.

     SEC. 291. TITLE VII GENERAL PROVISIONS.

       (a) Purpose.--Section 701(3) of the Rehabilitation Act of 
     1973 (29 U.S.C. 796(3)) is amended by striking ``State 
     programs of supported employment services receiving 
     assistance under part B of title VI,''.
       (b) Chairperson.--Section 705(b)(5) of the Rehabilitation 
     Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 796d(b)(5)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(5) Chairperson.--The Council shall select a chairperson 
     from among the voting membership of the Council.''.

     SEC. 292. AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 701 et seq.) is 
     further amended--
       (1) in section 100 (29 U.S.C. 720)--
       (A) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ``such sums as may be 
     necessary for fiscal years 1999 through 2003'' and inserting 
     ``$3,066,192,000 for fiscal year 2015 and each of the 6 
     succeeding fiscal years''; and
       (B) in subsection (d)(1)(B), by striking ``2003'' and 
     inserting ``2021'';
       (2) in section 110(c) (29 U.S.C. 730(c)), by amending 
     paragraph (2) to read as follows:
       ``(2) The sum referred to in paragraph (1) shall be, as 
     determined by the Secretary, not less than 1 percent and not 
     more than 1.5 percent of the amount referred to in paragraph 
     (1) for each of fiscal years 2015 through 2020.'';
       (3) in section 112(h) (29 U.S.C. 732(h)), by striking 
     ``such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 1999 through 
     2003'' and inserting ``$11,600,000 for fiscal year 2015 and 
     each of the 6 succeeding fiscal years'';
       (4) by amending subsection (a) of section 201 (29 U.S.C. 
     761(a)) to read as follows: ``(a)

[[Page 428]]

     There are authorized to be appropriated $103,125,000 for 
     fiscal year 2015 and each of the 6 succeeding fiscal years to 
     carry out this title.'';
       (5) in section 302(i) (29 U.S.C. 772(i)), by striking 
     ``such sums as may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 
     1999 through 2003'' and inserting ``$33,657,000 for fiscal 
     year 2015 and each of the 6 succeeding fiscal years'';
       (6) in section 303(e) (29 U.S.C. 773(e)), by striking 
     ``such sums as may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 
     1999 through 2003'' and inserting ``$5,046,000 for fiscal 
     year 2015 and each of the 6 succeeding fiscal years'';
       (7) in section 405 (29 U.S.C. 785), by striking ``such sums 
     as may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 1999 through 
     2003'' and inserting ``$3,081,000 for fiscal year 2015 and 
     each of the 6 succeeding fiscal years'';
       (8) in section 502(j) (29 U.S.C. 792(j)), by striking 
     ``such sums as may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 
     1999 through 2003'' and inserting ``$7,013,000 for fiscal 
     year 2015 and each of the 6 succeeding fiscal years'';
       (9) in section 509(l) (29 U.S.C. 794e(l)), by striking 
     ``such sums as may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 
     1999 through 2003'' and inserting ``$17,088,000 for fiscal 
     year 2015 and each of the 6 succeeding fiscal years'';
       (10) in section 714 (29 U.S.C. 796e-3), by striking ``such 
     sums as may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 1999 
     through 2003'' and inserting ``$22,137,000 for fiscal year 
     2015 and each of the 6 succeeding fiscal years'';
       (11) in section 727 (29 U.S.C. 796f-6), by striking ``such 
     sums as may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 1999 
     through 2003'' and inserting ``$75,772,000 for fiscal year 
     2015 and each of the 6 succeeding fiscal years''; and
       (12) in section 753 (29 U.S.C. 796l), by striking ``such 
     sums as may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 1999 
     through 2003'' and inserting ``$32,239,000 for fiscal year 
     2015 and each of the 6 succeeding fiscal years''.

     SEC. 293. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

       Section 1(b) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 is amended--
       (1) by inserting after the item relating to section 109 the 
     following:

``Sec. 109A. Collaboration with industry.'';
       (2) by inserting after the item relating to section 110 the 
     following:

``Sec. 110A. Reservation for expanded transition services.'';
       (3) by striking the item related to section 304 and 
     inserting the following:

``Sec. 304. Measuring of project outcomes and performance.'';
       (4) by striking the items related to sections 305 and 306;
       (5) by striking the items related to title VI; and
       (6) by striking the item related to section 706 and 
     inserting the following:

``Sec. 706. Responsibilities of the Director.''.

             Subtitle F--Studies by the Comptroller General

     SEC. 296. STUDY BY THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL ON EXHAUSTING 
                   FEDERAL PELL GRANTS BEFORE ACCESSING WIA FUNDS.

       Not later than 12 months after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall 
     complete and submit to the Committee on Education and the 
     Workforce of the House of Representatives and the Committee 
     on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate a 
     report that--
       (1) evaluates the effectiveness of subparagraph (B) of 
     section 134(d)(4) of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 
     U.S.C. 2864(d)(4)(B)) (as such subparagraph was in effect on 
     the day before the date of enactment of this Act), 
     including--
       (A) a review of the regulations and guidance issued by the 
     Secretary of Labor to State and local areas on how to comply 
     with such subparagraph;
       (B) a review of State policies to determine how local areas 
     are required to comply with such subparagraph;
       (C) a review of local area policies to determine how one-
     stop operators are required to comply with such subparagraph; 
     and
       (D) a review of a sampling of individuals receiving 
     training services under section 134(d)(4) of the Workforce 
     Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2864(d)(4)) to determine 
     if, before receiving such training services, such individuals 
     have exhausted funds received through the Federal Pell Grant 
     program under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 
     (20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq.); and
       (2) makes appropriate recommendations with respect to the 
     matters evaluated under paragraph (1).

     SEC. 297. STUDY BY THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL ON ADMINISTRATIVE 
                   COST SAVINGS.

       (a) Study.--Not later than 12 months after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall complete and submit to the Committee on 
     Education and the Workforce of the House of Representatives 
     and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 
     of the Senate a report that--
       (1) determines the amount of administrative costs at the 
     Federal and State levels for the most recent fiscal year for 
     which satisfactory data are available for--
       (A) each of the programs authorized under the Workforce 
     Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2801 et seq.) or repealed 
     under section 401 of this Act, as such programs were in 
     effect for such fiscal year; and
       (B) each of the programs described in subparagraph (A) that 
     have been repealed or consolidated on or after the date of 
     enactment of this Act;
       (2) determines the amount of administrative cost savings at 
     the Federal and State levels as a result of repealing and 
     consolidating programs by calculating the differences in the 
     amount of administrative costs between subparagraph (A) and 
     subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1); and
       (3) estimates the administrative cost savings at the 
     Federal and State levels for a fiscal year as a result of 
     States consolidating amounts under section 501(e) of the 
     Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (20 U.S.C. 9271(e)) to 
     reduce inefficiencies in the administration of federally-
     funded State and local employment and training programs.
       (b) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``administrative costs'' has the meaning given the term in 
     section 101 of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 
     U.S.C. 2801).
                                 ______
                                 
  SA 2638. Mr. REID (for Mr. Nelson) submitted an amendment intended to 
be proposed by Mr. Reid to the resolution S. Res. 312, urging the 
Government of Iran to fulfill their promises of assistance in this case 
of Robert Levinson, one of the longest held United States civilians in 
our Nation's history; as follows:

       In the seventh whereas clause of the preamble, strike ``and 
     providing some initial indications that he was being held 
     somewhere in southwest Asia''.
         In the eighth whereas clause of the preamble, strike 
     ``further''.
                                 ______
                                 
  SA 2639. Mr. REID (for Mr. Nelson) submitted an amendment intended to 
be proposed by Mr. Reid to the resolution S. Res. 312, 0; as follows:

       Amend the title so as to read: ``A resolution urging the 
     Government of Iran to fulfill their promises of assistance in 
     this case of Robert Levinson, one of the longest held United 
     States civilians in our Nation's history.''.

                          ____________________




                    AUTHORITY FOR COMMITTEES TO MEET


                     Committee on Foreign Relations

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee 
on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the 
Senate on January 9, 2014, at 10:15 a.m., to hold a hearing entitled 
``The Situation in Sudan.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Committee on the Judiciary

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee 
on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate 
on January 9, 2014, at 9:30 a.m., in SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate 
Office Building, to conduct an executive business meeting.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Select Committee on Intelligence

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select 
Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of 
the Senate on January 9, 2014, at 2 p.m.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________




                        PRIVILEGES OF THE FLOOR

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Kevin 
Rosenbaum, detailee to the Senate Committee on Finance, and Stephanie 
Dearie, clerk to the Senate Committee on Finance, be granted floor 
privileges for the duration of the Congress.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________




     CALLING ON IRAN FOR ASSISTANCE IN THE CASE OF ROBERT LEVINSON

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 271, S. Res. 
312.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the resolution by title.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A resolution (S. Res. 312) calling on the government of 
     Iran to fulfill their promises

[[Page 429]]

     of assistance in this case of Robert Levinson, one of the 
     longest held United States civilians in our Nation's history.

  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
  Mr. REID. I further ask that the resolution be agreed to; the Nelson 
amendment to the preamble be agreed to; the preamble, as amended, be 
agreed to; the amendment to the title 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. 312) was agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 2638) was agreed to as follows:

        (Purpose: To make technical corrections in the preamble)

       In the seventh whereas clause of the preamble, strike ``and 
     providing some initial indications that he was being held 
     somewhere in southwest Asia''.
       In the eighth whereas clause of the preamble, strike 
     ``further''.
  The preamble, as amended, was agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 2639) was agreed to, as follows:

                     (Purpose: To amend the title)

       Amend the title so as to read: ``A resolution urging the 
     Government of Iran to fulfill their promises of assistance in 
     this case of Robert Levinson, one of the longest held United 
     States civilians in our Nation's history.''.
  The resolution (S. Res. 312), with its preamble, as amended, and its 
title, as amended, reads as follows:

                              S. Res. 312

       Whereas United States citizen Robert Levinson is a retired 
     agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), a 
     resident of Coral Springs, Florida, the husband of Christine 
     Levinson, and father of their 7 children;
       Whereas Robert Levinson traveled from Dubai to Kish Island, 
     Iran, on March 8, 2007;
       Whereas after traveling to Kish Island and checking into 
     the Hotel Maryam, Robert Levinson disappeared on March 9, 
     2007;
       Whereas, in December 2007, Robert Levinson's wife, 
     Christine, traveled to Kish Island to retrace Mr. Levinson's 
     steps and met with officials of the Government of Iran who 
     pledged to help in the investigation;
       Whereas for more than 6 years, the United States Government 
     has continually pressed the Government of Iran to provide any 
     information on the whereabouts of Robert Levinson and to help 
     ensure his prompt and safe return to his family;
       Whereas officials of the Government of Iran promised their 
     continued assistance to the relatives of Robert Levinson 
     during the visit of the family to the Islamic Republic of 
     Iran in December 2007;
       Whereas, in November 2010, the Levinson family received a 
     video of Mr. Levinson in captivity, representing the first 
     proof of life since his disappearance;
       Whereas, in April 2011, the Levinson family received a 
     series of pictures of Mr. Levinson, which provided 
     indications that he was being held somewhere in southwest 
     Asia;
       Whereas Secretary John Kerry stated on August 28, 2013, 
     ``The United States respectfully asks the Government of the 
     Islamic Republic of Iran to work cooperatively with us in our 
     efforts to help U.S. citizen Robert Levinson.'';
       Whereas, on September 28, 2013, during the first direct 
     phone conversation between the leaders of the United States 
     and Iran since 1979, President Barack Obama raised the case 
     of Robert Levinson to President of Iran Hassan Rouhani and 
     urged the President of Iran to help locate Mr. Levinson and 
     reunite him with his family;
       Whereas November 26, 2013, marked the 2,455th day since Mr. 
     Levinson's disappearance, making him one of the longest held 
     United States civilians in our Nation's history; and
       Whereas the FBI has announced a $1,000,000 reward for 
     information leading to Mr. Levinson's safe return: Now, 
     therefore, be it
       Resolved, That the Senate--
       (1) recognizes that Robert Levinson is one of the longest 
     held United States civilians in our Nation's history;
       (2) notes recent pledges by newly appointed officials of 
     the Government of Iran to provide their Government's 
     assistance in the case of Robert Levinson;
       (3) urges the Government of Iran, as a humanitarian 
     gesture, to intensify its cooperation on the case of Robert 
     Levinson and to immediately share the results of its 
     investigation into the disappearance of Robert Levinson with 
     the United States Government;
       (4) urges the President and the allies of the United States 
     to continue to raise with officials of the Government of Iran 
     the case of Robert Levinson at every opportunity, 
     notwithstanding other serious disagreements the United States 
     Government has had with the Government of Iran on a broad 
     array of issues, including human rights, the nuclear program 
     of Iran, the Middle East peace process, regional stability, 
     and international terrorism; and
       (5) expresses sympathy to the family of Robert Levinson for 
     their anguish and expresses hope that their ordeal can be 
     brought to an end in the near future.

                          ____________________




           UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENT--MANDATORY QUORUM CALL

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory 
quorum required under rule XXII be waived with respect to the two 
cloture motions filed earlier today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________




                   ORDERS FOR MONDAY, JANUARY13,2014

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate 
completes its business today, it adjourn until Monday, January 13, 
2014; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed 
expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time 
of the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that 
following any leader remarks, the Senate resume consideration of S. 
1845, the unemployment insurance extension; that the filing deadline 
for all first-degree amendments to S. 1845 be 3 p.m. Monday and the 
filing deadline for all second-degree amendments to the Reed amendment 
No. 2631 be 4:30 p.m. on Monday; further, that at 5 p.m. the Senate 
proceed to executive session to consider the nomination of Robert 
Wilkins to be U.S. circuit judge for the DC Circuit, with the time 
until 5:30 p.m. equally divided and controlled in the usual form prior 
to a vote on confirmation of the nomination; finally, that following 
disposition of the Wilkins nomination, the Senate resume legislative 
session and proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the Reed 
amendment No. 2631.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________




                                PROGRAM

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the next vote will be at 5:30 p.m. Monday, 
January 13, 2014, on the confirmation of the Wilkins nomination.

                          ____________________




         ADJOURNMENT UNTIL MONDAY, JANUARY 13, 2014, AT 2 P.M.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come 
before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the 
previous order.
  There being no objection, the Senate, at 7:18 p.m., adjourned until 
Monday, January 13, 2014, at 2 p.m.

                          ____________________




                              NOMINATIONS

  Executive nominations received by the Senate:


                       DEPARTMENT of the INTERIOR

       Suzette M. Kimball, Of West Virginia, to be Director of the 
     United States Geological Survey, vice Marcia K. Mcnutt, 
     resigned.


                          DEPARTMENT OF STATE

       Deborah L. Birx, of Maryland, to be Ambassador at Large and 
     Coordinator of United States Government Activities to Combat 
     HIV/AIDS Globally.


                    BROADCASTING BOARD OF GOVERNORS

       Michael W. Kempner, of New Jersey, to be a Member of the 
     Broadcasting Board of Governors for a term expiring August 
     13, 2015, vice Michael Lynton, resigned.


             CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE

       Heidi Neel Biggs, of Oregon, to be a Member of the Board of 
     Directors of the Corporation for National and Community 
     Service for a term expiring October 6, 2017, Vice Eric J. 
     Tanenblatt, term expired.


                          DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

       Christopher P. Lu, of Virginia, to be Deputy Secretary of 
     Labor, vice Seth David Harris.


             CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE

       Westley Watende Omari Moore, of Maryland, to be a Member of 
     the Board of Directors of the Corporation for National and 
     Community Service for a term expiring October 6, 2016, vice 
     Stan Z. Soloway, term expired.


                            FOREIGN SERVICE

       The Following-Named persons of the Department of State for 
     appointment as Foreign Service Officers of the classes 
     stated.
       The Following-Named Members Of The Foreign Service To Be 
     Consular Officers And Secretaries In The Diplomatic Service 
     Of The United States Of America:
       Ranya F. Abdelsayed, of Virginia
       ANdrew KEkoa ABordonado, of California
       LAura REnee ALdrich, of Virginia

[[Page 430]]

       Karen A. Antonyan, of Nevada
       Dwain D. Atkinson, of Virginia
       Azizou Atte-Oudeyi, of Massachusetts
       Nicole R. Baden, of Maryland
       Daniel F. Baker, of Michigan
       Cedar C. Balazs, of North Dakota
       Sarah Jeanne Baus, of Virginia
       Claire T. Bea, of the District of Columbia
       Jessica Lucia Bedoya Hermann, of Virginia
       Karen D. Bettencourt, of California
       Charles C. Calvo, of Virginia
       Ross Stevenson Campbell, of Virginia
       Katie Caparula, of the District of Columbia
       Benjamin B. Chapman, of Maryland
       Heather Michelle Chase, of New Hampshire
       Megan P. Chen, of Illinois
       John T. Cheng, of Massachusetts
       Gloria Chou, of California
       Grace Ellen Chung, of Washington
       Jullion Mathias Cooper, of Massachusetts
       Colin Malloy Cram, of the District of Columbia
       Colleen E. de Bernardo, of Virginia
       Jacqueline A. de Oliveira, of Virginia
       Eduard Dehelean, of Illinois
       Bernardo A. Diaz, of Massachusetts
       Brooks W. Diehl, of Virginia
       Emily Christine Dignan, of Florida
       Chelsi L. Dildine, of Virginia
       Christine M. Eichinger, of Illinois
       Carolina Escalera, of Florida
       Rebecca Elizabeth Farmer, of Washington
       Soribel L. Feliz, of New York
       Bolton Xavier Ford, of Virginia
       Craig M. Fried, of Virginia
       Kyle Patrick Fritschle, of Virginia
       Bart L. Gewertz, of the District of Columbia
       Christopher Gideon Granger, of Connecticut
       Eric W. Groff, of Washington
       Alexander Charles Guittard, of the District of Columbia
       Julian Andreacchi Hadas, of the District of Columbia
       Charles Norman Hall, of Massachusetts
       Joseph H. Hart, of Pennsylvania
       Zachary A. Haugen, of the District of Columbia
       Amanda R. Hecker, of the District of Columbia
       Marie Suzanne Heglund, of Virginia
       Mason Benjamin Horowitz, of Illinois
       Jennifer Hoyle, of Virginia
       Stephen E. Huneke, of the District of Columbia
       Grant Hunter, of Mississippi
       Kate Erin Husband, of Michigan
       Mark George Jackson, of Massachusetts
       Ariel Rose Jahner, of California
       Esther B-H Joe, of California
       Christopher David Johnson, of New York
       Kevin Paul Ketchum, of Texas
       Justin Andrew King, of Virginia
       John-Marshall Klein, of Virginia
       Anne Marie Estrosas Lee, of Florida
       Su Lee, of Virginia
       Stephanie Lella, of New York
       Adam Miguel Levy, of Massachusetts
       Kyle Joseph Patrick Liston, of Ohio
       Lisa A. Ludka, of Virginia
       Angelo Milo Maestas, of Washington
       Mark Robert Maloney, of Virginia
       Cara M. Maqsodi, of Virginia
       Erica M. Marrero, of Virginia
       Shiva Alim Marvasti, of Connecticut
       Jonathan Matzner, of Virginia
       Catilin Elizabeth Maxwell, of Virginia
       Kathleen E. McDonald, of Washington
       Timothy James McKenzie, of Virginia
       Bradley Meacham, of Washington
       Jacob Daniel Mecum, of Oregon
       Teresa Milenkovic, of Virginia
       Rhett Mobley, of Florida
       Theresa Musacchio, of Illinois
       Admir Muzurovic, of Virginia
       Naureen M. Nalia, of California
       Mary Elizabeth Nameth, of Michigan
       Ashkan Nassabi, of Michigan
       Debra Negron, of Virginia
       Eugene Novikov, of Pennsylvania
       Chukwudi Nwadibia, of California
       Juan A. Ortiz Marquez, of Virginia
       Connor O'STeen, of Washington
       Stephanie Kathryn Parenti-Giordano, of Florida
       Angela Kerri Parham, of Virginia
       Rachael Nguyen Parrish, of Maryland
       Meaghan H. Patrick, of Virginia
       Malaly Pikar-Volpi, of Virginia
       Sandra Valeria Pizarro, of Idaho
       Aaron Hurley Pratt, of Minnesota
       Melissa Fisher Rann, of Illinois
       Anthony Mark Read, of New York
       Aleksandra Ristovic, of West Virginia
       John O. Roberts, of Maryland
       Lauren Roberts, of Virginia
       Nicholas Robert Rossmann, of Virginia
       Meredith Leigh Sanderson, of Virginia
       Katrina J. Senger, of Virginia
       Moira K. Shanahan, of the District of Columbia
       Grace A. Shugrue, of Virginia
       Samara Lakeidra Annese Simmons, of New York
       Eric J. Skarpac, of Maryland
       Tabitha Janette Snowberger, of Tennessee
       Robert D. Soles, of Virginia
       Daniel Brent Stone, of Virginia
       Bryan Straub, of Ohio
       Mika Strickler, of Louisiana
       Kevin J. Su, of Virginia
       Jordan David Sun, of Virginia
       Jacob Dawes Starnes Surface, of Indiana
       Sarah A. Terry, of New Hampshire
       Emily Tietze, of Texas
       Samuel D. Tootle, of Virginia
       Daniel Garrison Towne, of Vermont
       Sevak Tsaturyan, of California
       George M. Tucker, of the District of Columbia
       Sarah Melissa Van Horne, of California
       Susan R. Van Waes, of Virginia
       Duncan T. Varda, of Virginia
       John Volkoff, of Maryland
       Lila F. Wade, of Oregon
       Idashla Kane Wagner, of Virginia
       Courtney M. Walton, of Illinois
       Matthew A. Ward, of Utah
       Marc A. Whitaker, of California
       Jeanelle L. Wicks, of Arizona
       Lisa Marie Wood, of New Jersey
       Angie Zeidan, of Virginia
       Fireno F. Zora, of Virginia


