[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 5] [Issue] [Pages 6087-6229] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov][[Page 6087]] VOLUME 160--PART 5 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES--Thursday, April 10, 2014 The House met at 9 a.m. and was called to order by the Speaker pro tempore (Ms. Foxx). ____________________ DESIGNATION OF THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following communication from the Speaker: Washington, DC, April 10, 2014. I hereby appoint the Honorable Virginia Foxx to act as Speaker pro tempore on this day. John A. Boehner, Speaker of the House of Representatives. ____________________ PRAYER The Chaplain, the Reverend Patrick J. Conroy, offered the following prayer: Eternal God, we give You thanks for giving us another day. Send Your spirit upon the Members of this people's House to encourage them in their official tasks. As the Members approach the votes they are making today, may they be imbued with courage and leadership that looks to the health and vibrancy of our great Nation. Assure them that in the fulfillment of their responsibilities, You provide the grace to enable them to be faithful to their duties and the wisdom to be conscious of their obligations and fulfill them with integrity. As the Congress looks to the upcoming holy celebrations of millions of Americans, may they, and may we all, be mindful of God's love for us. May we be faithful stewards, not only of Your creation, but also Your desire that all people would be free from whatever inhibits them to be fully alive. May all that is done this day be for Your greater honor and glory. Amen. ____________________ THE JOURNAL The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has examined the Journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the House her approval thereof. Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Journal stands approved. Mr. OLSON. Madam Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the Speaker's approval of the Journal. The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it. Mr. OLSON. Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8, rule XX, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn. ____________________ PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The SPEAKER pro tempore. Will the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Kilmer) come forward and lead the House in the Pledge of Allegiance. Mr. KILMER 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 PRO TEMPORE The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will entertain up to 5 requests for 1-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. ____________________ THE BATTLING BOYS OF BENGHAZI (Mr. OLSON asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. OLSON. Madam Speaker, I want to share with the American people a poem a written by a Marine Corps officer. It is about two former Navy SEALs: Ben Doherty and Ty Woods. They were killed in Benghazi. It is called ``The Battling Boys of Benghazi'': We're the battling boys of Benghazi! No fame, no glory, no paparazzi. Just a fiery death in a blazing hell, defending our country we loved so well. It wasn't our job, but we answered the call, fought to the Consulate and scaled the wall. We pulled 20 countrymen from the jaws of fate. Led them to safety, and stood at the gate. Just the two of us, and foes by the score, but we stood fast to bar the door. Three calls for reinforcement, but all were denied, So we fought, and we fought, and we fought `til we died. We gave our all for our Uncle Sam, but our leaders didn't give a damn. Just two dead SEALs, who carried the load, no thanks to us, we were just ``Bumps in the Road.'' These two Navy SEALs did their jobs. Let's do our jobs and bring those thugs who killed them to justice ____________________ EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK (Mr. KILMER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute.) Mr. KILMER. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of a very simple principle: equal pay for equal work. It turns out I am not the only one in my household who supports equal pay. One morning last month, on my way out the door, my 8-year-old, Sophie, asked me my plans for the day. I said I was having an event called ``When Women Succeed, America Succeeds'' focused on economic opportunity for women, including good jobs and good pay. She said, Dad, that's my agenda. I said, You have an agenda? She said, Yeah. She showed me her ``Diary of a Wimpy Kid'' book. At the top of one of the pages it says, When I am elected President, the laws I pass will be--and number one, she wrote, in penmanship we are going to work on, Women should get paid the same as men. [[Page 6088]] This shouldn't be hard, Madam Speaker. My 8-year-old gets it, and the American people are waiting for Congress to get it too. So let's stand up for equal pay for equal work and bring the Paycheck Fairness Act up for a vote. ____________________ HONORING THE LIFE OF SERGEANT TIMOTHY OWENS (Mr. SMITH of Missouri asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of United States Army Sergeant Timothy Owens, who lived in Rolla, Missouri, in the Eighth Congressional District. Sergeant Owens was killed in senseless act of violence at Fort Hood, Texas, last week. Sergeant Owens deployed to Iraq with the 396th Transportation Company. During his military service, Sergeant Owens earned numerous awards, including the Army Commendation Medal, the National Defense Service Medal, Iraq Campaign Medal, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, the Army Service Ribbon, Overseas Service Ribbon, and four Certificates of Achievement. Additionally, Sergeant Owens served as a counselor to his fellow soldiers at Fort Hood. In addition to his service to our Nation, Sergeant Owens was a devoted husband and a loving father of three. He will be greatly missed by his wife, Billy, his children, and his numerous family and friends. Madam Speaker, we honor the service and life of Sergeant Timothy Owens, and we lift his family in prayers. ____________________ CLIMATE CHANGE (Mr. LOWENTHAL asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. LOWENTHAL. Madam Speaker, last week in the Natural Resources Committee one of my esteemed colleagues from across the aisle claimed that the scientific evidence regarding human contributions to climate change was inconclusive. Well, Stanford researcher, Dr. James Powell, a geochemist, and a 12- year member of the non-partisan National Science Board, recently completed an update to his survey of peer-reviewed literature on climate change. As it points out, in the year 2013, there were 10,885 peer-reviewed articles and only two rejected human contributions towards climate change. That is less than two hundredths of 1 percent. Madam Speaker, this is not disagreement. This is not a divided scientific community, case closed. Congress must stop denying the science and take action. Future generations are depending upon us. ____________________ EASTER IN IRAN (Mr. HOLDING asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. HOLDING. Madam Speaker, Good Friday and Easter are right around the corner. For some Christians in the Middle East, specifically in Iran and Egypt, these holidays can only be observed and celebrated in fear. Madam Speaker, Christians continue to be persecuted for their religious beliefs across the globe by intolerant, oppressive regimes and governments that seek to impose strict religious rule. Many of these Christians, if they aren't killed, tortured to death, or imprisoned, must flee for their lives from places that they and their ancestors called home, for the simple and single reason that they are Christians. Madam Speaker, as we celebrate Easter this year, let us not forget the plight and daily struggle of those who can't freely practice the religion of their own choosing. More importantly, Madam Speaker, let us continue to hold those regimes and governments accountable for their systematic targeting and continued oppression of Christians. ____________________ BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION SMALL BUSINESS ADVISORY BOARD ACT (Mr. HECK of Washington asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute.) Mr. HECK of Washington. Madam Speaker, I rise today in steadfast support of small business and H.R. 4383, the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection Small Business Advisory Board Act. Within the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau consumers have a voice. Credit unions have a voice. Community banks have a voice. And appropriately, men and women in uniform have a voice through the Office of Servicemember Affairs. These are all important contributors to include. Yet, one group was left out, and that group was America's small businesses. While identified as ``small,'' they are mighty when it comes to our local economy and job creation. As a small business owner, I know they have insight to offer during the development of new rules and regulations. Under the leadership of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Pittenger), I have cosponsored this critical improvement to the CFPB. I ask that our colleagues now join us in this bipartisan effort to allow small businesses in the financial sector to be heard. ____________________ MEDICAL EVALUATION PARITY FOR SERVICEMEMBERS (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. Madam Speaker, yesterday afternoon U.S. Senators Rob Portman and Jay Rockefeller introduced the Medical Evaluation Parity for Servicemembers, or MEPS, Act, companion legislation to the bill that I introduced with the Congressman from Ohio, Mr. Tim Ryan, on March 27 of this year. Most are aware that incoming soldiers must pass a physical and medical evaluation, which is the case, but so many are shocked that there is no similar evaluation for mental health competency. Madam Speaker, according to recent studies, nearly half of all soldiers who tried suicide first attempted it before enlisting. A large number of suicides in the military were individuals who had never been deployed in a combat role. These studies give us insight into the mental well-being of our military, but what they also show is that we must know more. The bipartisan MEPS Act would require a preliminary mental health assessment for military recruits prior to joining the service, which will dramatically improve the way the military identifies and assesses mental health issues. The bill has no budget impact and has support from a large number of veterans groups. I thank my Senate colleagues for introducing this bill and encourage my colleagues in the House to join the support. ____________________ RECOGNIZING THE 45TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE MINORITY BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT AGENCY (Mr. GARCIA asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. GARCIA. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the 45th anniversary of the Minority Business Development Agency. Throughout its history, MBDA has spurred business development and worked tirelessly to advance the growth and global competitiveness of the minority business community. These businesses fuel the economic engine of our country, revitalizing our communities by creating hundreds of new jobs. In my home State of Florida, this agency helped create 2,500 jobs in 2009, including over 800 new jobs in the past year alone. At a time when many communities blighted by recession continue to struggle, the Minority Development Business Agency will strengthen businesses on the verge of recovery. I look forward to seeing this agency continue to create jobs and prosperity both in Florida and across our country. [[Page 6089]] ____________________ {time} 0915 KELSEY HIRSCH (Mr. WOODALL asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, we all know that April is Sexual Assault Awareness Month, but what you all may not know is about the amazing accomplishments of a young freshman at South Forsyth High School down in my district. Her name is Kelsey Hirsch. Having been affected by all of the events that she saw in the media around our part of the world, she founded a group in my neighborhood. It is called Bands4RAINN. RAINN is the Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network, and she came up with the idea of selling wristbands to raise money for that network. She set a goal for herself of raising $600. She ended up raising more than $10,000. She ended up winning the HOPE Award for RAINN. She ended up founding a group at her high school called WarEagles4RAINN, and this weekend, she is holding a Concert4Courage and Hoops4Hope, which are two more fundraising events, to draw attention to sexual assault and violence, particularly among young people. Mr. Speaker, one person can make a difference, and in my district, it is Kelsey Hirsch, a freshman at South Forsyth High School. ____________________ LOUIS ZAPATA (Mr. VEASEY asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute.) Mr. VEASEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about a giant whom we lost in the Fort Worth community--Louis Zapata, the first Hispanic ever elected to the Fort Worth City Council. Mr. Zapata held the post for 14 years. He was one of the longest- serving city council members in the city's history. Mr. Zapata was so proud of the city's north side, which he represented well. He did so many wonderful things for the community, like advancing the arts and protecting the Rose Marine Theater. Mr. Zapata was also someone who was interested in raising the quality of life for all of our city's citizens. In addition to his duties on the Fort Worth City Council, he was also a union member and a union representative at Bell Helicopter, one of the city's largest employers, where he worked tirelessly to make sure that every man and woman who worked at the plant enjoyed a better quality of life. I want to thank Mr. Zapata for everything that he did to help make our city better and to help make our community better. He will be missed. He is one of the legends of the Fort Worth City Council, and he is someone who will always be remembered fondly in our city. ____________________ CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015 General Leave Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to add extraneous material into the Record on H. Con. Res. 96. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania). Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Georgia? There was no objection. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 544 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, H. Con. Res. 96. Will the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) kindly take the chair. {time} 0917 In the Committee of the Whole Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill (H. Con. Res. 96) establishing the budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2015 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2016 through 2024, with Ms. Foxx (Acting Chair) in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday, April 9, 2014, amendment No. 3 printed in House Report 113-405 offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) had been disposed of. Amendment No. 4 in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Woodall The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed in House Report 113-405. Mr. WOODALL. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015. (a) Declaration.--The Congress determines and declares that this concurrent resolution establishes the budget for fiscal year 2015 and sets forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2015 through 2024. (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this concurrent resolution is as follows: Sec. 1. Concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2015. TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS Sec. 101. Recommended levels and amounts. Sec. 102. Major functional categories. TITLE II--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT Sec. 201. Limitation on advance appropriations. Sec. 202. Concepts and definitions. Sec. 203. Adjustments of aggregates, allocations, and appropriate budgetary levels. Sec. 204. Limitation on long-term spending. Sec. 205. Budgetary treatment of certain transactions. Sec. 206. Application and effect of changes in allocations and aggregates. Sec. 207. Congressional Budget Office estimates. Sec. 208. Transfers from the general fund of the Treasury to the Highway Trust Fund that increase public indebtedness. Sec. 209. Separate allocation for overseas contingency operations/ global war on terrorism. Sec. 210. Exercise of rulemaking powers. TITLE III--POLICY Sec. 301. Policy statement on health care law repeal. Sec. 302. Policy statement on means-tested welfare programs. Sec. 303. Policy statement on block granting Medicaid. Sec. 304. Policy statement on a carbon tax. Sec. 305. Policy statement on the use of official time by Federal employees for union activities. Sec. 306. Policy statement on creation of a Committee to Eliminate Duplication and Waste. Sec. 307. Policy statement on Federal funding of abortion. Sec. 308. Policy statement on readable legislation. Sec. 309. Policy statement on work requirements. Sec. 310. Policy statement on energy production. Sec. 311. Policy statement on regulation of greenhouse gases by the Environmental Protection Agency. Sec. 312. Policy statement on reforming the Federal budget process. Sec. 313. Policy statement on economic growth and putting Americans back to work. Sec. 314. Policy statement on tax reform. Sec. 315. Policy statement on replacing the President's health care law. Sec. 316. Policy statement on Medicare. Sec. 317. Policy statement on Social Security. Sec. 318. Policy statement on higher education and workforce development opportunity. Sec. 319. Policy statement on deficit reduction through the cancellation of unobligated balances. Sec. 320. Policy statement on responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars. Sec. 321. Policy statement on deficit reduction through the reduction of unnecessary and wasteful spending. Sec. 322. Policy statement on unauthorized spending. Sec. 323. Policy statement on Federal regulatory policy. Sec. 324. Policy statement on trade. Sec. 325. No Budget, no Pay. Sec. 326. Policy statement on reform of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. [[Page 6090]] Sec. 327. Policy statement on transportation reform. TITLE IV--RESERVE FUNDS Sec. 401. Reserve fund for the repeal of the 2010 health care laws. Sec. 402. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for the replacement of Obamacare. Sec. 403. Deficit-neutral reserve fund related to the Medicare provisions of the 2010 health care laws. Sec. 404. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for the sustainable growth rate of the Medicare program. Sec. 405. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for reforming the tax code. Sec. 406. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for trade agreements. Sec. 407. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for revenue measures. Sec. 408. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for rural counties and schools. Sec. 409. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for transportation reform. Sec. 410. Deficit-neutral reserve fund to reduce poverty and increase opportunity and upward mobility. Sec. 411. Implementation of a deficit and long-term debt reduction agreement. Sec. 412. Deficit-neutral reserve account for reforming SNAP. Sec. 413. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for Social Security Disability Insurance Reform. TITLE V--EARMARK MORATORIUM Sec. 501. Earmark moratorium. Sec. 502. Limitation of authority of the House Committee on Rules. TITLE VI--ESTIMATES OF DIRECT SPENDING Sec. 601. Direct spending. TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS. The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of fiscal years 2015 through 2024: (1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of this concurrent resolution: (A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as follows: Fiscal year 2015: $2,533,142,000,000. Fiscal year 2016: $2,675,941,000,000. Fiscal year 2017: $2,789,406,000,000. Fiscal year 2018: $2,890,066,000,000. Fiscal year 2019: $3,014,538,000,000. Fiscal year 2020: $3,148,143,000,000. Fiscal year 2021: $3,294,465,000,000. Fiscal year 2022: $3,456,164,000,000. Fiscal year 2023: $3,626,464,000,000. Fiscal year 2024: $3,807,341,000,000. (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal revenues should be changed are as follows: Fiscal year 2015: $0. Fiscal year 2016: $0. Fiscal year 2017: $0. Fiscal year 2018: $0. Fiscal year 2019: $0. Fiscal year 2020: $0. Fiscal year 2021: $0. Fiscal year 2022: $0. Fiscal year 2023: $0. Fiscal year 2024: $0. (2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement of this concurrent resolution, the appropriate levels of total new budget authority are as follows: Fiscal year 2015: $2,743,504,000,000. Fiscal year 2016: $2,778,548,000,000. Fiscal year 2017: $2,848,957,000,000. Fiscal year 2018: $2,925,554,000,000. Fiscal year 2019: $3,033,623,000,000. Fiscal year 2020: $3,162,619,000,000. Fiscal year 2021: $3,241,898,000,000. Fiscal year 2022: $3,361,147,000,000. Fiscal year 2023: $3,414,031,000,000. Fiscal year 2024: $3,434,808,000,000. (3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of this concurrent resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget outlays are as follows: Fiscal year 2015: $2,818,544,000,000. Fiscal year 2016: $2,808,954,000,000. Fiscal year 2017: $2,840,958,000,000. Fiscal year 2018: $2,901,664,000,000. Fiscal year 2019: $3,009,073,000,000. Fiscal year 2020: $3,124,872,000,000. Fiscal year 2021: $3,215,785,000,000. Fiscal year 2022: $3,351,489,000,000. Fiscal year 2023: $3,387,409,000,000. Fiscal year 2024: $3,405,674,000,000. (4) Deficits (on-budget).--For purposes of the enforcement of this concurrent resolution, the amounts of the deficits (on-budget) are as follows: Fiscal year 2015: -$285,402,000,000. Fiscal year 2016: -$133,013,000,000. Fiscal year 2017: -$51,552,000,000. Fiscal year 2018: -$11,598,000,000. Fiscal year 2019: $5,465,000,000. Fiscal year 2020: $23,271,000,000. Fiscal year 2021: $78,680,000,000. Fiscal year 2022: $104,675,000,000. Fiscal year 2023: $239,055,000,000. Fiscal year 2024: $401,667,000,000. (5) Debt subject to limit.--The appropriate levels of the public debt are as follows: Fiscal year 2015: $18,204,000,000. Fiscal year 2016: $18,414,000,000. Fiscal year 2017: $19,013,000,000. Fiscal year 2018: $19,267,000,000. Fiscal year 2019: $19,603,000,000. Fiscal year 2020: $20,055,000,000. Fiscal year 2021: $20,311,000,000. Fiscal year 2022: $20,701,000,000. Fiscal year 2023: $20,976,000,000. Fiscal year 2024: $21,220,000,000. (6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels of debt held by the public are as follows: Fiscal year 2015: $13,112,000,000. Fiscal year 2016: $13,206,000,000. Fiscal year 2017: $13,640,000,000. Fiscal year 2018: $13,716,000,000. Fiscal year 2019: $13,909,000,000. Fiscal year 2020: $14,255,000,000. Fiscal year 2021: $14,440,000,000. Fiscal year 2022; $14,818,000,000. Fiscal year 2023: $15,074,000,000. Fiscal year 2024: $15,307,000,000. SEC. 102. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES. The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years 2015 through 2024 for each major functional category are: (1) National Defense (050): Fiscal year 2015: (A) New budget authority, $528,927,000,000. (B) Outlays, $566,503,000,000. Fiscal year 2016: (A) New budget authority, $573,792,000,000. (B) Outlays, $573,064,000,000. Fiscal year 2017: (A) New budget authority, $597,895,000,000. (B) Outlays, $584,252,000,000. Fiscal year 2018: (A) New budget authority, $611,146,000,000. (B) Outlays, $593,795,000,000. Fiscal year 2019: (A) New budget authority, $624,416,000,000. (B) Outlays, $611,902,000,000. Fiscal year 2020: (A) New budget authority, $638,697,000,000. (B) Outlays, $626,175,000,000. Fiscal year 2021: (A) New budget authority, $653,001,000,000. (B) Outlays, $640,499,000,000. Fiscal year 2022: (A) New budget authority, $669,967,000,000. (B) Outlays, $661,181,000,000. Fiscal year 2023: (A) New budget authority, $687,393,000,000. (B) Outlays, $672,922,000,000. Fiscal year 2024: (A) New budget authority, $706,218,000,000. (B) Outlays, $685,796,000,000. (2) International Affairs (150): Fiscal year 2015: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2016: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2017: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2018: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2019: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2020: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2021: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2022: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2023: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2024: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250): Fiscal year 2015: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2016: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2017: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2018: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. [[Page 6091]] (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2019: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2020: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2021: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2022: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2023: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2024: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. (4) Energy (270): Fiscal year 2015: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2016: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2017: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2018: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2019: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2020: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2021: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2022: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2023: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2024: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300): Fiscal year 2015: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2016: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2017: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2018: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2019: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2020: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2021: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2022: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2023: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2024: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. (6) Agriculture (350): Fiscal year 2015: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2016: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2017: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2018: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2019: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2020: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2021: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2022: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2023: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2024: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370): Fiscal year 2015: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2016: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2017: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2018: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2019: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2020: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2021: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2022: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2023: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2024: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. (8) Transportation (400): Fiscal year 2015: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2016: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2017: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. [[Page 6092]] Fiscal year 2018: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2019: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2020: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2021: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2022: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2023: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2024: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. (9) Community and Regional Development (450): Fiscal year 2015: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2016: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2017: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2018: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2019: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2020: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2021: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2022: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2023: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2024: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services (500): Fiscal year 2015: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2016: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2017: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2018: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2019: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2020: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2021: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2022: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2023: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2024: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. (11) Health (550): Fiscal year 2015: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2016: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2017: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2018: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2019: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2020: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2021: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2022: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2023: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2024: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. (12) Medicare (570): Fiscal year 2015: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2016: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2017: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2018: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2019: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2020: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2021: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2022: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2023: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2024: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. (13) Income Security (600): Fiscal year 2015: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2016: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2017: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. [[Page 6093]] (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2018: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2019: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2020: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2021: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2022: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2023: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2024: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. (14) Social Security (650): Fiscal year 2015: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2016: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2017: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2018: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2019: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2020: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2021: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2022: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2023: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2024: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700): Fiscal year 2015: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2016: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2017: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2018: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2019: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2020: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2021: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2022: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2023: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2024: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. (16) Administration of Justice (750): Fiscal year 2015: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2016: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2017: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2018: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2019: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2020: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2021: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2022: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2023: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2024: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. (17) General Government (800): Fiscal year 2015: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2016: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2017: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2018: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2019: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2020: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2021: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2022: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2023: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2024: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. (18) Net Interest (900): Fiscal year 2015: (A) New budget authority, $368,359,000,000. (B) Outlays, $368,359,000,000. Fiscal year 2016: (A) New budget authority, $408,990,000,000. (B) Outlays, $408,990,000,000. Fiscal year 2017: (A) New budget authority, $465,411,000,000. (B) Outlays, $465,411,000,000. Fiscal year 2018: [[Page 6094]] (A) New budget authority, $525,481,000,000. (B) Outlays, $525,481,000,000. Fiscal year 2019: (A) New budget authority, $568,468,000,000. (B) Outlays, $568,468,000,000. Fiscal year 2020: (A) New budget authority, $606,691,000,000. (B) Outlays, $606,691,000,000. Fiscal year 2021: (A) New budget authority, $626,835,000,000. (B) Outlays, $626,835,000,000. Fiscal year 2022: (A) New budget authority, $643,655,000,000. (B) Outlays, $643,655,000,000. Fiscal year 2023: (A) New budget authority, $656,318,000,000. (B) Outlays, $656,318,000,000. Fiscal year 2024: (A) New budget authority, $660,760,000,000. (B) Outlays, $660,760,000,000. (19) Allowances (920): Fiscal year 2015: (A) New budget authority, $1,846,217,000,000. (B) Outlays, $1,883,682,000,000. Fiscal year 2016: (A) New budget authority, $1,795,765,000,000. (B) Outlays, $1,826,890,000,000. Fiscal year 2017: (A) New budget authority, $1,785,651,000,000. (B) Outlays, $1,791,295,000,000. Fiscal year 2018: (A) New budget authority, $1,788,927,000,000. (B) Outlays, $1,782,388,000,000. Fiscal year 2019: (A) New budget authority, $1,840,739,000,000. (B) Outlays, $1,828,703,000,000. Fiscal year 2020: (A) New budget authority, $1,917,231,000,000. (B) Outlays, $1,892,007,000,000. Fiscal year 2021: (A) New budget authority, $1,962,061,000,000. (B) Outlays, $1,948,451,000,000. Fiscal year 2022: (A) New budget authority, $2,047,525,000,000. (B) Outlays, $2,046,652,000,000. Fiscal year 2023: (A) New budget authority, $2,070,320,000,000. (B) Outlays, $2,058,169,000,000. Fiscal year 2024: (A) New budget authority, $2,067,830,000,000. (B) Outlays, $2,059,117,000,000. (20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950): Fiscal year 2015: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2016: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2017: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2018: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2019: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2020: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2021: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2022: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2023: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2024: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. (21) Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on Terrorism (970): Fiscal year 2015: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2016: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2017: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2018: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2019: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2020: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2021: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2022: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2023: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. Fiscal year 2024: (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from function 920. (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920. TITLE II--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT SEC. 201. LIMITATION ON ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS. (a) In General.--In the House, except as provided for in subsection (b), any bill or joint resolution, or amendment thereto or conference report thereon, making a general appropriation or continuing appropriation may not provide for advance appropriations. (b) Exceptions.--An advance appropriation may be provided for programs, projects, activities, or accounts referred to in subsection (c)(1) or identified in the report to accompany this concurrent resolution or the joint explanatory statement of managers to accompany this concurrent resolution under the heading ``Accounts Identified for Advance Appropriations''. (c) Limitations.--For fiscal year 2016, the aggregate level of advance appropriations shall not exceed-- (1) $58,662,202,000 for the following programs in the Department of Veterans Affairs-- (A) Medical Services; (B) Medical Support and Compliance; and (C) Medical Facilities accounts of the Veterans Health Administration; and (2) $28,781,000,000 in new budget authority for all programs identified pursuant to subsection (b). (d) Definition.--In this section, the term ``advance appropriation'' means any new discretionary budget authority provided in a bill or joint resolution, or amendment thereto or conference report thereon, making general appropriations or any new discretionary budget authority provided in a bill or joint resolution making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2016. SEC. 202. CONCEPTS AND DEFINITIONS. Upon the enactment of any bill or joint resolution providing for a change in budgetary concepts or definitions, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may adjust any allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this concurrent resolution accordingly. SEC. 203. ADJUSTMENTS OF AGGREGATES, ALLOCATIONS, AND APPROPRIATE BUDGETARY LEVELS. (a) Adjustments of Discretionary and Direct Spending Levels.--If a committee (other than the Committee on Appropriations) reports a bill or joint resolution, or amendment thereto or conference report thereon, providing for a decrease in direct spending (budget authority and outlays flowing therefrom) for any fiscal year and also provides for an authorization of appropriations for the same purpose, upon the enactment of such measure, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may decrease the allocation to such committee and increase the allocation of discretionary spending (budget authority and outlays flowing therefrom) to the Committee on Appropriations for fiscal year 2015 by an amount equal to the new budget authority (and outlays flowing therefrom) provided for in a bill or joint resolution making appropriations for the same purpose. (b) Adjustments to Fund Overseas Contingency Operations/ Global War on Terrorism.--In order to take into account any new information included in the budget submission by the President for fiscal year 2015, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may adjust the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate budgetary levels for Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on Terrorism or the section 302(a) allocation to the Committee on Appropriations set forth in the report of this concurrent resolution to conform with section 251(c) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (as adjusted by section 251A of such Act). (c) Revised Congressional Budget Office Baseline.--The chair of the Committee on the Budget may adjust the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate budgetary levels to reflect changes resulting from technical and economic assumptions in the most recent baseline published by the Congressional Budget Office. (d) Determinations.--For the purpose of enforcing this concurrent resolution on the [[Page 6095]] budget in the House, the allocations and aggregate levels of new budget authority, outlays, direct spending, new entitlement authority, revenues, deficits, and surpluses for fiscal year 2015 and the period of fiscal years 2015 through fiscal year 2024 shall be determined on the basis of estimates made by the chair of the Committee on the Budget and such chair may adjust such applicable levels of this concurrent resolution. SEC. 204. LIMITATION ON LONG-TERM SPENDING. (a) In General.--In the House, it shall not be in order to consider a bill or joint resolution reported by a committee (other than the Committee on Appropriations), or an amendment thereto or a conference report thereon, if the provisions of such measure have the net effect of increasing direct spending in excess of $5,000,000,000 for any period described in subsection (b). (b) Time Periods.--The applicable periods for purposes of this section are any of the four consecutive ten fiscal-year periods beginning with fiscal year 2025. SEC. 205. BUDGETARY TREATMENT OF CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS. (a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 302(a)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, section 13301 of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, and section 4001 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989, the report accompanying this concurrent resolution on the budget or the joint explanatory statement accompanying the conference report on any concurrent resolution on the budget shall include in its allocation under section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to the Committee on Appropriations amounts for the discretionary administrative expenses of the Social Security Administration and the United States Postal Service. (b) Special Rule.--For purposes of applying sections 302(f) and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, estimates of the level of total new budget authority and total outlays provided by a measure shall include any off-budget discretionary amounts. (c) Adjustments.--The chair of the Committee on the Budget may adjust the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate levels for legislation reported by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform that reforms the Federal retirement system, if such adjustments do not cause a net increase in the deficit for fiscal year 2015 and the period of fiscal years 2015 through 2024. SEC. 206. APPLICATION AND EFFECT OF CHANGES IN ALLOCATIONS AND AGGREGATES. (a) Application.--Any adjustments of the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate levels made pursuant to this concurrent resolution shall-- (1) apply while that measure is under consideration; (2) take effect upon the enactment of that measure; and (3) be published in the Congressional Record as soon as practicable. (b) Effect of Changed Allocations and Aggregates.--Revised allocations and aggregates resulting from these adjustments shall be considered for the purposes of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 as allocations and aggregates included in this concurrent resolution. (c) Budget Compliance.--The consideration of any bill or joint resolution, or amendment thereto or conference report thereon, for which the chair of the Committee on the Budget makes adjustments or revisions in the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate levels of this concurrent resolution shall not be subject to the points of order set forth in clause 10 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives or section 504. SEC. 207. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ESTIMATES. (a) Findings.--The House finds the following: (1) Costs of Federal housing loans and loan guarantees are treated unequally in the budget. The Congressional Budget Office uses fair-value accounting to measure the costs of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but determines the cost of other Federal loan and loan-guarantee programs on the basis of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (``FCRA''). (2) The fair-value accounting method uses discount rates which incorporate the risk inherent to the type of liability being estimated in addition to Treasury discount rates of the proper maturity length. In contrast, FCRA accounting solely uses the discount rates of the Treasury, failing to incorporate all of the risks attendant to these credit activities. (3) The Congressional Budget Office estimates that if fair- value were used to estimate the cost of all new credit activity in 2014, the deficit would be approximately $50 billion higher than under the current methodology. (b) Fair Value Estimates.--Upon the request of the chair or ranking member of the Committee on the Budget, any estimate prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office for a measure under the terms of title V of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, ``credit reform'', as a supplement to such estimate shall, to the extent practicable, also provide an estimate of the current actual or estimated market values representing the ``fair value'' of assets and liabilities affected by such measure. (c) Fair Value Estimates for Housing Programs.--Whenever the Director of the Congressional Budget Office prepares an estimate pursuant to section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 of the costs which would be incurred in carrying out any bill or joint resolution and if the Director determines that such bill or joint resolution has a cost related to a housing or residential mortgage program under the FCRA, then the Director shall also provide an estimate of the current actual or estimated market values representing the ``fair value'' of assets and liabilities affected by the provisions of such bill or joint resolution that result in such cost. (d) Enforcement.--If the Director of the Congressional Budget Office provides an estimate pursuant to subsection (b) or (c), the chair of the Committee on the Budget may use such estimate to determine compliance with the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and other budgetary enforcement controls. SEC. 208. TRANSFERS FROM THE GENERAL FUND OF THE TREASURY TO THE HIGHWAY TRUST FUND THAT INCREASE PUBLIC INDEBTEDNESS. For purposes of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, or the rules or orders of the House of Representatives, a bill or joint resolution, or an amendment thereto or conference report thereon, that transfers funds from the general fund of the Treasury to the Highway Trust Fund shall be counted as new budget authority and outlays equal to the amount of the transfer in the fiscal year the transfer occurs. SEC. 209. SEPARATE ALLOCATION FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS/GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM. (a) Allocation.--In the House, there shall be a separate allocation to the Committee on Appropriations for overseas contingency operations/global war on terrorism. For purposes of enforcing such separate allocation under section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the ``first fiscal year'' and the ``total of fiscal years'' shall be deemed to refer to fiscal year 2015. Such separate allocation shall be the exclusive allocation for overseas contingency operations/ global war on terrorism under section 302(a) of such Act. Section 302(c) of such Act shall not apply to such separate allocation. The Committee on Appropriations may provide suballocations of such separate allocation under section 302(b) of such Act. Spending that counts toward the allocation established by this section shall be designated pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. (b) Adjustment.--In the House, for purposes of subsection (a) for fiscal year 2015, no adjustment shall be made under section 314(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 if any adjustment would be made under section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. SEC. 210. EXERCISE OF RULEMAKING POWERS. The House adopts the provisions of this title-- (1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the House of Representatives and as such they shall be considered as part of the rules of the House of Representatives, and these rules shall supersede other rules only to the extent that they are inconsistent with other such rules; and (2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of the House of Representatives to change those rules at any time, in the same manner, and to the same extent as in the case of any other rule of the House of Representatives. TITLE III--POLICY SEC. 301. POLICY STATEMENT ON HEALTH CARE LAW REPEAL. It is the policy of this resolution that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148), and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-152) should be repealed. SEC. 302. POLICY STATEMENT ON MEANS-TESTED WELFARE PROGRAMS. (a) Findings.--The House finds that: (1) Too many people are trapped at the bottom rungs of the economic ladder, and every citizen should have the opportunity to rise, escape from poverty, and achieve their own potential. (2) In 1996, President Bill Clinton and congressional Republicans enacted reforms that have moved families off of Federal programs and enabled them to provide for themselves. (3) According to the most recent projections, over the next 10 years we will spend approximately $9.7 trillion on means- tested welfare programs. (4) Today, there are approximately 92 Federal programs that provide benefits specifically to poor and low-income Americans. (5) Taxpayers deserve clear and transparent information on how well these programs are working, and how much the Federal Government is spending on means-tested welfare. (6) It should be the goal of welfare programs to encourage work and put people on a path to self-reliance. [[Page 6096]] (b) Policy on Means-tested Welfare Programs.--It is the policy of this resolution that-- (1) the welfare system should be reformed to give states flexibility to implement and improve safety net programs and that to be eligible for benefits, able bodied adults without dependents should be required to work or be preparing for work, including enrolling in educational or job training programs, contributing community service, or participating in a supervised job search; and (2) the President's budget should disclose, in a clear and transparent manner, the aggregate amount of Federal welfare expenditures, as well as an estimate of State and local spending for this purpose, over the next ten years. SEC. 303. POLICY STATEMENT ON BLOCK GRANTING MEDICAID. It is the policy of this resolution that Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) should be block granted to the States in a manner prescribed by the State Health Flexibility Act of 2013 (H.R. 567, 113th Congress). SEC. 304. POLICY STATEMENT ON A CARBON TAX. It is the policy of this resolution that a carbon tax would be detrimental to American families and businesses, and is not in the best interest of the United States. SEC. 305. POLICY STATEMENT ON THE USE OF OFFICIAL TIME BY FEDERAL EMPLOYEES FOR UNION ACTIVITIES. It is the policy of this resolution that, as called for in H.R. 107, the Federal Employee Accountability Act of 2013, Federal employees shall not use official time to conduct union activities. SEC. 306. POLICY STATEMENT ON CREATION OF A COMMITTEE TO ELIMINATE DUPLICATION AND WASTE. It is the policy of this resolution that a new committee, styled after the post-World War II ``Byrd Committee'' shall be created to act on GAO's annual waste and duplication reports as well as Oversight and Government Reform Inspector General reports. SEC. 307. POLICY STATEMENT ON FEDERAL FUNDING OF ABORTION. It is the policy of this resolution that no taxpayer dollars shall go to any entity that provides abortion services. SEC. 308. POLICY STATEMENT ON READABLE LEGISLATION. It is the policy of this resolution that bills should be made more readable and for Members of Congress and more accessible to the public as called for in H.R. 760, the Readable Legislation Act of 2013. SEC. 309. POLICY STATEMENT ON WORK REQUIREMENTS. It is the policy of this resolution that the work requirements in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families block grant program should be preserved as called for in H.R. 890, 113th Congress. SEC. 310. POLICY STATEMENT ON ENERGY PRODUCTION. It is the policy of this resolution that the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and currently unavailable areas of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) should be open for energy exploration and production. To ensure States' rights, states are given the option to withdrawal from leasing within certain areas of the OCS. Specifically, a State, through enactment of a State statute, may withdrawal from leasing from all or part of any area within 75 miles of that State's coast. SEC. 311. POLICY STATEMENT ON REGULATION OF GREENHOUSE GASES BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. It is the policy of this resolution that the Environmental Protection Agency should be prohibited from promulgating any regulation concerning, taking action relating to, or taking into consideration the emission of a greenhouse gas to address climate change. SEC. 312. POLICY STATEMENT ON REFORMING THE FEDERAL BUDGET PROCESS. It is the policy of this resolution that the Federal budget process should be reformed to promote accountability, increase transparency, and make it easier to reduce spending. SEC. 313. POLICY STATEMENT ON ECONOMIC GROWTH AND PUTTING AMERICANS BACK TO WORK. (a) Findings.--The House finds the following: (1) Although the United States economy technically emerged from recession nearly five years ago, the subsequent recovery has felt more like a malaise than a rebound. Real gross domestic product (GDP) growth over the past four years has averaged just over 2 percent, well below the 3 percent trend rate of growth in the United States. (2) The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) did a study in late 2012 examining why the United States economy was growing so slowly after the recession. They found, among other things, that United States economic output was growing at less than half of the typical rate exhibited during other recoveries since World War II. CBO said that about two-thirds of this ``growth gap'' was due to a pronounced sluggishness in the growth of potential GDP--particularly in potential employment levels (such as people leaving the labor force) and the growth in productivity (which is in turn related to lower capital investment). (3) The prolonged economic sluggishness is particularly troubling given the amount of fiscal and monetary policy actions taken in recent years to cushion the depth of the downturn and to spark higher rates of growth and employment. In addition to the large stimulus package passed in early 2009, many other initiatives have been taken to boost growth, such as the new homebuyer tax credit and the ``cash for clunkers'' program. These stimulus efforts may have led to various short term ``pops'' in activity but the economy and job market has since reverted back to a sub-par trend. (4) The unemployment rate has declined in recent years, from a peak of nearly 10 percent in 2009-2010 to 6.7 percent in the latest month. However, a significant chunk of this decline has been due to people leaving the labor force (and therefore no longer being counted as ``unemployed'') and not from a surge in employment. The slow decline in the unemployment rate in recent years has occurred alongside a steep decline in the economy's labor force participation rate. The participation rate stands at 63.2 percent, close to the lowest level since 1978. The flipside of this is that over 90 million Americans are now ``on the sidelines'' and not in the labor force, representing a 10 million increase since early 2009. (5) Real median household income declined for the fifth consecutive year in 2012 (latest data available) and, at just over $51,000, is currently at its lowest level since 1995. Weak wage and income growth as a result of a subpar labor market not only means lower tax revenue coming in to the Treasury, it also means higher government spending on income support programs. (6) A stronger economy is vital to lowering deficit levels and eventually balancing the budget. According to CBO, if annual real GDP growth is just 0.1 percentage point higher over the budget window, deficits would be reduced by $311 billion. (7) This budget resolution therefore embraces pro-growth policies, such as fundamental tax reform, that will help foster a stronger economy and more job creation. (8) Reining in government spending and lowering budget deficits has a positive long-term impact on the economy and the budget. According to CBO, a significant deficit reduction package (i.e. $4 trillion), would boost longer-term economic output by 1.7 percent. Their analysis concludes that deficit reduction creates long-term economic benefits because it increases the pool of national savings and boosts investment, thereby raising economic growth and job creation. (9) The greater economic output that stems from a large deficit reduction package would have a sizeable impact on the Federal budget. For instance, higher output would lead to greater revenues through the increase in taxable incomes. Lower interest rates, and a reduction in the stock of debt, would lead to lower government spending on net interest expenses. (b) Policy on Economic Growth and Job Creation.-- (1) In general.--It is the policy of this resolution to promote faster economic growth and job creation. By putting the budget on a sustainable path, this resolution ends the debt-fueled uncertainty holding back job creators. Reforms to the tax code to put American businesses and workers in a better position to compete and thrive in the 21st century global economy. This resolution targets the regulatory red tape and cronyism that stack the deck in favor of special interests. All of the reforms in this resolution serve as means to the larger end of growing the economy and expanding opportunity for all Americans. (2) JOBS act.--It is the policy of this resolution that to create jobs, opportunity, and economic growth, H.R. 4304, the Jumpstarting Opportunities with Bold Solutions (JOBS) Act, should be enacted. This legislation, introduced by the Republican Study Committee, would unleash North American energy production, reform labor laws, reduce the regulatory burden, and increase access to capital. SEC. 314. POLICY STATEMENT ON TAX REFORM. (a) Findings.--The House finds the following: (1) A world-class tax system should be simple, fair, and promote (rather than impede) economic growth. The United States tax code fails on all three counts-it is notoriously complex, patently unfair, and highly inefficient. The tax code's complexity distorts decisions to work, save, and invest, which leads to slower economic growth, lower wages, and less job creation. (2) Over the past decade alone, there have been more than 4,400 changes to the tax code, more than one per day. Many of the major changes over the years have involved carving out special preferences, exclusions, or deductions for various activities or groups. These loopholes add up to more than $1 trillion per year and make the code unfair, inefficient, and highly complex. (3) The large amount of tax preferences that pervade the code end up narrowing the tax base. A narrow tax base, in turn, requires much higher tax rates to raise a given amount of revenue. (4) It is estimated that American taxpayers end up spending $160 billion and roughly 6 [[Page 6097]] billion hours a year complying with the tax code-a waste of time and resources that could be used in more productive activities. (5) Standard economic theory shows that high marginal tax rates dampen the incentives to work, save, and invest, which reduces economic output and job creation. Lower economic output, in turn, mutes the intended revenue gain from higher marginal tax rates. (6) Roughly half of United States active business income and half of private sector employment are derived from business entities (such as partnerships, S corporations, and sole proprietorships) that are taxed on a ``pass-through'' basis, meaning the income flows through to the tax returns of the individual owners and is taxed at the individual rate structure rather than at the corporate rate. Small businesses, in particular, tend to choose this form for Federal tax purposes, and the top Federal rate on such small business income reaches 44.6 percent. For these reasons, sound economic policy requires lowering marginal rates on these pass-through entities. (7) The United States corporate income tax rate (including Federal, State, and local taxes) sums to just over 39 percent, the highest rate in the industrialized world. Tax rates this high suppress wages and discourage investment and job creation, distort business activity, and put American businesses at a competitive disadvantage with foreign competitors. (8) By deterring potential investment, the United States corporate tax restrains economic growth and job creation. The United States tax rate differential with other countries also fosters a variety of complicated multinational corporate behaviors intended to avoid the tax, which have the effect of moving the tax base offshore, destroying American jobs, and decreasing corporate revenue. (9) The ``worldwide'' structure of United States international taxation essentially taxes earnings of United States firms twice, putting them at a significant competitive disadvantage with competitors with more competitive international tax systems. (10) Reforming the United States tax code to a more competitive international system would boost the competitiveness of United States companies operating abroad and it would also greatly reduce tax avoidance. (11) The tax code imposes costs on American workers through lower wages, on consumers in higher prices, and on investors in diminished returns. (12) Revenues have averaged about 17.5 percent of the economy throughout modern American history. Revenues rise above this level under current law to 18.4 percent of the economy by the end of the 10-year budget window. (13) Attempting to raise revenue through tax increases to meet out-of-control spending would damage the economy. (14) This resolution also rejects the idea of instituting a carbon tax in the United States, which some have offered as a ``new'' source of revenue. Such a plan would damage the economy, cost jobs, and raise prices on American consumers. (15) Closing tax loopholes to fund spending does not constitute fundamental tax reform. (16) The goal of tax reform should be to curb or eliminate loopholes and use those savings to lower tax rates across the board--not to fund more wasteful Government spending. Tax reform should be revenue-neutral and should not be an excuse to raise taxes on the American people. Washington has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. (b) Policy on Tax Reform.--It is the policy of this resolution that Congress should enact legislation that provides for a comprehensive reform of the United States tax code to promote economic growth, create American jobs, increase wages, and benefit American consumers, investors, and workers through revenue-neutral fundamental tax reform that provides for the following: (1) Aims for revenue neutrality (relative to the CBO baseline revenue projection) based on a dynamic score that takes into account macroeconomic effects. (2) Simplifies the individual rates from seven brackets to two, with a top rate of 25 percent. (3) Simplifies the tax code by ensuring that fewer Americans will be required to itemize their deductions. (4) Gives equal tax treatment to individual and employer health care expenditures modeled on the American Health Care Reform Act (H.R. 3121). (5) Eliminates the current Earned Income Tax Credit that is given in a yearly lump-sum payment and replaces it with a program that would allow workers to exempt a portion of their payroll taxes every month. (6) Repeals the death tax or inheritance tax. (7) Reduces the rate of double taxation by lowering the top corporate rate to 25 percent and setting a maximum long-term capital gains tax rate at 15 percent. (8) Sets a maximum dividend tax rate at 15 percent. (9) Encourages (on net) investment and entrepreneurial activity. (10) Moves to a competitive international system of taxation. SEC. 315. POLICY STATEMENT ON REPLACING THE PRESIDENT'S HEALTH CARE LAW. (a) Findings.--The House finds the following: (1) The President's health care law has failed to reduce health care premiums as promised. Health care premiums were supposed to decline by $2,500. Instead, according to the 2013 Employer Health Benefits Survey, health care premiums have increased by 5 percent for individual plans and 4 percent for family since 2012. Moreover, according to a report from the Energy and Commerce Committee, premiums for individual market plans may go up as much as 50 percent because of the law. (2) The President pledged that Americans would be able to keep their health care plan if they liked it. But the non- partisan Congressional Budget Office now estimates 2 million Americans with employment-based health coverage will lose those plans. (3) Then-Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, said that the President's health care law would create 4 million jobs over the life of the law and almost 400,000 jobs immediately. Instead, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the law will reduce full-time equivalent employment by about 2.0 million hours in 2017 and 2.5 million hours in 2024, ``compared with what would have occurred in the absence of the ACA.''. (4) The implementation of the law has been a failure. The main website that Americans were supposed to use in purchasing new coverage was broken for over a month. Since the President's health care law was signed into law, the Administration has announced 23 delays. The President has also failed to submit any nominees to sit on the Independent Payment Advisory Board, a panel of bureaucrats that will cut Medicare by an additional $12.1 billion over the next ten years, according to the President's own budget. (5) The President's health care law should be repealed and replaced with reforms that make affordable and quality health care coverage available to all Americans. (b) Policy on Replacing the President's Health Care Law.-- It is the policy of this resolution that the President's health care law must not only be repealed, but also replaced by enacting H.R. 3121, the American Health Care Reform Act. SEC. 316. POLICY STATEMENT ON MEDICARE. (a) Findings.--The House finds the following: (1) More than 50 million Americans depend on Medicare for their health security. (2) The Medicare Trustees Report has repeatedly recommended that Medicare's long-term financial challenges be addressed soon. Each year without reform, the financial condition of Medicare becomes more precarious and the threat to those in or near retirement becomes more pronounced. According to the Congressional Budget Office-- (A) the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund will be exhausted in 2026 and unable to pay scheduled benefits; and (B) Medicare spending is growing faster than the economy and Medicare outlays are currently rising at a rate of 6 percent per year over the next ten years, and according to the Congressional Budget Office's 2013 Long-Term Budget Outlook, spending on Medicare is projected to reach 5 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) by 2040 and 9.4 percent of GDP by 2088. (3) The President's health care law created a new Federal agency called the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) empowered with unilateral authority to cut Medicare spending. As a result of that law-- (A) IPAB will be tasked with keeping the Medicare per capita growth below a Medicare per capita target growth rate. Prior to 2018, the target growth rate is based on the five- year average of overall inflation and medical inflation. Beginning in 2018, the target growth rate will be the five- year average increase in the nominal GDP plus one percentage point, which the President has twice proposed to reduce to GDP plus one-half percentage point; (B) the fifteen unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats of IPAB will make decisions that will reduce seniors access to care; (C) the nonpartisan Office of the Medicare Chief Actuary estimates that the provider cuts already contained in the Affordable Care Act will force 15 percent of hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, and home health agencies to become unprofitable in 2019; and (D) additional cuts from the IPAB board will force even more health care providers to close their doors, and the Board should be repealed. (4) Failing to address this problem will leave millions of American seniors without adequate health security and younger generations burdened with enormous debt to pay for spending levels that cannot be sustained. (b) Policy on Medicare Reform.--It is the policy of this resolution to protect those in or near retirement from any disruptions to their Medicare benefits and offer future beneficiaries the same health care options available to Members of Congress. (c) Assumptions.--This resolution assumes reform of the Medicare program such that: (1) Current Medicare benefits are preserved for those in or near retirement. (2) For future generations, when they reach eligibility, Medicare is reformed to [[Page 6098]] provide a premium support payment and a selection of guaranteed health coverage options from which recipients can choose a plan that best suits their needs. (3) Medicare will maintain traditional fee-for-service as an option. (4) Medicare will provide additional assistance for lower- income beneficiaries and those with greater health risks. (5) Medicare spending is put on a sustainable path and the Medicare program becomes solvent over the long-term. SEC. 317. POLICY STATEMENT ON SOCIAL SECURITY. (a) Findings.--The House finds the following: (1) More than 55 million retirees, individuals with disabilities, and survivors depend on Social Security. Since enactment, Social Security has served as a vital leg on the ``three-legged stool'' of retirement security, which includes employer provided pensions as well as personal savings. (2) The Social Security Trustees Report has repeatedly recommended that Social Security's long-term financial challenges be addressed soon. Each year without reform, the financial condition of Social Security becomes more precarious and the threat to seniors and those receiving Social Security disability benefits becomes more pronounced: (A) In 2016, the Disability Insurance Trust Fund will be exhausted and program revenues will be unable to pay scheduled benefits. (B) In 2033, the combined Old-Age and Survivors and Disability Trust Funds will be exhausted, and program revenues will be unable to pay scheduled benefits. (C) With the exhaustion of the Trust Funds in 2033, benefits will be cut nearly 25 percent across the board, devastating those currently in or near retirement and those who rely on Social Security the most. (3) The recession and continued low economic growth have exacerbated the looming fiscal crisis facing Social Security. The most recent CBO projections find that Social Security will run cash deficits of $1.7 trillion over the next 10 years. (4) Lower-income Americans rely on Social Security for a larger proportion of their retirement income. Therefore, reforms should take into consideration the need to protect lower-income Americans' retirement security. (5) The Disability Insurance program provides an essential income safety net for those with disabilities and their families. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), between 1970 and 2012, the number of people receiving disability benefits (both disabled workers and their dependent family members) has increased by over 300 percent from 2.7 million to over 10.9 million. This increase is not due strictly to population growth or decreases in health. David Autor and Mark Duggan have found that the increase in individuals on disability does not reflect a decrease in self-reported health. CBO attributes program growth to changes in demographics, changes in the composition of the labor force and compensation, as well as Federal policies. (6) If this program is not reformed, families who rely on the lifeline that disability benefits provide will face benefit cuts of up to 25 percent in 2016, devastating individuals who need assistance the most. (7) In the past, Social Security has been reformed on a bipartisan basis, most notably by the ``Greenspan Commission'' which helped to address Social Security shortfalls for over a generation. (8) Americans deserve action by the President, the House, and the Senate to preserve and strengthen Social Security. It is critical that bipartisan action be taken to address the looming insolvency of Social Security. In this spirit, this resolution creates a bipartisan opportunity to find solutions by requiring policymakers to ensure that Social Security remains a critical part of the safety net. (b) Policy on Social Security.--It is the policy of this resolution that Congress should work on a bipartisan basis to make Social Security sustainably solvent. This resolution assumes these reforms will include the following: (1) Adoption of a more accurate measure for calculating cost of living adjustments. (2) Adoption of adjustments to the full retirement age to reflect longevity. (c) Policy on Disability Insurance.--It is the policy of this resolution that Congress and the President should enact legislation on a bipartisan basis to reform the Disability Insurance program prior to its insolvency in 2016 and should not raid the Social Security retirement system without reforms to the Disability Insurance system. This resolutions assumes that reforms to the Disability Insurance program will include-- (1) encouraging work; (2) updates of the eligibility rules; (3) reducing fraud and abuse; and (4) enactment of H.R. 1502, the Social Security Disability Insurance and Unemployment Benefits Double Dip Elimination Act, to prohibit individuals from drawing benefits from both programs at the same time. SEC. 318. POLICY STATEMENT ON HIGHER EDUCATION AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY. (a) Findings on Higher Education.--The House finds the following: (1) A well-educated workforce is critical to economic, job, and wage growth. (2) 19.5 million students are enrolled in American colleges and universities. (3) Over the last decade, tuition and fees have been growing at an unsustainable rate. Between the 2002-2003 Academic Year and the 2012-2013 Academic Year-- (A) published tuition and fees for in-State students at public four-year colleges and universities increased at an average rate of 5.2 percent per year beyond the rate of general inflation; (B) published tuition and fees for in-State students at public two-year colleges and universities increased at an average rate of 3.9 percent per year beyond the rate of general inflation; and (C) published tuition and fees for in-State students at private four-year colleges and universities increased at an average rate of 2.4 percent per year beyond the rate of general inflation. (4) Over that same period, Federal financial aid has increased 105 percent. (5) This spending has failed to make college more affordable. (6) In his 2012 State of the Union Address, President Obama noted that, ``We can't just keep subsidizing skyrocketing tuition; we'll run out of money.''. (7) American students are chasing ever-increasing tuition with ever-increasing debt. According to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, student debt more than quadrupled between 2003 and 2013, and now stands at nearly $1.1 trillion. Student debt now has the second largest balance after mortgage debt. (8) Students are carrying large debt loads and too many fail to complete college or end up defaulting on these loans due to their debt burden and a weak economy and job market. (9) Based on estimates from the Congressional Budget Office, the Pell Grant Program will face a fiscal shortfall beginning in fiscal year 2016 and continuing in each subsequent year in the current budget window. (10) Failing to address these problems will jeopardize access and affordability to higher education for America's young people. (b) Policy on Higher Education Affordability.--It is the policy of this resolution to address the root drivers of tuition inflation, by-- (1) targeting Federal financial aid to those most in need; (2) streamlining programs that provide aid to make them more effective; (3) maintaining the maximum Pell grant award level at $5,730 in each year of the budget window; and (4) removing regulatory barriers in higher education that act to restrict flexibility and innovative teaching, particularly as it relates to non-traditional models such as online coursework and competency-based learning. (c) Findings on Workforce Development.--The House finds the following: (1) Over ten million Americans are currently unemployed. (2) Despite billions of dollars in spending, those looking for work are stymied by a broken workforce development system that fails to connect workers with assistance and employers with trained personnel. (4) According to a 2011 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, in fiscal year 2009, the Federal Government spent $18 billion across 9 agencies to administer 47 Federal job training programs, almost all of which overlapped with another program in terms of offered services and targeted population. (5) Since the release of that GAO report, the Education and Workforce Committee, which has done extensive work in this area, has identified more than 50 programs. (3) Without changes, this flawed system will continue to fail those looking for work or to improve their skills, and jeopardize economic growth. (d) Policy on Workforce Development.--It is the policy of this resolution to address the failings in the current workforce development system, by-- (1) streamlining and consolidating Federal job training programs as advanced by the House-passed Supporting Knowledge and Investing in Lifelong Skills Act (SKILLS Act); and (2) empowering states with the flexibility to tailor funding and programs to the specific needs of their workforce, including the development of career scholarships. SEC. 319. POLICY STATEMENT ON DEFICIT REDUCTION THROUGH THE CANCELLATION OF UNOBLIGATED BALANCES. (a) Findings.--The House finds the following: (1) According to the most recent estimate from the Office of Management and Budget, Federal agencies were expected to hold $739 billion in unobligated balances at the close of fiscal year 2014. (2) These funds represent direct and discretionary spending made available by Congress that remains available for expenditure beyond the fiscal year for which they are provided. (3) In some cases, agencies are granted funding and it remains available for obligation indefinitely. (4) The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 requires the Office [[Page 6099]] of Management and Budget to make funds available to agencies for obligation and prohibits the Administration from withholding or cancelling unobligated funds unless approved by an act of Congress. (5) Greater congressional oversight is required to review and identify potential savings from unneeded balances of funds. (b) Policy on Deficit Reduction Through the Cancellation of Unobligated Balances.--Congressional committees shall through their oversight activities identify and achieve savings through the cancellation or rescission of unobligated balances that neither abrogate contractual obligations of the Government nor reduce or disrupt Federal commitments under programs such as Social Security, veterans' affairs, national security, and Treasury authority to finance the national debt. (c) Deficit Reduction.--Congress, with the assistance of the Government Accountability Office, the Inspectors General, and other appropriate agencies should continue to make it a high priority to review unobligated balances and identify savings for deficit reduction. SEC. 320. POLICY STATEMENT ON RESPONSIBLE STEWARDSHIP OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS. (a) Findings.--The House finds the following: (1) The budget for the House of Representatives is $188 million less than it was when Republicans became the majority in 2011. (2) The House of Representatives has achieved significant savings by consolidating operations and renegotiating contracts. (b) Policy on Responsible Stewardship of Taxpayer Dollars.--It is the policy of this resolution that: (1) The House of Representatives must be a model for the responsible stewardship of taxpayer resources and therefore must identify any savings that can be achieved through greater productivity and efficiency gains in the operation and maintenance of House services and resources like printing, conferences, utilities, telecommunications, furniture, grounds maintenance, postage, and rent. This should include a review of policies and procedures for acquisition of goods and services to eliminate any unnecessary spending. The Committee on House Administration should review the policies pertaining to the services provided to Members and committees of the House, and should identify ways to reduce any subsidies paid for the operation of the House gym, barber shop, salon, and the House dining room. (2) No taxpayer funds may be used to purchase first class airfare or to lease corporate jets for Members of Congress. (3) Retirement benefits for Members of Congress should not include free, taxpayer-funded health care for life. SEC. 321. POLICY STATEMENT ON DEFICIT REDUCTION THROUGH THE REDUCTION OF UNNECESSARY AND WASTEFUL SPENDING. (a) Findings.--The House finds the following: (1) The Government Accountability Office (``GAO'') is required by law to identify examples of waste, duplication, and overlap in Federal programs, and has so identified dozens of such examples. (2) In testimony before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Comptroller General has stated that addressing the identified waste, duplication, and overlap in Federal programs ``could potentially save tens of billions of dollars.'' (3) In 2011, 2012, and 2013 the Government Accountability Office issued reports showing excessive duplication and redundancy in Federal programs including-- (A) 209 Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics education programs in 13 different Federal agencies at a cost of $3 billion annually; (B) 200 separate Department of Justice crime prevention and victim services grant programs with an annual cost of $3.9 billion in 2010; (C) 20 different Federal entities administer 160 housing programs and other forms of Federal assistance for housing with a total cost of $170 billion in 2010; (D) 17 separate Homeland Security preparedness grant programs that spent $37 billion between fiscal year 2011 and 2012; (E) 14 grant and loan programs, and 3 tax benefits to reduce diesel emissions; (F) 94 different initiatives run by 11 different agencies to encourage ``green building'' in the private sector; and (G) 23 agencies implemented approximately 670 renewable energy initiatives in fiscal year 2010 at a cost of nearly $15 billion. (4) The Federal Government spends about $80 billion each year for approximately 800 information technology investments. GAO has identified broad acquisition failures, waste, and unnecessary duplication in the Government's information technology infrastructure. Experts have estimated that eliminating these problems could save 25 percent-or $20 billion-of the Government's annual information technology budget. (5) GAO has identified strategic sourcing as a potential source of spending reductions. In 2011 GAO estimated that saving 10 percent of the total or all Federal procurement could generate over $50 billion in savings annually. (6) Federal agencies reported an estimated $108 billion in improper payments in fiscal year 2012. (7) Under clause 2 of Rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, each standing committee must hold at least one hearing during each 120 day period following its establishment on waste, fraud, abuse, or mismanagement in Government programs. (8) According to the Congressional Budget Office, by fiscal year 2015, 32 laws will expire, possibly resulting in $693 billion in unauthorized appropriations. Timely reauthorizations of these laws would ensure assessments of program justification and effectiveness. (9) The findings resulting from congressional oversight of Federal Government programs should result in programmatic changes in both authorizing statutes and program funding levels. (b) Policy on Deficit Reduction Through the Reduction of Unnecessary and Wasteful Spending.--Each authorizing committee annually shall include in its Views and Estimates letter required under section 301(d) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 recommendations to the Committee on the Budget of programs within the jurisdiction of such committee whose funding should be reduced or eliminated. SEC. 322. POLICY STATEMENT ON UNAUTHORIZED SPENDING. It is the policy of this resolution that the committees of jurisdiction should review all unauthorized programs funded through annual appropriations to determine if the programs are operating efficiently and effectively. Committees should reauthorize those programs that in the committees' judgment should continue to receive funding. SEC. 323. POLICY STATEMENT ON FEDERAL REGULATORY POLICY. (a) Findings.--The House finds the following: (1) Excessive regulation at the Federal level has hurt job creation and dampened the economy, slowing our recovery from the economic recession. (2) In the first two months of 2014 alone, the Administration issued 13,166 pages of regulations imposing more than $13 billion in compliance costs on job creators and adding more than 16 million hours of compliance paperwork. (3) The Small Business Administration estimates that the total cost of regulations is as high as $1.75 trillion per year. Since 2009, the White House has generated over $494 billion in regulatory activity, with an additional $87.6 billion in regulatory costs currently pending. (4) The Dodd-Frank financial services legislation (Public Law 111-203) resulted in more than $17 billion in compliance costs and saddled job creators with more than 58 million hours of compliance paperwork. (5) Implementation of the Affordable Care Act to date has added 132.9 million annual hours of compliance paperwork, imposing $24.3 billion of compliance costs on the private sector and an $8 billion cost burden on the states. (6) The highest regulatory costs come from rules issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); these regulations are primarily targeted at the coal industry. In September 2013, the EPA proposed a rule regulating greenhouse gas emissions from new coal-fired power plants. The proposed standards are unachievable with current commercially available technology, resulting in a de-facto ban on new coal-fired power plants. Additional regulations for existing coal plants are expected in the summer of 2014. (7) Coal-fired power plants provide roughly forty percent of the United States electricity at a low cost. Unfairly targeting the coal industry with costly and unachievable regulations will increase energy prices, disproportionately disadvantaging energy-intensive industries like manufacturing and construction, and will make life more difficult for millions of low-income and middle class families already struggling to pay their bills. (8) Three hundred and thirty coal units are being retired or converted as a result of EPA regulations. Combined with the de-facto prohibition on new plants, these retirements and conversions may further increase the cost of electricity. (9) A recent study by Purdue University estimates that electricity prices in Indiana will rise 32 percent by 2023, due in part to EPA regulations. (10) The Heritage Foundation recently found that a phase out of coal would cost 600,000 jobs by the end of 2023, resulting in an aggregate gross domestic product decrease of $2.23 trillion over the entire period and reducing the income of a family of four by $1,200 per year. Of these jobs, 330,000 will come from the manufacturing sector, with California, Texas, Ohio, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, New York, Indiana, North Carolina, Wisconsin, and Georgia seeing the highest job losses. (b) Policy on Federal Regulation.--It is the policy of this resolution that Congress should, in consultation with the public burdened by excessive regulation, enact legislation that-- (1) seeks to promote economic growth and job creation by eliminating unnecessary red tape and streamlining and simplifying Federal regulations; (2) pursues a cost-effective approach to regulation, without sacrificing environmental, health, safety benefits or other benefits, rejecting the premise that economic [[Page 6100]] growth and environmental protection create an either/or proposition; (3) ensures that regulations do not disproportionately disadvantage low-income Americans through a more rigorous cost-benefit analysis, which also considers who will be most affected by regulations and whether the harm caused is outweighed by the potential harm prevented; (4) ensures that regulations are subject to an open and transparent process, rely on sound and publicly available scientific data, and that the data relied upon for any particular regulation is provided to Congress immediately upon request; (5) frees the many commonsense energy and water projects currently trapped in complicated bureaucratic approval processes; (6) maintains the benefits of landmark environmental, health safety, and other statutes while scaling back this administration's heavy-handed approach to regulation, which has added $494 billion in mostly ideological regulatory activity since 2009, much of which flies in the face of these statutes' intended purposes; and (7) seeks to promote a limited government, which will unshackle our economy and create millions of new jobs, providing our Nation with a strong and prosperous future and expanding opportunities for the generations to come. SEC. 324. POLICY STATEMENT ON TRADE. (a) Findings.--The House finds the following: (1) Opening foreign markets to American exports is vital to the United States economy and beneficial to American workers and consumers. The Commerce Department estimates that every $1 billion of United States exports supports more than 5,000 jobs here at home. (2) A modern and competitive international tax system would facilitate global commerce for United States multinational companies and would encourage foreign business investment and job creation in the United States (3) The United States currently has an antiquated system of international taxation whereby United States multinationals operating abroad pay both the foreign-country tax and United States corporate taxes. They are essentially taxed twice. This puts them at an obvious competitive disadvantage. (4) The ability to defer United States taxes on their foreign operations, which some erroneously refer to as a ``tax loophole,'' cushions this disadvantage to a certain extent. Eliminating or restricting this provision (and others like it) would harm United States competitiveness. (5) This budget resolution advocates fundamental tax reform that would lower the United States corporate rate, now the highest in the industrialized world, and switch to a more competitive system of international taxation. This would make the United States a much more attractive place to invest and station business activity and would chip away at the incentives for United States companies to keep their profits overseas (because the United States corporate rate is so high). (6) The status quo of the current tax code undermines the competitiveness of United States businesses and costs the United States economy investment and jobs. (7) Global trade and commerce is not a zero-sum game. The idea that global expansion tends to ``hollow out'' United States operations is incorrect. Foreign-affiliate activity tends to complement, not substitute for, key parent activities in the United States such as employment, worker compensation, and capital investment. When United States headquartered multinationals invest and expand operations abroad it often leads to more jobs and economic growth at home. (8) American businesses and workers have shown that, on a level playing field, they can excel and surpass the international competition. (b) Policy on Trade.--It is the policy of this resolution to pursue international trade, global commerce, and a modern and competitive United States international tax system in order to promote job creation in the United States. SEC. 325. NO BUDGET, NO PAY. It is the policy of this resolution that Congress should agree to a concurrent resolution on the budget every year pursuant to section 301 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. If by April 15, a House of Congress has not agreed to a concurrent resolution on the budget, the payroll administrator of that House should carry out this policy in the same manner as the provisions of Public Law 113-3, the No Budget, No Pay Act of 2013, and place in an escrow account all compensation otherwise required to be made for Members of that House of Congress. Withheld compensation should be released to Members of that House of Congress the earlier of the day on which that House of Congress agrees to a concurrent resolution on the budget, pursuant to section 301 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, or the last day of that Congress. SEC. 326. POLICY STATEMENT ON REFORM OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM. (a) SNAP.--It is the policy of the resolution that the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program be reformed so that: (1) Nutrition assistance funds should be distributed to the states as a block grant with funding subject to the annual discretionary appropriations process. (2) Funds from the grant must be used by the states to establish and maintain a work activation program for able- bodied adults without dependents. (3) It is the goal of this proposal to move those in need off of the assistance rolls and back into the workforce and towards self-sufficiency. (4) In the House, the chair of the Committee on the Budget is permitted to revise allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate levels, including discretionary limits, accordingly. (b) Assumptions.--This resolution assumes that, pending the enactment of reforms described in (a), the conversion of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program into a flexible State allotment tailored to meet each State's needs. Additionally, it assumes that more stringent work requirements and time limits apply under the program. SEC. 327. POLICY STATEMENT ON TRANSPORTATION REFORM. It is the policy of this resolution that State and local officials are in a much better position to understand the needs of local commuters, not bureaucrats in Washington. Federal funding for transportation should be phased down and limited to core Federal duties, including the interstate highway system, transportation infrastructure on Federal land, responding to emergencies, and research. As the level of Federal responsibility for transportation is reduced, Congress should also concurrently reduce the Federal gas tax. TITLE IV--RESERVE FUNDS SEC. 401. RESERVE FUND FOR THE REPEAL OF THE 2010 HEALTH CARE LAWS. In the House, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this concurrent resolution for the budgetary effects of any bill or joint resolution, or amendment thereto or conference report thereon, that only consists of a full repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the health care-related provisions of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010. SEC. 402. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF OBAMACARE. In the House, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this concurrent resolution for the budgetary effects of any bill or joint resolution, or amendment thereto or conference report thereon, that reforms or replaces the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, if such measure would not increase the deficit for the period of fiscal years 2015 through 2024. SEC. 403. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATED TO THE MEDICARE PROVISIONS OF THE 2010 HEALTH CARE LAWS. In the House, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this concurrent resolution for the budgetary effects of any bill or joint resolution, or amendment thereto or conference report thereon, that repeals all or part of the decreases in Medicare spending included in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, if such measure would not increase the deficit for the period of fiscal years 2015 through 2024. SEC. 404. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR THE SUSTAINABLE GROWTH RATE OF THE MEDICARE PROGRAM. In the House, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this concurrent resolution for the budgetary effects of any bill or joint resolution, or amendment thereto or conference report thereon, that includes provisions amending or superseding the system for updating payments under section 1848 of the Social Security Act, if such measure would not increase the deficit for the period of fiscal years 2015 through 2024. SEC. 405. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR REFORMING THE TAX CODE. In the House, if the Committee on Ways and Means reports a bill or joint resolution that reforms the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this concurrent resolution for the budgetary effects of any such bill or joint resolution, or amendment thereto or conference report thereon, if such measure would not increase the deficit for the period of fiscal years 2015 through 2024 when the macroeconomic effects of such reforms are taken into account. SEC. 406. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR TRADE AGREEMENTS. In the House, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this concurrent resolution for the budgetary effects of any bill or joint resolution reported by the Committee on Ways and [[Page 6101]] Means, or amendment thereto or conference report thereon, that implements a trade agreement, but only if such measure would not increase the deficit for the period of fiscal years 2015 through 2024. SEC. 407. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR REVENUE MEASURES. In the House, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this concurrent resolution for the budgetary effects of any bill or joint resolution reported by the Committee on Ways and Means, or amendment thereto or conference report thereon, that decreases revenue, but only if such measure would not increase the deficit for the period of fiscal years 2015 through 2024. SEC. 408. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR RURAL COUNTIES AND SCHOOLS. In the House, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate levels and limits in this resolution for the budgetary effects of any bill or joint resolution, or amendment thereto or conference report thereon, that makes changes to or provides for the reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self Determination Act of 2000 (Public Law 106- 393) by the amounts provided by that legislation for those purposes, if such legislation requires sustained yield timber harvests obviating the need for funding under Public Law 106- 393 in the future and would not increase the deficit or direct spending for the period of fiscal years 2015 through 2019, or the period of fiscal years 2015 through 2024. SEC. 409. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR TRANSPORTATION REFORM. In the House, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution for any bill or joint resolution, or amendment thereto or conference report thereon, if such measure reforms the Federal transportation funding system, but only if such measure would not increase the deficit over the period of fiscal years 2015 through 2024. SEC. 410. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO REDUCE POVERTY AND INCREASE OPPORTUNITY AND UPWARD MOBILITY. In the House, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution for any bill or joint resolution, or amendment thereto or conference report thereon, if such measure reforms policies and programs to reduce poverty and increase opportunity and upward mobility, but only if such measure would neither adversely impact job creation nor increase the deficit over the period of fiscal years 2015 through 2024. SEC. 411. IMPLEMENTATION OF A DEFICIT AND LONG-TERM DEBT REDUCTION AGREEMENT. In the House, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this concurrent resolution to accommodate the enactment of a deficit and long-term debt reduction agreement if it includes permanent spending reductions and reforms to direct spending programs. SEC. 412. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE ACCOUNT FOR REFORMING SNAP. In the House, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this concurrent resolution for the budgetary effects of any bill or joint resolution, or amendment thereto or conference report thereon, that reforms the supplemental nutrition assistance program (SNAP). SEC. 413. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR SOCIAL SECURITY DISABILITY INSURANCE REFORM. In the House, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this concurrent resolution for the budgetary effects of any bill or joint resolution, or amendment thereto or conference report thereon, that reforms the Social Security Disability Insurance program under title II of the Social Security Act. TITLE V--EARMARK MORATORIUM SEC. 501. EARMARK MORATORIUM. (a) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order in the House of Representatives to consider-- (1) a bill or joint resolution reported by any committee, or any amendment thereto or conference report thereon, that includes a congressional earmark, limited tax benefit, or limited tariff benefit; or (2) a bill or joint resolution not reported by any committee, or any amendment thereto or conference report thereon, that includes a congressional earmark, limited tax benefit, or limited tariff benefit. (b) Definitions.--For the purposes of this resolution, the terms ``congressional earmark'', ``limited tax benefit'', and ``limited tariff benefit'' have the meaning given those terms in clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives. (c) Inapplicability.--This resolution shall not apply to any authorization of appropriations to a Federal entity if such authorization is not specifically targeted to a State, locality, or congressional district. SEC. 502. LIMITATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON RULES. The Committee on Rules of the House of Representatives may not report a rule or order that would waive the point of order set forth in section 501(a). TITLE VI--ESTIMATES OF DIRECT SPENDING SEC. 601. DIRECT SPENDING. (a) Means-tested Direct Spending.-- (1) For means-tested direct spending, the average rate of growth in the total level of outlays during the 10-year period preceding fiscal year 2015 is 6.8 percent. (2) For means-tested direct spending, the estimated average rate of growth in the total level of outlays during the 10- year period beginning with fiscal year 2015 is 5.4 percent under current law. (3) The following reforms are proposed in this concurrent resolution for means-tested direct spending: (A) In 1996, a Republican Congress and a Democratic president reformed welfare by limiting the duration of benefits, giving States more control over the program, and helping recipients find work. In the five years following passage, child-poverty rates fell, welfare caseloads fell, and workers' wages increased. This resolution applies the lessons of welfare reform to both the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and Medicaid. (B) For Medicaid, this resolution recommends conversion from direct spending to a discretionary program subject to appropriation. Pending this reform, this resolution assumes the conversion of the Federal share of Medicaid spending into a flexible State allotment tailored to meet each State's needs. Such a reform would end the misguided one-size-fits- all approach that has tied the hands of State governments. Instead, each State would have the freedom and flexibility to tailor a Medicaid program that fits the needs of its unique population. Moreover, this resolution assumes the repeal of the Medicaid expansions in the President's health care law, relieving State governments of its crippling one-size-fits- all enrollment mandates. (C) For the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, recommends conversion from direct spending to a discretionary program subject to appropriation. Pending this reform, this resolution assumes the conversion of the program into a flexible State allotment tailored to meet each State's needs. The allotment would increase based on the Department of Agriculture Thrifty Food Plan index and beneficiary growth. Such a reform would provide incentives for States to ensure dollars will go towards those who need them most. Additionally, it requires that more stringent work requirements and time limits apply under the program. (b) Nonmeans-tested Direct Spending.-- (1) For nonmeans-tested direct spending, the average rate of growth in the total level of outlays during the 10-year period preceding fiscal year 2015 is 5.7 percent. (2) For nonmeans-tested direct spending, the estimated average rate of growth in the total level of outlays during the 10-year period beginning with fiscal year 2015 is 5.4 percent under current law. (3) The following reforms are proposed in this concurrent resolution for nonmeans-tested direct spending: (A) For Medicare, this resolution advances policies to put seniors, not the Federal Government, in control of their health care decisions. Those in or near retirement will see no changes, while future retirees would be given a choice of private plans competing alongside the traditional fee-for- service Medicare program. Medicare would provide a premium- support payment either to pay for or offset the premium of the plan chosen by the senior, depending on the plan's cost. The Medicare premium-support payment would be adjusted so that the sick would receive higher payments if their conditions worsened; lower-income seniors would receive additional assistance to help cover out-of-pocket costs; and wealthier seniors would assume responsibility for a greater share of their premiums. Putting seniors in charge of how their health care dollars are spent will force providers to compete against each other on price and quality. This market competition will act as a real check on widespread waste and skyrocketing health care costs. (B) In keeping with a recommendation from the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, this resolution calls for Federal employees--including Members of Congress and congressional staff--to make greater contributions toward their own retirement. The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 544, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall) and a Member opposed each will control 15 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia. Mr. WOODALL. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. I rise today on behalf of the Republican Study Committee. As so many Members of this Chamber know, the Republican Study Committee is made up of those most conservative Republicans here in the House; and while I [[Page 6102]] serve on the Budget Committee, I have great respect for our Budget chairman, Paul Ryan, and I have a great belief in the budget that came out of that Budget Committee. The Republican Study Committee's role is to try to do even better; and, Madam Chair, we have brought just such a budget today. We call it the Back to Basics Budget, and it is the budget that balances the fastest of any budget that we are going to be debating here on the House floor. In just 4 years, it will bring us to balance, but I am not here about the numbers. I am here about why the numbers matter because, for every year that we are not in balance, we are not just borrowing that money from our children, we are paying interest on that money that could have gone to other priorities. You will hear in this debate today about priorities that my friends on the other side of the aisle wish we would invest more money in that they don't believe our budget invests enough in. That may be true, yet what our budget does do is begin to pay back the debt in ways that we can take all of that money that we are dedicating to interest today and dedicate it to American families tomorrow. Of all of the things we disagree on in this Chamber, I think we can agree that the best use of our dollars is not in their going to pay creditors, but in their going to serve constituents, and that is what the Back to Basics Budget will do for us today. With that, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 15 minutes. Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chairman, what we have got here with this particular amendment is more than a doubling down on what was already a bad idea. We heard, actually, from Mr. Rogers, who is the chairman of the Appropriations Committee and a Republican Member of Congress, that the Republican version of the budget offered by Mr. Ryan was ``draconian''--draconian because of the impact it has on important investments that have historically helped make our economy grow, make us a world leader, make sure that we can keep our competitive edge in a global economy. The Republican budget coming out of the Budget Committee devastated those important investments. Of course, they didn't close one single special interest tax loophole for the purpose of reducing the deficit, but they decided to cut deeply into investments in our kids' education, everything from early education, to K-12, to college ed. They make no secret about it. They want to charge college students higher interest rates and, at the same time, protect special interest tax breaks. What we have here in the Republican Study Committee's amendment is simply a doubling down on what the chairman of the Republican Appropriations Committee already called draconian. The interesting thing to me, Madam Chairman, is that I would have thought that the Republican Study Committee would have taken a different approach. I would have thought they would have taken an approach that didn't require, as part of their budget, the revenues from the Affordable Care Act, but if you look at their revenue line, it is identical to the revenue line in the House Republican budget, which is identical to the Congressional Budget Office's revenue line, which The Heritage Foundation--no left-leaning group--has said means that these budgets incorporate the tax revenues from the Affordable Care Act. Again, here is what The Heritage Foundation said: Perhaps the biggest shortcoming of this budget is that it keeps the tax increases associated with ObamaCare. It is what they have said about the House Republican budget's revenue line. This one has the same thing. If they are going to repeal the Affordable Care Act, as they say they will, that revenue line should go down; yet no matter how you cut it, Madam Chairman, the choices remain choices that we do not believe reflect the values and priorities of this country, which are of protecting those special interest tax breaks for very powerful interests while gutting important investments in our future, investments that have been proven historically to make the United States the leading economic power in the world. I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. WOODALL. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to thank my friend for his fealty for The Heritage Foundation. I share that and would remind him that the Heritage action is key voting a ``yes'' vote on the budget before us today. If he would like to be in line with Heritage, he can vote ``yes'' with me today. I would welcome that support. With that, Madam Chairman, I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana, Chairman Scalise, who is the chairman of the Republican Study Committee and a gentleman who has provided huge leadership for us in this Conference. Mr. SCALISE. I want to thank my colleague from Georgia for yielding and for his leadership in bringing forth this budget. As the chairman of the Republican Study Committee's Budget and Spending Task Force, Mr. Woodall has brought this budget called Back to Basics, and that is really what we are here to talk about right now. Madam Chair, what are those basics we should get back to? I think they are the basic fundamentals that our Founding Fathers laid out when they created this great Nation. It is still the greatest nation in the history of the world, but it is a nation with serious challenges. If you look at our economy, our economy is struggling in many ways because of policies coming out of Washington, because of Washington's failure to confront those challenges. People across this country are ready to confront those challenges. They are looking to us to finally start laying out a vision that says we are going to start living within our means, that we are going to do the things that families across this Nation do every single year, and that is finally getting back to fiscal discipline. When my friend on the other side--I guess the person who is tasked with coming and opposing budgets that balance--uses terms like ``draconian''--Madam Chair, I will tell you what is draconian. What is draconian is to deny the opportunity to our children and grandchildren that we enjoy today, something that every single generation in the history of our country has. One of the pure definitions of the American Dream is that every generation in our Nation's history, since George Washington led us through that Revolution, has had better opportunities than those that we enjoy today; yet most people in this country recognize, if we don't get our fiscal house in order, our children--my 7- and 4-year-olds, whom my wife drove to school this morning--won't have those same opportunities, and they all deserve the opportunities that we enjoy. So how do we do it? How do we get back to basics? We do it by having really good, strong, bold policy--bold policy that says we ought to live within our means. Our budget balances by year 4. In 2018, we have a balanced Federal budget. If you compare that with President Obama's budget, he has got a budget that has over $1 trillion in new taxes. Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle say: oh, you need to stick more taxes on all of these businesses. If anybody is making a profit in America, it seems like they want to put a bull's-eye on him. If one happens to be successful and make a profit and create jobs in this country, that is somehow a bad thing. If you take their approach in their budgets--in all of their budgets--they have over $1 trillion in new taxes. President Obama has nearly $2 trillion in new taxes, so you would think: okay, all of those new taxes must be what get you to balance. In fact, Madam Chair, all of those new taxes just get you more despair. This President's budget never, ever [[Page 6103]] gets to balance, but he has all of those tax increases that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about. In our budget, we don't have any new tax increases. What we have is good, smart fiscal discipline policy that says let's get our economy moving again and let's believe in the American people. By not raising taxes and by getting our economy moving, you actually get to balance in 4 short years and start creating surpluses, so we can pay back that debt, as my friend from Georgia talked about, so that we don't have to send all of those interest payments to other countries and to other priorities. Let's set those priorities in America. How do we do this? How do we actually get back to balance in such a short period of time? Number one, we save Medicare from bankruptcy, just as Paul Ryan does in the House Republican budget that came out of the Budget Committee. We share many of those same principles that get us to fiscal responsibility by saving Medicare, by not letting it go bankrupt, as our colleagues on the other side do and as the President's own budget does. The President's own budget allows Medicare to go bankrupt. We don't think that is responsible, so we take care of those who paid into a system over their lifetimes. We also invoke smart policy. If you start with health care, in our bill, we actually repeal the President's health care law and replace it with the American Health Care Reform Act, a bill that actually puts patients back in charge of their health care and that allows us to, again, have families be in charge of those decisions and to lower costs. It is good, smart policy. We will talk more about it, but this is the right path to getting our economy back on track. Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman speaks about the importance of fiscal discipline and fiscal responsibility, and we agree. The question we have is: Why do they exempt from the whole practice of fiscal discipline all of these what are called tax expenditures and tax preferences that have been put into the Tax Code many times by very powerful special interests? What does a tax preference mean? It means in many cases that, because somebody has well-heeled lobbyists, he is able to escape having to pay taxes on something that everybody else has to pay for. {time} 0930 What our Republican colleagues are saying is they don't want to take away any of those special interest preferences for the purpose of reducing the deficit. They would rather cut deeply into our kids' education. They would rather charge college students more interest on their loans. They would rather increase class sizes in K-12, which is what happens when you cut Title I and special education. They talk about opportunity, but the opportunities that they are protecting are those for the special interests who had their lobbyists do very well for them in Washington. Hey, hands off all of that. We don't want to touch that. But we are coming after everybody else, including, by the way, seniors on Medicare who will immediately see the reopening of the doughnut hole. So if you are a senior with high prescription drug costs, that is going to cost you $1,200 more per year, on average, immediately. And then they begin to phase in in their budget their Medicare voucher program, which will end the Medicare guarantee. This is all about priorities. The interesting thing here is that, despite all the talk about fiscal discipline from our Republican colleagues, it is hands off imposing any fiscal discipline on powerful special interests who have succeeded in getting themselves special deals in the Tax Code. I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), chairman of the Democratic Caucus and a member of the Ways and Means Committee, who has spent a lot of time focusing on these issues. Mr. BECERRA. I thank the ranking member on the Budget Committee for, first, all the work he has done over the years in trying to get America back on track when it comes to what it should do with its budgets. Budgets are a testament to our values and our priorities, and I believe Mr. Van Hollen has made it very clear what the values and priorities of Members of this side of the aisle are. It is about making sure that we invest the taxpayer dollars to help our economy grow, help grow jobs, and help our kids grow up and get to college. But let me remind everyone here of something. Remember those brainless, autopilot sequester cuts which had been scheduled for last year that led to the Republican shutdown of our government? Well, the Republican budget of 2015 is sequester on steroids. Remember last year's autopilot sequester cuts that would have kicked over 50,000 children out of Head Start classes? Well, the 2015 Republican budget kicks 170,000 kids out of Head Start classes. This Republican budget would kill jobs, with 1.1 million Americans likely to lose their job as a result of this budget and probably 3 million more the following year are the estimates. This budget would cut seniors' Social Security benefits by changing the way we calculate their cost-of-living increases so that they would get less each year, even though we know the cost of living for seniors keeps going up. They would continue to reduce our investments in very important projects that include Medicare, because this Republican budget would voucherize Medicare. It would turn it into a privatized version of what we have now, without the guarantees, so that seniors will be paying more for their prescription drugs. This Republican budget would close not one single wasteful corporate tax loophole and, instead, it actually offers billionaires a $200,000 tax cut at the same time that it is increasing taxes for the middle class by about $2,000. It should surprise no one that, while we are not closing any tax loopholes in the Republican budget and while we are increasing the taxes for middle class Americans, this Republican budget excludes things that we should do. Through this budget we could, right now, move to increase the economy's capacity, increase the number of jobs, and decrease our deficits by finally fixing our broken immigration system. Our Democratic budget does that; the Republican budget doesn't. And as a result, we give up, through the Republican budget, an opportunity to reduce our deficits by close to a trillion dollars over the next couple of decades. We give up the opportunity to create close to 3.5 million jobs over the next 10 to 20 years by doing immigration reform, and we give up the chance to strengthen Social Security by doing immigration reform. The Democratic budget makes those investments. The Democratic budget actually invests in early childhood education. The Democratic budget makes it possible for more middle class families to afford to send their kids to college. The Democratic budget makes those investments because we do close corporate tax loopholes. We do go after those who are evading paying their fair share of taxes. And we can make those investments in early childhood education, in fixing our broken immigration system, in investing in our roads and bridges because we go after those who are evading paying their taxes. We could do that. But, again, I remind you, this is a budget being presented on this floor from our colleagues on the other side that actually put the brainless cuts under the sequester on autopilot. And we need to defeat that. Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to just say: Nonsense. Nonsense. This is the only budget that is being presented that includes the Tax Code Termination Act that terminates every single special interest loophole in the entire Tax Code. Both gentlemen know that. Every single special interest exemption, exception in the Tax Code is gone under this budget. [[Page 6104]] Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp), a fantastic member of the Republican Study Committee and a member of my class of 2010. Mr. HUELSKAMP. Mr. Chairman, over the past 3 years, I have conducted over 220 townhall meetings in my district. When we discuss Federal spending, my constituents do not want to hear about debt-to-GDP ratios or CBO scoring rules when it comes to the budget. What they want to know is why Congress has not balanced the budget yet and when we plan to do so. They want to know when Washington will stop spending money we don't have. They want to know when we will stop piling trillions of dollars of debt on the backs of our children and grandchildren. This RSC budget would balance the budget the soonest of any of the alternatives before us, Mr. Chairman, and it would begin to pay down our debt the fastest. It is the type of results the American people demand out of Washington. I am pleased this budget includes some innovative and responsible reforms like Medicaid block grants, food stamp block grants, and a real timetable to save and secure Medicare. I am also pleased it would repeal ObamaCare. It would call for the passage of a real health care reform act like the American Health Care Reform Act, the JOBS Act, the REINS Act, throwing out our entire Tax Code and starting over, and it would restore work requirements for those on welfare and prohibit funding abortion providers. In short, this RSC budget is full of the right ideas to get our Nation back on track, and I encourage my colleagues to join me in voting for the RSC budget. Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Brown), a distinguished member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and someone who is focused on investing in America. Ms. BROWN of Florida. The documents that we are debating today are more than just the Republican budget. It is who they are. They constantly quote scripture, yet the Bible says the poor will always be with us. Our job is to help raise the standard. They remind me of ``The Wizard of Oz.'' The Republicans have no heart. This is another example of reverse Robin Hood--robbing from the working people and the middle class to give huge tax cuts to the rich. The latest House Republican goals are to dismantle Medicare by ending the guarantee and replacing it with a voucher program and block grant and cut Medicaid by $732 billion. I was so upset last year when the SNAP program--programs like Meals on Wheels and assistance to children--was cut by $40 billion. Now they cut it by $125 billion. They want to repeal the Affordable Care Act. But let me just mention that everybody that talks about repealing it has health care. Every single one of them have health care. They reject the President's proposal for veterans and Job Corps while aiming to reduce the high unemployment rate among veterans. A cut of 24 percent to nondefense appropriations would mean $146 billion cut from veterans' health care. They cut transportation and infrastructure projects by $173 billion, phasing out the Essential Air Service programs to 160 small communities. The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Denham). The time of the gentlewoman has expired. Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield the gentlelady an additional 1 minute. Ms. BROWN of Florida. It eliminates Amtrak operational funds, resulting in 36 States and more than 20 million people losing Amtrak service. The transportation budget assumes no highway or transit investment in 2015. And while everyone knows that education is critical, they cut billions from programs like Head Start. To whom God has given much, much is expected. I certainly think more is expected from the Republican leadership in this House. As I said from the beginning, they remind me of ``The Wizard of Oz.'' This Republican House has no heart. Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Messer), my good friend. Mr. MESSER. Mr. Chairman, the RSC budget balances in 4 years. For most Americans, 4 years seems like a very long time. When they see budgets that balance in even 10 years, let alone 26 years, or not at all, they wonder what we are thinking. In the real world, folks can't spend money they don't have. Families have to balance their own budgets. They expect Washington to do the same. That is why I applaud this budget. It is full of tough choices, but it demonstrates that House Republicans aren't afraid to make the difficult decisions necessary to secure America's future and preserve the American Dream. It is called leadership. That means proposing simple answers--even when they are not easy ones. I commend Chairman Scalise and Mr. Woodall for crafting a plan that will balance the budget and create a healthy economy sooner than any other budget alternative. The RSC budget proposes a path that embraces the responsibility we have to future generations to leave America better than we found her. The unwillingness of Congress to make tough choices is putting our country on a road to ruin. Let's take the road less traveled. It may make all the difference. Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. The Acting CHAIR. The Committee will rise informally. The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Messer) assumed the chair. ____________________ MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE A message from the Senate by Ms. Curtis, one of its clerks, announced that the Senate has passed concurrent resolutions of the following titles in which the concurrence of the House is requested: S. Con. Res. 33. Concurrent resolution celebrating the 100th anniversary of the enactment of the Smith-Lever Act, which established the nationwide Cooperative Extension System. S. Con. Res. 35. Concurrent resolution providing for a conditional adjournment or recess of the Senate and an adjournment of the House of Representatives. The message also announced that pursuant to Public Law 105-292, as amended by Public Law 106-55, and as further amended by Public Law 107- 228, and Public Law 112-75, the Chair, on behalf of the President pro tempore, upon the recommendation of the Majority Leader, reappoints the following individual to the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom: Katrina Lantos Swett of New Hampshire. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Committee will resume its sitting. ____________________ CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015 The Committee resumed its sitting. Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Chairman, at this time it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot). Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Republican Study Committee's Back to Basics Budget for 2015. The RSC's budget solves a problem that threatens the future well- being of this country, and that is the increasing size of the Federal Government's debt. The solution provided by the budget is simple. It requires the Federal Government to balance its budget in 4 years. Similar to the Ryan budget, the RSC proposal reduces discretionary spending, reforms Social Security, simplifies the Tax Code, and cuts wasteful spending, among other things. {time} 0945 I am particularly pleased with the RSC's inclusion of two of my bills that seek to eliminate some wasteful spending. We eliminate the Commission to Nowhere, and we eliminate the MAP [[Page 6105]] Act, and we save $10 million by doing that. Time and again, the Denali Commission has been found to perform duplicative work that should be carried out by State and local governments. This view is supported across the board, from Citizens Against Government Waste, to the Heritage Foundation, to even President Obama. In fact, the inspector general of the Denali Commission recently called it ``a congressional experiment that hasn't worked out'' and suggested that ``Congress put its money elsewhere.'' The waste within the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Market Access Program is also disturbing. The MAP program, though intended to increase international consumption of American products, has financed lavish international travel and marketing expenses for some of our already most successful companies. Under this program, taxpayer dollars have paid for international educational wine tastings from London to Mexico, and financed an animated series in Spain chronicling the adventures of a squirrel named Super Twiggy and his nemesis, the Colesterator. Our national debt stands at over $17 trillion. Such debt puts our country's security, economy, and everything else at risk. Let's pass this today. Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Chairman, I would ask my friend from Maryland if he has any speakers remaining. Mr. VAN HOLLEN. No, I do not. Mr. WOODALL. I would ask the gentleman if he would like to give me the opportunity to close? Mr. VAN HOLLEN. The gentleman is free to lead off. Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We have talked about tax breaks for the rich here. There are no such tax breaks in this budget. We have talked about the preservation of corporate loopholes. There are no such preservation of corporate loopholes in this budget. I will say it again. This is the only budget that we will vote on that includes the Tax Code Termination Act, which admits to one another that the tax system we have today is broken. Republicans and Democrats alike have riddled it beyond repair with special interest loopholes, exemptions, breaks, and special carve-outs. I, Mr. Chairman, am the cosponsor, the lead sponsor of the Fair Tax, the only proposal on Capitol Hill that abolishes every single deduction, exemption, exception in the Tax Code. So nonsense, if folks will suggest that this is a budget for special interests. Let me tell you what this is a budget for. This is a budget for working Americans, because, Mr. Chairman--you saw it earlier when the chairman of the Republican Study Committee held up this chart. The red line represents a pathway of economic ruin contained in the President's budget. The President talks about a balanced approach, and yet his approach never balances. The Republican Study Committee budget balances more quickly than any other budget proposal that we will discuss. Does it have to make tough choices to do it? Yes, it does. What is the benefit of those tough choices, Mr. Chairman? The benefit is in interest savings alone. If you support NIH, as I do, with just the interest savings between our budget and the President's budget, we couldn't just double NIH funding, we could triple it, not just this year but every year in the budget window. Mr. Chairman, on our current path, by 2017 we are going to be spending more on interest on the national debt than we spend on the entire Medicaid program to care for our children and our elderly. By 2020 we will spend more on interest on the national debt under the President's proposal than we will on all national security concerns combined. There is not a family in America, Mr. Chairman, that believes they can borrow their way into prosperity. The interest that we pay on the debt that the President proposes that this Nation borrow steals opportunities from our children. It is immoral to advance our generation today at the expense of generations tomorrow. Does this budget make tough choices? It does. There is only one budget that we will be considering today, Mr. Chairman, that takes steps to protect and preserve Social Security. That is the RSC budget. There are only two budgets that we will be considering today that take steps to ensure the solvency of Medicare for generations to come. That is the RSC budget and the Budget Committee budget. Mr. Chairman, you cannot talk about a balanced approach that does not balance. You cannot talk about making tough decisions if you are willing to do nothing to save those programs, Medicare and Social Security, that so many of our families back home rely on. We know those programs are headed towards destruction, which is why the RSC has made the very difficult choice to begin saving them today. It will only get harder if we put those decisions off until tomorrow. We say, do it today. I urge my colleagues to support the Republican Study Committee budget, as has been key voted out of organizations across this town. I will end as I began. I appreciate the gentleman from Maryland recognizing the support of those outside organizations, and those are organizations committed to balancing this budget. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, it would be great if we could all believe in magic. The gentleman says that their budget closes all the tax loopholes. No tax loopholes. In fact, he says theirs is the only budget that terminates the Tax Code all together, gets rid of it. That is interesting because, if you look at the revenue levels coming in under his budget, it is identical to the current Tax Code, every year, exactly as the Congressional Budget Office says, dollar for dollar. In fact, I think he said he got rid of it in fiscal year 2017 or so. But, gee, the dollars keep rolling in just as they would be if you didn't get rid of the Tax Code. And you know why? Because they don't close any of the special interest tax breaks. It is the status quo in terms of the revenue coming in. If we were, in fact, going to close some of those special interest tax breaks, so that we could reduce our deficits, then you wouldn't have those numbers that they have got in their budget resolution. Now, look, we all agree that we need to impose fiscal discipline. The question all along has been, how do we do it? Do we do it in a way where we share responsibility as Americans, or do we do it in a way where some people don't have to pay anything, which means everybody else has to get hit that much harder? Under the Republican budget, and under this Republican study group budget even more, they protect the very wealthy. You are doing great. But at the expense of everybody else. So the gentleman talks about more funds for the National Institutes of Health; they more than double the cuts to the National Institutes of Health from the earlier budget we saw, which, again, I would just remind our colleagues, it was the Republican chairman of the Appropriations Committee who said that the House Republican budget is draconian, that one. That is from Mr. Rogers. All right? So now this one is doubling down on draconian. And the question for us, as a country is, what are the consequences? What does that mean in people's lives? Well, it means real things. It means less funds for Head Start and early Head Start. It means a big cut to K-12 education. We have a bipartisan piece of legislation saying that Congress is already [[Page 6106]] failing to meet our commitments to special ed. We asked local school jurisdictions to take on the responsibility, it was the right thing to do, to make sure every kid got a good education. That was the right thing to do. But these guys would cut that program. So this is the wrong choice for America. Mr. Chairman, I urge our colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of the Republican Study Committee's budget proposal. Not only does the RSC budget balance in four years, reduce spending, and repeal Obamacare, the RSC budget proposal also recommends the House enact H.R. 352, the Tax Code Termination Act. This legislation, which I introduced at the beginning of the 113th Congress, would force Congress to debate comprehensive tax reform by sunsetting our current tax code in December 2017 and forcing Congress to enact a new tax system by July of that same year. This bipartisan legislation has the support of over 100 Members of Congress who support a variety of tax proposals. I am pleased that the authors of the RSC budget have a desire to see these proposals debated and our complicated tax code addressed by setting a date certain for scrapping our tax code. I look forward to voting in support of the Republican Study Committee's budget and working with my fellow members of the Republican Study Committee to see that happen. The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Denham). The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall). The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes appeared to have it. Recorded Vote Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote. A recorded vote was ordered. The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 133, noes 291, not voting 7, as follows: [Roll No. 175] AYES--133 Aderholt Amash Bachmann Bachus Barton Bentivolio Bishop (UT) Black Blackburn Brady (TX) Bridenstine Broun (GA) Bucshon Burgess Byrne Camp Campbell Carter Cassidy Chabot Chaffetz Coble Cole Collins (GA) Conaway Cook Cotton Culberson DeSantis DesJarlais Duncan (SC) Duncan (TN) Ellmers Farenthold Fincher Fleischmann Fleming Flores Franks (AZ) Gardner Garrett Gingrey (GA) Gohmert Goodlatte Gosar Gowdy Graves (GA) Graves (MO) Hall Harper Harris Hartzler Hensarling Holding Hudson Huelskamp Huizenga (MI) Hultgren Hunter Issa Jenkins Johnson, Sam Jordan King (IA) Kingston Labrador LaMalfa Lamborn Lance Lankford Latta Long Lummis Marchant Massie McCaul McClintock McHenry McKeon McMorris Rodgers Meadows Messer Mica Miller (FL) Miller (MI) Mullin Mulvaney Neugebauer Nunnelee Olson Palazzo Perry Petri Pittenger Poe (TX) Pompeo Price (GA) Ribble Rice (SC) Rigell Roe (TN) Rogers (AL) Rohrabacher Rokita Rooney Ross Royce Salmon Sanford Scalise Schock Schweikert Scott, Austin Sensenbrenner Sessions Shimkus Smith (MO) Smith (NE) Smith (TX) Stewart Stockman Stutzman Thornberry Tipton Walberg Weber (TX) Wenstrup Westmoreland Williams Wilson (SC) Woodall Yoder Yoho NOES--291 Amodei Barber Barletta Barr Barrow (GA) Bass Beatty Becerra Benishek Bera (CA) Bilirakis Bishop (GA) Bishop (NY) Blumenauer Bonamici Boustany Brady (PA) Braley (IA) Brooks (AL) Brooks (IN) Brown (FL) Brownley (CA) Buchanan Bustos Butterfield Calvert Cantor Capito Capps Capuano Cardenas Carney Carson (IN) Cartwright Castor (FL) Castro (TX) Chu Cicilline Clark (MA) Clarke (NY) Clay Cleaver Clyburn Coffman Cohen Collins (NY) Connolly Conyers Cooper Costa Courtney Cramer Crawford Crenshaw Crowley Cuellar Cummings Daines Davis (CA) Davis, Danny Davis, Rodney DeFazio DeGette Delaney DeLauro DelBene Denham Dent Deutch Diaz-Balart Dingell Doggett Doyle Duckworth Duffy Edwards Ellison Engel Enyart Eshoo Esty Farr Fattah Fitzpatrick Forbes Fortenberry Foster Foxx Frankel (FL) Frelinghuysen Fudge Gabbard Gallego Garamendi Garcia Gerlach Gibbs Gibson Granger Grayson Green, Al Green, Gene Griffin (AR) Griffith (VA) Grijalva Grimm Guthrie Gutierrez Hahn Hanabusa Hanna Hastings (FL) Hastings (WA) Heck (NV) Heck (WA) Herrera Beutler Higgins Himes Hinojosa Holt Honda Horsford Hoyer Huffman Hurt Israel Jeffries Johnson (GA) Johnson (OH) Johnson, E. B. Jolly Jones Joyce Kaptur Keating Kelly (IL) Kelly (PA) Kennedy Kildee Kilmer Kind King (NY) Kinzinger (IL) Kirkpatrick Kline Kuster Langevin Larsen (WA) Larson (CT) Latham Lee (CA) Levin Lipinski LoBiondo Loebsack Lofgren Lowenthal Lowey Lucas Luetkemeyer Lujan Grisham (NM) Lujan, Ben Ray (NM) Lynch Maffei Maloney, Carolyn Maloney, Sean Marino Matheson Matsui McCarthy (CA) McCarthy (NY) McCollum McDermott McGovern McIntyre McKinley McNerney Meehan Meeks Meng Michaud Miller, Gary Moore Moran Murphy (FL) Murphy (PA) Nadler Napolitano Neal Negrete McLeod Noem Nolan Nugent Nunes O'Rourke Owens Pallone Pascrell Pastor (AZ) Paulsen Payne Pearce Pelosi Peters (CA) Peters (MI) Peterson Pingree (ME) Pitts Pocan Polis Posey Price (NC) Quigley Rahall Rangel Reed Reichert Renacci Richmond Roby Rogers (KY) Rogers (MI) Ros-Lehtinen Roskam Rothfus Roybal-Allard Ruiz Ruppersberger Rush Ryan (OH) Ryan (WI) Sanchez, Linda T. Sanchez, Loretta Sarbanes Schakowsky Schiff Schneider Schrader Scott (VA) Scott, David Serrano Sewell (AL) Shea-Porter Sherman Shuster Simpson Sinema Sires Slaughter Smith (NJ) Smith (WA) Southerland Speier Stivers Swalwell (CA) Takano Terry Thompson (CA) Thompson (MS) Thompson (PA) Tiberi Tierney Titus Tonko Tsongas Turner Upton Valadao Van Hollen Vargas Veasey Vela Velazquez Visclosky Wagner Walden Walorski Walz Wasserman Schultz Waters Waxman Webster (FL) Welch Whitfield Wilson (FL) Wittman Wolf Womack Yarmuth Young (AK) Young (IN) NOT VOTING--7 Jackson Lee Lewis McAllister Miller, George Perlmutter Runyan Schwartz {time} 1020 Messrs. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois, MARINO, GARAMENDI, AMODEI, RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois, and Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.'' Messrs. SHIMKUS, MILLER of Florida, and SESSIONS changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.'' So the amendment was rejected. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. Amendment No. 5 in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Van Hollen The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Yoder). It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 printed in House Report 113-405. Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman I have an amendment at the desk. The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the following: SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015. (a) Declaration.--Congress declares that this resolution is the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2015 and that this resolution sets forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal year 2014 and for fiscal years 2016 through 2024. (b) Table of Contents.-- Sec. 1. Concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2015. TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS Sec. 101. Recommended levels and amounts. Sec. 102. Major functional categories. TITLE II--RESERVE FUNDS Sec. 201. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for job creation through investments and incentives. Sec. 202. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for the President's opportunity, growth, and security initiative. Sec. 203. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for increasing energy independence and security. Sec. 204. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for America's veterans and service members. [[Page 6107]] Sec. 205. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for additional tax relief for individuals and families. Sec. 206. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for the extension of expired or expiring tax provisions. Sec. 207. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for Medicare improvement. Sec. 208. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for Medicaid and children's health improvement. Sec. 209. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for extension of expiring health care provisions. Sec. 210. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for the health care workforce. Sec. 211. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for initiatives that benefit children. Sec. 212. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for college affordability and completion. Sec. 213. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for a competitive workforce. Sec. 214. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for rural counties and schools. Sec. 215. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for full funding of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Sec. 216. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. TITLE III--ESTIMATES OF DIRECT SPENDING Sec. 301. Direct spending. TITLE IV--ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS Sec. 401. Point of order against advance appropriations. Sec. 402. Adjustments to discretionary spending limits. Sec. 403. Costs of emergency needs, overseas contingency operations and disaster relief. Sec. 404. Budgetary treatment of certain discretionary administrative expenses. Sec. 405. Application and effect of changes in allocations and aggregates. Sec. 406. Reinstatement of pay-as-you-go. Sec. 407. Exercise of rulemaking powers. TITLE V--POLICY Sec. 501. Policy of the House on jobs: make it in America. Sec. 502. Policy of the House on surface transportation. Sec. 503. Policy of the House on tax reform and fairness for middle- class Americans. Sec. 504. Policy of the house on increasing the minimum wage. Sec. 505. Policy of the House on immigration reform. Sec. 506. Policy of the House on extension of emergency unemployment compensation. Sec. 507. Policy of the House on the earned income tax credit. Sec. 508. Policy of the House on women's empowerment: when women succeed, America succeeds. Sec. 509. Policy of the House on a national strategy to eradicate poverty and increase opportunity. Sec. 510. Policy of the House on Social Security reform that protects workers and retirees. Sec. 511. Policy of the House on protecting the Medicare guarantee for seniors. Sec. 512. Policy of the House on affordable health care coverage for working families. Sec. 513. Policy of the House on Medicaid. Sec. 514. Policy of the House on national security. Sec. 515. Policy of the House on climate change science. Sec. 516. Policy of the House on investments in early childhood education. Sec. 517. Policy of the House on taking a balanced approach to deficit reduction. Sec. 518. Policy statement on deficit reduction through the reduction of unnecessary and wasteful spending. Sec. 519. Policy of the House on the use of taxpayer funds. TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS. The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of fiscal years 2015 through 2024: (1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of this concurrent resolution: (A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as follows: Fiscal year 2015: $2,592,835,000,000. Fiscal year 2016: $2,759,265,000,000. Fiscal year 2017: $2,883,321,000,000. Fiscal year 2018: $3,000,046,000,000. Fiscal year 2019: $3,126,171,000,000. Fiscal year 2020: $3,264,915,000,000. Fiscal year 2021: $3,420,419,000,000. Fiscal year 2022: $3,654,473,000,000. Fiscal year 2023: $3,942,611,000,000. Fiscal year 2024: $4,138,354,000,000. (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal revenues should be changed are as follows: Fiscal year 2015: $58,994,000,000. Fiscal year 2016: $83,226,000,000. Fiscal year 2017: $93,898,000,000. Fiscal year 2018: $109,739,000,000. Fiscal year 2019: $111,486,000,000. Fiscal year 2020: $116,278,000,000. Fiscal year 2021: $125,768,000,000. Fiscal year 2022: $198,126,000,000. Fiscal year 2023: $316,093,000,000. Fiscal year 2024: $330,901,000,000. (2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement of this concurrent resolution, the appropriate levels of total new budget authority are as follows: Fiscal year 2015: $3,077,749,000,000. Fiscal year 2016: $3,233,596,000,000. Fiscal year 2017: $3,405,715,000,000. Fiscal year 2018: $3,570,429,000,000. Fiscal year 2019: $3,772,232,000,000. Fiscal year 2020: $3,966,966,000,000. Fiscal year 2021: $4,137,989,000,000. Fiscal year 2022: $4,369,350,000,000. Fiscal year 2023: $4,520,421,000,000. Fiscal year 2024: $4,668,170,000,000. (3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of this concurrent resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget outlays are as follows: Fiscal year 2015: $3,070,617,000,000. Fiscal year 2016: $3,323,895,000,000. Fiscal year 2017: $3,387,284,000,000. Fiscal year 2018: $3,438,886,000,000. Fiscal year 2019: $3,754,211,000,000. Fiscal year 2020: $3,932,822,000,000. Fiscal year 2021: $4,112,683,000,000. Fiscal year 2022: $4,357,729,000,000. Fiscal year 2023: $4,484,953,000,000. Fiscal year 2024: $4,617,936,000,000. (4) Deficits (on-budget).--For purposes of the enforcement of this concurrent resolution, the amounts of the deficits (on-budget) are as follows: Fiscal year 2015: $-477,782,000,000. Fiscal year 2016: $-494,630,000,000. Fiscal year 2017: $-503,963,000,000. Fiscal year 2018: $-538,840,000,000. Fiscal year 2019: $-628,040,000,000. Fiscal year 2020: $-667,907,000,000. Fiscal year 2021: $-692,264,000,000. Fiscal year 2022: $-683,256,000,000. Fiscal year 2023: $-542,342,000,000. Fiscal year 2024: $-479,582,000,000. (5) Debt subject to limit.--The appropriate levels of the public debt are as follows: Fiscal year 2015: $18,350,000,000,000. Fiscal year 2016: $19,001,000,000,000. Fiscal year 2017: $19,716,000,000,000. Fiscal year 2018: $20,484,000,000,000. Fiscal year 2019: $21,322,000,000,000. Fiscal year 2020: $22,191,000,000,000. Fiscal year 2021: $23,076,000,000,000. Fiscal year 2022: $23,943,000,000,000. Fiscal year 2023: $24,691,000,000,000. Fiscal year 2024: $25,411,000,000,000. (6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels of debt held by the public are as follows: Fiscal year 2015: $13,259,000,000,000. Fiscal year 2016: $13,792,000,000,000. Fiscal year 2017: $14,344,000,000,000. Fiscal year 2018: $14,932,000,000,000. Fiscal year 2019: $15,628,000,000,000. Fiscal year 2020: $16,390,000,000,000. Fiscal year 2021: $17,206,000,000,000. Fiscal year 2022: $18,060,000,000,000. Fiscal year 2023: $18,789,000,000,000. Fiscal year 2024: $19,498,000,000,000. SEC. 102. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES. The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years 2015 through 2024 for each major functional category are: (1) National Defense (050): Fiscal year 2015: (A) New budget authority, $529,658,000,000. (B) Outlays, $567,234,000,000. Fiscal year 2016: (A) New budget authority, $569,522,000,000. (B) Outlays, $570,714,000,000. Fiscal year 2017: (A) New budget authority, $577,616,000,000. (B) Outlays, $570,915,000,000. Fiscal year 2018: (A) New budget authority, $586,874,000,000. (B) Outlays, $573,937,000,000. Fiscal year 2019: (A) New budget authority, $595,151,000,000. (B) Outlays, $586,489,000,000. Fiscal year 2020: (A) New budget authority, $604,440,000,000. (B) Outlays, $595,520,000,000. Fiscal year 2021: (A) New budget authority, $613,753,000,000. (B) Outlays, $604,663,000,000. Fiscal year 2022: (A) New budget authority, $624,066,000,000. (B) Outlays, $619,436,000,000. Fiscal year 2023: (A) New budget authority, $639,335,000,000. (B) Outlays, $627,590,000,000. Fiscal year 2024: (A) New budget authority, $656,669,000,000. (B) Outlays, $637,835,000,000. (2) International Affairs (150): Fiscal year 2015: (A) New budget authority, $43,703,000,000. (B) Outlays, $43,562,000,000. Fiscal year 2016: (A) New budget authority, $46,680,000,000. (B) Outlays, $43,601,000,000. Fiscal year 2017: (A) New budget authority, $47,736,000,000. (B) Outlays, $44,731,000,000. Fiscal year 2018: (A) New budget authority, $48,838,000,000. (B) Outlays, $45,649,000,000. Fiscal year 2019: (A) New budget authority, $49,917,000,000. (B) Outlays, $46,590,000,000. [[Page 6108]] Fiscal year 2020: (A) New budget authority, $51,065,000,000. (B) Outlays, $47,349,000,000. Fiscal year 2021: (A) New budget authority, $51,734,000,000. (B) Outlays, $48,065,000,000. Fiscal year 2022: (A) New budget authority, $53,172,000,000. (B) Outlays, $49,276,000,000. Fiscal year 2023: (A) New budget authority, $54,361,000,000. (B) Outlays, $50,360,000,000. Fiscal year 2024: (A) New budget authority, $55,602,000,000. (B) Outlays, $51,486,000,000. (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250): Fiscal year 2015: (A) New budget authority, $29,307,000,000. (B) Outlays, $29,239,000,000. Fiscal year 2016: (A) New budget authority, $30,476,000,000. (B) Outlays, $29,895,000,000. Fiscal year 2017: (A) New budget authority, $31,138,000,000. (B) Outlays, $30,597,000,000. Fiscal year 2018: (A) New budget authority, $31,836,000,000. (B) Outlays, $31,307,000,000. Fiscal year 2019: (A) New budget authority, $32,535,000,000. (B) Outlays, $31,942,000,000. Fiscal year 2020: (A) New budget authority, $33,272,000,000. (B) Outlays, $32,670,000,000. Fiscal year 2021: (A) New budget authority, $34,014,000,000. (B) Outlays, $33,307,000,000. Fiscal year 2022: (A) New budget authority, $34,782,000,000. (B) Outlays, $34,057,000,000. Fiscal year 2023: (A) New budget authority, $35,556,000,000. (B) Outlays, $34,818,000,000. Fiscal year 2024: (A) New budget authority, $36,360,000,000. (B) Outlays, $35,603,000,000. (4) Energy (270): Fiscal year 2015: (A) New budget authority, $7,178,000,000. (B) Outlays, $7,631,000,000. Fiscal year 2016: (A) New budget authority, $6,636,000,000. (B) Outlays, $5,566,000,000. Fiscal year 2017: (A) New budget authority, $5,012,000,000. (B) Outlays, $3,862,000,000. Fiscal year 2018: (A) New budget authority, $4,816,000,000. (B) Outlays, $3,813,000,000. Fiscal year 2019: (A) New budget authority, $4,902,000,000. (B) Outlays, $4,156,000,000. Fiscal year 2020: (A) New budget authority, $4,994,000,000. (B) Outlays, $4,428,000,000. Fiscal year 2021: (A) New budget authority, $5,111,000,000. (B) Outlays, $4,677,000,000. Fiscal year 2022: (A) New budget authority, $5,226,000,000. (B) Outlays, $4,862,000,000. Fiscal year 2023: (A) New budget authority, $5,445,000,000. (B) Outlays, $5,069,000,000. Fiscal year 2024: (A) New budget authority, $5,982,000,000. (B) Outlays, $5,291,000,000. (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300): Fiscal year 2015: (A) New budget authority, $35,996,000,000. (B) Outlays, $40,282,000,000. Fiscal year 2016: (A) New budget authority, $39,468,000,000. (B) Outlays, $41,208,000,000. Fiscal year 2017: (A) New budget authority, $40,842,000,000. (B) Outlays, $41,286,000,000. Fiscal year 2018: (A) New budget authority, $42,546,000,000. (B) Outlays, $42,499,000,000. Fiscal year 2019: (A) New budget authority, $43,691,000,000. (B) Outlays, $43,255,000,000. Fiscal year 2020: (A) New budget authority, $45,297,000,000. (B) Outlays, $44,740,000,000. Fiscal year 2021: (A) New budget authority, $45,705,000,000. (B) Outlays, $45,414,000,000. Fiscal year 2022: (A) New budget authority, $46,982,000,000. (B) Outlays, $46,520,000,000. Fiscal year 2023: (A) New budget authority, $48,189,000,000. (B) Outlays, $47,794,000,000. Fiscal year 2024: (A) New budget authority, $49,571,000,000. (B) Outlays, $48,545,000,000. (6) Agriculture (350): Fiscal year 2015: (A) New budget authority, $16,492,000,000. (B) Outlays, $16,430,000,000. Fiscal year 2016: (A) New budget authority, $22,171,000,000. (B) Outlays, $21,592,000,000. Fiscal year 2017: (A) New budget authority, $21,822,000,000. (B) Outlays, $20,971,000,000. Fiscal year 2018: (A) New budget authority, $21,707,000,000. (B) Outlays, $20,920,000,000. Fiscal year 2019: (A) New budget authority, $21,243,000,000. (B) Outlays, $20,555,000,000. Fiscal year 2020: (A) New budget authority, $21,387,000,000. (B) Outlays, $20,858,000,000. Fiscal year 2021: (A) New budget authority, $21,892,000,000. (B) Outlays, $21,321,000,000. Fiscal year 2022: (A) New budget authority, $22,090,000,000. (B) Outlays, $21,569,000,000. Fiscal year 2023: (A) New budget authority, $22,581,000,000. (B) Outlays, $22,044,000,000. Fiscal year 2024: (A) New budget authority, $22,957,000,000. (B) Outlays, $22,443,000,000. (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370): Fiscal year 2015: (A) New budget authority, $9,378,000,000. (B) Outlays, $-1,205,000,000. Fiscal year 2016: (A) New budget authority, $13,392,000,000. (B) Outlays, $-1,596,000,000. Fiscal year 2017: (A) New budget authority, $11,227,000,000. (B) Outlays, $-4,723,000,000. Fiscal year 2018: (A) New budget authority, $11,747,000,000. (B) Outlays, $-5,263,000,000. Fiscal year 2019: (A) New budget authority, $11,383,000,000. (B) Outlays, $-10,550,000,000. Fiscal year 2020: (A) New budget authority, $13,715,000,000. (B) Outlays, $-8,647,000,000. Fiscal year 2021: (A) New budget authority, $13,025,000,000. (B) Outlays, $-4,179,000,000. Fiscal year 2022: (A) New budget authority, $14,142,000,000. (B) Outlays, $-4,528,000,000. Fiscal year 2023: (A) New budget authority, $14,326,000,000. (B) Outlays, $-5,476,000,000. Fiscal year 2024: (A) New budget authority, $14,798,000,000. (B) Outlays, $-6,172,000,000. (8) Transportation (400): Fiscal year 2015: (A) New budget authority, $103,315,000,000. (B) Outlays, $96,274,000,000. Fiscal year 2016: (A) New budget authority, $105,625,000,000. (B) Outlays, $103,067,000,000. Fiscal year 2017: (A) New budget authority, $106,708,000,000. (B) Outlays, $106,759,000,000. Fiscal year 2018: (A) New budget authority, $107,919,000,000. (B) Outlays, $108,962,000,000. Fiscal year 2019: (A) New budget authority, $90,697,000,000. (B) Outlays, $108,008,000,000. Fiscal year 2020: (A) New budget authority, $91,764,000,000. (B) Outlays, $104,444,000,000. Fiscal year 2021: (A) New budget authority, $92,870,000,000. (B) Outlays, $103,343,000,000. Fiscal year 2022: (A) New budget authority, $94,030,000,000. (B) Outlays, $103,978,000,000. Fiscal year 2023: (A) New budget authority, $95,210,000,000. (B) Outlays, $104,980,000,000. Fiscal year 2024: (A) New budget authority, $96,439,000,000. (B) Outlays, $106,003,000,000. (9) Community and Regional Development (450): Fiscal year 2015: (A) New budget authority, $18,272,000,000. (B) Outlays, $25,125,000,000. Fiscal year 2016: (A) New budget authority, $13,387,000,000. (B) Outlays, $22,701,000,000. Fiscal year 2017: (A) New budget authority, $13,337,000,000. (B) Outlays, $22,180,000,000. Fiscal year 2018: (A) New budget authority, $13,462,000,000. (B) Outlays, $19,041,000,000. Fiscal year 2019: (A) New budget authority, $13,408,000,000. (B) Outlays, $18,556,000,000. Fiscal year 2020: (A) New budget authority, $13,275,000,000. (B) Outlays, $17,975,000,000. Fiscal year 2021: (A) New budget authority, $13,498,000,000. (B) Outlays, $15,797,000,000. Fiscal year 2022: (A) New budget authority, $13,532,000,000. (B) Outlays, $13,808,000,000. Fiscal year 2023: (A) New budget authority, $13,775,000,000. (B) Outlays, $13,601,000,000. Fiscal year 2024: (A) New budget authority, $14,068,000,000. (B) Outlays, $13,725,000,000. (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services (500): Fiscal year 2015: (A) New budget authority, $95,795,000,000. (B) Outlays, $101,125,000,000. Fiscal year 2016: (A) New budget authority, $101,357,000,000. (B) Outlays, $103,966,000,000. Fiscal year 2017: (A) New budget authority, $111,276,000,000. (B) Outlays, $105,786,000,000. Fiscal year 2018: (A) New budget authority, $116,381,000,000. (B) Outlays, $113,148,000,000. Fiscal year 2019: (A) New budget authority, $119,772,000,000. (B) Outlays, $117,486,000,000. [[Page 6109]] Fiscal year 2020: (A) New budget authority, $122,145,000,000. (B) Outlays, $120,521,000,000. Fiscal year 2021: (A) New budget authority, $124,411,000,000. (B) Outlays, $123,151,000,000. Fiscal year 2022: (A) New budget authority, $125,730,000,000. (B) Outlays, $125,437,000,000. Fiscal year 2023: (A) New budget authority, $126,673,000,000. (B) Outlays, $126,993,000,000. Fiscal year 2024: (A) New budget authority, $126,886,000,000. (B) Outlays, $128,011,000,000. (11) Health (550): Fiscal year 2015: (A) New budget authority, $490,900,000,000. (B) Outlays, $492,926,000,000. Fiscal year 2016: (A) New budget authority, $554,738,000,000. (B) Outlays, $557,377,000,000. Fiscal year 2017: (A) New budget authority, $611,852,000,000. (B) Outlays, $609,361,000,000. Fiscal year 2018: (A) New budget authority, $635,432,000,000. (B) Outlays, $635,628,000,000. Fiscal year 2019: (A) New budget authority, $669,537,000,000. (B) Outlays, $668,913,000,000. Fiscal year 2020: (A) New budget authority, $714,614,000,000. (B) Outlays, $703,684,000,000. Fiscal year 2021: (A) New budget authority, $743,224,000,000. (B) Outlays, $741,798,000,000. Fiscal year 2022: (A) New budget authority, $782,412,000,000. (B) Outlays, $780,624,000,000. Fiscal year 2023: (A) New budget authority, $823,381,000,000. (B) Outlays, $821,591,000,000. Fiscal year 2024: (A) New budget authority, $866,300,000,000. (B) Outlays, $864,887,000,000. (12) Medicare (570): Fiscal year 2015: (A) New budget authority, $524,018,000,000. (B) Outlays, $523,974,000,000. Fiscal year 2016: (A) New budget authority, $562,812,000,000. (B) Outlays, $562,696,000,000. Fiscal year 2017: (A) New budget authority, $573,622,000,000. (B) Outlays, $573,531,000,000. Fiscal year 2018: (A) New budget authority, $597,086,000,000. (B) Outlays, $596,995,000,000. Fiscal year 2019: (A) New budget authority, $659,248,000,000. (B) Outlays, $659,148,000,000. Fiscal year 2020: (A) New budget authority, $706,542,000,000. (B) Outlays, $706,444,000,000. Fiscal year 2021: (A) New budget authority, $755,439,000,000. (B) Outlays, $755,340,000,000. Fiscal year 2022: (A) New budget authority, $836,435,000,000. (B) Outlays, $836,328,000,000. Fiscal year 2023: (A) New budget authority, $858,792,000,000. (B) Outlays, $858,682,000,000. Fiscal year 2024: (A) New budget authority, $887,443,000,000. (B) Outlays, $887,326,000,000. (13) Income Security (600): Fiscal year 2015: (A) New budget authority, $532,236,000,000. (B) Outlays, $529,617,000,000. Fiscal year 2016: (A) New budget authority, $543,824,000,000. (B) Outlays, $544,651,000,000. Fiscal year 2017: (A) New budget authority, $548,458,000,000. (B) Outlays, $544,538,000,000. Fiscal year 2018: (A) New budget authority, $552,957,000,000. (B) Outlays, $544,169,000,000. Fiscal year 2019: (A) New budget authority, $572,706,000,000. (B) Outlays, $568,006,000,000. Fiscal year 2020: (A) New budget authority, $585,943,000,000. (B) Outlays, $581,295,000,000. Fiscal year 2021: (A) New budget authority, $600,055,000,000. (B) Outlays, $594,959,000,000. Fiscal year 2022: (A) New budget authority, $618,793,000,000. (B) Outlays, $618,076,000,000. Fiscal year 2023: (A) New budget authority, $627,951,000,000. (B) Outlays, $622,337,000,000. Fiscal year 2024: (A) New budget authority, $635,638,000,000. (B) Outlays, $624,722,000,000. (14) Social Security (650): Fiscal year 2015: (A) New budget authority, $31,442,000,000. (B) Outlays, $31,517,000,000. Fiscal year 2016: (A) New budget authority, $34,245,000,000. (B) Outlays, $34,283,000,000. Fiscal year 2017: (A) New budget authority, $37,133,000,000. (B) Outlays, $37,133,000,000. Fiscal year 2018: (A) New budget authority, $40,138,000,000. (B) Outlays, $40,138,000,000. Fiscal year 2019: (A) New budget authority, $43,383,000,000. (B) Outlays, $43,383,000,000. Fiscal year 2020: (A) New budget authority, $46,747,000,000. (B) Outlays, $46,747,000,000. Fiscal year 2021: (A) New budget authority, $50,255,000,000. (B) Outlays, $50,255,000,000. Fiscal year 2022: (A) New budget authority, $53,941,000,000. (B) Outlays, $53,941,000,000. Fiscal year 2023: (A) New budget authority, $57,800,000,000. (B) Outlays, $57,800,000,000. Fiscal year 2024: (A) New budget authority, $58,441,000,000. (B) Outlays, $58,441,000,000. (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700): Fiscal year 2015: (A) New budget authority, $154,027,000,000. (B) Outlays, $153,028,000,000. Fiscal year 2016: (A) New budget authority, $166,618,000,000. (B) Outlays, $165,877,000,000. Fiscal year 2017: (A) New budget authority, $164,907,000,000. (B) Outlays, $164,503,000,000. Fiscal year 2018: (A) New budget authority, $162,770,000,000. (B) Outlays, $162,558,000,000. Fiscal year 2019: (A) New budget authority, $174,305,000,000. (B) Outlays, $174,022,000,000. Fiscal year 2020: (A) New budget authority, $179,269,000,000. (B) Outlays, $178,534,000,000. Fiscal year 2021: (A) New budget authority, $183,571,000,000. (B) Outlays, $182,736,000,000. Fiscal year 2022: (A) New budget authority, $195,680,000,000. (B) Outlays, $194,736,000,000. Fiscal year 2023: (A) New budget authority, $192,458,000,000. (B) Outlays, $191,491,000,000. Fiscal year 2024: (A) New budget authority, $189,292,000,000. (B) Outlays, $188,262,000,000. (16) Administration of Justice (750): Fiscal year 2015: (A) New budget authority, $54,730,000,000. (B) Outlays, $48,395,000,000. Fiscal year 2016: (A) New budget authority, $59,345,000,000. (B) Outlays, $56,655,000,000. Fiscal year 2017: (A) New budget authority, $59,120,000,000. (B) Outlays, $62,730,000,000. Fiscal year 2018: (A) New budget authority, $60,693,000,000. (B) Outlays, $65,253,000,000. Fiscal year 2019: (A) New budget authority, $62,467,000,000. (B) Outlays, $63,193,000,000. Fiscal year 2020: (A) New budget authority, $64,404,000,000. (B) Outlays, $63,976,000,000. Fiscal year 2021: (A) New budget authority, $66,557,000,000. (B) Outlays, $66,016,000,000. Fiscal year 2022: (A) New budget authority, $69,298,000,000. (B) Outlays, $68,688,000,000. Fiscal year 2023: (A) New budget authority, $71,399,000,000. (B) Outlays, $70,765,000,000. Fiscal year 2024: (A) New budget authority, $73,573,000,000. (B) Outlays, $72,916,000,000. (17) General Government (800): Fiscal year 2015: (A) New budget authority, $25,355,000,000. (B) Outlays, $24,745,000,000. Fiscal year 2016: (A) New budget authority, $25,326,000,000. (B) Outlays, $25,123,000,000. Fiscal year 2017: (A) New budget authority, $26,243,000,000. (B) Outlays, $26,038,000,000. Fiscal year 2018: (A) New budget authority, $27,389,000,000. (B) Outlays, $27,109,000,000. Fiscal year 2019: (A) New budget authority, $28,590,000,000. (B) Outlays, $28,102,000,000. Fiscal year 2020: (A) New budget authority, $29,462,000,000. (B) Outlays, $28,975,000,000. Fiscal year 2021: (A) New budget authority, $30,399,000,000. (B) Outlays, $29,924,000,000. Fiscal year 2022: (A) New budget authority, $31,357,000,000. (B) Outlays, $30,888,000,000. Fiscal year 2023: (A) New budget authority, $32,261,000,000. (B) Outlays, $31,799,000,000. Fiscal year 2024: (A) New budget authority, $33,236,000,000. (B) Outlays, $32,760,000,000. (18) Net Interest (900): Fiscal year 2015: (A) New budget authority, $366,897,000,000. (B) Outlays, $366,897,000,000. Fiscal year 2016: (A) New budget authority, $423,329,000,000. (B) Outlays, $423,329,000,000. Fiscal year 2017: (A) New budget authority, $500,508,000,000. (B) Outlays, $500,508,000,000. Fiscal year 2018: (A) New budget authority, $589,466,000,000. (B) Outlays, $589,466,000,000. Fiscal year 2019: (A) New budget authority, $665,970,000,000. (B) Outlays, $665,970,000,000. Fiscal year 2020: (A) New budget authority, $731,425,000,000. (B) Outlays, $731,425,000,000. Fiscal year 2021: [[Page 6110]] (A) New budget authority, $787,730,000,000. (B) Outlays, $787,730,000,000. Fiscal year 2022: (A) New budget authority, $842,243,000,000. (B) Outlays, $842,243,000,000. Fiscal year 2023: (A) New budget authority, $893,181,000,000. (B) Outlays, $893,181,000,000. Fiscal year 2024: (A) New budget authority, $936,153,000,000. (B) Outlays, $936,153,000,000. (19) Allowances (920): Fiscal year 2015: (A) New budget authority, $2,225,000,000. (B) Outlays, $3,102,000,000. Fiscal year 2016: (A) New budget authority, $-1,978,000,000. (B) Outlays, $943,000,000. Fiscal year 2017: (A) New budget authority, $790,000,000. (B) Outlays, $3,705,000,000. Fiscal year 2018: (A) New budget authority, $2,328,000,000. (B) Outlays, $5,288,000,000. Fiscal year 2019: (A) New budget authority, $3,701,000,000. (B) Outlays, $6,458,000,000. Fiscal year 2020: (A) New budget authority, $-912,000,000. (B) Outlays, $3,052,000,000. Fiscal year 2021: (A) New budget authority, $312,000,000. (B) Outlays, $3,896,000,000. Fiscal year 2022: (A) New budget authority, $3,654,000,000. (B) Outlays, $5,977,000,000. Fiscal year 2023: (A) New budget authority, $9,109,000,000. (B) Outlays, $10,868,000,000. Fiscal year 2024: (A) New budget authority, $15,860,000,000. (B) Outlays, $16,770,000,000. (20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950): Fiscal year 2015: (A) New budget authority, $-78,532,000,000. (B) Outlays, $-78,532,000,000. Fiscal year 2016: (A) New budget authority, $-83,378,000,000. (B) Outlays, $-83,378,000,000. Fiscal year 2017: (A) New budget authority, $-83,632,000,000. (B) Outlays, $-83,632,000,000. Fiscal year 2018: (A) New budget authority, $-83,956,000,000. (B) Outlays, $-83,956,000,000. Fiscal year 2019: (A) New budget authority, $-90,374,000,000. (B) Outlays, $-90,374,000,000. Fiscal year 2020: (A) New budget authority, $-91,882,000,000. (B) Outlays, $-91,882,000,000. Fiscal year 2021: (A) New budget authority, $-95,566,000,000. (B) Outlays, $-95,566,000,000. Fiscal year 2022: (A) New budget authority, $-98,215,000,000. (B) Outlays, $-98,215,000,000. Fiscal year 2023: (A) New budget authority, $-101,362,000,000. (B) Outlays, $-101,362,000,000. Fiscal year 2024: (A) New budget authority, $-107,098,000,000. (B) Outlays, $-107,098,000,000. (21) Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on Terrorism (970): Fiscal year 2015: (A) New budget authority, $85,357,000,000. (B) Outlays, $49,250,000,000. Fiscal year 2016: (A) New budget authority, $0. (B) Outlays, $25,625,000,000. Fiscal year 2017: (A) New budget authority, $0. (B) Outlays, $6,504,000,000. Fiscal year 2018: (A) New budget authority, $0. (B) Outlays, $2,225,000,000. Fiscal year 2019: (A) New budget authority, $0. (B) Outlays, $902,000,000. Fiscal year 2020: (A) New budget authority, $0. (B) Outlays, $714,000,000. Fiscal year 2021: (A) New budget authority, $0. (B) Outlays, $35,000,000. Fiscal year 2022: (A) New budget authority, $0. (B) Outlays, $27,000,000. Fiscal year 2023: (A) New budget authority, $0. (B) Outlays, $27,000,000. Fiscal year 2024: (A) New budget authority, $0. (B) Outlays, $27,000,000. TITLE II--RESERVE FUNDS SEC. 201. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR JOB CREATION THROUGH INVESTMENTS AND INCENTIVES. The chairman of the House Committee on the Budget may revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report that provides for robust Federal investments in America's infrastructure, incentives for businesses, and support for communities or other measures that create jobs for Americans and boost the economy. The revisions may be made for measures that-- (1) provide for additional investments in rail, aviation, harbors (including harbor maintenance dredging), seaports, inland waterway systems, public housing, broadband, energy, water, and other infrastructure; (2) provide for additional investments in other areas that would help businesses and other employers create new jobs; and (3) provide additional incentives, including tax incentives, to help small businesses, nonprofits, States, and communities expand investment, train, hire, and retain private-sector workers and public service employees; by the amounts provided in such measure if such measure does not increase the deficit for either of the following time periods: fiscal year 2014 to fiscal year 2019 or fiscal year 2014 to fiscal year 2024. SEC. 202. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR THE PRESIDENT'S OPPORTUNITY, GROWTH, AND SECURITY INITIATIVE. (a) In General.--The chairman of the House Committee on the Budget may revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report that increases, by the same amounts for defense and non-defense, the 2015 limits on discretionary spending in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 by the amounts provided in such measure if such measure does not increase the deficit for fiscal year 2014 to fiscal year 2024. (b) Funding of Additional Priorities.--The increase in the discretionary caps will allow additional funding for key priorities, including-- (1) enhance early childhood and K-12 education; (2) expand scientific research and innovation funding; (3) provide jobs and meet infrastructure needs; (4) expand opportunity and mobility for Americans; (5) enhance public health, safety, and security; (6) make the government more efficient and effective; and (7) promote military readiness. SEC. 203. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR INCREASING ENERGY INDEPENDENCE AND SECURITY. The chairman of the House Committee on the Budget may revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report that-- (1) provides tax incentives for or otherwise encourages the production of renewable energy or increased energy efficiency; (2) encourages investment in emerging clean energy or vehicle technologies or carbon capture and sequestration; (3) provides additional resources for oversight and expanded enforcement activities to crack down on speculation in and manipulation of oil and gas markets, including derivatives markets; (4) limits and provides for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions; (5) assists businesses, industries, States, communities, the environment, workers, or households as the United States moves toward reducing and offsetting the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions; or (6) facilitates the training of workers for these industries (``clean energy jobs''); by the amounts provided in such measure if such measure would not increase the deficit for either of the following time periods: fiscal year 2014 to fiscal year 2019 or fiscal year 2014 to fiscal year 2024. SEC. 204. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR AMERICA'S VETERANS AND SERVICE MEMBERS. The chairman of the House Committee on the Budget may revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report that-- (1) enhances the delivery of health care to the Nation's veterans and service members, including the treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder and other mental illnesses, and increasing the capacity to address health care needs unique to women veterans; (2) makes improvements to the Post 9/11 GI Bill to ensure that veterans receive the educational benefits they need to maximize their employment opportunities; (3) improves disability benefits or evaluations for wounded or disabled military personnel or veterans, including measures to expedite the claims process; (4) expands eligibility to permit additional disabled military retirees to receive both disability compensation and retired pay (concurrent receipt); or (5) eliminates the offset between Survivor Benefit Plan annuities and veterans' dependency and indemnity compensation; by the amounts provided in such measure if such measure would not increase the deficit for either of the following time periods: fiscal year 2014 to fiscal year 2019 or fiscal year 2014 to fiscal year 2024. SEC. 205. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR ADDITIONAL TAX RELIEF FOR INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES. The chairman of the House Committee on the Budget may revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report that provides additional tax relief to individuals and families, such as expanding tax relief provided by the refundable child credit, by the amounts provided in such measure if such measure would not increase the deficit for either of the following time periods: fiscal [[Page 6111]] year 2014 to fiscal year 2019 or fiscal year 2014 to fiscal year 2024. SEC. 206. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR THE EXTENSION OF EXPIRED OR EXPIRING TAX PROVISIONS. The chairman of the House Committee on the Budget may revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report that extends provisions of the tax code that have expired or will expire in the future, by the amounts provided in such measure if such measure would not increase the deficit for either of the following time periods: fiscal year 2014 to fiscal year 2019 or fiscal year 2014 to fiscal year 2024. SEC. 207. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR MEDICARE IMPROVEMENT. The chairman of the House Committee on the Budget may revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report that makes improvements to Medicare, including making reforms to the Medicare payment system for physicians that build on delivery reforms underway, such as advancement of new care models, and-- (1) changes incentives to encourage efficiency and higher quality care in a manner consistent with the goals of fiscal sustainability; (2) improves payment accuracy to encourage efficient use of resources and ensure that patient-centered primary care receives appropriate compensation; (3) supports innovative programs to improve coordination of care among all providers serving a patient in all appropriate settings; (4) holds providers accountable for their utilization patterns and quality of care; and (5) makes no changes that reduce benefits available to seniors and individuals with disabilities in Medicare; by the amounts provided, together with any savings from ending Overseas Contingency Operations, in such measure if such measure would not increase the deficit for either of the following time periods: fiscal year 2014 to fiscal year 2019 or fiscal year 2014 to fiscal year 2024. SEC. 208. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR MEDICAID AND CHILDREN'S HEALTH IMPROVEMENT. The chairman of the House Committee on the Budget may revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report that improves Medicaid or other children's health programs, by the amounts provided in such measure if such measure would not increase the deficit for either of the following time periods: fiscal year 2014 to fiscal year 2019 or fiscal year 2014 to fiscal year 2024. Such improvements may include demonstrations around psychiatric care for special populations and helping states improve the provision of long-term care. SEC. 209. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR EXTENSION OF EXPIRING HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS. The chairman of the House Committee on the Budget may revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report that extends expiring Medicare, Medicaid, or other health provisions, by the amounts provided in such measure if such measure would not increase the deficit for either of the following time periods: fiscal year 2014 to fiscal year 2019 or fiscal year 2014 to fiscal year 2024. SEC. 210. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR THE HEALTH CARE WORKFORCE. The chairman of the House Committee on the Budget may revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report that improves the contemporary health care workforce's ability to meet emerging demands, by the amounts provided in such measure if such measure would not increase the deficit for either of the following time periods: fiscal year 2014 to fiscal year 2019 or fiscal year 2014 to fiscal year 2024. Such improvements may include an expansion of the National Health Service Corps, an extension of the enhanced Medicaid primary care reimbursement rates that bring Medicaid primary care payment rates up to Medicare levels using Federal funds, and an expansion of the enhanced reimbursement rates to mid-level providers who practice independently. SEC. 211. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR INITIATIVES THAT BENEFIT CHILDREN. The chairman of the House Committee on the Budget may revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report that improves the lives of children by the amounts provided in such measure if such measure would not increase the deficit for either of the following time periods: fiscal year 2014 to fiscal year 2019 or fiscal year 2014 to fiscal year 2024. Improvements may include: (1) Extension and expansion of child care assistance. (2) Changes to foster care to prevent child abuse and neglect and keep more children safely in their homes. (3) Changes to child support enforcement to encourage increased parental support for children, particularly from non-custodial parents, including legislation that results in a greater share of collected child support reaching the child or encourages States to provide access and visitation services to improve fathers' relationships with their children. Such changes could reflect efforts to ensure that States have the necessary resources to collect all child support that is owed to families and to allow them to pass 100 percent of support on to families without financial penalty. When 100 percent of child support payments are passed to the child, rather than to administrative expenses, program integrity is improved and child support participation increases. (4) Regular increases in funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) to put the Federal Government on a 10-year path to fulfill its commitment to America's children and schools by providing 40 percent of the average per pupil expenditure for special education. SEC. 212. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR COLLEGE AFFORDABILITY AND COMPLETION. The chairman of the House Committee on the Budget may revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report that makes college more affordable and increases college completion, including efforts to: encourage States and higher education institutions to improve educational outcomes and access for low- and moderate-income students; ensure continued full funding for Pell grants; or help borrowers lower and manage their student loan debt through refinancing and expanded repayment options, by the amounts provided in such measure if such measure would not increase the deficit for either of the following time periods: fiscal year 2014 to fiscal year 2019 or fiscal year 2014 to fiscal year 2024. SEC. 213. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR A COMPETITIVE WORKFORCE. The chairman of the House Committee on the Budget may revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report that helps ensure that all Americans have access to good-paying jobs by fully reauthorizing the Trade Adjustment Assistance program or funding other effective job training and employment programs by the amounts provided in such measure if such measure would not increase the deficit for either of the following time periods: fiscal year 2014 to fiscal year 2019 or fiscal year 2014 to fiscal year 2024. SEC. 214. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR RURAL COUNTIES AND SCHOOLS. The chairman of the House Committee on the Budget may revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report that makes changes to or provides for the reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self Determination Act of 2000 (Public Law 106- 393) by the amounts provided by that legislation for those purposes, if such legislation requires sustained yield timber harvests obviating the need for funding under Public Law 106- 393 in the future and would not increase the deficit for either of the following time periods: fiscal year 2014 to fiscal year 2019 or fiscal year 2014 to fiscal year 2024. SEC. 215. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR FULL FUNDING OF THE LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND. The chairman of the House Committee on the Budget may revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report that provides full funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund by the amounts provided in such measure if such measure would not increase the deficit for either of the following time periods: fiscal year 2014 to fiscal year 2019 or fiscal year 2014 to fiscal year 2024. SEC. 216. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING TRUST FUND. The chairman of the House Committee on the Budget may revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report that capitalizes the existing Affordable Housing Trust Fund by the amounts provided in such measure if such measure would not increase the deficit for either of the following time periods: fiscal year 2014 to fiscal year 2019 or fiscal year 2014 to fiscal year 2024. TITLE III--ESTIMATES OF DIRECT SPENDING SEC. 301. DIRECT SPENDING. (a) Means-Tested Direct Spending.-- (1) For means-tested direct spending, the average rate of growth in the total level of outlays during the 10-year period preceding fiscal year 2015 is 6.8 percent. (2) For means-tested direct spending, the estimated average rate of growth in the total level of outlays during the 10- year period beginning with fiscal year 2015 is 5.4 percent under current law. [[Page 6112]] (3) The following reforms are proposed in this concurrent resolution for means-tested direct spending: The resolution rejects cuts to the social safety net that lifts millions of people out of poverty. It assumes extension of the tax credits from the American Taxpayer Relief Act due to expire at the end of 2017. These credits include an increase in refundability of the child tax credit, relief for married earned income tax credit filers, and a larger earned income tax credit for larger families. It also assumes expansion of the earned income tax credit for childless workers, a group that has seen limited support from safety net programs. (b) Nonmeans-Tested Direct Spending.-- (1) For nonmeans-tested direct spending, the average rate of growth in the total level of outlays during the 10-year period preceding fiscal year 2015 is 5.7 percent. (2) For nonmeans-tested direct spending, the estimated average rate of growth in the total level of outlays during the 10-year period beginning with fiscal year 2015 is 5.4 percent under current law. (3) The following reforms are proposed in this concurrent resolution for nonmeans-tested direct spending: For Medicare, this budget rejects proposals to end the Medicare guarantee and shift rising health care costs onto seniors by replacing Medicare with vouchers or premium support for the purchase of private insurance. Such proposals will expose seniors and persons with disabilities on fixed incomes to unacceptable financial risks, and they will weaken the traditional Medicare program. Instead, this budget builds on the success of the Affordable Care Act, which made significant strides in health care cost containment and put into place a framework for continuous innovation. This budget supports comprehensive reforms to give physicians and other care providers incentives to provide high-quality, coordinated, efficient care, in a manner consistent with the goals of fiscal sustainability. It makes no changes that reduce benefits available to seniors and individuals with disabilities in Medicare. In other areas, the resolution assumes extension of emergency unemployment compensation, additional funding for surface transportation, a new initiative for early childhood education, and extension of the American Opportunity Tax Credit, which assists with higher education expenses. TITLE IV--ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS SEC. 401. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS. (a) In General.--In the House, except as provided in subsection (b), any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report making a general appropriation or continuing appropriation may not provide for advance appropriations. (b) Exceptions.--Advance appropriations may be provided-- (1) for fiscal year 2016 for programs, projects, activities, or accounts identified in the joint explanatory statement of managers to accompany this resolution under the heading ``Accounts Identified for Advance Appropriations'' in an aggregate amount not to exceed $28,852,000,000 in new budget authority, and for 2017, accounts separately identified under the same heading; and (2) for all discretionary programs administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs. (c) Definition.--In this section, the term ``advance appropriation'' means any new discretionary budget authority provided in a bill or joint resolution making general appropriations or any new discretionary budget authority provided in a bill or joint resolution making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2015 that first becomes available for any fiscal year after 2015. SEC. 402. ADJUSTMENTS TO DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMITS. (a) Program Integrity Initiatives Under the Budget Control Act.-- (1) Social security administration program integrity initiatives.--In the House, prior to consideration of any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report making appropriations for fiscal year 2015 that appropriates amounts as provided under section 251(b)(2)(B) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, the allocation to the House Committee on Appropriations shall be increased by the amount of additional budget authority and outlays resulting from that budget authority for fiscal year 2015. (2) Health care fraud and abuse control program.--In the House, prior to consideration of any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report making appropriations for fiscal year 2015 that appropriates amounts as provided under section 251(b)(2)(C) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, the allocation to the House Committee on Appropriations shall be increased by the amount of additional budget authority and outlays resulting from that budget authority for fiscal year 2015. (b) Additional Program Integrity Initiatives.-- (1) Internal revenue service tax compliance.--In the House, prior to consideration of any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report making appropriations for fiscal year 2015 that appropriates $9,445,000,000 for the Internal Revenue Service for enhanced enforcement to address the Federal tax gap (taxes owed but not paid) and provides an additional appropriation of up to $480,000,000, to the Internal Revenue Service and the amount is designated for enhanced tax enforcement to address the tax gap, the allocation to the House Committee on Appropriations shall be increased by the amount of additional budget authority and outlays resulting from that budget authority for fiscal year 2015. (2) Unemployment insurance program integrity activities.-- In the House, prior to consideration of any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report making appropriations for fiscal year 2015 that appropriates $133,000,000 for in-person reemployment and eligibility assessments, reemployment services and training referrals, and unemployment insurance improper payment reviews for the Department of Labor and provides an additional appropriation of up to $25,000,000, and the amount is designated for in- person reemployment and eligibility assessments, reemployment services and training referrals, and unemployment insurance improper payment reviews for the Department of Labor, the allocation to the House Committee on Appropriations shall be increased by the amount of additional budget authority and outlays resulting from that budget authority for fiscal year 2015. (c) Procedure for Adjustments.--In the House, prior to consideration of any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report, the chairman of the House Committee on the Budget shall make the adjustments set forth in this subsection for the incremental new budget authority in that measure and the outlays resulting from that budget authority if that measure meets the requirements set forth in this section. SEC. 403. COSTS OF EMERGENCY NEEDS, OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS AND DISASTER RELIEF. (a) Emergency Needs.--If any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report makes appropriations for discretionary amounts and such amounts are designated as necessary to meet emergency needs pursuant to this subsection, then new budget authority and outlays resulting from that budget authority shall not count for the purposes of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, or this resolution. (b) Overseas Contingency Operations.--In the House, if any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report makes appropriations for fiscal year 2015 for overseas contingency operations and such amounts are so designated pursuant to this paragraph, then the allocation to the House Committee on Appropriations may be adjusted by the amounts provided in such legislation for that purpose up to, but not to exceed, the total amount of budget authority the President requests for overseas contingency operations for 2015 in a detailed, account-level, submission to Congress and the new outlays resulting from that budget authority. (c) Disaster Relief.--In the House, if any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report makes appropriations for discretionary amounts and such amounts are designated for disaster relief pursuant to this subsection, then the allocation to the Committee on Appropriations, and as necessary, the aggregates in this resolution, shall be adjusted by the amount of new budget authority and outlays up to the amounts provided under section 251(b)(2)(D) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as adjusted by subsection (d). (d) Wildfire Suppression Operations.-- (1) Cap adjustment.--In the House, if any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report making appropriations for wildfire suppression operations for fiscal year 2015 that appropriates a base amount equal to 70 percent of the average cost of wildfire suppression operations over the previous 10 years and provides an additional appropriation of up to but not to exceed $1.4 billion for wildfire suppression operations and such amounts are so designated pursuant to this paragraph, then the allocation to the House Committee on Appropriations may be adjusted by the additional amount of budget authority above the base amount and the outlays resulting from that additional budget authority. (2) Deficit-neutral adjustment.--The total allowable discretionary adjustment for disaster relief pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 shall be reduced by an amount equivalent to the sum of allocation increases made pursuant to paragraph (1) in the previous year. (e) Procedure for Adjustments.--In the House, prior to consideration of any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report, the chairman of the House Committee on the Budget shall make the adjustments set forth in subsections (b), (c), and (d) for the incremental new budget authority in that measure and the outlays resulting from that budget authority if that measure meets the requirements set forth in this section. SEC. 404. BUDGETARY TREATMENT OF CERTAIN DISCRETIONARY ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES. (a) In General.--In the House, notwithstanding section 302(a)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, section 13301 of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, and section [[Page 6113]] 4001 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989, the joint explanatory statement accompanying the conference report on any concurrent resolution on the budget shall include in its allocation under section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to the House Committee on Appropriations amounts for the discretionary administrative expenses of the Social Security Administration and of the Postal Service. (b) Special Rule.--For purposes of applying section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, estimates of the level of total new budget authority and total outlays provided by a measure shall include any off-budget discretionary amounts. SEC. 405. APPLICATION AND EFFECT OF CHANGES IN ALLOCATIONS AND AGGREGATES. (a) Application.--In the House, any adjustments of allocations and aggregates made pursuant to this resolution shall-- (1) apply while that measure is under consideration; (2) take effect upon the enactment of that measure; and (3) be published in the Congressional Record as soon as practicable. (b) Effect of Changed Allocations and Aggregates.--Revised allocations and aggregates resulting from these adjustments shall be considered for the purposes of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 as allocations and aggregates included in this resolution. (c) Adjustments.--The chairman of the House Committee on the Budget may adjust the aggregates, allocations, and other levels in this resolution for legislation which has received final congressional approval in the same form by the House of Representatives and the Senate, but has yet to be presented to or signed by the President at the time of final consideration of this resolution. SEC. 406. REINSTATEMENT OF PAY-AS-YOU-GO. In the House, and pursuant to section 301(b)(8) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, for the remainder of the 113th Congress, the following shall apply in lieu of ``CUTGO'' rules and principles: (1)(A) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3), it shall not be in order to consider any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report if the provisions of such measure affecting direct spending and revenues have the net effect of increasing the on-budget deficit or reducing the on-budget surplus for the period comprising either-- (i) the current year, the budget year, and the four years following that budget year; or (ii) the current year, the budget year, and the nine years following that budget year. (B) The effect of such measure on the deficit or surplus shall be determined on the basis of estimates made by the Committee on the Budget. (C) For the purpose of this section, the terms ``budget year'', ``current year'', and ``direct spending'' have the meanings specified in section 250 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, except that the term ``direct spending'' shall also include provisions in appropriation Acts that make outyear modifications to substantive law as described in section 3(4) (C) of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010. (2) If a bill, joint resolution, or amendment is considered pursuant to a special order of the House directing the Clerk to add as a new matter at the end of such measure the provisions of a separate measure as passed by the House, the provisions of such separate measure as passed by the House shall be included in the evaluation under paragraph (1) of the bill, joint resolution, or amendment. (3)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the evaluation under paragraph (1) shall exclude a provision expressly designated as an emergency for purposes of pay-as- you-go principles in the case of a point of order under this clause against consideration of-- (i) a bill or joint resolution; (ii) an amendment made in order as original text by a special order of business; (iii) a conference report; or (iv) an amendment between the Houses. (B) In the case of an amendment (other than one specified in subparagraph (A)) to a bill or joint resolution, the evaluation under paragraph (1) shall give no cognizance to any designation of emergency. (C) If a bill, a joint resolution, an amendment made in order as original text by a special order of business, a conference report, or an amendment between the Houses includes a provision expressly designated as an emergency for purposes of pay-as-you-go principles, the Chair shall put the question of consideration with respect thereto. SEC. 407. EXERCISE OF RULEMAKING POWERS. The House adopts the provisions of this title-- (1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the House of Representatives and as such they shall be considered as part of the rules of the House, and these rules shall supersede other rules only to the extent that they are inconsistent with other such rules; and (2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of the House of Representatives to change those rules at any time, in the same manner, and to the same extent as in the case of any other rule of the House of Representatives. TITLE V--POLICY SEC. 501. POLICY OF THE HOUSE ON JOBS: MAKE IT IN AMERICA. (a) Findings.--The House finds that-- (1) the economy entered a deep recession in December 2007 that was worsened by a financial crisis in 2008-by January 2009, the private sector was shedding about 800,000 jobs per month; (2) actions by the President, Congress, and the Federal Reserve helped stem the crisis, and job creation resumed in 2010, with the economy creating 8.9 million private jobs over the past 49 consecutive months; (3) as part of a ``Make it in America'' agenda, United States manufacturing has been leading the Nation's economic recovery as domestic manufacturers regain their economic and competitive edge and a wave of insourcing jobs from abroad begins; (4) despite the job gains already made, job growth needs to accelerate and continue for an extended period for the economy to fully recover from the recession; and (5) job creation is vital to Nation building at home and to deficit reduction--CBO has noted that if the country were at full employment, the deficit would be about half its current size. (b) Policy.-- (1) In general.--It is the policy of this resolution that Congress should pursue a ``Make it in America'' agenda with a priority to consider and enact legislation to help create jobs, remove incentives to out-source jobs overseas and instead support incentives that bring jobs back to the United States, and help middle class families by increasing the minimum wage. (2) Jobs.--This resolution-- (A) provides funding to support President Obama's four- year, $302 billion surface transportation reauthorization proposal; (B) provides $1 billion for the President's proposal to establish a Veterans Job Corps; and (C) establishes a reserve fund that would allow for passage of additional job creation measures, including further infrastructure improvements and support for biomedical research that both creates jobs and advances scientific knowledge and health, or other spending or revenue proposals. SEC. 502. POLICY OF THE HOUSE ON SURFACE TRANSPORTATION. (a) Findings.--The House finds the following: (1) Supporting the President's four-year, $302 billion surface transportation reauthorization proposal will sharpen America's global competitive edge in the 21st century by allowing infrastructure expansion and modernization. (2) Many of our roads, bridges, and transit systems are in disrepair, and fail to move as many goods and people as the economy demands. The American Society of Engineers gives the United States infrastructure an overall grade of D+. (3) Deep cuts to our transportation funding over the next 10 years will hurt families and businesses at a time when we have major infrastructure needs and workers ready to do the job. (4) Increasing transportation investments improves our quality of life by building new ladders of opportunity-- improving our competitive edge, facilitating American exports, creating new jobs and increasing access to existing ones, and fostering economic growth, while also providing critical safety improvements and reduced commute times. (5) The highway trust fund provides critical funding for repairing, expanding, and modernizing roads, bridges, and transit systems, and according to recent CBO projections, it is expected to become insolvent this summer. This could force a halt to construction projects, which would put 700,000 jobs at risk. (b) Policy.--It is the policy of the House to provide funding in support of the President's proposed four-year, $302 billion surface transportation reauthorization that prevents the imminent insolvency of the highway trust fund and increases investment in our highway and transit programs. Such an investment sharpens our competitive edge, increases access to jobs, reduces commute times, makes our highways and transit systems safer, facilitates American exports, creates jobs, and fosters economic growth. SEC. 503. POLICY OF THE HOUSE ON TAX REFORM AND FAIRNESS FOR MIDDLE-CLASS AMERICANS. (a) Findings.--The House finds that-- (1) According to the United States Census Bureau, American families lost ground during the 2000s as median income slipped 4.9 percent in real terms between 2000 and 2009. (2) According to the Congressional Budget Office, between 1979 and 2007, real after-tax incomes for the top 1 percent of income earners grew 278 percent--or a stunning $973,100-- per household. In contrast, real after-tax incomes of the middle 20 percent of families grew just 25 percent, and incomes of the poorest 20 percent increased by 16 percent. (3) Past Republican tax plans have made reducing taxes for the wealthiest Americans the top priority. The result has been legislation that increased deficits while giving a disproportionate share of any tax cuts to the wealthy. (4) Recent Republican tax plans, including this year's House Republican Budget, have emphasized reducing the top marginal rates [[Page 6114]] to 25 percent. Analysis by the non-partisan Tax Policy Center has shown that it is impossible to achieve such a reduction and be revenue-neutral without large reductions in tax deductions and credits for middle-income taxpayers that would lead to a net tax increase on those families. (5) Analyses of proposals to reduce top rates to 25 percent within a revenue-neutral tax reform plan indicate that the plans would raise taxes on middle-class families with children by an average of at least $2,000. (6) Such a tax increase would-- (A) make it even harder for working families to make ends meet; (B) cost the economy millions of jobs over the coming years by reducing consumer spending, which will greatly weaken economic growth; and (C) further widen the income gap between the wealthiest households and the middle class by making the tax code more regressive. (7) The tax code contains numerous, wasteful tax breaks for special interests. (8) these special tax breaks can greatly complicate the effort to administer the code and the taxpayer's ability to fully comply with its terms, while also undermining our basic sense of fairness. (9) they can distort economic incentives for businesses and consumers and encourage businesses to ship American jobs and capital overseas for tax purposes; in many cases, the revenues lost to various tax expenditures can be put to better use for more targeted initiatives. (b) Policy.-- (1) This resolution would accommodate action to simplify the tax code and eliminate special interest tax breaks without increasing the tax burden on middle-class taxpayers. SEC. 504. POLICY OF THE HOUSE ON INCREASING THE MINIMUM WAGE. (a) Findings.--The House finds that-- (1) the minimum wage has not been increased since 2009; (2) the real value of the minimum wage today is less than it was in 1956; (3) increasing the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour would give a raise to about 28,000,000 workers; (4) increasing the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour would lift about 1,000,000 Americans out of poverty; (5) minimum wage workers bring home an average of 50 percent of their family's total income; (6) a higher minimum wage would put more money in the pockets of individuals who are likely to spend additional income, which would help expand the economy and create jobs; (7) in part because of this effect, recent studies have indicated that increases in the minimum wage do not adversely impact job creation as much as had been previously thought, and that modest increases in the minimum wage may actually create jobs; (8) the higher minimum wage is important to victims of wage discrimination, who are more likely to find themselves in low-paying jobs; (9) a higher minimum wage will reduce government spending to provide assistance to minimum wage workers; and (10) a higher minimum wage will benefit businesses by increasing productivity, reducing absenteeism, and reducing turnover. (b) Policy.--This resolution assumes action by the House of Representatives to raise the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour in three annual steps, as proposed in H.R. 1010, the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2013. SEC. 505. POLICY OF THE HOUSE ON IMMIGRATION REFORM. (a) Findings.--The House finds the following: (1) Fixing the country's broken immigration system will mean a stronger economy and lower budget deficits. (2) The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that enacting H.R. 15, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act, will reduce the deficit by $900 billion over the next two decades, boost the economy by 5.4 percent, and increase productivity by 1.0 percent. (3) The Social Security Actuary estimates that immigration reform will add up to $300 billion to the Social Security Trust Fund over the next decade and will extend Social Security solvency by up to two years. (4) The passage of H.R. 15 recognizes that the primary tenets of its success depend on securing the sovereignty of the United States of America and establishing a coherent and just system for integrating those who seek to join American society. (5) We have a right, and duty, to maintain and secure our borders, and to keep our country safe and prosperous. As a Nation founded, built and sustained by immigrants we also have a responsibility to harness the power of that tradition in a balanced way that secures a more prosperous future for America. (6) We have always welcomed newcomers to the United States and will continue to do so. But in order to qualify for the honor and privilege of eventual citizenship, our laws must be followed. The world depends on America to be strong-- economically, militarily and ethically. The establishment of a stable, just, and efficient immigration system only supports those goals. As a Nation, we have the right and responsibility to make our borders safe, to establish clear and just rules for seeking citizenship, to control the flow of legal immigration, and to eliminate illegal immigration, which in some cases has become a threat to our national security. (7) All parts of H.R. 15 are premised on the right and need of the United States to achieve these goals, and to protect its borders and maintain its sovereignty. (b) Policy.--It is the policy of the House that the full House vote on comprehensive immigration reform--such as H.R. 15, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act--to boost our economy, lower deficits, establish clear and just rules for citizenship, and secure our borders. SEC. 506. POLICY OF THE HOUSE ON EXTENSION OF EMERGENCY UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION. (a) Findings.--The House finds the following: (1) Since the expiration of emergency unemployment compensation at the end of 2013, over 2,000,000 workers and their families have lost benefits. Thousands more are losing benefits each week. (2) The long-term unemployment rate at the time of the expiration, and still today, was nearly twice as high as it was at the expiration of any previous extended unemployment benefits program. (3) Extending unemployment is good for the affected workers and their families, and the economy as a whole. The CBO has estimated that extending emergency unemployment compensation will create 200,000 jobs by the end of the year. (b) Policy.--It is the policy of this resolution that emergency unemployment compensation be extended for 1 year, retroactive to its expiration. The resolution assumes this would be accomplished in two steps with passage of the bipartisan Senate bill adding 5 months and future legislation completing the task. Over the full year, this will benefit 5,000,000 Americans and their families as well as their communities and the Nation as a whole. SEC. 507. POLICY OF THE HOUSE ON THE EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT. (a) Findings.--The House finds the following: (1) The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) has long been considered one of our most effective anti-poverty programs. It has generally enjoyed strong, bipartisan support from Members of Congress and Presidents of each party. (2) The EITC rewards work. Benefits are only available to taxpayers with earned income. Encouraging workforce participation among low earners is generally thought to benefit the workers, their families, the community and the overall economy. (3) Many of our income security programs target their benefits towards children. The EITC is no different; the credit for childless workers is significantly less generous. As a result, low-income childless workers often receive little support from our anti-poverty efforts. Expanding the EITC for childless workers would help close that gap and has been supported by anti-poverty experts with varying ideological perspectives, consistent with the Credit's bipartisan history. (4) Expansion of the EITC can be viewed as a tax cut. There is significant room to expand the EITC for childless workers that would still leave those workers as net taxpayers, when you include both the employee- and employer-paid portion of their Medicare and Social Security payroll taxes. (5) A tax cut for these workers is appropriate as very low- income childless workers, because of the limited tax benefits available to them, can, in some circumstances actually fall below the poverty line as a result of their tax burden. (b) Policy.--It is the policy of this resolution that the House should pass legislation to expand the Earned Income Tax Credit for childless workers. This expansion could take several forms, including larger phase-in and phase-out rates, higher thresholds for beginning the phase-out range, and extension of the credit to older and younger adults. SEC. 508. POLICY OF THE HOUSE ON WOMEN'S EMPOWERMENT: WHEN WOMEN SUCCEED, AMERICA SUCCEEDS. (a) Findings.--The House finds the following: (1) Wage inequality still exists in this country. Women make only 77 cents for every dollar earned by men, and the pay gap for African American women and Latinas is even larger. (2) Nearly two-thirds of minimum wage workers are women, and the minimum wage has not kept up with inflation over the last 45 years. (3) More than 40 million private sector workers in this country--including more than 13 million working women--are not able to take a paid sick day when they are ill. Millions more lack paid sick time to care for a sick child. (4) Nearly one-quarter of adults in the United States (23 percent) report that they have lost a job or have been threatened with job loss for taking time off due to illness or to care for a sick child or relative. (5) Fully 89 percent of the United States workforce does not have paid family leave through their employers, and more than 60 percent of the workforce does not have paid [[Page 6115]] personal medical leave through an employer-provided temporary disability program, which some new mothers use. (b) Policy.--It is the policy of the House that Congress should make a positive difference in the lives of women, enacting measures to address economic equality and women's health and safety. To address economic fairness, Congress should enact the Paycheck Fairness Act, increase the minimum wage, support women entrepreneurs and small businesses, and support work and family balance through earned paid sick leave, and earned paid and expanded family and medical leave. To address health and safety concerns, Congress should increase funding for the prevention and treatment of women's health issues such as breast cancer and heart disease, support access to family planning, and enact measures to prevent and protect women from domestic violence. SEC. 509. POLICY OF THE HOUSE ON A NATIONAL STRATEGY TO ERADICATE POVERTY AND INCREASE OPPORTUNITY. (a) Findings.--The House finds the following: (1) Access to opportunity should be the right of every American. (2) Poverty has declined by more than one-third since 1967. More than 40,000,000 Americans are not in poverty today because of programs and tax policies that strengthen economic security and increase opportunity. Continued Federal support is essential to build on these gains. (3) Antipoverty programs have increasingly been focused on encouraging and rewarding work for those who are able. The programs can empower their beneficiaries to rise to the middle class through job training, educational assistance, adequate nutrition, housing and health care. (4) Social Security has played a major role in reducing poverty. Without it, the poverty rate in 2012 would have been 8.5 percentage points higher. Its positive impact on older Americans is even starker, lowering the poverty rate among this group by 40 percentage points. (5) Unemployment insurance benefits provide critical support to millions of workers, who lost their jobs through no fault of their own, and their families. Without these benefits, 2,500,000 more people would have lived in poverty in 2012. (6) The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program alone lifts nearly 5,000,000 people out of poverty, including over 2,000,000 children. It is particularly effective in keeping children--over 1,000,000--out of deep poverty (below half the poverty line). School breakfast and lunch programs help keep children ready to learn, allowing them to reach their full potential. (7) Medicaid improves health, access to health care and financial security. Medicaid coverage lowers infant, child, and adult mortality rates. Medicaid coverage virtually eliminates catastrophic out-of-pocket medical expenditures, providing much needed financial security and peace of mind. (8) The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and Child Tax Credit (CTC) together lift over 9,000,000 people, including 5,000,000 children, out of poverty. President Ronald Reagan proposed the major EITC expansion in the 1986 Tax Reform Act, which he referred to as ``the best antipoverty, the best pro- family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress''. Studies indicate that children in families that receive the type of income supports EITC and CTC offer do better at school and have higher incomes as adults. (9) Despite our progress, there is still work to be done. Nearly 50,000,000 Americans still live below the poverty line. Parental income still has a major impact on children's income after they become adults. (10) The minimum wage has not changed since 2007 and is worth less today than it was in real terms at the beginning of 1950. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that an incremental increase in the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour would lift 900,000 people out of poverty. (11) In addition, some areas of the country have been left behind. They face persistent high levels of poverty and joblessness. Residents of these areas often lack access to quality schools, affordable health care, and adequate job opportunities. (b) Policy.--It is the policy of the House to support a goal of developing a national strategy to eliminate poverty, with the initial goal of cutting poverty in half in ten years, and to extend equitable access to economic opportunity to all Americans. The strategy must include a multi-pronged approach that would-- (1) ensure a livable wage for workers, including raising the minimum wage so that a full time worker earns enough to be above the poverty line; (2) provide education and job training to make sure workers have the skills to succeed; (3) provide supports for struggling families in difficult economic times and while developing skills; (4) remove barriers and obstacles that prevent individuals from taking advantage of economic and educational opportunities; and (5) provide supports for the most vulnerable who are not able to work: seniors, the severely disabled, and children. As the strategy is developed and implemented, Congress must work to protect low-income and middle-class Americans from the negative impacts of budget cuts on the critical domestic programs that help millions of struggling American families. The strategy should maximize the impact of antipoverty programs across Federal, State, and local governments. Improving the effective coordination and oversight across agencies and implementing a true unity of programs under a ``whole of government'' approach to shared goals and client- based outcomes will help to streamline access, improve service delivery, and strengthen and extend the reach of every Federal dollar to fight poverty. The plan should consider additional targeting of spending toward persistent poverty areas to revitalize these areas of pervasive historical poverty, unemployment, and general distress. SEC. 510. POLICY OF THE HOUSE ON SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM THAT PROTECTS WORKERS AND RETIREES. (a) Findings.--The House finds that-- (1) Social Security is America's most important retirement resource, especially for seniors, because it provides an income floor to keep them, their spouses and their survivors out of poverty during retirement--benefits earned based on their past payroll contributions; (2) in January 2013, 58,000,000 people relied on Social Security; (3) 9 out of 10 individuals 65 and older received Social Security benefits; (4) Social Security helps keep people out of poverty and has lowered the poverty rate among seniors by nearly 40 percentage points; (5) Social Security benefits are modest, with an average annual benefit for retirees of about $15,000, which is the majority of total retirement income for more than half of all beneficiaries; (6) diverting workers' payroll contributions toward private accounts undermines retirement security and the social safety net by subjecting the workers' retirement decisions and income to the whims of the stock market; (7) diverting trust fund payroll contributions toward private accounts jeopardizes Social Security because the program will not have the resources to pay full benefits to current retirees; and (8) privatization increases Federal debt because the Treasury will have to borrow additional funds from the public to pay full benefits to current retirees. (b) Policy.--It is the policy of the House that Social Security should be strengthened for its own sake and not to achieve deficit reduction. Because privatization proposals are fiscally irresponsible and would put the retirement security of seniors at risk, any Social Security reform legislation shall reject partial or complete privatization of the program. SEC. 511. POLICY OF THE HOUSE ON PROTECTING THE MEDICARE GUARANTEE FOR SENIORS. (a) Findings.--The House finds that-- (1) senior citizens and persons with disabilities highly value the Medicare program and rely on Medicare to guarantee their health and financial security; (2) in 2013, 52,000,000 people relied on Medicare for coverage of hospital stays, physician visits, prescription drugs, and other necessary medical goods and services; (3) the Medicare program has lower administrative costs than private insurance, and Medicare program costs per enrollee have grown at a slower rate than private insurance for a given level of benefits; (4) people with Medicare already have the ability to choose a private insurance plan within Medicare through the Medicare Advantage option, yet 72 percent of Medicare beneficiaries chose the traditional fee-for-service program instead of a private plan in 2013; (5) rising health care costs are not unique to Medicare or other Federal health programs, they are endemic to the entire health care system; (6) converting Medicare into a voucher for the purchase of health insurance will merely force seniors and individuals with disabilities to pay much higher premiums if they want to use their voucher to purchase traditional Medicare coverage; (7) a voucher system in which the voucher payment fails to keep pace with growth in health costs would expose seniors and persons with disabilities on fixed incomes to unacceptable financial risks; (8) shifting more health care costs onto Medicare beneficiaries would not reduce overall health care costs, instead it would mean beneficiaries would face higher premiums, eroding coverage, or both; and (9) versions of voucher policies that do not immediately end the traditional Medicare program will merely set it up for a death spiral as private plans siphon off healthier and less expensive beneficiaries, leaving the sickest beneficiaries in a program that will wither away. (b) Policy.--It is the policy of the House that the Medicare guarantee for seniors and persons with disabilities should be preserved and strengthened, and that any legislation to end the Medicare guarantee, financially penalize people for choosing traditional Medicare, or shift rising health care costs onto seniors by replacing Medicare with vouchers or premium support for the purchase of health insurance, should be rejected. [[Page 6116]] SEC. 512. POLICY OF THE HOUSE ON AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE FOR WORKING FAMILIES. (a) Findings.--The House finds that-- (1) making health care coverage affordable and accessible for all American families will improve families' health and economic security, which will make the economy stronger; (2) the Affordable Care Act will expand affordable coverage to 25,000,000 people by the end of the decade, and already, millions of Americans have health insurance under this law-- more than 7,000,000 individuals have signed up for private health insurance through new health insurance Marketplaces, 3,000,000 young adults have been able to stay on their parent's health insurance plan, and 3,000,000 people have new Medicaid coverage; (3) the Affordable Care Act ensures the right to equal treatment for people who have preexisting health conditions and for women; (4) the Affordable Care Act ensures that health insurance coverage will always include basic necessary services such as prescription drugs, mental health care, and maternity care and that insurance companies cannot impose lifetime or annual limits on these benefits; (5) the Affordable Care Act increases transparency in health care, helping to reduce health care cost growth by requiring transparency around hospital charges, insurer cost- sharing, and kick-back payments from pharmaceutical companies to physicians; (6) the Affordable Care Act reforms Federal health entitlements by using nearly every health cost-containment provision experts recommend, including new incentives to reward quality and coordination of care rather than simply quantity of services provided, new tools to crack down on fraud, and the elimination of excessive taxpayer subsidies to private insurance plans, and as a result will slow the projected annual growth rate of national health expenditures by 0.3 percentage points after 2016, the essence of ``bending the cost curve''; and (7) the Affordable Care Act will reduce the Federal deficit by more than $1,000,000,000,000 over the next 20 years. (b) Policy.--It is the policy of the House that the law of the land should support making affordable health care coverage available to every American family, and therefore the Affordable Care Act should not be repealed. SEC. 513. POLICY OF THE HOUSE ON MEDICAID. (a) Findings.--The House finds that-- (1) Medicaid is a central component of the Nation's health care safety net, providing health coverage to 60,000,000 Americans, including 1 in 3 children; (2) Medicaid improves health outcomes, access to health services, and financial security; (3) senior citizens and people with disabilities account for two-thirds of Medicaid program spending and consequently would be at particular risk of losing access to important health care assistance under any policy to sever the link between Medicaid funding and the actual costs of providing services to the currently eligible Medicaid population; (4) Medicaid is the primary payer for long-term care services in the United States, providing a critical health care safety net for senior citizens and people with disabilities facing significant costs for long-term care; and (5) at least 70 percent of people over age 65 will likely need long-term care services at some point in their lives. (b) Policy.--It is the policy of the House that the important health care safety net for children, senior citizens, people with disabilities, and other vulnerable Americans provided by Medicaid should be preserved and should not be dismantled by converting Medicaid into a block grant, per capita cap, or other financing arrangement that would limit Federal contributions and render the program incapable of responding to increased need that may result from trends in demographics or health care costs or from economic conditions. SEC. 514. POLICY OF THE HOUSE ON NATIONAL SECURITY. (a) Findings.--The House finds that-- (1) we must continue to support a strong military that is second to none and the size and the structure of our military have to be driven by a strategy; (2) those who serve in uniform are our most important security resource and the Administration and Congress shall continue to provide the support they need to successfully carry out the missions the country gives them; (3) a growing economy is the foundation of our security and enables the country to provide the resources for a strong military, sound homeland security agencies, and effective diplomacy and international development; (4) the Nation's projected long-term debt could have serious consequences for our economy and security, and that more efficient military spending has to be part of an overall plan that effectively deals with this problem; (5) the bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform and the bipartisan Rivlin-Domenici Debt Reduction Task Force concluded that a serious and balanced deficit reduction plan must put national security programs on the table; (6) former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen argued that the permissive budget environment over the last decade, a period when defense spending increased by hundreds of billions of dollars, had allowed the Pentagon to avoid prioritizing; (7) reining in wasteful spending at the Nation's security agencies, including the Department of Defense--the last department still unable to pass an audit--such as the elimination of duplicative programs that have been identified by the Government Accountability Office needs to continue as a priority; (8) effective implementation of weapons acquisition reforms at the Department of Defense can help control excessive cost growth in the development of new weapons systems and help ensure that weapons systems are delivered on time and in adequate quantities to equip our servicemen and servicewomen; (9) the Department of Defense should continue to review defense plans and requirements to ensure that weapons developed to counter Cold War-era threats are not redundant and are applicable to 21st century threats, which should include, with the participation of the National Nuclear Security Administration, examination of requirements for the nuclear weapons stockpile, nuclear weapons delivery systems, and nuclear weapons and infrastructure modernization; (10) weapons technologies should be proven to work through adequate testing before advancing them to the production phase of the acquisition process; (11) the Pentagon's operation and maintenance budget has grown for decades between 2.5 percent and 3.0 percent above inflation each year on a per service member basis, and it is imperative that unsustainable cost growth be controlled in this area; (12) nearly all of the increase in the Federal civilian workforce from 2001 to 2013 is due to increases at security- related agencies--Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Veterans Affairs, and Department of Justice--and the increase, in part, represents a transition to ensure civil servants, as opposed to private contractors, are performing inherently governmental work and an increase to a long-depleted acquisition and auditing workforce at the Pentagon to ensure effective management of weapons systems programs, to eliminate the use of contractors to oversee other contractors, and to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse; (13) proposals to implement an indiscriminate 10 percent across-the-board cut to the Federal civilian workforce would adversely affect security agencies, leaving them unable to manage their total workforce, which includes contractors, and their operations in a cost-effective manner; and (14) cooperative threat reduction and other nonproliferation programs (securing ``loose nukes'' and other materials used in weapons of mass destruction), which were highlighted as high priorities by the 9/11 Commission, need to be funded at a level that is commensurate with the evolving threat. (b) Policy.--It is the policy of the House that-- (1) the sequester required by the Budget Control Act of 2011 for fiscal years 2016 through 2021 should be rescinded and replaced by a deficit reduction plan that is balanced, that makes smart spending cuts, that requires everyone to pay their fair share, and that takes into account a comprehensive national security strategy that includes careful consideration of international, defense, homeland security, and law enforcement programs; and (2) savings can be achieved from the national defense budget without compromising our security through greater emphasis on eliminating duplicative and wasteful programs, reforming the acquisition process, identifying and constraining unsustainable operating costs, and through careful analysis of our national security needs. SEC. 515. POLICY OF THE HOUSE ON CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE. (a) Findings.--The House finds the following: (1) The United States Government Accountability Office described climate change as, ``a complex, crosscutting issue that poses risks to many environmental and economic systems-- including agriculture, infrastructure, ecosystems, and human health--and presents a significant financial risk to the Federal Government''. (2) The United States Academy of Sciences and the British Royal Society reported, ``It is now more certain than ever, based on many lines of evidence, that humans are changing Earth's climate. The atmosphere and oceans have warmed, accompanied by sea-level rise, a strong decline in Arctic sea ice, and other climate-related changes''. (3) The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded the effects of climate change are occurring worldwide, ``Observed impacts of climate change have already affected agriculture, human health, ecosystems on land and in the oceans, water supplies, and some people's livelihoods''. (4) The United States National Research Council's National Climate Assessment and Development Advisory Committee found climate change affects, ``human health, water supply, agriculture, transportation, energy, and many other aspects of society''. [[Page 6117]] (b) Policy.--It is the policy of the House that climate change presents a significant financial risk to the Federal Government. The scientific community has reached a consensus regarding climate change science, which provides critical information to preserve economic and environmental systems throughout the world. SEC. 516. POLICY OF THE HOUSE ON INVESTMENTS IN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION. (a) Findings.--The House finds the following: (1) Investments in early education are among the best investments we can make for children, families, and the economy. (2) Investments in early childhood benefit the economy as a whole, generating at least $7 in return for every $1 invested by lowering the need for spending on other services--such as remedial education, grade repetition, and special education-- and increasing productivity and earnings for those children as adults. (3) Children who receive high-quality early education benefit directly in both the short term and the long term. They have better educational outcomes, stronger job earnings, and lower crime and delinquency rates. (4) Unfortunately, only 3 out of every 10 4-year-olds are enrolled in high-quality early childhood education programs in the United States. This low level of participation ranks the United States 28th out of 38 countries in the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development for the share of 4-year-olds enrolled in early childhood education. (5) In particular, children from low-income families are less likely to have access to high-quality, affordable preschool programs that will prepare them for kindergarten. By third grade, children from low-income families who are not reading at grade level are six times less likely to graduate from high school than students who are proficient. (b) Policy.--This resolution provides for enactment of a $76 billion, 10-year investment to provide access to high- quality early education for all 4-year-olds. Early education programs must meet quality benchmarks that are linked to better outcomes for children, including a rigorous curriculum tied to State-level standards, qualified teachers, small class sizes, and effective evaluation and review of programs. SEC. 517. POLICY OF THE HOUSE ON TAKING A BALANCED APPROACH TO DEFICIT REDUCTION. (a) Findings.--The House finds the following: (1) Since 2010, the Congress has enacted several major measures to reduce the deficit. Most of the savings come from cuts to spending. Revenues represent less than one-quarter of total savings achieved. (2) Allowing implementation of the remaining spending sequester will damage our national security, critical infrastructure, and other important investments. (3) Every bipartisan commission has recommended, and the majority of Americans agree, that we should take a balanced, bipartisan approach to reducing the deficit that addresses both revenue and spending. (b) Policy.--It is the policy of the House that Congress should develop a balanced plan to address the Nation's long- term fiscal imbalance. The plan should-- (1) prevent job loss and economic drag in the near term as the economy heals; (2) increase revenues without increasing the tax burden on middle-income Americans; and (3) decrease spending through greater efficiencies within the Government and improving incentives for service providers while maintaining the Medicare guarantee, protecting Social Security and a strong social safety net, and making strategic investments in education, science, research, and critical infrastructure necessary to compete in the global economy. SEC. 518. POLICY STATEMENT ON DEFICIT REDUCTION THROUGH THE REDUCTION OF UNNECESSARY AND WASTEFUL SPENDING. (a) Findings.--The House finds the following: (1) The Government Accountability Office (``GAO'') is required by law to identify examples of waste, duplication, and overlap in Federal programs, and has so identified dozens of such examples. (2) In testimony before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Comptroller General has stated that addressing the identified waste, duplication, and overlap in Federal programs ``could potentially save tens of billions of dollars''. (3) The Federal Government spends about $80 billion each year for information technology. GAO has identified opportunities for savings and improved efficiencies in the Government's information technology infrastructure. (4) Federal agencies reported an estimated $108 billion in improper payments in fiscal year 2012. (5) Under clause 2 of Rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, each standing committee must hold at least one hearing during each 120 day period following its establishment on waste, fraud, abuse, or mismanagement in Government programs. (6) According to the Congressional Budget Office, by fiscal year 2015, 32 laws will expire. Timely reauthorizations of these laws would ensure assessments of program justification and effectiveness. (7) The findings resulting from congressional oversight of Federal Government programs may result in programmatic changes in both authorizing statutes and program funding levels. (b) Policy Statement on Deficit Reduction Through the Reduction of Unnecessary and Wasteful Spending.--Each authorizing committee annually shall include in its Views and Estimates letter required under section 301(d) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 recommendations to the Committee on the Budget of programs within the jurisdiction of such committee whose funding should be changed. SEC. 519. POLICY OF THE HOUSE ON THE USE OF TAXPAYER FUNDS. It is the policy of this resolution that the House should lead by example and identify any savings that can be achieved through greater productivity and efficiency gains in the operation and maintenance of House services and resources like printing, conferences, utilities, telecommunications, furniture, grounds maintenance, postage, and rent. This should include a review of policies and procedures for acquisition of goods and services to eliminate any unnecessary spending. The Committee on House Administration shall review the policies pertaining to the services provided to Members of Congress and House Committees, and shall identify ways to reduce any subsidies paid for the operation of the House gym, Barbershop, Salon, and the House dining room. Further, it is the policy of this resolution that no taxpayer funds may be used to purchase first class airfare or to lease corporate jets for Members of Congress. The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 544, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) and a Member opposed each will control 15 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland. Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment reflects the priorities and values of the country. This amendment focuses on growing jobs now, making sure that we have a strong economy and making sure we significantly reduce our deficit and debt as a share of our economy over the longer term and does it in a balanced way. It does it by, for example, closing some of the special interest tax breaks that actually perversely encourage American corporations to ship American jobs overseas. We believe we should be in the business of shipping American products overseas, and this budget does invest in jobs right here at home. Unlike the House Republican budget, we don't allow the transportation trust fund to go insolvent later this summer. Unlike the House Republic budget, we do not make deep cuts in our kids' education. We think it is important to build that ladder of opportunity. Unlike the Republican budget, we don't reopen the prescription drug doughnut hole and require seniors to pay more if they have high prescription drug costs, and we don't shred the social safety net. Mr. Chairman, I want to also bring to the attention of the body something else that is in here. We advance fund, 100 percent, the Veterans Administration, because what we saw during the unnecessary and unproductive government shutdown last fall was that the closure began to put at risk the benefits that were being paid to our veterans. Now, we already provide for the advance funding of those health care benefits, but what we don't fund in advance are the people who have to administer them to make sure that they are delivered to our veterans on time. So we are very pleased to have a letter here from the DAV and other veterans' groups that strongly support this provision in our budget. It is something that they have been requesting. I just want to read one of the paragraphs: We would like to commend you for presenting an alternate budget proposal that contains a provision for advance appropriations to all VA discretionary programs and services, a critically needed reform that is universally supported by veterans' organizations and is DAV's number one priority. So whether it is veterans, whether it is our kids' education, or whether it is making our commitment to our seniors, we choose to make sure that we fund the priorities of the country and we don't keep off- limits tax preferences for the powerful and the privileged. I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. [[Page 6118]] The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Terry). The gentleman is recognized for 15 minutes. Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. At this time, Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Williams), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee. Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you, Chairman Ryan. As a businessowner of 42 years, I know what it means to meet the bottom line and live within my means, both in my business and in my family. Unfortunately, America hasn't lived within its means for years, and we are nearing the tipping point. But President Obama and the Democrats in Congress want to push us nearer to the edge rather than rein us back in by spending money we just don't have and growing government with massive, government-run programs like ObamaCare. The government already takes enough money from the hands of hardworking Americans--and that is not the problem. The problem is spending. Mr. Van Hollen's plan does nothing to address the real problem. It makes it worse. We need a budget that shrinks the size of government, reins in out-of-control spending, and prevents tax dollars from being subject to waste, fraud, and abuse. The Van Hollen plan raises taxes by $1.8 trillion, and when compared to the Republican budget authored by Chairman Ryan, it spends nearly $6 trillion more, adds more than $4 trillion to the national debt, and it never, never balances. The budget is a disaster that doesn't reflect the direction this Nation needs to go, nor does it reflect what the American people want or need. We need a responsible plan. That is why I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this substitute. Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is right that we do close some special interest tax breaks, but we also have about $400 billion in revenue from pro-growth immigration reform which is in this budget, which at least some of our colleagues on the Republican side recognize as a good thing. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office has told us that one thing we could do right now to get the economy moving faster would be to pass comprehensive, bipartisan immigration reform. In fact, they say it will help reduce the deficit by close to $1 trillion over the next 20 years and generate some economic activity. So $400 billion in that revenue is from more economic activity, the kind of pro-growth activity we thought our Republican colleagues liked. I am now very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Lee), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee, who has been focused on trying to make sure everybody in America gets a fair shake. {time} 1030 Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the ranking member for yielding and for your tireless leadership of our committee. I rise in very strong support of the Democratic alternative to the disastrous Republican budget. Our Democratic alternative closes tax loopholes and makes smart investments in policies and programs that create jobs, cuts poverty and grows the economy for all. The Democratic alternative raises the minimum wage to $10.10 which lifts nearly 1 million Americans out of poverty. It also expands the earned income tax credit, and for the millions of Americans still struggling to find a job, it extends the lifeline of unemployment compensation which House Republicans have refused to consider. Nearly 3 million people are living on the edge because Republicans refuse to extend emergency unemployment compensation. Our alternative protects Medicare, eliminates the sequester, and includes, as our ranking member said, comprehensive immigration reform which lowers our deficit by $900 billion. Finally, I appreciate some of my Republican colleagues have shown an interest in cutting poverty in our country. However, we have starkly different opinions of how we achieve that goal. The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired. Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlelady. Ms. LEE of California. I thank the ranking member. As I was saying, we must attack poverty, not the poor, as evidenced through the draconian cuts to the safety net in the Ryan budget. Gutting SNAP is not a path out of poverty. The American people deserve a fighting chance to enter the middle class. They deserve better than the Ryan budget. Let me tell you, the better budget for our country is the Democratic alternative, which provides pathways out of poverty, creates jobs, protects the safety net, and grows the economy for all. Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney). Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, I think it is noteworthy that once again--once again--and this is the fourth budget cycle that I have been through, the fourth Democratic budget offered here, that never balances. It never balances. How do you ever, ever pay back money that you have already borrowed if you never have a surplus and never get to balance? I have said it before and I will say it again: if you borrow money from me and intend to pay it back, that is debt. If you borrow money from me and never intend to pay it back, that is theft. That is what the Democrats are offering here today, Mr. Chairman. They are encouraging us to borrow more and borrow more and borrow more and never lay out any plan whatsoever for paying that money back to the children and grandchildren from whom we are borrowing. The only plan that will be offered later today that does that is the Republican budget. I strongly encourage a ``no'' vote on the Democratic plan, a ``no'' vote on continued generational theft, and a ``yes'' vote on the Republican plan. Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I find this newfound ideology of having to hit a particular target at a particular time interesting since 3 years ago the Republican budget balanced maybe around the year 2040. And this year, it doesn't balance if you also claim to be getting rid of the Affordable Care Act, because you have $2 trillion in revenue in savings in this Republican budget from the Affordable Care Act, the same Affordable Care Act you say you are getting rid of. You just can't have both things true at the same time. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), someone who knows a little bit about logic, a distinguished member of the Budget Committee. Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, a budget is a statement of a society's moral principles. The Democratic budget is an investment plan that creates a job for a marine who comes back from Afghanistan. It guarantees health security for a single mom and her asthmatic daughter. It expands the opportunity for a bright-eyed son of immigrant parents to go to college. On the other hand, the Ryan manifesto doesn't create a job for that marine. The Ryan budget fires 3 million Americans over the next 2 years, and it protects tax breaks for companies shipping those jobs overseas. The Ryan budget repeals the Affordable Care Act, forcing that single mother and baby daughter back into the intolerable days when families could not afford health care. In summary, the Republican budget asks not what you can do for your country, but proclaims your country refuses to do a thing for you. The Democratic budget invests in our greatest resource, the American people, the key to our Nation's continued greatness in the years to come. Vote ``yes'' on the Democratic alternative. Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price), the vice chairman of the House Budget Committee. Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the chairman of the committee for the great work he has done in bringing forward a positive, solutions-oriented budget. What we are hearing here is the same song, different verse. You would think [[Page 6119]] that they would get tired of singing this song because it is so out of key: spends more, taxes more, borrows more, adds $4.3 trillion to the debt and never, ever comes to balance. Ever. The American people watching this and reading their newspapers about what the plan is in Washington, what the budget is in Washington, they recognize that the Democrats' plan is never, ever to balance; not something they can do in their homes. People have to balance their budgets. Not something they can do in their businesses; people have to balance budgets. So we hope that at some point in the future our friends on the other side of the aisle recognize that fiscal responsibility has something to do with the American dream. When we don't balance as a Nation, when our Federal budget doesn't balance, when we continue to add $4.3 trillion more to the debt than the Republican budget, what that means is we are robbing from future generations. We are telling them you are going to have to pay this; we are not responsible enough to pay it. You get to pay it. How does that sound to the young person out there who, by the way, is graduating from college and can't find a job in their sphere of interest because of this faltering economy. So what is the alternative? That is the good news, Mr. Chairman. There are positive solutions that we are offering. That is the Republican budget we are going to have a vote on just this morning, a positive budget that actually balances the budget over a period of 10 years. And it not only balances the budget, it gets us on a path to pay off the entire debt of the United States. Think about the wonderful dreams that can be realized by young people and others across this great land when we don't have any debt. Think of what happens when you finally pay off that car. What a great relief that is. When you are finally able to pay off your home, when you are finally able to pay off those debts, you remember, you wake the next morning and you feel freer and more excited. There is a greater opportunity to realize your dreams. Our budget recognizes that health care is indeed important, and that Medicare and Medicaid, not according to me or the Republican side but according to the actuaries in those programs, is going broke. Bankrupt. What does that mean? That means that seniors and individuals in the Medicaid program will no longer be able to receive the benefits, the services, the health care that we have promised them as a country. That is what that means. That is what this program does on the other side of the aisle. That is why in our budget we save and strengthen and secure Medicare and Medicaid. We do so by making certain that patients are in charge of health care, not the Federal Government. The Republican budget is the premier budget that is being offered today. I urge my colleagues to vote down the Democrat budget and vote for the Republican budget. Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, look, our Republican colleagues are going to have to choose and tell the American people, either they claim to have a budget that balances in 10 years or they are going to repeal the Affordable Care Act. But right now because they get rid of the entire Affordable Care Act, including the revenues and savings, they don't come close to balancing. I keep hearing balance, and the reality is that it has all that revenue from the Affordable Care Act. The one thing we know is that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says the Republican budget will slow down the economy in the next couple years. Ours won't, in part because we make investments in our infrastructure. At this time I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), who is focused on making sure that this country has the modern infrastructure it needs, the ranking member of the Natural Resources Committee. Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, if this budget balances, it balances in an alternate reality, perhaps on Planet Reagan. But it does take a very dyspeptic view of investments because they prioritize tax cuts for billionaires over investments. They purport or pretend or actually will cut out all Federal investment in roads, bridges, highways, and transit. That is a $52 billion cut. That is a couple of million jobs, and a lot more crumbling bridges. We have something called the Land Water Conservation Fund. It is funded by taxes collected from offshore oil drilling. It is suppose to buy conservation lands. They will not allow a single acre of land to be purchased by the Federal Government, but they will still collect the tax from the oil industry. And what about the looming crisis in wildfires in the West? Well, they are closing their eyes and are pretending we are not going to have drastic wildfires across the West, and they put zero budget in there in anticipation of drastic wildfires. This is the most unbelievably unrealistic, and I would have to go almost to the word, and I can't attribute it to people's motivations, but hypocritical budget I have ever seen. Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy), a member of the Budget Committee. Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Chairman, I think this is a fascinating debate that is taking place today, laying out truly the two versions and visions for America. My friends on the other side of the aisle have no interest in putting America on a pathway to sustainability. They advocate for $2 trillion of more taxes, but more taxes and more spending in their proposal never leads us to a balanced budget. They lead us to a debt crisis. It is one thing to come into this House, into this Chamber, and tell the American people, ``I want to raise taxes; and with those tax increases which are going to kill jobs, at one point I will balance the budget.'' But they don't even do that. They tax and they spend, and spend and they tax, and they never balance. Mr. Chairman, I know this is Mr. Ryan's last budget that he has introduced. I have somewhat of a disagreement on this, and there is some good news and bad news in what the Democrats propose. The good news is that they actually pay for all of their spending. The bad news is the money they pay it with is still in the pockets of our hardworking middle class families. It is going to be an attack on middle class families if we are going to pay for an irresponsible budget and an irresponsible spending path. And in the end, they will have a lower standard of living. I think that is unacceptable. I think we should reject this budget and actually be responsible to the American people, sustainable for the American people, and truly get the job done for the next generation. The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 8 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Maryland has 6\1/4\ minutes remaining. Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee. Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, the Republican budget flies in the face of the reality of their own budget. It does nothing to deal with the very real, looming crisis of Social Security. They are afraid to inflict their Medicare solution on the seniors that vote today; instead, it will bite long after the people arguing for it will have moved on. It repeals the Affordable Care Act, but keeps the taxes and fees they railed against. But there is nothing sadder than yesterday's Ryan soliloquy on how America cannot afford to invest in its future. Well, we don't think having billionaire hedge fund managers pay the same tax rate as hardworking Americans would be a blow to prosperity. Our budget invests in America's future--in infrastructure, education, innovation--while the Republicans would sentence this rich, great country to perpetual decline. Mercifully, this won't happen. Their budget will not become law. Someday, America will invest in our future again, close tax loopholes, and work together to solve our problems. Our budget shows how. Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield myself 1 minute, Mr. Chairman. We have had a good three days of debate here. I plan on saying more in a [[Page 6120]] few moments, but I find it really interesting, I don't see much of a defense of the budget that the gentleman is offering, and more of the continually what I would call discredited attacks against ours. Our budget increases spending on average by 3.5 percent over the next 10 years instead of 5.2 percent. {time} 1045 We are proposing to spend $43 trillion over the next 10 years instead of the $48 trillion. This is draconian, awful, evil, terrible, hurting people. We have seen this movie so many times over and over again. All the other side is offering is just keep doing more of the same; the same economics that we have had for the same 5 years, just keep doing more of that. If taxing, borrowing, and spending was working, we would know by now. It is not. The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 additional seconds. That is why we need a different direction. That is why we owe the country an alternative; one that actually grows the economy, one that balances the budget and pays off the debt, one that secures retirement not with empty promises but real reforms, one that goes after waste and cronyism, one that respects people and does not offer more and more and more and more control in Washington. With that, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, what we know is old and stale and doesn't work is trickle down economics. The idea you just give the folks at the very top a little bit bigger tax break and somehow it is going to benefit everybody else didn't work and made the deficit go up. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison), a member of the Finance Committee. Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. We do live in a great country. Thank God people before this Congress, before Mr. Ryan's budget, understood that investing in our Nation's infrastructure was critical to achieving that greatness. The budget being offered by the Democrats invests in America, we invest in infrastructure. The Ryan budget does not do that. In fact, we go back. Our country has never been made great. We have never built railroads, never built great dams, never built great things to make this country the wonderful place that it is based on cutting and slashing and redistributing money up toward the wealthiest. Vote against the Ryan budget. Vote for the Democratic alternative. Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman I am now pleased to yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), a terrific new member of the Budget Committee. Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding. I think we can agree at least on the rhetoric that the best thing we can do to balance our budget in the long-term is to grow the economy, but it is pretty clear we have a different vision as to how that will actually happen. We believe that a Tax Code that is fair, that equally distributes the obligation to all Americans, is one of the ways we get there. We don't believe that simply cutting taxes for the wealthiest Americans and passing the obligation on to working people is the way to do it. We believe that we grow the economy by investing in infrastructure so that we can grow jobs and deliver products across the country and across the planet. We don't think we get there by cutting infrastructure and continuing to challenge our businesses. We believe we grow the economy by investing in the skills of our workforce so that they can become more productive, not by cutting those necessary programs. Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time. Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining. The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland has 3\3/4\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining. Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. It has been a good debate on the floor of the House over the last couple of days. The question boils down to, what are our country's priorities, what are our country's values? We believe we should be focused right now on growing opportunity and growing jobs. That is what our budget does. The Congressional Budget Office tells us that the House Republican budget will actually slow down job growth and slow down economic activity over the next couple of years. We invest in our infrastructure to keep America going. Their budget actually has the transportation trust fund go insolvent later this year. We continue to build ladders of opportunity so more people can prosper in this country. The Republican budget protects tax breaks for folks at the very, very top; in fact, provides millionaires with a one- third cut in their tax rate--they do that--but they cut our investment in early education, in K through 12. We actually increase, we increase our early investment education. We think our kids' future is the most important thing for the future growth of this country. We protect our commitments to seniors. We don't reopen the prescription drug doughnut hole, we do not end the Medicare guarantee, and yes, we significantly bring down the deficits and stabilize the debt-to-GDP ratio in the out years. We don't do it by playing games. We don't say we are going to get rid of the Affordable Care Act and then rely on all the revenue and all the savings from the Affordable Care Act to pretend to hit balance in the out years. As I said earlier, we make sure we learn from our mistakes. In the 16-day shutdown, which was totally unproductive and totally unnecessary and all part of an effort to get rid of the entire Affordable Care Act, a lot of Americans got hurt, including our veterans who are on the edge. So we do in this budget what every veteran organization asked this Congress to do: we made sure we advance-fund those appropriations so that next time, God forbid, someone in this House thinks it is a good idea to shut down the government, at least those who served our country are not put at risk in terms of getting the medical and other support they need. So yes, we invest in our veterans, we invest in our kids' future, we maintain our commitments to seniors, and we do that by asking the most powerful and the most privileged special interests to contribute a little bit more as we grow our economy through commonsense bipartisan immigration reform. If you want an America that is going to grow and prosper as one country, where we respect our individual freedoms and liberty and entrepreneurship but also recognize that there are some things that history has taught us we do better by working together, which is what has made us a world economic power, then support the Democratic budget. If you want to continue to support and protect the special interests at the very top on some trickle down theory, that that will help everybody else, then vote for the Republican budget, because that is what they do at the expense of the rest of the country and at the expense of economic growth and prosperity for every American. Vote ``yes'' for jobs, opportunity, and security. Vote for the Democratic budget. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First off, let me start off by saying to my friend from Maryland: I am glad we are having this debate, and this is the last time the two of us are doing this, and it has been a pleasure. I also want to thank the staff. All of our staffs have put so much hard work into this. I want to thank our staff, led [[Page 6121]] by our great staff director, Austin Smythe, for all that he has done. I want to thank the people over at the CBO who work really long hours producing all of these estimates so that we can write these budgets. Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record these names to show our thanks. House Budget Committee Majority Staff Austin Smythe Andy Morton Tim Flynn Conor Sweeney Vanessa Day William Allison Brian Bolduc Dennis Teti Paul Restuccia Nicole Foltz Jon Romito Mary Popadiuk Jon Burks Jim Herz Matt Hoffmann Ted McCann Stephanie Parks Justin Bogie Shane Skelton Gene Emmans Kara McKee Jenna Spealman Donald Schneider Alex Stoddard Jose Guillen Richard ``Dick'' Magee Eric Davis Interns: Boyd Garriott, Gabriel Krimm, and Alyssa Wootton Personal Staff (Representative Paul Ryan, Wisconsin, 1st District) Cameron Clark Chad Herbert Casey Higgins Susie Liston Joyce Meyer Teresa Mora Sarah Peer Lauren Schroeder Kevin Seifert Andy Speth Allison Steil Tricia Stoneking Robert Swift Danyell Tremmel Megan Wagner Tory Wickiser Interns: Harrison Balistreri, Sarah Holtz, Gretchen Wade, and Brittney Weiland Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, the differences between our budgets and our approaches could not be more clear. Let me take them one by one. We have had a number of substitutes on the floor. There is one consistent theme from the substitutes offered by our friends on the other side of the aisle. While we are offering a budget that balances the budget and pays off the debt, they are offering a budget that never, ever balances. They are starting with a $1.8 trillion tax increase. That is on top of the $1.7 trillion tax increase that has already occurred. They go as high as offering in the Progressive Caucus budget a $6.6 trillion tax increase. They are offering not only a spending on autopilot going out of control today, they want to raise it higher, $791 billion in this budget to as much as $3.3 trillion in more spending. They are offering a budget to add trillions to the debt. Now, when they say they want to raise taxes, and that is what their proposal is, again, they like to say it is just on the rich: Anybody listening, don't worry, it is not on you, it is on just these few rich people. Here is the problem. They have a funny way of defining the rich. They have a funny way of defining it as small business. Most of our jobs come from small businesses. Those are the people who are going to get hit with this tax increase. That is where our jobs come from. Second, we have seen this movie before, and we know what it looks like. They have already raised taxes $1.7 trillion. Look at the taxes on ObamaCare. They were supposed to be taxes on the rich. It taxes everybody. It doesn't matter how much you make. You are going to get hit with a tax: a mandate tax, a sell-your-house tax, taxes, taxes, taxes. Are they raising all these taxes so they can pay off the debt? No--to fuel more spending. Here is what we are proposing. Here is what the gentleman doesn't want to say. We are saying have revenue-neutral tax reform, meaning take the amount of revenues we bring into the government today, keep that same revenue, but clean up this awful Tax Code. Plug the loopholes, cancel loopholes so that we can lower tax rates for families and businesses across the board to create more jobs, more economic growth. We have already gotten the studies that tell us doing this helps a lot. We are taxing American businesses at much higher tax rates than our foreign competitors are taxing theirs, and they are winning and we are losing. So we are saying, fundamental comprehensive tax reform, stop picking winners and losers in Washington, lower tax rates. Second, this House Democrat budget increases spending by $740 billion above what would happen if we did nothing. That is $5.9 trillion more than our budget. They used to call this stimulus. I remember just a few short years ago all these ideas were called stimulating and stimulus. Remember, Mr. Chairman, we have done this. And guess what? Stimulus didn't work. So now they call it investment. If you disinvest, that means you are not spending enough. An investment, just remember every time you hear the word investment, it means: tax, borrow, spend in Washington. Take money from hardworking taxpayers, borrow from the next generation, and spend more money in Washington. That means take money from businesses, take money from small businesses, take money from people creating jobs, borrow more money from China, leverage it against the next generation, spend more in Washington. We will spend $3.5 trillion this year. Spending is slated to go above about 5.2 percent on average. We are basically saying let's get this under control; 3.5 percent is enough. What they will also say is look at what we are doing on Medicare, all these awful things that we are doing on Medicare. We are saving it for the current generation by preserving it as is, and then we are making sure that it is there for the next generation. Here is the dirty little secret. Look at what they have already done to Medicare. It was ObamaCare that ended Medicare as we know it, it was ObamaCare that raided $700 billion from Medicare to spend on ObamaCare, it was ObamaCare that set up this new rationing board of 15 unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats to put price controls on Medicare, which will lead to denied care for seniors. It is the House Democrats' budget that is complicit with the Medicare trust fund going bankrupt in 2026. Our budget strengthens Medicare, saves it for this generation, and puts reforms in place so that the next generation can count on it without having 15 bureaucrats running the program. Look at what they are proposing on national security. They track right along with the President's budget. They are proposing to cut compensation for our men and women in uniform, to hollow out our force, to cut training and readiness and structure, not to lower the deficit, but to fuel more domestic spending. So we will have an Army lower than anything we have seen before World War II, we will have a Navy smaller than what we haven't seen since before World War I, we will have an Air Force smaller than we have ever had before, not for deficit reduction, but for more domestic spending. We reject that approach. Finally, their budget adds $4.3 trillion to our national debt. That is despite this massive tax increase. Their budget never balances, ever. Under their plan, in 2024, the deficit will be $637 billion. At the end of the day it is just not credible. We trust the American people to have more control over their lives. We reject this budget. Let's balance the budget, grow the economy, create jobs, and pay off our debt, and pass the House Republican budget. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen). The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes appeared to have it. Recorded Vote Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote. [[Page 6122]] A recorded vote was ordered. The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 163, noes 261, not voting 7, as follows: [Roll No. 176] AYES--163 Bass Beatty Becerra Bishop (GA) Bishop (NY) Blumenauer Bonamici Brady (PA) Braley (IA) Brown (FL) Butterfield Capps Capuano Cardenas Carney Carson (IN) Cartwright Castor (FL) Castro (TX) Chu Cicilline Clark (MA) Clarke (NY) Clay Cleaver Clyburn Cohen Connolly Conyers Courtney Crowley Cuellar Cummings Davis (CA) Davis, Danny DeFazio DeGette Delaney DeLauro Deutch Dingell Doggett Doyle Edwards Ellison Engel Eshoo Esty Farr Fattah Frankel (FL) Fudge Gabbard Garamendi Grayson Green, Al Green, Gene Grijalva Gutierrez Hahn Hanabusa Hastings (FL) Heck (WA) Higgins Hinojosa Holt Honda Horsford Hoyer Huffman Israel Jeffries Johnson (GA) Johnson, E. B. Kaptur Keating Kelly (IL) Kennedy Kildee Kilmer Langevin Larsen (WA) Larson (CT) Lee (CA) Levin Lofgren Lowenthal Lowey Lujan Grisham (NM) Lujan, Ben Ray (NM) Lynch Maloney, Carolyn Matsui McCarthy (NY) McCollum McDermott McGovern McNerney Meeks Meng Michaud Moore Moran Nadler Napolitano Neal Negrete McLeod Nolan O'Rourke Owens Pallone Pascrell Pastor (AZ) Payne Pelosi Peters (MI) Pingree (ME) Pocan Polis Price (NC) Quigley Rangel Richmond Roybal-Allard Ruppersberger Rush Ryan (OH) Sanchez, Linda T. Sarbanes Schakowsky Schiff Schrader Scott (VA) Scott, David Serrano Sewell (AL) Shea-Porter Sherman 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 NOES--261 Aderholt Amash Amodei Bachmann Bachus Barber Barletta Barr Barrow (GA) Barton Benishek Bentivolio Bera (CA) Bilirakis Bishop (UT) Black Blackburn Boustany Brady (TX) Bridenstine Brooks (AL) Brooks (IN) Broun (GA) Brownley (CA) Buchanan Bucshon Burgess Bustos Byrne Calvert Camp Campbell Cantor Capito Carter Cassidy Chabot Chaffetz Coble Coffman Cole Collins (GA) Collins (NY) Conaway Cook Cooper Costa Cotton Cramer Crawford Crenshaw Culberson Daines Davis, Rodney DelBene Denham Dent DeSantis DesJarlais Diaz-Balart Duckworth Duffy Duncan (SC) Duncan (TN) Ellmers Enyart Farenthold Fincher Fitzpatrick Fleischmann Fleming Flores Forbes Fortenberry Foster Foxx Franks (AZ) Frelinghuysen Gallego Garcia Gardner Garrett Gerlach Gibbs Gibson Gingrey (GA) Gohmert Goodlatte Gosar Gowdy Granger Graves (GA) Graves (MO) Griffin (AR) Griffith (VA) Grimm Guthrie Hall Hanna Harper Harris Hartzler Hastings (WA) Heck (NV) Hensarling Herrera Beutler Himes Holding Hudson Huelskamp Huizenga (MI) Hultgren Hunter Hurt Issa Jenkins Johnson (OH) Johnson, Sam Jolly Jones Jordan Joyce Kelly (PA) Kind King (IA) King (NY) Kingston Kinzinger (IL) Kirkpatrick Kline Kuster Labrador LaMalfa Lamborn Lance Lankford Latham Latta Lipinski LoBiondo Loebsack Long Lucas Luetkemeyer Lummis Maffei Maloney, Sean Marchant Marino Massie Matheson McCarthy (CA) McCaul McClintock McHenry McIntyre McKeon McKinley McMorris Rodgers Meadows Meehan Messer Mica Miller (FL) Miller (MI) Miller, Gary Mullin Mulvaney Murphy (FL) Murphy (PA) Neugebauer Noem Nugent Nunes Nunnelee Olson Palazzo Paulsen Pearce Perry Peters (CA) Peterson Petri Pittenger Pitts Poe (TX) Pompeo Posey Price (GA) 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 Ruiz Ryan (WI) Salmon Sanchez, Loretta Sanford Scalise Schneider Schock Schweikert Scott, Austin Sensenbrenner Sessions Shimkus Shuster Simpson Sinema 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--7 Jackson Lee Lewis McAllister Miller, George Perlmutter Runyan Schwartz {time} 1126 Messrs. CASSIDY, SOUTHERLAND, and STEWART changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.'' Messrs. RUSH and CUELLAR changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.'' So the amendment was rejected. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, it is now in order to consider a final period of general debate, which shall not exceed 10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) each will control 5 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin. Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the distinguished House majority leader. Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Pro-Growth Budget Act. Right now, America is not working for too many people. For years, our economy has remained stagnant and job growth weak. {time} 1130 At the current time, three out of four Americans report that they are living paycheck to paycheck. The ability to climb the economic ladder of success and live the American Dream is becoming much more difficult for millions of people. Mr. Chairman, this is the status quo in America, but it is a status quo that we must not accept. Our constituents deserve better. Our constituents deserve a government that is focused on turning this economy around and making America work again, and work again for everybody. In the House, there are some very clear differences on how to solve America's problems. My Democratic colleagues believe the best way to move the country forward is with $1.8 trillion in new tax hikes so that this government can even spend more. That is not right, and it is not fair. Working Americans deserve a chance to put more of their hard- earned paychecks into their personal savings accounts, to invest that or spend it on their families before they are forced to send it to Washington. We House Republicans have a better plan, a balanced budget that will begin to provide working families, many of whom are struggling to make ends meet, with just a little relief. The budget before us will create jobs. It will cut wasteful spending. It will reform our Tax Code and hold Washington more accountable. Plain and simple, this budget is pro- growth. This budget is about making America work again. Today, Members of the House have a very simple choice. We can continue the status quo, stand in the way of economic progress and new opportunities for working middle class families, or we can choose to lead the American people down a path to prosperity where all Americans have a chance at success. Mr. Chairman, passing a budget is not only an important step to restoring trust in government and faith in our economy, it is our legal obligation to do so. The House passes a budget even when our paychecks aren't on the line. The House Republicans choose to lead on this issue. We have passed a budget every year since taking the majority. So let's now stand together and fulfill one of the most important duties that we were elected to do and pass a budget that the American people that sent us here can be proud of. [[Page 6123]] I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), the chairman of the Budget Committee, for his continued dedication to reining in wasteful spending and restoring fiscal responsibility and in balancing the budget. I also want to thank the other members of the Budget Committee for their hard work continuously on this issue. I urge my colleagues to pass this budget on behalf of the American people. Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I want to start by joining the chairman of the committee and thanking both the Democratic and Republican staff of the Budget Committee for their hard work and submit, for the Record, their names. Budget Committee Minority Staff List Sarah Abernathy Ellen Balis Kathleen Capstick Zachary Cuff (Intern) Ken Cummings Bridgett Frey Jocelyn M. Griffin Tom Kahn Najy Kamal Andrea Leung Sheila McDowell Diana Meredith Erin Miller Kimberly Overbeek Karen Robb Scott Russell Beth Stephenson Andy Van Wye (Intern) Ted Zegers Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I would also, Mr. Chairman, like to take this opportunity, it is Chairman Ryan's last year as head of the Budget Committee, and I do want to thank him for the professional way in which he has conducted the committee. Lest he think I am getting carried away, this is an example where process did not lead to a better product, and that is why we are here today because, unfortunately, I have to report that this House Republican budget is the worst of the Republican budgets I have seen in the last 3 years for the United States of America. Mr. Chairman, budgets reflect the choices we make for our country. They tell the American people what we care about and what we care less about. At every juncture in this House Republican budget, they choose to protect very powerful special interests and the most wealthy in our country at the expense of everyone else and at the expense of all the other priorities. For example, they have tax cuts that actually encourage companies to ship American jobs, not products, overseas, while our budget invests right here in the United States of America. Now, we heard the Republican leader say we want a better economy for everybody. The Congressional Budget Office tells us that this Republican budget will slow down economic growth right now for the next couple of years, that it will reduce job growth in the next couple of years, all while doing what? Providing another windfall tax break to millionaires. Yes, look at their budget. They want to drop the top tax rate, 39 percent to 25 percent, full 30 percent. What does that mean? $200,000 average tax break for millionaires. Who finances it in their budget? Well, math tells you middle-income taxpayers pay more. They pay $2,000 more per, average, in order to finance trickle-down economics, even though we know from experience that that was a dead end for this country. While our Republican colleagues talk about fiscal responsibility, apparently they don't care enough about it to close one single special interest tax loophole to help reduce the deficit--not one, not a hedge fund owner, not a big oil company, not one. And because they say hands off the most powerful and the most privileged, their budget has to come after everybody else, and it does. So it hits our kids' education, early education, K-12. College students are asked to pay more interest. In fact, they got $45 billion savings by charging college kids more interest while they are still in college and not working, again, while hands off the powerful special interests. Seniors, seniors on Medicare see the prescription drug doughnut hole open, the safety net, again, shredded. And all for what purpose? Now, they claim that they are going to somehow balance the budget at the end of the 10-year window. But you know what? They can't have it both ways. We have had over 50 votes here in the House of Representatives from our colleagues to repeal the Affordable Care Act. But guess what. They have got $2 trillion in this budget from revenues and savings from the Affordable Care Act. We use some of those savings. We use those Medicare savings to strengthen Medicare. Mr. Chairman, I now yield the final minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished Democratic leader who has been a fighter for America's priorities. Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I congratulate the Budget Committee for the hard work that you have done. I wish we had more than 10 minutes on each side to discuss the House Democratic budget, but so it is. Here we are, about to leave for the holy season of Easter and Passover. It reminds me of the Gospel of Matthew, in which Matthew says: ``For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.'' This budget is a statement as to where our treasure is and where our hearts are for the American people. A budget, as our distinguished ranking member said, must be a statement of our national values. What is important to us as a nation should be reflected in our spending priorities, in our treasure. But you be the judge, I want to say to the American people, but the Speaker will not allow me to address the American people, so their representatives here. Is it a statement of your national values, of our country, to give a $200,000 tax break to people making over $1 million a year at the expense of increasing taxes $2,000 for the middle class? Is that a statement of our values? I didn't think so. Is it a statement of our values, in order to finance the special interest privilege that is in the Republican budget, is it a statement of your values to cut over 170,000 children from Head Start? Is that a statement of our values? Children learning, parents earning, opportunity, fairness. Is it a statement of your values to support a budget that says, 3.5 million children in our country, disadvantaged children in economically disadvantaged areas, will have cuts in the budget of Title I? Is that a statement of our values in order to give tax breaks to Big Oil? Is it a statement of our values to say to aspiring families, some the first in their families to be able to go to college, that we are going to cut over half a million, maybe over 600,000 kids from Head Start? Is that a statement of values to say to over half a million young people you will not have opportunity to have higher education? Instead, we are going to give that same amount of money to Big Oil for tax incentives for them to drill. Is that a statement of our values? I don't think so. I don't think so. So where is their treasure and where is their heart? The treasure in this Republican budget is just as what our ranking member said; it is with the special interests and the wealthiest people in our country. It is a trickle-down approach that has never worked. It has worked for the rich. It has worked for the special interests and their supporters, but it has not worked for the great middle class. Do we need any more evidence of it not working, that these same warmed-over policies that existed in the Bush era that took us to the Great Recession, a great recession where we met right before the election in September of 2008, where the Chairman of the Fed said to us, if we do not act immediately, we will not have an economy by Monday? This was a Thursday night. That is where these policies took us at the end of the Bush years, and we are still digging out of that recession. Instead of having a budget that lifts us up to create jobs, to create growth, to invest in science and education, to keep America number one, they call their budget a path to prosperity. It is [[Page 6124]] a road to recession and always has been, and that is what it is now. So at least we have a few minutes to discuss our value system, where our treasure is, with the richest and the special interests or with the great middle class and those who aspire to it, and, therefore, where our heart is in terms of budget priorities in this budget. This is an important budget. Some people want to dismiss it as a joke because it is so outrageous. It is deadly serious. It isn't funny at all because of the impact that it has in the lives of America's families, our children, our seniors, voucherizing Medicare, removing the guarantee of Medicare for our seniors. {time} 1145 Is that a statement of our values, to say to our seniors: you are on your own, you are on your own? I don't think so. So if our heart is with the middle class, we will put our treasure there and make investments in education and job creation, investments in science. I will just close. Again, I started with the Bible. Scientific research gives us an almost biblical power to cure. Where there is scientific opportunity, we almost have a moral responsibility-- certainly a moral imperative to invest in it, to improve health, to improve the quality of health in our country, and to make sure that everybody has access to it. But don't worry about the access to it because our investments in basic scientific research are seriously impaired by this budget. It does violence to any concept of science that promotes innovation and keeps making America number one, advancing innovation with investments in science and technology. It undermines investments in how we protect our environment, so that our children can breathe clean air and drink clean water, about how we protect our America by investments in science and technology to do so, and the intelligence to avoid conflict and the investments in job creation that science will enable us to do. So if you believe in knowledge, if you would believe in fact, if you believe in the middle class, you must reject the Republican budget. You must reject the Republican budget. What the Republican leadership is asking Members to do is something that I don't know that they share that value. Certainly, Republicans across the country do not. Republicans across the country support education, investments in science, and the rest. Any poll will show you that. Just one other thing: if you really want to reduce the deficit, one of the fastest ways you can do it is to have a budget that does as ours does, to include comprehensive immigration reform, which reduces the deficit by $900 billion with a b, according to the Congressional Budget Office. So by reason of treasure, by reason of heart, by reason of value, by reason of ethic, by reason of honoring our responsibilities to the American people, vote a good, strong ``no'' on the Ryan Republican budget. It is a path to ruin. It is not a path to prosperity. Mr. Van Hollen's budget is a budget about growth, about investment, about keeping America number one, about strengthening the middle class, which is the backbone of our democracy. Vote ``no'' on the Ryan budget. The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from Maryland has expired. Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield myself the balance of the time. Let me first start off by saying, Mr. Chairman, you have presided over this budget for many years. You have set a great example for the rest of us. This is your last year serving, and I want to thank you for what you have done for this institution. Thank you for setting a great example. Mr. Chairman, what this debate comes down to is a question of trust. We have offered a budget because we trust the American people. Unlike the Senate Democrats who, once again, have punted, have chosen not even to offer a budget this year, we trust the people to make an honest assessment. We trust them to make the right choice for their future. Now, to their credit, the House Democrats have offered budgets as well. The problem is they put their trust in Washington. Every time you hear this word ``investment,'' just know what that means: take from hard-working taxpayers, borrow more money from our next generation, from other countries, and spend it in Washington. Time and again, they are proposing to put government in the driver's seat. They have already engineered a takeover of our entire health care sector. They are overregulating our energy sector. They are depriving us of jobs. They won't even give us the Keystone pipeline. They are proposing yet new taxes, another $1.8 trillion increase. They are proposing more cronyism. They are proposing more control for Washington, less control of our communities, less control over our businesses, less control over our lives, less control over our futures. In my respectful opinion, it is a vision that is both paternalistic, arrogant, and downright condescending. You know, Big Government, in theory, it sounds compelling. In practice, it is totally different. Remember, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Remember, if you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan. Remember, if government just takes over this sector, it will lower your costs. Big Government in practice is so different than in the theory. The results have nothing to do with the rhetoric. We, on the other hand, trust the people. We are offering a balanced budget that pays down the debt. We are offering patient-centered solutions, so patients are the nucleus of the health care system, not the government. We are offering a plan to save Medicare now and for future generations. We are offering a stronger safety net with State flexibility to help meet people's needs and to help people get from welfare to work, to make the most of their lives. We are offering a progrowth Tax Code. We are offering more energy jobs. You can boil the differences down to one question: Who knows better, the people or Washington? We have made our choice with this budget. I trust the American people to make theirs. Mr. Chairman, let's call the votes. Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, a number of political pundits have asked why House Republicans are advancing a budget this year considering the House and Senate have already agreed upon a top-level budgetary baseline for the upcoming fiscal year. Apparently, Senate Democrats agree with these pundits and have announced that they will not produce a budget. Clearly, these pundits and Senate Democrats have been in Washington for far too long. The American people did not send us to Congress to look for shortcuts and to find the easy way out. Last year's budget agreement did not magically solve our fiscal challenges, so we need to roll up our sleeves and get to work. Thankfully, under the leadership of Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, House Republicans are doing just that. Our budget makes the tough decisions necessary to grow our economy by curbing the growth of federal spending and making critical reforms to our entitlement programs. Critics of the Republican budget call our spending cuts draconian. On the current path, spending will grow, on average, by 5.2 percent a year over the next decade. Under this budget, spending will grow, on average, by 3.5 percent a year. That's not austerity, that's responsibility. Our budget does cut $5.1 trillion in spending and balances over the next ten years--without raising taxes. On the other hand, the Democrat's budget raises taxes by $1.8 trillion, increases spending by $740 billion more than current policy, while growing our annual deficit to $637 billion in 2024. While the differences between our budgetary priorities are clear, it is essential that both sides of the aisle work together and build upon last year's budget agreement. Moving back to regular order of approving a budget and advancing the annual individual appropriations bills is the best form of governance possible. Every year, our federal agencies and programs need to be closely examined so that we can remove any waste, fraud, abuse or inefficiencies. Mr. Chair, the budget before us is an important step towards establishing a responsible [[Page 6125]] fiscal foundation for the next fiscal year as well as the years to come. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the House Budget Committee and Appropriations Committee in executing the vision and priorities laid out in this budget. I once again want to thank Chairman Ryan for his thoughtful, dedicated work on this budget, which will be his last as Chairman, and I urge all of my colleagues to support it. Mr. BARLETTA. Mr. Chair, I will vote for the budget proposal framework put forth by Chairman Paul Ryan. I vote to reaffirm my support for the principles behind the bipartisan Ryan Murray budget agreement; For efforts to simplify our nation's tax code to make it simpler and fairer for all involved; For repeal of the president's misguided and unworkable health care law; For efforts to reign in the president's wasteful spending proposals and burdensome regulations, which are preventing our economy from reaching its full potential; For efforts to ensure that our men and women in uniform have the support they need; For efforts to responsibly reduce our $17 trillion plus debt, which is a national security concern; And for efforts to balance our nation's budget--the President's budget proposal never achieves balance. Mr. Chair, I will vote for efforts to reform our entitlement programs to ensure that they are preserved and protected for future generations. This budget proposal is a thoughtful document that forces the Congress to face reality--these programs, which are on autopilot, are simply unsustainable in their current form. And we must reform these programs because they consume roughly two thirds of our nation's spending. We must preserve our ability to quickly respond to any crisis, foreign or domestic, while still ensuring we have the ability to make the needed investments that will spur economic private industry growth and ingenuity. Just like the bipartisan Ryan Murray budget agreement, I do not agree with every line in this budget framework, and I will work to improve any future legislation that may be considered as a result of its adoption. But I do agree that we have a duty to offer ideas in the public sphere. I will vote yes because our fiscal challenges are real, and they must be addressed. Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chair, I will vote for H. Con. Res. 96 because I continue to believe the Congress has a responsibility to produce a budget each year. As a longstanding member of the House Appropriations Committee, I feel it is important that Congress have an open and honest debate about the fiscal challenges our country faces, especially our out-of-control entitlement spending that continues to deplete the federal coffers of resources to invest in defense, infrastructure, education, science and research on cancer, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, ALS (Lou Gehrig's Disease), juvenile diabetes, multiple sclerosis, autism and other diseases. These investments are what made America great in the 20th century, but are on track to be completely overtaken within a decade due to unchecked entitlement spending growth. When I came to the floor to vote for last year's budget, we were $16.7 trillion in debt. Today, we are over $17.5 trillion in debt. That's a nearly trillion dollar increase in one year. It's projected to grow to over $27 trillion in 10 years, another $10 trillion increase. Our unfunded obligations and liabilities are now projected to be well of $70 trillion, and CBO's February 2014 budget outlook projected this year's deficit to be about $514 billion. These numbers get worse with each passing year. Equally troubling, this mounting debt is increasingly held by foreign countries. In 1970, 6 percent of debt held by the public was in foreign hands. In 1990, it was 19 percent. Today, nearly 50 percent of our publically held debt is in foreign hands--and it is held by countries like China and Saudi Arabia which certainly do not share our interests or values. My vote today reflects my desire to advance the congressional budget process to confront these serious challenges. While there are many good things in this budget, my vote should not be interpreted as a reflection of my satisfaction with the legislation itself. Simply put, I believe this is a flawed proposal that stands no chance of being adopted by both chambers of Congress this year. I continue to have serious concerns with several of the provisions and believe it falls short of being a plan that can garner the bipartisan support necessary to put our nation on a path towards fiscal responsibility. Most notably, this budget once again falls short in its failure to incorporate most of the recommendations of the bipartisan Simpson- Bowles Commission. Regrettably, another year has gone by where the president and both the Republicans and Democrats in Congress have failed to advance the only bipartisan fiscal reforms that would address our debt and deficit in a manner that could result in real progress. As I have repeatedly said, I would much prefer to vote for a bipartisan budget modeled off the Simpson-Bowles plan. It could be improved by incorporating changes in existing law and other proposals, such as those produced by the discussions between the president and Speaker Boehner, and plans offered by Alice Rivlin and Pete Domenici, and Representative Ryan and Senator Wyden. Like the Ryan plan before us today, I do not agree with every line in the Simpson-Bowles plan. But only a budget based on this model can put our nation on a sustainable, long-term path to replace sequestration and reform our nation's entitlement programs so they will exist for future generations. As much as both sides might prefer that their party control both chambers of Congress and the White House, this is simply not the case. And it's unlikely to change until 2016 at the earliest. Either the Congress can get serious about adopting budget reforms that have bipartisan consensus and could be signed into law, or we can continue having these same quixotic debates, year after year, while our debt and deficit grow unabated. The debt and deficit numbers continue to get worse, and none of the actions taken by the Congress--including sequestration--have made a meaningful impact on our fiscal situation. For the last eight years I have been working toward finding consensus on bipartisan budget reforms based on the premise that all Americans, not just one group or another, will have to give something towards reducing our debt and deficits. Starting in 2006, during the Bush Administration, I began advocating for a bipartisan commission--the Securing America's Future Economy (SAFE) Commission--to identify budget reforms that could win the support of both Republicans and Democrats. The Simpson-Bowles Commission, appointed in 2010, was formed largely in response to efforts in the House and Senate to advance the SAFE Commission. The commission's co-chairs, former Senators Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles, ultimately produced a package of bipartisan reforms that was serious and effective. Unfortunately, President Obama and congressional leadership have spent the last three years running away from the Simpson-Bowles recommendations. When my colleagues and I have brought legislation to the floor of the House based on these recommendations, the efforts have fallen short due to a lack of support from both Republican and Democrat leadership. I believe their misguided opposition represents a failure of leadership that they will come to regret in the years ahead, as our budget challenges grow more and more dire. To date, we have instead been presented with tepid proposals that fail to meaningfully impact our debt, or proposals, like this budget, that embrace a vision for budget reform that stands little chance of passing and becoming law. This year, President Obama has retreated from even modest budget reforms that he has proposed in the past, such as chained CPI. I believe history will not look kindly on his failure to lead efforts to bring both parties together around meaningful reforms to address this existential national threat. His failure to lead over the last five years is directly reflected in the budget that the House has passed today, which reflects a conservative blueprint for budget reform rather than reforms based on bipartisan consensus. There's a certain irony that the budget approved today continues to draw from only one section of the Simpson-Bowles framework: making our federal workforce contribute more towards its retirement and taking steps towards ending the defined benefit retirement plan. Yet again, the Congress is targeting just one group of Americans for additional sacrifice--just as has been done for offsets in past budget agreements. This flies in the face of the Simpson-Bowles vision of shared sacrifice among all Americans in fixing our debt and deficit and, as I have said many times, is just wrong. To cite the Simpson-Bowles recommendations as an excuse to single out additional cuts to federal employees is disingenuous and inappropriate. My colleagues often forget that while there are many federal employees in the capital region, it is worth noting that more than 85 percent of the workforce is outside of Washington. They also may not realize that more than 65 percent of all federal employees work in agencies that support our national defense capabilities as we continue to fight the War on Terror. The first American killed in Afghanistan, Mike Spann, was a CIA agent and a constituent from my congressional district. CIA, [[Page 6126]] FBI, DEA agents, and State Department employees are serving side-by- side with our military in the fight against the Taliban. Federal employees include the Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents who are working to stop the flow of illegal immigrants and drugs across our borders. They are the medical researchers at NIH working to develop cures for cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's and autism. They are the VA doctors and nurses treating veterans from World War II to the present day. They are the NASA astronauts and engineers working to support the International Space Station and build our nation's exploration program. These are just a few examples of the hardworking people that serve our country each day that this budget unfairly targets. I am also concerned with a provision in the budget that would only replace one federal employee for every three vacancies. Do we really want to cut the number of FBI and Border Patrol agents and VA doctors by two-thirds? This proposal amounts to an indiscriminate sequestration of the federal workforce. While there may be some agencies where reductions are necessary, I do not support this indiscriminate approach of doing so. Taken together, these proposals on federal employees may very well undermine the federal workforce. It is often said that budgets are about choices, and I fear that yet another year will go by where we fail to make the tough choices--yet tough choices that members from both parties can support--to make real progress in confronting our debt and deficit. Until the president and congressional leadership start to incorporate the Simpson-Bowles recommendations, or a bold plan like this that gets control of the debt and deficit, into their budgets, we will likely never address the structural reforms that must be made to responsibly get our nation's fiscal house in order. This should be done in a manner that involves shared sacrifice from all Americans, not just certain groups of Americans. I am proud to have served on the House Appropriations Committee for most of my tenure in the Congress, where each year we produce appropriations bills that make tough choices, yet the bills often pass with bipartisan support. Over the last several years, the full Appropriations Committee has made more than $100 billion in cuts to discretionary spending. The Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations subcommittee, which I chair, has contributed more than $12 billion towards those cuts. But we approached these cuts in a responsible manner and I am proud that we have often had bipartisan support for the bills we produce. It can be done, but it requires leadership. Mr. Chair, this budget is constructive for advancing the debate about our nation's fiscal challenges, and my vote today reflects my support for the process. But until this Congress passes a budget based on the bipartisan reforms recommended by the Simpson-Bowles recommendations, it is unlikely we will ever make real progress towards reducing our debt and deficit in a substantial way. It's time for leadership--from the president and both Republicans and Democrats in Congress--to deal with this issue. Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the Republican Budget for fiscal year 2015. We have two choices in front of us today. Two choices on the programs and investments we must fund and prioritize to balance deficit reduction with economic growth. The prosperity of our Nation is dependent on a strong middle class. Regrettably, the Republican budget would increase taxes on middle class families, provide huge tax breaks for the wealthy, and place the burden of paying for those tax breaks on working Americans, and their children. We have seen this budget before--a couple of times, in fact. It's the same budget Chairman Ryan brought us in 2013, and in 2012. It is a budget that works for the one percent at the expense of the other 99 percent. It shifts future costs to seniors by ending the Medicare guarantee and raising prescription drug costs. It cuts investment in our Nation's infrastructure, slashes funding for program, that keep children from going hungry, and guts education through cuts to Pell grants and K-12 education. Republicans have proposed a budget that attacks the very foundation of the middle class. It is a path that will lead to economic uncertainty for millions of Americans, and it is not a budget I can support in good conscience. Democrats have offered a fair and balanced alternative budget that preserves our social safety net, keeps the promises made to our seniors, and asks all Americans to pay their fair share in reducing the deficit. Rhode Islanders understand more than most the toll unemployment can take on families and our communities. The Democratic alternative extends emergency unemployment insurance so those who are still struggling to find work can keep paying their bills. It provides $76 billion for early childhood education and ensures college affordability by lowering student loan debt and including new repayment options. It provides funding for public transit, our highways, and supports critical investments in research and development, clean energy, manufacturing, and programs that make our industries competitive globally. I have a responsibility to my constituents, and to every American, to make sure that policies we enact in Congress provide for the long term health and prosperity of our Nation, which include getting people back to work, giving our businesses the support they need to grow, and building a skilled workforce to meet the demands of a 21st Century economy. The Republican budget takes us in the wrong direction. I urge my colleagues to reject the Republican Budget and support the Democratic alternative that keeps our promises to our seniors, preserves our social safety net, and balances deficit reduction with job growth and economic recovery. Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to the Republican Budget Resolution and in strong support of the Congressional Black Caucus' Alternative Budget. To say that the Republican Budget Resolution is dangerous is an understatement. In particular, two areas of great concern to me will be negatively impacted by this resolution. As the Ranking Member of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, and former chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, I urge the Appropriations Committee to come as close as possible to maintaining the FY 2014 Consolidated Appropriations Act levels of investment in research and development and STEM education. R&D and STEM education are critical to our nation's future, and we support the topline levels in the President's FY 2015 budget request and Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative for the Federal R&D agencies as worthy of support. Shortchanging those accounts will wind up shortchanging our future economy and quality of life. Increased investment in these areas will pay significant dividends over the long run. As Members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), we aim to be the, ``Conscience of the Congress.'' I feel compelled to discuss the disastrous effects the Ryan Republican Budget would have on our country's research and development enterprise, and consequently, the disastrous effect this budget would have on America's future competitiveness. As others have pointed out, the Republican Budget cuts non-defense discretionary spending by 1.3 trillion dollars below the baseline 2014 spending level, adjusted for inflation. These are massive cuts on top of a budget that has already seen large reductions in recent years. The effects on research and development would be dramatic. The American Association for the Advancement of Science estimates that the Ryan budget would cut civilian research and development by 92 billion dollars from the current baseline and 112 billion dollars below the President's budget request. These are striking reductions. Please keep in mind here that the National Science Foundation's total annual budget is just a little over seven billion dollars. So the Republican Budget cuts more research and development funding every year than the entire annual budget of the National Science Foundation. Additionally, as a senior Member of the Transportation & Infrastructure Committee, I am incensed that this budget fails to address our nation's aging infrastructure. Millions of Americans would be negatively impacted by this measure, leaving families, individuals and businesses with virtually no transportation options. This proposal would do away with Amtrak operating subsidies, potentially eliminating service for more than 20 million people. Most shamefully, however, this budget includes virtually no highway or transit investment and does little to address the impending crisis facing our nation's highways. In fact, this resolution assigns a spending level of $20.95 billion for transportation and infrastructure. This is a reduction of $50.99 billion from last year and eviscerates the total transportation and infrastructure budget. For the third year in a row, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) has awarded our nation's infrastructure a ``D+.'' Time and time again, it becomes clear that investing in our infrastructure lays the groundwork for a competitive economy. What we need now is targeted investment in our infrastructure, not draconian reductions. Our infrastructure is too important to gamble on and the Republican Budget resolution is a roll of the dice. It would result in the loss of [[Page 6127]] thousands of construction related jobs in already economically disadvantaged areas and cut public transportation funding to historically low levels. Quite frankly, this budget is dangerous and I ask my Republican colleagues to scrap this plan and work across the aisle to craft a plan that invests in our future. A budget that ignores funding for science and technology, and fails to include targeted infrastructure investments, fails the American future. The Congressional Black Caucus' budget includes $500 billion in targeted investments and programs that invest in our future. It closes tax loopholes, deductions and exceptions that only benefit the wealthy. Addressing the past wrongs of wealth inequality will help create an economy that works for every American. Passing the CBC's Alternative Budget is the first step in righting those wrongs. Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong opposition to the Republican Budget Resolution for fiscal year 2015. The budget put forth by House Republicans is unnecessary and unwise. Congress has already passed a budget target for FY2015. The House Appropriations Committee has already marked up two bills. This Republican budget is a complete distraction from the real work Congress should be focusing on--issues such as comprehensive immigration reform, the restoration of long-term unemployment insurance, the Paycheck Fairness Act or others. Instead, Republican leaders have wasted another legislative week with endless floor debate on a budget that recycles many of the rejected Tea Party proposals from the past. Once again, Congressional Republicans are demonstrating their true priorities: providing massive tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans and corporations at the expense of Middle Class America. This ten year Republican budget is the wrong vision for Minnesota and America. Yet again, the GOP abandons investments that ensure broad- based economic prosperity today and into the future. This budget jeopardizes the health and economic security of our seniors by re- opening the donut hole and ending the Medicare guarantee. Their proposal fails our children by making irresponsible cuts to our schools and Pell Grants, putting the dream of a college education out of reach for millions of young adults. Extreme reductions to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the Social Services Block Grant, and Medicaid will inflict unnecessary pain on our children, working families, and seniors. By slashing investments in infrastructure, their budget rejects a proven path to grow our economy and create jobs. Instead, it advances the priorities of the wealthiest Americans-- massive tax breaks for the top one percent and corporations, while adding to the tax burden of middle class families and destroying the social safety net. The Ryan-Republican budget is a recipe for American economic decline and increased pain for the vulnerable. It moves our nation backwards and gives up on the American dream, the idea that everyone has a fair shot at success. I strongly reject these misguided priorities and the Republicans' harmful vision for our Nation. Instead, I am pleased to support the budget resolution offered by the Democrats. Our budget proposal prioritizes the needs of our seniors and middle class families. It strengthens the social safety net, protects Medicare, and preserves the Affordable Care Act to help ensure all Americans have access to affordable health coverage. The Democratic Alternative invests in the needs of our communities and will help create jobs by expanding tax incentives for low- and middle-class families. It makes critical investments in education to help make college more affordable and ensure that all students have the opportunity to succeed. And it rejects the reckless cuts caused by sequestration to non-defense spending starting next year, while maintaining the funding level requested by the President for defense. The Democratic Alternative is a vision for our country that will keep our communities and our economy strong into the future. There were also good ideas put forward by the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) and the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC). Both budget proposals would help support the needs of Minnesota families and keep America strong. The bottom line is that the Ryan-Republican budget resolution increases the tax breaks for wealthy, abandons America's middle class, and punishes the poor. I came to Congress to move our Nation forward. I urge my colleagues to reject this backward vision put forward by Chairman Ryan and instead support the Democratic Alternative. Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chair, the federal budget is about much more than just dollars and cents. It is a moral document that reflects our values and our vision for our nation's future. Unfortunately the Republican budget before us is a reflection of misguided priorities and values. Instead of creating jobs and opportunity for the middle class and those aspiring to realize the American dream the Republican budget recklessly and unfairly protects the super wealthy and special interests at the expense of everyone else. The Republican budget ignores the significant importance of investing in education, job training, research, innovation, modern day infrastructure and advanced manufacturing. In doing so, it will foolishly cripple our country's economic growth and the future potential of hardworking Americans and their families to create and successfully compete for 21st century jobs. The Republican plan also jeopardizes the wellbeing of our seniors by proposing to turn Medicare into a voucher system. In my state of California alone, this disastrous Republican budget would raise health care costs for seniors by ending the Medicare guarantee and forcing 358,862 seniors to pay more for prescription drugs. It would ransack our nation's commitment to education and push 21,140 Californian children out of Head Start and deny Pell Grants to 51,350 low income California college students. The Republican budget would also force California to turn more than 488,000 people away from job training, employment and job search assistance. And, according to the non partisan Congressional Budget Office, it would stall our nation's recovery by cutting economic growth by 2.5 percent in the year 2015. I am proud to stand with my Democratic colleagues who have a different vision for America that responsibly reduces our deficit. Our vision respects the American people, gives them opportunity through the creation of good paying jobs that build and strengthens the middle class, protects the future and wellbeing of our children and insures we remain the greatest country in the world. The CHAIR. All time for debate has expired. Under the rule, the Committee rises. Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Nugent) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hastings of Washington, Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 96) establishing the budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2015 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2016 through 2024, and, pursuant to House Resolution 544, he reported the concurrent resolution back to the House. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Under the rule, the previous question is ordered. The question is on the concurrent resolution. Under clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 5-minute vote will be followed by a 5-minute vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal, if ordered. The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 219, nays 205, not voting 8, as follows: [Roll No. 177] YEAS--219 Aderholt Amash Amodei Bachmann Bachus Barletta Barr Barton Benishek Bentivolio Bilirakis Bishop (UT) Black Blackburn Boehner Boustany Brady (TX) Bridenstine Brooks (AL) Brooks (IN) Buchanan Bucshon Burgess Byrne Calvert Camp Campbell Cantor Capito Carter Cassidy Chabot Chaffetz Coble Coffman Cole Collins (GA) Collins (NY) Conaway Cook Cotton Cramer 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 Gohmert Goodlatte Gosar Gowdy Granger Graves (GA) Graves (MO) Griffin (AR) Griffith (VA) Grimm Guthrie Hanna Harper Harris Hartzler Hastings (WA) Heck (NV) 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) Kinzinger (IL) Kline Labrador LaMalfa Lamborn Lance Lankford Latham Latta [[Page 6128]] Long Lucas Luetkemeyer Lummis Marchant Marino McCarthy (CA) McCaul McClintock McHenry McKeon 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) 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 Ryan (WI) Salmon Sanford Scalise Schock Schweikert 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--205 Barber Barrow (GA) Bass Beatty Becerra Bera (CA) Bishop (GA) Bishop (NY) Blumenauer Bonamici Brady (PA) Braley (IA) Broun (GA) Brown (FL) Brownley (CA) Bustos Butterfield Capps Capuano Cardenas Carney Cartwright Castor (FL) Castro (TX) Chu Cicilline Clark (MA) Clarke (NY) Clay Cleaver Clyburn Cohen Connolly Conyers Cooper Costa Courtney Crawford 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 Gabbard Gallego Garamendi Garcia Gibson Gingrey (GA) Grayson Green, Al Green, Gene Grijalva Gutierrez Hahn Hall Hanabusa Hastings (FL) Heck (WA) Higgins Himes Hinojosa Holt Honda Horsford Hoyer Huffman Israel Jeffries Johnson (GA) Johnson, E. B. Jolly Jones Kaptur Keating Kelly (IL) Kennedy Kildee Kilmer Kind Kingston Kirkpatrick Kuster Langevin Larsen (WA) Larson (CT) Lee (CA) Levin Lipinski LoBiondo Loebsack Lofgren Lowenthal Lowey Lujan Grisham (NM) Lujan, Ben Ray (NM) Lynch Maffei Maloney, Carolyn Maloney, Sean Massie Matheson Matsui McCarthy (NY) McCollum McDermott McGovern McIntyre McKinley McNerney Meeks Meng Michaud Moore Moran Murphy (FL) Nadler Napolitano Neal Negrete McLeod Nolan O'Rourke Owens Pallone Pascrell Pastor (AZ) Payne Pelosi Peters (CA) Peters (MI) Peterson Pingree (ME) Pocan Polis Price (NC) Quigley Rahall Rangel Richmond Roybal-Allard Ruiz Ruppersberger Rush Ryan (OH) Sanchez, Linda T. Sanchez, Loretta Sarbanes Schakowsky Schiff Schneider Schrader Scott (VA) Scott, Austin 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--8 Carson (IN) Jackson Lee Lewis McAllister Miller, George Perlmutter Runyan Schwartz {time} 1201 So the concurrent resolution was agreed to. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. Stated against: Ms. SCHWARTZ. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 177 I was unable to attend. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' Mr. CARSON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, on April 10, 2014, I missed rollcall vote 177. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' personal explanation Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained today and missed roll Nos. 175 through 177. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on roll No. 176. I would have voted ``nay'' on roll Nos. 175 and 177. ____________________ THE JOURNAL The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the question on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal, which the Chair will put de novo. The question is on the Speaker's approval of the Journal. Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Journal stands approved. ____________________ REMOVAL OF NAME OF MEMBER AS COSPONSOR OF H.R. 2377 Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my name as cosponsor of H.R. 2377. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Collins of New York). Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from South Carolina? There was no objection. ____________________ VISA LIMITATION FOR CERTAIN REPRESENTATIVES TO THE UNITED NATIONS Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of the bill (S. 2195) to deny admission to the United States to any representative to the United Nations who has been found to have been engaged in espionage activities or a terrorist activity against the United States and poses a threat to United States national security interests, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Virginia? There was no objection. The text of the bill is as follows: S. 2195 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. VISA LIMITATION FOR CERTAIN REPRESENTATIVES TO THE UNITED NATIONS. Section 407(a) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 (8 U.S.C. 1102 note) is amended-- (1) by striking ``such individual has been found to have been engaged in espionage activities'' and inserting the following: ``such individual-- ``(1) has been found to have been engaged in espionage activities or a terrorist activity (as defined in section 212(a)(3)(B)(iii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(iii)))''; and (2) by striking ``allies and may pose'' and inserting the following: ``allies; and ``(2) may pose''. The bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the table. ____________________ PROVIDING FOR A CONDITIONAL ADJOURNMENT OR RECESS OF THE SENATE AND AN ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following privileged concurrent resolution: S. Con. Res. 35 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That when the Senate recesses or adjourns on any day from Thursday, April 10, 2014, through Thursday, April 24, 2014, on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his designee, it stand recessed or adjourned until 12:00 noon on Monday, April 28, 2014, or such other time on that day as may be specified by its Majority Leader or his designee in the motion to recess or adjourn, or until the time of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first; and that when the House adjourns on any legislative day from Thursday, April 10, 2014, through Thursday, April 24, 2014, on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his designee, it stand adjourned until 2:00 p.m. on Monday, April 28, 2014, or until the time of any reassembly pursuant to section 3 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first. Sec. 2. (a) The Majority Leader of the Senate or his designee, after consultation with the Minority Leader of the Senate, shall notify the Members of the Senate to reassemble at such place and time he may designate if, in his opinion, the public interest shall warrant it. (b) After reassembling pursuant to subsection (a), when the Senate adjourns on a motion offered pursuant to this subsection by its Majority Leader or his designee, the [[Page 6129]] Senate shall again stand adjourned pursuant to the first section of this concurrent resolution. Sec. 3. (a) The Speaker of his designee, after consultation with the Minority Leader of the House, shall notify Members of the House to reassemble at such place and time he may designate if, in his opinion, the public interest shall warrant it. (b) After reassembling pursuant to subsection (a), when the House adjourns on a motion offered pursuant to this subsection by its Majority Leader or his designee, the House shall again stand adjourned pursuant to the first section of this concurrent resolution. The concurrent resolution was concurred in. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. ____________________ DENYING AN IRANIAN TERRORIST DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY (Mr. LAMBORN asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute.) Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, last week, we learned something shocking and appalling. The Iranian Government wants to appoint a terrorist as their Ambassador to the United Nations, a man who participated in the 1979 terrorist attack on our Embassy in Tehran. This is unconscionable and unacceptable. Last week, Senator Ted Cruz and I introduced legislation to fix this problem. This bill gives the President the authority he needs to deny this individual a visa. Senator Cruz pushed the bill through the Senate unanimously on Monday. I have been working with House leadership this week to quickly move this bill forward here in the House so that we do not have an Iranian terrorist walking the streets of New York City and having diplomatic immunity. I am proud to report that we just passed this bill unanimously. I thank my colleagues and House leadership for passing the Cruz- Lamborn legislation. ____________________ THE RYAN REPUBLICAN BUDGET THROWS SENIORS OFF A CLIFF (Ms. FRANKEL of Florida asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.) Ms. FRANKEL of Florida. Mr. Speaker, they cradled us in our arms when we were babies, picked us off the ground when we scraped our knees, worked long hours to send us to college, and embraced us with unconditional love. I am talking about our parents and our grandparents. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I am distraught with tears in my heart because of the Republican budget--slashing Medicaid by billions and cutting critical funding for our neediest seniors in nursing homes. When our grannies and gramps are at their weakest, their oldest, their loneliest, the Republican Ryan budget puts them in a wheelchair and throws them off a cliff. That is wrong, Mr. Speaker. I say ``no'' to this budget. We can do much better. ____________________ HONORING THE HOCKADAY SCHOOL'S CENTENNIAL ANNIVERSARY (Mr. MARCHANT asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute.) Mr. MARCHANT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Hockaday School's centennial anniversary. The school will celebrate 100 years of learning and service this weekend. Hockaday is a world-renowned institution in Dallas, Texas, in my congressional district. The school educates over 1,000 students from pre-K to 12th grade. Hockaday stands on the same four cornerstones upon which it was founded: character, courtesy, scholarship, and athletics. These four cornerstones were the original vision of the school's founder, Miss Ela Hockaday. They remain the very fabric of the school and will continue to guide Hockaday students for years to come. I ask all of my colleagues today to join me in honoring the Hockaday community on this very historic occasion. ____________________ NATIONAL DAY OF SILENCE (Mr. FARR asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of the National Day of Silence. Tomorrow is the 17th year we have commemorated the National Day of Silence. It is a time when students across the country remain silent for a whole day to draw attention to discrimination towards their LGBT peers. Our country has made great progress towards more acceptable and tolerance for gay and lesbian individuals; however, gender-expansive students, gender-diverse students, and straight allies still face a lot of fear and discrimination. I want all these students to know they are not alone. I say this every year, but I continue to be so proud of my young constituents, their parents and families who are working to make the world a better place for all people no matter your race, your color, your gender, or your sexual orientation. For example, Jordan, a ninth grade transgender male student at The Ark in Santa Cruz will be one of the emcees for the 17th Annual Queer Youth Leadership Awards in Capitola. Jordan's mom, Heidi, is an advisory council member to the Trans* Teen Project and a facilitator of the Transfamily Support Group. Though many LGBT students and their allies are silent tomorrow, we in Congress must never be silent. It is our job to speak for those who cannot speak for themselves. ____________________ {time} 1230 TRIBUTE TO JANE TUCKER (Mr. PERRY asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Jane Tucker of Dallastown, Pennsylvania, who was honored at today's Congressional Victims' Rights Caucus Awards. Jane endured years of life-threatening physical and mental abuse at the hands of her first husband in the 1950s. With tenacity and perseverance, she devoted decades of her life to founding ACCESS-York, York County, Pennsylvania's service provider for victims fleeing domestic violence. Jane continues to this very day, this very moment, as a volunteer at ACCESS-York, and she serves as the inspiration and motivation to countless victims who turn to ACCESS-York for help, understanding and protection. She is the epitome of resilience, strength, compassion and integrity. From a battered mother to a founding mother of ACCESS-York, Jane Tucker's life is a story of triumph over tragedy, and I am absolutely proud and humbled to be part of honoring her accomplishment with the unsung hero award today. ____________________ REPUBLICAN BUDGET UNMITIGATED DISASTER (Mr. TAKANO asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, the Republican budget put together by Chairman Ryan is one of the world's worst vanity projects. It doesn't actually help the American people. It simply fulfills Mr. Ryan's ideological fantasies. I want a budget that will grow our economy, create jobs, invest in the American people. Mr. Ryan wants a budget that will make Ayn Rand proud. I want a budget that improves our national education system. Mr. Ryan's budget will cut funding for nearly 8,000 schools. I want a budget that expands job training. Mr. Ryan's budget would deny 3.5 million Americans access to job training programs. I want a budget that keeps the promises to our seniors. Mr. Ryan's budget ends the guarantee of Medicare and turns it into a voucher system. Mr. Speaker, the Ryan budget is an unmitigated disaster. I opposed it, and [[Page 6130]] I know all my Democratic colleagues opposed it. This budget is at odds with what the American people need. ____________________ HONORING WALTER H. KECK, JR. (Mr. PALAZZO asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. PALAZZO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate and honor Walt H. Keck, Jr., on his retirement after 55 years of public service. Mr. Keck joined the United States Air Force in 1961. Throughout his 27-year military career, he rose through the ranks to master sergeant before retiring in 1988. In 1989, Mr. Keck began his law enforcement career as an officer with the Harrison County Sheriff's Department. Nearly 10 years later, he assisted the city of D'Iberville in creating its own police department while continuing to work for Harrison County. Sworn in as D'Iberville police captain in 2008 and deputy chief of police in 2012, Mr. Keck retires on May 6, 2014, with over 28 years of law enforcement service. Mr. Keck has been described as a man of integrity, intelligence, dedication, and compassion, and as a man who truly cares about the citizens he serves. Mr. Keck, on behalf of the United States Congress, thank you for your hard work and commitment to the citizens of the United States and south Mississippi. I wish you all the best in your future endeavors. ____________________ HONORING VICTIMS OF RWANDAN GENOCIDE (Mr. SCHIFF asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, 20 years ago, a plane carrying Rwanda's president was shot down, unleashing a genocide carried out by the country's dominant Hutu tribe against its Tutsi minority. Hundreds of thousands of people, estimates of the dead range up to 1 million, were killed in a matter of weeks. Many were butchered with machetes, their mutilated bodies left to rot in the African sun. Women were brutally raped. Entire families were slaughtered at once. The goal was simple: to kill every Tutsi in Rwanda. The killing went on for 3 months, wiping out nearly three-fourths of the Tutsi population, until rebel forces toppled the government and took over a deeply traumatized nation. In the two decades since, Rwanda has made remarkable progress in a broad range of economic, health, and social indicators. It has taken on the delicate task of bringing those responsible for the genocide to justice without tearing the country apart. Rwanda's saga, even as we mourn the dead, is ultimately a story of triumph and hope. For us in America and the West, Rwanda stands as mute testimony to our failure to live up to the post-Holocaust promise of ``never again.'' We cannot undo the past, but we can heed the lessons of Rwanda by acting now to prevent genocide in the Central African Republic. Today's U.N. Security Council vote is a first step, and Congress should act by providing resources. I urge us to do so quickly. Lives are on the line. ____________________ FOOD INSECURITY (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, every year we celebrate Easter and Passover, in part, with food. Yet for millions of Americans, putting food on their tables this holiday season is no different than any other day. It is a struggle at best, and a failure at worst. It is a failure of this institution and our government as a whole that we still tolerate incredibly low wages so that people are forced to choose between rent and food, clothes and food, utilities and food. We can do better. We need the White House to step up and own this issue. They can start with a White House conference on food and nutrition. Mr. Speaker, even though millions struggle with hunger, there are good souls out there who are trying to help. I want to highlight one Good Samaritan who paid for the groceries of a young woman named Andrea who was just trying to feed her kids. When Andrea exhausted her SNAP benefits at the grocery store, an unnamed woman in line gave her $17.38 so that she didn't have to return any of the groceries. This House could learn from this example to help our neighbors rather than penalize them simply for being poor. I include for the Record Andrea's letter to this unnamed woman in line at the grocery store. Dear woman behind me in line at the grocery store: You don't know me. You have no clue what my life has been like since October 1, 2013. You have no clue that my family has gone through the wringer. You have no clue that we have faced unbelievable hardship. You have no clue we have been humiliated, humbled, destitute. You have no clue I have cried more days than not; that I fight against bitterness taking control of my heart. You have no clue that my husband's pride was shattered. You have no clue my kids have had the worries of an adult on their shoulders. You have no clue their innocence was snatched from them for no good reason. You know none of this. What you do know is I tried to buy my kids some food and that the EBT machine was down so I couldn't buy that food. I didn't have any cash or my debit card with me. I only had my SNAP card. All you heard was me saying ``No, don't hold it for me. My kids are hungry now and I have no other way of paying for this.'' You didn't judge me. You didn't snarl ``Maybe you should have less kids.'' You didn't say ``Well, get a job and learn to support yourself.'' You didn't look away in embarrassment or shame for me. You didn't make any assumptions at all. What you did was you paid that $17.38 grocery bill for us. You gave my kids bananas, yogurt, apple juice, cheese sticks, and a peach ice tea for me; a rare treat and splurge. You let me hug you and promise through my tears that I will pay this forward. I will pay someone's grocery bill for them. That $17.38 may not have been a lot for you, but it was priceless to us. In the car my kids couldn't stop gushing about you; our ``angel in disguise.'' They prayed for you. They prayed you would be blessed. You restored some of our lost faith. One simple and small action changed our lives. You probably have forgotten about us by now, but we haven't forgotten about you. You will forever be a part of us even though we don't even know your name. You have no clue how grateful and embarrassed I am that we pay for all our food with SNAP. We eat well thanks to the government. I love that. I love that the government makes sure my kids are cared for. It is one less worry for us. I also struggle with pride and embarrassment. I defiantly tell people we are on SNAP. Daring them to judge us. Only those closest to us know why we are on SNAP. They know my husband is a hard worker who was laid off after 17 years in a management position with his former company. They know we were moved from our home to a new state only to be left homeless since the house we had came with the job he lost. Only those closest to us know my husband works part time while looking tirelessly for more; that he has submitted more applications than he has received interviews for. Too many jobs are only offering part time work anymore. It is not easy for a 40-something year old to find a job that will support his family of five kids. You know none of this but you didn't let that stop you from being compassionate and generous to someone you have never met. To the woman behind me at the grocery store, you have no idea how much we appreciate you. You have no idea the impact you had on my kids. You have no idea how incredibly thankful I am for you. Your action may have been small, but to us it was monumental. Thank you. Thank you for not judging us. Thank you for giving my kids a snack when they were quite hungry. Thank you. Just thank you. Forever, Andrea, the woman in front of you at the grocery store with the cart full of kids who are no longer hungry ____________________ APPOINTMENT OF INDIVIDUALS TO NATIONAL COMMISSION ON HUNGER The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair announces the Speaker's appointment, pursuant to section 743(b)(3) of Public Law 113-76, and the order of the House of January 3, 2013, of the following individuals on the part of the House to the National Commission on Hunger: Mr. Jeremy Everett, Waco, Texas Dr. Susan Finn, Columbus, Ohio Mr. Robert Doar, Brooklyn, New York [[Page 6131]] ____________________ DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STATEHOOD The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of January 3, 2013, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, while I am waiting for my posters to arrive at the rostrum, I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall). THANKING STAFF FOR THEIR ASSISTANCE WITH THE RSC BUDGET Mr. WOODALL. I thank the gentlelady so much for yielding. You are allowing me to correct a grave mistake I made earlier today. I had the great pleasure of carrying the RSC budget to the floor today. We weren't able to succeed in passing our balanced budget, but we did succeed in passing the Budget Committee balanced budget. I think that is a great success for this House, but those successes don't happen by themselves. They happen because we are surrounded by staffers in this institution who do an amazing amount of work day in and day out. In my case, it is Will Dunham, who is the staff director at the Republican Study Committee; the very able budget staffer there, Matthew Dickerson; and my own budget associate, Nick Myrs. Without their help, it would have been impossible to put that budget together, and I am so grateful for their commitment to this institution and to the very difficult work that we do. With that, I thank my friend very much for yielding. Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, all this week I have come to the House floor for a very special purpose. I have offered only some of the reasons that the residents who live in the Nation's Capital should have the same basic rights as other Americans. All other Americans have achieved these rights through statehood. We have tried to break down the elements of statehood into separate bills, but we have not been able to get those elements recognized by the Congress of the United States either. So, Mr. Speaker, I am making use of an important day coming up next week when Congress will be out of session. April 16 is commemorated in the District of Columbia because it is the day 152 years ago when Abraham Lincoln freed those slaves who happened to live in the Nation's Capital 9 months before the national Emancipation Proclamation. This week, I have used this upcoming occasion to offer a series of remarks not only, of course, because of this historic occasion in our city but because of the meaning this occasion has to the residents of the Nation's Capital here and now, right this moment, not 152 years ago. Unlike 1862 when African Americans who happened to live in the Nation's Capital were deprived of freedom, in 2014, every American citizen of every background, of every race, of every color, of every religion, of every ethnic origin, of every sex is equally deprived of equal rights with other Americans. Other Americans, to have obtain full rights, need only be taxpaying citizens who serve in the Nation's wars. The people I represent have served in the Nation's wars since our very first war, the war that created the United States of America. And from the moment the Congress imposed Federal income taxes on the people of the United States, the people I represent have paid those taxes to support their government without a voting Member in this Congress, this House of Representatives, and with no voting Members in the Senate of the United States. I do have the vote in committee, but when matters affecting my district, in particular, or matters affecting the United States in which my jurisdiction, like other Americans, is implicated, like whether to go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan, where our residents have served, I have no vote on this floor. Mind you, on this floor, Congress votes on the budget raised, the local budget raised in my city, not one penny of which has been contributed by this Congress. {time} 1230 Yet nothing is more important to Americans than the ability to pass your own local laws, to raise your own local money and say how it is to be spent without interference from the national government. No others who pay taxes, Federal income taxes--obviously, we pay local taxes--but no others who pay Federal income taxes and who have served in our armed forces are denied their basic rights in our country. This, of course, is an embarrassment to the country itself, but today it is far more serious. It is a violation of international law and a treaty that we have signed. Last month, the U.N. Human Rights Committee issued its report for 2014. Its report called our country to account on the denial of congressional voting rights in the National Legislature for the residents of the District of Columbia. In other words, the United States Government is in violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. That is the treaty that our country signed in 1992. The U.N. report recommended: ``Provide full voting rights for the residents of Washington, D.C.'' I would venture to say that you will not find an American citizen who does not agree with that, before the Congress can impose any burden on you, you ought to have the right to raise your hand ``yea'' or ``nay.'' Moreover, this is not the first time that the United Nations has called our country to account. Earlier, in 2006, the Human Rights Committee wrote: ``The committee having taken note of the responses provided by the delegation''-- That means the United States delegation to the U.N.