                            IN THE AIR FORCE

       The Following Air National Guard of the United States 
     officers 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 brigadier general

 COLONEL DENNIS J. GAllEGOS
 COLONEL DAVID D. HAMLAR, JR.
 COLONEL JOHN S. TUOHY
       The Following Air National Guard of the United States 
     Officers 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 brigadier general

 COLONEL PAUL D. JACOBS
 COLONEL TIMOTHY P. O'BRIEN
 COLONEL ANDREW E. SALAS
       The following Air National Guard of the United States 
     officers 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

 BRIGADIER GENERAL JON K. KELK
 BRIGADIER GENERAL CASSIE A. STROM
 BRIGADIER GENERAL KENNETH W. WISIAN
       The following Air National Guard of the United States 
     officers 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

 BRIGADIER GENERAL DARYL L. BOHAC
 BRIGADIER GENERAL ROBERT M. BRANYON
 BRIGADIER GENERAL MICHAEL B. COMPTON
 BRIGADIER GENERAL JAMES E. DANIEL, JR.
 BRIGADIER GENERAL MATTHEW J. DZIALO
 BRIGADIER GENERAL RICHARD N. HARRIS, JR.
 BRIGADIER GENERAL WORTHE S. HOLT, JR.
 BRIGADIER GENERAL GARY W. KEEFE
BRIGADIER GENERAL DAVID T. KELLY
BRIGADIER GENERAL DONALD A. MCGREGOR
BRIGADIER GENERAL ROBERT L. SHANNON, JR.
BRIGADIER GENERAL ROBERT S. WILLIAMS
       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 major general

BRIGADIER GENERAL CHRISTOPHER J. BENCE
BRIGADIER GENERAL JACK L. BRIGGS II
BRIGADIER GENERAL DAVID J. BUCK
BRIGADIER GENERAL THOMAS A. BUSSIERE
BRIGADIER GENERAL STEPHEN A. CLARK
BRIGADIER GENERAL STEPHEN T. DENKER
BRIGADIER GENERAL JOHN L. DOLAN
BRIGADIER GENERAL MICHAEL E. FORTNEY
BRIGADIER GENERAL PETER E. GERSTEN
BRIGADIER GENERAL GINA M. GROSSO
BRIGADIER GENERAL JERRY D. HARRIS, JR.
BRIGADIER GENERAL DARYL J. HAUCK
BRIGADIER GENERAL JOHN M. HICKS
BRIGADIER GENERAL JOHN P. HORNER
BRIGADIER GENERAL JAMES R. MARRS
BRIGADIER GENERAL LAWRENCE M. MARTIN, JR.
BRIGADIER GENERAL JOHN K. MCMULLEN
BRIGADIER GENERAL BRADFORD J. SHWEDO
BRIGADIER GENERAL JAY B. SILVERIA
BRIGADIER GENERAL LINDA R. URRUTIA-VARHALL
BRIGADIER GENERAL JACQUELINE D. VAN OVOST
BRIGADIER GENERAL MARK W. WESTERGREN


                              IN THE ARMY

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

                        To be lieutenant general

MAJ. GEN. PARTRICK J. DONAHUE II
       The following named officer for appointment in the United 
     States Army to the grade indicated while assigned to a 
     position of importance and responsibility under title 10, 
     U.S.C., section 601:

                        To be lieutenant general

LT. GEN. WILLIAM B. GARRETT III
       The following named officer for appointment in the United 
     States Army to the grade indicated while assigned to a 
     position of importance and responsibility under title 10, 
     U.S.C., section 601:

                        To be lieutenant general

LT. GEN. DAVID D. HALVERSON
       The following named officer for appointment in the United 
     States Army to the grade indicated under title 10, U.S.C., 
     sections 624, 3037, AND 3064:

        To be brigadier general, judge advocate general's corps

COL. STUART W. RISCH


                            IN THE AIR FORCE

       The following named officers for appointment to the grade 
     indicated in the United States Air Force under title 10, 
     U.S.C., section 624:

                             To be colonel

KATHRYN L. AASEN
JASON T. BLACKHAM
JEFFERY A. CASEY
CHOL H. CHONG
SHERYL L. KANE
AMAR KOSARAJU
JAMES M. KUTNER
DAVID P. LEE
ZINDELL RICHARDSON
KEVIN J. STANGER
MICHAEL R. SUHLER
RICHARD D. TOWNSEND
JOHN K. WALTON
       The following named officers for appointment to the grade 
     indicated in the United States Air Force under title 10, 
     U.S.C., section 624:

                             To be colonel

THERESE A. BOHUSCH
DAVID E. BYER
JAMES M. CANTRELL
VICTOR CARAVELLO
MARIE PAULETTE COLASANTI
CAROL M. COPELAND
MAUREEN O. HARBACK
BRENT A. JOHNSON
JAMES W. LASSWELL
KEVIN J. MCCAL
KRYSTAL L. MURPHY
RICHARD SCHOSKE
RANDOLPH R. SMITH
JAMES A. STEPHENSON
       The following named officers for appointment to the grade 
     indicated in the United States Air Force under title 10, 
     U.S.C., section 624:

                             To be colonel

DAVID M. BERTHE
PAUL N. CONNER
GREGORY S. CULLISON
CHRISTOPHER A. DUN
TIMOTHY A. DYKENS
ALFRED K. FLOWERS, JR.
LINDA M. GUERRERO
JOHN J. MAMMANO
TIMOTHY L. MARTINEZ
RONALD J. MERCHANT
TODD L. OSGOOD
MICHELLE A. PUFALL
SCOTT C. SUCKOW
JEFFREY J. WHITE
PAUL A. WILLINGHAM
       THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE 
     INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE UNDER TITLE 10, 
     U.S.C., SECTION 624:

                        To be lieutenant colonel

AMY R. ASTONLASSITER
JENNIFER R. BEIN
MARIE ANTONETTE C. BRANCATO
JOHN A. BREWSTER
JARED W. CARDON
BENJAMIN R. CLARKE
LINDA K. COATES
JAY FEDOROWICZ
GEOFFREY L. GESSEL
SCOTT F. GRUWELL
CURTIS J. HAYES
PAUL B. HILFER
TYETUS T. HOHNSTEIN
NATHAN D. KRIVITZKY
KETU PANCHAL LINCOLN
PATRICK M. MCDONOUGH
DIONTE R. MONCRIEF
IRIS B. ORTIZ GONZALEZ
DANIEL J. PALAZZOLO
CHRISTOPHER K. PARRIS
JAKUB F. PIETROWSKI
CHAD R. RAPER
MATTHEW T. RAPER
JAROM J. RAY
MATTHEW M. ROGERS

[[Page 431]]

DAVID A. ROTHAS
RENE SAENZ
CADE A. SALMON
LESLEY J. SALVAGGIO
BRETT A. SESHUL
KYRA Y. SHEA
CHRISTINA L. SHEETS
ANGELA K. STANTON
AIMEE N. ZAKALUZNY
       THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE 
     INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE UNDER TITLE 10, 
     U.S.C., SECTION 624:

                        To be lieutenant colonel

RICHARD T. BARKER
ERIC G. BARNEY
ANGELICA BLACK
CHET K. BRYANT
CANG QUOC BUI
ERIC J. CAMERON
FRANCISCO J. CATALA
HEIDI L. CLARK
MICHAEL J. CUOMO
LINDA LEE CURRIER
JOHN A. DALOMBA
MICHAEL F. DETWEILER
THOMAS J. DOKER
DAVID A. EISENACH
TROY P. FAABORG
KELLY J. GAMBINOSHIRLEY
GREG J. GARRISON
GREGORY S. HENDRICKS
GEORGE A. HESTILOW
VINA E. HOWARTH
WEILUN HSU
TERESA MEAD HUGHES
CHAD A. JOHNSON
BRIAN A. KATEN
EDWARD D. KOSTERMAN III
CHRISTOPHER M. KURINEC
PATRICE L. LYONS
THOMAS N. MAGEE
MICHAEL D. MCCARTHY
ANN D. MCMANIS
MELISSA R. MEISTER
CORY J. MIDDEL
DENIS J. NOLAN
ERIC L. PHILLIPS
JOANNA L. RENTES
LARA L. RILEY
MOCHA LEE ROBINSON
ETHIEL RODRIGUEZ
MATTHEW W. SAKAL
STEFFANIE S. SARGEANT
ERIC J. SAWVEL
MELISSA HERGAN SIMMONS
JOHN E. SIMONS
LEONARDO E. TATO
STACEY S. VAN ORDEN
MICHELLE L. WAITERS
CAROL A. WEST
ROBBIE L. WHEELER
IAN P. WIECHERT
       THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE 
     INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE UNDER TITLE 10, 
     U.S.C., SECTION 624:

                             To be colonel

ELIZABETH R. ANDERSONDOZE
MARK A. ANTONACCI
KARYN JESTER AYERS
DEVIN P. BECKSTRAND
LYNN G. BERRY
ALEXANDER B. BLACK
REBECCA SMILEY BLACKWELL
STEPHEN R. BODEN
KURT R. BOLIN
HANS C. BRUNTMYER
DARREN E. CAMPBELL
MATTHEW B. CARROLL
NAILI A. CHEN
NICHOLAS G. CONGER
PATRICK J. DANAHER
EDWIN P. DAVIS, JR.
GERALD R. FORTUNA, JR.
KATHY J. GREEN
MARY L. GUYE
WILLIAM N. HANNAH, JR.
MATTHEW P. HANSON
CHRISTOPHER G. HAYES
CHRYSTAL D. HENDERSON
LAKEISHA RENEE HENRY
DAVID C. IVES
ROBERT A. JESINGER
JON M. JOHNSON
PETER H. KIM
KY M. KOBAYASHI
MICAL J. KUPKE
DONALD J. LANE
HENRY K. K. LAU
TERENCE PATRICK LONERGAN
MIKELLE A. MADDOX
JOHN D. MCARTHUR
LISA C. MITCHELL
STEPHEN W. MITCHELL
MEREDITH L. MOORE
CHARLES D. MOTSINGER
ENEYA H. MULAGHA
GLEN K. NAGASAWA
DAVID M. OLSON
CRAIG R. K. PACK
RACHELLE PAULKAGIRI
DWIGHT E. PEAKE
SCOTT C. PRICE
LYRAD K. RILEY
CHRISTOPHER S. ROHDE
KAREN A. RYAN PHILPOTT
STEPHANIE A. SCHAEFER
DAVID P. SIMON
KRISTEN E. TALECK
DAI A. TRAN
MARK W. TRUE
LAURENCE A. ULISSEY
KEVIN R. VANVALKENBURG
ALLAN E. WARD
CATHERINE T. WITKOP
BRIAN M. YORK
AARON T. YU
       THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE 
     INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE UNDER TITLE 10, 
     U.S.C., SECTION 624:

                              To be major

JENARA L. ALLEN
ANDREW W. BAKER
MICHAEL E. BINGHAM
BENJAMIN J. BRITTEN
AMY C. BROWN
CODY W. CALAME
KATHRINA T. CARRASCO
CODY L. CHRISTLINE
JEFFREY G. CLAYTON
BRANDON C. CLYBURN
REANN M. CORNELL
JENNIFER E. CREECH
MEGAN SARAH DESROCHES
CYNTHIA L. DOMINESSY
PRESTON S. DUFFIN
ANDREA L. DUFOUR
JOHN A. DUSENBURY, JR.
PETER S. FRANDSEN
CHERIELYNNE A. GABRIEL
JASON R. GARNER
CHRISTIN M. GIACOMINO
DOUGLAS N. GRABOWSKI
ALLEN G. GUNN
WYETH L. HOOPES
KELLEY A. HURSH
JESSICA A. ISENBERG
BENJAMIN W. JOHNSON
DERRIK R. JOHNSON
SHANNAN M. JOHNSON
CHRISTOPHER J. JONES
ROYDEN DERRICK JONES
TANN S. JONES
MATTHEW W. JOOSSE
KATYA B. KANUK
BRYAN R. KATZ
AMANDA R. KELLY
VERA LEE
AUSTYN M. LEHMUTH
MICHAEL S. LUNA
CLAUDIA E. MAIOLO
JOHN R. MALLYA
JOSEPH K. McCOMBS
JESSICA L. MILBURN
MATTHEW T. MOBERG
MIKHAIL I. MUKHIN
REBECCA S. NEITZKE
MARK R. OLSEN
RHETT K. OLSEN
NICHOLAS L. POLCZYNSKI
DAMON J. POPE
JACOB A. POWELL
CHRISTOPHER J. RAIMONDI
DAVID M. RAPER
JENNIFER L. REDFORD
JAMES M. RIDGEWAY II
APRIL M. ROCKER
JASON A. ROSE
LARA C. SACKHEIM
CHRISTOPHER J. SAYLOR
DAVID K. SCHINDLER
TODD A. SCHULTZ
TYLER J. SCHUURMANS
MELISSA C. SHEETS
KIMBERLY A. SIMMENHIIPAKKA
AARON T. SMITH
JACOB T. SMITH
NICOLE A. SMITH
HELENA M. SWANK
WAH YUNG TSANG
JON P. VANDEWALKER
ABBEY C. VINALL
CRAIG V. VINALL
SCOTT A. WALKER
BRACKEN M. WEBB
SARAH M. WHEELER
WILLIAM A. WRIGHT
DERRICK A. ZECH
       THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE 
     INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE UNDER TITLE 10, 
     U.S.C., SECTION 624:

                              To be major

ERIN E. ARTZ
TAMMY L. BAKER
VICKI L. BATEMAN
DAVID T. BEUTLER
KATRINA R. BLANCO
PAMELA L. BLUEFORD
SCOTT M. BOYD
SHANNON CHRISTINE BRANLUND
TRACY A. BRANNOCK
SITAO V. BROWNHEIM
RICHARD H. CABALLERO
LANNIE M. CALHOUN
RACHEL E. CASEY
DANIEL G. CASSIDY
STEVEN R. CHASE
PEDRO J. COLON
ELIZABETH F. COPELAND
TISHA T. CORNETT
CHRISTINE RENNIE CREED
BRIAN D. CRUZ
DANNY C. DACEY
JODI L. DANTER
ANTHONY E. DARGUSH
ROBERT T. DAVIS
MARK ANDREW DIXON
KENT H. DO
IZABELA A. DZIEDZIC
CRAIG D. ENGLAND
JON M. B. FARLEY
EMILY A. FLETCHER
JASON R. FLORY
HEATHER M. FORD
JASON W. FORQUER
ADAM J. FRITZ
EMILY A. FUSCO
WILLIAM A. GARLISI, SR.
LUCAS GASCO
JULIE M. GLOVER
KARINA C. GLOVER
JUSTIN J. GRAY
EMILY A. GRIESER
DANIEL B. GROSS
ROBERT T. GUDGEL
STEPHANIE K. HARLEY
ARMEL HASANI
ANDREW G. HELMAN
LAURA P. HENRY
JAYVANITA A. HILL MOORE
MARK R. HILL
ANDREW M. HODGE
STACIANNE M. HOWARD
CHRISTOPHER M. HOWELL
AMANDA E. HUSTON
IRENE R. JACKSON
KASEY M. JACKSON
BARBARA R. JEAN
ERIC W. JORCZAK
FERNINA Y. JUNIEL
SARAH E. KELLY
NEAL J. KENNINGTON
MAUREEN F. KIMSEY
JAMES W. KURZDORFER
LEA L. LAFFOON
ANDREW B. LAMMY
ANTONIO LEONARDICATTOLICA
BRIAN E. LIVINGSTON
KARLO M. MARIANO
CRYSTAL V. MCLEOD
HEIDI A. MCMINN
KIMBRAY N. MCNEAL
MARI M. METZLER
TABITHA D. MULLINS
NGUYEN T. NGUYEN
LAURA A. NICHOLS
JIN U. O
MELISSA M. ODENWELLER
UZOAMAKA ODIMEGWU MBAKWEM
MARK F. OLSON
LAMONT Q. ONG
JOSE A. ORTEGA
JEREMY R. PALLAS
GREGORY H. PALMROSE
GENA C. PARKMAN
TUYEN T. PHAM
SONIA N. PONS
DAVID R. POOLE
JESSICA M. POTHAST
AMY L. QUINLISK
MICHAEL J. RABENER
MICHAEL H. RATH
PATRICE L. REVIERE
JORDAN B. RICHARDSON
GERARDO I. ROBLES MORALES
LAKISHA GADSDEN ROE
ANDREA M. ROPE
JILL M. ROSER
EMILY A. ROUGIER
DAWN M. RUSSELL
JAMES B. RUTLAND
KAREN M. SALYARS
LLOYD C. SCHARFENSTINE
JOHN I. SHOAF
JEFFREY J. SMITH
THOMAS M. SMITH
RABECCA K. STAHL
JIMMY D. STANLEY
BRIAN J. STROH
LAURA L. SWANSON
DAWN APRIL TANNER
JOLYN I. TATUM
NADIA E. TEALE
MICHAEL R. TEMPLE
MATTHEW S. UBEDEI
DANNY J. VILLALOBOS
KATHERINE J. WAGGNER
CATHERINE M. WARE
MICHAEL L. WEBBER
DAVID M. WELLER
TOMAS WIDEMOND

[[Page 432]]

CHAD R. WILLIAMS
DIANNE L. WILLIAMS
JAMES B. WILLIAMS
TODD K. ZUBER
       THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE 
     INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE UNDER TITLE 10, 
     U.S.C., SECTION 624:

                        To be lieutenant colonel

WESLEY M. ABADIE
CHRISTOPHER T. ANDERSON
JAVIER L. ARENAS
JAMES J. ARNOLD
JOANNE M. BALINTONA
MATTHEW F. BARCHIE
DARRELL E. BASKIN
RHODORA J. BECKINGER
KENNETH S. BODE
DANIEL E. BRADY
PRYOR S. BRENNER
NATHAN H. BREWER
ALICE J. BRIONES
LEE JOSHUA BROCK
DANIEL J. BROWN
DOUGLAS W. BYERLY
MATTHEW C. CALDWELL
DALE C. CAPENER
KATHERINE M. CEBE
LAURA P. CEBE
VICTOR C. CHANG
STEVE I. CHEN
DONALD S. CHRISTMAN
KASI M. CHU
CHAD E. CONNOR
TARA E. COOK
JESSICA W. CROWDER
KATIE M. CROWDER
MICHAEL W. CROWDER
BRYAN C. CURTIS
EDDIE D. DAVENPORT
TASLIM A. DAWOOD
KATE B. DEISSEROTH
CHRISTOPHER J. DENNIS
JEFFREY D. DILLON
TUCKER A. DRURY
STEVE L. DUFFY
JAMES T. DUNLAP
MATTHEW D. EBERLY
ANDREW B. EBERT
ELIZABETH A. ERICKSON
AARON M. FIELDS
TERESA L. FINNILA
BRIAN M. FITZGERALD
ANNA M. FLINN
JOSEPH P. FORESTER
MICHAEL R. FRAYSER
AMY E. GAMMILL
MATTHEW C. GILL
SEAN C. GLASGOW
CHRIS K. GOLD
MATTHEW D. GOLDMAN
CRAIG A. GOOLSBY
DAVID K. GORDON II
CLAIRE HOELSCHER GOULD
SCOTT I. HAGEDORN
HEATHER A. HALVORSON
MARIE J. HAN
MATTHEW C. HANN
SHANA LEE HANSEN
BRENT S. HARLAN
KENISHA R. HEATH
CHANCE J. HENDERSON
DANA J. HESS
SVEN M. HOCHHEIMER
BRIAN L. HOLT
MARC D. HOPKINS
ANDREW Y. HSING
BRIAN S. JOHNSTON
COURTNEY A. JUDD
ERIC W. KADERBEK
GREGORY C. KAHL
JOHNSON C. KAY
KIRK A. KEEGAN III
CHRISTOPHER KEIRNS
PATRICK L. KELLER
JASON A. KELLY
RONALD J. KHOURY
MARY ANNE KIEL
JULIANE B. KIM
JEREMY A. KING
MELISSA M. KING
GEORGE H. KOTTI III
LEZLIE R. KUEBKER
CAROLYN S. LACEY
JEFFREY S. LAROCHELLE
GRANT E. LATTIN, JR.
DALILA W. LEWIS
ARNOLD K. LIM
JEN LIANG JACOB LIN
CHRISTOPHER J. LINBERG
HENRY C. LIU
EDWARD M. LOPEZ
JOSEPH E. LOTTERHOS, JR.
BRUCE A. LYNCH
BRYANT R. MARTIN
JASON C. MASSENGILL
PETER E. MATTHEWS
GREGORY THOMAS MCCAIN
SHANNAN E. MCCANN
SHANE N. MCCAULEY
TIMOTHY J. MCDONALD
SHAWN M. MCFARLAND
MICHAEL A. MEEKER
JONATHAN S. MILLER
JAMES D. MITCHELL
ARASH K. MOMENI
DERRICK A. MONTGOMERY
GLENVILLE G. MORTON
BRIAN H. NEESE
ADAM J. NEWELL
JOHN M. OBERLIN
JAMES B. ODONE
DAVID M. OLDHAM
JOSEPH M. OLIVEIRA
WILLIAM L. POMEROY III
JOHN W. POWELL
JESSICA F. POWERS
RONALD J. QUAM
ERIC T. RABENSTEIN
TEMPLE A. RATCLIFFE
DARA DANIELA REGN
CHRISTOPHER A. ROUSE
DILLON J. SAVARD
MICAH D. SCHMIDT
TODD A. SCHWARTZLOW
KATHRYNE L. SENECHAL
ANAND D. SHAH
HEATHER M. SILVERS
KRISTIN L. SILVIA
MARVIN H. SINEATH, JR.
MICHELLE T. SIT
MATTHEW J. SNYDER
ELIZABETH L. SOMSEL
JONATHAN A. SOSNOV
JADE M. SPURGEON
MARK C. STAHL
JENNIFER ANN STANGLE
MEGAN BURGESS STEIGELMAN
SHANE C. STEINER
JACOB T. STEPHENSON
JOSEPH J. STUART
JASON L. TAYLOR
CAMERON M. THURMAN
CARLA E. TORRES
ELIZABETH P. TRAN
SARAH N. VICK
MATTHEW C. WALLACE
GRAHAM I. WARDEN
DERON T. WARREN
CHRISTOPHER J. WILHELM
JASON A. WILLIAMS
ALAN J. WILLIAMSON
MATTHEW J. WOLF
ELY A. WOLIN
ALYN Q. WOODS
JOSHUA Y. YOUNG
SCOTT A. ZAKALUZNY
       THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE 
     INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE UNDER TITLE 10, 
     U.S.C., SECTION 624:

                              To be major

ADAM L. ACKERMAN
DANIEL J. ADAMS
SABRINA M. AKHTAR
JANELLE M. ALEXANDER
KRISTINE E. ANDREWS
JUSTIN J. ARAMBASICK
MATTHEW A. ARMSTRONG
RYAN D. AYCOCK
SARAH K. AYERS
JUSTIN P. BANDINO
MICHELLE L. BANDINO
MICHAEL A. BARAKAT
DARRICK J. BECKMAN
MELISSA C. BECKMANN
DAVID CARL BELCHER
DAVID E. BEREDA
MARSCHALL B. BERKES
CHRISTOPHER L. BERRY
STUART R. BERTSCH
MELISSA J. BLAKER
DANA M. BLYTH
AARON M. BOGART
PRENTICE L. BOWMAN
ERIN K. BOYLSTON
ERIN N. BRACK
MICHAEL BREWER
WILLIAM E. BROOKS
MICHAEL R. BRUNSON
NATHAN S. BUCK
REBECCA K. BURNS
REBECCA R. BURSON
KATHRYN M. BURTSON
TYLER M. BUSER
MELISSA R. BUSKEN
PAUL E. BUTTS
KIMBERLY B. CALDWELL
ROBERT M. CAMBRIDGE
BRYAN J. CANNON
DIANE M. CARANTA
CHRISTOPHER J. CHIU
MARYROSE D. CHUIDIAN
LETITIA DANIELLE CHUKWUMAH
YOUNGME C. CHUNG
CHRISTOPHER N. CLARKE
JEFFREY A. COLBURN
CHARLIE A. COLLENBORNE
JOSHUA C. COMBS
MATTHEW R. COMPTON
MARK A. COOMES
SCOTT J. CRABTREE, JR.
NICOLE C. CROLEY
JARED A. CROTHERS
TORIJAUN D. DALLAS
CORDELL R. DAVIS
SHYAM K. DAYA
MAURICIO DE CASTRO PRETELT
STEVEN D. DEAS
MELISSA L. DECKER
ERIK SCOTT DESOUCY
KRISTEN L. DEWILDE
SCOTT C. DILLARD
CHRISTINA L. DILLER
BRADLEY R. DOLES
DANIEL A. DOLEWSKI II
STACY A. DONNELLY
GARY W. DORAZIO
JALIEN KATRICE DORRIS
RYAN S. DORSEYSPITZ
JOSHUA R. DUNCAN
KEITH E. EARLEY, JR.
PETER S. EASTER
SHANNON R. EHLERINGER
BASHIR ELKHOURY
EMILY J. ERMIS
SCOTT M. EVERSON
ANGELA M. FAGIANA
JETHER C. FARINO
CHARLES J. FERONTI
PATRICK R. FINKBONE
SARAH BRITT FOLEY
CAELAN M. FORD
HEATHER N. FOSTER
DANA A. FRAZINE
ANTHONY P. GALE
LAURA K. GALLO
HILARY B. GALLOGLY
HECTOR M. GARCIA MARRERO
CHRISTIAN A. GARCIA
NITASHA D. GARCIA
NOEL M. GARCIA
JENNIFER M. GEMMILL
SPENCER M. GEORGE
LAWRENCE MCLEAN GIBBS
SHANNON A. GLADMAN
LINDSEY A. GOETZ
AARON J. GOODRICH
ROSS F. GRAHAM
RICHARD E. GRAY
RYAN L. GRAY
ASHLEY L. GUBBELS
JOSHUA D. GUSTAFSON
ANDREA M. HAGES
JESSICA L. HAINSFURTHER
KIMBERLY A. HAMILTON
DALLAS G. HANSEN
MARK C. HANSEN
CHRISTIANNE M. HARRIS
GABRIEL T. HARRIS
APRIL E. HAURY
TIMOTHY R. HAUSER
BENJAMIN J. HEATON
KELLY D. HEEGARD
ROBERT J. HENLEY
NATASHA C. HERBOLD
CHRISTOPHER W. HEWITT
JUSTIN B. HILL
JOSHUA W. HINSON
BRIAN J. HOOD
JAMES E. HOUGAS III
ANDREW D. HOUSHOLDER
ADAM B. HOWES
KATTIE DANNIELLE HOY
NICOLE M. HSU
JOSEPH C. HUDSON
OMOTAYO A. IDERA ABDULLAH
KATHERINE M. IVEY
CHRISTINE E. JACOBSEN
HAMEED JAFRI
ROCKY P. J. JEDICK
JULIE R. JEYARATNAM
CYNTHIA R. JOHNS
MARY A. JOHNSTON
BRANDON Q. JONES
RYAN W. JONES
JOHN H. KIM
RICHARD BENJAMIN KNIGHT
STEPHANIE I. KNODEL
RYAN M. KRAMPERT
BENJAMIN B. KUMOR
EMILY S. KUO
ANDREW J. KUSCHNERAIT
HANA K. KWAN
RHET R. LANGLEY
JENNIFER L. LAZAROWICZ
AMY M. LEE
RACHEL A. LIEBERMAN
MARK LIU
LIN N. LU
LESLIE LYLES
RAEANN H. MACALMA
JAIMIE L. MAINES
JACOB S. MAJORS
ANDREW M. MALEY
JAMES M. MANLEY
CRYSTAL M. MANOHAR
WILLIAM E. MARTIN
DAVID T. MATTESON
JON R. MAUST
WILLIAM J. MAYLES
BROOKE E. MCCARTHY
TREVOR I. MCCOTTER
MATTHEW S. MCDONOUGH
TIFFANY P. MERRICK
RYAN P. MOLCHAN

[[Page 433]]

SONIA L. MOLCHAN
MICHELLE R. MORA
KRISTY MORALES
ARIAN A. MOSES
DAVID A. MOSS
BARON THAXTON MULLIS
SHANNON M. MURPHY
PATRICIA I. NWAJUAKU
ROBIN M. OBER
TIMOTHY R. ORI
ZACHARIAH A. OVERBY
JUDY K. OWENS
CHARLES Q. PACE
DEMIAN A. PACKETT
JAVIER A. PADIAL
WHITNEY PAFFORD
STEPHEN J. PARK
CORNELIUS R. PETERSON
TREVOR A. PETERSON
DANIEL S. PETTIT
NEIL T. PHIPPEN
JENNIFER L. PIPPIN
KYLA R. PYKO
KRISTEN A. REINEKE
REGINA M. REINSVOLD
RICHARD E. REINSVOLD
JUSTIN C. REIS
JEANMARIE B. REY
ILA S. REYES
WESLEY D. REYNOLDS
DEREK M. RICHARDSON
DAVID L. RIGGS, JR.
AARON M. ROBERTS
CHRISTINA HELEN ROBINSON
JOEL N. ROBINSON
CHRISTINE ROJAS
REBECCA A. ROSE
NATASHA M. ROWE
KAREN A. RUPP
TRAVIS C. RUSSELL
TYLER W. RUST
ELIZABETH E. SABLOTNE
DANE H. SALAZAR
VALERIE G. SAMS
DAVID R. SAYERS
CHRISTOPHER SCHEIBLER
FREDERICK W. SCHIEBEL
MONICA E. SCHMIDT
THOMAS W. SCHMIDT
BROOKE M. SCIUTO
DANIEL J. SCOTT
OWEN J. SCOTT
MICHELE A. SCULLY
BRETT SEARCEY
DAVID J. SHAW
ANDREW J. SHEEAN
MICHAEL R. SHERMAN
ASHLEY M. SHIRAH
MATTHEW P. SHUPE
THOMAS S. SHUTE
TRACY J. SLAGER
JOANNA L. SLOBODNJAK
CASEY C. SMITH
WILLIAM D. SMITH
ANGELA M. ST CLAIR
REBECCA H. STANLEY
DWAYNE C. STEELE
JUSTIN D. STERETT
JONATHAN A. STERING
ANDREW PAUL STEVENS
JOSHUA A. STEVENS
MARK J. STEVENS
CHRISTOPHER J. STRAUCHON
MEGHANN M. STROBACH
MARY F. STUEVER
ANGELA D. SULLIVAN
SABRINA M. SUMNER
ROBERT B. SWANSON
MATTHEW J. SWENSON
CHRISTOPHER F. TANA
KELLY B. THOMPSON
ENRILYN R. THRONSON
JONATHAN D. TIDWELL
MICHAEL K. TIGER
AMANDA M. TIPTON
ROBERT L. TONG
OANH N. TRAN
JOHN F. TRENTINI III
GREGORY TRIFILO
RICHARD E. TROWBRIDGE
DANIEL T. TRUSCOTT
DANIEL J. URSCHEL
MARY ROSE B. VALINA
MICHAEL R. VAN DUSEN
ALLISON A. VAN HAASTERT
JOHN E. VICKMAN
DAVID M. VON CLEF
BETTINA C. WATKINS
LUISA Y. WATTS
MICHAEL A. WATTS
JOY E. WHEAT
BRANDON M. WHITE
DERRIC ALLAN WHITESIDE
MATTHEW C. WILSON
PRESTON J. WILSON
REBEKAH L. WOLAK
SKY J. WOLF
PRISCILLA H. WONG
MEREDITH L. WRIGHT
ZACHARY E. WRIGHT, JR.
ABBY L. YOUNG
KRISTEN P. ZELIGS


                              IN THE ARMY

       THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE 
     INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY VETERINARY CORPS UNDER 
     TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTIONS 624 AND 3064:

                              To be major

JOSEPH A. ANDERSON
ERICA K. BARKEI
JACOB L. BARNOSKI
SHAWN C. BASINGER
COLT W. BAXTER
MICHAEL BELLIN
DESIREE R. BROACH
AMY M. CARLSON
AMANDA J. CHAMBERLIN
ROSS A. CONIGLIO
JASON R. CRAWFORD
JOHN M. CRAWFORD
TERRA L. DAWES
FRANK A. DECECCO
TACIA E. DESPO
MATTHEW T. FRENCH
ANGELINA C. GERARDO
JAROD M. HANSON
DIANA A. HOFFMAN
RHONDA L. HOLT
STEPHANIE M. KENNEDY
MARC G. KNOBBE
MIRIAM A. LOVELL
BRANDEN M. MAXWELL
TAYLOR K. OPEL
AMOS K. PETERSON
SANTOS K. J. RAPP
CAITLIN A. RIZZO
D011695
       THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE 
     INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY MEDICAL SPECIALIST CORPS 
     UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTIONS 624 AND 3064:

                              To be major

VICTOR M. ANDA
TODD D. ANDERSON
TIMOTHY M. BENEDICT
TROY P. BETTENCOURT
DAVID M. BOLAND
EDWARD J. BOOTH
TISHA L. BRIDGE
CHARLES P. BRILL
JASON R. COLLINS
CHRISTOPHER B. CORDOVA
BRADLEY P. COUGHLIN
ROBIN E. CUSHING
KAREN A. DAIGLE
CINDY J. DEAN
MARIA G. DUGGAN
EMMANUEL EASTERLING
DAVID E. ELLIOTT
LINDSEY K. FAUDREE
BRIAN M. FECTEAU
ANDREW D. FISHER
ISMAEL FLECHA
ANDREW D. FORTENBERRY
DARRON FRITZ
JAMISON E. GADDY
BRETT C. GENDRON
CRYSTAL L. GIESEL
JASON D. GONZALEZ
BRIAN E. GRAY
BRIAN T. GREGG
STEPHEN HANSON
DARREN W. HEARN
JULIE A. HESS
MICHAEL D. HOLLOWAY
SCOTT R. JOLMAN
JOETTA M. KHAN
JUSTIN KOCHER
TINA M. KOILE
KRISTOPHER B. LEWIS
KELLY J. MARCOUX
TODD L. MCNIESH
CHRISTOPHER G. METCALF
JOHN A. MILLER
MICHAEL D. MORRISON, JR.
ANTONIO ORTIZGARCIA
TAMARA E. OSGOOD
DUSTIN T. OVERHOLT
JASON F. PACE
DAVID M. POLSTON
OSCAR POMALES
FRANK RAMOS
CHRISTOPHER W. REMILLARD
JESSE P. REYNOLDS
BRADLEY M. RITLAND
CANDI C. ROBERTS
CHRISTOPHER J. RUGGIERO
DAWN M. RYAN
MELISSA J. SHELTON
BRIAN S. SIMONS
CRAIG J. STACHEWICZ
SUSAN STANKORB
MARTIN L. STEWART
RACHELLE THOMAS
VALERIE M. WATKINS
DREW M. WEBB
JEFFREY A. WEISS
WELTON W. WILSON
JOSHUA A. WORLEY
       THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE 
     INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY NURSE CORPS UNDER TITLE 
     10, U.S.C., SECTIONS 624 AND 3064:

                              To be major

TRACY K. ABENOJA
SAMANTHA L. T. AGEE
BRIAN P. ALEXANDER
MICHELLE F. AMBERSLEY
IQUO N. ANDREWS
DANIELA A. ARGENTINO
DANGELO M. AUSTIN
KENNETH M. AYTES
BRIDGETTE S. BAILEY
JIYOON J. BARHAM
STEVEN A. BARR
FELISA K. BATSON
SAMANTHA E. BAZAN
DAWN M. BLANCHARD
CAMISHA Q. BOATWRIGHT
REUBEN BONDURANT
PHANTHAVONG BOON
WILLIAM BOSOMPEM
COLLAZO G. A. BRACETE
WILLIE C. BRANCH
GORDON T. BRISCOE
ELIZABETH R. BROWN
ROBIN R. BROWN
TRENA A. BUGGS
MICHELE L. BURATTI
SEAN W. CALDER
BROOK T. CARERROS
LORETTA K. CLARKTORREIRA
VERONICA D. COLLINS
YASHIKA R. COOK
RICHARD E. CROCKER
JEREMY K. CROUCH
RICHARD A. CURRY
WILLIAMS L. M. DANIELS
NICOLLE E. DEATON
CELIA DIAL
JAMES J. DIAL
ELISABETH DILLON
MEGAN D. DONALD
NAKEIMA E. DORR
NICOLE R. DRAKE
JULIE R. DUFFY
JOHN C. ECKHOLM
MICHAEL A. ELIE
MATTHEW J. EULER
ANNIE M. FANT
NATALIE A. FARLEY
ANGELO V. FIORE
ANGELIA M. FISHER
ELIZABETH A. FLEGE
KYLEE J. FOY
JACOB R. FROEHLE
MARC A. FURMANSKI
JULIE K. GAHL
JEFFREY M. GAINOK
MANUEL A. GALAVIZ
BRIAN P. GALLAHAN
BETHANY D. GARDNER
BELINDA I. GIBBS
JENNIFER Y. GIVENS
MICHAEL GRAY
KELLY N. GREEN
BRIAN A. GREENE
CYNTHIA D. GROENDES
JOSE G. GUTIERREZHERNANDEZ
TIMOTHY L. HARRINGTON
HERMAN L. HENKES
GENO M. HERRON
PATRICIA A. HODSON
SETH A. HOLLOWAY
TORRY B. HOOK
CHRISTY G. HOYT
FELECIA E. HUDSON
JENNIFER L. HUYCK
CATHERINE T. JENNINGS
GEORGE H. JOHNSON
COREY W. JONES
KEVIN P. JONES
STEPHEN D. JONES
NANCY N. KANE
JAYME L. KAPFENSTEIN
SUZANNE T. KEITH
LAQUINCYIA R. KEY
ANDREW S. KRAUSE
PATRICK M. KRUM
NICKIE A. LACER
JOANN J. LEDOUX
NORRIS L. LEVY
JOSEPH M. LISTER
STEPHENIE R. LISTER
DEBRA LOVE
JULIANA A. LUCIANO
NICCOLE M. MALDONADO
CANISHA A. MARTIN
ATIA C. MBAH
SANDRA B. MCKENZIE
KELLY C. MEISTER
FELIX MERCADOTORRES
AMANDA M. MERRITT
JUSTIN L. MILLER
BARON B. MOEHLENBROCK
KRISTINA E. MOFFETT
JOHN M. MOZER
ERIC S. MUTCHIE
AMANDA B. NAPOLET
NATHANIAL NARAYANA
CYNTHIA L. NATION
NICOLE M. NELSON

[[Page 434]]