-- heard their responses and said: ``. . . remains concerned that the residents of the District of Columbia do not enjoy full representation in Congress, a restriction that does not seem to be compatible with article XXV of the covenant.'' And then it cited articles II, XXV, and XXVI. Article II, and I won't quote from the entire article, says: ``Adopt such laws or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights recognized in the present covenant.'' That covenant is a treaty, a treaty we signed in 1992, to which we are, by human rights and international law, bound. Article XXV says that that right includes: ``the right to take part in the conduct of public affairs directly or through freely chosen representatives.'' In our country, we do not have direct democracy. We govern through freely chosen representatives who get to vote on this floor. The residents of the District of Columbia get to choose me, but I do not get to vote even on matters affecting their local concerns. Article XXV also says: ``to have access on general terms of equality to public service in this country.'' The residents have access to public service. I serve as a Member of Congress, but they do not have that right in terms of ``equality'' because I cannot vote once I become the Member chosen to exercise that service. Moreover, notably, when my party was in power, using House rules, the District was given the right to vote on behalf of the residents of the District of Columbia on matters in the so-called Committee of the Whole. Imagine, after getting a right that is not the full right to vote on most matters in this Chamber, but when my Republican colleagues came to power, they took even that right, the right to vote in the Committee of the Whole, from the people of the District of Columbia. Is that, my friends, ``equality,'' or is it discrimination against the residents of the Nation's capital? The report refers also to article XXVI. That is worth quoting: ``All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination through the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground . . .'' Then they name some such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth--and here is the one that applies to District of Columbia residents--or other status. What is the other status of the residents of the District of Columbia? Their status is that they reside in their [[Page 6132]] Nation's capital, the only Nation in the world that denies the residents of their capital the same rights that other residents in their country enjoy. Nor is there any question that there are more than enough American citizens here to be granted statehood or at least equality. Two States of the Union that have two Senators and one Representative have fewer residents than the District of Columbia. Here is one, the lowest population in the country, Wyoming. Next is Vermont. And finally, with considerably more residents, almost 650,000, the District of Columbia. We are soon going to overtake a number of other States. The District is growing, so much that there has been an attempt to raise the so- called Height Act, which limits how high buildings can be, because of the need to expand housing and office space. That attempt was turned back because residents were more concerned with the low-scale residential quality and attractiveness of their city. We are talking, Mr. Speaker, about 650,000 people, about the size of an average congressional district. Look to this chart about how rapidly the District is growing, on an average, more than 2 percent a year for more than 10 years now. In the last couple of years, it has grown by almost 2\1/2\ percent. Just compare that with growth in the United States itself. The United States population grew not by 1 percent or 2 percent, but by 0.7 percent in the last couple of years. We live in one of the most rapidly growing regions in the country. This is called the national capital region. Maryland and Virginia are the closest States. And yet the District, is growing more than 2 percent compared to Virginia, which grew only 0.9 percent, and Maryland, which grew only 0.7 percent. Mr. Speaker, during my remarks this week on the floor, this week, selected the two most basic obligations of Americans who have won statehood to test whether the District is being denied its rights. I began with taxes because I think people fret most about paying taxes-- and almost all of us have to pay taxes--not because taxes are more important. Who thinks taxes are more important, of course, is the Republican majority. They are obsessed with taxes. So you would think that they would want to do something about people who pay taxes but don't have representation. Taxes is about the only issue that the Republican majority cares about. But by ``taxes,'' they mean cutting taxes. Yet they raise taxes by imposing taxes without representation on the people of the District of Columbia. They are happy to take more than $3 billion annually out of the pockets of D.C. citizens with no vote on whether those taxes should be raised or lowered. But, the most surprising fact about taxes in our country is who, which individuals, pay the most. Well, if I were to ask our citizens, to guess, they probably wouldn't say District of Columbia residents. Let me clarify. Of the residents of the 50 States, the residents of the District of Columbia pay more Federal taxes per person than the residents of any of the 50 States. This chart shows how it goes from the highest to the lowest. The highest in the United States at almost $12,000 per person in Federal taxes annually, resident by resident, live in the District of Columbia. The lowest per capita, per person, live in the State of Mississippi. {time} 1245 So imagine the rage--nobody wants to pay taxes--imagine the rage when you pay more taxes than anybody else and still don't have the vote on the House floor. Now, I haven't put all of the States on this poster because they could not be seen, but you see it goes from $12,000--or almost $12,000--down to as little as $4,000. The first 10 States, the top 10 States, end with California. Some of them, you might recognize if you had to guess them. The second is Connecticut. The third is New Jersey. The 10th is California at about $8,000 per person. Compare that to our almost $12,000 per person. Understand that this doesn't have to do with the size of the State's population. It has to do with the amount of taxes per person, and regardless of population size, District residents pay more. I indicated that Vermont and Wyoming were States we exceeded in population. Wyoming residents pay something close to $8,000 per person compared to our $12,000--or almost $12,000; and Vermont, also a State with fewer residents than in the District of Columbia, pays about half, something over $6,000, compared to our almost $12,000 per person in taxes. Or just randomly pick out your State. Bear in mind, we are comparing them with D.C.'s almost $12,000 per person in Federal taxes that are paying to support the Government of the United States. Nebraska is half of that, about $6,400. Take two others that are close to one another in the amounts they pay, each about $6,000-- Arizona and Indiana--compared to D.C.'s $12,000. There is Idaho. To support the Federal Government, Idaho, which pays $5,440. D.C. pays something over twice what they pay. When you get to those which pay the least--let's take the bottom two States, Louisiana at $4,500 and Mississippi at $4,200--you will see D.C. getting to paying three times what these States pay--States which have Representatives and two Senators. Yet, Mr. Speaker, of all of the obligations, perhaps the most poignant is service in the Armed Forces. For the people I represent, there has been service in the Armed Forces ever since there has been a United States of America and even before, when we were fighting in a Revolution to create the United States of America, but that service has often been disproportionate to the number of residents. Looking to the major wars of the 20th century, you get an idea of what I mean. In World War I, 635 casualties, but that was more than three States. In World War II, now, we are getting to more in casualties than four States. By the time we got to the Korean war, the District had more casualties than in eight States. So we have gone from three to four, to Korea with eight and, finally, to Vietnam with more casualties than in 10 States. The District even sometimes has had to fight to get equal respect for D.C. members of our Armed Forces. A mother wrote me when she recently went to the graduation of her son from boot camp at Naval Station Great Lakes. The family was there, glowing with honor and pride, for a son who had passed up going to college in order to serve in the United States Navy, so passionate was this kid about service. When each graduate stepped forward, the flag of the State was raised. When Seaman Jonathan Rucker stepped forward, no State flag was raised. That, my friends, was the last straw. I was immediately in touch with the White House and with the Armed Services Committees, particularly after veterans in the District of Columbia came forward with more particularly heartbreaking stories. For example, among the most serious were some veterans who spoke of no D.C. flag being displayed at ``welcome home'' ceremonies, even though the flags of other States were raised. I don't think anybody meant any disrespect to our residents serving in the Armed Forces. I just believe that, when you pay taxes without representation--when you don't have anybody in the Senate who can take care of you and when you have only a nonvoting Representative in the House, who votes in committee, but not on this floor, it is easy to be disregarded in many ways. I am very grateful to Senator Levin and the Senate Armed Services Committee and to this House and its Armed Services Committee for rectifying this serious slight to our residents, the residents who have given the most to their country. Mr. Speaker, I read an honor roll, picking out just a few of the very distinguished Washingtonians who have served in the Armed Forces because some of them stand out in the history of our country. This was a city which had racial segregation imposed on it by the Congress of the United States until the 1960s, [[Page 6133]] even though, until that time, the majority of the population of the District of Columbia was not African American, but was White; yet even during that period--that period of segregation when African Americans were entering the armed services from every part of the country, the first African American Army general was born in this city, the first African American Air Force general born in this city, the first African American Naval Academy graduate born in this city, the first African American Air Force Academy graduate born in this city, and this roster continues to this very day. The first Deputy Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard is serving as I speak, Vice Admiral Manson Brown, who was born in this city; and the first African American female aviator of the D.C. National Guard, First Lt. Demetria Elosie--60, is a Washingtonian. Mr. Speaker, we know that statehood is the only way Americans have gotten full and equal rights. That, of course, is why we seek statehood, but don't think we haven't tried to get our rights in every single way we could. We also have tried piece by piece. There are pending bills before the House and the Senate now. Some contain important elements of statehood--for example budget autonomy-- that would allow our budget to go into effect, a local budget after all, once it is passed by the local legislature, the D.C. Council. Because this Congress insists that we bring our local budget to this national body, which does not fund the District, our city was almost shut down this past year when the Congress shut down the Federal Government for 16 days. That was a subject of great anguish in the District of Columbia because we were no part of that fight. We have got a balanced budget, and indeed a surplus, but because we had to bring our budget here and because Congress had not passed a single appropriation, we got shut down, too--or almost. The mayor kept the city open, and as we were running out of contingent funds, the Republican majority relented and allowed the Federal Government to open, and therefore, the District did not have to close down. I am pleased that the administration, President Obama, has put into his budget language that would grant the District control over its own budget, allowing the local budget to go into effect as soon as the D.C. City Council passes the local budget. He put that same provision in his budget last year, and the Senate appropriators passed it. I thought then that D.C. budget autonomy would become law with the budget deal, but when the budget deal came out, it left out the section that would have given the residents of the District of Columbia control over the money they, themselves, and nobody else raises. I am pleased to say that there are Members of this House on both sides of the aisle who recognize that elementary fairness lies in budget autonomy. I thank Majority Leader Eric Cantor for his support for budget autonomy. He is the second in leadership, a Republican leader of this House. I thank Chairman Darrell Issa, who is the chairman of the committee with jurisdiction over matters affecting the District of Columbia, in that he has pressed for budget autonomy even as he pressed to keep the District open when the city was almost shut down. {time} 1300 The District also does not have complete control over its local laws. What D.C. has is a costly requirement that delays local bills for months before they can become effective, because they have to come to the Congress, although the Congress never uses this procedure called a ``layover procedure'' to overturn city laws but finds other means to do so, yet continues to impose the layover requirement of bringing every local law here to the Congress before it becomes effective. I appreciate that Senator Mark Begich, who chairs the subcommittee, and Chairman Tom Carper, who chairs the full committee with jurisdiction over matters affecting the District of Columbia in the Senate, have introduced bills that would give the District budget and legislative autonomy. Mr. Speaker, when I came to the House in the early nineties, I was able to get almost two-thirds of the Democrats to vote for statehood for the District of Columbia. It was not enough but it does show you that there were Members then and I believe people now who recognize the unfairness of the unequal status of D.C. residents I have discussed today and earlier this week. It became more difficult to make progress as the years went by, because most of my service in the Congress has been in the minority. Yet we are making progress. We were able to get the first statue representing the District of Columbia in the Capitol last year. The reason that is important is that a statue, like those of the states, was denied us because we are not yet a State. We have now been able to break through that with what is surely a symbol of statehood. And at the ceremony with majority and minority leadership, unveiling the Douglass statue, Majority Leader Reid used the occasion, with great enthusiasm, to indicate that he was cosponsoring the D.C. statehood bill. The reason that is important, Mr. Speaker, is that the Majority Leader, like the Speaker of this House, cosponsors very few bills. It says something about the importance of correcting unfairness to the District of Columbia that Majority Leader Reid not only has become a cosponsor of our D.C. statehood bill, one of 17 Senators, but that he did so with great enthusiasm and in a prominent public announcement. I am pleased that virtually the entire Democratic Senate leadership has sponsored our statehood bill. Mr. Speaker, Congress continues to deny the American citizens who live in its Nation's Capital their most basic rights. Today we have discussed how that is a violation of every American principle, and that it is even a violation of international law. Congress has failed to give D.C. residents even some of the rights associated with statehood, rights that they could give today or tomorrow even if they were not prepared to grant us statehood, the right to control our own local funds, funds we raise, funds we then turn over, at a cost of $12,000 per person, to support the government of the United States. Congress tyrannically overturns locally passed laws and keeps our local laws from going into existence until they have had an opportunity to look at them, except they don't. They just leave this costly, delay- ridden requirement in place. Congress continues to command our taxes to support the national government at a higher per capita rate than the rate paid by any other Americans while denying D.C. residents voting representation when Congress passes laws concerning those taxes or concerning any other matter affecting our country. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, in the name of those who have died in the Nation's wars; in the name of the living veterans of our wars who are among the 650,000 residents of the District of Columbia today; in the name of D.C. residents who pay $12,000 per person, the highest per capita federal taxes in the country, to support the United States of America; in the name of millions ever since 1801, when the District of Columbia became the Capital, who have died in our wars without seeing the benefits of voting representation in the House and Senate and without the full and equal rights of other Americans who died alongside them, I ask this House to grant the residents of their Nation's Capital statehood. And if you fall short of statehood, at the very least, our residents are entitled to equal representation and to equal recognition, to equality under law with every other American citizen. I yield back the balance of my time. ____________________ WAR ON BRATS (Mr. PETRI asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my concern that protectionism could one day lead to a ``war on brats.'' [[Page 6134]] Bratwursts are delicious. They are enjoyed around the world. In Wisconsin, we take our brats seriously. But nowhere more so than in the Sixth District, which includes the Bratwurst Capital of the World, Sheboygan, Wisconsin. In 1970, the city of Sheboygan battled Bucyrus, Ohio, for the title and won. The battle was ended on August 14, 1970, when Judge John Bolgert issued an official decision bestowing the title upon Sheboygan and barring all other claimants from using it. Unfortunately, this title could soon be under attack. There is growing concern that the European Union could consider more geographic name restrictions on products including ``kielbasa'' and Wisconsin's own ``bratwurst.'' This is, frankly, getting ridiculous. If anything, we should be trademarking the name ``bratwurst,'' not them. I am currently circulating a letter urging the U.S. trade representatives to reject any attempt to include these provisions in further trade negotiations. I strongly urge my colleagues to consider signing this letter. ____________________ WAR ON CONSERVATIVES The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of January 3, 2013, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. Mr. GOHMERT. It is amazing some of the efforts made to rewrite history and cast things in a light that doesn't exist. So as some people in the administration step up the continued trashing of conservatives in America--we have already seen the assault on conservative groups by the IRS, that does need a special prosecutor, clearly--the assault on people with whom some in the administration disagree, they can't answer questions, and so they make personal attacks. Then our Attorney General makes a speech yesterday in which, because he was busy helping, perhaps, terrorists or Marc Rich or things like that he didn't notice, because I am sure he wouldn't be untruthful or tell a lie, but he doesn't even know how bad it gets in Washington if you are a conservative, if you are George W. Bush, if you are John Ashcroft, if you are Alberto Gonzales. It got pretty brutal here, a lot worse than anything our current Attorney General has seen, and that is even without having to go back and recall the treatment that John Mitchell got. I would say, deservedly so, John Mitchell got the treatment he got. But for any Attorney General to be so ignorant of what has happened in very recent years of the maltreatment and malignment and basically slander of Republicans and a Republican President and Republican Attorneys General is a bit breathtaking. There is a Web site that is Boycott Liberalism. It has a lot of quotes from people. Senator Harry Reid said: President Bush is a liar. I don't recall anyone saying that at our hearings with our current Attorney General. The Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, said: Bush is an incompetent leader. In fact, he's not a leader. I don't recall anyone saying anything of that magnitude of our current Attorney General or President, not in any of our hearings. Hillary Clinton, former Secretary of State and U.S. Senator, said: We have a culture of corruption. We have cronyism. We have incompetence. This actually raises a question about pots and kettles calling each other names. Other quotes. John Edwards, a former U.S. Senator and Democratic Vice Presidential nominee: I would say if you live in the United States of America and you vote for George Bush, you've lost your mind. Senator Al Franken said: I think the President highjacked 9/11 and used it to go to war with Iraq in a way that was very divisive. The late Ted Kennedy, as Senator, said: No President in American history has done more damage to our country and our security than George W. Bush. Amazingly, I am not aware of any U.S. President in one party reaching out more to a Senator in the other party than did George W. Bush with Senator Ted Kennedy, and these are the kind of comments he got in response. Senator Hillary Clinton, former Secretary of State, said: I predict to you that this administration will go down in history as one of the worst that has ever governed our country. We are just talking about there has never been an Attorney General or President treated as have been the current ones. Senator Hillary Clinton, former Secretary of State, said: There has never been an administration, I don't believe, in our history more intent on consolidating and abusing power to further their own agenda. She also said: I have been absolutely amazed, even shocked, at the combination of arrogance and incompetence that marks this particular administration. We are just helping those who have short memories or maybe were busy helping terrorists or others get pardons and didn't notice these kind of statements being made. Former Senator and former Vice President Al Gore said: While President Bush likes to project an image of strength and courage, the real truth is that, in the presence of his large financial contributors, he is a moral coward. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said: Bush is an incompetent leader. In fact, he is not a leader. He is a person who has no judgment, no experience, and no knowledge of the subjects that he has to decide upon. {time} 1315 Quotes go on and on, pages of quotes. But Democratic Senator from Washington, Patty Murray, said, ``He's''--talking about Osama Bin Laden--``been out in these countries for decades building schools, building roads, building infrastructure, building daycare facilities, building health care facilities, and these people are extremely grateful. We haven't done that.'' Former Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi said, ``I believe that the President's leadership and the actions taken in Iraq''--talking about President Bush--``demonstrate an incompetence in terms of knowledge, judgment, and experience in making the decisions that would have been necessary to truly accomplish the mission without the deaths to our troops and the cost to our taxpayers.'' She also made this statement, former Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, talking about President Bush: ``I believe that the President's leadership and the actions taken in Iraq demonstrate an incompetence in terms of knowledge, judgment, experience in making the decisions that would have been necessary to truly accomplish the mission without the deaths to our troops and the cost to our taxpayers,'' basically the same thing again. But, there are some of us that could care less about someone's party or someone's race or someone's gender, someone's age. We don't care. We care about whether you are helping or hurting our country if you are in a position to do one or the other. I would also direct my friends who would care to do research and get the truth before they go accusing, ignorantly, someone who has the gall to question refusal to turn over documents that were provided by the Justice Department to terrorists, convicted terrorists. People who financed terrorism, which made them a part of the terrorist act, convicted of over 100 counts, they were given, their lawyers were given thousands and thousands and thousands of pages of documents. Lawyers were given 9,600 or so transcripts or summaries of transcripts. And Members of Congress are told, as I was in a letter this year in response to my years of trying to get these documents that the Justice Department provided to terrorists, I get a response, basically, saying, hey, here is a Web site, you can look up some exhibits that were admitted in evidence. And here is a public access Web site. I have been asking for 3 years, just give us the documents Justice gave to the terrorists. If somebody wants to try to make something of that, that is [[Page 6135]] their problem. But the Constitution provides that Congress has oversight because that is the only way we know what to fund and what not to fund. That is part of article I, section 8 of the Constitution. So, to be denied documents for 3 years, as I have been, with little coy, useless answers, and then allegations of ulterior motivations, when I want to protect America--and I travel around the world, and I hear moderate Muslim friends, leaders in other countries say, why are you not helping us against radical Islam anymore? You are helping the bad guys. I want to find out what the documentation was and is that the Justice Department has. And they know how to reduce it to disk and provide it to others. I am told they have done that to others in the Justice Department, so do that for Congress. At one point I was told, well, there are classification issues. You gave them to terrorists, your Department did, so it shouldn't be a real classification problem to give them to Members of Congress. So for those who wonder about the treatment of an Attorney General coming for an oversight hearing, we have already seen that the Justice Department repeatedly refused to provide the documentation of what happened in Fast and Furious. And if someone wants to talk about unprecedented treatment, let's look at the facts, just the little ones we know that haven't been covered up by this administration, that haven't been kept secreted by this administration. Thank God, one of the gun store owners who was being pressured by the Justice Department to sell to the people he knew he should not sell to, he recorded some of the conversations. If he had not, you can't help but believe they would have turned on him bigger than they did, because once they found out he had tapes of the conversations, they knew they couldn't completely blame him, because he was saying, in essence, I shouldn't be selling to these people. But he was coerced into selling. People were coerced into selling weapons to people that should not have had them, morally or legally, because the Justice Department wanted to get them to drug cartels in Mexico, where they did, and we know, we have heard that at least a couple of hundred or so Mexicans, each one of them a life worth saving, those lives were taken by guns that this Justice Department forced into the hands of criminals, people that should not have had them. So we would like to know more information about how this all came about. And it is not good enough to say, hey, the Bush Justice Department had a scheme where they had devices, they had guns that they were going to track, just like in drug sales, where you have a controlled sale so you can try to arrest the bad guys and, because of a problem, they got away from them. That is a different thing entirely, of intentionally letting guns get away to criminals who killed hundreds of Mexicans, and at least one American, Brian Terry, and perhaps more. It would be nice if we could get to the bottom of that. Wherever there are big problems in our government, we need to know what they are so we can defund them, or at least bring about accountability, just as my Democratic friends in the Senate repeatedly said, except not so kindly, about the Bush administration and John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales. And there were some things I agreed with Senator Schumer on in the Gonzales Justice Department. It was outrageous that they allowed so many National Security Letters to go out without proper basis. I was outraged about that. In fact, if someone cares to check the Record, they can see the way I went after the Bush FBI Director, because I believed then and still believe he did some serious damage to the FBI during the Bush administration. The only difference is, I never heard him run out and give a speech whining about how he was mistreated as he came before me for questioning. He didn't do that. And he actually tried to take actions to correct the problems that I got all over him about. Another difference is, he was a Republican President's FBI Director. But I didn't care what his party was. I didn't care who he was. I thought he was hurting the FBI, and I sounded off. And I was shocked that I did not have more friends on the Democratic side of the aisle join me in going after the Republican-appointed FBI Director. And of course, once he held over and became the FBI Director for this administration, the other side of the aisle got even more kind in its questioning. But one of us--I certainly stayed consistent. But there are many problems in this Justice Department that are very clear. There is an article from 2011, August 26, by Christian Adams, a guy that should know. He was in the Justice Department and had a case ready for judgment against the New Black Panthers who were intimidating voters at a voting place, until the Holder political appointee stepped in and stopped it. Yes, they got one judgment, but basically of no effect. They can go intimidate others at other polling places, and there were no legal actions that were really pursued to provide any teeth. But Christian Adams has an article entitled ``The Politicized Hiring of Eric Holder's Compliance Section.'' He says every single new attorney hired has a history thick with left-wing activism. And then he goes through and talks about it in a very long article, very well-documented. My friend across the building, Ted Cruz, Senator Cruz, invoked Watergate in blasting DOJ's probe of the IRS scandal. This was March 20, this year, this article from The Blaze by Fred Lucas. Senator Cruz said the investigator is a partisan Democrat who has donated over $6,000 to President Obama and Democratic causes. Just as nobody would trust John Mitchell to investigate Richard Nixon, nobody should trust a partisan Obama donor to investigate the IRS' political targeting of President Obama's enemies. But he makes a good point. John Mitchell deserved the criticism he got, but no Attorney General since John Mitchell has the truthful history in their favor to stand up and say, no Attorney General has ever been treated worse than I have. You just have to go back to Alberto Gonzales. Again, I think he deserved some of the criticism he got, especially on the National Security Letter issue, and I am right there thinking it was a disaster, and it shouldn't have been allowed to happen, and that people needed to be held accountable, which is why I called the White House after it came to light that a report had been on the Attorney General's desk before he testified before the Senate that there were no known abuses of the National Security Letters. I told the White House, this is indefensible. This isn't right. We can't defend this. And I wish colleagues across the aisle, when they found similar abuses, problems, fault, would not let party politics or other divisive issues stand in the way of doing what is right. There are transcripts of Senators going after Attorney General Gonzales, Attorney General Ashcroft, or even going back to John Mitchell. This Attorney General, compared to them, doesn't have a lot to complain about. And one thing is interesting. You know, when I was a freshman, the Bush administration was in power. We had a lot of trouble getting documents from the Bush administration. The difference between that one and this one: they would eventually get us the documents. The difference here is they have been there 5 years and they still will not produce documents that should be of critical concern to every American. {time} 1330 Some would say, look, there is no other issue than and concern for America when, in May of 2013, as this article points out from Breitbart: On Wednesday, Attorney General Eric Holder testified in front of the House Judiciary Committee about the recent scandals plaguing the Obama administration. Unfortunately, the committee and America did not learn very much because Holder apparently does not know much about what happens in Washington, D.C. [[Page 6136]] The AP claims the Department of Justice violated their constitutional rights when they obtained 2 months of phone records of reporters. When asked about the scandal, Holder claimed ignorance and that he was not part of the decisionmaking process. He did defend the effort to subvert the press, saying the DOJ wanted to find who leaked information to the AP about a CIA operation in Yemen to stop an airliner bombing plot around the anniversary of Osama bin Laden's death. On Tuesday, Holder recused himself from the investigation into the AP scandal and told the committee it was because he had the leaked information. He could not give the exact date he recused himself, and he never put it in writing. It took quite awhile for him to receive confirmation it was Deputy Attorney General James Cole who signed the subpoena for the AP phone records. There are all kinds of reasons to be concerned about what is going on. There are plenty of stories out there. Oh, gee, how about the speech that my friend across the aisle, Keith Ellison of Minnesota, gave where, as reported here from the Minneapolis Star Tribune, Mr. Ellison said, talking about comparing September 11: It's almost like the Reichstag fire, kind of reminds me of that. After the Reichstag was burned, they blamed the communists for it, and it put the leader of that country-- Hitler--in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted. The fact is that I am not saying September 11 was a U.S. plan or anything like that because, you know, that's how they put you in the nutball box or dismiss you. But he went on, basically comparing September 11 to Hitler's Reichstag fire, which was set and then blamed on the communists. From CNN, a report on this, Keith Oppenheimer had stated: Well, first of all, Wolf, some of the themes that Keith Ellison is talking about are themes that he has been sounding off for a while. And then Oppenheimer said: The Minneapolis Star Tribune, quoting Ellison at the forum, is saying this about the Vice President: ``It is beneath his dignity in order for him to answer any question from the citizens of the United States. That is the very definition of totalitarianism, authoritarianism, and dictatorship.'' In response to a question as to whether Ellison supports a new investigation of the causes of September 11, Ellison made a comparison to the Reichstag fire in Berlin that Adolf Hitler used to consolidate power. And then he quoted my friend across the aisle, with what I just mentioned. So anyway, there are all kinds of accusations. I thought both George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush should have done more to defend themselves against the outlandish claims; but one thing George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush never did--no matter what race, creed, color, national religion, gender, age, whenever anybody attacked them--he never resorted to name-calling and, in fact, would often try to point out, actually, they have the right to their opinion. Nowadays, it is a different matter. If someone is concerned that your department or their department would provide discovery documents to convicted terrorists that they are refusing to provide to Congress, that is not an issue of anything other than just not doing what the law requires in the way of oversight. There is so much going on in this country that needs our attention, and one of them is the Department of Justice. Is it the Department of Justice? Is it the Department of ``just us''? There is an article from Red State by Candice Lanier, June 26, 2013, where she entitles the article, ``Sixteen Scandals: The Legacy of Eric Holder,'' and then she goes through and cites 16 reasons we should be very concerned about this Justice Department. One of them quotes Discover the Networks. She says: Holder also took a leadership role with the Student Afro- American Society, which at one point demanded that the school's abandoned ROTC office be renamed the ``Malcolm X Lounge''--``in honor of a man who recognized the importance of territory as a basis for nationhood.'' In 1970, Holder was a participant in a 5-day occupation of that office. And, according to some accounts, the occupiers were armed. In addition, Holder and SAAS also occupied the office of Henry Coleman, Dean of Freshmen, until their demands were met. It would appear the SAAS was an advocate of the Black Panthers because, in March 1970, the SAAS released a statement supporting the Black Panthers who were charged with plotting to blow up a police station, department stores, railroad tracks, and the New York Botanical Gardens. It references the discriminatory hiring practices in the Department of Justice. This article points out: In June 2008, Holder admitted to the American Constitution Society, an organization started as a liberal counterweight to the Federalist Society, that the Justice Department was ``going to be looking for people who share our values.'' Then it references Fort Hood and the fact that: Following the Fort Hood attack on November 5, 2009, not one of the postattack reports issued by the Department of Justice mentioned Nidal Hasan's Islamist ideology. It talks further about that, and then it talks about the AP surveillance, the way it went after the Associated Press and cowed them. Number four, the Department of Justice secretly targets Fox News reporter James Rosen. There were issues of credibility in comparing our Attorney General's testimony, saying he didn't know of anyone ever being prosecuted, in essence, and then his signing off on the pursuit of James Rosen. Five is the Marc Rich pardon and that Eric Holder played an important role in what was arguably the most infamous of President Clinton's 176 pardons. He was the billionaire financier and fugitive oil broker who illegally bought oil from Iran. Anyway, President Clinton signed the pardon, later crediting Holder's recommendation as one of the factors that had convinced him to issue the pardon. Number six was the Weather Underground pardon. Holder, as Deputy Attorney General, ``was the gatekeeper for presidential pardons.'' Two of the recipients of Holder's pardons were former Weather Underground members Susan Rosenberg and Linda Evans. Number seven--and I am not reading off all the information about these--but seven was: Holder's DOJ threatens free speech. The American Muslim Advisory Council of Tennessee sponsored an event on June 4, called ``Public Disclosure in a Diverse Society.'' The main speakers for the event were DOJ official Bill Killian, who is the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Tennessee, and FBI Special Agent of the Knoxville Division, Kenneth Moore. What is troubling about the event is that Killian addressed how social media posts and documents deemed inflammatory toward Muslims can be considered a violation of civil rights laws. He went on and he quoted the law, talking about how anybody critical of Islam could be violating the law. He quotes the law: If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, territory, commonwealth, possession, or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both. Talk about a chilling effect. Number eight, hostility towards conservatives. At an American Constitution Society gathering in 2004, Holder made the following comments--and these are all quotes: Conservatives have been defenders of the status quo, afraid of the future, and content to allow to continue to exist all but the most blatant inequalities. Conservatives have ``made a mockery of the rule of law.'' Conservatives are ``breathtaking'' in their ``arrogance,'' which manifests itself in such things as ``attacks on abortion rights,'' ``energy policies that are as shortsighted as they are ineffective,'' and ``tax cuts that disproportionately favor those who are well off and perpetuate many of the inequities in our nation.'' The hallmarks of the ``conservative agenda'' include ``social division, mindless tax cutting, and a defense posture that does not really make us safer.'' Anyway, he has got quite a few quotes like that. But number nine, opposition to Second Amendment rights: In 2008, Eric Holder claimed that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual's right to keep and bear arms, but only applied to government militias. Number 10 was the treatment of terrorists as criminal defendants instead of enemy combatants, as the laws that were passed should have indicated. Number 11 was the Arizona immigration law, how he went after that and he had not even read it. Filed pleadings-- [[Page 6137]] his department filed pleadings, and he made statements about how bad the law was, and he had not even read it. I thought my friend from Texas, Ted Poe, a former judge, had asked one of the stupidest questions I had ever heard in our Judiciary Committee hearing when he asked: Had you read that law before you filed that suit? And the answer was no. I couldn't believe that no lawyer would file a suit declaring a law unconstitutional and he hadn't even read it. Twelve, New Black Panther intimidation. Thirteen, opposition to voter ID laws--and by the way, we have evidence--you have places where photo IDs have been required, and there was actually an increase in minority voting. Fourteen, Fast and Furious, that we can't get to the bottom of because they continue to secrete information about the department's involvement and what they did. Fifteen, purges references to radical Islam, and we know about the purging of FBI training documents so that we don't offend people that want to destroy our way of life and us. Sixteen, about the Islamic outreach, when I was grilling FBI Director Mueller about not even pursuing adequately the information about Tsarnaev being radicalized, I said: you didn't even go to the Muslim mosque in Boston to ask about their radicalization. He said: oh, yes, we did go to the mosque--and then muttered ``in the outreach program.'' They never went to talk to anybody that might know whether Tsarnaev had been radicalized. Then The New York Times has a story blaming the Russians. The Russians and our own intelligence community know anytime you give a heads-up to another country about information that may be helpful to them, you may end up giving away how intelligence is obtained. So it was wonderful that, twice, Russia gave us a heads-up, and instead, we go to the mosque that Tsarnaev attends, with our outreach program from the FBI, instead of to investigate how radicalized this young man had become and the damage and the death and mayhem he was about to cause. If someone wants to say there is another motive for being critical, well, they are living in their own little world. If somebody wants to bring up race, Mr. Speaker, for the record, let me just say, there is one African American I am still furious with. His name is Fred McClure. He was the president of the State of Texas Future Farmers of America. He was the student body president at Texas A&M University, where I attended. He was a good friend. I went to Baylor Law School before him. People say: wow, you really did well, you know, you won an award for a law review article, won best brief award, won moot court. Fred came in behind me and set the place on fire, figuratively speaking, with how well he did and the things he accomplished. {time} 1345 But he went to work for President George H. W. Bush, and in 1990, in December, I begged Fred to come back to east Texas where he grew up in San Augustine and that there were a lot of us that loved him and would get him elected to Congress so we could come back up here to Washington and set things right. And the thing I am still furious at Fred about is, if Fred had taken the encouragement to heart and come back and run for Congress, we could have gotten him elected. And if we had done that, I could have been about a normal life and not had to be here in Congress. With that, I yield back the balance of my time. ____________________ ADJOURNMENT Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Senate Concurrent Resolution 35, 113th Congress, I move that the House do now adjourn. The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 1 o'clock and 45 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until Monday, April 28, 2014, at 2 p.m. ____________________ EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC. Under clause 2 of rule XIV, executive communications were taken from the Speaker's table and referred as follows: 5366. A letter from the Associate Administrator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Peanut Promotion, Research, and Information Order; Amendment to Primary Peanut-Producing States and Adjustment of Membership [Document Number: AMS-FV-13-0042] received April 7, 2014, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Agriculture. 5367. A letter from the Acting Under Secretary, Department of Defense, transmitting authorization of Colonel Robert G. Armfield and Colonel Christopher M. Short to wear the authorized insignia of the brigadier general; to the Committee on Armed Services. 5368. A letter from the Acting Under Secretary, Department of Defense, transmitting a letter on the approved retirement of Lieutenant General Stanley T. Kresge, United States Air Force, and his advancement on the retired list in the grade of general; to the Committee on Armed Services. 5369. A letter from the Chairman, Nuclear Weapons Counsel, transmitting certification of amounts requested for the national Nuclear Security Administration in the President's Budget for FY 2015; to the Committee on Armed Services. 5370. A letter from the Chair, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, transmitting the Board's semiannual Monetary Policy Report pursuant to Pub. L. 106-569; to the Committee on Financial Services. 5371. A letter from the Assistant to the Board, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, transmitting the System's ``Major'' final rule -- Enhanced Prudential Standards for Bank Holding Companies and Foreign Banking Organizations (Regulation YY; Docket No.: 1438) (RIN: 7100- AD-86) received April 10, 2014, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Financial Services. 5372. A letter from the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Final Flood Elevation Determinations (Mercer County, PA, et al.) [Docket ID: FEMA-2014-0002] received April 9, 2014, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Financial Services. 5373. A letter from the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Final Flood Elevation Determinations (Caddo Parish, LA, et al.) [Docket ID: FEMA-2014-0002] received April 10, 2014, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Financial Services. 5374. A letter from the Chairman, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, transmitting in accordance with the provisions of section 17(a) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990, Pub. L. 101-576, and the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, the Corporation's 2013 Annual Report; to the Committee on Financial Services. 5375. A letter from the Chairman, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, transmitting the Office of Minority and Women Inclusion's annual report for 2013; to the Committee on Financial Services. 5376. A letter from the Director, National Credit Union Administration, transmitting the Office of Minority and Women Inclusion's annual report for 2013; to the Committee on Financial Services. 5377. A letter from the Regulatory Specialist, Legislative and Regulator Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, transmitting an analysis of 12 CFR Part 44; to the Committee on Financial Services. 5378. A letter from the Executive Director, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, transmitting the Office of Minority and Women Inclusion's annual report for 2013; to the Committee on Financial Services. 5379. A letter from the Acting Chairman, National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities, transmitting the Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities' thirty-eighth annual report on the Arts and Artifacts Indemnity Program for fiscal year 2013; to the Committee on Education and the Workforce. 5380. A letter from the General Counsel, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, transmitting the Corporation's final rule -- Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer Plans; Benefits in Terminated Single-Employer Plans; Interest Assumptions for Valuing and Paying Benefits received April 10, 2014, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Education and the Workforce. 5381. A letter from the Chair, Advisory Council on Alzheimer's Research, Care, and Services, transmitting the 2014 Recommendations of the Public Members of the Advisory Council on Alzheimer's Research, Care, and Services; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 5382. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Fluoxastrobin; Pesticide [[Page 6138]] Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0576; FRL-9907-46] received April 3, 2014, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 5383. A letter from the Chief of Staff, Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule -- Amendment of Section 73.622(i), Post-Transition Table of DTV Allotments, Television Broadcast Stations (South Bend, Indiana) [MB Docket No.: 14-1] [RM- 11710] received April 7, 2014, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 5384. A letter from the Acting General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule -- Generator Verification Reliability Standards [Docket No.: RM13-16-000; Order No. 796] received April 8, 2014, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 5385. A letter from the Director, Defense Security Cooperation Agency, transmitting Transmittal No. 14-06, Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer and Acceptance, pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act, as amended; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. 5386. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting Transmittal No. DDTC 13-185, pursuant to the reporting requirements of Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. 5387. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting Transmittal No. DDTC 13-184, pursuant to the reporting requirements of Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. 5388. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting Transmittal No. DDTC 13-162, pursuant to the reporting requirements of Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. 5389. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting Transmittal No. DDTC 13-181, pursuant to the reporting requirements of Section 36(d) of the Arms Export Control Act; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. 5390. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting Transmittal No. DDTC 13-169, pursuant to the reporting requirements of Section 36(c) and 36(d) of the Arms Export Control Act; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. 5391. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting Transmittal No. DDTC 13-143, pursuant to the reporting requirements of Section 36(c) and 36(d) of the Arms Export Control Act; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. 5392. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting notice that the Deputy Secretary has issued the required determination to waive certain restrictions on the maintenance of a Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) Office; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. 5393. A letter from the Chairman, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, transmitting the Corporation's annual report for FY 2013 prepared in accordance with Section 203 of the Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002 (No FEAR Act), Public Law 107-174; to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. 5394. A letter from the Chairman, Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, transmitting the Commission's annual report for FY 2013 prepared in accordance with the Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002 (No FEAR Act), Pub. L. 107-174; to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. 5395. A letter from the Director, Office of Civil Rights, International Broadcasting Bureau, transmitting the Board's FY 2013 report, pursuant to the requirements of section 203(b) of the Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002 (No Fear Act); to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. 5396. A letter from the Acting Chairman, National Endowment for the Arts, transmitting the Endowment's annual report for FY 2013 prepared in accordance with Section 203 of the Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002 (No FEAR Act), Public Law 107-174; to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. 5397. A letter from the Associate Commissioner/EEO Director, National Indian Gaming Commission, transmitting the Commission's annual report for FY 2013 prepared in accordance with the Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002 (No FEAR Act), Pub. L. 107-174; to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. 5398. A letter from the Director, Office of Government Ethics, transmitting the Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2014-2018; to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. 5399. A letter from the General Counsel, Office of Management and Budget, transmitting three reports pursuant to the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998; to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. 5400. A letter from the Secretary, Railroad Retirement Board, transmitting the Board's FY 2013 report, pursuant to the requirements of section 203(b) of the Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002 (No Fear Act); to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. 5401. A letter from the Chair, Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, transmitting the Board's annual report for FY 2013 prepared in accordance with Section 203(a) of the Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002 (No FEAR Act), Public Law 107-174; to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. 5402. A letter from the EEO Director, Securities and Exchange Commission, transmitting the Commission's annual report for FY 2013 prepared in accordance with the Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002 (No FEAR Act), Pub. L. 107-174; to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. 5403. A letter from the Chief Judge, Superior Court of the District of Columbia, transmitting the Court's report on the activities of the Family Court during 2013; to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. 5404. A letter from the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule -- Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska; Amendment 95 to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish [Docket No.: 120723270-4100- 02] (RIN: 0648-BC39) received April 10, 2014, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Natural Resources. 5405. A letter from the Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule -- Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Pacific Cod by Catcher/Processors Using Trawl Gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the Gulf of Alaska [Docket No.: 130925836-4174-02] (RIN: 0648-XD189) received April 4, 2014, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Natural Resources. 5406. A letter from the Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule -- Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Pacific Cod by Catcher Vessels Using Hook-and-Line Gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the Gulf of Alaska [Docket No.: 130925836-4174-02] (RIN: 0648-XD184) received April 4, 2014, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Natural Resources. 5407. A letter from the Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule -- Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Pacific Cod by Catcher Vessels Using Hook-and-Line Gear in the Western Regulatory Area of the Gulf of Alaska [Docket No.: 130925836-4174-02] (RIN: 0648-XD181) received April 4, 2014, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Natural Resources. 5408. A letter from the Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule -- Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Pacific Cod by Catcher Vessels Using Hook-and-Line Gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the Gulf of Alaska [Docket No.: 130925836-4174-02] (RIN: 0648-XD166) received April 4, 2014, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Natural Resources. 5409. A letter from the Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule -- Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Pacific Cod by Catcher Vessels Less Than 60 feet (18.3 Meters) Length Overall Using Jig or Hook-and-Line Gear in the Bogoslof Pacific Cod Exemption Area Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area [Docket No.: 131021878-4158-02] (RIN: 0648-XD175) received April 4, 2014, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Natural Resources. 5410. A letter from the Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule -- Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Summer Flounder Fishery; Quota Transfer [Docket No.: 121009528-2729- 02] (RIN: 0648-XD156) received April 4, 2014, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Natural Resources. 5411. A letter from the Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule -- Fisheries of the Northeastern United States: Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fisheries; Butterfish Trip Limit [[Page 6139]] Reduction [Docket No.: 120731291-2522-02] (RIN: 0648-XD167) received April 4, 2014, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Natural Resources. 5412. A letter from the Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule -- Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Fisheries; General Category Fishery [Docket No.: 130214139- 3542-02] (RIN: 0648-XD201) received April 4, 2014, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Natural Resources. 5413. A letter from the Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule -- Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Pacific Cod in the Aleutian Islands Subarea of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area [Docket No.: 131021878- 4158-02] (RIN: 0648-XD190) received April 4, 2014, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Natural Resources. 5414. A letter from the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule -- Pacific Halibut Fisheries; Catch Sharing Plan [Docket No.: 131213999-4208-02] (RIN: 0648-BD82) received April 4, 2013, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Natural Resources. 5415. A letter from the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule -- Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Herring Fishery; Adjustments to 2014 Annual Catch Limits [Docket No.: 130919816-4205-02] (RIN: 0648-BD70) received April 4, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Natural Resources. 5416. A letter from the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, NOAA Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule -- Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Precision Strike Weapon and Air-to-Surface Gunnery Training and Testing Operations at Eglin Air Force Base, FL [Docket No.: 120820371-4079-02] (RIN: 0648-BC46) received April 4, 2014, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Natural Resources. 5417. A letter from the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule -- Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands; 2014 and 2015 Harvest Specifications for Groundfish [Docket No.: 131021878-4158-02] (RIN: 0648-XC927) received April 9, 2014, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Natural Resources. 5418. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting the Department's determination on a petition on behalf of workers employed at the Joslyn Manufacturing and Supply Co. at the covered facility in Fort Wayne, Indiana, to be added to the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC), pursuant to the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 (EEOICPA); to the Committee on the Judiciary. 5419. A letter from the Regulatory Coordinator, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Standards To Prevent, Detect, and Respond to Sexual Abuse and Assault in Confinement Facilities [ICEB-2012-0003] (RIN: 1653-AA65) received March 28, 2014, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on the Judiciary. 5420. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Visas: Waiver by Joint Action of Visa and Passport Requirements for Members of Armed Forces and Coast Guards of Foreign Countries (RIN: 1400-AD51) received April 7, 2014, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on the Judiciary. 5421. A letter from the Vice President, Government Affairs and Corporate Communications, Amtrak National Railroad Passenger Corporation, transmitting an addendum to the Legislative and Grant Request for Fiscal Year 2015; to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. 5422. A letter from the Chief Counsel, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Tariff of Tolls (RIN: 2135-AA35) received April 10, 2014, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. 5423. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Interpretive Rule Regarding Applicability of the Exemption from Permitting Under Section 404(f)(1)(A) of the Clean Water Act to Certain Agricultural Conservation Practices [EPA-HQ-OW-2013-0820; 9908-97-OW] received April 3, 2014, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. 5424. A letter from the Trade Representative, Executive Office of the President, transmitting the 2014 Trade Policy Agenda and the 2013 Annual Report on the Trade Agreements Program as prepared by the Administration; to the Committee on Ways and Means. 5425. A letter from the Chief, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Department of Justice, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Importation of Arms, Ammunition and Implements of War and Machine Guns, Destructive Devices, and Certain Other Firearms; Extending the Term of Import Permits (2010R- 26P) [Docket No.: ATF 26F; AG Order No. 3417-2014] (RIN: 1140-AA42) received February 11, 2014, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Ways and Means. 5426. A letter from the Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's final rule -- Applicable Federal Rates -- April 2014 (Rev. Rul. 2014-12) received April 10, 2014, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Ways and Means. 5427. A letter from the Chief, Publications and Regulations, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's final rule -- Guidance on Section 1.1502-75(b) (Rev. Proc. 2014-24) received April 10, 2014, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Ways and Means. 5428. A letter from the Branch Chief, Publications and Regulations, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's final rule -- Virtual Currency [Notice 2014-21] received April 10, 2014, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Ways and Means. 5429. A letter from the Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's final rule -- Modification of Rev. Proc. 2013-22 (Revenue Procedure 2014-28) received April 10, 2014, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Ways and Means. 5430. A letter from the Chief, Publications and Regulations, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's final rule -- Health Insurance Providers Fee; Procedural and Administrative Guidance [Notice 2014-24] received April 8, 2014, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Ways and Means. 5431. A letter from the Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's final rule -- Application of One-Per-Year Limit on IRA Rollovers (Announcement 2014-15) received April 10, 2014, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Ways and Means. 5432. A letter from the Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's final rule -- Postponement of Deadline for Making an Election to Deduct for the Preceding Taxable Year Losses Attributable to Colorado Severe Storms, Flooding, Landslides, and Mudslides [Notice 2014-20] received March 27, 2014, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Ways and Means. 5433. A letter from the Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's final rule -- Rollovers to Qualified Plans (Rev. Rul. 2014-9) received April 8, 2014, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Ways and Means. 5434. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting A report on the Evaluation of the Medicare Care Management Performance Demonstration, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1395b-1 note Public Law 108-173, section 649(g); jointly to the Committees on Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means. 5435. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting a report entitled, ``Recovery Auditing in the Medicare and Medicaid Program''; jointly to the Committees on Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means. 5436. A letter from the Chairman, Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, transmitting the Commission's March 2014 Report to the Congress: Medicare Payment Policy; jointly to the Committees on Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means. 5437. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting a report on the Millennium Challenge Corporation's (MCC) activities for fiscal year 2013; jointly to the Committees on Foreign Affairs, the Judiciary, Ways and Means, Natural Resources, and 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: Mrs. MILLER of Michigan: Committee on House Administration. H.R. 863. A bill to establish the Commission to Study the Potential Creation of a National Women's History Museum, and for other purposes (Rept. 113-411 Pt. 1). Ordered to be printed. Mr. HASTINGS of Washington: Committee on Natural Resources. H.R. 2657. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to sell certain Federal lands in Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming, previously identified as suitable for disposal, [[Page 6140]] and for other purposes (Rept. 113-412). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Mr. HASTINGS of Washington: Committee on Natural Resources. H.R. 4032. A bill to exempt from Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 certain water transfers by the North Texas Municipal Water District and the Greater Texoma Utility Authority, and for other purposes (Rept. 113-413 Pt. 1). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. ____________________ DISCHARGE OF COMMITTEE Pursuant to clause 2 of rule XIII, the following action was taken by the Speaker: The Committee on the Judiciary discharged from further consideration. H.R. 4032 referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, and ordered to be printed. ____________________ 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. CARTWRIGHT (for himself, Mr. Grayson, and Ms. Jackson Lee): H.R. 4445. A bill to amend the Older Americans Act of 1965 to develop and test an expanded and advanced role for direct care workers who provide long-term services and supports to older individuals in efforts to coordinate care and improve the efficiency of service delivery; to the Committee on Education and the Workforce. By Mr. SHUSTER (for himself, Mr. Culberson, Mr. Bishop of Georgia, Mr. Cartwright, Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania, Mr. Meehan, and Mr. Cook): H.R. 4446. A bill to require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to conduct a study on matters relating to the claiming and interring of unclaimed remains of veterans, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. By Mr. FARENTHOLD (for himself, Mr. DesJarlais, and Mr. Lankford): H.R. 4447. A bill to direct the employing authority of any officer or employee of the Federal Government who is in contempt of Congress to not pay compensation to the officer or employee while the officer or employee remains in contempt, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. By Mr. PITTENGER (for himself, Mr. Pitts, Mr. Denham, Mr. Southerland, Mr. Burgess, Mr. Weber of Texas, and Mr. Huizenga of Michigan): H.R. 4448. A bill to direct the President to suspend assistance to foreign countries that fail to use INTERPOL's Stolen and Lost Travel Documents database for purposes of determining accuracy of passports of prospective passengers on commercial flights; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. By Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York: H.R. 4449. A bill to amend the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 to expand the training for Federal Government personnel related to trafficking in persons, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. By Mr. BILIRAKIS (for himself, Mr. Welch, Mr. Heck of Nevada, Mr. Farr, Mr. Webster of Florida, Ms. Titus, Mr. Jolly, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Mr. Miller of Florida, Ms. Wilson of Florida, Mr. Kinzinger of Illinois, Ms. Castor of Florida, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, Mr. Diaz-Balart, Mr. Ross, Mr. Crenshaw, Mr. Peters of California, Mr. Southerland, Mr. Quigley, Mr. DeSantis, Mr. Rush, Mr. Murphy of Florida, Ms. Matsui, Mr. Butterfield, Ms. Eshoo, Ms. Gabbard, Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California, Mr. Pierluisi, Mrs. Capps, Mr. Peterson, Mr. Sherman, Mr. Cicilline, Ms. Hahn, Mrs. Christensen, Ms. Chu, Mr. Lowenthal, Mr. Costa, Mr. Long, Mr. Smith of Texas, Mr. Schock, and Mr. Grimm): H.R. 4450. A bill to extend the Travel Promotion Act of 2009, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Homeland Security, 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. CONYERS: H.R. 4451. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to provide for the protection of the general public, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. CONYERS: H.R. 4452. A bill to establish a corporate crime database, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. By Mr. REICHERT (for himself and Mr. Kind): H.R. 4453. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent the reduced recognition period for built-in gains of S corporations; to the Committee on Ways and Means. By Mr. REICHERT (for himself and Mr. Kind): H.R. 4454. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent certain rules regarding basis adjustments to stock of S corporations making charitable contributions of property; to the Committee on Ways and Means. By Mr. FOSTER (for himself, Mr. Rangel, and Ms. Jackson Lee): H.R. 4455. A bill to require Federal agencies to collaborate in the development of freely available open source educational materials in college-level physics, chemistry, and math, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, 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. GEORGE MILLER of California (for himself, Mr. Costa, Mr. McNerney, Ms. Matsui, Mr. Garamendi, Mr. Thompson of California, Ms. Eshoo, Mr. Huffman, Mrs. Napolitano, and Mr. Waxman): H.R. 4456. A bill to determine the feasibility of additional agreements for long-term use of existing or expanded non-Federal storage and conveyance facilities to augment Federal water supply, ecosystem, and operational flexibility benefits in certain areas, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Natural Resources. By Mr. TIBERI (for himself, Mr. Kind, Mr. Young of Indiana, Mr. Neal, Mr. Gerlach, Mr. Danny K. Davis of Illinois, and Mr. Schock): H.R. 4457. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently extend increased expensing limitations, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Ways and Means. By Mr. McCARTHY of California: H.R. 4458. A bill to make permanent the withdrawal and reservation of public land previously withdrawn and reserved to support the operations of Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake, California, and to provide for the withdrawal and reservation of additional public land; to the Committee on Natural Resources. By Mr. CONYERS (for himself, Ms. Brown of Florida, Mr. Clay, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Grayson, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Gutierrez, Mr. Honda, Ms. Jackson Lee, Mr. Jeffries, Ms. Lee of California, Mr. McGovern, Ms. Moore, Mr. Moran, Mr. Nadler, Ms. Norton, Mr. Payne, Mr. Richmond, Ms. Schakowsky, and Mr. Serrano): H.R. 4459. A bill to secure the Federal voting rights of persons who have been released from incarceration; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. HONDA (for himself, Mr. Ellison, Mr. Peters of California, Mr. Loebsack, Mr. Lowenthal, Ms. Lofgren, Ms. Meng, and Mr. Moran): H.R. 4460. A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to repeal the sunset of the special immigrant nonminister religious worker program; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. HONDA: H.R. 4461. A bill to authorize the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to establish a Climate Change Education Program; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 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 Mrs. BEATTY (for herself, Mr. Stivers, Mr. Hinojosa, Ms. Waters, Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney of New York, Mr. Clay, Mr. Meeks, Mr. Rangel, Ms. Fudge, Mr. Gutierrez, Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of California, Mr. Cardenas, Ms. Sewell of Alabama, Mr. Connolly, Mr. Heck of Washington, Mr. Swalwell of California, Ms. Lee of California, Ms. Jackson Lee, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, Ms. Edwards, Mr. Ryan of Ohio, and Mr. Johnson of Georgia): H.R. 4462. A bill to require the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to discount FHA single-family mortgage insurance premium payments for first-time homebuyers who complete a financial literacy housing counseling program; to the Committee on Financial Services. By Ms. BONAMICI: H.R. 4463. A bill to amend the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 to regulate tax return preparers and refund anticipation payment arrangements, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Financial Services, 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. [[Page 6141]] By Mr. BOUSTANY (for himself, Mr. Kind, Mr. Reed, Mr. Schock, Ms. Jenkins, Mr. Tiberi, Mr. Pascrell, Mr. Larson of Connecticut, Mr. Young of Indiana, Mr. Matheson, and Mr. Crowley): H.R. 4464. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent the look-through treatment of payments between related controlled foreign corporations; to the Committee on Ways and Means. By Mr. BYRNE: H.R. 4465. A bill to amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to repeal the requirement to establish catch limits for the Gulf of Mexico red snapper fishery; to the Committee on Natural Resources. By Mrs. CAPITO (for herself and Mr. Meeks): H.R. 4466. A bill to require certain financial regulators to determine whether new regulations or orders are duplicative or inconsistent with existing Federal regulations, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Financial Services, and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. By Mr. CAPUANO: H.R. 4467. A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide for visas for certain advanced STEM graduates, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Ms. CASTOR of Florida (for herself and Mr. Hunter): H.R. 4468. A bill to require career and technical education for maritime careers; to the Committee on Education and the Workforce. By Mr. CASTRO of Texas: H.R. 4469. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain expiring provisions for 1 year; to the Committee on Ways and Means. By Mr. COHEN (for himself and Mr. Scott of Virginia): H.R. 4470. A bill to amend title 31, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of the Treasury to regulate tax return preparers; to the Committee on Ways and Means. By Mr. COHEN (for himself, Ms. Kelly of Illinois, Ms. Tsongas, Ms. Norton, and Ms. Wilson of Florida): H.R. 4471. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the tax incentives for empowerment zones and renewal communities; to the Committee on Ways and Means. By Mr. FATTAH: H.R. 4472. A bill to provide for the establishment of a grant program to support United States-Israeli cooperation for neuroscience-related research, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. By Mr. FOSTER (for himself, Ms. Tsongas, Mr. Owens, Mr. Enyart, and Mr. Cardenas): H.R. 4473. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow small employers a credit against income tax for the cost of on-the-job training expenses, to make the research credit permanent, and to increase the simplified research credit; to the Committee on Ways and Means. By Ms. GRANGER (for herself, Mr. Deutch, and Mr. McCaul): H.R. 4474. A bill to remove the Kurdistan Democratic Party and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan from treatment as terrorist organizations and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia (for himself and Mr. Hanna): H.R. 4475. A bill to allow the manufacture, importation, distribution, and sale of investigational drugs and devices intended for use by terminally ill patients who execute an informed consent document, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. By Mr. ISRAEL: H.R. 4476. A bill to require ingredient labeling of certain consumer cleaning products, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. By Mr. McNERNEY: H.R. 4477. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Transportation to make grants for engineering, final design, and construction of the Altamont Corridor Rail Project, California, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. By Mr. RANGEL: H.R. 4478. A bill to require that any new contract to provide project-based rental assistance under section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 have a term of 40 years, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Financial Services. By Mr. RANGEL: H.R. 4479. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a renter's credit; to the Committee on Ways and Means. By Mr. RICHMOND (for himself, Mr. Al Green of Texas, Mr. Hastings of Florida, Mr. Carson of Indiana, Ms. Lee of California, Mr. Thompson of Mississippi, Mr. Rush, Mr. Fattah, Ms. Brown of Florida, Mr. Danny K. Davis of Illinois, Mr. David Scott of Georgia, Mr. Payne, Mrs. Christensen, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, Ms. Norton, Mr. Cummings, Mr. Cleaver, Ms. Wilson of Florida, Mr. Butterfield, Mr. Meeks, Ms. Moore, Mr. Jeffries, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, Ms. Jackson Lee, Mr. Clyburn, Mr. Conyers, Mrs. Beatty, Ms. Bass, Mr. Ellison, Mr. Veasey, Ms. Fudge, Ms. Waters, Mr. Clay, Ms. Kelly of Illinois, Mr. Bishop of Georgia, Ms. Sewell of Alabama, and Ms. Clarke of New York): H.R. 4480. A bill to amend adverse credit history determinations for purposes of Federal Direct PLUS Loan eligibility; to the Committee on Education and the Workforce. By Mr. SALMON: H.R. 4481. A bill to amend the Head Start Act to authorize block grants to States for prekindergarten education; to the Committee on Education and the Workforce. By Mr. SALMON: H.R. 4482. A bill to prohibit any appropriation of funds for the Science and Technology account of the Environmental Protection Agency; to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. By Ms. SHEA-PORTER (for herself, Mr. Holt, Mr. Massie, and Ms. Kuster): H.R. 4483. A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide for the eligibility of certain additional programs for the National Science Foundation competitive grant program for K-12 math, science, engineering, and technology education, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. By Ms. SINEMA (for herself, Mr. Gibson, Mr. Barber, Mr. Bilirakis, and Mr. Murphy of Florida): H.R. 4484. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide improvements for Medicare Advantage special needs plans, and for other purposes; 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. TURNER (for himself and Ms. Tsongas): H.R. 4485. A bill to provide for additional enhancements to the sexual assault prevention and response activities of the Armed Forces; to the Committee on Armed Services, 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. LARSON of Connecticut: H.J. Res. 114. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States concerning the election of the Members of the House of Representatives; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. TERRY: H. Con. Res. 97. Concurrent resolution recognizing caregiving as a profession and the need for increased educational opportunities for both paid and family caregivers; to the Committee on Education and the Workforce. By Mr. GARAMENDI (for himself, Ms. Chu, Mr. Valadao, Mr. Crowley, Mr. Swalwell of California, Mr. Grijalva, Ms. Jackson Lee, Ms. Titus, Ms. Lee of California, Ms. Speier, Mr. Holt, and Mr. Bera of California): H. Res. 550. A resolution honoring the Sikh American community's celebration of Vaisakhi; to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. By Mr. COSTA (for himself, Mr. Poe of Texas, Mr. Vargas, Ms. Bass, Mr. Swalwell of California, and Mr. Lewis): H. Res. 551. A resolution supporting the mission and goals of 2014 National Crime Victims' Rights Week, which include increasing public awareness of the rights, needs, and concerns of, and services available to assist, victims of crime in the United States; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. CROWLEY (for himself, Mr. Engel, Mr. Grimm, Mr. Higgins, Mr. Israel, Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney of New York, Ms. Meng, Mr. Nadler, Mr. Owens, and Mr. Rangel): H. Res. 552. A resolution celebrating the 50th anniversary of the 1964 World's Fair in Queens, New York; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. By Mr. GINGREY of Georgia: H. Res. 553. A resolution recognizing Linemen, the profession of Linemen, and the contributions of these brave men and women to protect public safety, and expressing support of designation of April 18, 2014, as National Lineman Appreciation Day; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. By Ms. HAHN: H. Res. 554. A resolution recognizing the alarming mortality rate of African-American breast cancer patients; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. ____________________ MEMORIALS Under clause 3 of rule XII, memorials were presented and referred as follows: 190. The SPEAKER presented a memorial of the House of Representatives of the State [[Page 6142]] of Ohio, relative to House Resolution No. 340 commending Israel for its cordial and mutually beneficial relationship with the United States and Ohio; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. 191. Also, a memorial of the House of Representatives of the State of Michigan, relative to House Resolution No. 315 memorializing the Congress and the President to support Michigan's application for a state-sponsored EB-5 regional center; to the Committee on the Judiciary. 192. Also, a memorial of the House of Representatives of the State of Michigan, relative to House Resolution No. 316 memorializing the President and the Congress to support Michigan's request for 50,000 EB-2 visas to assist in the recovery of the city of Detroit; to the Committee on the Judiciary. 193. Also, a memorial of the House of Representatives of the State of Ohio, relative to House Concurrent Resolution No. 21 urging the President, Congress, and the Department of Veterans Affairs to take prompt action to reduce the processing time for veterans' disability benefit claims; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. 194. Also, a memorial of the House of Representatives of the State of Colorado, relative to House Joint Resolution No. 14-1007 recognizing the bravery and sacrifice of the crew of the U.S.S. Pueblo; jointly to the Committees on Armed Services and Foreign Affairs. 195. Also, a memorial of the House of Representatives of the State of Michigan, relative to House Concurrent Resolution No. 19 urging Congress to repeal Section 1502 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act; jointly to the Committees on Financial Services and Foreign Affairs. 196. Also, a memorial of the Legislature of the Territory of Guam, relative to Resolution No. 316-32 requesting that the Congress and the Department of Health and Human Services further consider and amend the provisions of the PPACA; jointly to the Committees on Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means. 197. Also, a memorial of the Senate of the State of Washington, relative to Senate Joint Memorial 8003 urging Congress to update and amend the Communications Decency Act; jointly to the Committees on Energy and Commerce and the Judiciary. 198. Also, a memorial of the House of Representatives of the State of Oregon, relative to House Joint Memorial 206 urging Congress to direct the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration to enhance safety standards for new and existing tank rail cars used to transport crude oil and other flammable liquids; jointly to the Committees on Transportation and Infrastructure and Energy and Commerce. ____________________ 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. CARTWRIGHT: H.R. 4445. Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: Article I; Section 8; Clause 1 of the Constitution states The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States... By Mr. SHUSTER: H.R. 4446. Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: Article 1 Section 8: to provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States By Mr. FARENTHOLD: H.R. 4447. Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: Article 1, Sec. 8, Clause 18 By Mr. PITTENGER: H.R. 4448. Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 By Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York: H.R. 4449. Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution. By Mr. BILIRAKIS: H.R. 4450. Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: This bill is enacted pursuant to Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 (which states that ``The Congress shall have the 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 3 (which states that the Congress shall have the Power ``To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes'') of the Constitution of the United States. By Mr. CONYERS: H.R. 4451. Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 By Mr. CONYERS: H.R. 4452. Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 By Mr. REICHERT: H.R. 4453. Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: Pursuant to Clause 1 of Section 8 of Article I of the United States Constitution and Amendment XVI of the United States Constitution By Mr. REICHERT: H.R. 4454. Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: Pursuant to Clause 1 of Section 8 of Article I of the United States Constitution and Amendment XVI of the United States Constitution By Mr. FOSTER: H.R. 4455. Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: 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. GEORGE MILLER of California: H.R. 4456. Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the United States grants Congress the authority to enact this bill. By Mr. TIBERI: H.R. 4457. Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: This bill makes changes to existing law relating to Article 1, Section 7 which provides that ``All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.'' By Mr. McCARTHY of California: H.R. 4458. Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state. By Mr. CONYERS: H.R. 4459. Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: 1) Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution. This provision permits Congress to make or alter the regulations pertaining to Federal elections; 2) Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. This provision grants Congress the authority to enact appropriate laws protecting the civil rights of all Americans; and 3) The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. This provision prohibits excessive bail, excessive fines and cruel and unusual punishment. By Mr. HONDA: H.R. 4460. Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: Section 8 of Article I of the United States Constitution By Mr. HONDA: H.R. 4461. Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: section 8 of article I of the Constitution By Mrs. BEATTY: H.R. 4462. Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution which grants Congress the power to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes. By Ms. BONAMICI: H.R. 4463. Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 1 Amdt. XVI By Mr. BOUSTANY: H.R. 4464. Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: Article I By Mr. BYRNE: H.R. 4465. Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: Article I, Section 8: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; By Mrs. CAPITO: H.R. 4466. [[Page 6143]] Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: Article I Section 1: All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States By Mr. CAPUANO: H.R. 4467. Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: Article I, Section 8, Clause 4, which states that Congress has the power to establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization. By Ms. CASTOR of Florida: H.R. 4468. Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution By Mr. CASTRO of Texas: H.R. 4469. Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: Constitutional Authority--Necessary and Proper Clause (Art. I, Sec. 8, Clause 18) The U.S. Constitution Article I, Section 8: Powers of Congress Clause 18 The 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. COHEN: H.R. 4470. Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: Clause 1 of Section 8 of Article I of the United States Constitution and Amendment XVI of the United States Constitution By Mr. COHEN: H.R. 4471. Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: Article I, section 8 of the United States Constitution. By Mr. FATTAH: H.R. 4472. Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: This bill is enacted pursuant to the power granted to Congress under Article I Section 8 Clause 3 of the United States Constitution, which states the United States Congress shall have power ``To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes''. By Mr. FOSTER: H.R. 4473. Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: Article I, Section 8, which states ``The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes.' By Ms. GRANGER: H.R. 4474. Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 of the United States Constitution that the 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. GRIFFITH of Virginia: H.R. 4475. Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: This bill is enacted pursuant to the power granted to Congress under Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution. By Mr. ISRAEL: H.R. 4476. Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution By Mr. McNERNEY: H.R. 4477. Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: Article I, section 8 of the United States Constitution. By Mr. RANGEL: H.R. 4478. Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution. By Mr. RANGEL: H.R. 4479. Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: Article XVI of the Constitution--Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes . . . By Mr. RICHMOND: H.R. 4480. Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: The Constitutional authority for this bill stems from Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution. By Mr. SALMON: H.R. 4481. Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States of America. By Mr. SALMON: H.R. 4482. Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: Article I, Section 9, Clause 7--``No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.'' By Ms. SHEA-PORTER: H.R. 4483. Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the United States By Ms. SINEMA: H.R. 4484. Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: Article I Section 8 Clause 1 and Article I Section 8 Clause 18 By Mr. TURNER: H.R. 4485. Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: Military Regulation: Article I, Section 8, Clauses 14 and 18 To make Rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces; and 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. LARSON of Connecticut: H.J. Res. 114. Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: 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. ____________________ ADDITIONAL SPONSORS Under clause 7 of rule XII, sponsors were added to public bills and resolutions, as follows: H.R. 20: Mr. Foster. H.R. 24: Mr. Rooney, Mr. Jolly, and Mr. Mullin. H.R. 32: Mr. Weber of Texas and Mr. Jolly. H.R. 184: Mr. Kilmer. H.R. 279: Ms. DelBene. H.R. 435: Mr. King of New York. H.R. 460: Mr. Fitzpatrick. H.R. 485: Mr. Fitzpatrick. H.R. 508: Mr. Amodei. H.R. 524: Mr. Crawford. H.R. 551: Ms. Roybal-Allard. H.R. 578: Mr. Benishek. H.R. 713: Mr. Engel. H.R. 718: Mr. Ribble and Mr. Mulvaney. H.R. 786: Mr. Quigley. H.R. 855: Mr. Schneider. H.R. 863: Ms. Clark of Massachusetts. H.R. 935: Mr. Cassidy. H.R. 942: Mr. Posey and Mrs. Beatty. H.R. 963: Mr. Conyers. H.R. 1020: Mr. Maffei and Mr. Walden. H.R. 1070: Mr. Wenstrup and Mr. McKeon. H.R. 1074: Mr. Pastor of Arizona, Mr. Griffin of Arkansas, and Mr. Smith of Texas. H.R. 1084: Mr. Yarmuth. H.R. 1141: Ms. Frankel of Florida. H.R. 1173: Mr. Tiberi. H.R. 1229: Ms. Clark of Massachusetts. H.R. 1290: Mr. Bishop of Utah. H.R. 1318: Mr. Jeffries. H.R. 1331: Mr. Price of Georgia. H.R. 1354: Mr. Pocan and Mr. Lewis. H.R. 1462: Mr. Thornberry. H.R. 1464: Mr. Pierluisi. H.R. 1507: Mr. Enyart and Ms. Granger. H.R. 1508: Mr. Smith of New Jersey and Mr. Enyart. H.R. 1563: Ms. Matsui and Mr. Long. H.R. 1620: Ms. Tsongas. H.R. 1699: Mr. Cohen. H.R. 1726: Mr. Reed. H.R. 1812: Mr. Griffith of Virginia. H.R. 1852: Mr. Daines. H.R. 1861: Mr. Nolan. H.R. 1950: Mr. Jolly. H.R. 2093: Mr. Walberg. H.R. 2143: Mr. Frelinghuysen. H.R. 2203: Mr. Cartwright, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Langevin, Mr. Scott of Virginia, Mr. Hastings of Florida, Mr. Stockman, Mrs. Bachmann, Mr. Lankford, Mr. Garcia, Ms. Kuster, Ms. Sinema, Mr. Swalwell of California, Mr. Posey, Mr. Meadows, Mr. Braley of Iowa, Mr. Courtney, Mr. Pittenger, Mr. Schweikert, Mr. Bentivolio, Mr. Collins of New York, Mr. DesJarlais, Mr. Fincher, Mr. Goodlatte, Mr. Graves of Georgia, Mrs. Miller of Michigan, Mr. Nugent, Mrs. Walorski, Mr. Williams, Mr. Wittman, and Mr. LaMalfa. H.R. 2247: Mr. Bishop of Utah. H.R. 2283: Mr. Frelinghuysen and Mrs. Hartzler. H.R. 2288: Mr. Schneider. H.R. 2315: Mr. Johnson of Ohio. H.R. 2342: Ms. Schakowsky. H.R. 2377: Mr. Braley of Iowa. H.R. 2387: Ms. Slaughter, Ms. Frankel of Florida, Mr. Sean Patrick Maloney of New York, and Mr. Serrano. H.R. 2429: Mr. Jolly, Mr. Scalise, Ms. Herrera Beutler, and Mr. Graves of Georgia. H.R. 2504: Mr. King of New York, Mr. Peters of California, and Mr. Sires. H.R. 2543: Mr. Long and Mr. Chabot. H.R. 2607: Mr. Lance. [[Page 6144]] H.R. 2619: Mr. Pocan, Mr. Rahall, and Mrs. Kirkpatrick. H.R. 2648: Mr. Ellison. H.R. 2682: Mr. Lance. H.R. 2707: Mr. Kennedy. H.R. 2725: Mr. Schrader. H.R. 2788: Mr. Jeffries. H.R. 2805: Mr. Frelinghuysen and Mr. Rothfus. H.R. 2870: Mr. Meehan and Ms. Esty. H.R. 2901: Mr. Courtney and Mr. Gibson. H.R. 2914: Mr. Rangel and Mr. Ellison. H.R. 2932: Mr. Engel, Mr. Kinzinger of Illinois, Mr. Larsen of Washington, Mr. Ben Ray Lujan of New Mexico, Ms. Ros- Lehtinen, Mr. Schock, Mr. Schneider, Ms. Velazquez, Mr. McClintock, and Ms. Wilson of Florida. H.R. 2955: Mr. Sires. H.R. 2957: Mr. McKinley. H.R. 2959: Mr. Jolly, Mr. Petri, Mr. Daines, and Mr. Rokita. H.R. 2996: Mr. Cook and Mr. Rangel. H.R. 3022: Ms. DeGette. H.R. 3086: Mr. Yarmuth, Mr. Payne, Mr. Frelinghuysen, Ms. Brownley of California, and Mr. Vargas. H.R. 3150: Mr. McKinley. H.R. 3155: Mr. Farenthold. H.R. 3179: Mr. Brooks of Alabama and Mr. Aderholt. H.R. 3313: Ms. McCollum. H.R. 3344: Mrs. Walorski and Mr. Frelinghuysen. H.R. 3361: Mr. Wilson of South Carolina. H.R. 3367: Mr. Johnson of Ohio. H.R. 3377: Mrs. Ellmers. H.R. 3494: Mr. Loebsack. H.R. 3528: Mr. Johnson of Ohio. H.R. 3530: Ms. Frankel of Florida and Mrs. Walorski. H.R. 3570: Mr. Guthrie. H.R. 3581: Mr. Smith of Texas. H.R. 3610: Mr. Walz. H.R. 3658: Mr. Jolly, Mr. Bishop of Utah, and Mr. Rogers of Kentucky. H.R. 3665: Mr. Neal. H.R. 3673: Mr. Johnson of Ohio. H.R. 3697: Ms. Roybal-Allard. H.R. 3707: Mr. Holt and Mr. Payne. H.R. 3717: Mr. Carter, Mr. Amodei, and Mr. Schock. H.R. 3740: Mrs. Bustos. H.R. 3782: Mr. Cole. H.R. 3867: Ms. Granger and Mr. Braley of Iowa. H.R. 3929: Ms. Fudge and Mr. Holt. H.R. 3930: Mr. Israel and Mr. Camp. H.R. 3969: Mr. McKinley. H.R. 3991: Mr. Bucshon. H.R. 4008: Mr. Petri. H.R. 4031: Mr. Webster of Florida, Mr. Yoho, and Mr. McClintock. H.R. 4058: Mr. Webster of Florida. H.R. 4064: Mr. Johnson of Ohio. H.R. 4069: Mr. Johnson of Ohio. H.R. 4119: Ms. Lee of California, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Lowenthal, Mr. Thompson of California, Ms. Kelly of Illinois, Mr. Holt, and Ms. Moore. H.R. 4143: Mr. Sires. H.R. 4162: Ms. Shea-Porter. H.R. 4172: Mr. Joyce. H.R. 4225: Mr. Webster of Florida, Mrs. Lummis, Mrs. Roby, Mr. Poe of Texas, Mr. Reichert, Mr. Luetkemeyer, Mr. Graves of Missouri, and Mr. Clay. H.R. 4228: Mr. Matheson. H.R. 4250: Mrs. Blackburn, Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney of New York, and Mr. Griffin of Arkansas. H.R. 4255: Mr. Michaud and Ms. Tsongas. H.R. 4285: Mr. Waxman, Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California, Mr. Lowenthal, Ms. Hahn, Ms. Speier, and Ms. Lofgren. H.R. 4299: Mr. Gene Green of Texas. H.R. 4305: Mr. Walz. H.R. 4308: Mr. DeSantis. H.R. 4316: Mr. Walden. H.R. 4320: Mr. Womack. H.R. 4325: Mr. Levin. H.R. 4346: Mr. Smith of New Jersey. H.R. 4351: Ms. Shea-Porter, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Amodei, Mr. McIntyre, Ms. Velazquez, Mr. Gene Green of Texas, Mr. Gerlach, Mr. Sires, and Mr. Enyart. H.R. 4357: Mr. Griffin of Arkansas, Mr. Bishop of Utah, Mr. Joyce, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Nunnelee, and Mr. Broun of Georgia. H.R. 4361: Mr. Cohen. H.R. 4364: Mr. Butterfield. H.R. 4365: Ms. Norton, Mr. Richmond, Mr. Paulsen, Ms. McCollum, Ms. Schwartz, Mr. Cummings, Mr. Kilmer, and Ms. Roybal-Allard. H.R. 4370: Mr. Johnson of Ohio. H.R. 4411: Mr. DeSantis, Mr. Weber of Texas, Mr. Collins of Georgia, Mr. Connolly, Mr. Kinzinger of Illinois, Mr. Salmon, Ms. Meng, Mr. Deutch, Mr. Cook, Mr. Westmoreland, Mr. Farenthold, Mr. Lankford, Mr. Higgins, Mr. McCaul, Mr. Long, Mr. King of New York, Mr. Bishop of Utah, Mr. Pearce, Mr. Rokita, and Mr. Jordan. H.R. 4423: Mr. Stewart. H.R. 4433: Mr. Bridenstine. H.J. Res. 50: Mr. Benishek. H. Con. Res. 86: Mr. Rangel, Mr. Terry, Mr. Smith of Missouri, Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney of New York, Mr. Bishop of Utah, Mr. Butterfield, Mr. Meeks, and Mr. Tonko. H. Res. 72: Mr. Goodlatte. H. Res. 109: Mr. Woodall. H. Res. 190: Mr. Garamendi. H. Res. 526: Mr. Huffman. ____________________ DELETIONS OF SPONSORS FROM PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS Under clause 7 of rule XII, sponsors were deleted from public bills and resolutions, as follows: H.R. 2377: Mr. Duncan of South Carolina. ____________________ PETITIONS, ETC. Under clause 3 of rule XII, petitions and papers were laid on the clerk's desk and referred as follows: 77. The SPEAKER presented a petition of the Township of Parsippany--Tory Hills, New Jersey, relative to Resolution R2014-040 urging the Congress to invest federal dollars in maintaining the highways and improving the transportation infrastructure in the State of New Jersey; to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. 78. Also, a petition of the County of Saratoga Board of Supervisors, New York, relative to Resolution 44 urging the passage of H.R. 543; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. 79. Also, a petition of the County of Saratoga Board of Supervisors, New York, relative to Resolution 45-2014 urging the Senate to introduce a companion bill of H.R. 1494 and ensure its passage within the 113th Congressional Session; jointly to the Committees on Armed Services and Veterans' Affairs. [[Page 6145]] SENATE--Thursday, April 10, 2014 The Senate met at 9:30 a.m. and was called to order by the Honorable John E. Walsh, a Senator from the State of Montana. ______ prayer The PRESIDING OFFICER. The guest chaplain, Dr. Raphael Warnock, senior pastor of Ebenezer Baptist Church of Atlanta, GA, will lead the Senate in prayer. The guest Chaplain offered the following prayer: Let us pray. God of love and justice, for this new day with its new possibilities, we are grateful. For the holy covenant we have with You and for the sacred covenant we have with one another as an American people, we are grateful. For the precious ideals of freedom, self-government, radical inclusion, and equal protection under the law, we are grateful. These are Your gifts. Grant that when we, the American people, especially those who serve in this the people's house, are weighed by the moral balance of history, we will be found worthy. God, make us mindful that we might be found worthy; mindful that the moral test of government is how it treats those at the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the aged; those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy, the handicapped. O God, make us mindful of our inextricable connections to one another and of our sacred obligation as careful stewards of this global neighborhood we are blessed to share. To the God who loves us into freedom, and frees us into loving, we offer this prayer. 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 assistant legislative clerk read the following letter: U.S. Senate, President pro tempore, Washington, DC, April 10, 2014. To the Senate: Under the provisions of rule I, paragraph 3, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby appoint the Honorable John E. Walsh, a Senator from the State of Montana, to perform the duties of the Chair. Patrick J. Leahy, President pro tempore. Mr. WALSH thereupon assumed the Chair as Acting President pro tempore. ____________________ RECOGNITION OF THE MAJORITY LEADER The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized. ____________________ MINIMUM WAGE FAIRNESS ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED Mr. REID. I move to proceed to Calendar No. 354, the minimum wage legislation. The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the motion. The assistant legislative clerk read as follows: Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 354, S. 2223, 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. Schedule Mr. REID. Mr. President, following my remarks and those of the Republican leader, the time until 10:30 a.m. will be equally divided and controlled. At 10:30 a.m. there will be a vote on the Ninth Circuit judge, whose name is Michelle Friedland. Until cloture is invoked there will be up to 30 hours of debate prior to vote on the confirmation of the nomination. So we have two votes we need to have before we leave here this week. We can have a vote at 4:00 tomorrow afternoon and the second vote would be around 7:00 or thereabouts tomorrow afternoon or tomorrow evening. We have to finish these two matters before we leave this week. The schedule is up to--not Republicans but a few Republicans--so I would suggest the Republicans deal with their own, and we can finish this morning if we need to. We certainly could. Mr. President, I would be happy to yield to my friend, the dignified and really superb Senator from Georgia. The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Georgia. Welcoming the Guest Chaplain Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I thank the leader for the introduction and I am very pleased to introduce today the Reverend Raphael Warnock, the senior pastor of Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta. He is a gifted author, a gifted and prolific preacher, and a great citizen of the great State of Georgia and the great city of Atlanta. Following in the traditions of the King family and the preachers of Ebenezer Baptist Church, he is the fifth pastor in the history of Ebenezer to carry out the mission of Ebenezer with great humility and great ability and great love, and is a great pastor in our eyes. I am pleased to welcome him to the U.S. Senate, and I know we will all be blessed in his presence today. I yield back. The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized. 46th Anniversary of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 Mr. REID. Tomorrow marks the 46th anniversary of the signing into law the Civil Rights Act of 1968, better known as the Fair Housing Act. This landmark legislation took a stand against housing discrimination and gave American families a fair shot at finding housing that was suitable to their needs. It is fitting we recognize this anniversary now, especially in light of the equality legislation we have been trying to pass here in the Senate recently. The Economic Ladder One of the first well-known billionaires we heard a lot of talk about on the planet was the outspoken oil tycoon J. Paul Getty. He once quipped: ``Money is like manure. You have to spread it around or it smells.'' Well, Charles and David Koch have certainly spread the money around, but it still stinks. It stinks because of what they do with their money. The Kochs are singlehandedly funding an attack on this Nation's middle class, instead of concerning themselves with narrowing the gap between the rich and the poor. Remember, in America today the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, and the middle class is getting squeezed. The Koch brothers have a lot to do with that. They are pumping hundreds of millions of dollars into rightwing organizations. And I didn't make a mistake when I said hundreds of millions of dollars. Instead of giving Americans a fighting chance to prosperity, the two richest brothers in the world are focused on getting Republicans elected. These Koch-funded organizations and politicians advocate only for what makes the Koch brothers richer. The two richest brothers in the world want to be richer, and it comes at the expense of the average American. The Kochs are the classic example of two men at the top of the ladder who [[Page 6146]] would pull that ladder up to make sure no one else can join them. That is exactly what the Koch brothers are trying to do to middle-class families. The only difference, of course, is that Charles and David never even scaled the ladder in the first place. They were born at the top rung. But somehow the Kochs have fooled themselves into thinking they rose to the top by their own merits. They didn't. More importantly, the Koch brothers have decided that they want their inherited wealth, this company now they have at the top--they want to make sure this ladder that should be reachable for everyone is unreachable. They are determined to make that ladder totally unreachable for others. These billionaires do this by rigging the system even more in their favor, making sure the Kochs' interests are being represented at all costs. As has been reported--and not by me--the Koch brothers have what some journalists are calling secret banks. Organizations serve as middlemen to fund ultraconservative scare campaigns. Through these secret banks, such as Freedom Partners and others, the multibillionaire Koch brothers pump money into radical institutions and all these rightwing organizations ultimately come to the same conclusion: America's best bet for economic prosperity is to help the Koch brothers get richer. So what do these groups do with the funds they receive from their billionaire benefactors? Groups such as Americans for Prosperity--try that one on for size, the Americans for Prosperity--lie to the American people about ObamaCare, hoping families will not sign up for affordable health care. Extreme organizations such as Independent Women's Forum tell women equal pay for equal work is not necessary because they say wage disparity is a myth. The Koch-backed Manhattan Institute is another one of their shell organizations that tries to convince the country that out-of-work American families don't need unemployment benefits. Why? Because they are out of work because they are lazy. And, of course, the Heritage Foundation uses Koch dollars to say raising the minimum wage is bad for business and will kill the economy. It is clear that the Kochs are using these puppet organizations in their proxy war on the middle class. But Charles and David aren't just using radical rightwing groups to keep average Americans from scaling the rungs. They are using Republicans. They are spreading their money around helping Republicans get elected. Unfortunately, the Republican Congress has shown itself to be in lockstep with the Koch brothers' radical agenda. The Republicans continue to push repeal of the Affordable Care Act. I watched the speech on the House floor yesterday, where one House Member indicated that he tried almost 60 times to repeal the bill--almost 60 times. What did Albert Einstein say? The definition of insanity is when someone tries to do something over and over again and they get the same result. They are insane. That is Albert Einstein, not me. They are doing this regardless of the fact that even the Koch brothers; that is, their business, Koch Industries, benefited from ObamaCare. Remember that ladder. The Kochs already got what they needed from health care reform. They don't want other people to do the same. They have benefited from ObamaCare. I laid that out a few days ago on the Senate floor. Senate Republicans have blocked the equal pay amendment three times-- three separate Congresses. They won't even let us discuss it. All but half of Republican Senators voted against the extension of benefits for the long-term unemployed, and turned their back on their own constituents. As for the minimum wage, my Republican colleagues have given no indication to help struggling families with the minimum wage. The Kochs' wealth is being used to squeeze the middle class very much. As long as Charles and David Koch are at the top looking down, who cares about the little people at the bottom, in their estimation. It is shameful that Koch money has made its way into our Nation's Capitol, our news, and our homes. It is frustrating that as Senate Democrats look across the aisle, we don't see many willing partners in defending middle-class families in Nevada and across the Nation. But we are not going to be intimidated by these Koch surrogates in the media or here in this very Chamber. We will continue to fight even harder to protect Americans from the greedy grasp of these billionaire oil barons and the wrath of their radical minions. Senate Democrats will continue to pull that ladder out from the Koch brothers' fingers so every American has a fair shot at climbing to the top. Recognition of the Minority Leader The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader is recognized. Job Creation Mr. McCONNELL. For days now Republicans have been coming to the floor to ask the Democratic majority to work with us on jobs. This is the issue Americans say they care the most about. So it is hard to see why Senate Democrats seem so allergic to various jobs ideas we have been proposing, not to mention dozens of job-creating bills already passed by the House. Look, our constituents want us to work together to rebuild the middle class, to help create opportunities for the families struggling out there just to pay the bills. In recent days we have given our Democratic colleagues ample opportunity to do that. We have offered one innovative proposal after another, proposals that haven't had much of a problem attracting bipartisan support in the past, ideas such as reducing the tax burden on small businesses, freeing them to grow, to hire, to innovate, ideas such as approving the Keystone Pipeline, which would create thousands of jobs right away; ideas such as repealing the medical device tax which even Democrats acknowledge is killing jobs-- although they haven't acted to fix it yet--and ideas such as eliminating ObamaCare's 30-hour workweek mandate, a rule that cuts people's hours against their will, that disproportionately affects women and is forcing too many Americans to look for extra work to get by. But we go even further than just tackling the causes of joblessness. Our ideas go beyond just helping Americans secure jobs with a steady paycheck and the hope of a better future.Because we have also put forward legislation that offers Americans more choices and greater flexibility in the workforce. This is something a lot of our constituents are asking for, and we are responding to those concerns. One bill we have proposed would let working moms and dads take more time off to strike a better work-life balance. Another bill would prohibit union bosses from denying pay increases to an employee who works harder than her coworkers. These are the kinds of practical, commonsense proposals our constituents sent us here to actually pass. These are the things that would make jobs more plentiful and life a lot easier for men and women across our country. For some reason Senate Democrats are blocking all of these ideas from getting a vote. Maybe it is because they are so single-mindedly focused on an election that is still 7 months away. I mean, they have already conceded that their ``agenda'' for the rest of the year was drafted by campaign staffers. It is a stunning admission. It explains their near-total lack of interest in practical solutions to the everyday concerns of our constituents. It also explains why the only jobs that Senate Democrats seem to be interested in these days are their own. This is a big problem. Not only does it reinforce the widespread belief that Democrats are not serious about jobs, it also reinforces a growing impression that Democrats are simply out of their depth when it comes to our economy. Think about it: Washington Democrats are well into their sixth year of trying to get the economy back on track--6 years. Yet for many in the middle class things only seem to have gotten worse. [[Page 6147]] Average household income has fallen by nearly $3,600. The number of Americans actually working in the labor force has dropped to its lowest level since the Carter era. Millions are looking for work and can't find it, and the new rules and regulations just keep on coming. They have tried all their usual liberal solutions--higher taxes, ``stimulus,'' and more regulations. They have tried all the standard stuff and it has not worked. Doing more of it won't work either. This may be difficult for Washington Democrats to hear, but it is time they switched from their failed ideological approach. It is time for them to shelve their political games and work with us to pass practical legislation for a change--legislation that can finally rescue the middle class from so many years of economic failure. I have laid out a number of commonsense proposals already. There is more we can do if Democrats are willing to reach across the aisle and help deliver for the American people. My constituents expect us to do that. I am sure theirs do too. Honestly, there is no reason not to do that. I yield the floor. Reservation of Leader Time The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time until 10:30 a.m. will be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll. The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington. Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered. (The remarks of Mrs. Murray pertaining to the introduction of S. 2243 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'') Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the nomination of Michelle Friedland to the Ninth Circuit. This nomination was approved in the Judiciary Committee on a strong bipartisan vote of 14 to 3, including support from four Republican members: Ranking Member Grassley, and Senators Hatch, Graham, and Flake. She has earned the American Bar Association's highest rating of ``well qualified.'' If she is confirmed, which I very much hope she is, it would mark the first time ever that the Ninth Circuit, the busiest circuit in the country by some measures, has its full complement of 29 active circuit judges. Michelle Friedland earned her bachelor's degree, with honors and distinction, from Stanford University in 1994. She was Phi Beta Kappa, and became a Fulbright Scholar from 1995 to 1996, studying at Oxford. She earned her law degree from Stanford Law School in 2000, where she was second in her class, graduated with distinction, and inducted into the Order of the Coif. She then had two prestigious clerkships. The first was with Judge David Tatel on the DC Circuit. She then clerked for Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who attended Ms. Friedland's confirmation hearing this past November. Although I could not attend that hearing, it said a great deal that Justice O'Connor, the first woman on the Supreme Court and a voice of great moderation and pragmatism on the Court, came to the Judiciary Committee and demonstrated her support in person for this nominee. Ms. Friedland then served as a lecturer at Stanford Law School from 2002 to 2004 and subsequently joined the law firm Munger Tolles & Olsen, where she is now a partner. She has represented major clients, including Berkshire Hathaway, Boeing, Abbott Laboratories, the University of California, and Solvay Pharmaceuticals. She has worked on issues including criminal defense, class action defense, tax, patent, copyright, and antitrust. She has also done pro bono work, devoting time, for example, to the Silicon Valley Campaign for Legal Services and Equality California. She has won the President's Pro Bono Service Award and the Wiley W. Manuel Award for Pro Bono Legal Services, both from the State Bar of California. She also has broad support in the legal community. One letter came from 27 individuals who clerked on the Supreme Court--including for Justices Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas--when Ms. Friedland clerked for Justice O'Connor. They said that Friedland is ``respectful of colleagues, fair-minded to attorneys and litigants, and sharp as a tack.'' A second letter is from Kathryn Haun, who previously served in the Justice Department under Attorney General Mukasey and in the National Security Division. Today she is a Federal prosecutor in Northern California. Ms. Haun has known Michelle Friedland since they were classmates in the same small section at Stanford Law School. Ms. Haun's letter says: I clerked for Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, am a member of the Federalist Society, and have always been a registered Republican. Notwithstanding our political differences, I believe [Michelle Friedland] would make an outstanding federal appellate judge if confirmed. This is because Michelle has a deep respect for legal precedent above seeking a particular result in a given case. A third letter is from the general counsel of Cisco, Edison International, Google, Facebook, Rambus, and other companies. It speaks very highly of this nominee, and says, quote: ``All parties appearing before her, from individual litigants to small businesses to the nation's largest corporations, would be confident that she will adjudge their cases fairly and in accordance with the law.'' The Ninth Circuit is also the busiest circuit. It has over 1,470 pending appeals per panel. This is two and a half times the average of the other circuits. It comes as no surprise, then, that it takes much longer to resolve an appeal in the Ninth Circuit than in the other circuits. Specifically, the Ninth Circuit takes 13.3 months to resolve an appeal. This is down from 17.4 months in 2011, but it is still 55 percent greater than the average in the other circuits. Thus, it is very important for businesses, individuals, and others in all States in the Ninth Circuit that nominees to this court are promptly taken up and confirmed. I will conclude by remarking upon what I see as a real opportunity for the Senate in the coming months. When I was first elected to the Senate in 1992, it was called by some the Year of the Woman. Senator Boxer and I were both elected that year, as were Senator Murray and former Senator Carol Moseley Braun. Yet after we were all sworn in, there were still only six women in the Senate. I became the first woman ever to sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee, after some very divisive hearings for Justice Clarence Thomas, in which the lack of women on the Judiciary Committee became an issue. At the time, the Federal courts were mainly the province of men appointed by the two most recent Presidents. About 92 percent of President Reagan's confirmed judicial nominees were men. That number fell under President George H.W. Bush, but only to 81 percent. Overall, only 12.6 percent of active Federal judges were women when I was sworn in to the Senate. Although women have been close to half of all law students for decades, even today only 53 of 164 active circuit judges--or 32 percent--are women. Right now, there are female nominees for the Third, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits pending in the Senate--a total of six nominees, with four simply waiting for a floor vote. To put these numbers in perspective, there were only 6 women confirmed to the circuit courts during all 8 years of the Reagan administration. [[Page 6148]] If all six of these pending nominees are confirmed, the number of active female circuit judges would grow by over 11 percent. That is a big deal, and it is a real opportunity to increase significantly the number of women on the circuit courts. Michelle Friedland is well qualified, she has bipartisan support, and her confirmation would give the Ninth Circuit--the busiest circuit--a full complement of 29 judges for the first time. I urge my colleagues to support her. Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, we are again voting to overcome a Republican filibuster of a highly qualified nominee for a judicial emergency vacancy on the busiest circuit court in the country. For what is already the third time this year, the majority leader has had to file cloture on one of President Obama's circuit court nominees in order to move the nomination forward. In stark contrast, the Senate confirmed 18 of President Bush's circuit nominees within a week of being reported by the Judiciary Committee. Michelle Friedland, nominated to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, is an exceptionally talented attorney, and has an exemplary record of service in the top echelons of the legal profession. She clerked on the United States Supreme Court for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor from 2001 to 2002 and on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for Judge David Tatel from 2000 to 2001. Ms. Friedland earned her B.S. with honors and distinction from Stanford University in 1995. She studied at Oxford University from 1995 to 1996 as a Fulbright Scholar and went on to earn her J.D. with distinction from Stanford Law School in 2000. For over a decade, Ms. Friedland has worked in private practice at Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, where she was named partner in 2010. She has taught as an adjunct professor at the University of Virginia School Law and as a Lecturer in Law at the Stanford Law School. Ms. Friedland has experience in both the trial court and appellate levels, including the United States Supreme Court. She manages an active pro bono practice and frequently represents the University of California in constitutional litigation. She received the President's Pro Bono Service Award in 2013 from the State Bar of California, and the LGBT Award from the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California in 2009. The American Bar Association unanimously awarded her their highest rating of ``well qualified.'' It comes as no surprise to me that Michelle Friedland's nomination has received significant support. Kathryn Haun, Assistant United States Attorney and Former Counsel to then-Attorney General Michael Mukasey, wrote to the Committee to express her support, saying ``Michelle and I fall at opposite ends of the political spectrum . . . Notwithstanding our political differences, I believe she would make an outstanding federal appellate judge . . . Michelle has a deep respect for legal precedent above seeking a particular result in a given case. She has a balance and a willingness to listen to all arguments before formulating a position on a particular issue. She displays, above all else, intellectual honesty and personal modesty that suit her exceptionally well for a federal appellate judgeship.'' Eugene Volokh, Professor of Law, at the UCLA School of Law, expressed his strong support for Ms. Friedland to the Committee, writing ``Michelle is a brilliant and extremely accomplished lawyer, who will make a superb judge. . . [She] has impressed not just those on her side of the political aisle, but conservatives as . . . well.'' General Counsel from multiple fortune 500 companies including Google, Cisco, and Facebook echo their support of Michelle Friedland, noting that ``Her career has been marked by energy, integrity, and legal excellence. She has represented a broad spectrum of clients in both the private and public sectors . . . The careful, unbiased approach she would bring to the types of issues that arise before the Ninth Circuit are critical to our nation's values and to its economic health.'' In their letter of support, 22 former Supreme Court Law Clerks to Justice O'Connor write, ``We have differing political views and differing careers, but we can all agree that Michelle would be an excellent federal appellate judge. We have . . . enjoyed her warm collegiality, her honesty and fairness, and her dedication to law above ideology. Michelle would be a tremendous addition to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and we urge you to confirm her nomination.'' I ask unanimous consent that a list of letters of support be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my statement. If confirmed, Michelle Friedland would increase the gender diversity on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. She would be the seventeenth female judge to ever sit on the Circuit. In comparison, 83 men have been appointed to the Ninth Circuit over the course of its history. Her confirmation would bring the percentage of active female judges sitting on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to nearly 38 percent. Her confirmation would also mark the first time, since the 29th judgeship was added in 2007, that it has had a full complement of active judges despite having the highest number of appeals filed, the highest pending appeals per panel and the highest pending appeals per active judge of any Circuit in the country. Yet here we are, again voting to overcome a Republican filibuster of an exceptionally talented nominee to a court that desperately needs to be operating at full strength. There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: Letters received in connection with Michelle Friedland July 26, 2013--Six Supreme Court Co-Clerks August 26, 2013--Eugene Volokh, Professor of Law at the UCLA School of Law and conservative legal commentator August 26, 2013--Five fellow partners at Munger, Tolles, & Olson LLP September 4, 2013--Brian Fitzpatrick, Professor of Law at Vanderbilt Law School September 9, 2013--Anup Malani, Professor of Law and Medicine at the University of Chicago September 9, 2013--Edward Morrison, Professor of Law at the University of Chicago and Former Law Clerk to Justice Scalia September 12, 2013--Kathryn Haun, Assistant United States Attorney and Former Counsel to Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey September 23, 2013--General Counsels from multiple American companies including Google, Cisco, and Facebook October 2, 2013--27 Supreme Court Co-Clerks October 24, 2013--28 Former Law Students and Current Attorneys November 4, 2013--22 former Supreme Court Law Clerks to Justice O'Connor April 9, 2014--Nancy Duff Campbell and Marcia Greenberger, Co-Presidents of the National Women's Law Center April 9, 2014--Wade Henderson, President and CEO, and Nancy Zirkin, Executive Vice President, Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights ____________________ CLOTURE MOTION The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The cloture motion having been presented under rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion. The legislative clerk read as follows: Cloture Motion We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of Michelle T. Friedland, of California, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit. Harry Reid, Patrick J. Leahy, Debbie Stabenow, Jack Reed, Christopher A. Coons, Patty Murray, Elizabeth Warren, Richard J. Durbin, Mazie K. Hirono, Sheldon Whitehouse, Richard Blumenthal, Barbara Boxer, Kirsten E. Gillibrand, Charles E. Schumer, John D. Rockefeller IV, Bernard Sanders, Cory A. Booker. The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. 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 Michelle T. Friedland, of California, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit shall be brought to a close? The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. The clerk will call the roll. [[Page 6149]] The legislative clerk called the roll. Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) is necessarily absent. Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) and the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) would have voted ``nay.'' The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote? The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 56, nays 41, as follows: [Rollcall Vote No. 106 Ex.] YEAS--56 Baldwin Begich Bennet Blumenthal Booker Boxer Brown Cantwell Cardin Carper Casey Collins Coons Donnelly Durbin Feinstein Franken Gillibrand Hagan Harkin Heinrich Heitkamp Hirono Johnson (SD) Kaine King Klobuchar Landrieu Leahy Levin Manchin McCaskill Menendez Merkley Mikulski Murkowski Murphy Murray Nelson Pryor Reed Reid Rockefeller Sanders Schatz Schumer Shaheen Stabenow Tester Udall (CO) Udall (NM) Walsh Warner Warren Whitehouse Wyden NAYS--41 Alexander Ayotte Barrasso Blunt Boozman Burr Chambliss Coats Cochran Corker Cornyn Crapo Enzi Fischer Flake Graham Grassley Hatch Heller Hoeven Inhofe Isakson Johanns Johnson (WI) Kirk Lee McCain McConnell Moran Paul Portman Risch Roberts Rubio Scott Sessions Shelby Thune Toomey Vitter Wicker NOT VOTING--3 Coburn Cruz Markey The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. On this vote the ayes are 56 and the nays are 41. The motion to invoke cloture is agreed to. Vote Explanation Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent from the roll call vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Michelle Friedland to be a U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit. Had I been present, I would have supported cloture on the nomination of Michelle Friedland. ____________________ NOMINATION OF MICHELLE T. FRIEDLAND TO BE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT--Resumed The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican whip. A Shared Commitment Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I start by making an obvious point that every Member of the Senate is dedicated to helping law enforcement officials get dangerous criminals off the street and deliver justice to victims of sexual assault, every one of us. As we mark National Crime Victims' Rights Week and National Sexual Assault Awareness Month, let's all keep that shared commitment in mind. Ten years ago I was proud to join with my colleagues and President Bush to enact the Justice for All Act, which has made it easier for America's law enforcement agencies to protect the innocent, to identify the guilty, and to bring peace of mind to the victims of violent crime. Justice for All dramatically increased the resources available to test DNA samples from crime scenes, to improve our DNA-testing capabilities and to reduce the rape kit backlog which had become a national scandal. The backlog was--and remains--a national scandal of the highest order, but we are beginning to make some progress. In the city of Houston, for example, a backlog that once reached 6,600 untested rape kits--one of the largest in the country--is now in the process of being completely eliminated thanks in part to the support provided from the Justice for All Act. Just to refresh the memories of my colleagues and for those who might be listening, these rape kits consist of forensic evidence collected at crime scenes that will help by testing the DNA to identify the perpetrator and, in the process, potentially exonerate people who have been falsely accused. The DNA tests are that good and that effective. What is extraordinary about DNA testing in the field of sexual assault is that sexual assault offenders rarely commit that crime once. They are typically serial offenders. In other words, they keep at it until they are caught. As we have learned from law enforcement officials, when there is not an adult victim available, these offenders are opportunistic and they will attack children, the most vulnerable among us. So this is enormously powerful evidence that is available to law enforcement to exonerate the falsely accused, to make sure the guilty are identified with scientific precision, and to take serial offenders off the street so they can't commit other acts of violence. Last year I joined with the senior Senator from Vermont, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, to introduce bipartisan legislation that would reauthorize the Justice for All Act and continue these beginning steps of progress. If it were up to me, we would have passed that bill a long time ago. If it were up to me, I would prefer to reauthorize the entire Justice for All Act right now--today. It has been hugely successful, and it commands strong support across party lines and across the country. That said, it doesn't appear we are going to be able to do that today, but we do have an opportunity to take immediate action on two of the law's most critical components. Indeed, they could and should be reauthorized right now--today. I am referring, of course, to the Debbie Smith Act and the Sexual Assault Forensic Exam Program, both of which have been invaluable tools in our efforts to eliminate the rape kit backlog and to improve public safety. Earlier this week our House colleagues passed a bill reauthorizing those provisions, and the Senate now has an opportunity to take up that more narrow House bill to reauthorize the Debbie Smith Act and the Sexual Assault Forensic Exam Program, even if we can't do the Justice for All Act today. I am hoping that colleagues here in the Chamber, and anyone who might be listening to my voice, will join us in this effort to do what we can do today to reauthorize the Debbie Smith Act and the Sexual Assault Forensic Exam Program and then, when it is possible for the Senate to act, to pass the Justice for All Act, the larger piece of legislation. As I said, I would prefer to reauthorize the entire Justice for All Act, and I know there are many of our colleagues who share that sentiment with me. But regardless of whatever minor disagreements Members may have, we should immediately--today--reauthorize the Debbie Smith Act and the Sexual Assault Forensic Exam Program. Again refreshing the memories of some of my colleagues, and others who may not be familiar with it, the Debbie Smith Act was named after Debbie Smith who has dedicated her life to making sure Congress keeps focused on this rape kit backlog problem and scandal. She is one of the biggest cheerleaders for this law that now bears her name. This is also the name for the portion of the law that allocates funds to the Department of Justice to use for grant programs to forensic laboratories, police departments, and other law enforcement agencies around the country that may not have the money or the expertise or the wherewithal to be able to test these rape kit backlogs. It is not just my position that these two provisions the House has passed should be taken up and passed by the Senate and then catch up in due course with the entire Justice for All Act. It is also the position of the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network, the National Center for Victims of Crime, and, of course, Debbie Smith herself, and I am confident many of my colleagues have heard from her. All of those folks support the provisions of the bigger bill. But if we can't do that today, they support the Senate's passing the provisions that have passed the House as soon as possible. We now have an opportunity today to do something to support countless victims of sexual assault during National [[Page 6150]] Sexual Assault Awareness Month and National Crime Victims' Rights Week. All of these groups and individuals support the immediate reauthorization of the Debbie Smith Act. I am proud to stand here with the heroic people who have dedicated their lives to helping address this backlog scandal of untested rape kits, and even more proud to stand with those who are willing--and spending their time and treasure--to help folks who need to heal, who need justice, and who are asking for our support. In all my years of public service, Debbie Smith is among the most inspiring people I have ever had the privilege of meeting. I sincerely hope my colleagues will keep her in mind and others like her as we move forward with this legislation. Earlier this week, Debbie reminded me that the rape kit backlog is not just about numbers and DNA samples and scientific testing. It is about people, it is about justice, and it is about recovery. As she so eloquently put it: These aren't rape kits that need to be tested. These are lives that need to be given back to their owners. These are fragments of lives that have been torn apart. I hope my colleagues will remember those words as they contemplate how we should move forward on the House provisions that have been passed, as well as the larger Justice for All Act, both of which I support. By reauthorizing the Debbie Smith Act--and later, in due course, whenever we can do it, the larger Justice for All Act--Members of Congress can continue doing our part to help people like Debbie Smith heal wounds, repair lives, and make our country a safer place. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Booker). The clerk will call the roll. The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama. Mr. SESSIONS. I would ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk will report the nomination. The assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Michelle T. Friedland, of California, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama. Immigration Mr. SESSIONS. I wish to share with my colleagues some recent developments that I believe are important on the immigration front. My office did a report and an analysis recently that pointed out that this administration, unlike what had been done historically, has been counting border apprehensions as ICE deportations from the United States. Classically, before that ICE officers--the Immigration Customs Enforcement officers--apprehended people inside the border and did removal proceedings and that was what was counted. So they have used those numbers to create the impression that a great deal more removals are occurring than actually are. That is not good. The administration should not be doing that, and it has created confusion. It is just one more example of this administration's willingness, unfortunately, to misrepresent and twist numbers to advance an agenda they believe ought to be advanced. We are a nation of immigrants. We believe in immigration, but we believe in a lawful system of immigration. Most Americans believe the lawlessness should end and we should have a system that creates a mechanism by which people apply and they are admitted based on a fair evaluation of the people most likely to be prosperous in America and do well and contribute to the Nation and should be given priority--and we are just not doing that. So the administration contends and says openly that we will not deport people, except those who commit serious crimes, which apparently does not include DUI's. The crimes almost always have to be a felony, it appears, in order for people to be deported, according to the administration. We will ignore the law for that company down the street in a high unemployment area which has five employees working illegally. They would not be removed. They will be allowed to stay and continue to work unlawfully, while Americans who cannot get a job are drawing unemployment insurance and other subsidies. This is happening all over America. So getting to this fundamental point: Government is not being operated in ways that it should, conducted by a President who is charged to see that the laws of the United States are faithfully executed. He has issued prosecutorial removal policies that go beyond creating a mechanism to enforce the law but in fact wipe out the law, eliminate the law. There has never been a requirement in the law that if someone is in the country illegally, they can stay as long as they don't get convicted of some other felony unrelated to an immigration violation. Indeed, under the policy as it is being executed, if an individual has false documents, which is a felony for an American citizen, that doesn't count as a deportable crime. It is only drug dealing or a crime of violence or robbery under the policies that we are carrying out. They say they are faithfully executing that policy in part, deporting the individuals who are convicted of serious crimes. A study came out from CIS, Center for Immigration Studies, that found 1 in 3 criminal alien encounters last year resulted in a release. They are being released, in one form or another, and are remaining in the country. We have so much going on that is very troubling to me. Former ICE Director John Sandweg said recently: If you are a run-of-the-mill immigrant here illegally, your odds of getting deported are close to zero--it's just highly unlikely to happen. Now that is the truth. I was a Federal prosecutor. I know how the system works and I have worked with ICE officers and Border Patrol officers and prosecuted their cases. This is what the reality is, and it is not right. It should not be. When we have the Vice President of the United States saying recently he considers the 11 million people here illegally as citizens anyway, what message does that send, colleagues, to an individual who would like to come to America permanently but has a visa to work so many months or be a student for so many months and the visa is over? What does the statement of the Vice President mean to him? It means he doesn't have to go home. All he has to do is just stay in the country. If he is in the interior and not caught at the border and came in by airplane, flew into Philadelphia or Denver, he gets to stay. As long as he doesn't get convicted of a felony, nobody is ever going to bother him. So this is an open border. If they get past the border, get into the interior, go to St. Louis, go to Salt Lake City, go to Little Rock, Arkansas, then they can stay. That cannot be the policy of the United States of America. It cannot be the policy of a nation that expects its laws to be respected that if someone can get past the border or they can get a visa into the country and overstay, nobody will have any intention of removing them or enforcing the agreement they made or enforcing the law. I feel strongly about this issue. People are unaware of how this is happening. I see in addition to the fanciful claims about who is being deported or removed, this was on the front page of the Washington Times today. Steven Dinan says the projections of the Washington Times show that Federal agents are `` . . . on pace this year to remove the fewest number of immigrants of President Obama's tenure.'' It goes on to say: That slower pace contrasts with the President's argument that he is enforcing the laws to the fullest extent possible by targeting criminals and recent border crossers. The article goes on to say that the ICE officers are fully funded to remove at least 400,000 people, and at this rate they will be well below that figure. Why? Because it is the policy not to enforce the law. This is what is going on in this country. On the same page there is the headline of an article that ``Sheriffs warn of [[Page 6151]] violence from Mexican cartels deep into interior of U.S.'' It goes on to say: Outmanned and outgunned, local law enforcement officers are alarmed by the drug and human trafficking, prostitution, kidnapping and money laundering that Mexican drug cartels are conducting in the U.S. far from the border. Not just at the border but away from the border. It goes on: U.S. sheriffs say that securing the border is a growing concern to law enforcement agencies throughout the country, not just near the U.S.-Mexico boundary. ``If we fail to secure our borders, then every sheriff in America will become a border sheriff,'' said Sam Paige, sheriff of Rockingham County, NC. ``We're only a two-day drive from the border and have already seen the death and violence that illegal crossings brings into our community.'' Other sheriffs joined in expressing that similar concern. We are not where we need to be. Since the President took office, interior removals have been cut nearly in half. They have dropped by 44 percent. More than half of the ICE removals since 2009 are the border apprehensions, where they just caught them at the border and sent them back. These are not interior deportations as the statistics used to be focused on. Two-thirds of all ICE removals last year were border apprehensions. So--I said ``half'' earlier--it is two-thirds of the numbers that they are counting as deportations and removal are border deportations that weren't previously counted as such. Ninty-four percent of the people removed last year--get this--were either apprehended at the border, which is not attributable to apprehension, or were convicted of a crime while in the United States. Do you hear that, colleagues? Ninety-four percent of the people who were removed were either people captured at the border or committing a serious crime, and even those who commit serious crimes are not deported. Most of the rest were repeat violators or fugitives. So 99.9 percent of the 12 million illegal immigrants and visa overstays, without known crimes on their record, including those fleeing from authority, did not face removal last year. So if someone was here as a visa overstay or an illegal entrant inside the country and did not commit a crime, 99 percent of that--99.92 percent of the 12 million here were not involved or no action was taken to remove them. It just goes to show our law enforcement system is in a state of collapse. It is a deliberate plan by the President of the United States, and it is wrong. People need to be aware of it and need to stand up to it and I think the American people are beginning to do so. This administration has effectively declared that anyone in the world who illegally gains access to the interior of the United States through a border, through an airport, through a seaport, is free to illegally remain in the United States, free to claim certain tax benefits, free to work and take jobs that unemployed Americans need. This deprives millions of Americans of their jobs, wages and represents a dramatic, breathtaking nullification of Federal law. This law enforcement collapse is evident everywhere--872,000 aliens have been ordered removed but haven't left. So we order people removed. They get released on bail or get released in order to remove themselves or show up for removal. How many are showing up? Not many. It is called a catch and release, as has been referred to. There are 872,000--almost 1 million--who at one time or another have been ordered removed but haven't left, and 68,000 potentially deportable aliens deemed criminal by type were released by immigration officials last year. These were people who were charged with crimes and still didn't leave. The chief of the Border Patrol--this is the guy who runs the border effort with his team--predicted a tenfold increase in the presence of illegal youth crossing the border between 2011 and 2014. They have been told: Come on down, nothing is going to happen, and it has created more people coming, this lack of enforcement. The Los Angeles Times reports that the number of asylum claims at the borders have increased sevenfold since 2009. Well, the administration developed a policy of stopping everything. All someone has to do is say, I am claiming asylum, and the whole process stops. Time goes by. Often the individuals who claim asylum are released on bail and then they don't leave. We don't know where they go. This is in effect a postmodern view of challenging the very idea that we are a nation-state with real borders. Attorney General Holder and Cecilia Munoz, who is the President's Assistant and Director of the Domestic Policy Council, who used to be with La Raza, described amnesty as a civil right. If you come into the country illegally, the Attorney General of the United States declares that these individuals have a civil right to amnesty. How can this possibly be? This is the chief law enforcement officer in America? Vice President Biden recently said: You know, eleven million people live in the shadows. I believe they're already American citizens . . . eleven million undocumented aliens are already Americans. Goodness. The Vice President of the United States would make such a statement. It is stunning beyond belief. Apparently, if somebody is supposed to get on an airplane to leave this country because their visa is up and then they read the Vice President's statement, they could just say: Well, I will just stay. Why should I go back? I would rather stay now. I kind of like this place. If I go back, I will have to wait in line. I will have to compete within the system like everybody else who comes lawfully. Since I am here, I am not going to leave. Is it any wonder we have more people staying, as the border patrol chief said? President Obama made a series of nominations--Mr. Jeh Johnson, the head of Homeland Security, a lawyer at the Department of Defense and a political campaigner. He heads the Department of Homeland Security, which is a huge department. He can be counted on to know one thing: He is very close to the President, and he is to carry out the President's wishes. He doesn't know anything else about running a big, major law enforcement operation such as this. Mr. Perez, the former Assistant Attorney General at the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division, was very active with the pro-amnesty group in Maryland before this. Mr. Rodriguez, who has been nominated to be the Director of USCIS--they were installed not to be good and smart law enforcement officers but to effectuate the President's agenda. You want to know the truth? That is the truth. They were put in there to carry out the agenda, not to carry out law enforcement. The morale at Homeland Security is the lowest of any major entity in the U.S. Government. They have actually sued supervisors because they are being blocked from enforcing the law as they have taken oath to do. I see my colleagues are here, and I will yield the floor. First, I will conclude by saying that I hope my colleagues will look at this. These facts are not disputed. This is not acceptable. It cannot be that the U.S. Government would carry on its business in this way. It is dangerous not only on immigration law but any other law that might come up in the future. Presidents cannot, Attorneys General cannot, and Homeland Security people cannot fail to enforce plain law without creating serious damage to the great American constitutional legal system that has protected us and produced our prosperity. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware. Amtrak Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I would like to start this afternoon by thanking Chairman Murray for her tireless work on the Budget Committee--on which I serve--to develop and pass a bipartisan budget, a budget that sets us on a path to return to regular order. Senator Murray has also been a tireless advocate for transportation and infrastructure programs, and as chair of the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee--on which I also serve--she [[Page 6152]] fought tirelessly to include adequate funding for Amtrak back in the fiscal year 2014 omnibus and moving forward. The topic I would like to take up today is the role of Amtrak in our country and our communities and its appropriate role as a central piece of Federal transportation policy going forward. Senator Murray has been a terrific advocate for investing across a wide range of transportation modalities. As a member of the Appropriations Committee, I look forward to working with her and our leading full committee chair Senator Mikulski to make sure we are successful in fighting ardently and steadfastly for Amtrak this year and into the future. I come to talk on the floor today about the importance of our national passenger rail system--Amtrak--because this is not just about getting people from point A to point B. Investing in Amtrak also means creating jobs, making our whole economy more dynamic, and making America more competitive. Amtrak is performing better and better each and every year. As the Presiding Officer knows all too well, ridership over the last decade has steadily increased. In fact, 10 of the last 11 years have seen record numbers, and last year we broke through 31.6 million riders on Amtrak. The trains are more and more crowded, but they are arriving more and more frequently on time and the quality of the train sets and the quality of the service provided by the conductors and the other folks who work for Amtrak has steadily increased. As the value proposition of Amtrak has increased, so has ridership. Record ticket sales and other revenues have made this possible. Today Amtrak covers nearly 89 percent of the cost of operating their trains, which is by far the best of any passenger rail operation in the United States. They are, in fact, on track to cover 90 percent, through revenues, of their total operating costs in 2014. Because of this success, since 2002 Amtrak has decreased its debt by more than half. My home State of Delaware and the Presiding Officer's home State of New Jersey are part of one of the oldest and most critical sections of our national passenger rail system, the so-called Northeast corridor, which goes from Boston to Washington. If it were its own separate economy, the Northeast corridor would produce $3 trillion a year--21 percent of our Nation's total economic output--which would make it the fifth largest economy in the world if it were on its own. But it is not. It is an integrated part of our Nation, and its passenger rail infrastructure is an integrated part of our national commitment to efficient and effective transportation. In this region in particular, Amtrak is not a luxury; it is a fundamental and critical part of our economy and moving our community and our people forward. If Amtrak service were cut off in the region for just a day, it would cost our economy $13 million. One-third of all the jobs in the Northeast corridor--or 7 million jobs--are within 5 miles of a station. Amtrak's impact on my home State of Delaware is particularly large because Amtrak employs over 1,000 men and women in the State of Delaware. Many of them work at two maintenance facilities--Wilmington and Bear--where they repair everything from train seats to the heavy trucks to the cars themselves. I have had a chance to visit them on a number of occasions. It is incredible to see the work ethic and capabilities of the men and women of Amtrak. These shops have been there for a long time. They have worked hard to modernize, to be relevant, and to contribute to the strengthening bottom line of Amtrak overall. I would like to mention ``Irish'' John, who is a good friend of mine and has been a leader for the sheet metal workers for a long time. Sheet metal workers with Amtrak were one of the unions that worked with management to find ways to significantly save costs on overhaul work on Acela train sets, which resulted in Amtrak choosing not to farm out their service work and instead do a $125 million job to overhaul 20 Acela sets in-house. This is union labor, and this helps support good middle-wage jobs. This helps support good middle-class families and middle-class communities in Delaware and our region. This particular work on this Acela overhaul will last more than 3\1/2\ years and sustain dozens of jobs at our Bear repair facility. My friend Bill, who is with the IBEW Amtrak union, is another friend who has helped me understand the critical role of the employment Amtrak provides to our whole region--not just to Delaware, not just to the Philadelphia area, but to the whole Northeast corridor. When we talk about investing in Amtrak, we are not only investing in new options for commuters and businesses, we are talking about investing in our communities and in workers who will build and maintain the next generation of American rail. As I said, these are great, high- skilled jobs. By investing in Amtrak's present and giving them a predictable future, we will preserve and continue these important skills and these important workers and their families in our communities. Amtrak's benefits go beyond just the immediate skilled workers and their families and the communities that benefit from them. In Delaware, the services Amtrak provides help to keep and draw in new businesses through a ripple effect in our whole economy. Last week there was an announcement of a new company that is spinning off out of Sallie Mae that will be locating its headquarters and 120 jobs in Wilmington. They have chosen a site specifically because it is walking distance from our Amtrak station--from the Joseph R. Biden Amtrak Station in Wilmington, DE. In Newark, the University of Delaware is building a new campus called the Science, Technology and Advanced Research--STAR--Campus, which will build partnerships between several important entities, such as the Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia and the Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland. What makes that partnership possible is the backbone of the Northeast corridor--the connection between these different cities that has made all of us stronger and better because of passenger rail. I hope from these few examples it is clear that passenger rail is also a critical component of economic development. Passenger rail tends to link downtown urban areas and tends to be absolutely central to anchoring their revitalization, as the Presiding Officer knows so well. Passenger rail is also critical not just in the Northeast corridor but in communities across the country that rely on it to connect with other communities and our country's major economic centers. State-supported services have become a major source of ridership growth for Amtrak as well, with that ridership nearly doubling between 1998 and 2013. Long-distance ridership across the great heartland of our country has also grown by roughly 20 percent without the introduction of any new services, frequencies, or equipment. In fiscal year 2013, long-distance ridership reached its highest point in 20 years. However, we are at the proverbial crossroads--or I suppose I should say crossing--now because ridership is soaring, Amtrak is more popular than ever before, and demand will continue to grow, but we are not keeping up with the investment in infrastructure that we need to sustain this growth into the future. For instance, right now there is nearly $6 billion in outdated, delayed investments that need to be made just in the Northeast corridor to bring it to what is called a state of good repair. I will focus on a few of the critical infrastructure needs in the Northeast corridor, but there are also needs across the country. Baltimore is a city I traveled through this morning on my way to this Capitol on the Amtrak train. In Baltimore, Senator Mikulski's home State, the B&P tunnels have stayed open since 1873. Although they have undergone periodic repairs, none of them were built to be permanent. We [[Page 6153]] can't be competitive if we continue to rely on tunnels that have been around since roughly the time of our own Civil War. We need to invest in modernizing this infrastructure. Between the Presiding Officer's home State of New Jersey and the great State of New York, preliminary planning is underway on the Gateway Tunnel, which is a critical tunnel that will ease the bottleneck under the Hudson that causes delays throughout the whole region, limits the options of travelers, and ends up costing the economy more in the short and long run. We need to invest in our infrastructure. In Delaware, we have a bottleneck around our most popular station, the Joseph R. Biden Station in Wilmington. The rail lines north and south of that station slim from three lines to two, restricting service and preventing the addition of new rail service. Thanks in part to a Federal high-speed rail grant, construction will soon be underway to add a third track to alleviate this critical chokepoint, the main one just south of the station. Without new investment, that chokepoint will continue north of the station. And that is not to mention the hundreds of bridges and tunnels and other connection points--including the overhead centenary lines--that require repair and replacement on the Northeast corridor alone. We need to invest in our infrastructure not just in the Northeast corridor but across this whole country. We do spend a lot of time here on this floor, as we should, talking about our Nation's fiscal deficit and debt, but we should also focus on our physical deficit and debt--the delayed repair of critical pieces of infrastructure that we rely on for our economy and for our communities but that we are not focused on. If we invest in our infrastructure today, it will employ people in repairing it and lay the groundwork for improvement of our economy over the long term. I recognize the reality that while the budget picture has improved, it is not yet as good as it should be. We are still facing real fiscal challenges. I ride between Wilmington and Washington nearly every day on Amtrak, and our workers are responsible for repairing and retrofitting a lot of the trains on which I ride. I am impressed with their skill and the caliber of their repair work. As a rider and our State Senator, I see how critical Amtrak is to our economy, our communities, and to our country as a whole. I hope that is clear to the rest of the Members of this Chamber. I hope that anyone watching who has appreciated the value of Amtrak's connecting power that links this country together from east to west and north to south will communicate with their Senator and convey the importance of strong and sustained investment in the Northeast corridor, yes, but across the whole reach of our country. Only by strengthening Amtrak and ensuring the vibrancy of the entire Nation's system of passenger rail can we really ensure that American rail will be there for years and generations to come. With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to be allowed to speak as in morning business. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. ObamaCare Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I come to the floor today, as I have repeatedly since the health care law has been passed, with concerns I have and to share some information with the Senate because of my concerns that in order to help some people who did not have insurance, I am afraid we have hurt many people who did have insurance, did have care they liked. The President continued to focus on coverage, and I have more concerns, as a doctor, about people actually getting care, getting health care, the care they need from a doctor they choose at lower costs. So I come to the floor today to talk about a new story out this morning, actually in the Huffington Post, called ``How Obamacare Leaves Some Patients Without Doctors.'' I recall how the President had said: If you like your policy, you can keep your policy. He said: If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Yet we are hearing stories from all around the country of people who have found that not to be true. I have heard the majority leader come to the floor and say in a statement that so many stories are lies, they are made up. But I will tell you that this morning, in this publication, there is a lengthy story of several patients in California who have had pain, problems, medical concerns, signed up for insurance, and, as a result, have found out they have insurance, they have coverage, but they cannot find care. So I would like to share with the Senate today a story, and it has some of the concerns I raised during the debate and the discussion of the health care law. But the Speaker of the House at the time, Nancy Pelosi, from California--the State where this happened--said: First you have to pass it before you get to find out what is in it. Well, now people all across the country are finding out what is in it, and they are finding out they are terribly disappointed and they feel they have been sold a bill of goods and they are getting stuck with a bill, and they are finding out it is not very good for them. The report in this morning's Huffington Post starts out: In January, a doctor told [Ms.] Friedlander, who was suffering from excruciating lower back pain, that she needed surgery to remove part of a severely herniated disc. Well, she had Blue Shield insurance, as they report, through Covered California, which is California's version of ObamaCare, and she planned to use that coverage to pay for the operation. It makes sense. This is what happened. It says: But when she started to call surgeons covered by Blue Shield, she ran into a roadblock. Surgeons who were covered by her insurance-- amazingly-- operated out of hospitals no longer covered by her insurance. . . . So if the surgeon was covered, the hospital was not or, vice versa, she could find a hospital that would cover her surgery but could not find a surgeon who was covered by her insurance that was on the staff of that hospital. It says: [Ms.] Friedlander spent days on the phone, hours on hold, making dozens of calls across Southern California, trying to match a surgeon with a hospital that would both be covered. In total, she reached out to 20 [different] surgeons and five [different] hospitals. ``No one could help me. Some expressed sympathy,'' Friedlander, 40, told The Huffington Post in an email. ``They told me, `I'm so sorry--it's all just so new. You're a victim of the changes. No one knows what they're doing.''' So what we have here is a victim of the Obama health care legislation because first we had to pass it before we get to find out what is in it. Unable to match a hospital and a surgeon that were both covered, [Ms.] Friedlander started haggling between doctors for a cash price for the surgery. She chose a surgeon who wasn't covered by her insurance but who operated in a hospital that was covered. Because she could not, with her insurance, get both the hospital and the doctor. She expects her insurance to pay the hospital bill, but she had to pay her surgeon's bill herself. All out of her own pocket. The article goes on to report: . . . nationwide, about 70 percent of Obamacare plans-- About 70 percent of the plans purchased on the Obama health care law-- offer fewer hospitals and doctors than employer-sponsored group plans or pre-ACA individual market plans, according to a study by consulting firm KcKinsey & Company released in December. This narrowed number of doctors and hospitals is what [Ms.] Friedlander encountered when trying to match a [[Page 6154]] surgeon and hospital that would both be covered. What we are hearing today is that about 70 percent of ObamaCare plans offer fewer hospitals, fewer doctors, in spite of the President's promise to the American people that if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor; if you like your plan, you can keep your plan. Now, Covered California says they are aware of the problem. A spokesman for the group--a senior medical adviser with the ObamaCare plan in California--says: We understand that some people are having trouble getting access to the doctors and hospitals they need. And we're working very hard to fix [that] as fast as we can. Well, perhaps if people had actually read the law, understood what was in it, they would have seen this coming. The President said your insurance premiums would drop. He said families would save $2,500 a family. But the article says: To make up for ACA costs and keep premiums low, Blue Shield asked its doctors and hospitals to accept payments from the insurer at rates [well] reduced-- Reduced from what they normally got-- reduced [by] up to 30 percent. The article goes on: Not surprisingly, some doctors and hospitals rejected Blue Shield's reduced payment rates and decided not to re-sign contracts with the insurer. At least three major Los Angeles hospitals previously covered by Blue Shield-- And, Madam President, I will tell you, these are first-class hospitals, these are highly thought-of hospitals, hospitals with incredibly good reputations. . . . three major Los Angeles hospitals previously covered by Blue Shield--UCLA-- The University of California-Los Angeles-- Cedars Sinai and Good Samaritan--have opted out of the insurer's new network. . . . According to [the communications manager from Blue Shield], Blue Shield of California now has about 40 percent fewer physicians and 25 percent fewer hospitals in its network than last year. You listen to what is happening, and they talk about the significant gaps occurring in California. These are the concerns I hear about when I go home to Wyoming every weekend. These are the concerns I heard about this past weekend in Casper, in Douglas, in Riverton, in Thermopolis, and in Newcastle traveling around the State. People are not able to keep their insurance. They are not able to keep their doctors. It is happening all across the country, and we see this story out of California today. The interesting part of the issue with California is that--the article goes on and they talk to an insurance agent in Sacramento who says: `` . . . people who already had insurance''--`` . . . people who already had insurance''--``especially healthy, young people, may be paying more under Covered California''--``may be paying more''; not what the President promised--``for fewer hospitals and doctors.'' That is not what the intent of the health care law was but it is what the health care law has delivered. This is what is happening to real people, real families, all across the country. The majority leader says: false, made up, whole cloth. But I will tell you, these stories will continue to occur. It is interesting, in today's article in the Huffington Post it says: And when signing up for a plan, it's difficult to determine which doctors and hospitals are still covered. They are talking about California now. The article says, quoting an insurance agent in California: ``You can sign up on Covered California and think you're totally fine, only to find out later that you're totally hosed''. . . . This man, David Fear, goes on to say: Specialist doctors, such as surgeons, ob-gyns and urologists, declined Blue Cross and Blue Shield's lower payments most frequently. Fear estimates that about two- thirds of Blue Cross and Blue Shield's specialists have opted out of the networks. It is not just that one patient whom I talked about. There is, like Ms. Friedlander, Ruth Iorio, a 35-year-old new mother from Los Angeles. She is struggling to find the care she needs in Blue Shield's smaller network. She signed up for Blue Shield through Covered California in November because the Covered California website listed her hospital-- The Web site, the President's Web site, the Covered California Web site-- listed her hospital, UCLA, as accepting Blue Shield. . . . Continuing: However, after Iorio gave birth in December, she was told that her ob-gyn at UCLA was not covered by her insurance. So she paid out of pocket. Iorio has not been able to find a urologist for her son or an ob-gyn who is both covered by her insurance and practicing in a hospital that is covered. The President said: You can keep your hospital, you can keep your doctor, you can keep your plan. She's called over a dozen doctors who are covered by her insurance, and each has told her that if she or her son needs an operation in the hospitals the doctor contracts with, it won't be covered. So even if they get a doctor who is under their plan, they cannot go to a hospital to get actually a procedure done. As this lady says: ``My insurance is pretty useless. And I'm not fussy about what doctor I see,'' Iorio said. ``I don't know what to do. I may just drop it for myself and keep my son on it. It's really depressing.'' It is really depressing what the President and the Democrats have forced down the throat of the American people with this health care law. The article continues: Before joining Covered California, Iorio had an individual Blue Shield plan that was cheaper than what she now pays and that gave her wider access to doctors and hospitals. Cheaper, wider access. Exactly what the President had promised her is exactly what this woman has lost because of the health care law. She goes on and says: ``I'm paying $500 a month and every doctor I'm calling is saying, `No, I can't see you,''' she said. ``I feel like a second-class citizen.'' Is that what the President's health care law is all about: making people feel like second-class citizens, hearing from folks when they call and ask for help that, sorry, you are just a victim of the Obama health care law--a nation of more and more victims? It does seem, as you look around the country, for those who have been helped, we should not have had to hurt this many people because of a law the American people said ``we do not want'' and was forced, on single-party lines, down the throats of the American people. This law is bad for patients. We have seen that today. It continues to be bad for providers--the nurses, the doctors, who take care of those patients--and it is terrible for taxpayers. Tax rates will continue to go up. Taxes are continuing to go up as a result of the health care law and the expenses related to it. It has failed repeatedly in dealing with the needs of the American people, who knew what they wanted in the first place, which was they wanted the care they need from a doctor they choose at lower costs. Instead, they got this. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia. Thomasina Jordan Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal Recognition Act Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I rise today to speak on behalf of S. 1074, the Thomasina Jordan Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal Recognition Act of 2013. This is a bill granting Federal recognition to six Indian tribes. The bill has recently been reported out of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, and I want to thank Chairman Tester, the former chairwoman, Senator Cantwell, and all members of the Committee for this action. These six Indian tribes--the Chickahominy, Chickahominy Eastern Division, Upper Mattaponi, Rappahannock, Monacan, and Nansemond--are among the best known tribes in American history, but they have never received Federal recognition. Madam President, 566 tribes have received Federal recognition--the vast majority by congressional action--but these tribes have not been recognized. The story of these tribes and why they have never been recognized is why I take the floor. [[Page 6155]] It is an amazing story but it is also a deeply tragic story. But the tragedy can be redeemed if Congress acts to correct a gross historical injustice that has deprived these tribes of their rightful place. This is about a full accounting of our past, but it is also about a fair and truthful recognition of living people who have maintained their own tribal identity, customs, and traditions against unbelievable odds for hundreds of years. The English settlers who arrived at Jamestown in 1607 established a settlement on an island, on land that was already under the control of the Powhatan Indians. The Powhatan Indians were a confederation of numerous Eastern Algonquian Indian tribes who had organized in the Chesapeake region. The interaction among these Powhatan Indians and these six tribes that were part of this Powhatan Confederacy and the English is known to virtually every American. The original settlement of England in the United States was on the verge of failure numerous times and had to be rescued by a commoner who was part of that group, John Smith. Only John Smith could keep this little settlement alive. Early after the arrival of the English, John Smith was captured by the Powhatan Indians and was on the verge of being executed by Chief Powhatan because they were unsure about what they thought of these English settlers. In this wonderful story, as he was about to be executed, Pocahontas, the daughter of Chief Powhatan, saved his life. By saving his life, that act paved the way for the survival of this very struggling colony. That colony then grew into English-speaking America, as we know, with the arrival of later groups of English at Plymouth Rock and thereafter. That act by Pocahontas is known to virtually all Americans. Over the course of the next few decades, they went back and forth in the relationship between these tribes and the English colonists and then between these tribes and African slaves. The first Africans who came to the new world also came to Jamestown Island in 1619. But after Pocahontas' act, it was generally a peaceful relationship. There were some times of hostility, but in treaties in the 1640s and then again in a final treaty in 1677, the Treaty of the Middle Plantation, the Powhatan Confederacy and these six tribes basically said to their English colonist neighbors: We want to live in peace with you. Pocahontas got married to John Rolfe, an English tobacco planter. That was a seminal event in early Virginia colonial history. So by the 1680s, 75 years after the settlement of Jamestown Island, the Powhatan Confederation was no more. But these Virginia Indians continued to live and maintain their tribal identity, but they lived in complete peace with the settlers that were their neighbors. The Treaty of Middle Plantation was signed 100 hundred years before the Declaration of Independence. That peace that was made between the Indians and the settlers paved the way for modern Virginia and modern English-speaking America. It has been continuous since 1677--the peace of these tribes. The relations between Virginians and the tribes have been strong. They have endured significant adversity. Their numbers of population have dwindled from 25,000 down to about 3,000 or 4,000 enrolled tribal members today. They converted to the religion of the English settlers, Christianity. They fought as American patriots in every war this country has been in, from the Revolutionary War to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They faced discrimination as Indians, often kept out of schools in Virginia because of the color of their skin, because they were not deemed to be ``Caucasian'' by State leaders at the time. But the relationship is a peaceful one, and these tribes still exist. Two tribes in Virginia have small reservations, and the other tribes own land in common. They have tribal churches, tribal cemeteries, and community centers where they still gather. There is a wonderful tradition if you are the Governor of Virginia. On the day before Thanksgiving Day every year, the Virginia tribes come to the Governor's mansion and they present to the Governor deer, turkey, fish, and gifts as a tribute to the peaceful relationship between these tribes and the Commonwealth of Virginia since 1677. It was a beautiful aspect of my time as Governor. It was something we looked forward to every year. The members of these tribes look forward to it as well. Tribal members who have moved all across the country and all across the world come home for a homecoming, and it begins at the Virginia Governor's mansion. Now I get to the injustice. The interactions between these Indians and the first English settlers is known to everybody--that story about Pocahontas and John Smith, and then Pocahontas' wedding to John Rolfe and her moving to England and dying there. You can go to Pocahontas' grave at Gravesend, which is where the Thames River dumps into the sea. She died coming back to Virginia. The English tend her grave with reverence at a small Episcopal church in that seaside community. This is the most archetypal story of the interaction between European settlers and the Indians who were our native inhabitants. But despite the importance of this interaction, despite the fact that the tribes have lived and maintained their existence intact since before the settlers arrived here, the tribes have never been recognized along with the 566 tribes who have. Why? Why have they never been recognized? Well, unbelievably, the first reason they have not been recognized is: They made peace too soon. They made peace with the English. If they had waited until 1780 and made peace with the Americans, that treaty, a treaty with the Americans, would have been the basis immediately for Federal recognition. But they became peaceful too soon with their European neighbors. Tribal recognition often begins with a treaty. But the treaties are treaties with the American government. All historians acknowledge that the treaties of 1646 and 1677 happened. There are copies of the treaties. The originals are still maintained. All acknowledge that these treaties and the Indians' decision to live in peace with their neighbors was a precondition for the modern Virginia. If there had not been peace, our history may well have been very different. I will tell you something else. These treaties are recognized by a government, the English government. When our tribes, which have never been recognized by the United States go to visit England, they are given a royal welcome and treated as the sovereign people they are by the government with which they made a treaty in 1646 and 1677. So that was the first ``mistake'' that was made: These tribes made peace too quickly. There is a second mistake that is in some ways even more difficult to acknowledge. Many of these tribes live in six counties in Virginia. Five of the county courthouses where all their birth, death, and marriage records were stored were burnt during the Civil War. But there were still some records that existed--some. But in a bizarre bit of our 20th century history, Virginia passed a law, the Racial Integrity Act, in the 1920s. Under a misguided and bizarre notion of ``racial purity,'' the eugenics movement, State officials determined that you were either white or you were colored. There was no such thing as an Indian. The leader of the State Bureau of Vital Statistics, a man named Walter Plecker--this is well documented-- sadly held the position of head of the Bureau of Vital Statistics from 1924 to 1967, 41 years. Remaining records such as they were in that 41-year period, he undertook what is known in Virginia as the ``paper genocide.'' He systematically went into every remaining record he could find and recharacterized anybody who had claimed a descent and a tribal connection as an Indian to ``colored.'' Records were destroyed or altered in a very significant way. Both of these reasons have made tribal recognition through the BIA process--the Bureau of Indian Affairs--very difficult. Of the 566 tribes that have been recognized, only about one-fifth [[Page 6156]] have gone through the administrative process. That process usually requires heavy documentation. But the treaty was with the wrong government, and the birth, death, and marriage records were destroyed because of a racist State policy and the burning of courthouses during the Civil War. These six tribes should be rewarded, not punished, for making peace with their neighbors in the 1640s and 1670s, and they should not be held back because of a horribly misguided State policy that stripped them of the means to easily demonstrate by paper what all historians acknowledge to exist-- the continuous history of these tribes. We started, in Virginia, to correct this in the 1980s. In 1983, Virginia began a process of State recognition of all of these tribes. The six tribes have all been recognized by the State in the 1980s. All tribes that are part of this bill are now recognized by Virginia. A full effort to finally receive Federal recognition began in 1999, supported overwhelmingly by all Virginians, including the current entire Virginia congressional delegation, Democratic and Republican, House and Senate, and all 10 living Virginia Governors. Recognition bills have passed out of the House for these tribes twice. In the 112th Congress, a bill passed out of the House and then came to the Senate, and it passed out of the Senate committee, only to die because of inaction on the Senate floor. It is my deep hope that the 113th Congress will finally see the realization of this long-held dream. We should pass this bill because it is right. These tribes exist. They still live in Virginia and uphold their tribal traditions. They deserve to have their existence acknowledged just like the hundreds of other tribes in this country. But there is a final reason why recognition has a very immediate importance to these Virginia tribes. If you walked 3 blocks from here down the Mall, you arrive at the National Museum of the American Indian. It is part of the Smithsonian, America's National Museum. The Smithsonian is every bit as much a part of our American Government as Congress is. It is a marvelous museum. It tells the story of our Indian tribes and their amazing history of adversity and triumph. The Smithsonian curators recognize what Congress has failed to do. Go to the second floor. There is a permanent exhibit on the second floor of the museum. The title of the exhibit is, ``Return to a Native Place: Algonquian Peoples of Chesapeake.'' That permanent exhibit in the museum, with the plastic dioramas, highlights the Powhatan tribes that are the subject of this bill. Here is how the museum describes the permanent exhibit dedicated to these tribes: Thru photos, maps, ceremonial and everyday objects, this display provides an overview of the history of the Native Peoples of the Chesapeake region from the 1600's to the present day. So we do recognize these tribes--in a museum. We acknowledge that they are not just a part of history, but in the words of the museum display description, that the people continue to maintain their tribal identity to the present day. But while we recognize the tribes in the museum three blocks from the Capitol, we will not, we have not, and we do not yet recognize these tribes in law. Finally, the failure to recognize these tribes in law has an unusual and very tragic consequence. It also deals with the Smithsonian. There is another department in the Smithsonian that is far out of the prying eyes of tourists on the mall. It is the warehouse of the Smithsonian where they hold remains of archaeological exhibits. They hold all kinds of remains and all kinds of artifacts from archaeological exhibits from all over the United States and all over the world. One set of remains that the Smithsonian is holding is the bones of about 1,400 Virginia Indians that were disturbed and unburied during the course of archaeological expeditions in Virginia. The tribes that we are talking about today, the bones of their ancestors are held in a warehouse by the Smithsonian. For years, these tribes have gone respectfully to the Smithsonian, and they have asked them: Please return to us the bones of our ancestors. We want to bury the bones of our ancestors in accord with our tribal customs. We want to rebury the bones of our ancestors in accord with the customs of Christianity, which we embraced under the tutelage of the English settlers. But the Smithsonian will not return these bones to the tribes. It seems like such a reasonable request. It seems so reasonable, but the Smithsonian will not return the bones of these tribes for one reason: They are not federally recognized. The law governing the antiquities and objects held by the Smithsonian leads the Smithsonian to conclude that they can't give these bones back for reburial unless the tribes are federally recognized. Our great national museum recognizes the tribes in a great display behind plastic glass and talks about these tribes, but at the same time we recognize them for one purpose, we will not hand the bones back to these folks in a manner they deserve. To conclude, it is long past time that these tribes receive the tribal recognition that hundreds of other tribes have received. It is long past time that these tribes be accorded the same respect in America--for which they fought since the Revolutionary War--that they receive in England when they go visit. It is long past time that the bones of these Powhatan ancestors be returned to Virginia so that they can be buried by their families in the only land they ever knew as home. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona. Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Rwanda and Syria Mr. McCAIN. Today we commemorate the 20th anniversary of the Rwandan genocide. This week, again and again, I will rise to remind my colleagues and fellow citizens of the humanity we share and appeal to their conscience about the mass atrocities the Assad regime is perpetrating in Syria. This past Sunday the world joined Rwanda in marking 20 years since the beginning of the genocide that claimed the lives of more than 800,000 innocent men, women, and children. As we reflect on our failures to stop the genocide there, I can't help but think of the lessons we learned from Rwanda and those we didn't. President Obama stated in his remarks on Sunday that the Rwandan genocide was ``neither an accident nor unavoidable. . . . The genocide we remember today--and the world's failure to respond more quickly-- reminds us that we always have a choice. In the face of hatred, we must remember the humanity we share. In the face of cruelty, we must choose compassion. In the face of intolerance and suffering, we must never be indifferent.'' I couldn't agree more with the President of the United States. The United States, along with the international community, failed to take the necessary action to prevent a tragedy in Rwanda. We chose to ignore the death of hundreds of thousands of people, and in so doing we forsook our humanity. And now we are dangerously close to doing the same in Syria. While I would like to believe that ``never again'' means something in this context, I look around the world today, and I am haunted by the fact that we simply haven't learned the fundamental lesson from Rwanda that preventing the slaughter of innocents means taking hard political action. Nowhere is this truer than in Syria, where President Bashar Assad's regime continues its brutal assault against the Syrian people with increasing ferocity. The slaughter of innocent men, women, and children is being carried out by Syria's national army and loyal paramilitaries as a result of state policy, and the terror continues to escalate every day that Assad's crimes go unpunished. The regime has accelerated attacks against civilians by indiscriminately dropping barbaric barrel bombs on mosques, schools, and bakeries, systematically detaining, torturing, and [[Page 6157]] killing thousands of people--including hundreds of children--and starving entire neighborhoods to death. It was over 5 months ago that Secretary John Kerry wrote that ``the world must act quickly'' to stop a ``war of starvation'' being waged by Assad's regime against ``huge portions of the population.'' Yet the world did nothing, and hundreds have died of starvation--thousands--in those 5 months. Eventually the international community responded by passing resolution 2139 through the U.N. Security Council, which ordered the regime to promptly allow unhindered humanitarian access and threatened further consequences for noncompliance. This was 2 months ago, and yet again the world did nothing to back the resolution. In fact, the U.N. humanitarian coordinator, Valerie Amos, reports that the war of starvation has worsened since its passing. The number of Syrians cut off from aid since January has grown by over 1 million people. The Syrian Government continues to prevent supplies of food from entering opposition-held areas, in direct contravention of the U.N. resolution, and it is using U.S.-provided humanitarian aid as leverage in its war against the people. Meanwhile, Iran sends 30,000 tons of food supplies to Assad's regime. While children starve throughout Syria, the government is at least well fed. Although 800,000 people have not been slaughtered in mere months, as was the case in Rwanda, over the course of 3 years of conflict in Syria, we have witnessed 9 million people forced from their homes, with 2.5 million refugees escaping the violence in neighboring countries, and an estimated 150,000 people dead, with casualties escalating daily. Regardless of the scale or scope, one fact is clear: The world is watching genocide in slow motion, but it seems that regardless of how many innocent men, women, and children die in Syria, the world's conscience will not be tipped. What is happening in Syria should be an affront to our conscience, and it should be a call to action. Each day the media floods our newspapers and television screens with some gruesome and horrific evidence of Assad's war crimes. We cannot claim ignorance as we have in the past. Yet we do nothing. It is as if watching all the suffering and simply feeling bad about it has become an adequate moral response. Conventional wisdom tells us that this is because the American public is war-weary. We are scarred by our experience in Afghanistan and Iraq and thus unwilling to get involved in another conflict in the Middle East. This sentiment is reinforced by the President, who prides himself on having opposed the war on Iraq and getting America out of the region as quickly as possible regardless of the ramifications. He has emphasized the need to ``contain'' the conflict in Syria, calling it a ``civil war'' and neglecting the dangerous spillover effects we are already witnessing, including the destabilization of all of Syria's neighbors and the growth of an Al Qaeda safe haven in eastern Syria and western Iraq. Following the President's lead, the American public has largely applauded his restraint and opposed greater U.S. involvement in Syria. But in so doing we have again failed the legacy of Rwanda. Stopping the slaughter in Syria will require difficult political action, but it is not only profoundly in our national interest to act but also our moral obligation to do so. In his remarks on Sunday, President Obama said that we should be reminded of ``our obligations to our fellow man.'' As President, he is the one who should be showing to the American people why it is so vital to our national interest to carry out our moral obligations to our fellow man. Our policy should be determined by the realities of the moment, not by today's isolationism dictated by the past. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have nothing to do with how we carry out our responsibilities today. Let there be no mistake; we have a responsibility to stop genocide when we see it happening, as in Syria. ``Never again'' should mean something whether or not we are paralyzed by war-weariness. Of course we would all like to see the slaughter of Syria's innocent men, women, and children be stopped by diplomacy and through nonviolent means. We all want an end to the violence. We all want to believe that a political solution is possible. But there are only two ways to end the violence. One is for all parties to put down their weapons-- something President Bashar Assad and his Iranian partners are clearly unwilling to do, as they believe a military solution is possible. So that leaves us with only one other option: to neutralize the party dedicated to the slaughter of innocents and force them to put down their guns. There are options to achieve this goal that fall far short of putting boots on the ground. We do not need to concede and allow genocide to continue or to go to war to prevent it. There are steps in between that the United States, along with our international partners, can take to stand by our international commitments and guarantees of protection. President Assad has already shown that U.N. resolutions mean nothing to him and that he has no intention of negotiating his departure through the Geneva process. It is clear that military pressure is the only lever that will convince Assad that a political solution is in his favor. We must be ready to prove to Assad that not achieving a diplomatic solution will cost his regime dearly, and there are meaningful actions we can take to help in Syria that will not require us to rerun the war in Iraq. It is not a question of options or capabilities, it is a question of will. There is a famous quote that states, ``All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.'' As we sit back and place our hopes on negotiations and meaningless guarantees of protection, we watch as hundreds of innocent men, women, and children are brutally slaughtered every day; reinvigorated Al Qaeda affiliates operate with more freedom than ever before; terrorist groups loyal to Iran proliferate and threaten our allies; and the region descends into chaos and turmoil that will inevitably reverberate in the United States of America. This is the price we will pay for choosing to remain disengaged, and the consequences to U.S. national interests will be felt. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record two articles. One is a Reuters story entitled ``Assad says fighting largely over by end of year,'' a statement by a former Russian Prime Minister with a quote: Assad's strength now lies in the fact that, unlike Yanukovich, he has practically no internal enemies. He has a consolidated, cleansed team. The second is ``Hezbollah confident in Assad, West resigned to Syria stalemate.'' There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: [From Reuters, Apr. 7, 2014] Assad `Says Fighting Largely Over By End of Year'--Former Russian PM (By Steve Gutterman) Moscow.--President Bashar al-Assad has forecast that much of the fighting in the Syrian civil war will be over by the end of the year, a former Russian prime minister was quoted on Monday as saying. ``This is what he told me: `This year the active phase of military action in Syria will be ended. After that we will have to shift to what we have been doing all the time-- fighting terrorists','' Itar-Tass news agency quoted Sergei Stepashin as saying. Stepashin, an ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin and former head of Russia's FSB security service, portrayed Assad as secure, in control and in ``excellent athletic shape'' after a meeting in Damascus last week. ```Tell Vladimir Vladimirovich (Putin) that I am not Yanukovich, I'm not going anywhere','' Stepashin quoted Assad as saying during their meeting, state-run news agency RIA reported. Yanukovich fled to Russia in February after he was pushed from power by protests that followed his decision to spurn closer ties with the European Union and turn to Moscow. Russian leaders have criticised him for losing control of his country. Stepashin suggested Assad faced no such threat and was likely to win a presidential election this year. ``There is not a shadow of a doubt that he knows what he's doing,'' RIA quoted Stepashin as saying. [[Page 6158]] ``Assad's strength now lies in the fact that, unlike Yanukovich, he has practically no internal enemies. He has a consolidated, cleansed team. ``Moreover, his relatives are not bargaining and stealing from the cash register but are fighting,'' he said, appearing to draw a contrast with Yanukovich and his family. ``FIGHTING SPIRIT'' Stepashin, who served as prime minister in 1999 under President Boris Yeltsin and now heads a charitable organisation called the Imperial Orthodox Palestine Society, added that ``the fighting spirit of the Syrian army is extremely high''. Russia has been Assad's most powerful supporter during the three-year-old conflict that activists say has killed more than 150,000 people in Syria, blocking Western and Arab efforts to drive him from power. Russia and the United States organised peace talks that began in January between Assad's government and its foes. But no agreement was reached and a resumption appears unlikely soon, in part because of high tension between Russia and the West over Ukraine. Russian officials say Moscow is not trying to prop up Assad and but that his exit from power cannot be a precondition for a political solution. Their assessments of his future have varied with the fortunes of his military. Assad has lost control of large swathes of northern and eastern Syria to Islamist rebels and foreign jihadis. But his forces, backed by militant group Hezbollah and other allies, have driven rebels back from around Damascus and secured most of central Syria. The head of Hezbollah said in an interview published on Monday Assad no longer faced a threat of being overthrown, and would stand for re-election this year. Stepashin predicted Assad would win. ``The majority of the Syrian population will vote for him,'' Itar-Tass quoted him as saying. ____ [From Reuters, Apr. 9, 2014] Hezbollah Confident in Assad, West Resigned to Syria Stalemate (By Samia Nakhoul and Laila Bassam) Beirut.--Bashar al-Assad's Lebanese ally Hezbollah said his Western foes must now accept he will go on ruling Syria after fighting rebels to a standstill--a ``reality'' to which his foreign enemies seem increasingly resigned. Echoing recent bullish talk coming out of Damascus, Sheikh Naim Qassem, deputy leader of the Iranian-backed Shi'ite militia which is supporting Assad in combat, told Reuters that the president retained popular support among many of Syria's diverse religious communities and would shortly be re-elected. ``There is a practical Syrian reality that the West should deal with--not with its wishes and dreams, which proved to be false,'' Qassem said during a meeting with Reuters journalists at a Hezbollah office in the group's southern Beirut stronghold. He said the United States and its Western allies were in disarray and lacked a coherent policy on Syria--reflecting the quandary that Western officials acknowledge they face since the pro-democracy protests they supported in 2011 became a war that has drawn al Qaeda and other militants to the rebel cause. Syria's fractious opposition--made up of guerrillas inside the country and a largely impotent political coalition in exile--had, he said, proved incapable of providing an alternative to four decades of rule by Assad and his late father before him. ``This is why the option is clear. Either to have an understanding with Assad, to reach a result, or to keep the crisis open with President Assad having the upper hand in running the country,'' said the bearded and turbaned cleric. Qassem's comments follow an account from another Assad ally, Russian former prime minister Sergei Stepashin, who said after meeting him last week that the Syrian leader felt secure and expected heavy fighting to end this year. Officials said this week that preparations would begin this month for the presidential election--a move that seems to reflect a degree of optimism in the capital and which may well end with Assad claiming a popular mandate that he would use to resist U.N.-backed efforts to negotiate a transition of power. Hezbollah chief Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah also said this week that Assad is no longer at risk and that military gains mean the danger of Syria fragmenting was also receding. WESTERN RESIGNATION It is a view of Assad that--quietly--seems to be gaining ground in Western capitals. Calling it bad news for Syrians, the French foreign ministry said this week: ``Maybe he will be the sole survivor of this policy of mass crimes''. France, which last year was preparing to join U.S. military action that was eventually aborted, now rules out force and called the stalled talks on ``transition'' the ``only plan''--a view U.S. officials say is shared in Washington, notably among military chiefs who see Assad as preferable to sectarian chaos. While rebels do not admit defeat, leaders like Badr Jamous of the Syrian National Coalition accept that without foreign intervention ``this stalemate will go on''. A U.S. official, asked about a deadlock that would leave Assad in control of much of Syria, conceded: ``This has become a drawn-out conflict.'' Assad, 48, has weathered an armed insurgency which started with protests in 2011 and descended into a civil war that has sucked in regional powers, including Shi'ite Iran and Hezbollah who back the Alawite president and Sunni states like Saudi Arabia and Qatar behind the rebels. With Russia blocking a U.N. mandate, and voters showing no appetite for war after losses in Afghanistan and Iraq, Western governments have held back from the kind of military engagement that could have toppled the well-armed Syrian leader. More than 150,000 people have been killed in three years, as Assad has lost the oil-producing and agricultural east and much of the north, including parts of Syria's largest city, Aleppo. But he did not suffer the fate of other autocrats in the Arab Spring, whether the presidents of Tunisia, Egypt and Yemen or Muammar Gaddafi, the Libyan leader toppled and killed by rebels who rode into Tripoli under cover of Western air power. Instead, he has clawed back control near Damascus, where a year ago rebels hoped for a decisive assault, and the center of the country which links the capital to the coastal stronghold of Assad's Alawite minority. His troops, backed by Hezbollah fighters, took another key town on Wednesday. Though as much as half the country is being fought over, Assad could hope to hold at least a roughly southwestern half, including most of the built-up heartlands near the coast, and more than half of the prewar population of 23 million. This leaves Western powers reflecting on a perceived loss of influence in the Middle East. Many now see a new strategy of ``containing'' Assad--and the fallout from a bitter war that has created millions of refugees and legions of hardened guerrillas. ``The U.S. has a stated policy of regime change, but it has never devoted the resources to effect that change,'' said Andrew Exum, a former U.S. official who worked on Middle East issues at the Pentagon. ``The de facto U.S. strategy of containment is very well suited for what is likely to be a very long war.'' ``STALEMATE WILL CONTINUE'' Qassem said the United States, which backed away from military action in September after blaming Assad for gassing civilians, was hamstrung by fears over the dominance in rebel ranks of al Qaeda's Syrian branch, the Nusra Front, and another group, the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). ``America is in a state of confusion. On the one hand it does not want the regime to stay and on the other it cannot control the opposition which is represented by ISIL and Nusra,'' he said. ``This is why the latest American position was to leave the situation in Syria in a state of attrition.'' President Barack Obama said last month that the United States had reached ``limits'' after the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and questioned whether years of military engagement in Syria would produce a better outcome there. Qassem said: ``I expect that the stalemate will continue in the Syrian crisis because of the lack of an international and regional decision to facilitate a political solution.'' U.N.-mediated talks at Geneva failed in February to bridge a gulf between Assad's government and opponents who insist that Assad must make way for a government of national unity. Western and regional powers who support the Syrian opposition say it would be a ``parody of democracy'' to hold an election in the midst of a conflict which has displaced more than 9 million people and divided the country across frontlines. Syria's electoral law effectively rules out participation by opponents who have fled the country in fear of Assad's police--candidates must have lived in Syria continuously for 10 years. ``My conviction is that Assad will run and will win because he has popular support in Syria from all the sects--Sunnis and secularists,'' Qassem said. ``I believe the election will take place on its due date and Assad will run and win decisively.'' Fear of hardline Islamists has undermined support for some rebels even among the 75 percent Sunni majority, and bolstered support for Assad among his fellow Alawites, and Christians. Qassem said it was too soon to speak of Hezbollah pulling out of Syria, despite an increase in Sunni-Shi'ite tensions within Lebanon caused by the intervention across the border of a movement that is Lebanon's most accomplished military force and also holds cabinet seats in the government in Beirut. ``Until now we consider our presence in Syria necessary and fundamental,'' Qassem said. ``But when circumstances change, this will be a military and political matter that requires a new assessment. [[Page 6159]] ``But if the situation stays as is and the circumstances are similar, we will remain where we should be''. Mr. McCAIN. I won't include it in the Record, but there is an interesting article that states, ``Syria's Assad secure, will seek re- election: Hezbollah leader.'' To show, I think, the very incredible naivety, there is an article in the Washington Post by Secretary Kerry entitled ``Kerry: US strike in Syria wouldn't be devastating.'' The Secretary of State says: ``It would not have had a devastating impact by which he had to recalculate, because it wasn't going to last that long,'' Kerry told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. ``Here we were going to have one or two days to degrade and send a message. . . . We came up with a better solution.'' We came up with a better solution. The President of the United States said that if Bashar Assad crossed a red line and used chemical weapons, we would act. He announced we would act. All our allies knew we were going to act. Then he took a walk with his national security adviser and said he was going to go to Congress. Meanwhile, Senator Kerry, in a bizarre, incredible act, issued a statement that any attack on Syria would be ``incredibly small.'' It is remarkable. Finally, our conscience should be shot, but it is not. We get kind of immune to day after day after day of these various reports of the slaughter that is going on. Look at the situation in Syria 3 years ago and look at it today: 150,000 dead, millions displaced; entry of jihadist fighters from all over the world who continue brutal bombing with barrel bombs which will slaughter innocent men, women, and children; and our Secretary of State says: Well, it wouldn't have been much if we would have struck them anyway. This is a shameful chapter in American history, I say to my colleagues. Historians in future generations will judge us very harshly, and future generations and younger generations may have to pay the price for our inaction and our neglect of our basic human values. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia. Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1596 Mr. MANCHIN. I thank my good friend Senator Pat Toomey from my neighboring State of Pennsylvania--I am from West Virginia--for working with me on this vital issue to make sure our kids remain safe in every single school across this country. I am a father of three, a grandfather of eight, and there is nothing more important to me than protecting my children and grandchildren. The bill Senator Toomey and I are working on is common sense. Our bill makes sure all employees who work with our students pass a background check to make sure they have no criminal records or an abusive history. That includes everyone from principals, teachers, secretaries, cafeteria workers and janitors--anyone who has contact with our schoolkids. This is a real problem that demands our attention and demands it now. Since January 1, 130 teachers across America have been arrested for sexual misconduct. At this rate that is more than one teacher per day who will sexually assault a student. As a parent, as a grandparent, and as a representative of the great State of West Virginia, inaction is simply unacceptable. There are more than 4 million teachers and school staff employed by our public school districts throughout the United States, and there are millions of additional workers who have direct access to students, including bus drivers, cafeteria workers and janitors. Yet there is no--I repeat, there is no--national background check policy in place for people who work directly with our kids every day. Even worse, not all States require checks of child abuse and neglect registries or sex offender registry checks. A recent report by the Government Accountability Office found that five States--five States--don't even require background checks at all for applicants seeking employment in our school systems. In addition, not all States use both Federal and State sources of criminal data, such as a State law enforcement database or the FBI's interstate identification index. Our bill would simply require mandatory background checks of a State criminal registry, the State child abuse and neglect registries, an FBI fingerprint check, and a check of the National Sex Offender Registry for existing and prospective employees. Every child deserves to have at least one place where they feel safe and that harm cannot enter their life. For many of our kids these days that place is at school--not always in the home. This is truly a commonsense bill that aims to help protect our kids from sexual assault, predators, or any individuals who inappropriately behave in our schools. This is a piece of legislation that is long overdue. It is not an unfunded mandate. I know some people will say that, and the reason I am saying it is not an unfunded mandate is because the people who want the employment have to pay. They have to pay for the background check if they want in the system. I know there is a section in this legislation that says if a person has been an offender they have to be rehabilitated for 5 years--be clean, have a clean record for 5 years--before they can get in the system. I think that is common sense. I would like for all my colleagues, if they would, to please consider this piece of legislation. Again, I appreciate the hard work of my colleague Senator Pat Toomey, and at this time I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Hirono). The Senator from Pennsylvania. Mr. TOOMEY. Madam President, I thank my colleague from West Virginia, Senator Manchin, for his terrific efforts on this legislation. I also want to thank our other cosponsors, Senators McConnell and Inhofe, for their support as well. The tragic story that inspired this bill has a connection to my State of Pennsylvania and Senator Manchin's State of West Virginia, so it made it kind of a natural for us to work together on this. It is a terrible story indeed, and I want to summarize it because it goes to the heart of why I am here this morning. The story begins in Delaware County, PA, where one of the schoolteachers was found to have molested several boys and raped one. Prosecutors decided there was not enough evidence to actually press charges, but the school knew what had happened. So they dismissed the teacher for this outrageous behavior. But shockingly, and somewhat disturbingly, the school also helped this teacher get a new job so they could pass him along and let him become someone else's problem. It happened the new job was in West Virginia. The Pennsylvania school even went so far as to send a letter of recommendation for this monster to get that job in West Virginia, which he did get. He became a teacher, then a school principal, and while there he raped and murdered a 12- year-old boy named Jeremy Bell in West Virginia. Justice finally caught up with that teacher, and he is now in jail, serving a life sentence for that murder. For Jeremy Bell, unfortunately, justice came way too late. But Jeremy Bell's father decided he would not rest until he had done everything he possibly could to minimize the chance that any other child or parent would ever experience a similar tragedy. Roy Bell is Jeremy's dad. He worked with Congress to create protections for children to ensure they would not be victimized at school, and the House of Representatives responded. In October of last year, the House unanimously passed the Protecting Students Against Sexual and Violent Predators Act. Unfortunately, there too, in a way, it was a few days too late. Jeremy Bell's dad passed away 3 days before the vote. But it passed the House, and it passed, as I said, unanimously in the House. Now we are here in the Senate with a chance to pass the same bill so it can become law. This is a bipartisan bill. It is a bill I introduced with Senator Manchin. It is a bill that has other cosponsors. I know there are some folks who say: Well, [[Page 6160]] let's wait, we need more time. I say we have had enough waiting. We have waited too long. Let me explain why we shouldn't wait another day. I will start with two numbers. The first number is 130. Senator Manchin mentioned this number. Since January 1 of this year, 130 teachers have been arrested across America for sexual misconduct with children. That is more than one teacher every day. And these are the ones who have been caught. How many more are happening? The stories are absolutely heartbreaking: A teacher's aide who undressed and sexually assaulted a mentally disabled boy in his care; a child whose abuse began at age 10 and only ended when at age 17 she found herself pregnant with the teacher's child; the 16-year-old raped by her instructor in a classroom closet; one teacher after another caught with images of child pornography; a special education kindergarten girl forced to go shirtless in class. These things are unbelievable. But every day we delay, we delay rooting out one of these predators. The other number I want to share is the number 73. According to the GAO--the Government Accountability Office--the average pedophile molests 73 children over the course of a lifetime. These predators are very devious. They are clever and they are smart. What they do is go where the potential victims are. And where are there potential victims for a pedophile? What better place than a school. So they do in fact go to schools, and from school to school and school district to school district. Every day we delay, we increase the risk a predator is moving on to the next of his 73 victims. So what can we do? Here is what our bill does. Our bill, the Protecting Students from Sexual and Violent Predators Act, is an important first step. It would require mandatory background checks for existing and prospective employees and then require the checks be periodically repeated, the timing of which would be left to the discretion of the States. There are five States that do not require checks at all. The bill would also check to make sure all employees or contractors who have unsupervised contact with children would be subject to this background check--not just teachers but coaches, schoolbus drivers, anyone who has unsupervised contact with the kids. There are 12 States that don't require that now. The bill requires a more thorough background check. For instance, in Pennsylvania, there is a background check requirement. But if you have lived in the State for more than 2 years, it does not require a background check on the Federal criminal database, and yet we know these people move across State lines. A fourth and important piece is that our bill forbids what has sadly developed its own name--passing the trash. This idea, this practice, unfortunately, of actually recommending the predator to another job in another school or another State so as to get rid of the problem and let him become someone else's is so disturbing it is hard to imagine anyone would do this, but we know it happens. We know it happens. And a given State doesn't have the power to prevent some school district in another State from doing exactly this, as happened in the case of Jeremy Bell. There is a list of folks who under our legislation a school would simply not be able to hire: anyone ever convicted of any violent or sexual crime against a child. I think that makes a lot of sense. There are certain felonies that would also preclude a person from ever being hired: homicide, child abuse or neglect, rape or sexual assault, and a few others. In addition, a person who was convicted in the last 5 years of a felony physical assault or battery or a felony drug-related offense would create a 5-year prohibition against hiring such a person. The enforcement mechanism we have is withholding Federal funds, which would be the inducement for the States to adopt these requirements. Let me stress that this bill has broad support. I mentioned before this passed the House unanimously. There was not a single objection in the House. It has bipartisan support here in the Senate. Various child advocacy groups are fully in support: the National Children's Alliance, the Children's Defense Fund, and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Prosecutors and prosecutor associations--the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys and the Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association--both fully endorse this legislation. Teachers groups: the American Federation of Teachers and the Pennsylvania School Boards Association. I forget how many former teachers in the House--I think 19 or so--all voted for this bill. I am willing to venture the overwhelming majority of the American people would support this effort to keep our kids as safe as we can. I would also stress there is nothing radical about these proposals. In the Senate we just passed a very similar background check requirement in the child care development block grant legislation, where we insist on almost identical background checks for employees of daycares. That makes perfect sense to me. It is a good step. It is very likely to help protect children in our daycares. But why in the world would we protect the kids in daycare and not provide comparable protection for kids who have gone on to later grades? This is a bipartisan commonsense bill that has passed the House unanimously. This is our opportunity to pass it in the Senate and send it to the President for his signature. I believe it is a moral imperative we do this to protect these kids. It didn't come soon enough for Jeremy Bell. And sadly, every day we learn there are more victims. But now is the time we can act. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the HELP Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 1596 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I further ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Mr. HARKIN. I object. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The Senator from Iowa. Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I certainly favor the goals of this legislation. The Senator will remember we passed a childcare bill that included many of the same background check provisions for childcare employees. Those provisions were negotiated between Democrats and Republicans on our committee to address issues that were raised about the implementation of any federally prescribed background checks for childcare settings. We would like to undertake a similar process in the K-12 context to ensure any concerns raised by either side be addressed. That is what the committee process is for. What the Senator from Pennsylvania is asking for in this bill will have an impact on nearly every public school in the country and every employee, not just teachers--not just teachers--who might have any unsupervised access to children. So that requires us to do some due diligence. I don't want anyone to misunderstand me. I am willing to work with the Senator from Pennsylvania and others on this legislation, but I do believe we need to take a closer look at it, talking with relevant stakeholders--States, school districts, employees--about the bill and some perhaps unintended consequences of it. We were able to do that in the childcare bill, and I believe we can achieve similar success with the legislation of the Senator from Pennsylvania. I am ready and willing to engage with the Senator, his staff, and his office in that process. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee. Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I support the Senator from Iowa and his request that this bill go to the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. In the Republican Conference, we talk a lot about the importance of taking legislation through committee so it can be amended and considered through the regular order. This is certainly important legislation. All of us would agree on that. [[Page 6161]] The Senator from Pennsylvania and the Senator from West Virginia deserve a lot of credit for bringing this terrible story to our attention and proposing we address it. And I think we should. But the appropriate way to do that here, is to take it to the committee of jurisdiction to be considered in a markup, amended, and see if anyone has a better idea. My second reason for hoping this bill goes to the HELP committee is that I have my own idea. I think this bill poses an important question to the Senate about whether we want to constitute ourselves as a national school board. That is, in fact, what we would be doing if we passed it into law. In our country there are 100,000 public elementary and secondary schools. They all have a principal who is in charge of the employees in that school. This bill is about determining what kind of criminal background check those school employees should have. What is the principal supposed to do? Doesn't the principal have any responsibility for this? Can the principal just say that this is the job of the United States Senate, so I don't have to worry about that? There are 14,000 local school boards across West Virginia, Tennessee, Iowa, Pennsylvania, and all of our other States. What is the responsibility of these local school boards when it comes to determining the qualifications of their teachers or the health and safety of their students? Do the members of the local school board say: We don't have to worry about those questions too much because the U.S. Senate will determine for us what the qualifications for teaching will be or how we will keep students healthy and safe in our local public schools? There are 50 Governors of our states. I used to be one of them, as was the distinguished Senator from West Virginia. I got pretty tired of people flying to Washington, D.C. thinking that they were the only ones who had any sense of responsibility for the public school students in Tennessee. In fact, I felt like the more Washington, D.C. intruded into Tennessee by making decisions that we should be making for ourselves, the less responsible we felt for those decisions and the less effective we were at doing our jobs. I remember in the early 1990s there was a piece of legislation which whizzed through the Senate and the House just like this piece of legislation has been doing. It was called the Gun-Free School Zones Act, and it came after a particularly terrible shooting at a school. We still have those shootings today, and it wrenches our heart every time they happen. So, after the shooting, the U.S. Congress said: We will fix it. The Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional because it exceeded the authority of Congress under the commerce clause--that in effect it wasn't Washington's job; it was the job of the states and local communities to determine the issue of gun possession around schools. I submit that the safety of our schools is the job of the parents of those schools, of the principal in that school, of the community which supports that school, of the local school board, of the supporting organizations, and of the governor and the legislature of the state. If they can pretend they can kick that responsibility up to Washington, I think that is wrong. I do not think that is within our constitutional framework in the United States. Those responsibilities belong locally. The Senator from Iowa and I have a terrific relationship and ideological differences on many occasions. I spent the morning debating with him about whether his proposal for early childhood education would in effect create a national school board. He basically made the same argument that is being made here. He said: If we are going to give states money from Washington for early childhood education, we have a responsibility to define how that money is spent, including the parameters for what the teachers' salaries should be. So if we can define what criminal background checks ought to be for school employees in Maryville, TN, public schools, we can define what the teachers' salaries ought to be in the Maryville, TN, public schools. If we can decide what the safety measures in the school ought to be, we can decide what the maximum size of classes ought to be. We can decide what the length of the school day ought to be and what kind of vision and health screenings we ought to provide. Those decisions are important for children as well. Whether the children are fed properly is important as well. Are we going to kick those decisions upstairs to the U.S. Senate and say: You set the rules for that. Physical activity programs. The distinguished Senator from Iowa has been a champion for more physical activity his whole career here. He would like to set that as a goal from Washington. I think that is the job of a local community. Professional development for school staff. If we make decisions about criminal background checks for staff, we can make decisions about their professional development as well. How about academic standards and curriculum? In the State of Tennessee and in many other States there has been a near rebellion over the so-called Common Core State Standards. The important issue is about how we raise standards for children who need to learn more to succeed. But the problem is that Washington got involved with the standards, and people in our State and many other States don't like national school boards and Washington-control of public schools. So I think we should stop and think about this. I would prefer to see the federal government in Washington act as an enabler of States and local school boards rather than a mandator. I would like to see us take this terrific focus the Senators from Pennsylvania and West Virginia have put on the importance of criminal background checks and the safety of our children by making it easier for States and local school boards to search a State criminal registry, a State-based child abuse and neglect registry, a fingerprint-based FBI criminal history, a search of the national sex offender registry. Forty-six States already require all public school employees to go through some form of a background check. Are we to say we know better than they do? If so, what does that say about our entire structure of public education and whether we should just tell the 14,000 local school boards in the U.S. to disband. We don't need you to make decisions about the safety of the schools in your district. We will do it in Washington. We don't need you to make decisions about academic standards and curriculum. We will do that here? I think we in Congress should be enablers, not mandators. I think we should take this powerful focus the two Senators have put on criminal background checks for school employees, take it to the HELP committee, and put a spotlight on making it easier and more important for all 100,000 principals, all 14,000 local school boards, all 50 State Governors to do it, help parents to be aroused, and put the spotlight where the spotlight ought to be. If they want a gun-free school zone, put the spotlight on the school and the community around it. If they want a safe school, put the spotlight on the school and the community around it. If they want to have a criminal background check system to keep predators out of schools, put the spotlight on the principal, the school board, and the community around it. That is the way to effectively do it. That is the way to respect our federalist system of government and our constitutional framework. That is the way to avoid creating a national school board. So I look forward to working with the Senator from Iowa, the Senator from West Virginia, and the Senator from Pennsylvania. This is an important issue. I would like to see it become law. But I would like for our government in Washington to be more of an enabler of local school boards and school principals than a mandator from Washington. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania. Mr. TOOMEY. Madam President, needless to say, I am extremely disappointed that we find ourselves here at this impasse with nothing accomplished, and who knows how long it [[Page 6162]] will take to get something accomplished. I will point out that the Senate, I think just last week, voted for nearly identical background check language in the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act. We voted for this. This is the language vetted by this committee. If it is vital to keep kids safe at a daycare--which I think it is-- why isn't it just as vital to keep kids or their older siblings safe for the rest of the day? I don't think we need to go through the committee to answer that question. We have waited long enough. This is the 16th background check bill which has been introduced in the House or the Senate since 2009, and here we have nothing on the Senate floor. The committees had 5 years to act. The committees had 5 months when they could have taken up this bill at any time, marked it up, and moved it through the process, but they didn't do this. As far as using the committee process, I am generally a fan of going through the committee. But let's not pretend that is how we normally operate around here. There are 27 bills so far in this Congress which have received floor consideration without going through a committee at all--7 under the jurisdiction of this committee. Last Congress there were 42 bills which received floor votes without going through committee. Let's be candid. In just the last week or so, and looking forward another week or two, we have more legislation under the jurisdiction of this committee. Whether it is paycheck fairness or a minimum wage bill, those are under the jurisdiction of this committee. They are going to be brought to the floor without having gone through the committee. By the way, those are bills we know are going nowhere. Those are political statement bills. So is it more important to get bills that are political statements to the Senate floor than it is legislation which could actually be signed to protect kids from violent predators? This seems to me to be a very misordering of priorities. I say to my colleague, for whom I have a great deal of respect and with whom I generally find myself in agreement, on this issue I happen to disagree with the senior Senator from Tennessee. In my view, this is not a mandate on the States. If a State chooses not to develop the background checks we have put into this bill, then we would withhold the ESEA funding, which is 3.5 percent of total funding. That is not insignificant. But it leaves it up to the State to decide. We think kids ought to be safe in schools. If they disagree about the background checks, OK, then they don't have to take this funding. The Supreme Court, by the way, has agreed that this does not represent coercion. It does not amount to coercion when it is on this scale. The second point I would make in this regard is part of this legislation absolutely requires Federal legislation. As I mentioned briefly in my comments earlier, this all originated from a case where a school in one State sent a letter of recommendation to a school in another State for one of these monsters to be hired. Frankly, I don't know how the school in the State where this person ended up could have prevented that from happening. But Federal legislation can prevent that, and I think it should. So I am deeply disappointed we are not able to move to this today. I hope we will be able to soon. I think my colleague from West Virginia had a point he wished to make, so I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia. Mr. MANCHIN. Madam President, I first thank my colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Toomey. I also thank the Senator from Tennessee, for whom I also have the greatest regard for his knowledge and commitment to our children and education, to which he has dedicated his life, and also the Senator from Iowa. This is very serious and very personal to both of us. Our States have been affected. But every State has been affected. I am not in favor of a national school board in any way, shape or form. I strongly believe in the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution and States rights. But I believe that certain standards have to be set, and we have done that before as far as on a national level. There are five problems we have always talked about, and those five problems apply to every child in America--not just every child in West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Tennessee or Iowa but in America. The first is every child should have a loving, caring adult in their life. Those are not always the biological parents or family. It could be you. It could be somebody next door. It could be an extended family member. Every child should have a safe place in their life. Unfortunately, as has been said, it is not always the home. It might be the school. Every child should have a healthy start. Nutrition--for many children across America, their breakfast, lunch, and nutrition comes from the school. Every child should be taught to have a livable skill. Again, that is in the school. We depend upon that. And the fifth thing--which is the hardest to teach--is that every child should grow to be a loving, caring adult, and be able to give back. That is set by us. We set the standards for that. A child will emulate what they see. If they love it and respect it, they will do it. For us to say we don't believe raising to a Federal standard the well-being and safety of every child in a school system--guaranteeing that the person who is going to be teaching them, nurturing them, taking them to school, and feeding them has a clean background check and is not a child molester--is the least we can do. That is all we are asking for in this bill. I hope that it would get the attention it needs. Again, I am also very disappointed that we cannot move it forward, and I know that precedent has been set and has been articulated by the Senator from Pennsylvania. But I would hope that both the ranking member and the chairman of the HELP Committee would maybe reconsider and take another look at it. Thank you, Madam President. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee. Mr. ALEXANDER. I am willing to support holding a hearing on the bill, moving it rapidly through the HELP committee, and moving it back to the Senate floor. I will make my argument in committee or on the floor, and I may win or I may lose. But I have thought about the gun-free school zones act for more than 20 years, and I thought about it from the point of view of a parent and of a Governor. The Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee has conservative Republicans on one side and liberal Democrats on the other. I spend most of my days on the committee trying to argue my Democratic friends out of their good ideas that they want to impose on every local school district in America. There is a moral imperative to have high academic standards for children. There is a moral imperative to have physical education for children. There is a moral imperative to have breakfast for children. There is a moral imperative to help disabled children. There is a moral imperative to do all these things. We all feel that. But just because we in Washington contribute 10 percent of the money spent on elementary and secondary education doesn't mean we should substitute our judgment for that of the local school board and the principal who is accountable to that community for the safety of each child in their school. We ought to think about that before we start assuming these responsibilities because if we pass this bill into law, leave people to think that we solved the problem, and another problem happens, then who is going to be held accountable? The local principal? The local school board? The Governor? No. Maybe the Senate will be held accountable because we took it upon ourselves to say to the parents: We have kept your child safe. We should enable parents. We should enable schools. We should enable local school districts to create safe and effective schools with high standards. We [[Page 6163]] should give parents choices of schools with effective teachers, but we shouldn't mandate it or define it from Washington. That is my argument, which I would like to be considered when we think about the extent to which we ought to say to a local school board or principal: We are going to define for you what a criminal background check should consist of for the people you hire in your schools. I pledge to work on it as rapidly as Senator Harkin can move it through the committee. I will make my argument, and we will come to a conclusion. I appreciate the Senators from Pennsylvania and West Virginia putting a focus on such an important issue, and I look forward to a speedy conclusion to the debate and a passage of an appropriate bill on an important issue. I just hope it enables instead of mandates. Thank you, Madam President. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts. Commemorating the Boston Marathon Tragedy Ms. WARREN. Madam President, 1 year ago I rose to speak in this Chamber. I rose with a heart heavy with mourning and yet filled with gratitude because 1 year ago cowards set off bombs at our beloved Boston Marathon, trying to terrorize our city, but Boston responded with courage and community. Today I rise with a heart filled with the spirit of healing and restoration to commemorate the anniversary of the Boston Marathon bombing and celebrate the strength and character of the people of Boston. One year ago terror knocked on Boston's door. It was not just the momentary terror of smoke and sound but the terror of uncertainty and speculation, the terror of siege and lockdown. Such terrors can break a people's spirit. They seek to do no less. But Boston was fearless. Our first responders, our protectors and investigators, our heroes, our citizen heroes, our families, our friends, and our neighbors--we did not waiver. In that moment when all the world had its eyes upon us, we responded with a cry of defiance, not of fear. Scripture says: ``Be brave, be strong. Let all that you do be done with love.'' In the last year we have seen what bravery and strength and love can do. Friends and family, classmates and teachers have come together to keep alive the memories of Krystle Campbell, Lu Lingzi, Martin Richards, and Sean Collier, and to celebrate their lives and to promise they will live on in our hearts. Investigators and prosecutors have pursued justice, impartial and fair but with righteous conviction and an unwavering sense of purpose. Healers and neighbors, friends and family have restored life and energy to those who thought it lost and in doing so have felt their own spirits lift. Inventors and doctors have returned a ballroom dancer to the dance floor and helped children run and play, focused not on what they have lost but on what they can do next. Families have rejoiced with graduations and birthdays, weddings and children, with the sweetest and most hopeful moments of life. In the last year we have found that when we are united as one community, bravery and strength and love can heal the body and restore the spirit. One hundred years after the original Patriots' Day of 1775, an orator celebrating the anniversary of the first battles of the Revolutionary War told the people of Massachusetts that ``our common liberty is consecrated by a common sorrow.'' From time to time, as a community and as a country we are reminded of this wisdom, through the awful grace of God. Our common tragedies and sufferings unite us as one people, and that unity brings with it strength and courage and ultimately renews our commitment to liberty. Now, with the strength of One Boston still with us, we look ahead to justice that has yet to be served, to healing that remains to be done, to a future of achievements, of celebrations, and of memories. May God bless those we have lost. May He inspire those who survived to carry forward. May He keep our community united in bravery and strength and love. And may He always watch over the people of Boston, of Massachusetts, and of the United States of America. Thank you, Madam President. I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut. Mr. MURPHY. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. MURPHY. Thank you, Madam President. Health Care There was a new announcement today from the Secretary of Health and Human Services that 7.5 million people have signed up for private health care through the exchanges by virtue of the Affordable Care Act. The initial estimates from CBO last fall were that in the best case about 6 million people were going to sign up. We have blown through that enrollment expectation, and still, on this floor and in committee hearings as recently as this morning, Republicans continue to criticize and critique this law with blistering attacks--not because they have data on their side, not because they have evidence on their side, but because their entire electoral strategy for the fall depends on an assault on the Affordable Care Act. The problem is that increasingly day by day, as more information comes out about the life-changing, life-altering success of this law, there simply is not the evidence to back up the claim from the Republicans that the Affordable Care Act isn't working. In fact, the reason why a new Washington Post poll shows that for the first time more Americans support the Affordable Care Act rather than oppose it is because they know the Affordable Care Act is working. Yet my good friend Representative Paul Ryan says that despite 7 million people signing up for the law, ``the architecture of this law is so fundamentally flawed that I think it is going to collapse under its own weight.'' One of our own colleagues said, ``I don't think the 7 million enrollment figure means anything. They are cooking the books on this.'' Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer says that the 7.1 million enrollment figure was a ``phony number'' and that all the changes and delays must mean the majority of the law is already on its way out. Well, that is the story Republicans are telling here in Washington, but our constituents in Democratic States and Republican States are telling a very different story. I would like to talk about the numbers for a second because data can be pretty tricky when it gets in the way of your political argument. As one of our former colleagues from New York said--and I am paraphrasing--we are all entitled to our own opinions, but we are not entitled to our own facts. Here we are. This is the percentage of uninsured in the United States by quarter. We start in 2008, which is essentially the beginning of the recession, and, as would be expected over the course of the recession, the number of uninsured rises from 14.5 percent to a peak of 18 percent. But guess what happens when it hits the peak. The Affordable Care Act goes into operation. The Affordable Care Act begins to be implemented, and in a very short period of time from the beginning of enrollment until the end of the first period of enrollment being March 31, the number goes from 18 percent uninsured to 15.6 uninsured. That is a remarkable decrease over a very short period of time that can only be explained by the fact that 7 million people now have access to private health care insurance, another 3 million people have access to Medicaid, and another 3 million people on top of that have access to insurance on their parents' plans. When we look at what has happened to young people over a similar period of time, we can see the same dynamic [[Page 6164]] playing out. This is the rate of uninsured of 18- to 25-year-olds in this country. Here, they are at 28 percent. I mean, how on Earth, in the most affluent, most powerful country in the world, did we ever allow for more than one-quarter of our young people to be uninsured? But we were at 28.4 percent, and when the Affordable Care Act was passed and the first provision went into effect, it allowed people who were under 26 to stay on their parents' plans. Look. The number starts to move downward. It is a pretty consistent downward slope, moving from 28 to about 24. Then the ACA plans start, and then the number--just as in the uninsured data for the population at large--drops again from 24 down to 21. It was 28 percent at the passage of the law, and it is 21.7 percent today. Other studies show the same. This is survey data from Gallup, which is generally the gold standard on tracking the rate of uninsured in the country. But we also have a RAND study that was done. This is a very well-known consulting study which said that from the period of September of last year until mid-March, 9.3 million people who were uninsured became insured. So when Republicans say this data doesn't really tell you the true story because these are all people just shifting from one plan to another, that is not true. The RAND study tells us that 9.3 million people who were uninsured became insured. The RAND study also says that 7.2 million people got access to employer-based insurance who didn't have it previously. And that data doesn't even include the surge of enrollment at the end of March. The RAND study only brings us up to about mid-March. So this is the real story. This is what the numbers and the data tell us: that people are getting access to insurance for the first time ever. The Affordable Care Act isn't just shifting people from one insurance plan to another insurance plan; it is actually having a remarkable effect on the number of insured in this country. I am not suggesting this trend line is going to continue along that axis, but, boy, if the next couple of years looks anything like the first 6 months of Affordable Care Act plans being available to people, we are going to see a revolution in this country in terms of the number of people who are outside our health care system. Yet this week was the 52nd, 53rd, 54th vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act in the House of Representatives. The Presiding Officer and I sat through probably 40 of those votes and there is another one today. A budget presented, again, by Representative Paul Ryan would take away insurance from 7 million people who now have it, take away Medicaid coverage from 3 million more people who have it, would repeal a law that has provided $9 billion in savings for seniors when they are in the doughnut hole. And $9 billion is a big number and hard to comprehend. By the way, his bill would return that $9 billion to the drug industry because that is where it came from. It didn't shift money from one set of taxpayers to another set of taxpayers. The way we closed the doughnut hole was asking the drug industry to put up some money in order to help seniors. The irony of all ironies is that the Ryan budget--while repealing all of the provisions that have provided insurance to over 10 million people and discounted health care for millions more--would keep in place the $716 billion in Medicare savings that Republicans and outside groups have hammered Democrats for supporting over the course of the last 5 years. Over and over we have been told we are killing Medicare Advantage by asking Medicare Advantage to run their insurance plans for the same costs that Medicare charges. Yet despite all of the rhetoric, the Republican budget in the House would keep in place all of the Medicare cuts they have been running against outside of this building. What our constituents know is that despite bumps in the road, the Affordable Care Act works. Anytime you reorder one-sixth of the American economy, you are going to have problems and you are going to have people who are going to be unhappy. The reality is that for decades we had the most expensive health care system in the world, times two, compared to any other industrialized nation, and we were getting results that didn't measure up to the amount of money we were spending. We had 30 million people who were uninsured, rates of infant immortality and infections that were way above countries spending half as much as we did. We had to make a change. That there were 54 votes in the House of Representatives to repeal the bill, and not a single effort to replace it, tells you that it has been Democrats who have been willing to step to the plate and do the tough reform necessary to try to make changes that were 100 years overdue. The numbers don't lie in the end. I get it that Republicans think they can win an election by continuing to hammer away at the Affordable Care Act, but there are 7\1/2\ million people who now have private health care. There are 3 million people who now have access to Medicaid. There are 3 million more young adults who can stay on their parents' plans. RAND and Gallup tell us that the number of people without insurance in this country is absolutely plummeting by the day. All of that is evidence that despite the best intentions from our Republicans to undermine the law the ACA works. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. REED. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Emergency Unemployment Insurance Mr. REED. Madam President, it has been 103 days since emergency unemployment insurance expired and 3 days since the Senate sent a bipartisan agreement to the House which would restore these benefits for up to 2.7 million Americans. These benefits are fully paid for and would lift the entire economy. That is why the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that failing to renew the benefits for a full year would cost the economy 200,000 jobs. We recognize our bill is a partial restoration, not a full year. The restoration we proposed will increase jobs in the economy as attested by the CBO. Unfortunately, it appears that the House has no intent to take up the Senate-passed agreement to restore these benefits before they leave town for 2 weeks. That is right if the House fails to pass what the Senate has passed on a bipartisan vote--and this was a bipartisan, fiscally responsible measure--the Speaker, who says he wants job creation, will be rejecting a portion of those 200,000 new jobs projected by the Congressional Budget Office, which is headed by his own appointee. Contrary to the criticism that our proposal does not create jobs and doesn't do anything with jobs, it does. More importantly, it restores benefits to people who are desperately looking for work in a very difficult economy, and who need these benefits to keep searching for work as well as supporting their families. In my view, the failure to act is not defensible. Restoring these benefits is the right thing to do for job seekers and the smart thing to do for our economy. The very modest $300-a-week average benefit, which our bill restores, helps workers stay afloat and cover the necessities as they search for a job. That modest benefit gets pumped back into the economy at the local supermarket or gas station. It is just commonsense. People will get this--I hope--benefit, and they will go right along and take care of the daily needs of life. They are not in a position to stash it away--most of them--and they are not in a position to do anything else but to try to stay afloat through very difficult financial circumstances. Unemployment remains stubbornly high in my State, and across the United States. The March employment report, while positive, showed we still have much more to do to strengthen our economic recovery, especially for [[Page 6165]] the 10.5 million Americans looking for work, including 3.7 million of the long-term unemployed. Again, this benefit we propose is particularly directed at these long-term unemployed Americans. That is why this is a critical effort in our attempts to strengthen our economy--restoring these benefits. We have never let these benefits lapse when the long-term unemployment rate is higher than 1.3 percent-- and today it is nearly twice that at roughly 2.6 percent. We have acted on a bipartisan basis, on a fiscally responsible basis, on a basis that recognizes not only the needs of families but the need to help further grow our economy. Now it is time for the House to act that way-- responsibly fiscally and responsibly to our neighbors and our constituents, on a bipartisan basis, to get this bill done quickly and get it to the President. It is my hope the House of Representatives stops blocking this. This is fully paid for. It is fiscally responsible. It is a bipartisan effort. It is what every one of our constituents says we should be doing more of--responsible, thoughtful, bipartisan legislation. We have done our part in the Senate and now it is up to the House. I hope they move quickly--this week indeed--to get this relief to millions of Americans. With that, I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. HATCH. 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 Senator from Utah. The Budget Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise today to take a look back at the evolution of our Federal budget over the past few years, as we moved from deficits and debt not seen since the years surrounding World War II to our current budget predicament, which still involves deficits and debt that are far too high. The Federal deficit in fiscal year 2009 was nearly 10 percent of our economy. This was due partly to efforts to battle the financial crisis and partly to ineffective and reckless spending measures like the so- called stimulus. Since then, the deficit has fallen. From the rhetoric of the administration and its allies here in Congress, you would think that deficit reduction has been accomplished almost exclusively through spending cuts. Indeed, in an effort to demonstrate his reasonableness in calling for even more tax hikes, President Obama often touts the ``tough spending cuts'' that have taken place under his administration. Of course, after spending ballooned in fiscal years 2009 and 2010 to almost a quarter of the size of our entire economy, it eventually had to be curtailed. With a recovering economy, along with tax hikes engineered by the administration and its allies in Congress, deficits have admittedly come down. Unfortunately, however, as the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has told us, the deficit reprieve will be short lived. The CBO tells us clearly that after 2015, the deficit will rise again and, as a consequence, the Federal debt remains on an unsustainable path. As the CBO and every credible budget analyst has made clear, our fiscal path is unsustainable because our entitlements are unsustainable--that means Social Security, that means Medicare and Medicaid, and that means the Affordable Care Act. We know those programs cannot be sustained on their current trajectories. Yet the administration and its allies refuse to do anything about it. The Senate Democratic budget left entitlements virtually untouched. The President's budget offers little in the way of structural entitlement reforms necessary to put these programs on sound fiscal footing. In fact, with his latest budget, President Obama has even retreated on reforms that he has offered in the past. But let's look back on how our budget has evolved over the last few years. If you listen to my friends on the other side of the aisle and their supporters, the Federal Government has significantly scaled back on spending which, they say, is responsible for almost all the changes in the Federal deficit since the outsized deficits in fiscal years 2009 and 2010. We hear from our friends on the other side of the aisle about how they have ``slashed'' spending. We hear about ``austerity,'' as though it is something inherently evil. For example, in June of 2013, the leftwing Center for American Progress said that ``we have enacted about $2.5 trillion in deficit reduction with about three-quarters coming from spending cuts.'' In March of this year, Vice President Biden's former aide Jared Bernstein wrote in the New York Times that we have generated $2.5 trillion in deficit savings, with 77 percent coming from spending cuts. In February of this year, the Senate Budget Committee chairman wrote to her Senate Democratic colleagues that since August 2010, we have had ``$3.3 trillion in deficit reduction put in place over the last few years'' with 77 percent claimed as coming from spending reductions. Depending on who you listen to, deficits have been reduced by $2.5 trillion or $3.3 trillion or maybe more. No matter the number, the claimed reduction stemming from spending cuts usually ends up at around 75 percent or more. That would mean that deficit reduction has been accomplished by a 3-to-1 or higher ratio of spending cuts to tax highs. Of course, all of those deficit reduction and spending reduction claims represent promises for the future. They are measured relative to some artificial so-called budget baseline or yardstick, which can pretty much be anything that you want it to be. Pick one yardstick and you get one result. Pick a different yardstick and you get a different result. But it has been recorded that in fiscal year 2009, the Federal deficit was more than $1.4 trillion or almost 10 percent of GDP at the time. Also on the books is that in fiscal year 2013, our most recently closed fiscal year, the deficit was around $680 billion or just over 4 percent of GDP at that time. Therefore, deficit reduction we have seen between fiscal years 2009 and 2013, which is a 4-year period, has been about $735 billion. That is not $2.5 trillion. That is not $3.3 trillion. The larger deficit reduction numbers are derived almost entirely from future promises to reduce spending, promises that we are pretty darn sure are never going to be kept, based upon all of the past history of this country and the Democratic Party, by the way. Once again, in terms of real actual deficit reduction, the number comes in at roughly $735 billion. Keep in mind all the rhetoric about deficit reduction consisting of 3-to-1 spending reductions to tax hikes. Well, if that is what we would have enacted, we would imagine those ratios would have been at least somehow reflected in the deficit reduction realized over the past 4 years or so. If not, then, let's be clear that they are only promises to reduce spending, promises that the current and future Congresses can undo with the stroke of a pen. If past experience is the norm, you can count on it. You can count on undoing those promises. I have been in the Senate--this is my 38th year. I have heard countless promises to rein in spending in the future. The fraction of those promises that have ended up being kept is very small. Promises notwithstanding, let's go back over the past 4 fiscal years and see what has happened. As I said, from fiscal year 2009 to 2013, the deficit has gone down by $735 billion. No one disputes this, certainly not my friends on the other side of the aisle, who have used this number as justification for turning their spending engine back to full throttle. Given all that they said about spending cuts having been responsible, on a 3-to-1 basis for deficit reduction, the question becomes: Is 75 percent of the deficit reduction we have seen over the last 4 years attributable to spending cuts or austerity? The answer is not even close. The $736 billion of deficit reduction has been accomplished with [[Page 6166]] $670 billion of increased revenues, and only $65 billion of spending reductions, which on a basis of around $3.5 trillion of annual spending is a reduction of below 2 percent. I will say that again. The $735 billion of deficit reduction from fiscal year 2009 to 2013 has been accomplished by and large through higher tax revenue. Specifically, more than 91 percent of the deficit reduction has stemmed from higher taxes, and less than 9 percent from reductions in spending. Less than 9 percent of deficit reduction stems from spending cuts is a far cry from the 75 percent or more that my friends on the other side of the aisle claim. Those claims are based on promises of future spending reductions and budget projections. Yes, those claims are based on carefully crafted budget baselines or yardsticks that my friends creatively construct. All of this is future, which we all know will never come to pass. But if we had enacted budgetary changes aimed at reducing deficits that involved anything near a 3-to-1 ratio of spending cuts to tax increases, then you would think it would have at least started to slow up over the past 4 fiscal years. As I said, however, it is not even close. Of course, some of the revenue increases have reflected the economy recovering from the recession to its current state, which by the way remains sluggish. But the 2013 numbers begin to reflect recent tax hikes, engineered by my friends on the other side of the aisle. Moving forward, we can expect even more revenue to be extracted from economy from tax hikes, including the higher tax rates that were passed last year in the fiscal cliff deal, along with the myriad of taxes included as part of the Affordable Care Act. We have already seen in fiscal year 2014 through February Federal tax revenues hitting a record high for the first 5 months of the fiscal year relative to a similar period of any past fiscal year. Yet, even as the revenue gushes in, my friends on the other side of the aisle want to double down with even more tax hikes. Let's not think for a minute that their demand for higher taxes has anything to do with reining in the deficit or reducing our debts. Instead, the proposals from Democrats are for even more spending, more redistribution, and an even more bigger government. The President's recent budget is exhibit No. 1. Of course, you will not hear it being called ``inefficient and wasteful government spending.'' No, you will hear about investments. You will not hear the term ``redistribution.'' No, you will hear about the wonderfully egalitarian goal of fairness, as judged by the norms of Democrats. You will not hear about big government controlling an outsized and increasing share of economic activity in our country. No, you will hear about how virtually every private sector company in virtually every sector of the economy acts abusively or out of greed, without regard for others, in search of tax loopholes to exploit to the detriment of the middle class. Once again, it is clear from the budget data already in the books over the past 4 fiscal years that the vast majority of deficit reduction, more than 91 percent of it, has come from increased revenue extracted from the private sector. Less than 9 percent has come from any kind of spending restraint. Those are facts. Those are the numbers on the books. Those data do not depend on CBO projections. They do not depend on picking a baseline. They do not rely on budget assumptions. What these numbers tell us is that virtually none of the so-called austerity or slashed spending that my friends on the other side of the aisle have pretended to endure have occurred in the real world. As we continue to hear from my friends on the other side of the aisle about how our budget challenge has faded away, and about the trillions and trillions of deficit reduction that has been accomplished through spending cuts, let's keep in mind our recent track record. That record is clear. I will say it again just to make sure the point is not lost on anyone. The spending restraint we have seen since the outside spending sprees in fiscal years 2009 and 2010 has been minor. The vast majority of deficit reduction we have seen to date, more than 91 percent of it has resulted from increased revenue. The past 4 fiscal years have shown no evidence of the ongoing promises of 3-to-1 spending cuts to tax hikes. We do not need to increase taxes yet again. We have already done that. We do not need to declare deficit and debt victory and turn the speeding spigots back on to maximum flow. Our fiscal challenge remains where it has been for some time now. We have unsustainable growth in our entitlement spending and we need to discuss and enact structural reforms to our entitlement programs in order to put them and our fiscal position on a more sustainable course. Democrats, of course, have other ideas. For instance, take a look at page 33 of the President's budget. The document discusses the future unsustainable deficits and debt and alludes to a large tax increase that is undefined. Here is what it says, ``Even with reforms to Medicare and other entitlements and tough choices . . . we will need additional revenue to maintain our commitments to seniors.'' As I said, my friends on the other side never tire of asking for more money from our American people--never tire of it. For example, both the President's budget and the budget proposed by Senate Democrats last year envisioned revenue increases of over $1 trillion. That apparently is their answer to the entitlement question--not reforms, not structural changes, but ``additional revenues.'' If you are going to try to fix our entitlement problems entirely on the revenue side of the ledger, it is going to take far more revenue than what my friends on the other side of the aisle have previously proposed. If that is the route they want to go, they should at least be honest with the American people about where the revenue will come from and who will be paying for it. The American people deserve to know. I think it is about time our friends on the other side explained it to them. Do not count on that. I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. FLAKE. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The Senator from Arizona. Mr. FLAKE. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Cuba Mr. FLAKE. Madam President, we heard news a week or so ago that the U.S. Government, through the Agency for International Development, was conducting a program in Cuba titled ZunZuneo. It was an attempt to set up a kind of alternative twitter account, and the intent was certainly noble--to increase access of ordinary Cubans to information that would help and assist them. I have no issue with programs such as this. I think overall they are good. The more we can have people have Internet access and meaningful content is good, but I and many others do have an issue with the Agency for International Development--USAID--undertaking this program. USAID's mission is to help with humanitarian needs and to promote democratic development around the world. It need not, should not, engage in covert--or in their case they are saying it wasn't covert, they are calling it discreet. Either way, it casts suspicion on other activities that USAID is undertaking around the world. USAID is in some very tough places around the world--delivering supplies into South Sudan, for example. We work with the people in Syria--not within the country but just outside the country. We work in many dangerous parts of the world, and the last thing we need is suspicion cast on USAID where people think it is an arm of the CIA. It just shouldn't be done. I think USAID does great work around the [[Page 6167]] world and shouldn't involve itself with work of this type. With regard to Cuba itself, as I said, I think our goal should be to make sure that Cubans are better informed, that we have increased contact, and that we have more American influence there. That could be most easily forwarded by simply allowing Americans to travel to Cuba. It is the only country in the world where we have a policy that you have to get a specific license--where only certain classes of people are allowed to go there. That simply makes no sense at all. If our goal is to make sure that Cuban people are aware of what is going on in the world, that they get real information outside of the government sources--the government in Cuba denies Cuban people the ability to get good, meaningful information--we ought to be all about making sure they have access to that, but the best way to do that is simply allowing Americans to travel there. We do that with other repressive regimes around the world. It has been said--I think Freedom House has Iran as the only government that is more restrictive, more authoritarian, and more repressive than the Cuban regime. Yet we allow Americans to travel to Iran. In Iran, the Iranian Government may restrict who may come in--as will the Cuban Government, I am sure, once we lift our travel ban there. But that ought to be their province. I have often said if someone is going to limit my travel, it should be a Communist government, not my government. As we review this program and as we talk about it in the coming weeks--we had a hearing this morning with the head of USAID testifying about it--I hope we simply keep in mind the best way to help the Cuban people to have access to information and to have contact with Americans, to be subject to American influence, freedom, and economic opportunity, is to allow Americans to travel freely there. That would do more than any program we could install, any program administered by USAID, the State Department, the CIA or anybody else--just allow Americans to travel to Cuba. Mr. DURBIN. Would the Senator yield for a question? Mr. FLAKE. I yield to the Senator. Mr. DURBIN. I will make a statement in the nature of a question since we discussed this this morning. We had a lengthy discussion in the Foreign Relations Committee about this twitter project, whatever it was, and whether it was wise--and I think it was the consensus of our committee--that if it opens up Cuban people to other ideas and more information, it is a positive thing. You and I discussed afterward the fact that there are other things we can do. I think you just alluded specifically to them on the floor, and I wanted to associate myself with your thinking on this and hope that after some 50-years-plus, some fresh thinking on our foreign policy in terms of Cuba may lead to what we ultimately want, and that is giving the Cuban people an opportunity to be part of a real democracy and have real freedoms. Isn't that right? Mr. FLAKE. It is. I thank the Senator. I suggest the absence of a quorum. Quorum Call The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll and the following Senators entered the Chamber and answered to their names: [Quorum No. 1 Ex.] Carper Durbin Flake Hirono Reid Tester Walsh Warren The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quorum is not present. The majority leader. Mr. REID. Madam President, I move to instruct the Sergeant at Arms to request the presence of absent Senators, and I ask for the yeas and nays. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second. The question is on agreeing to the motion. 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 Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) are necessarily absent. Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), and the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt). The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote? The result was announced--yeas 55, nays 37, as follows: [Rollcall Vote No. 107 Ex.] YEAS--55 Baldwin Begich Bennet Blumenthal Booker Brown Cantwell Cardin Carper Casey Coons Donnelly Durbin Feinstein Franken Gillibrand Hagan Harkin Heinrich Heitkamp Heller Hirono Johnson (SD) Kaine King Klobuchar Landrieu Leahy Levin Manchin McCaskill Menendez Merkley Mikulski Murphy Murray Nelson Pryor Reed Reid Rockefeller Sanders Schatz Schumer Shaheen Shelby Stabenow Tester Udall (CO) Udall (NM) Walsh Warner Warren Whitehouse Wyden NAYS--37 Alexander Ayotte Barrasso Boozman Chambliss Coats Cochran Collins Corker Cornyn Crapo Enzi Fischer Flake Graham Grassley Hatch Inhofe Isakson Johanns Johnson (WI) Kirk Lee McCain McConnell Murkowski Paul Portman Risch Roberts Rubio Scott Sessions Thune Toomey Vitter Wicker NOT VOTING--8 Blunt Boxer Burr Coburn Cruz Hoeven Markey Moran The motion was agreed to. The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quorum is present. The majority leader is recognized. Mr. REID. We are here this afternoon because Republicans are holding the confirmation of two important nominations. Earlier today the Senate voted to invoke cloture on Michelle Friedland to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. So the only question is, when will she be made a Federal judge in the Ninth Circuit. There are some who say that 30 hours should run. They can speak for themselves why they insist on doing so. There is no question it is not to debate the nomination. It is just to do nothing, to stand around here and do nothing. Few, if any, Senators have come to the floor to express any reason to oppose this good woman. She was nominated 9 months ago by President Obama. So it is time to confirm this well-qualified nominee. Enough stalling has taken place. She graduated second in her class at Stanford University Law School. She clerked for Sandra Day O'Connor in the Supreme Court. She has been a partner in a prominent law firm. The Ninth Circuit is the busiest circuit in the entire country. The Senate confirmed 18 of President Bush's circuit court nominees within a week of being reported out of committee. This woman, as I already indicated, was 13 months ago. We have 30 other judicial nominees pending on the calendar. We have 85 vacancies on the Federal courts. There is no reason to delay this nomination. There is no reason to delay the nomination of David Weil to lead the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor. He is a Boston University professor, a Harvard University researcher. I am sure it is a little difficult for people watching this to understand why Republicans are demanding that we waste time, because that is all it is. But I guess the American people have become accustomed to wasting time. That is what they have tried to do for 5 years. We have wasted time because of issues such as this. The staff has to be here. We have wasted so much time [[Page 6168]] that we could be working on important issues. The Republicans have come to the floor saying: We want amendments. The reason we don't deal with that kind of stuff is because we spend so much time on this. We have wasted thousands of hours during the 5 years, and that is very unfortunate. The Republicans are stalling so much. Unanimous Consent Request I ask unanimous consent that the time until 4:00 today be equally divided and controlled in the usual form; that at 4:00 p.m. all postcloture time be yielded back and the Senate proceed to vote, with no intervening action or debate, on Calendar No. 574; further, following disposition of the nomination, the Senate proceed to vote on cloture for Executive Calendar No. 623; if cloture is invoked, all postcloture time will be yielded back and the Senate will proceed to vote on confirmation of the nomination; that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to the nomination; that any statements related to the nomination be printed in the Record, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa. Mr. GRASSLEY. Reserving the right to object, and I would offer an alternative; but before I do that, I wish to say to my colleagues in the U.S. Senate that, first of all, there is controversy about this nominee. Let's make that clear. And second, the majority leader said maybe the people of this country don't really understand what is going on. They understand what is going on. We are working under the rules that the majority changed by ignoring the rules of the U.S. Senate in November. So as the majority leader knows, we have not yielded back postcloture time on judicial nominations since the so-called nuclear option was triggered last November. We have followed the rules of the U.S. Senate for regular order on all judges before the Senate in the last 5 months, just exactly the way the rules were changed in November. So there is 30 hours of postcloture debate on this nomination. Therefore, I would ask the consent request be modified so that the vote on confirmation would occur at 5:30 p.m., Monday, April 28, when we return from the April recess. This would allow the Senate to process the pending cloture nomination on the wage and hour nominee this afternoon and set that confirmation vote also for Monday, when we return on April 28. That is the alternative I offer to the majority. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the majority leader so modify his request? Mr. REID. I reserve my right to object. Madam President, obviously this is not a dissertation on logic, because if it were, why in the world would we want to waste 30 hours doing nothing? And that is what we are doing, 30 hours. I know my friend from Iowa has been on the Judiciary Committee a long time. I appreciate all he has done, but it is apparent the only reason the Senator from Iowa expresses delay is for delay itself, no other reason. Now, I may have missed it. There could have been someone talking about what a bad person she is or why she is not qualified, but I must have missed that. I heard little, if any, opposition. In fact, I have heard none for this nominee. I have heard only obstruction for obstruction's sake, delay for delay's sake. This has been going on for 5 years. It appears that the Senator wishes his caucus to be the caucus that ``just says no,'' and that is what they did here. So, Madam President, I object to the modification. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the original request? Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa. Mr. GRASSLEY. Reserving the right to object, and I will object, but to remind everybody, when the majority leader says that nothing is being done on judges, we have confirmed 233 judges and only disapproved the 2; so don't ever try to sell the American people on the idea that the Senate is not doing its work on getting judges approved. I object. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard. The majority leader. Mr. REID. As I indicated, this is something without logic. We have had a lot of judges approved after wasting hundreds of hours of time doing nothing. We have judges reported out of the Judiciary Committee unanimously, led by our good friend, the senior Senator from Vermont, the chairman of the Committee, who does such an admirable job. They were reported out unanimously, and they stall--the Republicans stall, delay, obstruct, and then we have a vote here and it passes very easily. Their only purpose for the delaying is for delay's sake. They are obstructing this as they have obstructed everything over the last 5 years. I know people complain about the rule change that was made. Where would we be in this country without having changed that rule? I got a letter today from Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, outlining nine important people in the Department of Defense who need to be confirmed. Most of the positions have been without anybody there for more than a year. We have numerous ambassadors to important countries around the world, and they are not being confirmed because they are being stalled. Why? Why could we not have these people go do their work? They have been nominated. Countries all over the world are without ambassadors from the United States. Where would we be if we had not changed that rule? Now we are slogging through these nominations. It is kind of slow because of the inordinate amount of time that we are caused to eat up. But the longer my friend from Iowa talks, the more reason there is that maybe we should have changed the rules more than we did. So, unless something changes, we will have a vote tomorrow at 5:00 p.m. We will have three votes here tomorrow at 5:00 p.m. on Friday. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky. Mr. McCONNELL. I think it is important to put all of this in context. My good friend, the majority leader, broke his word last year when he said we had settled the issue of what the rules were going to be for the Senate for this Congress. He then broke the Senate rules in order to change the Senate rules, setting a very unfortunate precedent, and continues to abuse the Senate rules by using the device called filling the tree to prevent Members of the Senate, from his party and from our party, from even offering alternatives. Despite this heavyhanded behavior, he expects the minority to simply expedite consideration of, in the case of the matter we are discussing, a lifetime appointment. As Senator Grassley has pointed out, we are simply exercising our rights under the rules of the Senate. I might say many of these nominees would have been confirmed last December had we not experienced this event perpetrated by the majority in a heavyhanded attempt to alter the balance, to change the nature of the Senate with a simple majority. It was an unfortunate decision, but those kinds of decisions have consequences. And all we have done here is exercise, as Senator Grassley pointed out, the rights that Senators have under the rules of the Senate. If the majority leader doesn't like the way the Senate is working, I would recommend that he change his behavior. You know, we don't have a rules problem. We have a behavior problem. We have had a couple of examples of trying to edge back to normal here, where we brought up a bill that was actually open for amendments, and amendments were processed from Members on both sides. But it seems of late we are back to the old Senate. All we are about is scoring partisan points and denying Members the opportunity to offer amendments. [[Page 6169]] I think most Members on both sides of the aisle came here to be Senators, which involves having your committee work taken seriously and having the opportunity to offer amendments taken seriously. This body-- when it was at its peak and operating the way it should under Members of majorities of both parties--has been a more civil place in which rights were respected. The Senator from Iowa--the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee--is pointing out that we are simply exercising our rights under the rules of the Senate. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Warren). The majority leader. Mr. REID. I am a patient man. At least I try to be. For my friend to come here and have the audacity to talk about my breaking my word--the trouble with that statement is that the whole Senate is here to see what happened. He said something and I said something. What he said was that we are not going to have all of these filibusters on motions to proceed. For the viewing audience, we wasted so much time just trying to get on a bill. It is not that easy. You have to file something in the Senate, and then you have to wait a day to get on the bill. If they object--and they object hundreds of times--it takes 2 days to get on the bill. Then we vote, wait 30 hours, and then we are only on the bill. To get off the bill, we have to go through that process all over again, and we have done that hundreds of times. There have been more filibusters on President Obama's judicial nominations than in the entire history of the country for other Presidents. We have been a country for a long time--roughly 240 years. There have been more filibusters for President Obama in the course of 5 years than for the previous 235 years. I went to New York and had the good fortune to watch a wonderful play--``All the Way''--about LBJ. That good man--during the time he was majority leader for 6 years--had to overcome one filibuster. As the majority leader in the Senate--because of the performance we have had over here--I had to overcome over 500 filibusters. This is for the country. It is not for me. We have been stymied on everything we have tried to do--everything. We know--it is public record now--that 3 days after Obama was elected the first time, a meeting was held here in Washington, and it has been written up all over the place. Karl Rove called the meeting with others. They made the decision that their goal was to make sure this man never got reelected. To the credit of the Republican leader, he said: Our goal is to make sure he is never reelected. Well, Obama surprised everybody--except us--and was overwhelmingly elected by the American people. They also said in that same meeting: The way we are going to stop him from being reelected is to object to everything, and that is what they have done. It is unprecedented in the history of our great Republic. I have been here a while. I know how people used to work together, but you can't work together if one side says no to everything. Once in a while we have had the good fortune to be able to piece together some work with the Republicans. It is getting harder and harder to do, but we have been able to get it done a few times. They have wasted the time of the American people. If there is an objection to this woman, then come to the floor and talk about what is wrong with her. She attended one of the finest law schools in America. A battle goes on every year, whether it is Harvard, Yale or Stanford, and they flip back and forth. It doesn't matter. She is a very fine academic. She clerked for one of the finest Supreme Court justices we have had in the history of the country--by the way, a Republican. What is wrong with her? What do we gain by holding this up? The country gains nothing. As I have indicated, we have about 140 nominations that are being held up over here. My friend, the Republican leader, said: Hey, listen, we would have approved them all in December anyway. Please. Who in the world thinks that there is a bit of creditability to that? I say to everybody that I am sorry. In 25 hours, I guess, we can come here to vote on these people. All we need is a majority, and that is the way it is. I am so sorry for the inconvenience to everyone, but the Republicans know that for them it is pretty easy. They can just walk out of here. They don't have to be here, but we do because it is our burden to run the country. They can walk away and take their little trips and go home. We are not going to be able to do that. We have to vote and approve these two people. We have a very good judge we need to approve. We have somebody for the Wage and Hour Division at the Department of Labor. That job has been vacant for a long, long time. Again, I am sorry for the inconvenience to Members, but we have an obligation. We have been elected to be Senators. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader. Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I have just a couple of brief observations that are relevant to the point. No. 1, we have approved more judges at this point for President Obama than President Bush had approved at the same time in his Presidency. No. 2, the majority leader has a curious definition of filibuster. The reason the majority leader has had difficulty getting onto bills is because as soon as we get on bills, there are no amendments allowed. Once you get past the motion to proceed--I would say to the people who may be listening and are not as deeply steeped in Senate rules--there is a 2-step process. You vote to get on a bill, and then you are on the bill. What happens is that once we get on the bill, the majority leader has made it impossible for Members of his party or ours to offer amendments more often than the last six leaders combined. In other words, he gets to decide whether anybody's amendments are considered--either on his side or our side. That is what has degraded the Senate. That is what has turned the Senate into looking more like the House. In fact, I am told of late that the House has voted on more amendments than the Senate. The assistant majority leader used to say--and he was quite right at the time--if you want to have a chance to vote, come to the Senate; that is what the Senate is about. That is not what it has been about in recent times. All that is really required to get the Senate back to normal is for the one Member of the Senate who has the right of prior recognition and the right to set the agenda to open the Senate and let Members of both parties offer amendments. When we used to be in the majority, I would tell our Members that the price of being in the majority is you have to give the minority their votes. It is an unpleasant experience for us, but that is the way the Senate operates, and that is the way you move a bill to completion. There were a couple of times this year when it looked like we were going to get back to normal. I still hope it is not too late for that. It would be in the best interests of the institution and the best interest of both the majority and minority to begin to restore the institution to the way it used to operate. Mr. REID addressed the Chair. Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I believe I have the floor. Do I have the floor? Mr. REID. I have the floor. The Senator yielded the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader had not yet yielded the floor. Mr. REID. I apologize. Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, if the Senator would yield for a question. Mr. McCONNELL. I am happy to yield for a question. Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, the majority leader said that there is urgent work the Senate needs to turn to, which is why we ought to amend the ordinary rules of the Senate which call for a 30-hour postcloture period. I ask the distinguished Republican leader if he is aware of any urgent work that the majority leader has planned for us to turn to that would be a reason to expedite this particular nomination? [[Page 6170]] Mr. McCONNELL. I am sure the majority leader will announce at some point what we are going to do next, but I am not quite sure what that is at this particular point. Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, if the Senator will yield for another question, I ask the distinguished Republican leader if he is aware--and I am confident he is--that the majority leader and other leaders of his party had a press conference last week, I believe it was, announcing their agenda from this point through the election in November, which involved issues such as the vote we had yesterday, the vote on the increase in the minimum wage, the vote on extending long-term unemployment, and the like. I believe there was a quote in the article--if the Senator will remember like I do--that basically said: We are not interested in legislating. We are just basically interested in posturing and politics to help distract the American people from the unpopularity of this President's policies and this party's policies. Does the Senator remember something to that effect? Mr. McCONNELL. I do. The Senator from Texas is entirely correct. There was a rather candid admission at a press conference that the whole agenda was basically crafted by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and that getting an outcome was sort of irrelevant. It was mainly about scoring political points for the fall election here on the floor of the Senate. If that is one of the urgent items the majority leader has in mind that would somehow be prevented if we had a vote on this judge on the Monday after the recess, it is perplexing to reach the conclusion that this is a matter of great urgency for the American people if there is no interest whatsoever in getting an outcome. Mr. McCONNELL. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader. Mr. REID. Madam President, I have heard my friend the Republican leader come to the floor often and say: Why don't we work on Fridays? Most people work on Fridays. I want to make sure I am right, but I have not seen or heard a single Republican come to the floor and say a single word about the nominee of the Ninth Circuit--positive or negative. They have not said a single word. A lot of words are being thrown about here--posturing. I wonder if somebody who is a long-term unemployed worker, someone who has been out of work a long time--I will give a profile of someone. Not everybody fits this description. Let's take the example of somebody who is 55 years old and was laid off because of the recession and can't find a job because he or she is overqualified, overeducated--lots of different issues as to why they can't find work. We decided that it was important that they get an unemployment benefit extension. About 2 million people agree with that for sure because they are the ones who lost those benefits. I don't think that is posturing. We voted on that, and it passed here. I think we had to have five cloture votes to get there. But because of some very strong- willed Republicans, we were able to do that, and I admire those five who joined with us. They didn't want to do it by name. They said something we did yesterday. That something that we did yesterday said that if a woman works the same job that a man works, that woman should be paid the same as a man. Is that posturing? I don't think so. My daughter doesn't think so and my granddaughters don't think so. They think it is pretty fair. More than half of the people who are going to college now are women. Over half of the people in medical school and law school are women. Shouldn't they be paid the same as men? Is that posturing? I don't think so. Again, there is diversion and distraction from the issue at hand. They wanted to offer amendments, and one was a 350-page amendment that covered everything. In fact, I said it even included the kitchen sink. They are not serious about this. They only want to move from what we are trying to do. Do we have anything urgent to do when we get back? If we didn't have to go through all of this nonsense--and that is what it is--we would be voting today on minimum wage. That vote would help 1 million people get out of poverty and 26 million people would get a raise. Why did we pick the number of $10.10 an hour? Because that gets people out of poverty. It is really important that we understand that this is part of the mantra of the program that Karl Rove and others decided they would do 5 years or more ago, and that is to oppose everything that President Obama has done. You cannot talk about what went on before because never in the history of our great Republic have we had a party--a minority party-- determined to do nothing in the hope that it will get them the majority in November. We will find out if their noble experiment works; that is, oppose everything and people will like us a lot. I don't think that is going to work. We are here to do the work of the American people. Is it right that we have more than 100 people who are being held up for no reason other than they want to make sure that if we have somebody who is going to be a circuit court judge, we have to file cloture--that is 2 days--and then we have 30 hours, and then we have--simply moving to a piece of legislation, we waste a week getting to it because of their obstruction and delay. So it is unfortunate. My friends talk about all the great things they have done. I will tell my colleagues the great things they have done. I can give lots of examples. We tried to do a highway bill--a highway bill--which is important for this country. We have a deficit in infrastructure of $3 trillion. It wasn't much better a couple of years ago. So we brought that bill to the floor, and we had this great amendment process. They wanted to debate amendments. What did they do? They wanted to stop women from getting contraceptives. That held up things for a month--a month--before they finally got some sense and withdrew that. The Republicans made a decision a little more than 5 years ago to oppose everything President Obama wanted or tried to do, and they have stuck with that. It has not been good for the country, and we have situations just like we have here. (Mr. SCHATZ assumed the Chair.) Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, would the Senator yield for a question? Mr. REID. Sure. Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, the majority leader says there is important work for the Senate to do, and I can think of one urgent thing we could do today if the majority leader would consent. The House has passed the reauthorization of the Debbie Smith Act. To remind colleagues, this is money Congress appropriated to the Department of Justice for grants to local law enforcement agencies and forensic labs to test unprocessed rape kits. This is a national scandal, the number of unprocessed rape kits which have prevented law enforcement from identifying a serial perpetrator of sexual assault, many sometimes not just involving adults but also children. The House has passed the reauthorization of that bill. All it takes is for the majority leader and the Senate to consent to take up that bill today and pass it to get it to the President's desk. I think that, perhaps, is the most important and most urgent thing we could be doing right now. So I ask the majority leader if he would consent to taking up that bill and passing it in the Senate right now. Mr. REID. Mr. President, the committee, of which I am almost certain my friend is a member--the Judiciary Committee; is that right? Mr. CORNYN. I am on the Judiciary Committee. Mr. REID. He is also a former supreme court justice of Texas. They have reported the bill out of the Judiciary Committee, and my friend was part of that reporting situation. Part of what they reported out has the Debbie Smith language in it, but it has more stuff in it than just that. So I would be happy to take a look at that. We can talk to the chair of the committee and the ranking member, who is on the floor here today, and if they would be willing to separate this stuff [[Page 6171]] here and have it rather than what was reported out of the committee-- they can take a look at this. Senator Leahy was on the floor. He is not here now, but I would be happy to take a look at that. Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, if I may ask one more question of the majority leader, one final question. Mr. REID. I am sorry, I didn't hear that. Mr. CORNYN. Will the majority leader yield for one last question? Mr. REID. Yes. But before doing that, I have just been informed that this bill that was reported out of the committee on which the senior Senator from Texas serves--we have cleared it on our side. If they want to clear it today, we will get this out today. All they have to do is clear it on their side. We have cleared it. Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, if I could ask the majority leader through the Chair, there is the Justice for All Act which, as the leader points out, includes things other than the Debbie Smith Act, which has not cleared the Senate, which, if it did clear the Senate, would include the Debbie Smith Act. That would be a positive development. There is a separate bill--if the Justice for All Act is not cleared, there is a separate bill which would reauthorize the Debbie Smith Act which has passed the House. So we could take up just the Debbie Smith reauthorization that the House has passed and get that done today, which I would urge the majority leader to consider, if we can't clear the larger bill, the Justice For All Act. But, frankly, I would be happy with either one. But if we could just do the Debbie Smith Act today, I think we could call that great progress and a great win for justice and for some of these people who have been waiting too long for the law enforcement community to be able to identify the perpetrators and get these folks off the street. Mr. REID. The bill that 55 Senators have cleared over here is a bill to protect crime victims' rights, to eliminate the substantial backlog of DNA samples collected from crime scenes and convicted offenders, to improve and expand the DNA testing capacity of Federal, State, and local crime laboratories, to increase research and development of new DNA testing technologies, to develop new training programs regarding the collection and use of DNA evidence, to provide postconviction testing of DNA evidence to exonerate the innocent, to improve the performance of counsel in State capital cases, and for other purposes. We will pass that right now. We are happy to do it. Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, if I may respond to the majority leader, the bill he is referring to is the Justice for All Act, which I support. But there has been some reason why that bill has not come to the floor and received floor time. I am worried that if we wait to pass that, we will delay the passage of the Debbie Smith Act, which is a component of that act, which we could take up, having passed the House, and we could take that up today and then deal with the Justice for All Act in due course. So I ask the majority leader if he would grant unanimous consent to take up and pass the House-passed reauthorization of the Debbie Smith Act, and I ask unanimous consent to that effect. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader. Mr. REID. This is what we deal with here. We have a piece of legislation that has been reported out of the committee. It has been cleared by the Democrats here in the Senate, and the Republicans are now saying: Well, we like that, but we don't want to do it that way; let's do it some other way. The point is the committee met and reviewed the House legislation and decided they wanted to do more than what the House did. I think we should go forward with what the committee says. I hear my friend the Republican leader and other Republican Senators say: Let's have the committees do their work. They have done their work. We approved their work. We are ready to pass this right now, which includes the Debbie Smith language but does a lot more. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican whip. Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I asked the distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary Committee to remind me what the challenge is with the Justice for All Act. We have a Member on our side who is unfortunately not here today because of medical concerns who has concerns about that bill, so we cannot pass that bill by unanimous consent over that Senator's objection. What we can pass is the Debbie Smith Act, which is a piece of this. There is no objection to that, that I know of. Then we could get this rape kit issue addressed today, while we take up the concerns of the absent Senator, who is necessarily not here because of medical issues, when he returns and when the Senate returns. So I would reiterate my unanimous consent request that the Senate take up and pass by unanimous consent the House-passed Debbie Smith Act. Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, more diversion and delay. The Judiciary Committee took what the House did, reviewed it, and said: We can do better. It is here on the floor right now. Now they are saying: Even though the Judiciary Committee did it--and we are being told all the time to let the committees do their work--we don't like what they did. Let them do something else. The Debbie Smith Act is important, but the Justice for All Act is a lot better than that. Why don't we approve that? The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Mr. REID. Yes, I object. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, the majority leader thinks this is a zero sum game. This could be a win-win. Debbie Smith, whom I have met and I daresay virtually every Member of this body knows, is a passionate advocate for this cause, hence the naming of this statute, this law, on her behalf. She recognized that these unprocessed rape kits are a national scandal and that people like her who had been victims of sexual assault needed help from the Federal Government to help provide funds to local law enforcement agencies to test and process these kits so as to identify the perpetrators and get them off the street. So what Debbie Smith has asked me and I daresay the majority leader and all of us to do is to take up this piece of the bill. We can do that, and I think we will have done a good thing today. If we can't take up the Justice for All Act because of other concerns people have-- this shouldn't be a zero sum game. We could pass the Debbie Smith Act today, and then we could take up the Justice for All Act when we return following the recess. It doesn't have to be a zero sum game. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader. Mr. REID. This has been cleared on this side for more than 2 weeks-- more than 2 weeks. This is what is going on in the Senate. The Republicans basically oppose everything. That is what they decided they were going to do, and they do it. And they come back and say: We reported this out of the committee. I read what is in it. It is a very good piece of legislation. But they said: We don't like that. Let's forget about the committee process and do something with what the House did. We have a committee structure here that I have tried to follow. I admire the work done by Senator Leahy. He led this piece of legislation out of his committee. I accept it and I approve it, as do all other 54 Democratic Senators. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia. Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. ____________________ DIGITAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY ACT OF 2013 Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I originally was going to engage in a colloquy [[Page 6172]] with Senator Portman on a very important piece of legislation that we, Senator Coburn, and Senator Carper, were working on for 2 years, and he will come back. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 337, S. 994. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title. The assistant bill clerk read as follows: A bill (S. 994) to expand the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 to increase accountability and transparency in Federal spending, and for other purposes. There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill. Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment be withdrawn; the Carper substitute amendment, which is at the desk, be considered; the Carper amendment at the desk be agreed to; the Carper substitute, as amended, be agreed to; and the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, with no intervening action or debate. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The amendment (No. 2970) in the nature of a substitute is printed in the Record of Wednesday, April 9, 2014, under ``Text of Amendments.'') The amendment (No. 2971) was agreed to, as follows: (Purpose: To allow the Secretary of Defense to request an extension to report financial and payment information data) On page 9, strike lines 17 through 21 and insert the following: ``(2) Agencies.-- ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), not later than 2 years after the date on which the guidance under paragraph (1) is issued, each Federal agency shall report financial and payment information data in accordance with the data standards established under subsection (a). ``(B) Noninterference with auditability of department of defense financial statements.-- ``(i) In general.--Upon request by the Secretary of Defense, the Director may grant an extension of the deadline under subparagraph (A) to the Department of Defense for a period of not more than 6 months to report financial and payment information data in accordance with the data standards established under subsection (a). ``(ii) Limitation.--The Director may not grant more than 3 extensions to the Secretary of Defense under clause (i). ``(iii) Notification.--The Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall notify the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives of-- ``(I) each grant of an extension under clause (i); and ``(II) the reasons for granting such an extension. The amendment (No. 2970), in the nature of a substitute, as amended, was agreed to. The bill (S. 994), as amended, was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was read the third time, and passed, as follows: S. 994 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ``Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014'' or the ``DATA Act''. SEC. 2. PURPOSES. The purposes of this Act are to-- (1) expand the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (31 U.S.C. 6101 note) by disclosing direct Federal agency expenditures and linking Federal contract, loan, and grant spending information to programs of Federal agencies to enable taxpayers and policy makers to track Federal spending more effectively; (2) establish Government-wide data standards for financial data and provide consistent, reliable, and searchable Government-wide spending data that is displayed accurately for taxpayers and policy makers on USASpending.gov (or a successor system that displays the data); (3) simplify reporting for entities receiving Federal funds by streamlining reporting requirements and reducing compliance costs while improving transparency; (4) improve the quality of data submitted to USASpending.gov by holding Federal agencies accountable for the completeness and accuracy of the data submitted; and (5) apply approaches developed by the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board to spending across the Federal Government. SEC. 3. AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL FUNDING ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY ACT OF 2006. The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (31 U.S.C. 6101 note) is amended-- (1) in section 2-- (A) in subsection (a)-- (i) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking ``this section'' and inserting ``this Act''; (ii) by redesignating paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) as paragraphs (2), (4), and (7), respectively; (iii) by inserting before paragraph (2), as so redesignated, the following: ``(1) Director.--The term `Director' means the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.''; (iv) by inserting after paragraph (2), as so redesignated, the following: ``(3) Federal agency.--The term `Federal agency' has the meaning given the term `Executive agency' under section 105 of title 5, United States Code.''; (v) by inserting after paragraph (4), as so redesignated, the following: ``(5) Object class.--The term `object class' means the category assigned for purposes of the annual budget of the President submitted under section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, to the type of property or services purchased by the Federal Government. ``(6) Program activity.--The term `program activity' has the meaning given that term under section 1115(h) of title 31, United States Code.''; and (vi) by adding at the end the following: ``(8) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary of the Treasury.''; (B) in subsection (b)-- (i) in paragraph (3), by striking ``of the Office of Management and Budget''; and (ii) in paragraph (4), by striking ``of the Office of Management and Budget''; (C) in subsection (c)-- (i) in paragraph (4), by striking ``and'' at the end; (ii) in paragraph (5), by striking the period at the end and inserting a semicolon; and (iii) by adding at the end the following: ``(6) shall have the ability to aggregate data for the categories described in paragraphs (1) through (5) without double-counting data; and ``(7) shall ensure that all information published under this section is available-- ``(A) in machine-readable and open formats; ``(B) to be downloaded in bulk; and ``(C) to the extent practicable, for automated processing.''; (D) in subsection (d)-- (i) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking ``of the Office of Management and Budget''; (ii) in paragraph (2)-- (I) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``of the Office of Management and Budget''; and (II) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``of the Office of Management and Budget''; (E) in subsection (e), by striking ``of the Office of Management and Budget''; and (F) in subsection (g)-- (i) in paragraph (1), by striking ``of the Office of Management and Budget''; and (ii) in paragraph (3), by striking ``of the Office of Management and Budget''; and (2) by striking sections 3 and 4 and inserting the following: ``SEC. 3. FULL DISCLOSURE OF FEDERAL FUNDS. ``(a) In General.--Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014, and monthly when practicable but not less than quarterly thereafter, the Secretary, in consultation with the Director, shall ensure that the information in subsection (b) is posted on the website established under section 2. ``(b) Information To Be Posted.--For any funds made available to or expended by a Federal agency or component of a Federal agency, the information to be posted shall include-- ``(1) for each appropriations account, including an expired or unexpired appropriations account, the amount-- ``(A) of budget authority appropriated; ``(B) that is obligated; ``(C) of unobligated balances; and ``(D) of any other budgetary resources; ``(2) from which accounts and in what amount-- ``(A) appropriations are obligated for each program activity; and ``(B) outlays are made for each program activity; ``(3) from which accounts and in what amount-- ``(A) appropriations are obligated for each object class; and ``(B) outlays are made for each object class; and ``(4) for each program activity, the amount-- ``(A) obligated for each object class; and ``(B) of outlays made for each object class. ``SEC. 4. DATA STANDARDS. ``(a) In General.-- ``(1) Establishment of standards.--The Secretary and the Director, in consultation with the heads of Federal agencies, shall establish Government-wide financial data standards for any Federal funds made available to or expended by Federal agencies and entities receiving Federal funds. [[Page 6173]] ``(2) Data elements.--The financial data standards established under paragraph (1) shall include common data elements for financial and payment information required to be reported by Federal agencies and entities receiving Federal funds. ``(b) Requirements.--The data standards established under subsection (a) shall, to the extent reasonable and practicable-- ``(1) incorporate widely accepted common data elements, such as those developed and maintained by-- ``(A) an international voluntary consensus standards body; ``(B) Federal agencies with authority over contracting and financial assistance; and ``(C) accounting standards organizations; ``(2) incorporate a widely accepted, nonproprietary, searchable, platform-independent computer-readable format; ``(3) include unique identifiers for Federal awards and entities receiving Federal awards that can be consistently applied Government-wide; ``(4) be consistent with and implement applicable accounting principles; ``(5) be capable of being continually upgraded as necessary; ``(6) produce consistent and comparable data, including across program activities; and ``(7) establish a standard method of conveying the reporting period, reporting entity, unit of measure, and other associated attributes. ``(c) Deadlines.-- ``(1) Guidance.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014, the Director and the Secretary shall issue guidance to Federal agencies on the data standards established under subsection (a). ``(2) Agencies.-- ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), not later than 2 years after the date on which the guidance under paragraph (1) is issued, each Federal agency shall report financial and payment information data in accordance with the data standards established under subsection (a). ``(B) Noninterference with auditability of department of defense financial statements.-- ``(i) In general.--Upon request by the Secretary of Defense, the Director may grant an extension of the deadline under subparagraph (A) to the Department of Defense for a period of not more than 6 months to report financial and payment information data in accordance with the data standards established under subsection (a). ``(ii) Limitation.--The Director may not grant more than 3 extensions to the Secretary of Defense under clause (i). ``(iii) Notification.--The Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall notify the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives of-- ``(I) each grant of an extension under clause (i); and ``(II) the reasons for granting such an extension. ``(3) Website.--Not later than 3 years after the date on which the guidance under paragraph (1) is issued, the Director and the Secretary shall ensure that the data standards established under subsection (a) are applied to the data made available on the website established under section 2. ``(d) Consultation.--The Director and the Secretary shall consult with public and private stakeholders in establishing data standards under this section. ``SEC. 5. SIMPLIFYING FEDERAL AWARD REPORTING. ``(a) In General.--The Director, in consultation with relevant Federal agencies, recipients of Federal awards, including State and local governments, and institutions of higher education (as defined in section 102 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1002)), shall review the information required to be reported by recipients of Federal awards to identify-- ``(1) common reporting elements across the Federal Government; ``(2) unnecessary duplication in financial reporting; and ``(3) unnecessarily burdensome reporting requirements for recipients of Federal awards. ``(b) Pilot Program.-- ``(1) Establishment.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014, the Director, or a Federal agency designated by the Director, shall establish a pilot program (in this section referred to as the `pilot program') with the participation of appropriate Federal agencies to facilitate the development of recommendations for-- ``(A) standardized reporting elements across the Federal Government; ``(B) the elimination of unnecessary duplication in financial reporting; and ``(C) the reduction of compliance costs for recipients of Federal awards. ``(2) Requirements.--The pilot program shall-- ``(A) include a combination of Federal contracts, grants, and subawards, the aggregate value of which is not less than $1,000,000,000 and not more than $2,000,000,000; ``(B) include a diverse group of recipients of Federal awards; and ``(C) to the extent practicable, include recipients who receive Federal awards from multiple programs across multiple agencies. ``(3) Data collection.--The pilot program shall include data collected during a 12-month reporting cycle. ``(4) Reporting and evaluation requirements.--Each recipient of a Federal award participating in the pilot program shall submit to the Office of Management and Budget or the Federal agency designated under paragraph (1), as appropriate, any requested reports of the selected Federal awards. ``(5) Termination.--The pilot program shall terminate on the date that is 2 years after the date on which the pilot program is established. ``(6) Report to congress.--Not later than 90 days after the date on which the pilot program terminates under paragraph (5), the Director shall submit to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and the Committee on the Budget of the Senate and the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and the Committee on the Budget of the House of Representatives a report on the pilot program, which shall include-- ``(A) a description of the data collected under the pilot program, the usefulness of the data provided, and the cost to collect the data from recipients; and ``(B) a discussion of any legislative action required and recommendations for-- ``(i) consolidating aspects of Federal financial reporting to reduce the costs to recipients of Federal awards; ``(ii) automating aspects of Federal financial reporting to increase efficiency and reduce the costs to recipients of Federal awards; ``(iii) simplifying the reporting requirements for recipients of Federal awards; and ``(iv) improving financial transparency. ``(7) Government-wide implementation.--Not later than 1 year after the date on which the Director submits the report under paragraph (6), the Director shall issue guidance to the heads of Federal agencies as to how the Government-wide financial data standards established under section 4(a) shall be applied to the information required to be reported by entities receiving Federal awards to-- ``(A) reduce the burden of complying with reporting requirements; and ``(B) simplify the reporting process, including by reducing duplicative reports. ``SEC. 6. ACCOUNTABILITY FOR FEDERAL FUNDING. ``(a) Inspector General Reports.-- ``(1) In general.--In accordance with paragraph (2), the Inspector General of each Federal agency, in consultation with the Comptroller General of the United States, shall-- ``(A) review a statistically valid sampling of the spending data submitted under this Act by the Federal agency; and ``(B) submit to Congress and make publically available a report assessing the completeness, timeliness, quality, and accuracy of the data sampled and the implementation and use of data standards by the Federal agency. ``(2) Deadlines.-- ``(A) First report.--Not later than 18 months after the date on which the Director and the Secretary issue guidance to Federal agencies under section 4(c)(1), the Inspector General of each Federal agency shall submit and make publically available a report as described in paragraph (1). ``(B) Subsequent reports.--On the same date as the Inspector General of each Federal agency submits the second and fourth reports under sections 3521(f) and 9105(a)(3) of title 31, United States Code, that are submitted after the report under subparagraph (A), the Inspector General shall submit and make publically available a report as described in paragraph (1). The report submitted under this subparagraph may be submitted as a part of the report submitted under section 3521(f) or 9105(a)(3) of title 31, United States Code. ``(b) Comptroller General Reports.-- ``(1) In general.--In accordance with paragraph (2) and after a review of the reports submitted under subsection (a), the Comptroller General of the United States shall submit to Congress and make publically available a report assessing and comparing the data completeness, timeliness, quality, and accuracy of the data submitted under this Act by Federal agencies and the implementation and use of data standards by Federal agencies. ``(2) Deadlines.--Not later than 30 months after the date on which the Director and the Secretary issue guidance to Federal agencies under section 4(c)(1), and every 2 years thereafter until the date that is 4 years after the date on which the first report is submitted under this subsection, the Comptroller General of the United States shall submit and make publically available a report as described in paragraph (1). ``(c) Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board Data Analysis Center.-- ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may establish a data analysis center or expand an existing service to provide data, analytic tools, and data management techniques to support-- ``(A) the prevention and reduction of improper payments by Federal agencies; and [[Page 6174]] ``(B) improving efficiency and transparency in Federal spending. ``(2) Data availability.--The Secretary shall enter into memoranda of understanding with Federal agencies, including Inspectors General and Federal law enforcement agencies-- ``(A) under which the Secretary may provide data from the data analysis center for-- ``(i) the purposes set forth under paragraph (1); ``(ii) the identification, prevention, and reduction of waste, fraud, and abuse relating to Federal spending; and ``(iii) use in the conduct of criminal and other investigations; and ``(B) which may require the Federal agency, Inspector General, or Federal law enforcement agency to provide reimbursement to the Secretary for the reasonable cost of carrying out the agreement. ``(3) Transfer.--Upon the establishment of a data analysis center or the expansion of a service under paragraph (1), and on or before the date on which the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board terminates, and in addition to any other transfer that the Director determines is necessary under section 1531 of title 31, United States Code, there are transferred to the Department of the Treasury all assets identified by the Secretary that support the operations and activities of the Recovery Operations Center of the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board relating to the detection of waste, fraud, and abuse in the use of Federal funds that are in existence on the day before the transfer. ``SEC. 7. CLASSIFIED AND PROTECTED INFORMATION. ``Nothing in this Act shall require the disclosure to the public of-- ``(1) information that would be exempt from disclosure under section 552 of title 5, United States Code (commonly known as the `Freedom of Information Act'); or ``(2) information protected under section 552a of title 5, United States Code (commonly known as the `Privacy Act of 1974'), or section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. ``SEC. 8. NO PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION. ``Nothing in this Act shall be construed to create a private right of action for enforcement of any provision of this Act.''. SEC. 4. EXECUTIVE AGENCY ACCOUNTING AND OTHER FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT REPORTS AND PLANS. Section 3512(a)(1) of title 31, United States Code, is amended by inserting ``and make available on the website described under section 1122'' after ``appropriate committees of Congress''. SEC. 5. DEBT COLLECTION IMPROVEMENT. Section 3716(c)(6) of title 31, United States Code, is amended-- (1) by inserting ``(A)'' before ``Any Federal agency''; (2) in subparagraph (A), as so designated, by striking ``180 days'' and inserting ``120 days''; and (3) by adding at the end the following: ``(B) The Secretary of the Treasury shall notify Congress of any instance in which an agency fails to notify the Secretary as required under subparagraph (A).''. Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, after the last exchange, I would point out that the Senate now has acted on a very important piece of legislation that has been 2 years in the works, that actually does reflect the ability for us to come together in a bipartisan consensus. So I rise today to discuss the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act--or DATA Act--an important bill that makes sure taxpayers and policymakers can track every dollar the Federal Government spends. It is pretty unbelievable that in this day and age, we don't have an easily accessible Web site for tracking every Federal tax dollar. Believe it or not, we do not. Instead, we have an incomplete and thoroughly confusing structure of financial reporting which most people can't understand. I have served in business. I have served as Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia. So I have done business accounting and State government accounting. There is nothing like Federal Government accounting and the lack of standards and transparency. Our taxpayers deserve to know where their money goes, and it is our obligation to share that information in a clear and direct way. Today, Senator Portman and I, originally, along with Senator Coburn and Senator Carper, rise--and now that the Senate has acted, we are actually taking a giant step to correct that problem and to make sure taxpayers actually get the transparency they deserve. Since the Federal Government spends more than $3.7 trillion each year, with more than $1 trillion in awards, accurately tracking these funds in a consistent way can definitely be a big job. But the data collected by the budget shops, the accountants, the procurement officers, the grant makers should be combined and reconciled and then presented in a relevant, user-friendly, and transparent way. The various systems should be able to work together based on consistent financial standards so that policymakers and the public can track the full cycle of Federal spending. In a word, the public should be able to ``Wikipedia'' where and how the Federal Government spends its money, and quite honestly, that is what the DATA Act will do. The DATA Act will make four important improvements that I want to quickly highlight. First, it creates transparency for all Federal funds. The DATA Act will expand the current site of usaspending.gov to include spending data for all Federal funds by appropriation, Federal agency, program, function, as well as maintain the current reporting for Federal awards like contracts, grants, and loans. Second--and this is a giant step forward; we are not going to get all the way there--we are starting down this path of setting government- wide financial data standards. We closely monitored the efforts to increase transparency for the Recovery Act funds a few years back, and one reason--even for folks who did not like the Recovery Act--that oversight was successful is because they had consistent standards for reporting the data. Our taxpayers were able to see where the funds and projects were located in their communities. So the DATA Act requires the Department of the Treasury to establish government-wide financial data standards for Federal agencies so that every term reported is consistent across the Federal Government. This should clearly improve the quality of data. Too often we see an item appear in one area as a grant and in another area as an expenditure. Trying to sort through what's what is virtually impossible. This part of the DATA Act will help clear that up. Third, so we do not simply layer on additional reporting requirements without greater accountability, it actually reduces recipient reporting requirements. The DATA Act requires OMB to review the established reporting requirements for contracts, grants, and loans to reduce compliance costs based on these new financial data standards. I have long been concerned--and I know many of my colleagues on both side of the aisle--about the compliance costs for recipients of Federal funds. Too often a grantee has to report not once or twice but sometimes up to a half dozen times the exact same information. We have seen this in Virginia with many of our universities, such as UVA, where they actually have to report multiple times the same information to multiple agencies. If all this redundancy were streamlined, recipients such as the University of Virginia or the University of Tennessee could actually direct more money to programs and less to administrative costs. Fourth, it improves data quality. Under the DATA Act, the inspectors general at each agency will be required to provide a report every 2 years on the quality and accuracy of the financial data provided to usaspending.gov. The GAO will create a government-wide report on data quality and accuracy. Too often the data that is reported at this point does not meet appropriate standards. We must have a reliable system in place to track Federal funds and compare spending across Federal agencies to get the best value for taxpayers and reduce duplication. In fact, in the GAO's annual report on duplication released this week, it highlighted the need for better data and specifically called out the limitations. GAO described a ``lack of reliable budget and performance information and a comprehensive list of federal programs'' as one of the biggest challenges in addressing duplication. I know many of the Members, when I started talking about data standards and better accountability, headed for the exists. I recognize this is not a topic that necessarily excites folks. [[Page 6175]] But I see my colleague, the Senator from Tennessee, on the floor--a former Governor, as was I. If we are going to get better value for our taxpayers, we have to start with good data, we have to start with a better ability to monitor that data and follow it. In a world where people can Google all kinds of information, we ought to be able to follow the money in terms of where our taxpayer dollars head. We ought to make sure the recipients of those taxpayer grants can report that information in a single, consistent, and clear way. Policymakers and taxpayers should be able to assess the value of the dollars we invest in these programs. This has been a long and winding path. As a relatively new Member of the Senate--and I hear some of the debates about some of the old days in the Senate--I am not sure I was here in the old days. But this is a case where, after a 2-year period, working with Members of the House-- Chairman Issa and Ranking Member Cummings in the House--and working in the Senate with Senator Carper and Senator Coburn--Senator Coburn who is out today for health reasons--and my colleague who joined with me in pushing this bill from day one, Senator Portman--who, if time allows, will get back from a speech to add his comments as well--I would like to thank these Members. I would also like to thank all of the Senate cosponsors for their support of the DATA Act, including members of our Budget Committee, the Government Performance Task Force that I chair. I would like to thank in particular Senators Coons, Whitehouse, Ayotte, Johnson, and our Budget Committee Chairman Patty Murray, and my staff, Amy Edwards, and all the others who have been relentless on working this through with other committees and the administration to make sure we got this bill done. So while we may not have resolved all the issues of the day, today the Senate acted in a unanimous, bipartisan way to actually provide better value for taxpayers, more transparency, and less bureaucracy. I would say for a Thursday afternoon--with all the other discussion going on--work well done. With that, I yield the floor. ____________________ NOMINATION OF MICHELLE T. FRIEDLAND TO BE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT--Continued The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee. Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from North Carolina and I be allowed to engage in a colloquy for 20 minutes, and following that the Senator from Iowa be recognized. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Student Athletes Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, the Senator from North Carolina and I were both involved in intercollegiate athletics. He was a scholarship athlete at Wake Forest University and I was a nonscholarship track person at Vanderbilt University several years before that. We are here today to make a few comments on the recent ruling by a regional director of the National Labor Relations Board that defines student athletes as employees of the university. It affects only private universities for now--not the University of Tennessee. But it would affect Wake Forest, where the Senator from North Carolina was an outstanding football player, and it would affect Vanderbilt, where I attended. I guess our message to the NCAA and intercollegiate athletes is: We hope they will understand the opinion of one regional director of the National Labor Relations Board is not the opinion of the entire Federal Government. That is the message I would like to deliver. I would refer back--and then I will go to the Senator from North Carolina--to 25 years ago, when I was the president of the University of Tennessee, and I was asked to serve on the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics. It was headed by the president of North Carolina, Bill Friday, and the head of Notre Dame, Father Hesburgh--a pretty distinguished group of individuals from around the country--to take a look at intercollegiate athletics. The major conclusion they came to was that presidents need to assert more institutional control over athletics. But here is something that this group of university presidents and others emphasized. They said: We reject the argument that the only realistic solution to the problem [of intercollegiate athletics]-- And there have always been some-- is to drop the student-athlete concept, put athletes on the payroll, and reduce or even eliminate their responsibilities as students. Such a scheme has nothing to do with education, the purpose for which colleges and universities exist. Scholarship athletes are already paid in the most meaningful way possible: with a free education. The idea of intercollegiate athletics is that the teams represent their institutions as true members of the student body, not as hired hands. Surely American higher education has the ability to devise a better solution to the problems of intercollegiate athletics than making professionals out of the players, which is no solution at all but rather an unacceptable surrender to despair. This was the Knight Commission 25 years ago. I would ask the Senator from North Carolina, does he not think that while there may be some issues with intercollegiate athletics--and we could talk about what some of those are--that unionization of intercollegiate athletics is not the solution to the problem? Mr. BURR. Let me say to my good friend, the Senator from Tennessee-- who not only was a walk-on track member at Vanderbilt, but was the president of the University of Tennessee, the Governor of Tennessee, the Secretary of Education, and now is a Senator--his credentials allow him to say whatever he wants to on this issue with a degree of knowledge. It was Teddy Roosevelt who identified the challenge of college football, and through his attempt to get Harvard and Yale and a couple of other universities to address the risk, the NCAA was created. The amazing thing to Senator Alexander and myself is that we have this governing body today that by all practical observations has done a great job of regulating college sports. It is the reason we have fabulous playoffs. It is the reason we have integrity in the scholarship system. But, more importantly, it is the reason we have top-quality athletes who go into these schools, where less than 1 percent become pros. Ninety-nine percent of them are reliant on a great education for a fabulous outcome in life. To do anything that changes the balance of what they have been able to create is ludicrous and I think what troubles me, and I think it troubles Senator Alexander. These are not some misguided college football players. This is the United Steelworkers. Let me say that again because I do not think people understand it. This is the United Steelworkers who have put up the money so that these players from Northwestern would go to the NLRB and say: We want to unionize at Northwestern University. Well, on the face of it, it creates a great inequity between public and private schools, where we have a governing body that tries to make this process as equitable as it can. But let me make this point: If you want to drive the rest of the schools out of major sports, then do this. Only 10 percent of our Nation's athletic programs make money. That means 90 percent of them lose in the athletic department. But for the quality of life of all students, not just athletes, they continue and their alumni continue to subsidize it. I agree with my good friend from Tennessee. This would be a huge mistake, and it is time for those players at Northwestern to think about more than those individuals who have fronted them the money to bring this case. Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the Senator from North Carolina. The question should be obvious: What does a student at Wake Forest or Vanderbilt or--and we are using the private universities, again, because those are the only ones affected by this decision for now--but if you are at Vanderbilt University, according to the vice chancellor, the total scholarship could [[Page 6176]] be nearly $60,000. That is the value each year of your athletic scholarship. Times four--so you are up to one-quarter of a million dollars. The College Board says--roughly estimates--that a college degree adds $1 million to your earnings during a lifetime. So the idea that student athletes do not get anything in return for their playing a sport is financially wrong. And just speaking as one individual who had the privilege to participate for 2 years as a student athlete without getting anything--I had scholarships, but they were not athletic scholarships--the discipline, the memories, the competition, the chance to be in the Southeastern Conference Tournament--that is very important to me. It was then, just as athletics always is. It is a rare privilege to participate in intercollegiate athletics. The presidents have looked at the problems of intercollegiate athletics. And there are some. But people forget--and I know the Senator from North Carolina is aware of this. But let's say you are at Vanderbilt and you have a $58,000 scholarship--tuition, room and board but your total costs are over $60,000 and let's say you come from a poor family that has no money and you are put in the embarrassing position of not having walking-around money, money to go out and get a hamburger, or whatever you want to do. Forty percent of student athletes in America also have a Pell grant similar to 40 percent of all students in America have a Pell grant, and the Pell grant can be, on average, $3,600. So that is $300 a month that could be added. Now, perhaps there are other issues that ought to be addressed. But I wonder if the Senator from North Carolina would speak more about one thing he talked about. I imagine Florida State, the University of Tennessee, Stanford, maybe Wake Forest--they will all be fine with a more expensive athletic program. But what is going to happen to the smaller schools? What is going to happen to the minor sports? What is going to happen to the title IX women's sports if for some reason a union forces universities to have a much more expensive athletic program for a few sports? Mr. BURR. Well, let me say to my good friend from Tennessee, I will quote the words of Wake Forest President Nathan Hatch, a former provost at Notre Dame, in an editorial he wrote in the Wall Street Journal just this week. He says: To call student-athletes employees is an affront to those players who are taking full advantage of the opportunity to get an education. Do we really want to signal to society and high-school students that making money is the reason to play a sport in college, as opposed to getting an education that will provide a lifetime benefit? President Patrick Harker, president of the University of Delaware, in the same article said: Turning student athletes into salaried employees would endanger the existence of varsity sports on many college campuses. Only about 10 percent of Division I college sports programs turn a profit, and most of them, like our $28 million athletic program at the University of Delaware, lose money. Changing scholarship dollars into salary would almost certainly increase the amount schools have to spend on sports, since earnings are taxed and scholarships are not. In order just to match the value of a scholarship, the university would have to spend more. At Wake Forest, let me say, today a scholarship is worth $45,600 in tuition in fees, $15,152 in room and board, $1,100 in books. I will say to my good friend from Tennessee, I am not sure if there is still $15 of laundry money a month that exists under a scholarship. That is what it was when I was there. I daresay I hope it is more than that today because I do not think you can do laundry for $15 a month. Mr. ALEXANDER. I wonder if I can ask the Senator to reflect a little bit on some of the practical consequences of a student athlete suddenly finding himself thought of as an employee of the university. I wonder, for example, would the employee of the university, the quarterback or whatever position he plays, have to pay taxes on his income? I would think so. I was thinking about the recent changes in Federal labor law that allow for micro-unions. Almost any little group can petition the National Labor Relations Board, under the Obama administration's views, to become a union. I wonder if quarterbacks would become a micro-union. They would say: We are more important. Look at the NFL. They get paid a lot more. We want a bigger scholarship than others. I wondered about five-star recruits. Let's say there is a terrific defensive back--as I am sure Senator Burr was when he was in high school. He had five stars from all the recruiting services. Would the private schools who are unionized go out and compete to see who could pay the highest compensation to the five-star recruits, a lot less to the walk-on, maybe less for a three-star. What are the practical consequences of a student athlete suddenly finding himself defined as an employee of the university under the National Labor Relations Act? Mr. BURR. Let me say to my good friend, as one who remembers August practices in the South--hottest time of the year, three practices a day--the first thing I would bargain out for all players is that I would have to get my ankles taped at 4:30 in the morning, that I would have to go all day and most of the night, and that I could not take that tape off until 8:30 after three practices. I would negotiate away the smell of dead grass in August, a memory every college football player, as a matter of fact every football player, has of that dead grass in summer practice in hot weather. I plead with those who play today: Do you truly believe you can form a team if in fact you have individuals who negotiate individual things for themselves? If quarterbacks negotiate they cannot be hit, how good is the club? But where is the team? If individuals find that it is advantageous to them because they are stars and they can negotiate it, where have we lost the sense of team sports? The Senator from Tennessee mentioned this to begin with: College sports is a lot about the experience. It builds character. It builds integrity. It builds drive. It builds resilience. It is not the only thing in life that does it, but to me, for many individuals, for many young men and women, this is the most effective way for them to become leaders. I might say it is very much the style of our training in the military. As we raise those young officers, they go through a very regimented training. Imagine what it would be like if we allowed the military to collectively bargain. Let me tell you, none of us would feel safe at night because we don't know exactly what they have gone through. Today we feel safe because we know they have all gone through the same thing. Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I think our time is coming toward a close, but we have about 5 minutes left. Then we will be looking forward to the comments of the Senator from Iowa. We thank him for his courtesy in allowing us to go ahead. I guess the message--I particularly enjoyed hearing the Senator from North Carolina. The message today is directed at two groups. One is to the NCAA, which is to say, do not think that the attitude of one Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board reflects the view of the U.S. Government. It does not. The other is to the student athletes. Think about the value of the opportunity you have. Here are two former student athletes of varying talents who benefited enormously from that. There are many others who would say the same. The university does not owe us anything. We owe the university--at least that is the way I feel about it--for the privilege of competing, for the privilege of attending. If I had a scholarship, that would have been even better--just the privilege of participating. To the NCAA, the members of the NCAA have talked about issues such as should we provide more expense money for athletes. I mentioned earlier that 40 percent of them have Pell grants which can go up to $5,600 a year in addition to their $55,000 or $60,000 of football scholarships. So think about that. That was considered by the NCAA and voted [[Page 6177]] down because the small schools said: It will hurt us. Women's programs said: We will have to drop women's programs. So this is more complicated than it would seem at first. What about health care? Of course, a student athlete can be covered by his parents' health care insurance. Under the Affordable Care Act, I am sure many on the other side would be quick to say, they would always be able to be insured for any sort of preexisting condition, but these are issues that can be properly looked at by the NCAA. Unionization, in my opinion, would destroy intercollegiate athletics as we know it. I think we should look back to the opinion of the Knight Commission, headed by Bill Friday of North Carolina and Ted Hesburgh of Notre Dame, and reaffirm that the student athlete is not a professional, not a hired hand. He or she is a student. One percent of the athletes in this country--there may be problems to solve, but the universities and the NCAA can address those problems. Unionization is not the way to do it. Mr. BURR. I just wanted to address one last thing; that is, the claim that this case was all about health care. The Senator from Tennessee has pointed out as well the options that we have today. But let me speak from a firsthand experience: a college athlete, four operations-- two knees, an elbow, a finger. Probably the only record I hold at Wake Forest is the total number of inches of scars on my body. Because of modern medicine, that record will not be broken because they do not do surgery that way anymore. But I think it is best summed up by our current Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, when he said this: When sports are done right, when priorities are in order, there is no better place to teach invaluable life lessons than on a playing field or court. . . . Discipline, selflessness, resilience, passion, courage, those are all on display in the NCAA. Why would we do anything to risk that? Not only do I believe this is risky, I think just a consideration of it is enough to make us--or should make us reject this quickly, not embrace it. I thank my colleague from Tennessee. Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank my colleague from North Carolina. I thank the Senator from Iowa for his courtesy in allowing us to go ahead. Some 50 years ago, I had the opportunity to compete in track and field for Vanderbilt University. Unlike my colleague from North Carolina, who as a fine defensive back at Wake Forest University, there was no athletic scholarship available for me. But I was fortunate enough to be a member of a record setting team. Twenty-five years ago, while I was president of the University of Tennessee, I was asked to serve on the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics. The Knight Commission was created in October 1989 in response to a series of scandals in college sports. After 18 months of careful study, our 22-member commission issued a report called ``Keeping the Faith with the Student-Athlete: A New Model for Intercollegiate Athletics.'' Our central recommendation was that college presidents needed to exercise stronger control of their athletics programs to ensure their academic and financial integrity. And our guiding principle in making that recommendation was that athletes are students first, not professionals. We wrote: We reject the argument that the only realistic solution to the problem is to drop the student-athlete concept, put athletes on the payroll, and reduce or even eliminate their responsibilities as students. Such a scheme has nothing to do with education, the purpose for which colleges and universities exist. Scholarship athletes are already paid in the most meaningful way possible: with a free education. The idea of intercollegiate athletics is that the teams represent their institutions as true members of the student body, not as hired hands. Surely American higher education has the ability to devise a better solution to the problems of intercollegiate athletics than making professionals out of the players, which is no solution at all but rather an unacceptable surrender to despair. The Knight Commission's perspective on student athletes could not be more different to the perspective in the recent decision, issued by a regional director of the National Labor Relations Board in Chicago, to treat athletes as employees and permit them to form a union. Student athletes are found throughout all levels and at all types of colleges--small through large, but those that receive athletic scholarships are only at division I and II schools. Division III schools are not allowed to award athletic scholarships. For the purposes of the NLRB decision, we are talking about an even smaller subset of athletes--scholarship athletes at private institutions like Notre Dame, Vanderbilt, and Stanford. For example, as a non-scholarship athlete at Vanderbilt, I would not have been able to unionize. Senator Burr, on the other hand was given a scholarship to play defensive back at Wake Forest. He would be allowed to unionize. In 2011, there were roughly 25 million undergraduate students; 9 million Pell recipients, which is approximately 36 percent of undergraduate students. In addition, there were 177,000 scholarship athletes enrolled in bachelor programs at public and private institutions. This is approximately 1.7 percent of all students in bachelor's programs. Of those, 71,000 received Pell Grants, approximately 40 percent of scholarship athletes. The number of scholarship athletes at private institutions enrolled in a bachelor's program was 104,000, approximately 4.2 percent of private students in bachelor's programs. Of those, 43,700 received Pell Grants, approximately 42 percent of private scholarship athletes. The total number of division I and II schools is 662 of which 283 are private institutions. In division I the total is 350 with 119 of them being private, while the division II total is 312 with 164 private. Athletic scholarships are limited to only tuition and fees, room and board, and required course-related books. At Vanderbilt the total scholarship could be as much as $58,520 which is a combination of $42,768 for tuition, $14,382 for room and board, and $1,370 for books. At Stanford the total scholarship could be as much as $59,240 which is a combination of $44,184 for tuition, $13,631 for room and board, and $1,425 for books. Contrast that with the University of Tennessee where the scholarship total could be up to $21,900 consisting of $11,194 for in-state tuition, $9,170 for room and board, and $1,536 for books. Scholarship athletes may also combine other sources of financial aid, namely Federal or State need-based aid or earned entitlements, in order to cover the full cost of attendance. These include, Pell Grants, Supplemental Education Opportunity Grants, work-study, State grants based on need using Federal need calculations such as Tennessee's HOPE Scholarship and veterans programs such GI Bill or post 9/11 GI Bill. Athletic scholarships are awarded in most cases by the athletic department which encourages an athlete to complete the federal application. If an athlete is determined to have a need, then the financial aid office awards the need-based aid, Federal, State, or both. A student athlete is restricted to the institutional cost of attendance when combining other aid with their scholarship, unless they are using their Pell Grant or a veterans benefit. Thus a student athlete with need could receive a full scholarship covering all costs and receive additional funds. Only 1 percent of student athletes will ever play professional sports. For the remainder, their college degree is the primary benefit of participating in college sports. According to the College Board, the value of a college degree is $1 million over an individual's lifetime. As a former student athlete, who wasn't on scholarship, I can speak from experience that the value of college athletics goes beyond the money. It can enrich every aspect of our education, teaching lessons and developing habits that will pay dividends no matter what a student pursues in life. Unfortunately, the problems the Northwestern football players are concerned with are not unique to Northwestern and they are not new. These problems include: the NCAA does not [[Page 6178]] currently allow a full-ride athletic scholarship to cover the actual full cost of attendance; Other expenses include: transportation costs; health fees; student activity and recreation fees and personal expenses allowable under Federal financial aid rules. For example, a full-ride scholarship at Vanderbilt University is worth $58,520 but the full cost of attendance is calculated by the school to be $62,320. The difference must be made up by the student. For some student athletes, the lingering effects and potential disabilities will be felt for many years after their playing days are over. Some students are asking for long term medical coverage to help them cover costs of treating these injuries. Schools could provide for some form of additional medical coverage. While playing sports has certain inherent risks, we do know more now than ever before about how injuries can be avoided. Better protections from injury--football concerns with concussions. Schools can take, and some are taking, steps to improve the safety of their student athletes. Some students are asking for help to finish their education even when athletic eligibility has run out. There is money available to address these concerns and take care of our student athletes without unions. The NCAA and the member universities do need to reform their rules and guidance; and they will. Earlier this week we spoke to David Williams, Vanderbilt University's athletic director, who had this to say: The NCAA and its member universities have the authority and the responsibility to correct the flaws that exist in the system today, many of which are mentioned by the student athletes at Northwestern University. The question is do we have the will to do so. I believe we do and that we will. Mark Emmert the President of the NCAA, quoted in a recent Meet the Press interview said: We have twice now had the board of the N.C.A.A. pass an allowance to allow schools to provide a couple of thousand dollars in what we call ``miscellaneous expense'' allowances. . . . The board's in favor of it. The membership, the more than a thousand colleges and universities that are out there, the 350 of them that are in division one had voted that down. We're in the middle right now of reconsidering all that. I have every reason that that's going to be in place sometime this coming year. What would actually happen if college sports teams were unionized? Well, David Williams, Vanderbilt's athletic director, said: The decision by the NLRB regional board has the power to change the structure, dynamics and maybe the effectiveness of college athletics. It may ultimately end college athletics as we know it today. I agree with this statement. And think those who support turning college athletes into employees and unionize them should consider the potential consequences. One potential consequence relates to taxes. This recent decision, in essence, may require the entire scholarship to be treated as compensation thus making the whole amount taxable. Another consequence of potential collegiate unionization relates to labor. One of the most commonly thought of traits when a union represents a workforce is the right to strike. Section 13 of the National Labor Relations Act, NLRA, expressly provides the right of employees to strike, with some exceptions. If a unionized college baseball team doesn't like the coaches' decision to switch practice times, they could decide to walk off the field right before the first pitch is thrown, and call a strike. The NLRA requires the union and employer to bargain over wages, hours, and other conditions of employment. If a football team joins a union, will the union negotiate different compensation amounts depending on the player's position or contribution to the team? For example, a five star quarterback in high school could decide to attend Notre Dame, because the players' union promises to negotiate a larger scholarship package for him, but the one star, offensive lineman may only get the bare minimum. This could lead to a team and its union making value judgments based on the on-field contributions of a player. What about when a coach decides to change the offensive scheme from a pro-style offense to the wish-bone. A union wide receiver might have a grievance because this could effect the ``condition of employment,'' in that his role on the team could be diminished. Under the NLRA, a decision like that would have to be bargained for. A coach could not unilaterally change the playbook without approval of the union. But let's say that a wide receiver decides to go directly to the coach to discuss his grievance about switching offensive schemes. Under the act, that conversation will not be a one-on-one between the coach and the player. Instead, a union representative has the right to be present at that meeting. And instead of resolving the issue internally, the Federal government through the NLRB, or possibly the Federal courts could have the final say. The current NLRB has struck down several employee conduct policies and handbooks, because they violate an employee's section 7 right to ``concerted activity'' under the NLRA. Will the NLRB now turn its attention to and interfere with the player conduct policies that schools require of their players? The NLRB issued a 2011 decision in Specialty Healthcare, that permitted unions to organize, multiple, small groups of employees within a single workplace, known as ``micro-unions.'' It is conceivable that every different position on the football team could decide to have their own bargaining unit. The quarterbacks in one unit, the lineman in another unit, and the linebackers in another, etc. The university would then have to separately bargain with multiple different unions, all with different demands. Universities require its athletes to maintain a 2.0 grade point average, GPA, to keep an athletic scholarship. Would the NLRA consider a minimum grade point average as a condition of employment under the law that must be bargained for? Schools and players' unions could bargain a lower GPA. What if a coach benches the star point guard, who is a union member, on the basketball team, and replaced him with a non-scholarship, walk- on point guard? Could the team be accused of retaliating against a union player in violation of the NLRA? Under the NLRA it is unlawful to discharge, discipline or otherwise discriminate against an employee for engaging in protected concerted activities. If that star player could show that the benching came after he had been discussing a team related issue with his fellow teammates it would be considered retaliation. The bottom line, is that importing the sometimes head-scratching rulings of the NLRB into a competitive, team atmosphere is recipe for disaster. Do they now hire athletes and not worry if they are students? Mark Emmert, NCAA President, said: To unionize them, you have to say, These are employees. If you're going to do that, it completely changes the relationship. I don't know why you'd want them to be students. If they're employees and they're playing basketball for you, don't let calculus get in the way. Yesterday, the Senate voted against cloture on the Paycheck Fairness Act. This is a bill that would amend the Equal Pay Act to make it easier to sue for pay discrimination based on gender by limiting an important employer defense. Under the bill, the employer would have to prove any difference in pay would be job-related and consistent with a business necessity; If these student athletes are now considered ``employees'' under the eyes of a regional director in Chicago, they would theoretically be entitled to protection under statutes like the Equal Pay Act; And if the Paycheck Fairness Act were to become law, it is conceivable universities could be liable for any differences in compensation that they provide the football team, versus the women's soccer team; Then there is the effect on smaller schools. Big schools with big budgets may have the ability to negotiate with a union for better benefits for their student athletes. If a football union at Notre Dame negotiates for higher compensation that may set a standard the [[Page 6179]] school must match for other athletes as well. I imagine that there is enough money coming into the Notre Dame or Stanford athletic departments to allow them to adjust to the realities of unionized college athletics. But what about smaller schools? They will have to make cuts somewhere. If they preserve their football program, it will likely be at the cost of other sports. Another consideration that must be taken into account are public universities versus private universities. Because the NLRB regional director's decision only applies to private universities, it creates a different set of rules for private universities than for public universities. The private schools with athlete unions may ultimately be forced to negotiate salaries or other benefits that violate NCAA rules; to continue competing, they would have to set up their own conference or association. The departure of schools from the NCAA to this new, union friendly association, would fracture the foundations of collegiate sports. And what about possible title IX implications? As title IX was enforced related to college athletics, institutions made difficult choices to eliminate many athletic programs. Title IX is focused on improving equal access to education. If athletes are employees, then it is unclear how the requirements and protections of title IX will apply to them. Due to the current limited nature of the ruling, if football players' compensation are considered salaries and not scholarships, then would one of the possible effects be a reduction in the number of women's scholarships that title IX requires the university to offer? Or would title IX require that any new benefits received by a football team under their collective bargaining be shared equitably with the women's sports at the university? With limited resources and title IX requiring both proportional opportunity for athletes and pay, the recent decision may result in further reductions of athletic programs and opportunities on college campuses. The Knight Commission's executive director, Amy Privette Perko, recently wrote in the New York Times that: The commission supports many of the benefits being sought for college athletes by groups like the College Athletes Players Association, but unions are not needed to guarantee those benefits. Colleges can enact proposals long recommended by the commission for colleges to restore the educational role of athletics and improve athletes' experiences. I continue to believe that athletes are students first, not professionals. Some of the concerns raised by these college athletes are legitimate but unions are not the solution. They can and should be addressed by the schools and the NCAA. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa. Whistleblower Protections Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, 25 years ago today the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 was signed into law. To mark that anniversary, I come to the floor to discuss some of the history that led to that legislation, the lessons learned over the past 25 years, and the work that still needs to be done to protect whistleblowers. I emphasize that last part because there still needs to be a lot of work done to protect whistleblowers. The Whistleblower Protection Act was the result of years of effort to protect Federal employees from retaliation. Eleven years before it became law in 1989, Congress tried to protect whistleblowers as part of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. I was then in the House of Representatives. There I met a person named Ernie Fitzgerald, who had blown the whistle on the Lockheed C-5 aircraft program going $2.3 billion over budget. Ernie was fired by the Air Force for doing that, and as he used to say: He was fired for the act of ``committing truth.'' When the Nixon tapes became public after Watergate, they revealed President Nixon personally telling his Chief of Staff to get rid of that SOB. That is how a famous whistleblower who pointed out the waste of $2.3 billion was treated. The Civil Service Commission did not reinstate Ernie until 12 years later. In the meantime, he was instrumental in helping get the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 passed. Yet it soon became very clear that law did not do enough to protect whistleblowers. In the early 1980s, the percentage of employees who did not report government wrongdoing due to fear of retaliation nearly doubled. Some whistleblowers still had the courage to come forward. In the spring of 1983, I became aware of a document in the Defense Department known as the Spinney report. The report exposed the unrealistic assumptions being used by the Pentagon in its defense budgeting. Those unrealistic assumptions were the basis for add-ons later on so defense contractors could bid up the cost. It was written by Chuck Spinney, a civilian analyst in the Defense Department's Program Evaluation Office. I asked to meet with Chuck Spinney but was stonewalled by the Pentagon. When I threatened a subpoena, we finally got them to agree to a Friday afternoon hearing in March 1983. The Pentagon hoped the hearing would get buried in the end-of-the-week news cycle. Instead, on Monday morning the newsstands featured a painting of Chuck Spinney on the front cover of Time magazine. It labeled him as ``a Pentagon Maverick.'' I called him what he ought to be called, the ``conscience of the Pentagon.'' The country owes a debt of gratitude to people such as Ernie Fitzgerald and Chuck Spinney. It takes real guts to put your career on the line, to expose waste and fraud, and to put the taxpayers ahead of Washington bureaucrats. In the mid-1980s, we dusted off an old Civil War-era measure known as the False Claims Act, as a way to encourage whistleblowers to come forward and report fraud. We amended that Civil War law in 1986 to create the modern False Claims Act, which has resulted in over $40 billion in taxpayers' money being recovered for the Federal Treasury. We made sure when we passed it that it contained very strong whistleblower protections. Those provisions helped to build up support for whistleblowing. People such as Chuck Spinney and Ernie Fitzgerald helped capture the public imagination and showed what whistleblowers could accomplish. However, that didn't mean the executive branch stopped trying to silence whistleblowers. For example, in the spring of 1987 the Department of Defense asked Ernie to sign a nondisclosure form. It would have prohibited him from giving out classifiable--as opposed to classified--classifiable information without prior written authorization. That, of course, would have prevented those of us in Congress from getting that information so we couldn't do our oversight work. Further, the term ``classifiable'' didn't only cover currently classified information, it also covered any information that could later be classified. The governmentwide nondisclosure form arguably violated the Lloyd- LaFollette Act of 1912. That law states that ``the right of employees . . . to furnish information to . . . Congress . . . may not be interfered with or denied.'' Just to make sure, I added the so-called anti-gag appropriations rider that passed Congress in December 1987. That rider, the anti-gag rider, said that no money could be used to enforce any nondisclosure agreements that interferes with the right of individuals to provide information to Congress. It remained in every appropriations bill until 2013. I then worked to get that language into statute in 2012 through the passage of the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act. By the time of the first anti-gag rider in 1987, there was widespread recognition that all Federal employees ought to be protected if they disclosed waste and fraud to the Congress or for a lot of other reasons as well. Meanwhile, I had also worked with Senator Levin of Michigan to coauthor what we called the Whistleblower Protection Act. It was introduced in February 1987. There were hearings on our bill in the summer of 1987 and the spring of 1988. It proceeded to pass the Senate by voice vote in August. Then [[Page 6180]] the House unanimously did that in October. After reconciling the differences, we sent the bill to the White House. However, President Reagan failed to sign it. That meant we had to start all over again in the next Congress. We didn't let President Reagan's inaction--because that was a pocket veto--stand in the way. Senator Levin and I moved forward again. When we reintroduced the bill in January 1989, I came to the floor to make the following statement: We're back with this legislation in the 101st Congress, and this time, we're going to make it stick. Congress passed this bill last fall after extensive discussions with members of the Reagan administration. But in spite of the compromise we worked out, this bill fell victim to President Reagan's pocket veto. Whistleblowers are a very important part of government operations. By exposing waste, fraud, and abuse, they work to keep government honest and efficient. And for their loyalty, they are often penalized--they get fired, demoted, and harassed. . . . Under the current system, the vast majority of employees choose not to disclose the wrongdoing they see. They are afraid of reprisals and the result is a gross waste of taxpayers' dollars. Government employers should not be allowed to cover up their misdeeds by creating such a hostile environment. That is the end of the quote from the statement I made on the introduction of that bill in January 1989. Once again, the bill passed the Senate and the House without opposition. Working with George H.W. Bush, this time we got the President to sign it. On April 10, 1989, the Whistleblower Protection Act became law. We left part of the work undone 25 years ago. The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 had exceptions for the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, and other parts of the intelligence community. The Whistleblower Protection Act left employees of those agencies unprotected, and so have the laws that followed it. I am very pleased that the preconferenced intelligence authorization bill released today will remedy that for the intelligence community. Back in 2012 I championed the addition of intelligence whistleblower protections to the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act. The provisions I authored prohibited various forms of retaliation, including changing an employee's access to classified information. Working closely with the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, we got that language into the bill that passed the Senate by unanimous consent May 8, 2012. However, it was not included in the bill the House passed on September 28, 2012. Prior to the differences being reconciled on October 10, 2012, President Obama issued Presidential Policy Directive 19. It provided certain limited protections for whistleblowers with access to classified information. Yet that Executive order by President Obama was weaker than the provisions I had authored in the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act. Unfortunately, President Obama's actions undercut support for those provisions by suggesting that statutory protection was now necessary. The final law that passed in November left intelligence whistleblowers at the mercy of the Presidential directive. Now, much of the language I had championed is in the Intelligence authorization bill currently under consideration. It is certainly a step up from Presidential Policy Directive 19. Making any protections statutory is very significant. The bill also has better substantive protections than the Presidential directive. It does still have some gray areas, I am sorry to say. It leaves some of the policy and procedure development to the discretion of the executive branch, and that is a mistake we know exists because we had a similar thing happen with the FBI because in 1989 the protections of the Whistleblower Protection Act didn't apply to the FBI. That turned out to be a big mistake. Yet that law did require the Attorney General to implement regulations for FBI whistleblowers consistent with those in the Whistleblower Protection Act. However, it soon became clear that was a little like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse. The Justice Department and the FBI simply ignored that part of the law for nearly 10 years. Not until 1997 did the Attorney General finally implement regulations for whistleblowers at the FBI. The Justice Department was pushed into finally issuing those regulations by an FBI employee by the name of Dr. Fred Whitehurst. Dr. Whitehurst was considered by the FBI to be its leading forensic explosive expert in the 1990s. What I am about to show you is that by being a good, patriotic American and blowing the whistle when something is wrong, you can ruin yourself professionally. Shortly after the Whistleblower Protection Act was passed in 1989, Dr. Whitehurst disclosed major problems with the FBI crime lab. From 1990 to 1995 he wrote close to 250 letters to the Justice Department inspector general about these problems. In other words, he tried to be loyal to the agency he was in and work within that agency to expose wrongdoing but didn't get very far. In January 1996 he formally requested that the President implement regulations as required by the Whistleblower Protection Act. Only after Fred was suspended in 1997 did the White House finally issue such a memo to the Attorney General. It instructed the Attorney General to create a process for FBI whistleblowers as directed by the Whistleblower Protection Act. Fred Whitehurst's case dragged on for another year until the FBI finally agreed to settle with him in February 1998. He got more than a $1 million settlement out of that just because he was trying to do the right thing. But he got his badge and his gun taken away from him, and he was, in a sense, ridiculed for doing what a patriotic American ought to do. Fred Whitehurst is not alone in the FBI as far as people having problems. Over the years, others--such as Mike German, Bassem Youssef, Jane Turner, and Robert Kobus--have blown the whistle from within the FBI. Even after the inspector general issued findings in their favor, several had to navigate a never-ending Kafkaesque internal appeals process. It seemed designed to grind down these patriotic Americans into submission through years of inaction. Now history has started to repeat itself. As Congress was passing the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act in 2012, President Obama issued Presidential Policy Directive 19. He tasked Attorney General Holder with reevaluating the same FBI whistleblower procedures that Fred Whitehurst helped get in place in 1997. The Attorney General was given 6 months to report back. When the Attorney General didn't report back and didn't issue that report at the 6-month mark, I asked the Government Accountability Office to do its own independent evaluation of the FBI whistleblower protections. Now 18 months after the President's directive, Attorney General Holder still hasn't released his report. This is a person appointed by the President of the United States, directed by the President of the United States to do something in 6 months, presumably loyal to the President of the United States, and he isn't doing what the Chief Executive of our great country told him to do. Potential whistleblowers should not have to wait a decade, as they did with the first set of regulations. It appears that the Justice Department is simply sitting on its hands once again. The example of the FBI should be instructive. Unlike the Whistleblower Protection Act, the Intelligence authorization bill is much more detailed about the protections Congress intends. It puts a time limit on how long the intelligence community has to create their procedures, giving them 6 months. However, remember that is exactly the same amount of time President Obama gave Attorney General Holder to come up with regulations, and it still hasn't happened 18 months later. Congress needs to be vigilant about getting both the intelligence community and the Attorney General to act. In the meantime, the FBI fiercely resists any efforts at congressional oversight, especially on whistleblower matters. For example, 4 months ago I sent [[Page 6181]] a letter to the FBI requesting its training materials on the insider threat program. When we just want copies of training materials, would that be difficult for a bureaucracy to present to a Member of Congress? That program happened to be announced by the Obama administration in October of 2011. It was intended to train Federal employees to watch out for insider threats among their colleagues. Public news reports indicated that this program might not do enough to distinguish between true insider threats and legitimate whistleblowers. I relayed these concerns in my letter. I also asked for copies of the training materials. I said I wanted to examine whether they adequately distinguished between insider threats and whistleblowers so it didn't become a damper on whistleblowing. In response, an FBI legislative affairs official told my staff that a briefing might be the best way to answer my questions. It was scheduled for last week. Staff of both Chairman Leahy and myself attended. The FBI brought the head of their insider threat program. Yet the FBI didn't bring the insider threat training materials as we had requested. However, the head of the insider threat program told the staff of both Senator Leahy and myself there was no need to worry about whistleblower communications. They are telling me that at a time when we have decades of history of whistleblowers being treated like skunks at a picnic? This gentleman said whistleblowers had to register in order to be protected and the insider threat program would know to avoid these people. I have never heard of whistleblowers ever being required to ``register,'' in order to be protected. The idea of such a requirement should be pretty alarming to all Americans. We are talking about patriotic Americans wanting to make sure the government does what the law says it should do and spend money the way Congress intended it be spent. They have to register to be protected just because they are a patriotic American? The reason they can't do that is because sometimes confidentiality is the best protection a whistleblower has. Unfortunately, neither my staff nor Chairman Leahy's staff was able to learn more because after only 10 minutes--only 10 minutes--in the office and into the briefing, the FBI got up and abruptly walked out. It might be one thing to walk out on Republican staff, but they walked out on the staff of a Democratic chairman of one of the most powerful committees in the U.S. Senate as well--Chairman Leahy's staff. FBI officials simply refused to discuss any whistleblower implications in its insider threat program and left the room. These are clearly not the actions of an agency that is genuinely open to whistleblowers or whistleblower protection. Like the FBI, the intelligence community has to confront the same issue of distinguishing a true insider threat from legitimate whistleblowers. This issue will be impacted by title V of the current Intelligence authorization bill, which includes language about continuous monitoring of security clearance holders. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper seems to have talked about such procedures when he appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee on February 11 of this year. In his testimony he said this: We are going to proliferate deployment of auditing and monitoring capabilities to enhance our insider threat detection. We're going to need to change our security clearance process to a system of continuous evaluation. . . . What we need is . . . a system of continuous evaluation, where we have a way of-- Now, get this. --monitoring their behavior, both their electronic behaviors on the job as well as off the job, to see if there is a potential clearance issue. Director Clapper's testimony gives me major pause, as I hope it does my colleagues. It sounds as though this type of monitoring would likely capture the activity of whistleblowers communicating with Congress. To be clear, I believe the Federal Government is within its right in monitoring employee activity on worker computers. That applies all the more in the intelligence community. However, as I testified before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee recently, there are areas where the executive branch should be very cautious. The House oversight committee held a hearing on electronic monitoring that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration had done of certain whistleblowers in that agency. This monitoring was not limited to work- related activity. The Food and Drug Administration allows its employees to check personal email accounts at work. As a result, the FDA's whistleblower monitoring captured personal email account passwords. It also captured attorney-client communications and confidential communications to Congress and the Office of Special Counsel. Some of these communications are legally protected. If an agency captures such communications as a result of monitoring, it needs to think about how to handle them very differently; otherwise, it would be the ideal tool to identify and retaliate against whistleblowers. Without precautions, that kind of monitoring could effectively shut down legitimate whistleblower communications. It wouldn't surprise me, considering the culture of some of these agencies, that is exactly what they want to do, because there is a great deal of peer pressure to go along to get along within these agencies. Whistleblowers, as I said, are kind of like a skunk at a picnic. There could be safeguards, however. For example, whistleblower communications could be segregated from other communications. Access could be limited to only certain personnel rather than all of the upper management. In any case, whistleblowing disclosures to Congress or the special counsel can't just be routed back to the official accused of wrongdoing. As the 1990 Executive order made clear, whistleblowing is a Federal employee's duty. It should be considered part of their official responsibilities and something they can do on work time. However, that doesn't mean they aren't allowed to make their protected disclosures confidentially to protect against the usual retaliation. A Federal employee has every right to make protected disclosures anonymously, whether at work or off the job. Every Member of this body should realize that without some safeguards there is a chance their communications with whistleblowers may be viewed by the executive branch. These same considerations apply to the intelligence community. The potential problems are heightened if electronic monitoring extends off the job, such as Director Clapper mentioned in the quote I gave. We have to balance detailing insider threats with letting whistleblowers know their legitimate whistleblower communications are protected. With continuous monitoring in place, any whistleblower would understand their communications with the inspector general or Congress would likely be seen by their agency and punishment could follow. They might perhaps even be seen by those they believe are responsible for waste, fraud, or abuse, and punishment to follow. That leaves the whistleblower open to retaliation. Even with the protections of this bill, we should all understand it is difficult to prevent retaliation because it is so indigenous in the culture of most government agencies. It requires a lengthy process for an individual to try to prove the retaliation and get any remedy. It is far better, where possible, to take precautions that prevent the likelihood of retaliation even occurring; otherwise, it will make it virtually impossible for there even to be such a thing as an intelligence community whistleblower. Fraud and waste would then go unreported. No one would dare take the risk. To return to the theme I started with, whistleblowers need protection from retaliation today just as much as they did 25 years ago when the Whistleblower Protection Act was passed on April 10 of that year. I have always said whistleblowers are too often treated like a skunk at a picnic. You have [[Page 6182]] now heard it for the third time. You can't say it too many times. I have seen too many of them retaliated against. However, 25 years after the Whistleblower Protection Act, the data on whistleblowing is in, and the debate on whether to protect whistleblowers is over. There is widespread public recognition that whistleblowers perform a very valuable public service. Earlier this year PricewaterhouseCoopers found that 31 percent of serious fraud globally was detected by whistleblowing systems or other tipoffs. According to a 2012 report from another organization, that number is even higher when looking just in the United States, with 51 percent of the fraud tips coming from a company's own employees. In 2013, of U.S. workers who had observed misconduct and blown the whistle, 40 percent said the existence of whistleblower protection had made them more likely to report misconduct. Whistleblowers are particularly vital in government, where bureaucrats only seem to work overtime when it comes to resisting transparency and accountability. A year and a half after the Whistleblower Protection Act, President Bush issued Executive Order 1990 that said all Federal employees ``shall disclose waste, fraud, abuse and corruption to appropriate authorities.'' That should have changed the entire culture of these agencies that are antiwhistleblower, but it hasn't. But that is what the directive says. Federal employees are still under obligations this very day. They are fulfilling a civic duty when they blow the whistle. I encouraged President Reagan and every President after him that we should have a Rose Garden ceremony honoring whistleblowers. If you do that, it sends a signal from the highest level of the U.S. Government to the lowest level of the U.S. Government that whistleblowing is patriotic. Unfortunately, there isn't a single President who has taken me up on my suggestion. Further, while the Obama administration promised to be the most transparent in history, it has, instead, cracked down on whistleblowers as never before. Last week, the Supreme Court denied a petition to hear an appeal from a case named Kaplan v. Conyers. The Obama administration's position in that case, if allowed to stand, means untold numbers of Federal employees may lose some of the very same appeal rights we tried to strengthen in the Whistleblower Protection Act. There could be half or more of the Federal employees impacted. Such a situation would undo 130 years of protection for civil servants dating back to the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act of 1883. We all remember that President Obama promised to ensure that whistleblowers have full access to the courts and due process. However, his administration has pursued the exact opposite goal here. That ought to be unacceptable to all of us. I think it is important to send a loud and clear signal that waste, fraud, and abuse won't be tolerated in government, and that is why I am pleased to announce I will officially be forming a whistleblower protection caucus at the beginning of the 114th Congress. Until then, I will be talking to my colleagues and encouraging them to join me as we start putting together an agenda for that caucus in a new Congress. As we celebrate the 25th anniversary of this very important bill called the Whistleblower Protection Act, we should all recognize whistleblowers for the sacrifices they make. Those who fight waste, fraud, and abuse in the government should be lauded for patriotism. Whistleblower protections are only worth anything if they are enforced. Just because we have passed good laws does not mean we can stop paying attention to the issue. There must be vigilance and oversight by the Congress. The best protection for a whistleblower is a culture of understanding and respecting the right to blow the whistle. I hope this whistleblower caucus will send the message that Congress expects that kind of culture. I call on my colleagues to help me make sure whistleblowers continue to receive the kind of protection they need and deserve. I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of New Mexico). The clerk will call the roll. The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. STOP Identity Theft Act of 2013 Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to pass the Stopping Tax Offenders and Prosecuting Identity Theft Act of 2013. With tax day coming upon us on Tuesday, the time is now to pass this bipartisan legislation. I worked on the STOP Identity Theft Act to address the growing problems of tax identity theft and to protect taxpayers against fraud. From the beginning this bill has been bipartisan. Senator Sessions is the lead Republican on this bill, and in fact recently this bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee on a vote of 18-0. Given the number of members on the committee with very different views on issues, that is an accomplishment and shows what a pressing problem this is. I think people will be pretty shocked, as you will be, Mr. President, when you hear these numbers. Criminals are increasingly filing false tax returns using stolen identity information in order to claim victims' refunds. You might think that would be a rare incident, but as a former law enforcement person, as the attorney general for the State of New Mexico, I think you know anything can happen. This is a problem where more than anything is happening. In 2012 alone, identity thieves filed 1.8 million fraudulent tax returns, almost double the number confirmed in 2011. The numbers and the documents in these cases may be forged, but the dollars behind them are real, because in 2012 there was another 1.1 million fraudulent tax returns that slipped through the cracks, and our U.S. Treasury paid out $3.6 billion in the fraudulent returns--$3.6 billion. That is the number coming from the IRS. That is your taxpayer dollars going down the drain to people who are actually stealing taxpayers' identities, putting them on returns, filing returns, and getting back the money. When criminals file these tax returns, it is not just the Treasury that loses out. Everyday people are the real victims here, because when someone else uses your identity, when someone else fakes your identity, people are then forced to wait months and sometimes even years before receiving their actual refund. So what is going on? Well, we are having double refunds, right? First they go to the thief. This is happening millions of times. Then the real taxpayer says: Wait a minute, where is my refund, and files a return. The government has to check this out and figure out the first one and they then pay twice. This is what is happening in the United States of America. In 2012, Alan Stender, a retired businessman from the 5,000-person town of Circle Pines, MN, was working to file his taxes on time just as people are doing right now. After completing all the forms and sending in his tax returns, Alan heard from the IRS that there was a major problem. So he gets it done on time and files the return and finds out from the IRS there is a problem. Someone had stolen his identity and used his personal information to fraudulently file his taxes and steal his tax return. Just last week 25 people were arrested in Florida for using thousands of stolen identities to claim $36 million in fraudulent tax refunds. This included the arrest of a middle school food service worker who sold the identities of more than 400 students, if you can believe it. Those victims are just kids, and criminals are stealing their identities to file fake returns. Are you ready for this one? Attorney General Eric Holder recently revealed [[Page 6183]] that he was a victim of tax return identity theft. This came out this week. Two young adults used his name, his date of birth, and Social Security number to file a fraudulent tax return. They got caught. They were prosecuted. But if you can imagine that this can happen to the Attorney General of the United States--at least we got action there-- think about some guy in Circle Pines, MN, who has it happen. As I said, it is happening over a million times every year, from a retired man in Minnesota to middle school students in Florida, to the Attorney General of the United States. It is clear that identity theft can happen to anyone. We also know this crime can victimize our most vulnerable citizens, victims such as seniors living on fixed incomes or people with disabilities who depend on tax returns to make ends meet and cannot financially manage having their tax returns stolen. There is a lot at stake here and action is needed. That is why I put forward the bipartisan legislation a few years back with Republican Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, to take on this problem and crack down on the criminals committing this crime. There was also significant bipartisan work in the House last year. A very similar bill was passed in the House that did the same thing, passed bipartisan bills in the House of Representatives. It happened. And the Senate now, as we know, passed it 18-0 out of the Judiciary Committee. This critical legislation will take important steps to streamline law enforcement resources and strengthen penalties for tax identity theft. The STOP Identity Theft Act will direct the Justice Department to dedicate additional resources to address tax identity theft. It also directs the Department to focus on parts of the country with especially high rates of tax return identity theft and to boost protections for vulnerable populations such as seniors, minors, and veterans. We also urge the Justice Department to cooperate fully and coordinate investigations with State and local law enforcement organizations. Identity thieves have become more creative and have expanded from stealing identities of individuals to stealing that of businesses and organizations. My bill recognizes this change and broadens the definitions of tax identity theft to include businesses, nonprofits, and other similar organizations. This is important because once a company or an organization's tax information is stolen, it can be used to create fraudulent tax returns and claim false refunds. Finally, we need to crack down on the criminals committing this crime. This bill would strengthen tax identity theft penalties by raising the maximum jail sentences from 15 to 20 years. I believe this bill goes a long way in helping law enforcement use their resources more efficiently and effectively and it is time to bring it to the floor. In recent weeks we have made significant progress, as I said, by passing the bill out of the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously on an 18-0 vote. It doesn't happen often. I thank all of my colleagues on the committee and all of my friends across the aisle for joining with us to vote for this bill. After a long discussion we had amendments. We got this bill. Every single member of the Judiciary Committee voted for this bill, including Senator Cruz, Senator Schumer, Senator Feinstein, and Senator Hatch. It was a unanimous 18-0 vote. Now I want to bring this bill to the full Senate. I would love to get this done before tax day. I know there is a holdup on the other side of the aisle, and it is time for people to understand that this is a bill that passed the House of Representatives, it passed on an 18-0 vote out of Judiciary, and we simply need to get this done. When the Attorney General of the United States of America is having his identity stolen and his identity is used to file fake tax returns, we have a problem. We have a problem that involves a lot of money. We have a problem that involves 1.8 million fraudulent tax returns in 2012 alone, double the number in 2011. We have a problem that also involves a lot of money. We have a problem that involves $3.6 billion in 1 year alone in 2012, paid out by the U.S. Government. What do you think taxpayers think when they hear that, that $3.6 billion went to thieves and we have a bill that passed out of the Judiciary Committee 18-0? I would want someone explaining why they are holding up this bill. It is time to get this bill done. I would love to see it happen before we go back to our home State so I can explain it to my constituents, and I hope our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will work with us. Because with tax season upon us, it is time to pass this bipartisan legislation, to crack down on identity thieves and protect the hard-earned tax dollars of innocent Americans. The time to do it is now. I again thank Senator Jeff Sessions for being the Republican on this bill, and I thank all my colleagues for passing it through the committee. I thank the House for getting it done over there. It is now the time to pass it in the Senate. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. I note the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. PORTMAN. I would ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. PORTMAN. I wish to speak as if in morning business. The DATA Act Mr. President, I was not able to be here earlier on the Senate floor when my colleague Senator Warner got unanimous consent to pass the DATA Act. This is the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act, something we have been working on over the last couple of years. It is a good bill, and it is about good government and I am glad we were able to pass it this afternoon in the Senate. I now hope it will go to the House for passage and get to the President's desk, because it will help to give all the taxpayers a better view into our government. Specifically, it improves Federal financial transparency and data quality, both of which are going to help identify and illuminate the ways we spend--certainly something we should be focused on with the huge deficits and all the pressure we are facing. It will also ease the compliance burden with the people working in the Federal Government and recipients of Federal funds. At the same time it improves the data that they send to the Federal Government. It is a win/win for the taxpayer, for the government, at getting at the issue of waste, fraud, and abuse. It is an issue that transcends party lines. I want to thank my friend Senator Coburn because he has been a leader in the Governmental Affairs Committee and also the chairman of the committee, Senator Tom Carper. Without their help, Senator Warner and I would not have been able to get this bill to the floor today. We also have a number of other cosponsors on a bipartisan basis. We all know that the Federal Government spends a lot of money--over $3 trillion a year. The goal is to know more about how that money is spent so we can ensure it is being spent on the right things. This legislation, the DATA Act, picks up on lessons we learned about how to make it more accountable and more transparent so taxpayers have a better understanding of how the money is being used. This has to do with grants and contracts. I think it is something that is going to help ensure that we are not just spending the money right but also eliminating fraud and abuse that we otherwise would not find. I first got involved in this issue when I was at the Office of Management and Budget. I supported it and then was tasked with implementing a 2006 bill that was introduced by Senator Coburn and Senator Obama at the time. It was called the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act, FFATA--an unfortunate acronym in my view. [[Page 6184]] FFATA worked in the sense that it led to something which is called usaspending.gov. Back then a lot of Federal agencies thought this could not be done; that we wouldn't be able to improve our transparency up to the standards that were established in FFATA, and we proved them wrong, thanks to a lot of hard work by a lot of folks in the agencies and at the Office of Management and Budget where I served as Director. It ended up with the ability of taxpayers to get a wealth of information online, again, about Federal grants and Federal contracts so they could better understand how their tax dollars were spent. It was a good start. It also helped us learn some lessons about how to improve fiscal data quality and transparency even more. We learned that the usaspending.gov can be more comprehensive, more accurate, more reliable, and more timely. By the way, if you have not gone on this Web site, usaspending.gov, I recommend it. If we pass this legislation, you will like it even more because the data you will be seeing will be more understandable, will be more uniform across the agencies, and will enable us all, as taxpayers, to get a better view into the government. What does it do? First, it makes it easier to compare spending across the Federal agencies by requiring establishment of these governmentwide standards, such as financial data standards, which is very difficult to do, as I learned when I was at the Office of Management and Budget. It sounds easy, but it is hard and it pays off. It promotes consistency and reliability in data. Second, it strengthens the Federal financial transparency by reforming and significantly improving the Web site itself. It requires more frequent updates--quarterly financial updates of spending by each Federal agency on their programs and at the object class-level basis. It is basically more specific data and more up-to- date so it refreshes the Web site more to make it more useful. Third, it empowers the inspector general and the GAO to hold agencies accountable. I think putting the inspectors general into this is a good idea because it has another level of accountability. This will make them more accountable for completeness, timeliness, quality, and accuracy of the data they are submitting to the usaspending.gov. This is new and will make the Web site work even better. Fourth, it simplifies the reporting requirements by recipients of Federal funds, eliminating unnecessary duplication and burdensome regulations. It basically streamlines what people have to provide to the Federal Government. This will actually make it easier for us to understand what is going on with these contractors, again, as taxpayers doing oversight, but it also makes it easier to do business with the Federal Government. It makes it less complicated for them and gives more transparency for taxpayers, so it is another good aspect of this legislation. I think each of these reforms will enhance Federal financial accountability in real ways by allowing citizens to track government spending better, allowing agencies to more easily identify improper payments and unnecessary spending. We have a big issue around here with spending. We spend more than we take in every year to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. We have a debt that is at least $17 trillion. It is time to make sure we are not wasting money that could be applied to that debt or it could pay for programs that are a top priority. This bipartisan legislation will help us get there. I am very pleased we were able to get it passed today. Again, I will be working hard with Senator Warner and others to ensure that we get this through the House and to the President's desk for signature so we can indeed begin to help all of us as citizens have a better view into our Federal Government. 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. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. ____________________ MORNING BUSINESS Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. ____________________ TRIBUTE TO PETER MUNK Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the more than 30 years of hard work and leadership Mr. Peter Munk has demonstrated as the founder and chairman of the board of Barrick Gold Corporation. Since Barrick Gold was established in 1983, Mr. Munk has worked to make Barrick one of the world's largest gold mining companies, with projects reaching four continents. In 1986, Mr. Munk bet on Nevada, bringing Barrick to the Silver State with the acquisition of the Goldstrike mine located on the Carlin Trend in Eureka County. Nevada has since become the largest source of gold in the United States, producing more than 75 percent of the gold mined throughout the country. Even today, the Goldstrike mine is one of Barrick's most productive properties. Two of Barrick's 5 core gold mines are located in Nevada, and the company continues to operate 7 mines throughout the State, employing more than 4,200 people. Mr. Munk has shared his many successes and accomplishments with the communities in which he works and lives, and through his philanthropy, he has demonstrated his dedication to education and health. He created the Peter Munk Charitable Foundation in 1992 and has made significant donations to his alma mater, the University of Toronto, which is home to the Munk School of Global Affairs. Additionally, the premier Peter Munk Cardiac Centre was constructed at the University Health Network in Toronto as a product of his generous contributions. Under Mr. Munk's strong leadership, Barrick Gold has given back to the many communities surrounding Barrick mining operations, and the company has helped provide added support for local economic, health, and social development. In Nevada, much needed school supplies, college scholarships, and large community projects have been funded with the support of Barrick Gold. The company has also implemented strict controls to help reduce the impacts of mining on the environment and contributed to wildlife restoration and improvement projects to enhance Nevada's native plants and species habitats. For instance, in 2012, Barrick partnered with Federal and State land managers to restore vital greater sage-grouse habitat that had been scarred and damaged by a devastating wildfire. Mr. Munk has made a significant impact on the State of Nevada and has established a lasting legacy on the international mining industry. His influence has been recognized by the Canadian Business Hall of Fame and the Canadian Mining Hall of Fame, and he was honored with one of Canada's highest honors for a private citizen when he was made a Companion of the Order of Canada. Additionally, Mr. Munk was the first Canadian to be awarded the Woodrow Wilson Award for Corporate Citizenship in 2002 and received the Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal in 2012. As Mr. Munk steps down from his role as chairman of the board of Barrick Gold Corporation, I congratulate him on his many years of success and wish him all the best in his future endeavors. ____________________ JUSTICE FOR ALL ACT Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this week marks the 30th annual National Crime Victims' Rights Week. It is a time to recognize victims of crime and their families and to acknowledge the efforts to help them recover and rebuild their lives in the wake of tragedy. It is also [[Page 6185]] a time to ask what more we can do to help serve victims of crime and improve our criminal justice system. We have an opportunity this week to pass a bill that will not just pay lipservice to crime victims but actually impact and improve their lives. It is time to pass the Justice for All Act. The Justice for All Act is a bipartisan bill that Senator Cornyn and I introduced nearly 1 year ago to improve the quality of justice in this country. It was approved by the Judiciary Committee in October by a unanimous voice vote, and it cleared the Democratic side of the hotline on March 27. However, it still has not passed the Senate because Senate Republicans object. For reasons that have not been explained, Republicans have failed to consent to passing this commonsense bill. This is no way to treat victims of crime, especially during a week when we seek to honor them. The Justice for All Act reauthorizes the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Reduction Act, which has provided significant funding to reduce the backlog of untested rape kits so that victims need not live in fear while kits languish in storage. That program is named after Debbie Smith, who waited years for her rape kit to be tested. Although delayed for years, that rape kit test ultimately enabled the perpetrator to be caught. She and her husband Rob have worked tirelessly to ensure that others will not have the same experience. I thank Debbie and Rob for their continuing help on this extremely important cause. The Justice for All Act reauthorization establishes safeguards to prevent wrongful convictions and enhances protections and legal rights for crime victims. It is supported by experts in the field and law enforcement, including the National Center for Victims of Crime, the National Center of Police Organizations, and the National District Attorneys Associations. Yet even during Crime Victims' Week, which coincides with Sexual Assault Awareness and Prevention Month, Senate Republicans have not yet shown a willingness to clear the important reauthorization. Senator Cornyn was on the floor just last week and earlier today expressing his commitment to getting this passed and signed into law. I urge him to lead his caucus to get it through the Senate. He and I both know that a unanimous voice vote in the Judiciary Committee is uncommon and happens on only the most uncontroversial and uniformly applauded bills. This is one of those bills, and we need to pass this today. Senator McConnell is also a cosponsor of this bill. This effort has been bipartisan from the beginning, and I am proud that we have the minority leader and the minority whip helping to lead this effort. Despite the support of the Senate Republican leadership, the bill nonetheless remains stalled. Perhaps it is because the House Republican leadership would rather pass a much narrower bill. I trust that the Senate will stand up for all victims who deserve justice, just as we did when the Senate passed an inclusive Violence Against Women Act reauthorization last year. Our bipartisan Senate legislation strengthens the Kirk Bloodsworth Post-Conviction DNA Testing Grant Program, one of the key programs created in the Innocence Protection Act. Kirk Bloodsworth was a young man just out of the Marines when he was sentenced to death for a heinous crime that he did not commit. He was the first death row inmate in the United States to be exonerated through the use of DNA evidence. Since the Justice for All Act was first enacted in 2004, we continue to see cases in which people are found to be innocent after spending years in jail. Thomas Haynesworth was exonerated in 2011 after spending 27 years in prison for crimes he did not commit, thanks to a grant provided by the Justice for All Act. He was accused of rape in 1984 and wrongfully convicted, and the real perpetrator in this case went on to rape more than a dozen women. It is an outrage when an innocent person is punished, and this injustice is compounded when the true perpetrator remains on the streets, able to commit more crimes. We are all less safe when the system gets it wrong. This bill also provides funding for the Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Grant Program, which assists laboratories in performing the many forensic tests that are essential to solving crimes and prosecuting offenders. I cannot imagine why is there an objection to supporting scientific testing and improving the reliability of criminal convictions. Every American, including crime victims, is better served when our justice system has the resources it needs to operate effectively. If there is a person in the Senate who objects, I ask them to come forward and explain that to me and to the American people. I would welcome that debate. The hotline on this bipartisan Justice for All Act reauthorization has been running on the Republican side since March 31, and I have not heard one substantive argument against the merits of this bill. Police officers, prosecutors, and crime victims agree on the necessity of this bill. Why can't we? The Justice for All Act takes important steps to ensure that all criminal defendants, including those who cannot afford a lawyer, receive effective representation. Our justice system, including successful prosecution, depends upon effective representation on both sides. This is not a time for delay. This is a time for leadership. The stakes are too high and crime victims are depending on us to do the right thing. I urge all Senators, and particularly those in the Republican caucus, to clear this bill today. ____________________ VOTE EXPLANATION Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, on April 4, 2014, I was unavoidably absent from the following votes as a result of memorial events related to the tragic deaths of Lieutenant Eddie Walsh and Firefighter Mike Kennedy in Boston on March 26, 2014--rollcall votes No. 97 and 98. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on vote No. 97, on the motion to table Reid Amendment No. 2878 to H.R. 3979; and ``yes'' on vote No. 98, on the motion to table the appeal of the appeal of the ruling of the chair that a third degree amendment was not in order. ____________________ WAR CRIMES IN SYRIA Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I wish to discuss the ongoing crisis in Syria. Last month marked the 3-year anniversary since the brutal conflict began. According to the United Nations Security Council Resolution 2139, which was unanimously accepted in February of this year, the conflict has resulted in the death of over 140,000 people in Syria, including at least 10,000 children. UNICEF reports that Syria is among the most dangerous places on Earth to be a child, pointing to high child casualty rates, brutalizing and traumatic violence, deteriorating access to education, and health concerns. The number of children suffering in Syria more than doubled in the third year of the conflict. The crisis is only getting worse. Hundreds of thousands of Syrian civilians are under fire by government and opposition forces in violation of internationally accepted Laws of Armed Conflict. These war crimes are truly devastating, and to escape the violence, millions of refugees have flooded into neighboring Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan, while thousands more remain internally displaced inside Syria Last year I visited the Kilis refugee camp in Turkey which is currently sheltering more than 14,000 Syrian refugees. I witnessed first-hand the remarkable bravery of the Syrian refugee population. Many of these families relocated several times within Syria before ultimately making the heart-wrenching decision to leave their country in order to seek food, medical attention, and safety outside of Syria. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has registered more than 2.6 million Syrian refugees with women and children making up more than 80 percent of the refugee population. By the end of this year, the United Nations estimates that the number of refugees could increase to 4 million. [[Page 6186]] That is why I am a cosponsor of the Syria Humanitarian Resolution of 2014, which urges all parties in Syria to allow for and facilitate immediate, unfettered access to humanitarian aid throughout the Syrian Arab Republic. This legislation calls for the safety, security, independence, and impartiality of humanitarian workers and demands freedom of movement to deliver aid. I remain deeply concerned by the instability of the entire region, as violence spills over into neighboring countries such as Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, and Israel. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper has testified that, ``In Syria, the ongoing civil war will probably heighten regional and sectarian tensions.'' The influx of Syrian refugees to Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey and Iraq is putting a strain on those countries' resources. The United Nations Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic reports that pro-government forces have murdered, tortured, assaulted, and raped civilians in Syria. Anti- government groups have also engaged in murder, execution without due process, torture, hostage-taking, and shelling of civilian neighborhoods. But nowhere is the brutality of this war more evident than in the events of August 21, 2013, when the Syrian Army, under the direction of President Assad, launched a chemical weapons attack in the Damascus suburbs. This attack left over 1,400 innocent Syrian civilians dead-- many of whom were children. Assad's criminal use of chemical weapons against his own people is morally reprehensible and violates internationally accepted rules of war. The international community cannot stand by and allow the murder of innocent men, women, and children to go unchallenged. We must bring Assad and all other perpetrators of gross human rights violations in the Syrian conflict to justice. It is clear that we must take action. Last week I introduced, the Syrian War Crimes Accountability Act of 2014, S. 2209 along with Senators Rubio and Kaine. My bill strongly condemns the ongoing violence, the use of chemical weapons, the targeting of civilian populations, and the systematic gross human rights violations carried out by both the Syrian government and opposition forces. My legislation requires the Secretary of State to provide Congress with a description of violations of internationally recognized human rights abuses and crimes against humanity committed during the conflict in Syria. Finally, the bill requires the Secretary to report to Congress on efforts by the Department of State and USAID to ensure accountability for these violations and provide a review of the facts concerning any prosecution in the case of Syrian crimes that could be defined under universal jurisdiction. This Monday marked the 20th anniversary of the genocide in Rwanda. Unfortunately, we have not learned the lessons of the past. We must do better to not only see that sort of atrocities never again occur under our watch, but to ensure that the perpetrators of such heinous crimes are held accountable for their actions. Ignoring the crisis in Syria is both morally wrong and counterproductive to our National security and that of our allies. War tactics employed in Syria by government and some opposition forces fly in the face of the rules of war. For the sake of our National security interests and regional stability, we cannot turn a blind eye to these heinous acts. I strongly believe that there are times when the international community must come together to end atrocities, protect innocent lives from crimes against humanity and hold accountable the groups that perpetrate them. The Syrian War Crimes Accountability Act of 2014 sends a strong message to the international community that the United States is firmly committed to bringing all perpetrators of international crimes in Syria to justice. I urge my Senate colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation. ____________________ NATIONAL CONGENITAL DIAPHRAGMATIC HERNIA AWARENESS MONTH Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I wish to discuss S. Res. 414. I am pleased the Senate has unanimously declared April as National Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia Awareness Month for the second consecutive year. I thank my friend and able colleague, Senator Ben Cardin of Maryland, for joining me in this legislation. This resolution is very important to me and my family, as my grandson, Jim Beau, is a CDH survivor. CDH is a birth defect that occurs when the fetal diaphragm fails to fully develop. The lungs develop at the same time as the diaphragm and the digestive system. When a diaphragmatic hernia occurs, the abdominal organs move into and develop in the chest instead of remaining in the abdomen. With the heart, lungs, and abdominal organs all taking up space in the chest, the lungs do not have space to develop properly. This may cause the lungs to be small and underdeveloped. A diaphragmatic hernia is a life-threatening condition. When the lungs do not develop properly during pregnancy, it can be difficult for the baby to breathe after birth or the baby is unable to take in enough oxygen to stay healthy. CDH will normally be diagnosed by a prenatal ultrasound, as early as the 16th week of pregnancy. If undiagnosed before birth, the baby may be born in a facility that is not equipped to treat its compromised system because many CDH babies will need to be placed on a heart-lung bypass machine, which is not available in many hospitals. All babies born with CDH will need to be cared for in a neonatal intensive care unit, NICU, and most will need extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, ECMO. Babies born with CDH will have difficulty breathing as their lungs are often too small, biochemically and structurally immature. As a result, the babies are intubated as soon as they are born, and parents are often unable to hold their babies for weeks or even months at a time. Most diaphragmatic hernias are repaired with surgery 1 to 5 days after birth, usually with a GORE-TEX patch. The abdominal organs that have migrated into the chest are put back where they are supposed to be and the hole in the diaphragm is closed, hopefully allowing the affected lungs to expand. Hospitalization often ranges from 3 weeks to 10 weeks following the procedure, depending on the severity of the condition. Survivors often have difficulty feeding, some require a second surgery to control reflux, others require a feeding tube, and a few will reherniate and require additional repair. Awareness, good prenatal care, early diagnosis, and skilled treatment are the keys to a greater survival rate in these babies. That is why this resolution is so important. Within the last year, researchers identified a specific gene that may contribute to CDH. The research found that an abnormality in a gene, Ndst1, could lead to the development of CDH. This study was conducted on mice, so more research is needed to determine the role of this gene in humans. However, it certainly is a step in the right direction toward identifying the cause of this defect. Congenital diaphragmatic hernia is a birth defect that occurs in 1 out of every 3,817 live births worldwide. The CDC estimates that CDH affects 1,088 babies in the U.S. each year. Every 10 minutes a baby is born with CDH, adding up to more than 600,000 babies with CDH since just 2000. CDH is a severe, sometimes fatal defect that occurs nearly as often as cystic fibrosis and spina bifida. Yet, most people have never heard of CDH. The cause of CDH is unknown. Most cases of diaphragmatic hernia are believed to be multi- factorial in origin, meaning both genetic and environmental are involved. It is thought that multiple genes from both parents, as well as a number of environmental factors that scientists do not yet fully understand, contribute to the development of a diaphragmatic hernia. [[Page 6187]] Up to 20 percent of cases of CDH have a genetic cause due to a chromosome defect or genetic syndrome. According to the CDC, babies born with CDH experience a high mortality rate ranging from 20 percent to 60 percent depending on the severity of the defect and the treatments available at delivery. The mortality rate has remained stable since 1999. Approximately 40 percent of babies born with CDH will have other birth defects in addition to CDH. The most common is a congenital heart defect. Babies born with CDH today have a better chance of survival due to early detection and research on treatment options. Researchers are making great progress to determine the cause of this birth defect and to identify optimal treatment methods for babies born with CDH. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, NCBDDD and the National Birth Defects Prevention Network, NBDPN, collaborate to identify risk factors for birth defects and to assess the effect of these birth defects on children, families, and the healthcare system. NBDPN investigators are currently working to examine risk factors for CDH and predictors of long-term survival for infants born with CDH, with analysis planned in 2014 and publication anticipated by 2015. In addition, investigators at the National Birth Defects Prevention Study, NBDPS, have proposed conducting specific research to better understand risk factors for CDH, as well as factors that predict improved survival rates for infants born with CDH. In fiscal year 2013, NIH funded approximately $2,560,000 in CDH research. The Developmental Biology and Structural Variations Branch, DBSVB, at the NIH is currently supporting a collaboration between basic scientists who study CDH and clinicians who work with CDH patients and their families by working with the Massachusetts General Hospital and the Children's Hospital of Boston. The researchers then use the genetic information and biological samples obtained from patients and their families to identify specific genes that could be involved in the defect. In 2009, my grandson Jim Beau was diagnosed with CDH during my daughter Mary Abigail's 34th week of pregnancy. At that time, no one in my family had heard of CDH before. Fortunately, she was referred to Dr. David Kays at Shands Children's Hospital in Gainesville, FL, who is a premier surgeon and expert on CDH. Jim Beau was born on November 30, 2009. My daughter and her husband Paul heard their son cry out twice after he was born, right before they intubated him, but they were not allowed to hold him. The doctors let his little lungs get strong before they did the surgery to correct the hernia when he was 4 days old. It turned out that the hole in the hernia was large. His intestines, spleen and one kidney were up in his chest. The skilled surgeon was able to close the hole and properly arrange the organs. Thankfully, Jim Beau did not have to go on a heart/lung bypass machine, but he was on a ventilator for 12 days and on oxygen for 36 days. In total, he was in the NICU for 43 days before he was able to go home. He is now a healthy, high-spirited 4-year-old and a delight to be around. Fortunately for my family and thousands of similar families across the United States, a number of physicians are doing incredible work to combat CDH. The CDH survival rate at Shands Children's Hospital in Gainesville, FL, where my grandson was treated, is one of those fine centers. The survival rate of CDH babies born at Shands is between 80 percent and 90 percent. Dr. David Kays, the head physician and who performed my grandson's surgeries, uses gentle ventilation therapy as opposed to hyperventilation. Gentle ventilation therapy is less aggressive and therefore protects the underdeveloped lungs. Dr. Kays published a paper in the Annals of Surgery in October 2013 regarding his work with CDH babies. He and his colleagues reviewed 208 CDH patients to analyze the impact of the timing of the hernia repair on babies born with CDH. This study found that those with more severe CDH may benefit from repair before ECMO, while those with a less severe hernia have higher survival rates and reduced need of ECMO if the repair surgery is delayed at least 48 hours after birth, as was the case with Jim Beau. This conclusion is a vital step in the development of a risk-specific treatment strategy for management of CDH. The final line of Dr. Kays' paper should be noted: [T]he survival attained in this large and inclusive series of patients with CDH should be reassuring to physicians and parents faced with a new prenatal diagnosis of CDH. My family was very lucky that Jim Beau's defect was caught before he was born, and that he was in the right place to receive excellent care for his CDH. The resolution Senator Cardin and I introduced is important because it will bring awareness to this birth defect, and this awareness will save lives. Although hundreds of thousands of babies have been diagnosed with this defect, the causes are still unknown and more research is needed. Every year more is learned and there are more successes. We are making good progress and we must continue our efforts. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation to bring awareness to CDH. ____________________ TAIWAN RELATIONS ACT 35TH ANNIVERSARY Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I wish to celebrate the 35th anniversary of the enactment of the Taiwan Relations Act, TRA, which has served as a tangible symbol of the unbreakable friendship between the United States and Taiwan. Today, the partnership between our two countries is stronger than ever. The 1979 Taiwan Relations Act provides the framework for our official engagements with Taiwan, which marked the end of our official diplomatic ties. For 35 years the TRA has facilitated a partnership committed to facilitating trade, investment, security cooperation, and promoting regional security. The bilateral achievements made through the TRA have allowed our citizens to create innovative and lasting advancements to the world economy. Today, Taiwan stands as our 12th largest trading partner, and in 2013, the United States and Taiwan traded over $63 billion in goods and services. This bilateral relationship has supported thousands of jobs in both countries, and we must remain committed to the mutual gains this collaboration can provide. I applaud our West Virginia businesses that have recognized the potential of the Taiwanese economy and exported over $41 million in commodities, high-tech goods, and services to Taiwan last year. We must build on this strong foundation while helping Taiwan meet its needs for foreign sources of energy. I will continue to seek opportunities for further trade integration with Taiwan and shared economic prosperity. I look forward to working hand-in-hand with our friends in Taiwan to ensure the next generation of American leaders can stand where I stand today, 35 years from now, and celebrate several more decades of peaceful and vibrant collaboration. ____________________ ARMENIAN GENOCIDE ANNIVERSARY Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, the Armenian genocide is sometimes called the ``forgotten genocide.'' But every April, we come together to remember and commemorate the Armenian genocide and to declare that we will never forget. In order to prevent future genocides, we must clearly acknowledge and remember those of the past. For many years the Congress has had before it a resolution which clearly affirms the factual reality that the Armenian genocide did occur. I was a strong and vocal supporter of the genocide resolution for my entire tenure in the House, and I am proud to have joined Senator Menendez and Senator Kirk in introducing the Armenian genocide resolution in the Senate. [[Page 6188]] This is the 99th anniversary of the Armenian genocide, yet the suffering will continue for Armenians and non-Armenians alike as long as the world allows denial to exist and prevail. It is long overdue for the United States to join the many other nations that have formally recognized the Armenian genocide. That is why today's passage by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee of the genocide resolution in advance of the 99th anniversary is so historic. I was proud to vote for this important resolution today in committee, and I will keep fighting to ensure its passage by the full Senate. I will continue to work with the Armenian-American community to build a prosperous and bright future for the Armenian people. We must continue to stand with our ally Armenia to address the challenges they face. Armenia is confronted with blockades by Turkey and Azerbaijan--one of the longest lasting blockades in modern history. The United States must provide increased assistance to Armenia, work to promote trade with Armenia, and work to reestablish the Turkish Government's commitment to normalized relations. And the United States should work to facilitate a closer relationship between Armenia and Europe. The Armenian people are true survivors. Despite repeated invasions, loss of land, and the loss of between one-half and three-quarters of their population in the genocide, the people of Armenia have prevailed. We have a shared responsibility to ensure that the Armenian people are able to build their own independent and prosperous future. Together we can continue to build an Armenia that is respected and honored by its allies and neighbors. But for this to happen, there needs to be universal acknowledgement of the horror that was the Armenian genocide. ____________________ TRIBUTE TO MARION LOOMIS Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, after 38 years with the Wyoming Mining Association, Marion Loomis is retiring. Marion started his career in the early 1970s with the State of Wyoming's Department of Economic Planning and Development as an economic development geologist. In one of his first jobs, he ran the fuel allocation office during the Arab oil embargo in 1973. In 1976, he joined the Wyoming Mining Association and was made executive director in 1991. His vast knowledge and experience are tremendous assets to the State and its people, and we are grateful for his service. In Wyoming, we have adopted the Code of the West as our official State code of ethics. Marion Loomis personifies the code. This list of ten ideals every man and woman should live by perfectly describes Marion's personal--and professional--demeanor. Marion Loomis takes quiet pride in his work. With his advocacy, Wyoming has seen exponential growth in the coal industry. When he began, Wyoming produced 8 million tons of coal annually. Today, around 400 million tons of Wyoming coal are mined and shipped nationwide--and worldwide. Marion has never been one to boast or brag. Instead, he lets his accomplishments speak for themselves. In the past 40 years, Wyoming's production of trona has grown from 1 mine that produced 300,000 tons per year to 4 mines which produce over 10 million tons annually. When he speaks, people listen. They know that his opinions reflect a lifetime of study and are tough, balanced, and fair. Throughout his career, Marion Loomis has been a champion for Wyoming energy. He was a steadfast leader for the Wyoming Mining Association during several boom and bust cycles in energy development. The State's uranium production is a prime example. He witnessed a booming industry stagnate in the 1990s. Today, it has emerged again as a valuable resource. Marion has always promoted Wyoming as a key player in our Nation's quest for energy independence. He truly does ride for the brand, and his leadership is inspiring. Marion retired from the Wyoming Mining Association earlier this month. He will be missed, but he has left both the association and the industry stronger, thanks to his dedication and hard work. In the days ahead, Marion plans to fish the streams of Wyoming's Bighorn Mountains, where he and his wife have a cabin. I cannot think of a more fitting reward for a job--and a career--well done. ____________________ NATIONAL HEALTHCARE DECISIONS DAY Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I wish to recognize National Healthcare Decisions Day, which is next Wednesday, April 16, a day to educate the public about advance care planning and encourage them to have conversations with loved ones to plan for end-of-life decisions. I am pleased that over 50 organizations--representing health providers, communities of faith, the legal community, and the public sector--in Florida are participating in the day's events. This issue has been important to me throughout my career, and as the chairman of the Senate's Special Committee on Aging, I had the opportunity to chair a hearing on end-of-life care last June. We found that polls show most Americans would like to talk about their advanced care needs, but they do not know how or with whom to have these conversations. In fact, only about 20 percent of Americans have executed an advanced directive, in part due to a lack of knowledge about planning. Our hearing also touched on some commonsense solutions that individuals have used to broach this topic with their loved ones. For example, Aging with Dignity, an organization based in my home State of Florida, has created a simple resource called Five Wishes that is focused on things that are meaningful for patients and families, rather than a system of advance care planning dictated exclusively by the terms of doctors and lawyers. Five Wishes takes into account personal, emotional, and spiritual needs as well as medical wishes. With a straightforward, easy-to-complete questionnaire, Five Wishes takes end- of-life decision-making out of the emergency room and into the living room. There are also areas where the Federal Government could help alleviate some of the barriers individuals face in trying to complete an advance directive. We know many people could use the assistance of a trusted health care provider in completing an advance directive. In 2010, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services--CMS--included advance care planning as a reimbursable item as part of the annual wellness visit for Medicare beneficiaries under the Affordable Care Act. Unfortunately, just a short time later, CMS reversed itself and removed this service as reimbursable. I hope this decision is revisited. At the same time, there are efforts at the State level. For example, in Florida, a consortium of health care providers, faith-based groups, and the legal profession are collaborating to establish the Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment program to ensure that advance directives are honored. It is my hope Congress will support the goals of National Healthcare Decisions Day. Advance care planning is a desired health service and should be a normal part of health care. Advance care planning can empower individuals and allow adults to voice their medical treatment preferences. Together, we can ensure Americans' wishes for medical care at the end of their lives are respected and achieved. ____________________ MEDICARE PHYSICIAN PAYMENT SYSTEM Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, recently the Senate failed to permanently repeal the current system of automatic payment cuts for physicians who treat Medicare patients and to replace it with a more sensible system for reimbursing physicians. Instead, the Senate voted--yet again--to pass a short-term patch to this broken system, which postponed these payment cuts for one more year. After talking with Medicare providers in my State, I decided to oppose [[Page 6189]] this legislation since it provides only a bandaid for a wholly broken system. I believe that an enduring solution is possible and absolutely necessary, and I will continue to fight for a more sustainable replacement that rewards physicians for the high-quality care they deliver. Minnesota is No. 1 in the Nation when it comes to the quality of the health care that we provide. If our system of reimbursement could reward providers for their efficiency and quality--rather than the quantity of the services they administer--we could improve the value of the care that our seniors receive while rewarding providers who keep patients healthy. We can do that by overhauling the Medicare physician payment formula and implementing a system that rewards health care value over volume, and there has never been a better moment to do that than now. Over the past 10 years, Congress has spent $150 billion on short-term fixes; the Congressional Budget Office estimated earlier this year that the cost of permanently repealing the formula and replacing it with a more sustainable program now would be even lower than that total so far. For the first time since the passage of our current formula, there was bipartisan, bicameral legislation to fully repeal the Medicare physician payment formula and replace it with a payment system that would better reward physicians for providing high- value care. We have a unique opportunity to permanently solve this problem. Temporary patches--like the one just passed--only perpetuate the instability created by the annual threat of payment reductions. This instability is bad for patients and bad for providers. Take, for example, the young physician from Rogers, MN who recently called my office to discuss how proposed payment cuts would affect his practice and his future. As a father and a new surgeon, this doctor described the challenges of paying off high levels of debt and starting a new practice in a time of financial uncertainty. Temporary fixes will not help this young doctor to establish a practice and provide the best possible care to his patients. Stopgap measures fail to address the underlying problem with the way Medicare pays for physician services, and I am tired of postponing good policies that help support high- quality providers in Minnesota. It is clear that now is time to permanently repeal and replace the Medicare physician payment formula. That is why I did not support the legislation to temporarily patch our provider payment system and why I am committed to working towards a permanent solution that would put in place a payment system to reward high-value care. My goal is to make sure that Medicare beneficiaries, now and in the future, have access to high-quality, affordable health care services. To achieve this, Medicare must be on sound financial footing and be prepared to meet the needs of an aging baby boomer generation. Replacing Medicare's broken system of provider payments with a system to promote high-value care is a critical step in this direction. I remain committed to helping to take this step. ____________________ TRIBUTE TO ANDREW KERR Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to an invaluable member of my staff on the Select Committee on Intelligence, Andrew Kerr. Andrew has been a familiar face around the committee for the last 7 years, but he will leave us shortly to return to the State Department. I am honored to have the opportunity to thank Andrew for his service on the committee, and I want to publicly note my appreciation for his outstanding work. Since becoming the vice chairman of the committee in 2011, I have often looked to Andrew for guidance and counsel on intelligence and counterterrorism matters. Despite the successes or shortcomings of the intelligence community, Andrew has always provided grounded and dependable advice. He has also done extensive oversight work designed to reduce excessive spending and encourage efficiency in the intelligence community. Andrew is a dedicated public servant and I am sure the State Department is happy to have him return. His presence will be missed on the committee and in the Senate, but I want to wish him well as he returns to the Executive branch. Thanks Andrew, for a job well done. Mr. President, I yield the floor. ____________________ ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS ______ SOUTH ANCHORAGE HIGH SCHOOL Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to South Anchorage High School as they celebrate their 10th anniversary. Since opening 10 years ago, the South Anchorage High School Wolverines have excelled both academically and interscholastically by preparing students for higher education and job training. In addition to a full complement of advanced placement classes for students, the Wolverines also annually achieve one of the highest graduation rates in the state at 88 percent. These academic achievements are a testament to the knowledgeable teachers, hard-working students, and supportive parents that call the south Anchorage area home. Along with their academic achievements, South Anchorage has also been very successful in interscholastic athletic events. With over eight State championships in various sports over the past few years, South High School's students have shown they can excel in the classroom and on the field. On behalf of a grateful nation, I join my colleagues today in recognizing South Anchorage High School on their 10th anniversary and wish them continued growth and success. ____________________ TRIBUTE TO JOHN T. WATTS Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I wish to honor John T. Watts. Tommy, as he is known to his friends and colleagues, is a friend of mine. I know he is so proud of his three children, six grandchildren, and five great-grandchildren. It is notable that his daughter Kimberly is married to former U.S. Congressman Zach Wamp. A native of Old Hickory, TN, Tommy moved to my hometown of Chattanooga, TN, at the age of 10. After graduating from Red Bank High School, he attended Tennessee Tech University. He returned to Chattanooga and began working for Southern Champion Tray in 1976. During his 38 years of service to Southern Champion Tray, Tommy served in a variety of capacities, including as a plant supervisor and most recently, as structural design manager. Winning numerous design awards in the paper and box industry, his designs can be found in local companies such as Chattanooga Bakery and Top Flight. He distinguished himself within the company by being the only employee to work in all three company locations--two in Chattanooga and one in Mansfield, TX. I wish him and his family all the best as he finishes his impressive career at the end of this month. ____________________ REMEMBERING VAL OGDEN Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I would like to pay tribute to a strong community leader, dedicated public servant, and advocate from the State of Washington, Val Ogden. Val was a longtime friend and I would not be where I am today without her support. She was a community advocate, in the truest and strongest sense of the word, and she was a champion for women and children. She was a member of the Washington State House of Representatives, serving as speaker pro tempore. Val was a leader for her community, securing funding for Washington State University Vancouver. She was a strong Democrat and very active in the Clark County Democratic Party. Val served as the executive director of the Clark County YWCA. But you can't talk about Val without talking about her husband of 67 years, Dan. They were a team and were always working together to make their community a better place to live. [[Page 6190]] Val was also a very dedicated mother and grandmother. Along with Dan, she is survived by three children: Dan, Janeth and Patti, six grandchildren, and six great-grandchildren. She will be missed by many but her legacy and leadership lives on. Mr. President, I would like to ask my colleagues to join me in paying homage to Val Ogden. She lived a full life and our thoughts are with her loved ones at this time of great loss. ____________________ BUTTERNUT MOUNTAIN FARM Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I wish to bring to your attention to a remarkable Vermont family. The Marvin family has an incredible family tie to Vermont and to one of the State's best known products--maple syrup. David Marvin founded Butternut Mountain Farm in 1972 on land his father purchased in Johnson, VT., in the 1950s. David Marvin has a strong and enduring commitment to an iconic Vermont industry. Through careful stewardship, and with the help of his wife Lucy, he has built a company renowned for quality maple products. The family produced maple syrup, grew Christmas trees and consulted on timber management. Today, David's children, Ira and Emma, are integral to the operation, which includes more than 80 employees, maple syrup from 300 Vermont farms, and a 75,000 square-foot facility in Morrisville, VT. Butternut Mountain Farm is more than just a producer of maple syrup; it has also become an effective marketer of a treasured product of Vermont. The family and the company have been recognized for their success. Just a decade after the company's founding, for example, Butternut Mountain Farm was named Vermont State Tree Farm of the Year and National Tree Farm of the Year by the American Forest Institute. The Marvins are encouraging a culture of conservation. Their Morrisville operation is increasingly relying on renewable energies and energy efficiency. The family has also developed a pay structure that seeks to reward employees with flexible hours, to help reduce commuting costs, and a fair wage. It is also worth noting that the Marvin family's business plays a crucial role in supporting the jobs of countless Vermonters throughout the state who produce maple syrup which is bottled by Butternut Mountain Farm. ____________________ 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 1:15 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered by Mr. Novotny, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has passed the following bill, without amendment: S. 2195. An act to deny admission to the United States to any representative to the United Nations who has been found to have been engaged in espionage activities or a terrorist activity against the United States and poses a threat to United States national security interests. The message also announced that the House agreed to the following concurrent resolution, without amendment: S. Con. Res. 35. Concurrent resolution providing for a conditional adjournment or recess of the Senate and an adjournment of the House of Representatives. Enrolled Bill Signed At 3:41 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered by Mr. Novotny, one of its reading clerks, announced that the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry) had signed the following enrolled bill: S. 2195. An act to deny admission to the United States to any representative to the United Nations who has been found to have been engaged in espionage activities or a terrorist activity against the United States and poses a threat to United States national security interests. The enrolled bill was subsequently signed by the President pro tempore (Mr. Leahy). ____________________ ENROLLED BILL PRESENTED The Secretary of the Senate reported that on today, April 10, 2014, she had presented to the President of the United States the following enrolled bill: S. 2195. An act to deny admission to the United States to any representative to the United Nations who has been found to have been engaged in espionage activities or a terrorist activity against the United States and poses a threat to United States national security interests. ____________________ 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-5293. A communication from the Associate Administrator of the Fruit and Vegetable Programs, Agricultural Marketing Service, Department of Agriculture, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Watermelon Research and Promotion Plan; Importer Membership Requirements'' (Docket No. AMS-FV-11-0031) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on April 9, 2014; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. EC-5294. A communication from the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict), Performing the Duties of the Under Secretary of Defense (Policy), Department of Defense, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to the training of the U.S. Special Operations Forces with friendly foreign forces during fiscal year 2013; to the Committee on Armed Services. EC-5295. A communication from the Associate Director for Regulatory Affairs, Office of Foreign Assets Control, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Syrian Sanctions Regulations'' (31 CFR Part 542) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on April 8, 2014; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-5296. A communication from the General Counsel, Consumer Product Safety Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Safety Standard for Soft Infant and Toddler Carriers'' ((16 CFR Part 1112 and 16 CFR Part 1226) (Docket No. CPSC-2013-0014)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on April 9, 2014; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-5297. A communication from the Acting General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Generator Verification Reliability Standards'' (Docket No. RM13-16-000) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on April 9, 2014; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. EC-5298. A communication from the Director, Equal Employment Opportunities and Diversity Programs, National Archives and Records Administration, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Administration's fiscal year 2013 annual report relative to the Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-5299. A communication from the Acting Chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts, transmitting, pursuant to law, the fiscal year 2013 annual report relative to the Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002 (No FEAR Act); to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-5300. A communication from the Associate Commissioner, National Indian Gaming Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Commission's fiscal year 2013 annual report relative to the Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-5301. A communication from the Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Agency's fiscal year 2013 annual report relative to the Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002 (No FEAR Act); to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-5302. A communication from the Chairman of the Council of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on D.C. Act 20-304, ``Belmont Park Designation and Establishment Act of 2014''; to the [[Page 6191]] Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-5303. A communication from the Chairman of the Council of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on D.C. Act 20-305, ``Marijuana Possession Decriminalization Amendment Act of 2014''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-5304. A communication from the Chairman of the Council of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on D.C. Act 20-306, ``DC Promise Establishment Act of 2014''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-5305. A joint communication from the Acting Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) and the Chief of Staff of the Department of Veterans Affairs, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to the activities of the Extremity Trauma and Amputation Center of Excellence during fiscal year 2013; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. EC-5306. A communication from the Secretary of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, a six-month periodic report on the national emergency with respect to Syria that was declared in Executive Order 13338 of May 11, 2004; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-5307. A communication from the Assistant to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Enhanced Prudential Standards for Bank Holding Companies and Foreign Banking Organizations'' (RIN7100-AD86) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on April 9, 2014; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-5308. A communication from the Chief of the Broadband Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment of the Commission's Rules with Regard to Commercial Operations in the 1695-1710 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz, and 2155-2180 MHz Bands'' ((GN Docket No. 13-185) (FCC 14-31)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on April 10, 2014; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-5309. A communication from the Chief of Staff, Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment of the Commission's Rules Related to Retransmission Consent, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking'' (MB Docket No. 10-71, FCC 14-29) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on April 10, 2014; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-5310. A communication from the Director of Congressional Affairs, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``General Site Suitability Criteria for Nuclear Power Stations'' (Regulatory Guide 4.7, Revision 3) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on April 10, 2014; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-5311. A communication from the Director of Congressional Affairs, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Response Strategies for Potential Aircraft Threats'' (Regulatory Guide 1.214, Revision 1) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on April 10, 2014; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-5312. A communication from the Chief of the Publications and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Rollovers to Qualified Plans'' (Rev. Rul. 2014-9) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on April 8, 2014; to the Committee on Finance. EC-5313. A communication from the Chief of the Publications and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Health Insurance Providers Fee; Procedural and Administrative Guidance'' (Notice 2014-24) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on April 10, 2014; to the Committee on Finance. EC-5314. A communication from the Assistant Secretary, Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to the United States- People's Republic of China Science and Technology Agreement of 1979; to the Committee on Foreign Relations. EC-5315. A communication from the Administrator, General Services Administration, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Administration's fiscal year 2013 report relative to the Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002 (No FEAR Act); to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-5316. A communication from the General Counsel, Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President, transmitting, pursuant to law, three (3) reports relative to vacancies in the Office of Management and Budget, received in the Office of the President of the Senate on April 10, 2014; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-5317. A communication from the Secretary of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Department of Transportation's fiscal year 2013 annual report relative to the Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002 (No FEAR Act); to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. ____________________ PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS The following petition or memorial was laid before the Senate and was referred or ordered to lie on the table as indicated: POM-223. A resolution adopted by the Legislature of Rockland County, New York urging the United States House of Representatives to pass H.R. 2510--Helping Veterans Exposed to Toxic Chemicals Act; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. ____________________ REPORTS OF COMMITTEES The following reports of committees were submitted: By Ms. LANDRIEU, from the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, without amendment: H.R. 507. A bill to provide for the conveyance of certain land inholdings owned by the United States to the Pascua Yaqui Tribe of Arizona, and for other purposes (Rept. No. 113-148). H.R. 862. A bill to authorize the conveyance of two small parcels of land within the boundaries of the Coconino National Forest containing private improvements that were developed based upon the reliance of the landowners in an erroneous survey conducted in May 1960 (Rept. No. 113-149). H.R. 876. A bill to authorize the continued use of certain water diversions located on National Forest System land in the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness and the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness in the State of Idaho, and for other purposes (Rept. No. 113-150). H.R. 1158. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to continue stocking fish in certain lakes in the North Cascades National Park, Ross Lake National Recreation Area, and Lake Chelan National Recreation Area (Rept. No. 113-151). By Mr. SCHUMER, from the Committee on Rules and Administration, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute: S. 1728. A bill to amend the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act to improve ballot accessibility to uniformed services voters and overseas voters, and for other purposes. By Mr. SCHUMER, from the Committee on Rules and Administration, without amendment: S. 1937. A bill to amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to require States to develop contingency plans to address unexpected emergencies or natural disasters that may threaten to disrupt the administration of an election for Federal office, and for other purposes. S. 1947. A bill to rename the Government Printing Office the Government Publishing Office, and for other purposes. S. 2197. A bill to repeal certain requirements regarding newspaper advertising of Senate stationery contracts. ____________________ EXECUTIVE REPORTS OF COMMITTEE The following executive reports of nominations were submitted: Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, for the Committee on Foreign Relations I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Foreign Service nominations beginning with Julie Ann Koenen and ending with Brian Keith Woody, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on January 30, 2014. (minus 1 nominee: Aaron Schubert) Foreign Service nominations beginning with Ranya F. Abdelsayed and ending with Fireno F. Zora, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on January 9, 2014. Foreign Service nominations beginning with Christopher David Frederick and ending with Julio Maldonado, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on January 30, 2014. Foreign Service nominations beginning with James Benjamin Green and ending with Geoffrey W. Wiggin, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on January 30, 2014. Foreign Service nominations beginning with Scott Thomas Bruns and ending with Janelle Weyek, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on January 30, 2014. [[Page 6192]] Foreign Service nominations beginning with Roberta Mahoney and ending with Ann Marie Yastishock, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on January 30, 2014. (minus 3 nominees: Susan K. Brems; Sharon Lee Cromer; R. Douglass Arbuckle) Foreign Service nominations beginning with Kathleen M. Adams and ending with Sean Young, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on January 30, 2014. Foreign Service nominations beginning with Kate E. Addison and ending with William F. Zeman, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on January 30, 2014. Foreign Service nominations beginning with Gerald Michael Feierstein and ending with David Michael Satterfield, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on January 30, 2014. (minus 3 nominees: Douglas A. Koneff; Leslie Meredith Tsou; Lon C. Fairchild) Foreign Service nominations beginning with Matthew D. Lowe and ending with Wilbur G. Zehr, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on January 30, 2014. Foreign Service nominations beginning with Kevin Timothy Covert and ending with Paul Wulfsberg, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on January 30, 2014. Foreign Service nominations beginning with Beata Angelica and ending with Benjamin Beardsley Dille, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on January 30, 2014. (minus 1 nominee: Daniel Menco Hirsch) Foreign Service nominations beginning with Mark L. Driver and ending with Karl William Wurster, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on February 10, 2014. Foreign Service nominations beginning with Scott S. Sindelar and ending with Christine M. Sloop, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on February 10, 2014. (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 Mr. CARDIN (for himself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Booker, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Sanders, and Mrs. Gillibrand): S. 2235. A bill to secure the Federal voting rights of persons when released from incarceration; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. BROWN: S. 2236. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to enhance efforts to address antimicrobial resistance, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. By Mr. HOEVEN (for himself and Ms. Cantwell): S. 2237. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide an elective safe harbor for the expensing by small businesses of the costs of acquiring or producing tangible property; to the Committee on Finance. By Mr. COATS (for himself, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Graham, Mr. Kirk, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Risch, Mr. Rubio, Mr. Enzi, and Mr. Portman): S. 2238. A bill to ensure that the United States Government in no way recognizes Russia's annexation of Crimea; to the Committee on Foreign Relations. By Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin (for himself and Mr. Warner): S. 2239. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permit the Secretary of the Treasury to disclose certain return information related to identity theft, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance. By Mr. COONS (for Mr. COBURN (for himself, Mr. Coons, and Mr. Blumenthal)): S. 2240. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to encourage Medicare beneficiaries to voluntarily adopt advance directives guiding the medical care they receive; to the Committee on Finance. By Mr. BEGICH: S. 2241. A bill to enhance the safety of drug-free playgrounds; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. COATS: S. 2242. A bill to establish the prudential regulator of community and independent depository institutions as the conduit and arbiter of all Federal financial oversight, examination, and reporting; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. By Mrs. MURRAY: S. 2243. A bill to expand eligibility for the program of comprehensive assistance for family caregivers of the Department of Veterans Affairs, to expand benefits available to participants under such program, to enhance special compensation for members of the uniformed services who require assistance in everyday life, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. By Mr. SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. Kirk, Mr. Reed, Mr. Heller, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Johanns, Mr. Warner, Mr. Blunt, and Mr. Menendez): S. 2244. A bill to extend the termination date of the Terrorism Insurance Program established under the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. By Mr. BEGICH (for himself and Mr. Carper): S. 2245. A bill to amend the District of Columbia Home Rule Act to streamline the District's legislative process and conserve taxpayer dollars; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. By Mr. BEGICH (for himself and Mr. Carper): S. 2246. A bill to amend the District of Columbia Home Rule Act to permit the Government of the District of Columbia to determine the fiscal year period, to make local funds of the District of Columbia for a fiscal year available for use by the District upon enactment of the local budget act for the year subject to a period of Congressional review, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. By Mrs. McCASKILL: S. 2247. A bill to prohibit the awarding of a contract or grant in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold unless the prospective contractor or grantee certifies in writing to the agency awarding the contract or grant that the contractor or grantee has no seriously delinquent tax debts, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. By Mr. FRANKEN: S. 2248. A bill to amend the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act and the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 to increase the number of children eligible for free school meals, with a phased-in transition period, with an offset; to the Committee on Finance. By Mr. FRANKEN (for himself and Ms. Klobuchar): S. 2249. A bill to amend the Indian Tribal Judgment Funds Use or Distribution Act to extend a certain income tax exemption to the Grand Portage Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians; to the Committee on Finance. By Ms. KLOBUCHAR (for herself, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Begich, Mr. Kirk, Mr. Schatz, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Reid, Mr. Heller, Mr. Schumer, Ms. Ayotte, Mr. Warner, Mr. Graham, Ms. Hirono, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Boozman, Mr. Nelson, Mr. Hoeven, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Hatch, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Vitter, Ms. Collins, Mrs. Shaheen, and Ms. Mikulski): S. 2250. A bill to extend the Travel Promotion Act of 2009, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. By Mr. CASEY (for himself and Mr. Franken): S. 2251. A bill to amend the Older Americans Act of 1965 to develop and test an expanded and advanced role for direct care workers who provide long-term services and supports to older individuals in efforts to coordinate care and improve the efficiency of service delivery; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. By Mr. VITTER (for himself, Ms. Heitkamp, and Mr. Kirk): S. 2252. A bill to reaffirm the importance of community banking and community banking regulatory experience on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, to ensure that the Federal Reserve Board of Governors has a member who has previous experience in community banking or community banking supervision, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. By Mr. FRANKEN (for himself, Mr. Kirk, and Ms. Klobuchar): S. 2253. A bill to amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to provide for a temporary shift in the scheduled collection of the transitional reinsurance program payments; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. By Ms. KLOBUCHAR (for herself, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Franken, Mr. Booker, Mr. Casey, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. Markey, and Mr. Merkley): S. 2254. A bill to amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to enhance the COPS ON THE BEAT grant program, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. McCAIN (for himself and Mr. Menendez): S. 2255. A bill to remove the Kurdistan Democratic Party and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan from treatment as terrorist organizations and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary. [[Page 6193]] ____________________ SUBMISSION OF CONCURRENT AND SENATE RESOLUTIONS The following concurrent resolutions and Senate resolutions were read, and referred (or acted upon), as indicated: By Ms. MIKULSKI (for herself and Mr. Harkin): S. Res. 420. A resolution designating the week of October 6 through October 12, 2014, as ``Naturopathic Medicine Week'' to recognize the value of naturopathic medicine in providing safe, effective, and affordable health care; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. BOOZMAN (for himself and Ms. Landrieu): S. Res. 421. A resolution expressing the gratitude and appreciation of the Senate for the acts of heroism and military achievement by the members of the United States Armed Forces who participated in the June 6, 1944, amphibious landing at Normandy, France, and commending them for leadership and valor in an operation that helped bring an end to World War II; to the Committee on Foreign Relations. By Mr. REID (for himself and Mr. McConnell): S. Res. 422. A resolution to authorize written testimony, document production, and representation in Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Foundation, Inc. v. United States; considered and agreed to. ____________________ ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS S. 162 At the request of Mr. Franken, the name of the Senator from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu) was added as a cosponsor of S. 162, a bill to reauthorize and improve the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act of 2004. S. 367 At the request of Mr. Cardin, the name of the Senator from New York (Mrs. Gillibrand) was added as a cosponsor of S. 367, a bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to repeal the Medicare outpatient rehabilitation therapy caps. S. 489 At the request of Mr. Thune, the name of the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Flake) was added as a cosponsor of S. 489, a bill to amend the Tariff Act of 1930 to increase and adjust for inflation the maximum value of articles that may be imported duty-free by one person on one day, and for other purposes. S. 576 At the request of Mr. Johanns, the name of the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Pryor) was added as a cosponsor of S. 576, a bill to reform laws relating to small public housing agencies, and for other purposes. S. 734 At the request of Mr. Nelson, the name of the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman) was added as a cosponsor of S. 734, a bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to repeal the requirement for reduction of survivor annuities under the Survivor Benefit Plan by veterans' dependency and indemnity compensation. S. 917 At the request of Mr. Cardin, the name of the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) was added as a cosponsor of S. 917, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a reduced rate of excise tax on beer produced domestically by certain qualifying producers. S. 1163 At the request of Mr. Carper, the name of the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1163, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to include automated fire sprinkler system retrofits as section 179 property and classify certain automated fire sprinkler system retrofits as 15-year property for purposes of depreciation. S. 1174 At the request of Mr. Blumenthal, the name of the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski) 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. 