MICHAEL G. NEUFELD
MARTHA M. ONER
NICKOLAS C. PACELLA
FIGUEROA O. PEREZ
GREGORY R. PHILLIPS
ISABELLA PINA
LOUIE S. PINEDA
MELODY POLANEC
KENNETH O. PORTER
LISA A. POST
TRACEY E. POWELL
MARITA J. PRINCE
DERRAL W. PROWANT
HEIDI R. RADMER
RYAN K. RANSOM
NICOLE L. RAU
RANDY J. RAU
KELLY A. RENEHAN
NORVEE R. REYES
NSENGA RIBEIROANDERSON
TANESHA D. RICHARDSON
SCOTT A. RIVERS
LUDRENA C. RODRIGUEZ
KIMBERLY A. ROSENBAUM
BROOKE H. SCHRUM
KESHIA A. SEYDEL
ANNE J. SHEAHAN
STEPHEN J. SHOWALTER
JANET J. SIMS
ASHLEY D. SMITH
CURTIS B. SMITH
ADAM J. SOKOLOWSKI
KIMBERLY M. SOLARI
EDRIS L. STAPLES
CHERYL L. THOMAS
TERESA TIMMS
LEIGH B. TRAYLOR
BRENT B. TUMA
MARY A. TURBIAK
SANDRA L. TURNER
RACHEL G. TYLER
JOANN C. WARD
KELLEY A. WATTS
NANCY J. WEAVER
KAREN A. WHITE
ERIN E. WHORRALL
ANDREW J. WIEHER
TINA M. WILLIAMS
RACHEAL L. WOOD
KATHLEEN M. YOUNG
DANIEL J. YOURK
       THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE 
     INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY MEDICAL SERVICE CORPS 
     UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTIONS 624 AND 3064:

                              To be major

HARRIS A. ABBASI
MICHAEL L. ACE
JOCELYN M. ADVIENTO
BRENT E. ANDERSON
DAVID L. ARMESON
MICHAEL G. BACKLUND
CHASKA L. BARKSDALE
ANTIONE D. BARNETT
DOUGLAS D. BARRICKMAN
ANTIONE D. BARRY
JONATHAN S. BARTLETT
MEGAN L. BATES
CARLA A. BERGER
CATHERINE A. BESSLER
TIFFANY R. BILDERBACK
DARIN R. BINGHAM
CHRISTOPHER M. BLACKNALL
ALEJANDRO BONILLA
ISAAC M. BONNEY
DOMINICA D. BOWDEN
MELISSA M. BOYD
LINDSAY M. BRADEN
ROBERT D. BRODNICK
ALISSA L. BYRNE
ASMAR S. CALVERY
CORETTA F. CAMPBELL
SPENCER B. CASH
EDWIN G. CAUDELL
JOSHUA D. CHASE
JESS M. CHRISTENSEN
ALSHONTA CLEMONS
LAUREL K. COFELL
THOMAS C. COLLETTE
SEAN N. COLLEY
NATALIE D. COLLINS
BRENT A. CREER
JONATHAN A. DAMBROZIO
ANDY D. DAO
NEAL A. DAVIS
KIMBERLY L. DECKER
SAMANDRA T. DEMONS
IAN C. DEWS
BRENDAN S. DONOVAN
REUBEN G. DOORNINK
CHRISTINE P. DOWNS
MICHAEL N. DRETSCH
PATRICK DULIN
PHILIP J. DURANDO
EDWARD N. EDENS
CESAR I. EGUSQUIZA
MICHELLE L. ELLIOTT
MATTHEW R. EWENS
STEVEN E. FLANNIGAN
JASON A. FOGARTY
MICHAEL P. FORSLUND
MATTHEW D. FRANCIS
CHAD M. GAGNON
ARMANDO M. GENEROSO
CORY L. GEROULD
KASSANDRA T. GESSE
DANA Y. GRAY
GEORGEANA L. GREEN
MICHELL L. GRIFFITH
JUAN E. GUZMAN
JASON G. HALBERT
NAKIA C. HALL
KATHLEEN E. HAMILTON
PATRICIA J. HAMMOND
CHAD R. HANDLEY
JUSTIN W. HANSEN
CHARLES L. HAYES
ZACHARY J. HEINRICH
PAUL C. HENNING
JESSICA HIGA
GREGORY B. HILL
STUART S. HOBBS
JESSICA R. HULL
RACHEL N. HUSSAIN
NYKEBA L. A. JACKSON
MARVIN J. JENNINGS
ANTHONY R. JONES
STEVEN G. JONES
JAMES T. JUNE
ERICA L. KANE
DANE A. KAPPLER
RICHARD M. KELLEY
JASON S. KIM
KATHERINE M. KINDER
BRADLEY K. KISTLER
DAVID S. KLAJIC
LISA R. KLEIN
SANJAY KRISHNASWAMY
RYAN S. LABIO
CLAYTON C. LANGDON
DAYAMI LIEBENGUTH
RODNEY L. LINCH
KATHRYN C. LOFRANCO
ISAAC LOPEZ
IAN J. LYNCH
JAMES B. MACDONALD
TRISTAN C. MANNING
PEDRO L. MARREROGUZMAN
SCOTT A. MARTIN
KATIE M. MARTINEZ
BRIAN A. MASON
TARA N. H. MCADOO
PATRICK W. MCCARDLE
BRANDON D. MCCARTER
LANCE E. MCINTIRE
CASEY MCKENNA
LEE A. MCMOOAIN, JR.
JENNIFER N. MEADOWS
TY A. MEDLER
BRIAN A. MILLER
MICHELLE L. MILLER
DANELLE M. MIYAMOTO
ALEX C. MONTGOMERY
TERRANCE MONTGOMERY
MEGAN E. MORGAN
MICHAEL S. MOSER
KRISTIAN D. MROCZKO
MICHAEL J. MURPHY
ERIC J. NEELANS
GABRIELA L. NIESS
PRINCESS P. PALACIOS
HOWARD W. PALMER
MATTHEW PARTYKA
NATHANIEL J. PASCHAL
LES S. PATTERSON
DENNIS J. PENACERRADA
MARCUS D. PERKINS
WADE H. PETERSEN
RACHEL S. PETWAL
SHANTAY R. PHILLIPS
BRYAN C. PICKERAL
ROBERT R. PLOTTS
ALEXANDER RAGAN
CAMILLO N. RAMIREZ
MELISSA G. REGISTER
MARSHA D. REVEAL
ERIN E. RICHARDS
CHRISTOPHER W. RICHELDERFER
KELLY M. RIVERA
VIRGIL A. RIVERA
JOHN F. ROBICHAUX
JORGE F. RODRIGUEZ
DENNIS M. RUFOLO
DIEU T. T. RUSHBROOK
RAUSHAN A. SALAAM
LATRICIA N. SANDERS
ADAM N. SCHAFFER
ROBERT N. SCHLAU
SHAMECCA M. SCOTT
GRANT SEVERSON
ROXANNA E. SHEAFFER
CLARK SIMON
JON J. SKIDMORE
AARON M. SMITH
JASON P. SMITH
JESSE E. SMITH
STEPHANIE D. SMITH
VICTOR F. SORANO
GWYNETH R. SOTO
JAMIE L. SOUTHERLAND
NICHOLAS R. SPANGLER
WILLIAM D. SPRUILL
JOHN C. STEHULAK
RANDALL J. SWEENEY
MELISSA M. THOMAS
MATTHEW L. TILLMAN
THOMAS F. TORCHIA
HA T. TRAN
CYNTHIA L. TUCKER
ROSALYNDA M. UY
CHRISTINE M. VANDEVEIRE
CRISTA M. WAGNER
LYNN M. WAGNER
MELINDA A. WALLACE
FRANK B. WANAT
TERRANCE L. WILLIAMS
MATTHEW C. WINGATE
CHRISTOPHER S. WOODSON
JULIE K. YOUNG
JOSHUA D. ZELDIN
DAVID M. ZUPANCIC


                          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 lieutenant colonel

WILLIAM B. ALLEN IV
BRETT A. ALLISON
JOSE E. ALMAZAN
BRADLEY W. ANDERSON
JOSHUA D. ANDERSON
SETH E. ANDERSON
ROBERT G. ANTOLINO
DAVID W. BAAS
THOMAS N. BALL
JAMES T. BARDO
JEFFREY D. BAUER
JEREMY W. BEAVEN
PIERRE R. BERTRAND
JAMES S. BIRGL
JOHN W. BLACK
JASON A. BOROVIES
MARK D. BORTNEM
JOHN C. BOWES
TIMOTHY S. BRADY, JR.
CHRISTOPHER M. BRANNEN
LEONEL O. BRITO, JR.
MARK J. BROEKHUIZEN
JEFFREY D. BROWN
MARK C. BROWN
MATTHEW A. BROWN
THOMAS A. BROWNE, JR.
JEFFREY H. BUFFA
ANTHONY W. BURGOS
DAMON K. BURROWS
ROBERT L. BURTON
MICHAEL D. BUTLER
DUSTIN J. BYRUM
MICHAEL T. CABLE
ANDRES H. CACERESSOLARI
AMY S. CAHOON
JOHN O. CALDWELL
JADE CAMPBELL
STEPHEN T. CAMPBELL
MATTHEW P. CAPODANNO
ROBERT E. CARLSON, JR.
WALTER G. CARR
SIU K. CHENG
BRIAN G. CILLESSEN
THOMAS J. CLEAVER
LOUIS COLTER III
CRAIG C. CONNELL II
WARREN C. COOK, JR.
TIMOTHY J. COOPER
FRED G. COURTNEY III
CLAYTON A. CRAIG
JOSEPH W. CRANDALL
DEREK M. CROUSORE
URBANO CRUZ
JONATHAN E. CURTIS
JEREMY G. DEVEAU
SHAUN W. DOHENEY
JASON E. DONOVAN
JAMES S. DORLON
HAROLD E. DOWLING
JARED R. DUFF
SEAN P. DYNAN
JAMES W. EAGAN III
LAUREN S. EDWARDS
THOMAS E. ELDERS
SEAN M. ELWARD
DAVID C. EMMEL
JACOB O. EVANS
MICHAEL C. EVANS
ROY H. EZELL III
EDWARD R. FERGUS
DAIL T. FIELDS
ROBERT E. FLANNERY
CHRISTOPHER M. FLOOM
STEVEN J. FREESE
ANTHONY D. FROST
KELLY FRUSHOUR
STUART J. FUGLER
MICHAEL G. GAFFNEY, JR.
GERARDO D. GAJE, JR.
JOHNNY G. GARZA
TODD C. GATES
JAMES R. GIBSON
ERNEST GOVEA
LAWRENCE B. GREEN II
ROBERT B. GREEN
BRIAN D. GREENE
LEO S. GREGORY

[[Page 435]]

JENNIFER L. GRIEVES
SHAWN P. GRZYBOWSKI
CHRISTOPHER M. HAAR
DONALD W. HARLOW
FRANCIS G. HARRIS
RYAN J. HART
BRIAN M. HARVEY
DOUGLAS C. HATCH
JAMES F. HICKEY, JR.
CHARLES W. HILL
EDMUND B. HIPP
JAMES T. HOFFMANN
JONATHAN C. HOLDER
TODD C. HOLLAND
PETER D. HOUTZ
CARRIE M. HOWE
STUART H. HOWELL
JEFFREY A. HUBLEY
MATTHEW G. HUMPHREY
BRIAN E. HUTCHERSON
IVAN F. INGRAHAM
KHIEEM JACKSON
JOHN J. JAMES
HEATH B. JAMESON
ADAM B. JENKINS
GREG R. JOHNSON
ROBERT D. JOHNSON
JOHNNIE D. JONES, JR.
QUINTIN D. JONES
RANDALL K. JONES
ALLEN A. KAGEN
DENNIS J. KASKOVICH, JR.
HENRY H. KAYSER
MATTHEW J. KESSLER
JAMES A. KIDD
TRAVIS M. KING
CHRISTOPHER R. KOTLINSKI
NATHAN S. KRICK
ANTHONY G. KROCKEL
DIONNE V. KU
KEVIN K. KUGINSKIE
MICHAEL F. KUTSOR
WACO LANE
ADAM LEVINE
MARTIN R. LEWIS
KEVIN A. LIPSKI
JOHN R. MACFARLANE IV
TODD E. MAHAR
DAVID L. MANKA
MELANIE J. MANN
PATRICK G. MANSON
NOAH G. MARQUARDT
MERIDITH L. MARSHALL
RICHARD C. MARTIN, JR.
NATHAN S. MARVEL
MICHAEL F. MASTRIA
ROGER E. MATTIOLI
MATTHEW M. MAZ
MARK D. MCCARROLL
REGINALD J. MCCLAM
STEPHEN N. MCCLUNE
ERIN K. MCHALE
MICHAEL T. MCMAHAN
ANTHONY F. MCNAIR
CHRISTOPHER M. MESSINEO
BRIAN S. MIDDLETON
KATHRYN I. MILLER
WILLIAM B. MILLETT III
ANTHONY R. MITCHELL II
JASON A. MITZEL
JOHN A. MODER
SUNNY M. MONTAS
GREGORY D. MORRISON
GEORGE S. MURPHY
MICHAEL P. MURPHY
PATRICK NELSON
MICHAEL C. NESBITT
JAMES M. NIXON
JOHN K. NORRIS, JR.
RONALD E. NORRIS, JR.
JOSEPH C. NOVARIO
OWEN J. NUCCI
KEITH G. NUNN
TIMOTHY N. NUTTER
MICHAEL E. OGDEN
JONATHAN M. OGORMAN
WILLIAM C. PACATTE
GREGORY B. PACE
DAVID L. PADILLA
ADAM M. PASTOR
EARL H. PATTERSON V
DAVID N. PAYNE
CHRISTOPHER W. PEHRSON
KENNETH W. PHELPS III
KYLE G. PHILLIPS
JOSHUA M. PIECZONKA
ADAM W. PITNEY
RYAN T. PRINCE
JAMES S. PRYOR
ERIC D. PURCELL
ANDREW J. PUSHART
BERT RAKDHAM
GARRETT V. RANDEL III
JOHN G. RANDOLPH
CHARLES C. READINGER
SCOTT M. REED
GREGORY J. RIVALDI
KEVIN R. ROOT
RICHARD M. RUSNOK
SHEREL L. RYAN
JONATHAN Y. SABADO
CRAIG E. SCHAFFNER
JONATHAN L. SCHNEIDER
DAVID A. SCHREINER
RYAN E. SCOTT
DOUGLAS A. SEICH
RYAN E. SHADLE
SHANNON M. SHEA
JUDE C. SHELL
SCOTT M. SHUSTER
JEREMY W. SIEGEL
CHRISTOPHER D. SILER
EDWARD J. SILVA
SCOTT P. SILVIA
JONATHAN N. SIMS
JESSE L. SJOBERG
JOHN P. SKUTCH
DANIEL T. SMITH
ERIK J. SMITH
JASON R. SMITH
JONATHAN R. SMITH
MICHAEL S. SMITH
THOMAS D. SMOLENSKI
DEREK M. SNELL
DANIEL H. SNYDER
CHRISTOPHER T. STEELE
IAN D. STEVENS
MATTHEW J. STEWART
JAMES R. STOVER
BRIAN L. STRACK
NATHANIEL B. STUSSE
GREGORY J. SUMMA
STEVEN M. SUTEY
JAMES S. TANIS
JAMES R. TAYLOR
PAUL C. TEACHEY
HARRY F. THOMAS, JR.
ROBERT B. THOMAS
GARY D. THOMPSON
SUZAN F. THOMPSON
DOUGLAS M. THUMM
JAYSON M. TIGER
JONATHAN H. VAUGHN
GILES D. WALGER
CURTIS L. WALKER, JR.
DAVID W. WALKER
BRADLEY W. WARD
ROBERT J. WEINGART
OLGIERD J. WEISS III
LAWRENCE H. WENTZELL
MICHAEL S. WILBUR
WALTER A. WILKIE
MARLIN D. WILLIAMS
SHAWN E. WILLIAMS
PRESCOTT N. WILSON
SEAN M. WILSON
JEREMY S. WINTERS
CRAIG A. WOLFENBARGER
BARIAN A. WOODWARD
MELISSA L. WRIGHT
FLOY A. YATES, JR.
LEE A. YORK
ROYCE D. ZANT III
JAMES L. ZEPKO




[[Page 436]]

                          EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS
                          ____________________


                         MS. AUDREY WRIGHT DAY

                                 ______
                                 

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

                               of georgia

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, January 9, 2014

  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following 
Proclamation.
  Whereas, Over eighteen years ago a virtuous woman of God accepted her 
calling to serve in the Healthcare Profession as a Registered Nurse; 
and
  Whereas, Ms. Audrey Wright began her career providing health and 
wellness service to citizens from all walks of life; She has educated 
and mentored through the Saint Joseph's Mercy Care Services 
Recuperative Care Program and today retires as a Registered Nurse after 
years of dedicated service to our community; and
  Whereas, this phenomenal woman has shared her time and talents, 
giving the citizens of our District a friend to help those in need, a 
fearless leader and a servant to all who want to ensure that the system 
works for everyone; and
  Whereas, Ms. Audrey Wright is a cornerstone in our community who has 
enhanced the lives of thousands for the betterment of our District and 
Nation; and
  Whereas, the U.S. Representative of the Fourth District of Georgia 
has set aside this day to honor and recognize Ms. Audrey Wright on her 
retirement and to wish her well in her new endeavors; Now therefore, I, 
Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., do hereby proclaim November 30, 2013 as 
Ms. Audrey Wright Day in the 4th Congressional District.
  Proclaimed, this 30th day of November, 2013.

                          ____________________




                    HONORING CAMMIE EARL HUTCHERSON

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. BENNIE G. THOMPSON

                             of mississippi

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, January 9, 2014

  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a 
remarkable Entrepreneur, Mr. Cammie Earl Hutcherson.
  Cammie Hutcherson is a life-long resident of Jefferson County, 
Mississippi. He has developed the pride of helping his community in any 
way that he can. As a young adult, his first business was the H & H 
Farm, which is located on Fountain Road in Fayette. He basically raised 
cattle and horses. The farm is still operational at this time.
  Later, Mr. Hutcherson went into business as Cammie's Wrecker Service, 
a venture he has worked diligently in for the past 20 years. This 
business has grown and is operational with four vehicles. His business 
is known for offering affordable, reliable and courteous services to 
residents in Jefferson County and surrounding counties.
  In 2007, Mr. Hutcherson opened a mini storage facility which has been 
an asset to many residents in Jefferson County. The storage has 90 
rental units.
  Presently, Mr. Hutcherson is working to open a restaurant/grill in 
Jefferson County. It will be named, ``Mur's Kitchen.'' The name is in 
memory of his late mother, Mrs. Willie Lee Hutcherson.
  Mr. Hutcherson appreciates the success he has received from patrons 
in Jefferson County and hopes that the relationship will continue.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing an 
aggressive entrepreneur, Mr. Cammie Earl Hutcherson, for his dedication 
to serving the surrounding area of Jefferson County, Mississippi.

                          ____________________




     COMMENDING THE WINGS OF FREEDOM TOUR ON THEIR 25TH ANNIVERSARY

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. DANIEL WEBSTER

                               of florida

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, January 9, 2014

  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, this year, the Wings of Freedom 
Tour celebrates 25 years of service to World War II veterans.
   In 1984, Mr. Bob Collings acquired two iconic U.S. World War II 
airframes, a B-17 and B-24. After five years of investment and 
restoration, the world's only flying B-24J Liberator took flight at the 
50th Anniversary of the B-24.
   The Wings of Freedom Tour began in 1989 and has made nearly 3,000 
stops. The Freedom Tour is dedicated to education and to honoring those 
who served through recreating World War II history. Their motto 
encapsulates that philosophy: ``Read about WWII history and you might 
remember. Experience WWII history and you'll never forget.''
   It is my pleasure to commend the Wings of Freedom Tour on their 25th 
anniversary, and I join the Wings of Freedom Tour in expressing 
appreciation for our veterans and those currently serving in the United 
States military.

                          ____________________




         BROWNS MILL CIVIC AND ATHLETIC BOOSTER ASSOCIATION DAY

                                 ______
                                 

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

                               of georgia

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, January 9, 2014

  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following 
proclamation.
  Whereas, since its founding, the Browns Mill Civic & Athletic Booster 
Association has been and continues to be a worthy instrument for good; 
and
  Whereas, the Browns Mill Recreation Center Booster Club Inaugural 
Blue & Gold Gala is being held to celebrate community service and to 
assist our youth that desire to participate in recreational activities, 
sports, summer programs and afterschool educational programs; and
  Whereas, the Browns Mill Civic & Athletic Booster Association has 
always promoted the concept of One Community-One Goal by working with 
and for individuals of all walks of life to make DeKalb County a place 
where openness is seen as well as heard; and
  Whereas, its members give of themselves tirelessly and 
unconditionally to serve our community through projects to enhance our 
youth through sports, health, mentorships and scholarships; and
  Whereas, the lives of many in our district are touched by the 
leadership and service given by the members of the Browns Mill Civic & 
Athletic Booster Association, our nation and the world is a better 
place due to their commitment to excellence in all of their endeavors; 
and
  Whereas, the U.S. Representative of the Fourth District of Georgia 
has set aside this day to honor and recognize their outstanding service 
to our District; now therefore, I, Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., do 
hereby proclaim November 2, 2013 as Browns Mill Civic & Athletic 
Booster Association Day in the 4th Congressional District.
  Proclaimed, this 2nd day of November, 2013.

                          ____________________




                   HONORING CLINTON DEMETRUS WILLIAMS

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. BENNIE G. THOMPSON

                             of mississippi

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, January 9, 2014

  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a 
remarkable Entrepreneur, Mr. Clinton D. Williams, who is a resident 
Cleveland, Mississippi.
  Mr. Williams was born November 23, 1972 to Clifton L. Williams, Sr. 
and Dorothy L. Williams of Shaw, Mississippi. He attended and graduated 
from McEvans Elementary and Shaw High School. Because of his interest 
in the arts, Clinton enrolled in the Fine Arts Program at Mississippi 
Valley State University in Itta Bena, Mississippi, where he majored in 
Fine Arts with emphasis in Graphic Designs and Print Making. He 
graduated from in 1997 with a Bachelor of Fine Arts Degree.
  Clinton decided to remain in the Mississippi Delta to assist with the 
family screen printing business. In 1999, Clinton decided to start his 
own business, Williams Designs with the determination to take the 
family business along

[[Page 437]]

with his own business to the next level, he and his father worked hard 
to make sure that they provided quality work with reasonable prices 
with a fast turnaround time. It was of great importance that their 
customers understood that they were greatly appreciated by the 
Williams' family.
  In 2005 the reigns to the family business were handed over to 
Clinton. With the responsibility to make sure the family business 
continued.
  With over 25 years of experience, Triple C T-Shirts & Williams 
Designs are continuing to provide great customer service. Today, 
Clinton oversees all operations from cleaning up to doing artwork, 
making deliveries, printing, running errands, picking up lunch for his 
staff and even offering words of encouragement.
  He is married to Shonda C. Williams and they have one daughter, 
Justice B. Williams.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing an amazing 
entrepreneur, Mr. Clinton Williams, for his dedication to 
entrepreneurialship.

                          ____________________




                    IN RECOGNITION OF ROBERT STRAIN

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. RON BARBER

                               of arizona

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, January 9, 2014

  Mr. BARBER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Bob Strain on 
the high honor of being named Veteran of the Year by the Greater Sierra 
Vista United Veterans Council.
   A retired colonel, Bob served our country with distinction for 
thirty years in the United States Air Force. After retiring from the 
military, Bob served his community of Sierra Vista, Arizona for over 
twenty years with the same level of integrity and dedication through 
civic engagement and elected office.
   The city of Sierra Vista and Fort Huachuca grew stronger under Bob's 
leadership both as a member of the City Council and as mayor. By 
increasing and reinforcing water conservation in the city and 
surrounding region, Bob helped ensure the future growth and 
sustainability of the city and the Army Garrison.
   As an active member of numerous community associations and 
organizations, Bob has been a strong and articulate advocate for the 
many veterans who call Southern Arizona home. In 2012, he was inducted 
into the Arizona Veteran's Hall of Fame. This well-deserved recognition 
by the Greater Sierra Vista United Veterans Council is another 
testament to his hard work and dedication on behalf of veterans.
   I am proud to call Bob Strain a friend and join with a grateful 
community in congratulating him on this well-deserved honor.

                          ____________________




                          HONORING LOU TERRELL

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. SUSAN A. DAVIS

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, January 9, 2014

  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, on January 3, 2014, San Diego 
lost a true fixture of our community. Lou Terrell was a devoted 
educator, a loving family man, and a tireless advocate for the people 
of his city.
  In the 1980's, Lou Terrell served as mayor and councilmember for Del 
Mar, California. Since then, he served as a leader in local chapters of 
Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union, where he 
continued to work to make his city a better and fairer place.
  Lou was also a former professor at San Diego State University, and 
served as chair of the school's Department of Political Science. A 
scholarship was established in his name to help students of political 
science pursuing their own careers in public service.
  Lou Terrell established and served as the president of the Del Mar 
Foundation, a nonprofit that organizes cultural events for local 
children and families and works to keep Del Mar's beaches and parks 
clean and safe. Today, the Del Mar Foundation remains a symbol of Lou's 
love for his community.
  Those who knew and worked with Lou knew him as a kind hearted and 
generous man who loved his wife and children, and his dogs. Above all, 
all of us who had the pleasure of knowing Lou remember his positive 
attitude in the face of anything. It was contagious.
  Lou Terrell was a dedicated public servant and a beloved husband and 
father. His passing is a terrible loss for our region, and for everyone 
who was lucky enough to get to know Lou. He will be greatly missed.

                          ____________________




        MR. KEITH ``KEECHO'' RAWLS, U.S. CITIZEN OF DISTINCTION

                                 ______
                                 

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

                               of georgia

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, January 9, 2014

  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I present the following U.S. 
Citizen of Distinction.
  Whereas, our lives have been touched in a most positive and uplifting 
way by, Keith ``Keecho'' Rawls who has given so much of himself through 
sharing his gift of music and love of life; and
  Whereas, at Clark College in Atlanta, Georgia he majored in music and 
began his professional career as an extraordinarily gifted composer, 
arranger and accomplished pianist who was instrumental in enhancing the 
sounds of recording artists such as Peabo Bryson and distinguishing 
himself as the first Musical Director of the Universoul Circus; and
  Whereas, he gave of himself, his time and talent to uplift his 
fellowman, he inspired others through his gift of music, his wit and 
conversation; and
  Whereas, he was a son, a brother, a father, a grandfather, a nephew 
and a friend to many and will be greatly missed by all; and
  Whereas, he led by doing both behind the scenes and on the front 
lines, being an ambassador of good will who remained true to the 
uplifting of our community throughout this life; and
  Whereas, the U.S. Representative of the Fourth District of Georgia 
recognizes Keith Rawls as a citizen of great worth and so noted 
distinction; now therefore, I, Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., do 
hereby attest to the 113th Congress that he is deemed worthy and 
deserving of this Congressional Honor by declaring Mr. Keith ``Keecho'' 
Rawls, U.S. Citizen of Distinction in the 4th Congressional District of 
Georgia.
  Proclaimed, this 16th day of November, 2013.

                          ____________________




                    HONORING MR. HERBERT ALLEN, SR.

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. BENNIE G. THOMPSON

                             of mississippi

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, January 9, 2014

  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor a long 
standing black farmer, Mr. Herbert Allen, Sr. of ``Allen Farm''. He and 
his family are residents of Silver City in Humphreys County, MS, where 
generations of Allen's have been farming since the 1940s which gives 
them over 70 years.
  The story of the Allen family as black farmers includes major 
setbacks, but they are still in operation today. Grandpa Nathan Allen 
started with 40 acres of land in an effort to provide a decent living 
for himself, his wife, and 6 children. After he died, his son Herbert 
Allen, Sr. began operating the 40-acre farm and grew it into 323 acres.
  Herbert and his wife, Nomie, raised 9 children on that small and 
hard-to-come-by income because again the challenges of the black 
families were real. In fact they raised most of the food they used to 
feed their family.
  Mr. Speaker and colleagues, the odds have been great and many: 
Depression, rainy and dry crop years with little to sometimes no 
government compensation, floods, bad loans, too little loans, and other 
unfortunate things but again, through it all they survived.
  Herbert Allen, Sr. operated the farm for over 50 years until his 
death in 2006, then Herbert, Jr. and his brother, Freddie, took over 
the operation. Although the two brothers managed the daily affairs, it 
was still a family affair involving all the siblings. There are several 
spinoff businesses that have been developed: Allen Recycling (Canton 
and Yazoo City, MS) Allen Heating and Air (Gulfport, MS), and Allen 
Cattle Ranch (Silver City, MS).
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring, Mr. Herbert 
Allen, Sr., a black farmer from the Mississippi's Second Congressional 
District.

                          ____________________




                   IN RECOGNITION OF ROBERT J. DREWEL

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. JIM McDERMOTT

                             of washington

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, January 9, 2014

  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend Bob Drewel on the 
occasion of his retirement as the Executive Director of the Puget Sound 
Regional Council. Throughout his service in this capacity for most of 
the last decade, as well as his long tenure as Snohomish County 
Executive, Mr. Drewel demonstrated time and again his dedication to the

[[Page 438]]

continued development and success of the Puget Sound region. His civic 
service, by even the strictest of standards, is second to none. During 
his tenure as Executive Director, Mr. Drewel built effective 
partnerships among business, labor, government, and civic interests. 
Most notably, he spearheaded creation of the Prosperity Partnership, a 
broad coalition devoted to the advancement of long-term economic 
prosperity in the central Puget Sound region, and VISION 2040, the 
region's integrated growth, economic development, and transportation 
strategy. It is my privilege to thank him for his years of public 
service and for his unwavering commitment to the prudent growth of our 
region.
   Mr. Drewel's many contributions to the Puget Sound region also 
include leadership to assure assembly of the Boeing 787 jet airliner in 
Everett, and subsequent efforts to secure development of a new Air 
Force Tanker and the Boeing 737 MAX family of aircraft in Renton. In 
addition, Mr. Drewel was the first President of the Aerospace Futures 
Alliance, and he is the founder and President of the Washington 
Aerospace Partnership. He also is a past President of the Executive 
Board of the Puget Sound Regional Council and the former Chairman of 
the Sound Transit Board that led the successful attempt to win voter 
approval of the Sound Transit system in 1996. A man of seemingly 
endless energy (and forbearance), Bob also was Chairman of the Highway 
520 Tolling Implementation Committee to fund replacement of the 
Evergreen Point Floating Bridge, an absolutely crucial transportation 
link in the region. Finally, Bob served as Co-Chair of the 
Transportation Partnership of 2008 that advocated Washington state's 
largest-ever transportation improvement package, which ultimately was 
approved by the voters.
   Bob Drewel exhibited remarkable conviction and resolute commitment 
to the central Puget Sound region through the many roles and positions 
he held during his three decades of civic service to King, Kitsap, 
Pierce, and Snohomish counties. On behalf of the people of the City of 
Seattle and the State of Washington, I extend our gratitude and our 
deep appreciation to Robert J. Drewel for his extraordinary leadership 
and deep commitment to our region. We wish him all the best in his 
future endeavors.

                          ____________________




    HONORING LEVELLE GUINN DAVIS AS HE CELEBRATES HIS 100TH BIRTHDAY

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. JEFF DENHAM

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, January 9, 2014

  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Levelle Guinn 
Davis, who celebrated his 100th birthday on January 3, 2014.
  Mr. Levelle Guinn Davis was born in Corralitos, Santa Cruz County, 
California to Jay Ammon and Mel Agusta (Guinn) Davis. He was the 2nd of 
6 children. Levelle's father was a native of Plymouth, California in 
Amador County. Levelle was raised in several areas: preschool in San 
Jose, early school years in Gilroy, grade school years from Crows 
Landing and Mountain View Road then Faith Home Elementary in Ceres 
where Walter White was the Principal. As a junior at Modesto High 
School, he decided to go to work full time against the advice of his 
counselor, Grace M. Davis. He became friends with the pioneer Hackett 
family boys and in 1935, married their little sister, Ruth Etta Hackett 
in the Bethel Church at 15th and G Streets, Modesto, California.
  Levelle and Ruth started their family and had two sons, Leonard Aaron 
and Daniel Arlen while employed at the Spreckels sugar mill near 
Salinas, California. He was a drive belt maintenance specialist and 
moved to Tuolumne County in 1943 to be closer to his parents and 
siblings. In 1952, the family moved to Stockton to allow Lenard and 
Daniel better education opportunities. Both sons attended Stockton 
Junior College and served in the California Army National Guard in 
Stockton.
  After their sons were married, Levelle and Ruth moved back to Modesto 
in 1965 to be near the families of his sister and Ruth's brothers.
  Mr. Davis retired after 10 years as a tomato paste cook with the Tri 
Valley Growers Cannery. Between seasons, he would drive eight row corn 
combine harvesters; he was a member of the Local #12 Teamsters Cannery 
Workers Union.
  He enjoyed having a large garden with a variety of fruit trees. Ruth 
canned and froze everything that they grew.
  Mr. Davis was a member of the Calvary Temple Church when Pastor Joe 
Wright was serving there. During that time, he would lead a large group 
of Senior RVers to numerous camp outings to places like Frank Rains 
Park in Del Puerto Canyon and Oakdale Reservoir. He enjoys all kinds of 
table games with friends at Modesto Verde.
  Mr. Levelle Guinn Davis has enjoyed traveling to all 50 states, 
including Hawaii and several trips to Alaska. He has a clock and watch 
collection as well as ``button'' accordions, harmonicas and has enjoyed 
various types of photography: 8mm movies, VHS videos, Sawyers 3-D and 
35mm slides to name a few.
  Levelle and Ruth were married 70 years and have three grandchildren; 
Laura Giovanetti, Danial Aaron Davis and Renee Crabtree and seven 
great-grand children: Nick, Alex, Heidi, Kaitlyn, Mitchell, Ashley and 
Jake.
  Levelle has been blessed with good health: he reads without glasses, 
drinks pure water, takes health supplements and has never consumed 
alcohol nor smoked cigarettes. He has always been health conscience and 
wanted to set a good example for his sons. He takes a walk to the 
clubhouse several days a week and exercises on the trampoline. He even 
wins at dominoes and other games he plays regularly.
  Mr. Davis is a current member of the Modesto Parlor Number 11 of the 
Native Sons of the Golden West. He still has a good sense of humor and 
likes to tell jokes. He tells everyone that, like the California 
Governor, he also has a Highway Patrolman as his driver; his oldest son 
Leonard, who is a retired CHP pilot.
  Mr. Speaker, please join me in celebrating Mr. Levelle Guinn Davis as 
he celebrates his 100th birthday.

                          ____________________




            MS. THERESA WALKER, U.S. CITIZEN OF DISTINCTION

                                 ______
                                 

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

                               of georgia

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, January 9, 2014

  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I present the following U.S. 
Citizen of Distinction.
  Whereas, our lives have been touched by the life of this one woman, 
Ms. Theresa Walker, who gave of herself in order for others to stand; 
and
  Whereas, her dedicated service is present in DeKalb County, Georgia 
for all to see, where she was an unwavering advocate for youth, the 
elderly, the poor and small businesses; and
  Whereas, this remarkable, positive woman with the beautiful smile 
gave of herself, her time and her talent; never asking for fame or 
fortune but only to uplift those in need; and
  Whereas, she led by example from behind the scenes, as well as front 
and center for the state of Georgia, DeKalb County, the Georgia Black 
Chamber of Commerce, Paragon Productions, Inc., the Lou Walker Senior 
Citizens Center, her beloved church, Saint Phillip A.M.E and her 
beloved Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Inc.; and
  Whereas, this virtuous Proverbs 31 woman was a mother, a wife, a 
daughter, a friend a warrior, a matriarch, and a woman of great 
integrity; and
  Whereas, the U.S. Representative of the Fourth District of Georgia 
has set aside this day to bestow a Congressional recognition on Ms. 
Theresa Walker for her leadership, friendship and service to all of the 
citizens in Georgia and throughout the Nation; now therefore, I, Henry 
C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., do hereby attest to the 113th Congress that 
Ms. Theresa Walker of DeKalb County, Georgia is deemed worthy and 
deserving of this ``Congressional Honor'', Ms. Theresa Walker, U.S. 
Citizen of Distinction in the 4th Congressional District of Georgia.
  Proclaimed, this 25th day of October, 2013.

                          ____________________




                   HONORING JACKIE'S BEAUTY BOUTIQUE

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. BENNIE G. THOMPSON

                             of mississippi

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, January 9, 2014

  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a 
well respected rural town minority owned business, Jackie's Beauty 
Boutique.
  Jackie Bailey, originally from Edwards, Mississippi, became inspired 
to enter the profession of barber/stylist through her early 
interactions with Ms. Doris Green. Ms. Green was a well-known stylist 
in the Bolton community who performed a number of services, mainly

[[Page 439]]

hot comb presses. Ms. Bailey distinctly remembers watching Ms. Green 
hot comb press a number of young girls hair and noticing the ease and 
serenity in which Ms. Green styled hair.
  Driven by her inspiration, Ms. Bailey enrolled at Utica Junior 
College in Utica, Mississippi in 1983 in the Barber/Stylist program. 
After obtaining her degree in 1984, she acquired a job with Apollo Hair 
Design in 1985, which was located in Jackson, Mississippi. She later 
resigned in 1986 to take a year hiatus to recover from a car accident. 
In 1988, an opportunity to co-own her own business presented itself, so 
she and her cousin, Madge Sherry, opened a beauty salon in Bolton, 
Mississippi.
  Her primary clientele were residents of Bolton and neighboring towns. 
Men, women, and children were serviced in various manners, such as 
haircuts, shaves, relaxers, and general hair washing. With the 
presentation of another business opportunity, Ms. Bailey and her cousin 
separated business ties, allowing for Ms. Bailey to be one of the 
longest standing Black-owned salons in town. Her professionalism and 
expertise in barbering and styling has allowed her business to thrive 
in this rural area.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Ms. Jackie 
Bailey and Jackie's Beauty Boutique for its remarkable contribution and 
undying commitment to provide professional barbering and stylist 
services to the citizens of Bolton and neighboring rural communities.

                          ____________________




   MEMORIAL TRIBUTE FOR BOB BOLEN, FORMER MAYOR OF FORT WORTH, TEXAS

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. KAY GRANGER

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, January 9, 2014

  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Bob Bolen, the 
beloved former mayor of Fort Worth, Texas. Mayor Bolen passed away in 
the early morning hours of January 6th, 2014 at the age of 87 at his 
home in Fort Worth.
   Robert Eugene Bolen was born on April 10, 1926 to Milford and Bee 
Bolen in Chicago, Illinois. While he and his family moved more than a 
dozen times during his youth, Texas is where he would ultimately call 
home.
   Bob Bolen gravitated to public service at a young age. He chose 
Texas A&M University in College Station for his undergraduate degree in 
the 1940s. However, he soon left College Station to serve in the U.S. 
Navy as a gunnery officer on the USS Iowa during the waning days of 
combat in the Pacific Ocean during World War II. Following his military 
service, he returned to College Station where he graduated with a 
degree in Business Administration in 1948.
   Upon graduation from Texas A&M University, he began his career as a 
management trainee with McCrory's, a chain of five and dime stores. 
While his career led him to locations like Syracuse, New York, he would 
later be transferred to McCrory's Fort Worth store and he never moved 
again.
   Bob Bolen was first elected to public office in 1979 as the District 
6 representative on the Fort Worth City Council. After just one term on 
the city council, he ran in the special election for mayor. He won and 
served until 1991, cementing his legacy as the longest serving mayor in 
Fort Worth history.
   He was a dedicated public servant throughout his time as the mayor 
of the ``Panther City''. Bob Bolen's efforts were carefully watched by 
other cities. What the city is today is a direct result of much of the 
work he accomplished while leading the city as mayor.
   During his tenure, Bob Bolen's Fort Worth experienced a rebirth and 
revitalization of the downtown area. Companies like Burlington Northern 
expanded and public-private partnerships helped to cultivate the 
growing community. Alliance airport was developed within the city 
limits and Fort Worth became home to the only printing location outside 
of Washington, DC for the Federal Bureau of Engraving and Printing. The 
Bureau continues to print money there today.
   He was a renowned leader and in the process he helped so many 
people. He had a particular affection for helping young people as well. 
He would go out of his way to encourage them and steer them either 
toward public service or toward appreciating it.
   Bob Bolen left an indelible mark on the city of Fort Worth and the 
transformation that he oversaw helped create the distinguished city 
that it is today.
   Bob Bolen loved Fort Worth and Fort Worth loves Bob Bolen. He gave 
the city far more than it was ever able to give him and that's a legacy 
worth remembering.

                          ____________________




      RECOGNIZING THREE MAINERS FOR EXCELLENCE IN MATH AND SCIENCE

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. CHELLIE PINGREE

                                of maine

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, January 9, 2014

  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize three 
constituents in my District who have recently been selected to receive 
Presidential Awards for excellence in math and science.
  Teachers Karen Jagolinzer of Frank H. Harrison Middle School in 
Yarmouth and Elizabeth Heidemann of Cushing Community School in Cushing 
will receive 2012 Presidential Awards for Excellence in Math and 
Science Teaching. By being chosen for this prestigious award, Karen and 
Elizabeth distinguish themselves as some of the top teachers in the 
country.
  I am proud of both Karen and Elizabeth for what they are doing to 
give our students solid skills in math and science, along with a 
greater sense of where those lessons can take them in life. Karen has 
taught for 18 years, creating classrooms where students can learn 
mathematics in a safe and supportive environment. Elizabeth is a 
kindergarten teacher who challenges her young students to apply lessons 
in their community and natural surroundings.
  In addition, Daniela Oliveira, an Assistant Professor at Bowdoin 
College, will receive the 2012 Presidential Early Career Award for 
Scientists and Engineers. This honor recognizes promising scientists 
and engineers who are beginning their careers with important research 
and community service. Daniela is conducting groundbreaking work on 
using innovative technology to make our computers more secure.
  Mr. Speaker, advancing math and science is critical to keeping the 
United States competitive in a global marketplace, driving innovation, 
and discovering more about our world. My deep appreciation goes to 
Karen, Elizabeth, and Daniela for their commitment to these goals, as 
well as my sincere congratulations for receiving these awards.

                          ____________________




                      STRONGHOLD CHRISTIAN CHURCH

                                 ______
                                 

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

                               of georgia

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, January 9, 2014

  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following 
Proclamation.
  Whereas, Stronghold Christian Church has been and continues to be a 
beacon of light to our district for the past twenty years; and
  Whereas, Pastors Benjamin and Sherry Gaither and the members of the 
Stronghold Christian Church family today continues to uplift and 
inspire those in our district; and
  Whereas, the Stronghold Christian Church family has been and 
continues to be a place where citizens are touched spiritually, 
mentally and physically through outreach ministries and community 
partnership to aid in building up our district; and
  Whereas, this remarkable and tenacious Church of God has given hope 
to the hopeless, fed the needy and empowered our community for the past 
twenty (20) years; and
  Whereas, this Church has produced many spiritual warriors, people of 
compassion, people of great courage, fearless leaders and servants to 
all, but most of all visionaries who have shared not only with their 
Church, but with DeKalb County their passion to spread the gospel of 
Jesus Christ; and
  Whereas, the U.S. Representative of the Fourth District of Georgia 
has set aside this day to honor and recognize the Stronghold Christian 
Church family for their leadership and service to our District on this 
the 20th Anniversary of their founding; now therefore, I, Henry C. 
``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., do hereby proclaim November 10, 2013 as 
Stronghold Christian Church Day in the 4th Congressional District of 
Georgia.
  Proclaimed, this 10th day of November, 2013.

                          ____________________




                        HONORING MACK H. SHORTER

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. BENNIE G. THOMPSON

                             of mississippi

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, January 9, 2014

  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a 
hardworking and self motivated man, Mr. Mack H. Shorter.

[[Page 440]]

  Mr. Shorter, a native of Issaquena County, has always called the 
Delta his home. He has been a farmer since 1976.
  Mr. Shorter retired from the U.S. Corps of Engineers as a 
construction supervisor in 2008 and began farming full time. Farming 
has been his favorite past time for the last 37 years. During this time 
he has grown cotton, corn and soybeans. ``I just love to make things 
grow,'' stated Mr. Shorter. Since retirement he farms about 160 acres 
of soybeans and raises about 75 to 80 cattle.
  Mr. Shorter has six children. He and his wife, Hazel, reside in 
Fitler, Mississippi in Issaquena County and are active members of Mt. 
Zion Baptist Church in Cary, Mississippi.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Mr. Mack 
H. Shorter.

                          ____________________




                    HONORING THE LIFE OF MIKE BANKS

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. DOUG COLLINS

                               of georgia

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, January 9, 2014

  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the life of a 
great Georgian, Mike Banks.
  Earlier this week, Mike lost his earthly battle with pulmonary 
fibrosis.
  Mike's absence leaves a void in several Northeast Georgia circles, 
ranging from banking and broadcasting to community service 
organizations and his home church.
  Mike's commitment to community service was inspired by Matthew 25:36-
40, ``whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and 
sisters of mine, you did for me.''
  Among his many outlets of civic involvement, Mike was a founder of 
the John Jarrard Foundation.
  Under the leadership of Mike and the rest of the Executive Committee, 
the John Jarrard Foundation grew from an annual concert to a 
regionally-recognized organization supporting songwriters and a number 
of great causes.
  The Foundation supports a number of wonderful music programs, 
including a songwriting education program for Georgia students. In 
addition, the Foundation sponsors songwriting concerts throughout the 
Southeast.
  My prayers and thoughts go out to Mike's family as they mourn a loss 
that will be felt by many in Northeast Georgia.

                          ____________________




   HONORING CHARLES E. HANRAHAN RETIRING FROM CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH 
                                SERVICE

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. JAMES P. McGOVERN

                            of massachusetts

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, January 9, 2014

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Dr. Charles E. 
Hanrahan, Senior Specialist in Agricultural Policy in the Resources, 
Science, and Industry Division of the Congressional Research Service 
(CRS). After a distinguished career of 47 years of federal service, 
including more than 29 years of service to Congress on agricultural 
trade and international food aid issues at CRS, Charles will be 
retiring on January 31, 2014.
  Charles Hanrahan's work on international food aid issues has been of 
enormous value to the Members and staff of the House Hunger Caucus, 
which I co-chair. He was famous for his ``International Food Aid 101'' 
briefings that helped every congressional office understand the 
importance of our global food assistance programs, how they worked, the 
challenges they face, and how they might be strengthened and improved. 
My staff and I relied on his insights and we will miss not being able 
to pick up the phone or send him an email seeking information and 
advice.
  During his tenure at CRS, Charles has achieved a remarkable record of 
accomplishment providing invaluable support to the authorizing and 
appropriations committees and Members of Congress on agricultural 
trade, global food security, and international agricultural 
development. Over his illustrious career, he has worked on 10 omnibus 
farm bills, 3 multilateral trade negotiations, and numerous bilateral 
and regional free trade agreements, and has been indispensable in 
congressional consideration of these measures. His unparalleled 
institutional knowledge on these issues will be greatly missed by 
Congress.
  Charles began his federal career working part-time in the offices of 
his representative and senator from his native Kentucky and operating 
an elevator here in the U.S. Capitol while earning his Bachelor of 
Science at Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service. After 
graduation, he volunteered for the Peace Corps and served over 2 years 
in Guinea, West Africa where he taught agricultural economics and farm 
management. When he returned stateside, he earned his Ph.D. in 1972 at 
the University of Kentucky. Before coming to CRS in 1984, Charles 
worked at USDA's Economic Research Service where he rose to deputy 
director in international economics, and earlier served at the U.S. 
Agency for International Development as a senior economist in the 
Africa Bureau, and as a staff economist at the National Academy of 
Sciences.
  With this wealth of experience, Charles quickly established himself 
as a leading expert on agricultural trade and international food aid 
issues at CRS when he arrived in 1984. During his CRS career, he has 
written more than 200 reports and confidential memoranda and conducted 
hundreds of briefings for Members and staff, all of which were 
completed with authoritative and objective analysis and the skills of a 
masterful teacher. Just over a year after his arrival at CRS, his 
comprehensive knowledge of world hunger issues were tapped by the 
Select Committee on Hunger as Charles testified at a public hearing on 
food supplies in drought ravaged sub-Saharan Africa. His expert 
testimony at this hearing and his accomplished work in the nearly three 
decades following have gone a long way in keeping Congress informed on 
the important humanitarian issues of international food aid and 
agricultural development.
  In addition to his many years of excellent direct support to 
Congress, Charles has served in acting supervisory and mentoring roles 
within CRS, including most recently as acting deputy assistant director 
in his division and as division reviewer of the reports and memoranda 
of CRS analysts. In these roles, he has earned the great respect of his 
CRS colleagues for his deep knowledge, fairness in evaluating their 
work, and his ability to manage challenging administrative problems.
  In retirement, Charles plans to pursue his favorite extracurricular 
pursuits of travel, reading, cooking, dining out and spending time with 
his beloved family. We wish him the very best in his retirement and 
thank him for his dedicated and stellar record of service to Congress, 
the American people, and vulnerable people around the world.

                          ____________________




        TURNER MONUMENTAL AFRICAN METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH DAY

                                 ______
                                 

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

                               of georgia

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, January 9, 2014

  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following 
proclamation.
  Whereas, Turner Monumental African Methodist Episcopal Church has 
been and continues to be a beacon of light to our district for the past 
one hundred fourteen years; and
  Whereas, Pastor Jai S. Haithco, Sr., and the members of the Turner 
Monumental African Methodist Episcopal Church family today continues to 
uplift and inspire those in our district; and
  Whereas, the Turner Monumental African Methodist Episcopal Church 
family has been and continues to be a place where citizens are touched 
spiritually, mentally and physically through outreach ministries and 
community partnership to aid in building up our district; and
  Whereas, this remarkable and tenacious Church of God has given hope 
to the hopeless, fed the needy and empowered our community for the past 
one hundred fourteen (114) years; and
  Whereas, this Church has produced many spiritual warriors, people of 
compassion, people of great courage, fearless leaders and servants to 
all, but most of all visionaries who have shared not only with their 
Church, but with DeKalb County their passion to spread the gospel of 
Jesus Christ; and
  Whereas, the U.S. Representative of the Fourth District of Georgia 
has set aside this day to honor and recognize the Turner Monumental 
African Methodist Episcopal Church family for their leadership and 
service to our District on this the 114th Anniversary of their 
founding; now therefore, I, Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., do hereby 
proclaim October 13, 2013 as Turner Monumental African Methodist 
Episcopal Church Day In the 4th Congressional District of Georgia.
  Proclaimed, this 13th day of October, 2013.

[[Page 441]]



                          ____________________




          HONORING MAGNOLIA WINDSHIELD REPAIR AND REPLACEMENT

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. BENNIE G. THOMPSON

                             of mississippi

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, January 9, 2014

  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a 
unique and well established minority owned business, Magnolia 
Windshield Repair and Replacement.
  Magnolia Windshield Repair and Replacement began operation November 
1, 2002 in Bolton, Mississippi. There was no office, fax, or landline 
phone. There was no specific parking lot or driveway to drive a vehicle 
in for servicing. This dream was birthed with a mobile operation in 
mind.
  Mr. Pelvia Robinson, owner and operator since its establishment, 
created a business that was completely mobile, allowing for him to 
complete a windshield repair wherever needed.
  Mr. Robinson realized there was no adequate space within the city 
limits of Bolton, nor any of the other rural surrounding areas, without 
having to drive at least 20 miles to Jackson for windshield repair. 
Because Mr. Robinson was born and raised in Bolton, he felt that this 
type of business would not only benefit the people of the town and the 
surrounding rural areas, but it also presented a unique business 
opportunity for himself as an up and coming entrepreneur.
  Since its inception, Magnolia Windshield Repair and Replacement has 
grown from just having private customers to servicing commercial 
customers, while also acquiring several major contracts. Magnolia 
Windshield employs one other person to assist in its day to day 
operation. Even after being in business for nearly 11 years, Magnolia 
Windshield is still mobile, but its official address and location is 
207 Bolton-Brownsville Road, Bolton, Mississippi, at which often times 
cars are repaired for those customers wanting to bring their vehicles 
in for immediate repair.
  In addition to a location, it also has an office, a fax, and a 
landline telephone. Mr. Robinson accredits his success as being owner 
of Magnolia Windshield Replacement and Repair first to God, second to 
his parents, Henry and Ruth Robinson, and thirdly a strong family 
support.
  Mr. Pelvia Robinson was born January 11, 1964. He is the last child 
of 9 siblings. His formal education included elementary education in 
Bolton, MS and secondary and college education at Hinds Agricultural 
High School and Hinds Community College, respectively. He is the father 
of Pelvius Robinson, and grandfather of Pelvius Robinson, Jr. He is 
married to Paulette Robinson.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Mr. Pelvia 
Robinson and Magnolia Windshield Repair and Replacement for his 
dedication and service as a minority business owner to the citizens of 
Bolton and surrounding rural communities.

                          ____________________




           COMMEMORATING THE LIFE OF JUDGE CHARLES B. MIKELL

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. JACK KINGSTON

                               of georgia

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, January 9, 2014

  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of the late 
Charlie Mikell. Many years ago I was in a Bible study group with a few 
friends. We met weekly to discuss spiritual matters, the Gospel, and 
our personal lives. One of the members was a young lawyer named Charles 
B. Mikell. Although as a group we were at various stages of our lives, 
Charlie had already served as an Army Intelligence Officer in Vietnam 
and was with one of the leading law firms in Savannah. One day he made 
a surprising comment. He said that there had been times in his life 
when he felt that he should have been doing more for others. As the 
years went by, I realized exactly what he meant.
   Eventually Charlie gave up his very lucrative career in law and was 
appointed to the State Court of Chatham County. He served as Chief 
Judge of that court for two years and as President of the Georgia 
Council of State Court Judges. Later, he was elected Judge of the 
Superior Court of the Eastern Judicial Circuit in 1992 and was 
reelected in 1996. In 2000 he was appointed to the Georgia Court of 
Appeals. He served as Chief Judge of the Georgia Court of Appeals from 
2011 until his retirement in August of 2012. Through these activities 
he realized his potential and ability in serving others and emerged as 
one of the most respected judges in Georgia. He had a reputation for 
fairness, clarity, and mercy.
   In addition to his outstanding public service, Charlie was also 
involved in a number of charities and foundations, including the United 
Way, the Arthritis Foundation, the Boy Scouts, the Devereaux 
Foundation, the Museum of African History and Culture, the King-Tisdell 
Cottage Foundation, the Neighbor-to-Neighbor Justice Center, and the 
National Foundation for Troubled Youth. He was also a member of the 
vestry at Christ Church, taught Sunday School, and coached basketball 
at the Victor B. Jenkins Memorial Boys Club. In each of his endeavors, 
he transcended political and socio-economic differences. He truly had 
no enemies and was respected by all.
   Charlie passed away on November 4, 2013 after a courageous battle 
with multiple myeloma. He leaves behind his loving wife of thirty-three 
years, Dr. Julia L. Mikell, his son Chuck and his wife Isadora, his son 
John, his wife Jane, and their two sons John, Jr. and James, and his 
son Sam. I had the privilege of attending church with the Mikell 
family, and I taught both Chuck and John in Sunday School. I also 
worked with Sam during his time in Washington. All three kids are 
brilliant, polite, and, like their parents, have channeled their 
remarkable talents into both the pursuit of their careers and to 
helping others.
   America is full of good people, and it's people like Julia and 
Charlie Mikell who have made America great by handing down wonderful 
values to their children. They will continue to bless us, and their 
memory will carry on. I feel honored to recognize the memory of Charlie 
Mikell, and I was proud to call him a friend. He will be truly missed.

                          ____________________




CONGRATULATING CHIEF MASTER SGT. TAMARA PHILLIPS ON HER RETIREMENT FROM 
                        THE OHIO NATIONAL GUARD

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. STEVE STIVERS

                                of ohio

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, January 9, 2014

  Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Chief Master 
Sgt. Tamara Phillips on her retirement from the Ohio National Guard.
  Phillips most recently served as the State Command Chief Master Sgt. 
for the Ohio National Guard where she worked directly for the Ohio 
Adjutant General. She also served as the Superintendent of the 178th 
Force Support Squadron, 178th Fighter Wing, Springfield Air National 
Guard Base, Ohio where she was responsible for four flights dealing in 
a wide range of products and services. She also was in charge of 
mentorship and professional development of all assigned enlisted 
members.
  Chief Phillips first enlisted in the 168th Air Refueling Wing, 
Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska in March 1987 as an Administrative 
Specialist. She transferred to the 445th Airlift Wing, at Wright 
Patterson Air Force Base, for 18 months and then enlisted in the Ohio 
Air National Guard, Springfield Ohio.
  She was then a full-time technician with the 162nd Fighter Squadron 
orderly room and shortly thereafter moved into the Wing Commander's 
executive administrative position. She also served as the Wing Staff 
and Operations Group First Sergeant. In 2002, she was selected as the 
178th Mission Support Flight Superintendent, and later served the men 
and women of the 178th Services Flight as well when the two units 
merged to form the new Force Support Squadron.
  Throughout her life Phillips has been unwavering in her service to 
our great nation and the people of Ohio. I would like to thank her for 
her dedication.

                          ____________________




                    PASTOR JASPER WILLIAMS, JR. DAY

                                 ______
                                 

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

                               of georgia

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, January 9, 2014

  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following 
Proclamation.
  Whereas, in the Fourth Congressional District of Georgia, there are 
many individuals who are called to contribute to the needs of our 
community through leadership and service; and
  Whereas, one of those individuals, Pastor Jasper Williams, Jr., has 
given of himself to lead Salem Bible Church for fifty years; and
  Whereas, under the guidance of God he has pioneered and sustained 
Salem Bible Church as an instrument in our community that betters the 
spiritual, physical and mental welfare of our citizens; and

[[Page 442]]

  Whereas, this remarkable and tenacious man of God has shared his time 
and talents for the betterment of our community by preaching the 
gospel, singing the gospel and living the gospel; and
  Whereas, Pastor Jasper Williams is a spiritual warrior, a man of 
compassion, a man of great courage, a fearless leader and above all a 
visionary who has shared not only with his church, but with our 
District and the world a passion to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ; 
and
  Whereas, the U.S. Representative of the Fourth District of Georgia 
has set aside this day to honor and recognize Pastor Jasper Williams 
for his leadership and service for our District as he celebrates his 
50th Pastoral anniversary; now therefore, I, Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, 
Jr., do hereby proclaim November 10, 2013 as Pastor Jasper Williams, 
Jr. Day in the 4th Congressional District of Georgia.
  Proclaimed, this 10th day of November, 2013.

                          ____________________




                       HONORING MR. MILTON LEWIS

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. BENNIE G. THOMPSON

                             of mississippi

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, January 9, 2014

  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a man 
whose life's work is centered around cultivating and harvesting the 
land, Mr. Milton Lewis.
  Mr. Lewis is considered a masterful farmer by many in the small rural 
town of Bolton, MS. Dating back to as early as the 1960s, Mr. Lewis 
farmed approximately 10-15 acres of land alongside his mother, Mrs. 
Ruthie Bell Lewis, as sharecroppers.
  Mr. Lewis cultivated a number of crops, such as potatoes, peanuts, 
sugar cane, and cotton. To fulfill his families sharecropping 
responsibilities, Mr. Lewis relinquished a portion of his family's 
harvest to the Gaddis & McLauren Seed and Feed Store, which is located 
in Bolton, MS.
  Ultimately, Mr. Lewis diligently farmed his land for approximately 30 
years. Today, Mr. Lewis continues to farm a small portion of land near 
his home, primarily for his enjoyment and close family members.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Mr. Milton 
Lewis for his impeccable cultivator talent.

                          ____________________




                       CONGRATULATING LAURA PARN

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. BLAINE LUETKEMEYER

                              of missouri

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, January 9, 2014

  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 
achievements of Laura Parn for receiving the Presidential Award for 
Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching (PAEMST). It is an honor 
to have such a fine educator in my district teaching this Nation's next 
generation of leaders.
  This award is administered by the National Science Foundation on 
behalf of the Office of Science and Technology Policy. It is given 
annually to teachers across the country who demonstrate outstanding 
achievements in teaching science and math to students in kindergarten 
through 12th grade. Not only do these educators represent the very best 
in their field and have a true passion for math and sciences, but they 
instill that passion into their students.
  Laura is one of 102 teachers to receive this award in 2013. She is 
the Assistant Principal at Green Tree Elementary School in Lake St. 
Louis, Missouri and has acted as an adjunct professor for the 
University of Nebraska-Lincoln's Primarily Math program. With funding 
from the National Science Foundation, she co-created and co-taught two 
graduate level mathematics content courses for primary teachers. These 
classes have become staples of the program. She also serves on the 2013 
Louisville Regional Conference Committee for the National Council of 
Teachers of Mathematics.
  I am encouraged that the students of Missouri have educators such as 
Laura who can help them excel in the important fields of math and 
science at such a young age. The guidance and instruction of teachers 
like Laura are vital in producing the world's next leaders of 
innovative science, and I hope that this Chamber will continue to 
support the development of exceptional teachers in these fields.

                          ____________________




                       TRIBUTE TO MR. BOB THIELE

                                 ______
                                 

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

                               of georgia

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, January 9, 2014

  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following 
Proclamation.
  Whereas, over thirteen years ago, Mr. Bob Thiele accepted a calling 
to serve others by becoming a consultant with the University of Georgia 
Small Business Development Center (SBDC); and
  Whereas, he has served small business clients with great care, 
concern and professionalism, by inspiring, educating and motivating; 
giving a much needed boost to the economic backbone of America; and
  Whereas, he has shared his time and talents, giving the citizens of 
our District a friend, a community leader and an inspiring servant, 
ensuring that economic opportunity is available to all; and
  Whereas, Mr. Thiele is a cornerstone in our community enhancing the 
lives of thousands for the betterment of our District and our Nation; 
and
  Whereas, on his retirement from the University of Georgia SBDC, the 
U.S. Representative of the Fourth District of Georgia has set aside 
this day to honor and recognize Mr. Bob Thiele and to wish him well in 
his new endeavors; now therefore, I, Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., do 
hereby proclaim November 21, 2013 as Bob Thiele Day in the 4th 
Congressional District of Georgia.
  Proclaimed, this 21st day of November, 2013.

                          ____________________




                      HONORING MR. PRIMUS WHEELER

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. BENNIE G. THOMPSON

                             of mississippi

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, January 9, 2014

  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor a long 
standing black farmer, Mr. Primus Wheeler. He and his family are 
residents of Tallahatchie County where generations of Wheeler's have 
been farming since 1936.
  The story of the Wheeler family farming does not start with Primus, 
it started with his Father, Jim Wheeler. Jim started out farming a 40 
acre unit rented from the Buford Plantation then later, rented 300 more 
acres until one day he was financially sound enough to purchase more 
than 1000 acres of his own. In order to secure his investment, Jim 
Wheeler invested his life lessons in his sons by teaching them the 
farming business, what it means to be a black farmer, the importance of 
having your own money, and family sticking together and staying 
together.
  Primus began learning the family farming business as a farm hand, day 
supervisor, and even bookkeeper until 1948. These skills he held on to, 
seeing how his father was able to provide a sustainable and prideful 
life for the family.
  In 1948 when he decided to marry, Georgia, his current wife of 65 
years, he knew he too had to provide for his family. So, Primus along-
side his wife, Georgia, began farming their first 40 acres of rented 
land. They grew cotton, corn, soybeans, livestock, and vegetables. His 
livestock consisted of 30 to 40 cows and 50-100 hogs. In 1957 they 
purchased their first piece of land and moved away from the family 
owned land and farm, ``Wheeler Farm.''
  Primus along-side his wife grew their farm to 100 acres, which is 
still located in the Sharkey Road community between Glendora and Tippo, 
MS. He remembers his first crop in 1957 as his worst but just as he was 
taught and had seen by working with his father on the family farm, 
``you take the good with the bad and learn from it but keep going to 
break through. You just have to make more good crops than bad crops in 
order to survive.''
  He was dealing with bad weather and insects. Over time Primus got 
better being on his own even increasing the farm from the initial 100 
acres to 238 acres at one point then up to 800 acres by renting from 
local retired farmers. He was able to supplement his income by 
harvesting cotton and soybeans for other farmers.
  Primus Wheeler, like so many black farmers had challenges that would 
test the soul and belief of any man.
  Over the years he dealt with challenges like bad seasons in terms of 
weather, insects, and certainly government financing for black farmers. 
For example, he said, more times than not, that he had to lean on hope 
and prayer that FSA would approve his applications for financing, which 
often times came in late July or early August. These were emotional and 
unpredictable times; especially seeing the other farmers planting while 
he was faces the pitfall of FSA. You see, he relied on this

[[Page 443]]

money to purchase seeds and fertilizers. But nevertheless, he withstood 
them all relying on his father's teachings.
  So, through it all, Primus and his wife was able to educate 9 
children on their small delta farm and unlike him, not one of his 
children had to skip or quit school to stay home and help work the 
farm. Primus retired and turned the farm over to his son, Michael, who 
ran it until the late 1990s. Afterwards, Primus, Jr. gained control of 
the farm and still runs it today. However, in all cases, Primus himself 
is still involved in the decision making of the farm advising and 
mentoring his son and future generations. Hat's off to Mr. Primus 
Wheeler for hanging in there and maintaining his farm.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring, Mr. Primus 
Wheeler, a black farmer from the Mississippi Second Congressional 
District.

                          ____________________




                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. JACKIE WALORSKI

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, January 9, 2014

  Mrs. WALORSKI. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, January 7, I was unavoidably 
detained due to inclement weather. Had I been here for the quorum call 
(rollcall No. 1), I would have voted ``present.''

                          ____________________




                    RETIREMENT OF CHARLES TRAUGHBER

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR.

                              of tennessee

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, January 9, 2014

  Mr. DUNCAN of Tennesee. Mr. Speaker, I wish today to honor one of 
Tennessee's hardest working and most thoughtful public servants on the 
occasion of his retirement.
  Charles Traughber stepped down recently after a 30-year career as 
Chairman of the Tennessee Board of Probation and Parole.
  Before assuming that role, he spent 10 years working with offenders 
as a prison counselor and as a charter member of the parole board.
  During his 40-year career, Chairman Traughber served the people of 
Tennessee with great honor and distinction and always approached each 
case with the gravity and seriousness it deserved.
  I was a criminal court judge in Knoxville for seven-and-a-half years, 
and during that time I issued thousands of criminal sentences.
  There may be no tougher job--with greater potential consequence--than 
evaluating whether or not a prisoner is ready to re-enter society, and 
I cannot think of a better person to have had in this role than 
Chairman Traughber.
  During his remarkable career, Chairman Traughber reviewed and voted 
on more than 145,000 cases.
  The most infamous person to come before his board was James Earl Ray, 
who assassinated the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. Chairman Traughber 
said Ray was denied parole because of the ``seriousness of the 
offense.''
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my Colleagues and other readers of the Record to 
join me in celebrating the exceptional career of a very patriotic 
American, Charles Traughber. Our Nation is a better place because of 
his service.

                          ____________________




                   TRIBUTE TO EDNA LOUISE FLINT HOUSE

                                 ______
                                 

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

                               of georgia

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, January 9, 2014

  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following 
Proclamation.
  Whereas, one hundred years ago a virtuous woman of God, Edna Louise 
Flint House was born in Decatur, Georgia on December 7, 1913 to John 
and Louise Flint; and
  Whereas, she was raised up in DeKalb County, Georgia and married Mr. 
Jesse House and their union has blessed our district and nation ever 
since; and
  Whereas, this phenomenal Proverbs 31 woman has shared her time and 
talents as a wife, mother and motivator, becoming a Georgia citizen of 
great worth, a fearless leader and a servant to all by always advancing 
the lives of others; and
  Whereas, Mrs. House has been blessed with a long, happy life, devoted 
to God and credits it all to the Will of God; she serves as a Mother at 
New Beginning Full Gospel Baptist Church in Decatur, Georgia; and
  Whereas, Mrs. House along with her pastor, Bishop James H. Morton, 
her family and friends are celebrating a remarkable milestone, her 
100th Birthday, we pause to acknowledge a woman who is a cornerstone in 
Decatur, DeKalb County, Georgia; and
  Whereas, the U.S. Representative of the Fourth District of Georgia 
has set aside this day to honor and recognize Mrs. House on her 
birthday and to wish her well and recognize her for an exemplary life 
which is an inspiration to all; Now therefore, I, Henry C. ``Hank'' 
Johnson, Jr., do hereby proclaim December 7, 2013 as Mrs. Edna Louise 
Flint House Day in the 4th Congressional District of Georgia.
  Proclaimed, this 7th day of December, 2013.

                          ____________________




                     HONORING THE SMOKEHOUSE GRILL

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. BENNIE G. THOMPSON

                             of mississippi

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, January 9, 2014

  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a 
budding Minority Business in the Mississippi Delta, The Smokehouse 
Grill in Marks, MS.
  On January 19, 1971, L.C. and Velma Pride welcomed a bouncing baby 
boy they named Paul Andrew. Paul was the youngest of the eight Pride 
children. Paul attended Quitman County School District where he 
received his high school diploma in 1989.
  Paul furthered his education at Northwest Community College in 1990 
majoring in Computer Programming. He became employed at Sunflower 
Grocery Store in Senatobia, MS for his first job. He worked there for 
two years where he learned to become an independent man he is today. He 
later moved on to a better opportunity at Mood Automotive for eight 
years where he gained a lot of friends, experience, and skills to be an 
example for others to follow.
  Paul purchased his first home in Marks, MS at the age of 21. It was a 
huge accomplishment that he was extremely proud of. He later began 
driving trucks for Ozark Motor Lines where he worked two years. During 
this time, his daughter, the most beautiful girl, was born on April 14, 
2002 and he named her, Japarian Marie Pride. Japarian is now an 
intelligent, outgoing 11 year old who attends South Panola Schools.
  Driving through Marks, MS in March of 2002, Paul had a taste for 
barbeque rib tips, but there was no ``Rib Shack'' in Marks. Paul came 
up with the idea to open a rib shack. ``I asked God to show me the 
way,'' stated Paul and two months later, the doors of Paul Pride's 
Smokehouse were opened. Smokehouse, as it is commonly called, has been 
selling rib tips, chopped barbeque, ribs, wings, and fish ever since.
  Smokehouse is located at 1075 Martin Luther King Dr. in Marks, MS. 
Paul stated, ``We have a great location here and we are located in an 
industrial area on Main St. Since opening, Smokehouse has saturated 
Quitman, Panola, Coahoma, and Tallahatchie counties.'' Being from 
Marks, Paul is no stranger to the area. His father was a part of the 
Marks Police Department for 40 years. Paul's roots run deep in the city 
of Marks. Eleven years later, he is still on the grill and Smokehouse 
is still going strong.
  Paul is now engaged to Stacy Frost who helps him run Smokehouse. Paul 
is destined to continue running his business and serving great food to 
those who eat at and support The Smokehouse Grill. Paul has a bright 
future that is continuing to blossom on a path to greatness.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing The 
Smokehouse Grill for serving our great community.

                          ____________________




                    IN RECOGNITION OF BUSTER JOHNSON

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. PAUL A. GOSAR

                               of arizona

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, January 9, 2014

  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, Today I congratulate Mohave County Supervisor 
Buster Johnson on becoming president of the Arizona Association of 
Counties (AACO). Mr. Johnson is the first elected official from Mohave 
County to serve as the AACO's president. He has already proven his 
dedication to the people of Mohave County as a leading Mohave County 
Supervisor, and I have no doubt that his leadership will serve the AACO 
and all people of Arizona well.

[[Page 444]]

   The AACO is an important organization in Arizona. As the only 
organization that represents all of Arizona's 15 counties and their 
officials, its purpose is to promote issues important to our counties 
on the state and federal levels.
   Congratulations to Mr. Johnson and the AACO. I wish them much 
success in serving Arizona.

                          ____________________




  TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO ALLOW AGENCIES TO FIGHT FRAUD, WASTE, AND 
                     ABUSE IN THE MEDICARE PROGRAM

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. JIM McDERMOTT

                             of washington

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, January 9, 2014

  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce two technical 
corrections to the Affordable Care Act. These two bills provide minor 
technical corrections to avoid confusion and to ensure that regulators 
can effectively do their work in combatting fraud, waste, and abuse in 
the Medicare program. We need to extend the solvency of the Medicare 
program and to do so, we must ensure that the regulatory agencies are 
empowered to fully enforce provision to reduce fraud, waste, and abuse 
in the Medicare program.
  The first bill would allow certain physician extenders, including 
physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and clinical nurse 
specialists, to document that the face-to-face encounter required by 
the Affordable Care Act has occurred. The Affordable Care Act currently 
requires that a physician document that a face-to-face encounter has 
occurred, even though the law allows the face-to-face encounter to be 
performed by a physician extender. The face-to-face encounter is an 
important tool to combat fraud and abuse in the durable medical 
equipment context, and it is important to recognize the role that 
physician extenders play in many instances.
  The second bill would correct an error in the ACA that was carried 
over from an underlying law, which prevents regulators from stopping 
waste, fraud, and abuse. A provision in the Affordable Care Act 
intended to allow regulators additional discretion to impose a surety 
bond on home health agencies based on the volume of payments they 
received from the Medicare program. However, due to a drafting error in 
the underlying law that was inadvertently perpetuated in the Affordable 
Care Act, the bond that regulators can require from home health 
agencies is essentially capped at $50,000. For large providers, this 
amount is too low a sum to have a meaningful impact and directly 
contradicts Congress' intention to require a higher bond from home 
health agencies that receive substantial Medicare payments.
  We must continue our efforts to extend the solvency of the Medicare 
program. Fighting fraud is a nonpartisan issue. I urge my colleagues to 
support these technical correction provisions.

                          ____________________




                        WREN'S NEST HOUSE MUSEUM

                                 ______
                                 

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

                               of georgia

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, January 9, 2014

  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following 
Proclamation.
  Whereas, the Wren's Nest House Museum, a community institution and 
National Historic Landmark is one of Atlanta's most engaging historic 
sites, bringing education and joy to untold numbers of visitors 
including many from the 4th Congressional District of Georgia; and
  Whereas, the Wren's Nest is open to the public year-round sharing the 
African American storytelling tradition and educating visitors about 
the life and work of Joel Chandler Harris, one of Georgia's most 
celebrated journalists and literary figures; and
  Whereas, the Wren's Nest is filled with many original artifacts and 
furnishings that belonged to the Harris family and as a museum is one 
of the finest examples of 19th century Victorian-era middle class 
lifestyles in the United States; and
  Whereas, in recent years the museum has completed several accurate 
historic restorations of the property with an eye toward authenticity; 
and
  Whereas, the Wren's Nest was the boyhood home of Julian, a Harris son 
and Pulitzer Prize winning journalist who in the 1920's courageously 
fought the Ku Klux Klan in the editorial pages of his newspaper; and
  Whereas, the museum has extended its community outreach by 
encouraging young writers through the Wren's Nest Scribes Program which 
mentors 5th, 6th and 7th graders to hone their writing skills and 
become published authors; and
  Whereas, the dedicated board, staff and volunteers of the Wren's Nest 
are today welcoming the community to A Victorian Christmas Open House & 
Celebration of the 168th Birthday of Joel Chandler Harris by featuring 
the incredible Wren's Nest Ramblers Akbar Imhotep, Curtis Richardson, 
Josie Bailey and Mama Kofu who interpret and present the more than 180 
African folktales preserved by Joel Chandler Harris; and
  Whereas, the U.S. Representative of the Fourth District of Georgia 
has set aside this day to join in the celebration and recognize this 
outstanding museum and community institution that is uniquely Georgia; 
Now therefore, I, Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., do hereby proclaim 
December 8, 2013 as Wren's Nest House Museum Day in the 4th 
Congressional District of Georgia.
  Proclaimed, this 8th day of December, 2013.

                          ____________________




                 HONORING MR. WILLIAM ``KINGFISH'' BYRD

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. BENNIE G. THOMPSON

                             of mississippi

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, January 9, 2014

  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, this month is August and 
all this month I rise to honor black farmers. So today, I rise to honor 
the late Mr. William Byrd of Sunflower County, MS, five miles east of 
Shaw on Highway 442. He earned the name of Kingfish not because people 
thought he was a joke but because he became a well-known, respected and 
honest black business man with money--time frame 1920s to his death.
  Mr. Byrd did not get a chance to go to school and get a full first 
through twelfth grade education, no, in fact, he acquired his education 
by the means of hands-on hard work, life experiences, and the ``Blue 
Back Webster.'' Like many laboring migrant black families he moved with 
his father, mother, and siblings around until finally settling in the 
Mississippi Delta. The many moves with his family was because his dad, 
Mr. Shep Byrd, was strong willed on not settling his life as a 
sharecropper but, rather self-employed and owned land.
  So, this transmission of self-employment was passed on to Mr. William 
Byrd, who in turn passed it on to his children, Lonnie ``LC'' Byrd, 
Melvin ``Jimbo'' Whiting, Velma ``Red'' Whiting, Thelma ``Black'' 
Whiting, and Thomas ``TL'' W. Byrd. His son, Thomas recalls his dad, 
often saying, ``I'll even buy swamp land and make something out of it, 
if I just get the chance to buy it.''
  Little by little Mr. William Byrd would work and save his money never 
forgetting his dream to buy land. He even found a piece of land he 
wanted to buy and yes, it was under water and thought to be useless. A 
useless piece of land back then was called ``deadening'' land because 
it was swamp area and not considered fertile for anything. He would 
often go there and gaze and dream, and cut down trees wisely clearing 
the land but telling all those who asked him, ``What are you doing. . 
.?'' he would say, ``I'm cutting wood for burning.''
  Many times, the white men would threaten his life and run him home 
but he kept going back into the ``deadening'' until eventually he had 
saved enough money to buy the first of approximately 700 acres of land 
he would own over the course of his entire life.
  The journey of this Black Farmer is that by 1940 he was well 
established with 20 houses or more on his land for all his workers, 
both black and white, although once word got out that white folks were 
willing to work for him the other whites would run them off.
  You see, Mr. Byrd believed in treating people the way he wanted to be 
treated, regardless of color. By 1955, he had earned enough money and 
respect as a black business man that he was able to purchase at least 
ten homes and two restaurants in Shaw, often paying cash each time he 
made a purchase. By this time, ``money was no problem'' as his son 
remembered his Dad saying. In fact, the first house he purchased was a 
big beautiful brick house which was the home of Mr. Thomas McEvans.
  Mr. McEvans was another rich man in Shaw; he owned a clothing store, 
tailoring shop, and he took the lead in building the 1st colored school 
in Shaw, and a member of the Board of Trustees among other influences 
he held in Shaw. In 1959, part of his dream to build a community for 
blacks began to materialize. Mr. Byrd purchased a building ten

[[Page 445]]

miles west of Shaw on Highway 448 and had it moved to its current 
location of Hwy. 442, five miles east of Shaw. That building became a 
focal point of Byrd's community. He remolded the building turning it 
into ``Byrd Grocery,'' and later he added on to the building a 
restaurant and gas station, changing the name to ``Byrd Grocery and 
Service Station.'' Byrd's community also had two baseball fields.
  When Black farmers were losing their farms in the 1960s for various 
reasons, Mr. Byrd was never affected or worried because he knew he had 
planned wisely. Long before automation really took over, he was already 
using tractors to do the work on the farm, getting away from the mule. 
But when automation fully came into use, his son, Thomas recalls the 
day his Dad went to the John Deere place and purchased a brand new top 
of the line, ``John Deere'' cotton picker. And because he was able to 
pay $25,000 cash for the John Deere, the white salesman surely sold it 
to him because of the money but after that he refused to have anything 
else to do with him because it was unheard of and certainly shocking 
that Mr. Byrd, a black man, was in possession of that amount of cash 
and no one really knew. You see, his success rested in his belief to 
``never spend more than you make, keep folks out of your business, and 
don't be extravagant because a fool and his money will soon part,'' 
said, his son, Thomas Lee.
  In 1975, Mr. Byrd due to health problems turned the family farm over 
to his oldest son, Lonnie ``LC'' Byrd, who died December 17, 1999. Mr. 
William ``Kingfish'' Byrd died in July 1980 and is buried in the 
Strangers Home Cemetery in Shaw, MS beside his wife, Daisy Byrd, who 
died in August 1981. Thomas Lee recalls his father's last words to him, 
``Son, I told LC and I'm telling you never sell the farm. I built this 
for all my children.''
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring, Mr. William 
``Kingfish'' Byrd, a black farmer from the Mississippi Second 
Congressional District.

                          ____________________




      IN RECOGNITION OF THE SERVICE ACADEMY NOMINEES FROM THE 7TH 
                 CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. PATRICK MEEHAN

                            of pennsylvania

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, January 9, 2014

  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the young men and 
women from the 7th Congressional District of Pennsylvania who have been 
nominated to attend a service academy. These men and women will honor a 
commitment to serve in the military for a minimum of five years upon 
graduation. They have been nominated because they have displayed 
character traits such as leadership, service and dedication both inside 
and outside the classroom. I am confident that their parents and 
teachers have prepared them well for this world-class educational 
opportunity and extraordinary service to their nation.
   The following individuals have been nominated for academy 
appointment:
   Evan Allen, Valley Forge Military Academy, United States Naval 
Academy; Zachary Assenmacher, Haverford High School, United States 
Naval Academy; Bret Beebe, Twin Valley High School, United States Naval 
Academy; Troy Bergwall, Bayard Rustin High School, United States Naval 
Academy; Nicholas Bologa, Pequea Valley High School, United States 
Merchant Marine Academy; Matthew Brecht, LaSalle College High School, 
United States Military Academy; Steven Bushold, LaSalle College High 
School, United States Military Academy; Julia Clements, Downingtown 
High School, United States Naval Academy; Cole Drahus, Twin Valley High 
School, United States Naval Academy; Jonas Fiant, Governor Mifflin High 
School, United States Air Force Academy; Daniel Geibler, Ridley High 
School, United States Military Academy; Chasan Hall, Coatesville Senior 
High School, United States Air Force Academy; William Higgins, 
Penncrest High School, United States Merchant Marine Academy; Phillip 
Ianozi, Springfield Township High School, United States Merchant Marine 
Academy; Matthew Jones, Malvern Preparatory School, United States Naval 
Academy; George Keating, North Penn High School, United States Naval 
Academy; Ethan Klabunde, Unionville High School, United States Naval 
Academy; Heather Laudermilch, Westtown School, United States Air Force 
Academy; Justin Lee, Upper Dublin High School, United States Military 
Academy; Kiersten Martin, Cardinal O'Hara High School, United States 
Naval Academy; Catherine McCarthy, Upper Darby High School, United 
States Naval Academy; Jacob McCubbins, Methacton High School, United 
States Air Force Academy; James McWilliams, Haverford Senior High 
School, United States Military Academy; Ross Obenschein, Twin Valley 
High School, United States Air Force Academy; Christopher Paolantonio, 
St. Joseph's Preparatory School, United States Naval Academy; Matthew 
Prestia, Plymouth Whitemarsh High School, United States Naval Academy; 
Charles Rossino, Haverford High School, United States Naval Academy; 
Thaddeus Schlamb, Downingtown West High School, United States Naval 
Academy; Andrew Schutta, LaSalle College High School, United States 
Naval Academy; Zachary Smith, Cardinal O'Hara High School, United 
States Naval Academy; Olivia Tierney, Villa Maria Academy, United 
States Naval Academy; George Ulrich, LaSalle College High School, 
United States Naval Academy; Madeleine Wawrzyniak, Hatboro-Horsham 
Senior High School, United States Air Force Academy; Kyle Werner, 
Kennett High School, United States Military Academy; Dalton Wolfe, 
Oxford Area High School, United States Naval Academy
   Again, Mr. Speaker, congratulations to all of these outstanding 
nominees. I wish them nothing but the best in all their endeavors.

                          ____________________




                   A TRIBUTE TO SERGEANT CHRIS BOHLER

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. MIKE McINTYRE

                           of north carolina

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, January 9, 2014

  Mr. McINTYRE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Sergeant 
Chris Bohler of Willow Spring, North Carolina, who gave his life while 
defending our Nation on December 17, 2013, in support of Operation 
Enduring Freedom. Sergeant Bohler was one of six U.S. servicemembers 
killed when a helicopter crashed in Zabul Province, Afghanistan. He 
shall be remembered by all those whose lives he touched as the finest 
example of altruism, integrity, and patriotism. His life and his 
sacrifice merit our utmost respect and gratitude.
  Chris came from a long line of soldiers. His great-grandfather served 
in Europe during World War I. One of his grandfathers enlisted in the 
Army during World War II, and a great-uncle enlisted in the Air Force 
during the Korean War. His father also served in the Army.
  Chris graduated from South Johnston High School in Four Oaks in 2003 
and went on to attend Johnston Community College, where he was admired 
as a man with high aspirations and the tenacity to achieve his goals. 
Eager to protect his country, he joined the Army in 2007, and was 
assigned to B Company, 3rd Battalion, 1st Aviation Regiment, 1st 
Infantry Division in Fort Riley, Kansas. Chris was a humble hero that 
lived his life the best way he knew how--by serving others.
  Chris was serving our country dutifully when his life was taken. He 
will be missed by his family and friends. He was the son of Deborah and 
Pete Bohler and the oldest of three children. Although he is now gone, 
his courage will continue to be an inspiration to us all. He shall be 
remembered as the finest example of bravery, honor, and public service. 
May God comfort his family, and may we always remember the life of 
Sergeant Chris Bohler.

                          ____________________




                   WELCOME BABY VALENTINA LUCILLE DAY

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. JOE WILSON

                           of south carolina

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, January 9, 2014

  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to congratulate 
my Chief of Staff, Jonathan Day, and his wife Muffy, who serves as 
Chief of Staff for Congressman John Campbell, upon the birth of their 
beautiful daughter. Valentina Lucille Day arrived into the world at 
7:12 p.m. on Wednesday, Christmas Day, December 25, 2013, at George 
Washington University Hospital in Washington, DC. Weighing 6 pounds and 
measuring 19 inches long, Valentina is the first child for the happy 
couple. I look forward to watching her grow and have no doubt that her 
talented parents will be dedicated to her well-being and bright future.
  I would also like to congratulate Valentina's grandparents, Wallace 
and Miriam Lewis of Miami, Florida, and Edward and Margaret Day

[[Page 446]]

of Conklin, New York. Congratulations to the entire Day and Lewis 
families as they welcome their newest edition of pure pride and joy!

                          ____________________




    MOURNING THE PASSING OF CONGRESSMAN VICENTE ``BEN'' GARRIDO BLAZ

                                 ______
                                 

                       HON. ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA

                           of american samoa

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, January 9, 2014

  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I 
learned today of the passing of former Congressman Vicente `Ben' 
Garrido Blaz. Elected to the U.S. Congress in 1984 to represent the 
Territory of Guam, Congressman Blaz was an exceptional leader for his 
people. He was also an example of statesmanship to the greater Pacific 
region, including American Samoa. He will truly be missed.
  As a genuine patriot, Blaz first served his country as a Marine and 
served three tours in Osaka, Okinawa, and Vietnam. He was the first 
general officer from Guam to serve in any branch of the U.S. Armed 
Forces. In 1977, he became the first Chamorro ever to be promoted to 
the rank of Brigadier General.
  Congressman Blaz served Guam for eight years in the U.S. Congress 
from 1985-1993 (99th Congress-102nd Congress). As a freshman member and 
respected leader among his peers, he was also elected as President of 
his freshman class. I will remember him also as a dear friend who 
welcomed me as a fellow islander and brother after I was elected to 
serve American Samoa in 1988.
  Congressman Blaz will be remembered for his dedicated service and 
pioneering spirit. He will also be remembered as a family man: a loving 
husband to his late wife, Ann Evers Blaz, a devoted father and 
grandfather. I count myself as one of many who was blessed to share a 
friendship with this great man and I will hold close to my heart his 
example of leadership, passion for his Chamorro culture, and immense 
love for his people.
  The people of American Samoa join together to honor our Chamorro 
brother. We give our deepest condolences to his family, especially his 
sons, Mike and Tom, and their families, and to the people of Guam as 
they mourn his passing.

                          ____________________




       HONORING THE LIFE OF FORMER CONGRESSMAN ANDREW JACOBS, JR.

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. ANDRE CARSON

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, January 9, 2014

  Mr. CARSON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to 
the life and legacy of a great man who represented Indianapolis in 
Congress for twenty years. After a life of dedicated service to his 
city and country, former Congressman Andrew Jacobs, Jr. passed away on 
December 28, 2013.
  I was privileged to know Congressman Jacobs from a very young age and 
considered him family. He served as an invaluable mentor and dear 
friend to my grandmother, Julia Carson, who he hired to work in his 
Indianapolis congressional office in 1965. It was Andy's faith and 
encouragement that inspired my grandmother to run for state 
representative in 1972, and his support of her never wavered.
  At an early age, Andy took an interest in me as well and imparted 
wisdom while serving as a role model. He continued as a valued mentor, 
even long after he left office. With Andy's passing, our nation lost a 
man who was resolutely courageous, both in his service as a Marine in 
Korea, and in public life.
  People will likely recall that he helped strengthen Social Security, 
fought for civil rights, and was unrelentingly frugal with taxpayer 
dollars. But his true legacy is that of a man who took the path less 
traveled, one of principle, no matter what advantages he sacrificed to 
do so.
  While in Congress, Andy never took a donation from a political action 
committee, he never attacked an opponent, and he never put his name on 
his office door in Washington, DC, explaining that ``the seat belonged 
to the people I serve, not to me.'' He was a selfless public servant, 
who never cared about station or the trappings of office.
  Andy was a man of rapier wit. And though he used it often to 
hilarious effect in disarming the infrequent angry constituent or 
political foe, he was never caustic or maligning. He upheld the dignity 
of all. This is undoubtedly why he forged enduring friendships with, 
and held the respect of, many across the aisle.
  For some time now, Andy has penned a weekly ``Thought Bite'' for 
Nuvo, a local Indianapolis newspaper. On December 18, it read: ``If 
there's one thing I hate, it's hate.'' I cannot think of a better self-
assessment for a man whose heart had unlimited capacity to see the 
goodness in everyone.
  In sum, Andy was a model of decency, compassion, servant-leadership, 
thoughtfulness, and civility. I pray that God rests his soul and gives 
peace and comfort to his wife, Kim, his sons Andy and Steven, and to 
the countless others for whom Andy is ``family.''

                          ____________________




                        RECOGNIZING JOE COTCHETT

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. JACKIE SPEIER

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, January 9, 2014

  Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize an extraordinary man, 
and a true humanitarian, who is celebrating his 75th birthday and his 
50th anniversary practicing law in pursuit of justice for all 
Americans. Joe Cotchett is a Burlingame attorney known for his 
intellectual honesty, his booming declaration of indignation over the 
lack of justice for his clients, and an enormous heart that pumps love 
out to all, especially those in urgent need.
  A few examples of his work over the years demonstrate his dedication 
to the rule of law. This chamber may never have heard of Joe Cotchett, 
but many have heard of Charles Keating, the former CEO of Lincoln 
Savings and Loan. Joe pursued Keating through the years until senior 
citizens who were bilked had received some measure of recompense. He 
took the case when others considered it a hopeless cause. Not to Joe. 
Justice is never hopeless in the law offices of Joe Cotchett.
  In fact, white collar criminals know the name of Joe Cotchett well, 
as he pursued them in the interests of swindled investors in companies 
such as Technical Equities. When banks and securities firms sold 
Enron's bonds and assured investors that the bonds were sound, they 
defrauded buyers. Joe Cotchett held the sellers accountable. More 
recently, the County of San Mateo is likely to receive tens of millions 
of dollars through a suit filed against Lehman Brothers and the 
personal assets of its former CEO, Richard Fuld. Public agencies and 
the human needs that they serve will recover from wrongdoers, thanks to 
Joe Cotchett.
  In the eyes of many in modern day America, civil justice is a rich 
man's right and a stale leftover due any poor man with the temerity to 
plead at the doors of a courtroom. In the eyes of Joe Cotchett, justice 
is an everyday pursuit on behalf of any American who has been wronged 
and who deserves redress.
  Mr. Speaker, there are probably many persons who are alive today who 
unknowingly owe their economic well-being and peace of mind to Joe 
Cotchett. In 2000, Consumers Union was hit with a product disparagement 
and defamation suit. An automaker claimed that Consumers Union had hurt 
its reputation. Indeed, when the magazine pointed out that vehicles 
made by the company were prone to rollovers, sales fell. Joe Cotchett 
successfully defended Consumers Union and the right of investigative, 
consumer-oriented journalism to spell out the truth to buyers. Lives 
then and now are saved because this lawsuit and another in 2004 were 
not successful. The truth about dangerous products will continue to be 
published.
  Most recently, he recovered $1.5 billion for California counties 
which had sued lead paint manufacturers for the damage done to children 
by lead-tainted products. The settlement will go towards removing lead 
from the homes of low income children throughout California.
  He once defended the justices of the California Supreme Court who 
were sued by various Wall Street interests. Wall Street was a bit 
unhappy with the court's rules regarding arbitration. The Wall 
Streeters were unsuccessful, thanks to Joe, and now it is demonstrable 
that there is justice even for justices but, most importantly, for the 
public interest that these justices serve.
  Joe's work is not merely on behalf of those who can pay. Amerasian 
children in the Philippines were left in villages after Subic Bay Naval 
Base closed. Joe mounted a suit on their behalf that resulted in a 
settlement giving direct U.S. aid to the children fathered by U.S. 
servicemembers. Locally, Joe and his law firm are routinely at the top 
of the list of donors to nonprofits helping the disabled, mentally ill, 
homeless and many others. It would be difficult to overstate the 
generosity of Joe towards his many communities, including $5 million to 
create an endowment at California State Polytechnic University to 
promote the teaching of mathematics and science. Joe

[[Page 447]]

Cotchett has been ``paying it forward'' for decades, all with the 
knowledge that the meaningful legacies of any man's life are not 
memorialized in stone but rather demonstrated by the conscientious, 
continuous replacement of despair and anguish with hope and well-being.
  Of course, over 50 years of practice it would be expected that an 
accomplished advocate would receive many honors and serve in many 
positions. Joe's honors and places of service are so numerous that they 
defy enumeration. Let me name just a few: Service on the board of the 
San Mateo County Heart Association, the San Mateo Boys and Girls Club, 
the Peninsula Association of Retarded Children and Adults, the Bay 
Meadows Foundation, Disability Rights Advocates, Public Citizen, and 
Earth Justice. He has lectured at the law schools of Harvard, Stanford, 
the University of Southern California, Georgetown, and U.C. Hastings 
College of the Law. Among his many honors have been those bestowed by 
the Anti-Defamation League, trial lawyer associations both state and 
national, and the State Bar of California. He has been published seven 
times and is a member of eight professional organizations, including 
the State Bar of California, and the bar associations of New York and 
the District of Columbia. He is also admitted to the Bar of the Supreme 
Court of the United States.
  Joe Cotchett received his B.S. in Engineering from California State 
Polytechnic University, San Luis Obispo in June 1960, being named an 
outstanding graduate, and his J.D. from Hastings College of the Law at 
the University of California in June 1964. He received an Honorary 
Doctor of Laws from Cal Poly and Honorary Doctor of Letters degrees 
from Notre Dame de Namur University and the University of San 
Francisco. He is the author of ``The Ethics Gap'', ``California 
Continuing Education of the Bar'' and many others. His honors include 
being named Top 100 Lawyers in California by California Daily Journal 
in 2011 and the Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers in America list for 2011.
  Do you see the theme here, my fellow members? Starving children. 
Children being poisoned by lead. Trusting consumers. The Earth in all 
her glory? Investors who legitimately trusted in free and fair markets? 
These are the clients of an honest, thoughtful advocate. An honest man 
is sometimes described as being made of the salt of the Earth. In fact, 
Joe is a bit salty. He can sometimes be crusty. But he is definitely of 
this Earth. Joe Cotchett deserves a happy 75th birthday and a warm 
round of applause for 50 years of service in the interest of justice. 
America is always strengthened by citizen advocates who see the 
public's interest and who defend it unstintingly. This nation should 
hope that there are many more years in the life and service of Joseph 
W. Cotchett, an historic defender of American democracy.

                          ____________________




                          HONORING DAN BILBREY

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. JEFF DENHAM

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, January 9, 2014

  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge and honor the 
life of Mr. Dan Bilbrey, a Vietnam War veteran who served in the Air 
Force and an outstanding leader in the community of Tracy, California.
  Dan Bilbrey moved to Tracy, California in 1968 where he eventually 
served as the Mayor for 12 years, from 1994 to 2006 after a term on the 
City Council from 1990 to 1994.
  At age 68, Mr. Bilbrey died in his home in the early morning on 
Wednesday, November 20, 2013, after suffering an illness for 7 months.
  As mayor, Mr. Bilbrey played critical roles in many key community 
projects including: the Tracy Outlets, the West Valley Mall, 
construction of the Grand Theatre Center for the Arts, the Civic 
Center, renovation of the fire administration building at Ninth Street 
and Central Avenue, completion of the South County Water Surface 
Project, and establishment of a city parks system.
  The city of Tracy honored Mr. Bilbrey's long career of service to the 
community on February 5th by dedicating the plaza at City Hall, 333 
Civic Center Drive, in his name.
  Dan was a man of strong faith and conviction. He was a loyal, patient 
man that his family and community have always been proud and blessed to 
have in their lives. He was of the highest integrity, a man of wisdom 
and courage, strength and honor, who respected, and was respected by 
all. He was always there to help, whether it was a boy scout, a 
teenager, or any other individual.
  Mr. Bilbrey gave 100% into all projects; big or small, they were all 
of equal importance. He was a man of many hats: Mayor, Councilman, 
Foundation Director, reserve policeman, medic, husband, father, 
brother, uncle, grandfather, and recently a great grandfather. He was 
born to Quitman and Lena Bilbrey and had one sibling, Ann Lamb; all 
have now passed. He has two children, John and Jennifer, three 
grandchildren, Savannah, Toli Jr. and Rylee, and one great 
granddaughter, Danni, who was named after him. His sister, Ann, married 
Spencer Lamb; they have three children, Terry, Sherry, and Elizabeth, 
who were very close to him. There are many great nieces and nephews, 
all of whom Dan's love and life touched.
  When Dan had free time, he enjoyed spending it in his garden with 
his, ``sweetie,'' Josie and his Boston Terrier. They made many trips to 
Oregon to visit grandchildren. They have also visited Europe, 
specifically: Portugal, Ireland, and England. Dan took after-Christmas 
trips to Hawaii with close friends to bring in the New Year. He took 
several cruises to the Panama Canal, Central America and Alaska. Dan 
made friends everywhere he went and influenced many with his wisdom and 
kindness. He will be greatly missed by all. His contributions to our 
lives and community will always be remembered.
  Mr. Speaker, please join me in honoring Dan Bilbrey for his life and 
great contributions to his family, community and country.

                          ____________________




                    OUR UNCONSCIONABLE NATIONAL DEBT

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. MIKE COFFMAN

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, January 9, 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 $17,306,977,954,400.15. We've added 
$6,680,100,905,487.07 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.

                          ____________________




                     TRIBUTE TO DR. GERALD L. BECK

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. MICHAEL K. SIMPSON

                                of idaho

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, January 9, 2014

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Dr. Gerald L. 
Beck for more than 38 years of service to educating Idahoans and on the 
occasion of his retirement from his current position as President of 
the College of Southern Idaho (CSI).
  During his time at CSI, Dr. Beck has been a strong advocate for 
promoting academic excellence in Southeastern Idaho as well as 
supporting economic development in the local community. Through Dr. 
Beck's work prior to joining CSI--which included starting a small 
business and working two regional managerial positions--Dr. Beck gained 
the experience necessary to begin a long and successful career 
educating those who now contribute to the economic development of Idaho
  Perhaps the most meaningful impact Dr. Beck has made is his role as 
an educator and administrator. Dr. Beck started his career at CSI as a 
technical instructor and went on to hold positions as the Coordinator 
of the Trade and Industrial Division, the Dean of Continuing Education/
Summer School, and the Executive Vice President/Chief Academic Officer. 
In his time at CSI Dr. Beck was able to integrate the higher education 
curriculum to support economic growth in southeast Idaho which created 
a mutually successful relationship between the college and local 
community.
  Mr. Speaker, I sincerely thank Dr. Beck for his service and 
commitment to higher education in Idaho I wish him well in the next 
chapter of his life alongside his wife Barbara, children, and 
grandchildren.