1189 At the request of Mr. Menendez, the name of the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1189, a bill to adjust the boundaries of Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park to include Hinchliffe Stadium, and for other purposes. S. 1431 At the request of Mr. Thune, the name of the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1431, a bill to permanently extend the Internet Tax Freedom Act. S. 1468 At the request of Mr. Udall of New Mexico, his name was added as a cosponsor of S. 1468, a bill to require the Secretary of Commerce to establish the Network for Manufacturing Innovation and for other purposes. S. 1500 At the request of Mr. Cornyn, the name of the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1500, a bill to declare the November 5, 2009, attack at Fort Hood, Texas, a terrorist attack, and to ensure that the victims of the attack and their families receive the same honors and benefits as those Americans who have been killed or wounded in a combat zone overseas and their families. S. 1507 At the request of Mr. Moran, the name of the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1507, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify the treatment of general welfare benefits provided by Indian tribes. S. 1530 At the request of Ms. Landrieu, the names of the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Casey) and the Senator from Maine (Mr. King) were added as cosponsors of S. 1530, a bill to realign structures and reallocate resources in the Federal Government, in keeping with the core American belief that families are the best protection for children and the bedrock of any society, to bolster United States diplomacy and assistance targeted at ensuring that every child can grow up in a permanent, safe, nurturing, and loving family, and to strengthen intercountry adoption to the United States and around the world and ensure that it becomes a viable and fully developed option for providing families for children in need, and for other purposes. S. 1622 At the request of Ms. Heitkamp, the name of the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Heinrich) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1622, a bill to establish the Alyce Spotted Bear and Walter Soboleff Commission on Native Children, and for other purposes. S. 1645 At the request of Mr. Brown, the name of the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Whitehouse) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1645, a bill to limit the authority of States to tax certain income of employees for employment duties performed in other States. S. 1728 At the request of Mr. Cornyn, the names of the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar) and the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Pryor) were added as cosponsors of S. 1728, a bill to amend the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act to improve ballot accessibility to uniformed services voters and overseas voters, and for other purposes. S. 1802 At the request of Mr. Donnelly, the name of the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1802, a bill to provide equal treatment for utility special entities using utility operations- related swaps, and for other purposes. S. 1839 At the request of Mr. Begich, the name of the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1839, a bill to make certain luggage and travel articles eligible for duty-free treatment under the Generalized System of Preferences, and for other purposes. S. 1862 At the request of Mr. Blunt, the names of the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) and the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow) were added as cosponsors of S. 1862, a bill to grant the Congressional Gold Medal, collectively, to the Monuments Men, in recognition of their heroic role in the preservation, protection, and restitution of monuments, works of art, and [[Page 6194]] artifacts of cultural importance during and following World War II. S. 1975 At the request of Mrs. Gillibrand, the names of the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul) and the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski) were added as cosponsors of S. 1975, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide an above-the-line deduction for child care expenses, and for other purposes. S. 1996 At the request of Mrs. Hagan, the names of the Senator from Missouri (Mrs. McCaskill), the Senator from New Hampshire (Ms. Ayotte), the Senator from Montana (Mr. Walsh) and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr) were added as cosponsors of S. 1996, a bill to protect and enhance opportunities for recreational hunting, fishing, and shooting, and for other purposes. S. 2037 At the request of Mr. Roberts, the names of the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Thune) and the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker) were added as cosponsors of S. 2037, a bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to remove the 96-hour physician certification requirement for inpatient critical access hospital services. S. 2078 At the request of Mrs. Shaheen, the name of the Senator from Maine (Ms. Collins) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2078, a bill to prohibit Federal funding for motorcycle checkpoints, and for other purposes. S. 2082 At the request of Mr. Menendez, the name of the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2082, a bill to provide for the development of criteria under the Medicare program for medically necessary short inpatient hospital stays, and for other purposes. S. 2091 At the request of Mr. Heller, the names of the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Thune) were added as cosponsors of S. 2091, a bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the processing by the Department of Veterans Affairs of claims for benefits under laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes. S. 2100 At the request of Ms. Collins, the name of the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2100, a bill to promote the use of clean cookstoves and fuels to save lives, improve livelihoods, empower women, and protect the environment by creating a thriving global market for clean and efficient household cooking solutions. S. 2103 At the request of Mr. Boozman, the name of the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2103, a bill to direct the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to issue or revise regulations with respect to the medical certification of certain small aircraft pilots, and for other purposes. S. 2140 At the request of Mr. Heinrich, the name of the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2140, a bill to improve the transition between experimental permits and commercial licenses for commercial reusable launch vehicles. S. 2163 At the request of Mr. Udall of Colorado, the name of the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2163, a bill to establish an emergency watershed protection disaster assistance fund to be available to the Secretary of Agriculture to provide assistance for any natural disaster. S. 2178 At the request of Mr. Alexander, the name of the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2178, a bill to amend the National Labor Relations Act with respect to the timing of elections and pre-election hearings and the identification of pre-election issues, and to require that lists of employees eligible to vote in organizing elections be provided to the National Labor Relations Board. S. 2182 At the request of Mr. Walsh, the name of the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2182, a bill to expand and improve care provided to veterans and members of the Armed Forces with mental health disorders or at risk of suicide, to review the terms or characterization of the discharge or separation of certain individuals from the Armed Forces, to require a pilot program on loan repayment for psychiatrists who agree to serve in the Veterans Health Administration of the Department of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes. S. 2223 At the request of Mr. Harkin, the names of the Senator from Missouri (Mrs. McCaskill), the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Reed), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Udall), the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin), the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren), the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden), the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Franken), the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons) and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson) were added as cosponsors of S. 2223, 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. CON. RES. 34 At the request of Mr. Rubio, the name of the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch) was added as a cosponsor of S. Con. Res. 34, a concurrent resolution expressing the sense of Congress that the President should hold the Russian Federation accountable for being in material breach of its obligations under the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. S. RES. 413 At the request of Mr. Coons, the names of the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) and the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen) were added as cosponsors of S. Res. 413, a resolution recognizing 20 years since the genocide in Rwanda, and affirming it is in the national interest of the United States to work in close coordination with international partners to help prevent and mitigate acts of genocide and mass atrocities. ____________________ STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS By Mr. CARDIN (for himself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Booker, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Sanders, and Mrs. Gillibrand): S. 2235. A bill to secure the Federal voting rights of persons when released from incarceration; to the Committee on the Judiciary. Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Democracy Restoration Act, known as the DRA. I want to thank Judiciary Committee Chairman Leahy and Senators Durbin, Whitehouse, Booker, Harkin, and Sanders as original cosponsors of this legislation. As the late Senator Kennedy often said, civil rights is the ``unfinished business'' of America. The Democracy Restoration Act would restore voting rights in Federal elections to approximately 5.8 million citizens who have been released from prison and are back living in their communities. After the Civil War, Congress enacted and the States ratified the Fifteenth Amendment, which provides that ``the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.'' Unfortunately, many States passed laws during the Jim Crow period after the Civil War to make it more difficult for newly-freed slaves to vote in elections. Such laws included poll taxes, [[Page 6195]] literacy tests, and disenfranchisement measures. Some disenfranchisement measures applied to misdemeanor convictions and in practice could result in lifetime disenfranchisement, even for individuals that successfully reintegrated into their communities as law-abiding citizens. It took Congress and the States nearly another century to eliminate the poll tax, upon the ratification of the Twenty-Fourth Amendment in 1964. The Amendment provides that ``the rights of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.'' Shortly thereafter Congress enacted the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which swept away numerous State laws and procedures that had denied African-Americans and other minorities their constitutional right to vote. For example, the act outlawed the use of literacy or history tests that voters had to pass before registering to vote or casting their ballot. The act specifically prohibits States from imposing any ``voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure . . . to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.'' Congress overwhelmingly reauthorized the Act in 2006, which was signed into law by President George W. Bush. Congress is now working on legislation to revitalize the VRA after recent Supreme Court decisions curtailed its reach. In 2014, I am concerned that there are still several areas where the legacy of Jim Crow laws and State disenfranchisement statutes lead to unfairness in Federal elections. First, State laws governing the restoration of voting rights vary widely throughout the country, such that persons in some States can easily regain their voting rights, while in other States persons effectively lose their right to vote permanently. Second, these State disenfranchisement laws have a disproportionate impact on racial and ethnic minorities. Third, this patchwork of State laws results in the lack of a uniform standard for eligibility to vote in Federal elections, and leads to an unfair disparity and unequal participation in Federal elections based solely on where an individual lives. Finally, studies indicate that former prisoners who have voting rights restored are less likely to reoffend, and disenfranchisement hinders their rehabilitation and reintegration into their community. In 35 States, convicted individuals may not vote while they are on parole. In 11 States, a conviction can result in lifetime disenfranchisement. Several States require prisoners to seek discretionary pardons from Governors, or action by the parole or pardon board, in order to regain their right to vote. Several States deny the right to vote to individuals convicted of certain misdemeanors. States are slowly moving or repeal or loosen many of these barriers to voting for ex-prisoners. An estimated 5,850,000 citizens of the United States, or about 1 in 40 adults in the United States, currently cannot vote as a result of a felony conviction. Of the 5,850,000 citizens barred from voting, only 25 percent are in prison. By contrast, 75 percent of the disenfranchised reside in their communities while on probation or parole after having completed their sentences. Approximately 2,600,000 citizens who have completed their sentences remain disenfranchised due to restrictive State laws. In six States: Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Virginia--more than 7 percent of the total population is disenfranchised. Studies show that a growing number of African-American men, for example, will be disenfranchised at some point in their life, partly due to mandatory minimum sentencing laws that have a disproportionate impact on minorities. Eight percent of the African-American population, or 2 million African-Americans, are disenfranchised. Given current rates of incarceration, approximately 1 in 3 of the next generation of African- American men will be disenfranchised at some point during their lifetime. Currently, 1 of every 13 African-Americans are rendered unable to vote because of felony disenfranchisement, which is a rate 4 times greater than non African-Americans. Nearly 8 percent of African- Americans are disenfranchised, compared to less than 2 percent of non- African-Americans. In 3 states more than 1 in 5 African-Americans are unable to vote because of prior convictions: the rates are Florida at 23 percent, Kentucky at 22 percent, and Virginia at 20 percent. Latino citizens are disproportionately disenfranchised based on their disproportionate representation in the criminal justice system. If current incarceration trends hold, 17 percent of Latino men will be incarcerated during their lifetime, in contrast to less than 6 percent of non-Latino white men. When analyzing the data across 10 States, Latinos generally have disproportionately higher rates of disenfranchisement compared to their presence in the voting age population. In 6 out of 10 States studies in 2003, Latinos constitute more than 10 percent of the total number of persons disenfranchised by State felony laws. In 4 States, California, 37 percent; New York, 34 percent; Texas, 30 percent; and Arizona, 27 percent, Latinos were disenfranchised by a rate of more than 25 percent. Native Americans are also disproportionately disenfranchised. Congress has addressed part of this problem by enacting the Fair Sentencing Act to partially reduce the sentencing disparity between crack cocaine and powder cocaine convictions. Congress is now considering legislation that would more broadly revise mandatory sentencing procedures and create a fairer system of sentencing. While I welcome these steps, I believe that Congress should take stronger action now to remedy this particular problem. The legislation would restore voting rights to prisoners after their release from incarceration. It requires that prisons receiving Federal funds notify people about their right to vote in Federal elections when they are leaving prison, sentenced to probation, or convicted of a misdemeanor. The bill authorizes the Department of Justice and individuals harmed by violation of this act to sue to enforce its provisions. The bill generally provides State election officials with a grace period to resolve voter eligibility complaints without a lawsuit before an election. The legislation is narrowly crafted to apply to Federal elections, and retains the States' authorities to generally establish voting qualifications. This legislation is therefore consistent with Congressional authority under the Constitution and voting rights statutes, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court. I am pleased that this legislation has been endorsed by a large coalition of public interest organizations, including: civil rights and reform organizations; religious and faith-based organizations; and law enforcement and criminal justice organizations. In particular I want to thank the Brennan Center for Justice, the ACLU, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, and the NAACP for their work on this legislation. This legislation is ultimately designed to reduce recidivism rates and help reintegrate ex-prisoners back into society. When prisoners are released, they are expected to obey the law, get a job, and pay taxes as they are rehabilitated and reintegrated into their community. With these responsibilities and obligations of citizenship should also come the rights of citizenship, including the right to vote. In 2008, President George W. Bush signed the Second Chance Act into law, after overwhelming approval and strong bipartisan support in Congress. The legislation expanded the Prison Re-Entry Initiative, by providing job training, placement services, transitional housing, drug treatment, medical care, and faith-based mentoring. At the signing ceremony, President Bush said: ``We believe that even those who have struggled with a dark past can find brighter days ahead. One way we act on that belief is by helping former prisoners who have paid for their crimes. We help them build new lives as productive members of our society.'' [[Page 6196]] The Democracy Restoration Act is fully consistent with the goals of the Second Chance Act, as Congress and the States seek to reduce recidivism rates, strengthen the quality of life in our communities and make them safer, and reduce the burden on taxpayers. More recently, in a February 2014 speech, Attorney General Eric Holder called on elected officials to reexamine disenfranchisement statutes and enact reforms to restore voting rights. I therefore urge Congress to address the issue of disenfranchisement and support this legislation. ______ By Mrs. MURRAY: S. 2243. A bill to expand eligibility for the program of comprehensive assistance for family caregivers of the Department of Veterans Affairs, to expand benefits available to participants under such program, to enhance special compensation for members of the uniformed services who require assistance in everyday life, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to introduce the Military and Veteran Caregiver Services Improvement Act. This is a bill that will make critical improvements to how we support our ill and injured veterans and their caregivers. I am especially pleased to be joined this morning by our former colleague Senator Elizabeth Dole, who has come to the floor today and who has been such a tremendous and invaluable person in working to bring these caregiver issues to national attention. I really appreciate her being here and being such a champion on this, and a leader. She has brought people from all over the country together to make a difference for our caregivers and for our veterans. We also have many of the very caregivers this bill is designed to help--representing, by the way, almost every State--in the gallery today to see this legislation introduced. I am very proud they are here. It is incredibly important that they are here today and on Capitol Hill because, as the Presiding Officer knows, our caregivers work extremely hard without any recognition, and they rarely ask for anything for themselves. In fact, most of the caregivers I have met sound much like the veterans and servicemembers they care for when they say: Oh, this isn't about me; I am just doing my part. So last week, when RAND released their comprehensive, groundbreaking study on military caregivers, they chose a very appropriate title: ``Hidden Heroes.'' That is why it is so important to have all of those caregivers here today and working constantly to make sure we all understand what they do. I am very proud to be introducing this bill not only as a Senator and a senior member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee and someone who has fought so hard for the implementation of the VA caregivers program, but, as many of my colleagues know, for me, this is really a deeply personal issue. Growing up, I saw firsthand the many ways military service can affect both veterans and their families. My father served in World War II. He was among the first soldiers to land in Okinawa. He came home as a disabled veteran and was awarded the Purple Heart. Later in life he was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. Eventually he became too sick to work at the little five-and-dime store he managed, and my mom became his caregiver. This was no small burden for my mom, who had to raise seven children, care for my dad, and was now all of a sudden the primary source of income for our family. Today, after more than a decade of two wars, men and women in uniform, as did my father, have done everything that has been asked of them and so much more. But now, as our role in this conflict winds down, the support we provide cannot end when the war no longer leads the nightly news broadcasts and disappears from the front pages of our newspapers. It is an enduring commitment for those who will first need help now or those who will need help later in their lives. It is a lifetime of care for so many. In so many cases, the responsibility for providing that care often falls on the loved ones of severely injured veterans. Their courage and their devotion in taking on these responsibilities is inspiring for all of us. They are the reason we created the VA caregivers program, which now provides these family members with health care and counseling and training and respite and a living stipend. I was proud to lead congressional efforts to push the VA to stop delaying the implementation of the caregivers program and restore the eligibility criteria to the intent of the law. Thankfully, as we know, in the end the White House and the VA announced they would allow more caregivers of more veterans to be eligible for benefits and finally got the program implemented. But there is a lot more we can do because, as the RAND study clearly shows us, caregivers are still struggling. Military caregivers have significantly worse health than noncaregivers, and they are at higher risk for depression. The stress they live under jeopardizes their relationships and puts them at greater risk of divorce, and they have trouble with employment and keeping health insurance. There is no way we will sit by and let caregivers and veterans face this on their own--not when we can make it a little bit easier. The bill we are introducing this morning, the Military and Veterans Caregivers and Services Improvement Act, makes some broad changes to help give caregivers and veterans the tools they need to help tackle what they face. I wish to take a moment on the floor today to highlight just a few of the important provisions contained in this bill. First and foremost, this bill will make veterans of all eras eligible for the full range of caregiver support services. We took an important first step in creating the post-9/11 veterans caregivers program. Now that the VA has had some time to get this program working, it is time for us to get services to our older veterans who are also in great need. The bill also expands eligibility for the VA caregivers program by recognizing a wider array of needs which may require caregiving, placing greater emphasis on mental health injuries and removing restrictions on who is eligible to become a caregiver. Under the bill, caregiver services will also be expanded to include childcare, financial advice, and legal counseling. Those are some of the top and currently unmet needs of family caregivers. The bill will also require the Federal Government to meet the unique needs of employees who are caregivers with flexible work arrangements so they can stay employed while caring for their veteran. I, of course, want to see all employers make these kinds of accommodations for caregivers, but I want the Federal Government to lead by example. When it comes to the Department of Defense, the bill makes several improvements to the special compensation for assistance with activities of daily living--first, by making those benefits tax exempt, and second, eligibility for special compensation would also be set at a more appropriate level of disability and would be more inclusive of mental health injuries and TBI. The Military and Veteran Caregiver Services Improvement Act also addresses a key theme identified by RAND. There are many services inside the government and outside to assist caregivers, but these programs are not coordinated. Eligibility criteria are different for each one of them, and there is not enough oversight to ensure the quality of those services. So what our bill does is create a national interagency working group on caregiver services. It will coordinate caregiver policy among all the different departments and create standards of care and oversight tools to make sure our veterans and their caregivers receive high-quality services. The last provision I wish to highlight is intended to help a military spouse who may be required to become the primary source of income for the family after the servicemember has been injured, just as my mom was. In order to help that spouse get the job they need [[Page 6197]] to support the family, this bill will allow the injured servicemember or veteran to transfer their post-9/11 GI bill benefits to their dependents by exempting them from the length of service requirements that would currently prevent them from transferring those benefits. Injured veterans should not be penalized because their injury occurred early in their service. This provision is extremely important because for 2013 the unemployment rate for people with bachelor's degrees was only 4 percent--about one-third lower than the national average--and their median weekly earnings were 34 percent higher than the national average. Meanwhile, the RAND study found that 62 percent of post-9/11 caregivers reported financial strain because of their caregiving. I know this is important because I saw it in my family. For my family, the additional education my mom obtained got her a better job so she could support her family while she was caring for my dad. It is what made the difference. I want to again thank some key people who have been true leaders to get this to this point. I again want to thank Senator Dole and her great staff at the Elizabeth Dole Foundation for keeping our country focused on the needs of our military and veteran caregivers and for bringing such national momentum to make the changes we need. I also want to thank the Wounded Warrior Project, which was a driving force in creating the very first VA caregivers program. They have provided invaluable advice in developing the bill I am introducing today. Finally, I really want to thank the outstanding folks at the RAND Corporation. They have put together a truly groundbreaking study that takes stock of where care and benefits have fallen short, where new needs are emerging, and how we can make it easier for veterans to get the care and benefits they deserve. There are many ways for the whole country--government, nonprofits, businesses, community leaders, faith leaders--to do more to help. For all of us in Congress, that starts with passing this legislation to help our hidden heroes--our military and veteran caregivers. I again want to thank all of our tremendous caregivers in this country for their service, for not asking for help, as they should. We are the ones who need to ask for help for them and to be there to provide it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: S. 2243 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ``Military and Veteran Caregiver Services Improvement Act of 2014''. SEC. 2. EXPANSION OF ELIGIBILITY FOR PARTICIPATION IN AND SERVICES PROVIDED UNDER FAMILY CAREGIVER PROGRAM OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS. (a) Family Caregiver Program.-- (1) Expansion of eligibility.--Subsection (a)(2)(B) of section 1720G of title 38, United States Code, is amended by striking ``on or after September 11, 2001''. (2) Clarification of eligibility for illness.--Such subsection is further amended by inserting ``or illness'' after ``serious injury''. (3) Expansion of needed services in eligibility criteria.-- Subsection (a)(2)(C) of such section is amended-- (A) in clause (ii), by striking ``; or'' and inserting a semicolon; (B) by redesignating clause (iii) as clause (iv); and (C) by inserting after clause (ii) the following new clause (iii): ``(iii) a need for regular or extensive instruction or supervision in completing two or more instrumental activities of daily living; or''. (4) Expansion of services provided.--Subsection (a)(3)(A)(ii) of such section is amended-- (A) in subclause (IV), by striking ``; and'' and inserting a semicolon; (B) in subclause (V), by striking the period at the end and inserting a semicolon; and (C) by adding at the end the following new subclauses: ``(VI) child care services or a monthly stipend for such services if such services are not readily available from the Department; ``(VII) financial planning services relating to the needs of injured and ill veterans and their caregivers; and ``(VIII) legal services, including legal advice and consultation, relating to the needs of injured and ill veterans and their caregivers.''. (5) Expansion of respite care provided.--Subsection (a)(3)(B) of such section is amended by striking ``shall be'' and all that follows through the period at the end and inserting ``shall-- ``(i) be medically and age-appropriate; ``(ii) include in-home care; and ``(iii) include peer-oriented group activities.''. (6) Modification of stipend calculation.--Subsection (a)(3)(C) of such section is amended-- (A) by redesignating clause (iii) as clause (iv); and (B) by inserting after clause (ii) the following new clause (iii): ``(iii) In determining the amount and degree of personal services provided under clause (i) with respect to an eligible veteran whose need for personal care services is based in whole or in part on a need for supervision or protection under paragraph (2)(C)(ii) or regular instruction or supervision in completing tasks under paragraph (2)(C)(iii), the Secretary shall take into account the following: ``(I) The assessment by the family caregiver of the needs and limitations of the veteran. ``(II) The extent to which the veteran can function safely and independently in the absence of such supervision, protection, or instruction. ``(III) The amount of time required for the family caregiver to provide such supervision, protection, or instruction to the veteran.''. (7) Periodic evaluation of need for certain services.-- Subsection (a)(3) of such section is amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph: ``(D) In providing instruction, preparation, and training under subparagraph (A)(i)(I) and technical support under subparagraph (A)(i)(II) to each family caregiver who is approved as a provider of personal care services for an eligible veteran under paragraph (6), the Secretary shall periodically evaluate the needs of the eligible veteran and the skills of the family caregiver of such veteran to determine if additional instruction, preparation, training, or technical support under those subparagraphs is necessary.''. (b) Repeal of General Caregiver Support Program.--Such section is amended by striking subsection (b). (c) Provision of Assistance to Caregivers of Certain Veterans.--Such section is further amended by inserting after subsection (a) the following new subsection (b): ``(b) Provision of Assistance to Caregivers of Certain Veterans.--(1) In providing assistance under subsection (a) to family caregivers of eligible veterans who were discharged from the Armed Forces before September 11, 2001, the Secretary may enter into memoranda of understanding with agencies, States, and other entities to provide such assistance to such veterans. ``(2) The Secretary may provide assistance under this subsection only if such assistance is reasonably accessible to the veteran and is substantially equivalent or better in quality to similar services provided by the Department. ``(3) The Secretary may provide fair compensation to entities that provide assistance under this subsection pursuant to memoranda of understanding entered into under paragraph (1). ``(4) In carrying out this subsection, the Secretary shall work with the interagency working group on policies relating to caregivers of veterans and members of the Armed Forces established under section 7 of the Military and Veteran Caregiver Services Improvement Act of 2014.''. (d) Modification of Definition of Family Member.-- Subparagraph (B) of subsection (d)(3) of such section is amended to read as follows: ``(B) is not a member of the family of the veteran and does not provide care to the veteran on a professional basis.''. (e) Modification of Definition of Personal Care Services.-- Subsection (d)(4) of such section is amended-- (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``independent''; (2) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (D); and (3) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following new subparagraphs: ``(B) Supervision or protection based on symptoms or residuals of neurological or other impairment or injury. ``(C) Regular or extensive instruction or supervision in completing two or more instrumental activities of daily living.''. (f) Annual Evaluation Report.-- (1) In general.--Paragraph (2) of section 101(c) of the Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-163; 38 U.S.C. 1720G note) is amended to read as follows: ``(2) Contents.--Each report required by paragraph (1) after the date of the enactment of the Military and Veteran Caregiver Services Improvement Act of 2014 shall include [[Page 6198]] the following with respect to the program of comprehensive assistance for family caregivers required by subsection (a)(1) of such section 1720G: ``(A) The number of family caregivers that received assistance under such program. ``(B) The cost to the Department of providing assistance under such program. ``(C) A description of the outcomes achieved by, and any measurable benefits of, carrying out such program. ``(D) An assessment of the effectiveness and the efficiency of the implementation of such program, including a description of any barriers to accessing and receiving care and services under such program. ``(E) A description of the outreach activities carried out by the Secretary under such program. ``(F) An assessment of the manner in which resources are expended by the Secretary under such program, particularly with respect to the provision of monthly personal caregiver stipends under subsection (a)(3)(A)(ii)(V) of such section 1720G. ``(G) An evaluation of the sufficiency and consistency of the training provided to family caregivers under such program in preparing family caregivers to provide care to veterans under such program. ``(H) Such recommendations, including recommendations for legislative or administrative action, as the Secretary considers appropriate in light of carrying out such program.''. (g) Conforming Amendments.-- (1) Eligible veteran.--Subsection (a)(2) of such section is amended, in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking ``subsection'' and inserting ``section''. (2) Definitions.--Subsection (d) of such section is amended-- (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``under subsection (a) or a covered veteran under subsection (b)''; (B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``under subsection (a)''; (C) in paragraph (3), by striking ``under subsection (a)''; and (D) in paragraph (4), in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking ``under subsection (a) or a covered veteran under subsection (b)''; and (3) Counseling, training, and mental health services.-- Section 1782(c)(2) of title 38, United States Code, is amended by striking ``or a caregiver of a covered veteran''. SEC. 3. AUTHORITY TO TRANSFER ENTITLEMENT TO POST-9/11 EDUCATION ASSISTANCE TO FAMILY MEMBERS BY SERIOUSLY INJURED VETERANS IN NEED OF PERSONAL CARE SERVICES. (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 33 of title 38, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section: ``Sec. 3319A. Authority to transfer unused education benefits to family members by seriously injured veterans ``(a) In General.--Subject to the provisions of this section, the Secretary may permit an individual described in subsection (b) who is entitled to educational assistance under this chapter to elect to transfer to one or more of the dependents specified in subsection (c) a portion of such individual's entitlement to such assistance, subject to the limitation under subsection (d). ``(b) Eligible Individuals.--An individual referred to in subsection (a) is any individual who-- ``(1) retired for physical disability under chapter 61 of title 10; or ``(2) is described in paragraph (2) of section 1720G(a) of this title and who is participating in the program established under paragraph (1) of such section. ``(c) Eligible Dependents.--An individual approved to transfer an entitlement to educational assistance under this section may transfer the individual's entitlement as follows: ``(1) To the individual's spouse. ``(2) To one or more of the individual's children. ``(3) To a combination of the individuals referred to in paragraphs (1) and (2). ``(d) Limitation on Months of Transfer.--(1) The total number of months of entitlement transferred by a individual under this section may not exceed 36 months. ``(2) The Secretary may prescribe regulations that would limit the months of entitlement that may be transferred under this section to no less than 18 months. ``(e) Designation of Transferee.--An individual transferring an entitlement to educational assistance under this section shall-- ``(1) designate the dependent or dependents to whom such entitlement is being transferred; ``(2) designate the number of months of such entitlement to be transferred to each such dependent; and ``(3) specify the period for which the transfer shall be effective for each dependent designated under paragraph (1). ``(f) Time for Transfer; Revocation and Modification.--(1) Transfer of entitlement to educational assistance under this section shall be subject to the time limitation for use of entitlement under section 3321 of this title. ``(2)(A) An individual transferring entitlement under this section may modify or revoke at any time the transfer of any unused portion of the entitlement so transferred. ``(B) The modification or revocation of the transfer of entitlement under this paragraph shall be made by the submittal of written notice of the action to the Secretary. ``(3) Entitlement transferred under this section may not be treated as marital property, or the asset of a marital estate, subject to division in a divorce or other civil proceeding. ``(g) Commencement of Use.--A dependent child to whom entitlement to educational assistance is transferred under this section may not commence the use of the transferred entitlement until either-- ``(1) the completion by the child of the requirements of a secondary school diploma (or equivalency certificate); or ``(2) the attainment by the child of 18 years of age. ``(h) Additional Administrative Matters.--(1) The use of any entitlement to educational assistance transferred under this section shall be charged against the entitlement of the individual making the transfer at the rate of one month for each month of transferred entitlement that is used. ``(2) Except as provided under subsection (e)(2) and subject to paragraphs (5) and (6), a dependent to whom entitlement is transferred under this section is entitled to educational assistance under this chapter in the same manner as the individual from whom the entitlement was transferred. ``(3) The monthly rate of educational assistance payable to a dependent to whom entitlement referred to in paragraph (2) is transferred under this section shall be payable at the same rate as such entitlement would otherwise be payable under this chapter to the individual making the transfer. ``(4) The death of an individual transferring an entitlement under this section shall not affect the use of the entitlement by the dependent to whom the entitlement is transferred. ``(5)(A) A child to whom entitlement is transferred under this section may use the benefits transferred without regard to the 15-year delimiting date specified in section 3321 of this title, but may not, except as provided in subparagraph (B), use any benefits so transferred after attaining the age of 26 years. ``(B)(i) Subject to clause (ii), in the case of a child who, before attaining the age of 26 years, is prevented from pursuing a chosen program of education by reason of acting as the primary provider of personal care services for a veteran or member of the Armed Forces under section 1720G(a) of this title, the child may use the benefits beginning on the date specified in clause (iii) for a period whose length is specified in clause (iv). ``(ii) Clause (i) shall not apply with respect to the period of an individual as a primary provider of personal care services if the period concludes with the revocation of the individual's designation as such a primary provider under section 1720G(a)(7)(D) of this title. ``(iii) The date specified in this clause for the beginning of the use of benefits by a child under clause (i) is the later of-- ``(I) the date on which the child ceases acting as the primary provider of personal care services for the veteran or member concerned as described in clause (i); ``(II) the date on which it is reasonably feasible, as determined under regulations prescribed by the Secretary, for the child to initiate or resume the use of benefits; or ``(III) the date on which the child attains the age of 26 years. ``(iv) The length of the period specified in this clause for the use of benefits by a child under clause (i) is the length equal to the length of the period that-- ``(I) begins on the date on which the child begins acting as the primary provider of personal care services for the veteran or member concerned as described in clause (i); and ``(II) ends on the later of-- ``(aa) the date on which the child ceases acting as the primary provider of personal care services for the veteran or member as described in clause (i); or ``(bb) the date on which it is reasonably feasible, as so determined, for the child to initiate or resume the use of benefits. ``(6) The purposes for which a dependent to whom entitlement is transferred under this section may use such entitlement shall include the pursuit and completion of the requirements of a secondary school diploma (or equivalency certificate). ``(7) The administrative provisions of this chapter shall apply to the use of entitlement transferred under this section, except that the dependent to whom the entitlement is transferred shall be treated as the eligible individual for purposes of such provisions. ``(i) Overpayment.--(1) In the event of an overpayment of educational assistance with respect to a dependent to whom entitlement is transferred under this section, the dependent and the individual making the transfer shall be jointly and severally liable to the United States for the amount of the overpayment for purposes of section 3685 of this title. ``(2)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), if an individual transferring entitlement under this section fails to complete the service agreed to by the individual under subsection (b)(1) in accordance with the terms of the agreement of the individual under that [[Page 6199]] subsection, the amount of any transferred entitlement under this section that is used by a dependent of the individual as of the date of such failure shall be treated as an overpayment of educational assistance under paragraph (1). ``(B) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply in the case of an individual who fails to complete service agreed to by the individual-- ``(i) by reason of the death of the individual; or ``(ii) for a reason referred to in section 3311(c)(4) of this title. ``(j) Regulations.--(1) The Secretary shall prescribe regulations to carry out this section. ``(2) Such regulations shall specify-- ``(A) the manner of authorizing the transfer of entitlements under this section; ``(B) the eligibility criteria in accordance with subsection (b); and ``(C) the manner and effect of an election to modify or revoke a transfer of entitlement under subsection (f)(2).''. (b) Conforming Amendments.-- (1) Transfers by members of armed forces.--The heading of section 3319 of such title is amended by inserting ``by members of the Armed Forces'' after ``family members''. (2) Bar to duplication of educational assistance benefits.--Section 3322(e) of such title is amended by inserting ``or 3319A'' after ``and 3319''. (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 33 of such title is amended by striking the item relating to section 3319 and inserting the following new items: ``3319. Authority to transfer unused education benefits to family members by members of the Armed Forces. ``3319A. Authority to transfer unused education benefits to family members by seriously injured veterans.''. SEC. 4. ENHANCEMENT OF SPECIAL COMPENSATION FOR MEMBERS OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES WITH INJURIES OR ILLNESSES REQUIRING ASSISTANCE IN EVERYDAY LIVING. (a) Expansion of Covered Members.--Subsection (b) of section 439 of title 37, United States Code, is amended-- (1) by striking paragraphs (1) through (3) and inserting the following new paragraphs: ``(1) has a serious injury or illness that was incurred or aggravated in the line of duty; ``(2) is in need of personal care services (including supervision or protection or regular instruction or supervision) as a result of such injury or illness; and''; and (2) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (3). (b) Nontaxability of Special Compensation.--Such section is further amended-- (1) by redesignating subsections (e), (f), (g), and (h) as subsections (g), (h), (i) and (j), respectively; and (2) by inserting after subsection (d) the following new subsection (e): ``(e) Nontaxability of Compensation.--Monthly special compensation paid under subsection (a) shall not be included in income for purposes of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.''. (c) Provision of Assistance to Family Caregivers.--Such section is further amended by inserting after subsection (e), as amended by subsection (b) of this section, the following new subsection (f): ``(f) Assistance for Family Caregivers.--(1) The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall provide family caregivers of a member in receipt of monthly special compensation under subsection (a) the assistance required to be provided to family caregivers of eligible veterans under section 1720G(a)(3)(A) of title 38 (other than the monthly personal caregiver stipend provided for in clause (ii)(V) of such section). For purposes of the provision of such assistance under this subsection, the definitions in section 1720G(d) of title 38 shall apply, except that any reference in such definitions to a veteran or eligible veteran shall be deemed to be a reference to the member concerned. ``(2) The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall provide assistance under this subsection-- ``(A) in accordance with a memorandum of understanding entered into by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and the Secretary of Defense; and ``(B) in accordance with a memorandum of understanding entered into by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and the Secretary of Homeland Security (with respect to members of the Coast Guard).''. (d) Expansion of Covered Injuries and Illnesses.-- Subsection (i) of such section, as redesignated by subsection (b)(1) of this section, is amended to read as follows: ``(i) Serious Injury or Illness Defined.--In this section, the term `serious injury or illness' means an injury, disorder, or illness (including traumatic brain injury, psychological trauma, or other mental disorder) that-- ``(1) renders the afflicted person unable to carry out one or more activities of daily living; ``(2) renders the afflicted person in need of supervision or protection due to the manifestation by such person of symptoms or residuals of neurological or other impairment or injury; ``(3) renders the afflicted person in need of regular or extensive instruction or supervision in completing two or more instrumental activities of daily living; or ``(4) otherwise impairs the afflicted person in such manner as the Secretary of Defense (or the Secretary of Homeland Security, with respect to the Coast Guard) prescribes for purposes of this section.''. (e) Clerical Amendments.-- (1) Heading amendment.--The heading for such section is amended to read as follows: ``Sec. 439. Special compensation: members of the uniformed services with serious injuries or illnesses requiring assistance in everyday living''. (2) Table of sections amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 7 of such title is amended by striking the item relating to section 439 and inserting the following new item: ``439. Special compensation: members of the uniformed services with serious injuries or illnesses requiring assistance in everyday living.''. SEC. 5. FLEXIBLE WORK ARRANGEMENTS FOR CERTAIN FEDERAL EMPLOYEES. (a) Definition of Covered Employee.--In this section, the term ``covered employee'' means an employee (as defined in section 2105 of title 5, United States Code) who-- (1) is a caregiver, as defined in section 1720G of title 38, United States Code; or (2) is a caregiver of an individual who receives compensation under section 439 of title 37, United States Code. (b) Authority to Allow Flexible Work Arrangements.--The Director of the Office of Personnel Management may promulgate regulations under which a covered employee may-- (1) use a flexible schedule or compressed schedule in accordance with subchapter II of chapter 61 of title 5, United States Code; or (2) telework in accordance with chapter 65 of title 5, United States Code. SEC. 6. LIFESPAN RESPITE CARE. (a) Definitions.--Section 2901 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300ii) is amended-- (1) in paragraph (1)-- (A) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) through (C) as clauses (i) through (iii), respectively, and realigning the margins accordingly; (B) by striking ``who requires care or supervision to--'' and inserting ``who-- ``(A) requires care or supervision to--''; (C) by striking the period and inserting ``; or''; and (D) by adding at the end the following: ``(B) is a veteran participating in the program of comprehensive assistance for family caregivers under section 1720G of title 38, United States Code.''; and (2) in paragraph (5), by striking ``or another unpaid adult,'' and inserting ``another unpaid adult, or a family caregiver as defined in section 1720G of title 38, United States Code, who receives compensation under such section,''. (b) Grants and Cooperative Agreements.--Section 2902(c) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300ii-1(c)) is amended by inserting ``and the interagency working group on policies relating to caregivers of veterans established under section 7 of the Military and Veteran Caregiver Services Improvement Act of 2014'' after ``Human Services''. (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 2905 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300ii-4) is amended-- (1) in paragraph (4), by striking ``and'' at the end; (2) in paragraph (5), by striking the period and inserting ``; and''; and (3) by adding at the end the following: ``(6) $15,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2015 through 2019.''. SEC. 7. INTERAGENCY WORKING GROUP ON CAREGIVER POLICY. (a) Establishment.--There shall be established in the executive branch an interagency working group on policies relating to caregivers of veterans and members of the Armed Forces (in this section referred to as the ``working group''). (b) Composition.-- (1) In general.--The working group shall be composed of the following: (A) A chair selected by the President. (B) A representative from each of the following agencies or organizations selected by the head of such agency or organization: (i) The Department of Veterans Affairs. (ii) The Department of Defense. (iii) The Department of Health and Human Services. (iv) The Department of Labor. (v) The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. (2) Advisors.--The chair may select any of the following individuals that the chair considers appropriate to advise the working group in carrying out the duties of the working group: (A) Academic experts in fields relating to caregivers. (B) Clinicians. (C) Caregivers. (D) Individuals in receipt of caregiver services. (c) Duties.--The duties of the working group are as follows: [[Page 6200]] (1) To regularly review policies relating to caregivers of veterans and members of the Armed Forces. (2) To coordinate and oversee the implementation of policies relating to caregivers of veterans and members of the Armed Forces. (3) To evaluate the effectiveness of policies relating to caregivers of veterans and members of the Armed Forces, including programs in each relevant agency, by developing and applying specific goals and performance measures. (4) To develop standards of care for caregiver services and respite care services provided to a caregiver, veteran, or member of the Armed Forces by a non-profit or private sector entity. (5) To ensure the availability of mechanisms for agencies, and entities affiliated with or providing services on behalf of agencies, to enforce the standards described in paragraph (4) and conduct oversight on the implementation of such standards. (6) To develop recommendations for legislative or administrative action to enhance the provision of services to caregivers, veterans, and members of the Armed Forces, including eliminating gaps in such services and eliminating disparities in eligibility for such services. (7) To coordinate with State and local agencies and relevant non-profit organizations on maximizing the use and effectiveness of resources for caregivers of veterans and members of the Armed Forces. (d) Reports.-- (1) In general.--Not later than December 31, 2014, and annually thereafter, the chair of the working group shall submit to Congress a report on policies and services relating to caregivers of veterans and members of the Armed Forces. (2) Elements.--Each report required by paragraph (1) shall include the following: (A) An assessment of the policies relating to caregivers of veterans and members of the Armed Forces and services provided pursuant to such policies as of the date of submittal of such report. (B) A description of any steps taken by the working group to improve the coordination of services for caregivers of veterans and members of the Armed Forces among the entities specified in subsection (b)(1)(B) and eliminate barriers to effective use of such services, including aligning eligibility criteria. (C) An evaluation of the performance of the entities specified in subsection (b)(1)(B) in providing services for caregivers of veterans and members of the Armed Forces. (D) An evaluation of the quality and sufficiency of services for caregivers of veterans and members of the Armed Forces available from non-governmental organizations. (E) A description of any gaps in care or services provided by caregivers to veterans or members of the Armed Forces identified by the working group, and steps taken by the entities specified in subsection (b)(1)(B) to eliminate such gaps or recommendations for legislative or administrative action to address such gaps. (F) Such other matters or recommendations as the chair considers appropriate. SEC. 8. STUDIES ON POST-SEPTEMBER 11, 2001, VETERANS AND SERIOUSLY INJURED VETERANS. (a) Longitudinal Study on Post-9/11 Veterans.-- (1) In general.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall provide for the conduct of a longitudinal study on members of the Armed Forces who commenced service in the Armed Forces after September 11, 2001. (2) Grant or contract.--The Secretary shall award a grant to, or enter into a contract with, an appropriate entity unaffiliated with the Department of Veterans Affairs to conduct the study required by paragraph (1). (3) Plan.--Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Veterans' Affairs of the House of Representatives a plan for the conduct of the study required by paragraph (1). (4) Reports.--Not later than October 1, 2019, and every four years thereafter, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Veterans' Affairs of the House of Representatives a report on the results of the study required by paragraph (1) as of the date of such report. (b) Comprehensive Study on Seriously Injured Veterans and Their Caregivers.-- (1) In general.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall provide for the conduct of a comprehensive study on the following: (A) Veterans who have incurred a serious injury or illness, including a mental health injury. (B) Individuals who are acting as caregivers for veterans. (2) Elements.--The comprehensive study required by paragraph (1) shall include the following with respect to each veteran included in such study: (A) The health of the veteran and, if applicable, the impact of the caregiver of such veteran on the health of such veteran. (B) The employment status of the veteran and, if applicable, the impact of the caregiver of such veteran on the employment status of such veteran. (C) The financial status and needs of the veteran. (D) The use by the veteran of benefits available to such veteran from the Department of Veterans Affairs. (E) Any other information that the Secretary considers appropriate. (3) Grant or contract.--The Secretary shall award a grant to, or enter into a contract with, an appropriate entity unaffiliated with the Department of Veterans Affairs to conduct the study required by paragraph (1). (4) Report.--Not later than two years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Veterans' Affairs of the House of Representatives a report on the results of the study required by paragraph (1). ____________________ SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS ______ SENATE RESOLUTION 420--DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF OCTOBER 6 THROUGH OCTOBER 12, 2014, AS ``NATUROPATHIC MEDICINE WEEK'' TO RECOGNIZE THE VALUE OF NATUROPATHIC MEDICINE IN PROVIDING SAFE, EFFECTIVE, AND AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE Ms. MIKULSKI (for herself and Mr. Harkin) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary: S. Res. 420 Whereas, in the United States, more than 75 percent of health care costs are due to preventable chronic illnesses, including high blood pressure, which affects 88,000,000 people in the United States, and diabetes, which affects 26,000,000 people in the United States; Whereas nearly \2/3\ of adults in the United States are overweight or obese and, consequently, at risk for serious health conditions, such as high blood pressure, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, arthritis, and depression; Whereas 70 percent of people in the United States experience physical or nonphysical symptoms of stress, and stress can contribute to the development of major illnesses, such as cardiovascular disease, depression, and diabetes; Whereas the aforementioned chronic health conditions are among the most common, costly, and preventable health conditions; Whereas naturopathic medicine provides noninvasive, holistic treatments that support the inherent self-healing capacity of the human body and encourage self-responsibility in health care; Whereas naturopathic medicine focuses on patient-centered care, the prevention of chronic illnesses, and early intervention in the treatment of chronic illnesses; Whereas naturopathic physicians attend 4-year, graduate level programs that are accredited by agencies approved by the Department of Education; Whereas aspects of naturopathic medicine have been shown to lower the risk of major illnesses such as cardiovascular disease and diabetes; Whereas naturopathic physicians can help address the shortage of primary care providers in the United States; Whereas naturopathic physicians are licensed in 20 States and territories; Whereas naturopathic physicians are trained to refer patients to conventional physicians and specialists when necessary; Whereas the profession of naturopathic medicine is dedicated to providing health care to underserved populations; and Whereas naturopathic medicine provides consumers in the United States with more choice in health care, in line with the increased use of a variety of integrative medical treatments: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) designates the week of October 6 through October 12, 2014, as ``Naturopathic Medicine Week''; (2) recognizes the value of naturopathic medicine in providing safe, effective, and affordable health care; and (3) encourages the people of the United States to learn about naturopathic medicine and the role that naturopathic physicians play in preventing chronic and debilitating illnesses and conditions. [[Page 6201]] ____________________ SENATE RESOLUTION 421--EXPRESSING THE GRATITUDE AND APPRECIATION OF THE SENATE FOR THE ACTS OF HEROISM AND MILITARY ACHIEVEMENT BY THE MEMBERS OF THE UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES WHO PARTICIPATED IN THE JUNE 6, 1944, AMPHIBIOUS LANDING AT NORMANDY, FRANCE, AND COMMENDING THEM FOR LEADERSHIP AND VALOR IN AN OPERATION THAT HELPED BRING AN END TO WORLD WAR II Mr. BOOZMAN (for himself and Ms. Landrieu) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations: S. Res. 421 Whereas June 6, 2014, marks the 70th anniversary of the Allied assault at Normandy, France, by American, British, and Canadian troops, which was known as Operation Overlord; Whereas, before Operation Overlord, the German Army still occupied France and the Nazi government still had access to the raw materials and industrial capacity of Western Europe; Whereas the naval assault phase on Normandy was codenamed ``Neptune'', and the June 6th assault date is referred to as D-Day to denote the day on which the combat attack was initiated; Whereas the D-Day landing was the largest single amphibious assault in history, consisting of approximately 31,000 members of the United States Armed Forces, 153,000 members of the Allied Expeditionary Force, 5,000 naval vessels, and more than 11,000 sorties by Allied aircraft; Whereas soldiers of 6 divisions (3 American, 2 British, and 1 Canadian) stormed ashore in 5 main landing areas on beaches in Normandy, which were code-named ``Utah'', ``Omaha'', ``Gold'', ``Juno'', and ``Sword''; Whereas, of the approximately 10,000 Allied casualties incurred on the first day of the landing, more than 6,000 casualties were members of the United States Armed Forces; Whereas the age of the remaining World War II veterans and the gradual disappearance of any living memory of World War II and the Normandy landings make it necessary to increase activities intended to pass on the history of these events, particularly to younger generations; Whereas the young people of Normandy and the United States have displayed unprecedented commitment to and involvement in celebrating the veterans of the Normandy landings and the freedom that they brought with them in 1944; Whereas the significant material remains of the Normandy landing, such as shipwrecks and various items of military equipment found both on the Normandy beaches and at the bottom of the sea in French territorial waters, bear witness to the remarkable material resources used by the Allied Armed Forces to execute the Normandy landings; Whereas 5 Normandy beaches and a number of sites on the Normandy coast, including Pointe du Hoc, were the scene of the Normandy landings, and constitute both now and for all time a unique piece of humanity's world heritage, and a symbol of peace and freedom, whose unspoilt nature, integrity, and authenticity must be protected at all costs; and Whereas the world owes a debt of gratitude to the members of the ``greatest generation'' who assumed the task of freeing the world from Nazi and Fascist regimes and restoring liberty to Europe: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) recognizes the 70th anniversary of the Allied amphibious landing on D-Day, June 6, 1944, at Normandy, France, during World War II; (2) expresses gratitude and appreciation to the members of the United States Armed Forces who participated in the D-Day operations; (3) thanks the young people of Normandy and the United States for their involvement in recognizing and celebrating the 70th Anniversary of the Normandy landings with the aim of making future generations aware of the acts of heroism and sacrifice performed by the Allied forces; (4) recognizes the efforts of the Government of France and the people of Normandy to preserve, for future generations, the unique world heritage represented by the Normandy beaches and the sunken material remains of the Normandy landing, by inscribing them on the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) World Heritage List; and (5) requests the President to issue a proclamation calling on the people of the United States to observe the anniversary with appropriate ceremonies and programs to honor the sacrifices of their fellow countrymen to liberate Europe. Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. President, on June 6th, 1944, the brave men and women of the Allied Forces began the opening phase of Operation Overlord in an effort to break the Nazi stranglehold on Western Europe. On that early morning, 31,000 members of the United States Armed Forces, and 153,000 of their counterparts in the Allied Expeditionary Force, stormed ashore five landing areas on the beaches of Normandy, France, in what is known as D-Day. In that first day alone, approximately 10,000 allied soldiers were wounded or killed, including 6,000 Americans. Now, 70 years later, it remains our duty to remember the sacrifices made by the members of the ``greatest generation'' who answered the call of those being oppressed by the Nazi and Fascist regimes. In recognition of the incredible feats achieved by our veterans, the Parliament of the French Republic has asked to join us in the passage of an identical resolution in both bodies, honoring these sacrifices made in the name of liberty. As co-chairs of the Senate French Caucus, I have joined with Senator Landrieu to introduce this resolution to recognize the upcoming 70th Anniversary of the D-Day Landings and to express our gratitude and appreciation to the members of the U.S. Armed Forces who participated in these operations. ____________________ SENATE RESOLUTION 422--TO AUTHORIZE WRITTEN TESTIMONY, DOCUMENT PRODUCTION, AND REPRESENTATION IN MONTANA FISH, WILDLIFE AND PARKS FOUNDATION, INC. V. UNITED STATES Mr. REID (for himself and Mr. McConnell) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to: S. Res. 422 Whereas, in the case of Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Foundation, Inc. v. United States, No. 09-568 C, pending in the United States Court of Federal Claims, the plaintiff has issued a subpoena for testimony and production of documents from Holly Luck, a former employee of Senator Baucus; Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(2) of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 288b(a) and 288c(a)(2), the Senate may direct its counsel to represent current and former employees of the Senate with respect to any subpoena, order, or request for testimony relating to their official responsibilities; Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of the United States and Rule XI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, no evidence under the control or in the possession of the Senate may, by the judicial or administrative process, be taken from such control or possession but by permission of the Senate; and Whereas, when it appears that evidence under the control or in the possession of the Senate may promote the administration of justice, the Senate will take such action as will promote the ends of justice consistent with the privileges of the Senate: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That Holly Luck is authorized to provide written testimony and produce documents in the case of Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Foundation, Inc. v. United States, except concerning matters for which a privilege should be asserted. Sec. 2. The Senate Legal Counsel is authorized to represent Holly Luck in connection with the written testimony and document production authorized by section 1 of this resolution. ____________________ AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED AND PROPOSED SA 2970. Mr. WARNER (for Mr. Carper (for himself, Mr. Coburn, Mr. Warner, and Mr. Portman)) proposed an amendment to the bill S. 994, to expand the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 to increase accountability and transparency in Federal spending, and for other purposes. SA 2971. Mr. WARNER (for Mr. Carper) proposed an amendment to amendment SA 2970 proposed by Mr. Warner (for Mr. Carper (for himself, Mr. Coburn, Mr. Warner, and Mr. Portman)) to the bill S. 994, supra. ____________________ TEXT OF AMENDMENTS SA 2970. Mr. WARNER (for Mr. Carper (for himself, Mr. Coburn, Mr. Warner, and Mr. Portman)) proposed an amendment to the bill S. 994, to expand the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 to increase accountability and transparency in Federal spending, and for other purposes; as follows: Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ``Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014'' or the ``DATA Act''. SEC. 2. PURPOSES. The purposes of this Act are to-- (1) expand the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (31 [[Page 6202]] U.S.C. 6101 note) by disclosing direct Federal agency expenditures and linking Federal contract, loan, and grant spending information to programs of Federal agencies to enable taxpayers and policy makers to track Federal spending more effectively; (2) establish Government-wide data standards for financial data and provide consistent, reliable, and searchable Government-wide spending data that is displayed accurately for taxpayers and policy makers on USASpending.gov (or a successor system that displays the data); (3) simplify reporting for entities receiving Federal funds by streamlining reporting requirements and reducing compliance costs while improving transparency; (4) improve the quality of data submitted to USASpending.gov by holding Federal agencies accountable for the completeness and accuracy of the data submitted; and (5) apply approaches developed by the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board to spending across the Federal Government. SEC. 3. AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL FUNDING ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY ACT OF 2006. The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (31 U.S.C. 6101 note) is amended-- (1) in section 2-- (A) in subsection (a)-- (i) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking ``this section'' and inserting ``this Act''; (ii) by redesignating paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) as paragraphs (2), (4), and (7), respectively; (iii) by inserting before paragraph (2), as so redesignated, the following: ``(1) Director.--The term `Director' means the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.''; (iv) by inserting after paragraph (2), as so redesignated, the following: ``(3) Federal agency.--The term `Federal agency' has the meaning given the term `Executive agency' under section 105 of title 5, United States Code.''; (v) by inserting after paragraph (4), as so redesignated, the following: ``(5) Object class.--The term `object class' means the category assigned for purposes of the annual budget of the President submitted under section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, to the type of property or services purchased by the Federal Government. ``(6) Program activity.--The term `program activity' has the meaning given that term under section 1115(h) of title 31, United States Code.''; and (vi) by adding at the end the following: ``(8) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary of the Treasury.''; (B) in subsection (b)-- (i) in paragraph (3), by striking ``of the Office of Management and Budget''; and (ii) in paragraph (4), by striking ``of the Office of Management and Budget''; (C) in subsection (c)-- (i) in paragraph (4), by striking ``and'' at the end; (ii) in paragraph (5), by striking the period at the end and inserting a semicolon; and (iii) by adding at the end the following: ``(6) shall have the ability to aggregate data for the categories described in paragraphs (1) through (5) without double-counting data; and ``(7) shall ensure that all information published under this section is available-- ``(A) in machine-readable and open formats; ``(B) to be downloaded in bulk; and ``(C) to the extent practicable, for automated processing.''; (D) in subsection (d)-- (i) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking ``of the Office of Management and Budget''; (ii) in paragraph (2)-- (I) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``of the Office of Management and Budget''; and (II) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``of the Office of Management and Budget''; (E) in subsection (e), by striking ``of the Office of Management and Budget''; and (F) in subsection (g)-- (i) in paragraph (1), by striking ``of the Office of Management and Budget''; and (ii) in paragraph (3), by striking ``of the Office of Management and Budget''; and (2) by striking sections 3 and 4 and inserting the following: ``SEC. 3. FULL DISCLOSURE OF FEDERAL FUNDS. ``(a) In General.--Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014, and monthly when practicable but not less than quarterly thereafter, the Secretary, in consultation with the Director, shall ensure that the information in subsection (b) is posted on the website established under section 2. ``(b) Information to Be Posted.--For any funds made available to or expended by a Federal agency or component of a Federal agency, the information to be posted shall include-- ``(1) for each appropriations account, including an expired or unexpired appropriations account, the amount-- ``(A) of budget authority appropriated; ``(B) that is obligated; ``(C) of unobligated balances; and ``(D) of any other budgetary resources; ``(2) from which accounts and in what amount-- ``(A) appropriations are obligated for each program activity; and ``(B) outlays are made for each program activity; ``(3) from which accounts and in what amount-- ``(A) appropriations are obligated for each object class; and ``(B) outlays are made for each object class; and ``(4) for each program activity, the amount-- ``(A) obligated for each object class; and ``(B) of outlays made for each object class. ``SEC. 4. DATA STANDARDS. ``(a) In General.-- ``(1) Establishment of standards.--The Secretary and the Director, in consultation with the heads of Federal agencies, shall establish Government-wide financial data standards for any Federal funds made available to or expended by Federal agencies and entities receiving Federal funds. ``(2) Data elements.--The financial data standards established under paragraph (1) shall include common data elements for financial and payment information required to be reported by Federal agencies and entities receiving Federal funds. ``(b) Requirements.--The data standards established under subsection (a) shall, to the extent reasonable and practicable-- ``(1) incorporate widely accepted common data elements, such as those developed and maintained by-- ``(A) an international voluntary consensus standards body; ``(B) Federal agencies with authority over contracting and financial assistance; and ``(C) accounting standards organizations; ``(2) incorporate a widely accepted, nonproprietary, searchable, platform-independent computer-readable format; ``(3) include unique identifiers for Federal awards and entities receiving Federal awards that can be consistently applied Government-wide; ``(4) be consistent with and implement applicable accounting principles; ``(5) be capable of being continually upgraded as necessary; ``(6) produce consistent and comparable data, including across program activities; and ``(7) establish a standard method of conveying the reporting period, reporting entity, unit of measure, and other associated attributes. ``(c) Deadlines.-- ``(1) Guidance.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014, the Director and the Secretary shall issue guidance to Federal agencies on the data standards established under subsection (a). ``(2) Agencies.--Not later than 2 years after the date on which the guidance under paragraph (1) is issued, each Federal agency shall report financial and payment information data in accordance with the data standards established under subsection (a). ``(3) Website.--Not later than 3 years after the date on which the guidance under paragraph (1) is issued, the Director and the Secretary shall ensure that the data standards established under subsection (a) are applied to the data made available on the website established under section 2. ``(d) Consultation.--The Director and the Secretary shall consult with public and private stakeholders in establishing data standards under this section. ``SEC. 5. SIMPLIFYING FEDERAL AWARD REPORTING. ``(a) In General.--The Director, in consultation with relevant Federal agencies, recipients of Federal awards, including State and local governments, and institutions of higher education (as defined in section 102 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1002)), shall review the information required to be reported by recipients of Federal awards to identify-- ``(1) common reporting elements across the Federal Government; ``(2) unnecessary duplication in financial reporting; and ``(3) unnecessarily burdensome reporting requirements for recipients of Federal awards. ``(b) Pilot Program.-- ``(1) Establishment.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014, the Director, or a Federal agency designated by the Director, shall establish a pilot program (in this section referred to as the `pilot program') with the participation of appropriate Federal agencies to facilitate the development of recommendations for-- ``(A) standardized reporting elements across the Federal Government; ``(B) the elimination of unnecessary duplication in financial reporting; and ``(C) the reduction of compliance costs for recipients of Federal awards. ``(2) Requirements.--The pilot program shall-- ``(A) include a combination of Federal contracts, grants, and subawards, the aggregate value of which is not less than $1,000,000,000 and not more than $2,000,000,000; ``(B) include a diverse group of recipients of Federal awards; and [[Page 6203]] ``(C) to the extent practicable, include recipients who receive Federal awards from multiple programs across multiple agencies. ``(3) Data collection.--The pilot program shall include data collected during a 12-month reporting cycle. ``(4) Reporting and evaluation requirements.--Each recipient of a Federal award participating in the pilot program shall submit to the Office of Management and Budget or the Federal agency designated under paragraph (1), as appropriate, any requested reports of the selected Federal awards. ``(5) Termination.--The pilot program shall terminate on the date that is 2 years after the date on which the pilot program is established. ``(6) Report to congress.--Not later than 90 days after the date on which the pilot program terminates under paragraph (5), the Director shall submit to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and the Committee on the Budget of the Senate and the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and the Committee on the Budget of the House of Representatives a report on the pilot program, which shall include-- ``(A) a description of the data collected under the pilot program, the usefulness of the data provided, and the cost to collect the data from recipients; and ``(B) a discussion of any legislative action required and recommendations for-- ``(i) consolidating aspects of Federal financial reporting to reduce the costs to recipients of Federal awards; ``(ii) automating aspects of Federal financial reporting to increase efficiency and reduce the costs to recipients of Federal awards; ``(iii) simplifying the reporting requirements for recipients of Federal awards; and ``(iv) improving financial transparency. ``(7) Government-wide implementation.--Not later than 1 year after the date on which the Director submits the report under paragraph (6), the Director shall issue guidance to the heads of Federal agencies as to how the Government-wide financial data standards established under section 4(a) shall be applied to the information required to be reported by entities receiving Federal awards to-- ``(A) reduce the burden of complying with reporting requirements; and ``(B) simplify the reporting process, including by reducing duplicative reports. ``SEC. 6. ACCOUNTABILITY FOR FEDERAL FUNDING. ``(a) Inspector General Reports.-- ``(1) In general.--In accordance with paragraph (2), the Inspector General of each Federal agency, in consultation with the Comptroller General of the United States, shall-- ``(A) review a statistically valid sampling of the spending data submitted under this Act by the Federal agency; and ``(B) submit to Congress and make publically available a report assessing the completeness, timeliness, quality, and accuracy of the data sampled and the implementation and use of data standards by the Federal agency. ``(2) Deadlines.-- ``(A) First report.--Not later than 18 months after the date on which the Director and the Secretary issue guidance to Federal agencies under section 4(c)(1), the Inspector General of each Federal agency shall submit and make publically available a report as described in paragraph (1). ``(B) Subsequent reports.--On the same date as the Inspector General of each Federal agency submits the second and fourth reports under sections 3521(f) and 9105(a)(3) of title 31, United States Code, that are submitted after the report under subparagraph (A), the Inspector General shall submit and make publically available a report as described in paragraph (1). The report submitted under this subparagraph may be submitted as a part of the report submitted under section 3521(f) or 9105(a)(3) of title 31, United States Code. ``(b) Comptroller General Reports.-- ``(1) In general.--In accordance with paragraph (2) and after a review of the reports submitted under subsection (a), the Comptroller General of the United States shall submit to Congress and make publically available a report assessing and comparing the data completeness, timeliness, quality, and accuracy of the data submitted under this Act by Federal agencies and the implementation and use of data standards by Federal agencies. ``(2) Deadlines.--Not later than 30 months after the date on which the Director and the Secretary issue guidance to Federal agencies under section 4(c)(1), and every 2 years thereafter until the date that is 4 years after the date on which the first report is submitted under this subsection, the Comptroller General of the United States shall submit and make publically available a report as described in paragraph (1). ``(c) Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board Data Analysis Center.-- ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may establish a data analysis center or expand an existing service to provide data, analytic tools, and data management techniques to support-- ``(A) the prevention and reduction of improper payments by Federal agencies; and ``(B) improving efficiency and transparency in Federal spending. ``(2) Data availability.--The Secretary shall enter into memoranda of understanding with Federal agencies, including Inspectors General and Federal law enforcement agencies-- ``(A) under which the Secretary may provide data from the data analysis center for-- ``(i) the purposes set forth under paragraph (1); ``(ii) the identification, prevention, and reduction of waste, fraud, and abuse relating to Federal spending; and ``(iii) use in the conduct of criminal and other investigations; and ``(B) which may require the Federal agency, Inspector General, or Federal law enforcement agency to provide reimbursement to the Secretary for the reasonable cost of carrying out the agreement. ``(3) Transfer.--Upon the establishment of a data analysis center or the expansion of a service under paragraph (1), and on or before the date on which the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board terminates, and in addition to any other transfer that the Director determines is necessary under section 1531 of title 31, United States Code, there are transferred to the Department of the Treasury all assets identified by the Secretary that support the operations and activities of the Recovery Operations Center of the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board relating to the detection of waste, fraud, and abuse in the use of Federal funds that are in existence on the day before the transfer. ``SEC. 7. CLASSIFIED AND PROTECTED INFORMATION. ``Nothing in this Act shall require the disclosure to the public of-- ``(1) information that would be exempt from disclosure under section 552 of title 5, United States Code (commonly known as the `Freedom of Information Act'); or ``(2) information protected under section 552a of title 5, United States Code (commonly known as the `Privacy Act of 1974'), or section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. ``SEC. 8. NO PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION. ``Nothing in this Act shall be construed to create a private right of action for enforcement of any provision of this Act.''. SEC. 4. EXECUTIVE AGENCY ACCOUNTING AND OTHER FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT REPORTS AND PLANS. Section 3512(a)(1) of title 31, United States Code, is amended by inserting ``and make available on the website described under section 1122'' after ``appropriate committees of Congress''. SEC. 5. DEBT COLLECTION IMPROVEMENT. Section 3716(c)(6) of title 31, United States Code, is amended-- (1) by inserting ``(A)'' before ``Any Federal agency''; (2) in subparagraph (A), as so designated, by striking ``180 days'' and inserting ``120 days''; and (3) by adding at the end the following: ``(B) The Secretary of the Treasury shall notify Congress of any instance in which an agency fails to notify the Secretary as required under subparagraph (A).''. ______ SA 2971. Mr. WARNER (for Mr. Carper) proposed an amendment to amendment SA 2970 proposed by Mr. Warner (for Mr. Carper (for himself, Mr. Coburn, Mr. Warner, and Mr. Portman)) to the bill S. 994, to expand the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 to increase accountability and transparency in Federal spending, and for other purposes; as follows: On page 9, strike lines 17 through 21 and insert the following: ``(2) Agencies.-- ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), not later than 2 years after the date on which the guidance under paragraph (1) is issued, each Federal agency shall report financial and payment information data in accordance with the data standards established under subsection (a). ``(B) Noninterference with auditability of department of defense financial statements.-- ``(i) In general.--Upon request by the Secretary of Defense, the Director may grant an extension of the deadline under subparagraph (A) to the Department of Defense for a period of not more than 6 months to report financial and payment information data in accordance with the data standards established under subsection (a). ``(ii) Limitation.--The Director may not grant more than 3 extensions to the Secretary of Defense under clause (i). ``(iii) Notification.--The Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall notify the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives of-- ``(I) each grant of an extension under clause (i); and ``(II) the reasons for granting such an extension. [[Page 6204]] ____________________ NOTICE OF HEARING Committee on Indian Affairs Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Wednesday, April 30, 2014, in room SD-628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a legislative hearing to receive testimony on the following bill: S. 2132, a bill to amend the Indian Tribal Energy Development and Self-Determination Act of 2005, and for other purposes. Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at (202) 224-2251. ____________________ AUTHORITY FOR COMMITTEES TO MEET committee on armed services Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 10, 2014, at 9:30 a.m. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. committee on energy and natural resources Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 10, 2014, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Keeping the Lights On--Are We Doing Enough to Ensure the Reliability and Security of the U.S. Electric Grid?'' The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. committee on health, education, labor, and pensions Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet, during the session of the Senate, on April 10, 2014, at 10 a.m., in room SD- 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Expanding Access to Quality Early Learning: the Strong Start for America's Children Act''. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. committee on finance Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 10, 2014, at 10 a.m., in room SR-215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``The President's Budget for Fiscal Year 2015.'' The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. committee on foreign relations Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 10, 2014, at 9:30 a.m., to hold a hearing entitled ``International Development Priorities in the FY 2015 Budget.'' The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. committee on foreign relations Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 10, 2014, at 2 p.m. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. select committee on intelligence Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 10, 2014, at 2:30 p.m. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. subcommittee on european affairs Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 10, 2014, at 3 p.m., to hold an European Affairs subcommittee hearing entitled, ``Transatlantic Security Challenges: Central and Eastern Europe.'' The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. subcommittee on financial and contracting oversight Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Financial and Contracting Oversight of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 10, 2014, at 10:30 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Oversight of Small Agencies.'' The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. subcommittee on seapower Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Seapower of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 10, 2014, at 2:30 p.m. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. subcommittee on strategic forces Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 10, 2014, at 2:30 p.m. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. ____________________ PRIVILEGES OF THE FLOOR Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Brian Winseck, a detailee assigned to the Budget Committee from Senator Warner's office, be granted floor privileges for the duration of today's session. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. ____________________ UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENT--EXECUTIVE CALENDAR Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 5 p.m. tomorrow, all postcloture time be yielded back and the Senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on Calendar No. 574; further, that following disposition of that nomination, the Senate proceed to vote on cloture on Executive Calendar No. 613, and that if cloture is invoked, all postcloture time be yielded back and the Senate proceed to vote on confirmation of the nomination; that if confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to the nominations; that any statements related to the nominations be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. ____________________ EXECUTIVE SESSION ______ EXECUTIVE CALENDAR Mr. REID. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider Calendar Nos. 760, 761, 762, 763, and 764, and all nominations placed on the Secretary's desk in the Coast Guard; that the nominations be confirmed en bloc; the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to any of the nominations; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The nominations considered and confirmed en bloc are as follows: IN THE COAST GUARD The following named officers for appointment to the grade indicated in the United States Coast Guard under title 14, U.S.C., section 271(d): To be rear admiral Linda L. Fagan Thomas W. Jones Steven D. Poulin James E. Rendon The following named officer for appointment to a position of importance and responsibility in the United States Coast Guard and to the grade indicated under title 14, U.S.C., section 50: To be vice admiral Rear Adm. William D. Lee The following named officer for appointment to a position of importance and responsibility in the United States Coast Guard [[Page 6205]] and to the grade indicated under title 14, U.S.C., section 50: To be vice admiral Rear Adm. Charles W. Ray The following named officer for appointment to a position of importance and responsibility in the United States Coast Guard and to the grade indicated under title 14, U.S.C., section 50: To be vice admiral Rear Adm. Charles D. Michel The following named officer for appointment as Vice Commandant of the United States Coast Guard and to the grade indicated under title 14, U.S.C., section 47: To be vice admiral Vice Adm. Peter V. Neffenger Nominations Placed on the Secretary's Desk IN THE COAST GUARD PN1357 COAST GUARD nominations (2) beginning RUBY L. COLLINS, and ending MICHAEL W. WAMPLER, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of January 16, 2014. PN1358 COAST GUARD nominations (242) beginning William C. Adams, and ending Adam K. Young, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of January 16, 2014. PN1402 COAST GUARD nominations (6) beginning KEVIN J. LOPES, and ending MARIETTE C. OGG, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of February 6, 2014. ____________________ LEGISLATIVE SESSION The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will now resume legislative session. ____________________ LEGAL AUTHORIZATION Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 422. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title. The assistant legislative clerk read as follows: A resolution (S. Res. 422) to authorize written testimony, document production, and representation in Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Foundation, Inc. v. United States. There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the resolution. Mr. REID. Mr. President, this resolution concerns a subpoena to a Senate employee in a civil action pending in the Court of Federal Claims. The plaintiff in this case is an organization serving as trustee for a trust set up by Congress, through legislation sponsored by Senator Max Baucus, to promote conservation and recreational use of land in Montana. The suit arises out of a dispute between plaintiff and the Department of the Interior over the Department's amendment of the trust agreement with plaintiff. As part of discovery in the case, plaintiff has issued a subpoena to Holly Luck, a former employee of then-Senator Baucus, seeking information and documents involving this matter. This resolution would authorize Ms. Luck to provide written testimony and to produce documents from Senator Baucus's office, except where a privilege should be asserted, with representation by the Senate Legal Counsel. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The resolution (S. Res. 422) was agreed to. The preamble was agreed to. (The resolution, with its preamble, is printed in today's Record under ``Submitted Resolutions.'') ____________________ APPOINTMENTS The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair announces, on behalf of the Republican leader, pursuant to Public Law 113-76, the appointment of the following individuals to be members of the National Commissioner on Hunger: Spencer A. Coates of Kentucky and J. Russell Sykes of New York. ____________________ ORDERS FOR FRIDAY, APRIL 11, 2014 Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 4 p.m., Friday, April 11, 2014; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that following any leader remarks, the Senate resume executive session to consider the Friedland nomination postcloture, with the time until 5 p.m. equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. ____________________ PROGRAM Mr. REID. Mr. President, there will be up to three rollcall votes tomorrow at 5 p.m. The first vote will be on confirmation of the nomination of Michelle Friedland to be a U.S. circuit judge for the Ninth Circuit. The next vote will be a cloture vote on the nomination of David Weil to be Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division at the Department of Labor, and the last vote will be on confirmation of the Weil nomination. ____________________ ADJOURNMENT UNTIL 4 P.M. TOMORROW 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 6:05 p.m., adjourned until Friday, April 11, 2014, at 4 p.m. ____________________ NOMINATIONS Executive nominations received by the Senate: DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ROBERT M. SPEER, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE AN ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY, VICE MARY SALLY MATIELLA, RESIGNED. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY RAMIN TOLOUI, OF IOWA, TO BE A DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, VICE CHARLES COLLYNS, RESIGNED. UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT JONATHAN NICHOLAS STIVERS, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, TO BE AN ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR OF THE UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT, VICE NISHA DESAI BISWAL, RESIGNED. DEPARTMENT OF STATE ALICE G. WELLS, OF WASHINGTON, A CAREER MEMBER OF THE SENIOR FOREIGN SERVICE, CLASS OF MINISTER-COUNSELOR, TO BE AMBASSADOR EXTRAORDINARY AND PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO THE HASHEMITE KINGDOM OF JORDAN. NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES WILLIAM D. ADAMS, OF MAINE, TO BE CHAIRPERSON OF THE NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES FOR A TERM OF FOUR YEARS, VICE JAMES A. LEACH, RESIGNED. THE JUDICIARY NANCY B. FIRESTONE, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE A JUDGE OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS FOR A TERM OF FIFTEEN YEARS. (REAPPOINTMENT) LYDIA KAY GRIGGSBY, OF MARYLAND, TO BE A JUDGE OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS FOR A TERM OF FIFTEEN YEARS, VICE FRANCIS M. ALLEGRA, TERM EXPIRED. THOMAS L. HALKOWSKI, OF PENNSYLVANIA, TO BE A JUDGE OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS FOR A TERM OF FIFTEEN YEARS, VICE LYNN JEANNE BUSH, TERM EXPIRED. FOREIGN SERVICE THE FOLLOWING NAMED PERSONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE FOR PROMOTION INTO AND WITHIN THE SENIOR FOREIGN SERVICE TO THE CLASSES INDICATED: CAREER MEMBER OF THE SENIOR FOREIGN SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CLASS OF MINISTER-COUNSELOR: MICHAEL A. LALLY, of Pennsylvania CAREER MEMBER OF THE SENIOR FOREIGN SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CLASS OF COUNSELOR: JAMES M. FLUKER, of Kansas JAMES M. MCCARTHY, of Maryland JOHN E. SIMMONS, of California THE FOLLOWING NAMED PERSONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE FOR APPOINTMENT AS FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICERS OF THE CLASSES STATED. FOR APPOINTMENT AS FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER OF CLASS THREE, CONSULAR OFFICER AND SECRETARY IN THE DIPLOMATIC SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: ANDREW J. BILLARD, of Connecticut JOHN P. FAY, of Virginia CATHERINE A. FEIG, of Texas MARSHA MCDANIEL, of Texas MEGAN A. SCHILDGEN, of Illinois FOR APPOINTMENT AS FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER OF CLASS FOUR, CONSULAR OFFICER AND SECRETARY IN THE DIPLOMATIC SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: DAVID E. AVERNE, of the District of Columbia JAY BIGGS, of Ohio MARTIN CLAESSENS, of Illinois SARAH J. COOK, of Florida RAFAEL A. PATINO, of Florida BRENDA VANHORN, of New York THE FOLLOWING NAMED PERSONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE FOR APPOINTMENT AS FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICERS OF THE CLASSES STATED. FOR APPOINTMENT AS FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER OF CLASS ONE, CONSULAR OFFICER AND SECRETARY IN THE DIPLOMATIC SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: MELINDA MASONIS, of Michigan SUSAN C. N'GARNIM, of Virginia [[Page 6206]] FOR APPOINTMENT AS FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER OF CLASS TWO, CONSULAR OFFICER AND SECRETARY IN THE DIPLOMATIC SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: THOMAS F. DOHERTY, of Florida ANTHONY R. ETERNO, of Virginia CATHERINE RODRIGUEZ, of Florida FOR APPOINTMENT AS FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER OF CLASS THREE, CONSULAR OFFICER AND SECRETARY IN THE DIPLOMATIC SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: CAROLINE M. SCHNEIDER, of the District of Columbia FOR APPOINTMENT AS FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER OF CLASS FOUR, CONSULAR OFFICER AND SECRETARY IN THE DIPLOMATIC SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: DINA J. ABAA-OGLEY, of California LESLIE ABITZ, of Wisconsin KATHY ELIZABETH ADAMS, of Georgia ANA V. ADLER, of Florida ERIC LOUIS ADLER, of California MAZIN TERRY ALFAQIH, of California ANGELA MONICA ALLEN, of New Jersey KURT W. ALLRED, of Texas ADRIAN JOHN AMEN, of Oregon ANNE CLAIRE D. ANDAYA-NAUTS, of Texas STEVEN E. ANDERSON, of Texas MELANIA RITA ARREAGA, of Illinois KRIS ARVIND, of Illinois THOMAS OWEN ASH, of Texas ELIZABETH ATEGOU, of Illinois CHRISTOPHER M. AUSDENMOORE, of Tennessee AARON M. BANKS, of New York MOHAMMAD F. BARGHOUTY, of New York JENNIFER BARNES KERNS, of Texas ROBERT EDWARD BARNEY, of Arizona DIANA MICHELLE BATES, of Colorado THOMAS P. BENZ, of Virginia NAZANIN BERARPOUR, of California NAMITA SHAH BIGGINS, of North Carolina DAVID A. BIGGS, of Texas ROBERT EDWARD BLAKESLEE, of Florida BION NORTHAM BLISS, of Maryland PATRICK THOMAS BOLAND, of Virginia JEANETTE KATHRYN BRACKETT, of Florida DUSTIN WILLIAM BRADSHAW, of Hawaii JESSICA LYNN BRADSHAW, of Pennsylvania BRIAN D. BRENDEL, of Michigan MICHAEL A. BROOKE, of California CAROLINE N. BROUN, of Missouri CHERONDA E. BRYAN, of Texas CYNTHIA T. BURLEIGH, of Florida BLAKE EDWARD BUTLER, of Texas JUSTIN SCOTT BYTHEWAY, of Utah KATHERINE E. CANTRELL, of Texas ROBERT CAVESE, of Ohio DANIEL CEDERBERG, of Texas ELIZABETH CERABINO-HESS, of California JAMES CERVEN, of Virginia MEREDITH L. CHAMPLIN, of Florida ISABELLE CHAN, of Minnesota VANNA CHAN, of Minnesota MATTHEW GLENN CHOWN, of California JACOB CHRIQUI, of California MICHAEL HUGH COGNATO, of Pennsylvania BRADLEY STEWART COLEY, of Texas JASON ERIC CONROY, of Iowa EDWARD JOSEPH COX, of Oregon SARAH CRANSTON, of Texas M. KELLY CULLUM, of Maryland KARLA A. DANIELS, of California KEVIN GREGORY DAUCHER, of Arizona JAMESON LEE DEBOSE, of Nebraska DIANE C. DEL ROSARIO, of New York STUART RICHARD DENYER, of Virginia NATHAN SHANE DETTMAN, of Utah CHRISTOPHER DE VEER, of New York THEODORE E. DIEHL, of California TABARI AHMED DOSSETT, of California NATHAN T. DOYEL, of Virginia DAVID DREILINGER, of the District of Columbia BAYLOR MCKAY DUNCAN, of Virginia JEANIE MARIE DUWAN, of Virginia BRETT DVORAK, of Indiana MELANIE L. EDWARDS, of Louisiana RACHEL EHRENDREICH, of New York EVAN ELLIOTT, of Colorado JOEL ANTHONY ERWIN, of Texas SAMANTHE A. EULETTE, of New York DANIEL GLENN EVENSEN, of Utah TRAVIS WALTON FEUERBACHER, of California ADAM J. FIELDS, of Washington JEROME S. FIELDS, of Minnesota NICHOLAS CHARLES FIETZER, of Minnesota JOEL A. FIFIELD, of Utah JAMES PATRICK FINAN, of Washington SAMUEL N. FONTELA, of Florida BENJAMIN TODD FORD, of Virginia ELIZABETH FRANKENFIELD, of Virginia M. SHAYNE GALLAHER, of Kentucky PATRICK S. GAN, of Washington EUGENE GARMIZE, of New York PATRICK CHRISTOPHER GERAGHTY, of Florida THOMAS MICHAEL GODDARD, of Michigan ERIN LEIGH GORDON, of Ohio MONICA COLMENARES GRECO, of Florida CHRISTOPHER DOUGLAS GREEN, of Florida DILLON MICHAEL GREEN, of California MICHAEL GRIFFITH, of the District of Columbia LEWIS F. GROW, of Florida KOFI GWIRA, of New Jersey BERNADETTE REGINA HALAT, of New York BRIAN HALL, of Texas ERIK M. HALL, of Texas LYDIA S. HALL, of the District of Columbia MATTHEW ZAKIN HALLOWELL, of New York JOEL B. HANSEN, of Nevada B. CAIN HARRELSON, JR., of Georgia JESSICA HARTZFELD, of Ohio LAILA MITCHELL HASAN, of Arizona NICHOLAS ADAM HASKO, of Washington JAMES LINDLEY HATHAWAY, of Montana JONATHAN LEIF HAYES, of the District of Columbia LARINA HELM KONOLD, of Idaho NICHOLAS C. HERSH, of Pennsylvania JOHN P. HESFORD, JR., of Virginia EVA ELISE HOLM, of Washington MATTHEW M. HUGHES, of Pennsylvania CHRISTOPHER NEIL HUNNICUTT, of North Carolina KAREN E. HUNTRESS, of Maine VI LUAT JACOBS-NHAN, of Washington BRYAN DAVID JANDORF, of Virginia MARCUS GEORGE EDGAR JASONIDES, of South Dakota STEPHANIE ANGELA JENSBY, of Virginia AMON O. JOHNSON, of Washington NOLEN JOHNSON, of Wisconsin ROSS GORDON JOHNSTON, of the District of Columbia ELIZABETH YOUNG JONES, of Florida MIN G. KANG, of Florida AARON P. KARNELL, of California MARGARET THOMSEN KATSUMI, of Massachusetts RICHARD P. KAUFMAN, of Tennessee MICHELLE MARGOT KAYSER, of Vermont MAURA M. KENISTON, of Maryland ANNA M. KERNER ANDERSSON, of South Dakota KELLI KETOVER, of Florida DANIEL A. KIEFER, of Florida JULI S. KIM, of Texas KENDRA D. KIRKLAND, of Florida ADAM C. KOTKIN, of Virginia ELIZABETH E. KOZLOW, of Virginia MICHAEL J. KREIDLER, of Florida ANAND KRISHNA, of California NANCY E. LAMANNA, of California MARITA I. LAMB, of Pennsylvania SONIA LAUL, of Texas ELIJAH PIA COCKETT LAWRENCE, of Utah SUSAN BERNADETTE L'ECUYER, of New Jersey YOUNG E. LEE, of Texas ERIKA REGINA LEWIS, of Illinois NINA S. LEWIS, of Florida FRANCESCA GRACE LICHAUCO, of California ERIK D. LIEDERBACH, of Wisconsin CHRISTINA F. LIM, of Virginia JULIE M. LIMOGES, of Connecticut JOHNNY J. LO, of Virginia PETER CHARLES LOHMAN, of Virginia SARAH KATHLEEN LONGBRAKE, of Ohio SARAH LUNDQUIST NUUTINEN, of Wisconsin ANDERS EUGENE LYNCH, of Pennsylvania STEPHEN C. MACLEOD, of Maryland MINTA ELAINE MADELEY, of Texas EVAN CAMPBELL MAHER, of Washington JOZANNE ML MALONEY, of Utah JASON REID MARTIN, of New York LEAH ANN MARTIN, of Louisiana KENNETH W. MCBRIDE, of Minnesota KELLY RABELLO MCCALEB, of Virginia RICK MCDANIEL, of Florida MARGARET MCELLIGOTT, of the District of Columbia MEGHAN EMILY MCGILL, of Washington JOHN THORSEN MCKANE, of the District of Columbia ANSON PIERCE MCLELLAN, of Texas PETER JOSEPH MCSHARRY, of Massachusetts JONATHAN MARC MERMIS-CAVA, of California PATRICK JOSEPH MERRILL, of California GEORGE MARCELLUS MILLER, of Oklahoma SHAMIS MOHAMUD, of Virginia MEAGHAN CHRISTINE MONFORT, of the District of Columbia STEPHANIE VAN HOFF MONIOT, of Florida MICHELLE J. MORALES, of Florida WILLIAM MORGAN, of New Jersey AUDREY FERN STAMPER MOYER, of Virginia BARBARA M. MOZDZIERZ, of New York TRAVIS J. MURPHY, of Kansas MAUREEN D. MURRAY, of Oregon ALEXIS VESTA RUTH MUSSOMELI, of Washington LORENZO B. NEW III, of Florida PHILIP DANIEL O'HARA, of the District of Columbia IFEOMA MARY FRANCES OKWUJE, of Maryland SERGEY OLHOVSKY, of New Jersey KATHERINE EARHART ORDONEZ, of Georgia LUKE D. ORTEGA, of Arizona CLARE E. ORVIS, of Massachusetts ANDREW BELL PACELLI, of Illinois GEOFFREY ADAM PARKER, of Virginia MAREN ELIZABETH PAYNE-HOLMES, of Virginia CHARLES JOHN PEREGO, of Pennsylvania TIMOTHY M. PIERGALSKI, of Illinois EITAN M. PLASSE, of New York LINDSEY MICHELE PLUMLEY, of Arizona REGIS PREVOT, of Maine URFA QADRI, of Florida MELISSA LEE QUARTELL, of Illinois VENKATESH RAMACHANDRAN, of Florida DARREL RICHARD RASMUSSEN, of Wisconsin TOY INMAN REID, of Florida NICHOLAS HICKSON REYNOLDS, of Virginia AUSTIN R. RICHARDSON, of Colorado MICHAEL KEITH RITCHIE, of Virginia PETER JEROME RITTER, of Minnesota BRENDAN M. RIVAGE-SEUL, of Texas DANE RALPH ROBBINS, of Tennessee ERIN S. ROBERTSON, of Alaska DAVID BIANCO ROCHFORD, of Louisiana GRIFFIN T. ROZELL, of Texas AARON J. RYAN, of Minnesota BRIGID J. RYAN, of Maryland RAPHAEL SAMBOU, of California LAURA MARIE SANTINI, of Minnesota MICAH M. SAVIDGE, of Pennsylvania GEORGINA SCARLATA, of Virginia HEIDI J. SCHELLENGER, of Maine RICHARD E. SCHILLING, JR., of Tennessee STACY MICHELLE SESSION, of Colorado SOLMAZ SHARIFI, of California SUCHETA SHARMA, of Georgia ADAM HARRIS SIGELMAN, of New Hampshire ADAM SILVER, of New Jersey PETER T. SLOAN, of Virginia AMY L. SMITH, of Wisconsin SAMANTHA H. SMITH, of Oregon TIMOTHY J. SMITH, of Washington KERRI P. SPINDLER-RANTA, of New Hampshire RAJ SRIRAM, of New York WILLIAM A. STARK, of Arkansas JACOB DARYL STEVENS, of Washington ROBERT MURRAY STEVENS, of Florida MAXWELL HARPER STONEMAN, of Utah WALLACE FRANKLIN STURM III, of Illinois DAWN MICHELLE SUNI, of Florida DAVID ALLEN SWALLEY, of California MARK TEMPLER, of Arizona MIA TER HAAR, of California CHRISTINA IRENE TILGHMAN, of Virginia JAY B. TRELOAR, of Florida JULIUS N. TSAI, of Virginia AMANDA JEAN TYSON, of Virginia SHARI LEE ULERY, of Colorado MATTHEW CARL UNDERWOOD, of California ANDREEA DANIELA URSU, of Virginia ADAM K. VANDERVORT, of Virginia PHILLIP J. VANHORN, of Texas LISA NUCH VENBRUX, of Pennsylvania JESSE FREIMAN VICTOR, of Florida KEVIN JAKOB VOGEL, of Texas MELISSA DAATON VONHINKEN, of Virginia JUSTIN THOMAS WALLS, of Texas CODY CANTWELL WALSH, of New York DAVID M. WALTER, of Texas CHRISTOPHER DANIEL WALTON, of California JONATHAN M. WEADON, of Maryland NATHAN WEBBER, of Utah MATTHEW B. WEST, of Virginia SEAN PATRICK WHALEN, of Texas STEFAN ROBERT WHITNEY, of New York SETH AARON WIKAS, of Ohio NATALIE WILKINS, of Colorado BENJAMIN STEVEN WILLIAMS, of Texas MATTHEW JAMES WILSON, of Utah CHRISTOPHER JOSEPH WILZ, of California JEREMY R. WISEMILLER, of Florida SAM WORLAND-ESQUITH, of Virginia THE FOLLOWING NAMED MEMBERS OF THE FOREIGN SERVICE TO BE CONSULAR OFFICERS AND SECRETARIES IN THE DIPLOMATIC SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: DANA SCOTT ADKINS, of Virginia JULIE PETERS AKEY, of Virginia SANDI R. B. ALLAWAY, of Oregon CHRISTOPHER N. ALLEN, of the District of Columbia LINA ANDERSON, of Virginia ANTOINE ABI ANTOUN, of Virginia MICHAEL T. AZZARELLA, of Virginia NARAYAN BADHEY, of New York EMILY S. BAKER, of Virginia ALISON FLANIGAN BASSI, of the District of Columbia DANIEL JAMES BEAUCHAMP, of Arizona SARAH M. BELOUSOV, of Florida WILLIAM C. BLISS, JR., of Virginia JAMES S. BLITZET, of Virginia ANDRA BONET, of Virginia STRAUN WOLFE BOSTON, of California MARISSA BRADLEY, of South Dakota MATTHEW D. BRAVO, of the District of Columbia SHANNON MARIE BRINK, of Colorado ANTHONY BROSNAN, of Missouri ERIC W. BROWN, of Virginia TUCKER AVINGTON BROWN, of Georgia ALEJANDRO BULNES, of Virginia JOEL A. BURGER, of the District of Columbia PETER DAVID BURGESS, of Washington BRYAN THOMAS BURKE, of Virginia ALAN M. BURRIS, of Virginia JAMES D. BURRISS, of Virginia SADE D. CAMPBELL, of Virginia FRANK A. CARDAMONE IV, of Maryland EDWARD SCOTT CARDEN, of Texas OLGA TERESA CARDENAS, of Virginia TIMOTHY RYAN CARPENTER, of Texas BRIAN CARR, of Virginia THOMAS G. CECIL, of Kentucky BRYAN CHAMBERLAIN, of Utah REMONA G. CHARLES, of Virginia PETER H. CHENG, of Virginia HAT NIM CHOI, of Virginia DARIN CHRISTENSEN, of Oregon VINCENT GABRIEL CILLI, of Pennsylvania ADAM R. COLVIN, of Alabama [[Page 6207]] EDWARD J. DANIELSON, of Virginia CHRISTOPHER SEAN DAVEY, of Virginia RENE P. DAVIDSON, of Virginia CRAIG DENNISON, of Iowa PATRICK G. DIGNAN, of Florida ROBERT EDWARD DILLON, of Virginia COLIN JOHN DONOVAN, of Wisconsin DANIEL W. EBERT, of Texas KEVIN GERARD ELLERBROCK, of Ohio MARK L. EVANS, of Tennessee MARK FERULLO, of the District of Columbia MANDY ZHANG FEUERBACHER, of California NEIL PATRICK FINNEGAN, of Massachusetts JOHN R. FINNELL, of Massachusetts MARGARET A. FISHER, of California PATRICK M. FITZGERALD, of Virginia KEITH L. FLICK, of Virginia DARIN M. FOSTER, of New Mexico ANNA V. FRAVEL, of Virginia MONIKA J. GALVYDIS, of Virginia DANIELA GARRETON PEREZ, of California STACY ANN GORDONI, of the District of Columbia TRACY ANNE MILLER GOSAR, of Virginia BRANDON S. GRIFFITHS, of Connecticut VIKRAM GUPTA, of Virginia PHILLIP MAX GUTHRIE, of Texas TARA N. HALL, of Kansas JOSEPH HARBOUK, of Virginia BRIAN NASH HARDESTY, of Virginia MICHAEL M. HARMON, of New York KELLY E. HARRINGTON, of Virginia KELLY LYNN HART, of Rhode Island MARCO A. HERNANDEZ, of Texas CONOR D. HICKTON, of Virginia STEPHANIE A. HICKTON, of Virginia TRAVIS C. HIGGINS, of Virginia LEE ANDREW HILGARTNER, of Alaska RACHEL C. HINES, of Maryland DENNIE HOOPINGARNER, of Michigan WILLIAM CHARLES HOPE, of Washington JENNIFER N. HUBBARD, of Virginia ARIEL ANGELA HUERTA, of California CHELSEA LYNNE HUTCHINSON, of Illinois TODD ALAN JURKOWSKI, of Florida COURTNEY M. KAPLIN, of Virginia ALAN D. KATZ, of Florida DIVYA D. KHOSLA, of the District of Columbia ERICA G. KIEHL, of Virginia KRISTIN E. KIEL, of Virginia YURI P. KIM, of Virginia GAIL LANE-GRIFFITH KIRTLEY, of Maryland NICHOLAS ANTHONY KLINGER, of the District of Columbia ANASTASIA MAE KOLIVAS, of New Hampshire ABRAHAM Y. LEE, of Maryland JOSHUA LEE, of Virginia RANDY C. LEE, of Virginia ANDREW G. LEYVA, of Virginia PATRICK J. LOMBARDO, of Michigan DAVID J. LONGENECKER, of Virginia KRISTIN M. LUNDBERG, of Virginia MATTHEW MAJERNIK, of Maryland CALEB K. MAK, of Washington FAITH KROEKER MAUS, of Minnesota SEAN D. MCGINNIS, of Pennsylvania THOMAS J. MCGOWAN, of Virginia LAURA B. MCINTYRE, of Virginia ROCHELLE L. MCMURRAY, of Virginia TIMOTHY SIMON MCNALLY, of Illinois GARHETT GRAHAM MECHAM, of Maryland OMAR W. MEDINA, of Maryland KEVIN ANDREW MILES, of Kansas KENNETH C. MILLEN, of Florida KEVIN B. MILLS, of Virginia ADNAN SUNNY MITHANI, of Texas BRYAN S. MONTEITH, of Virginia DAVID E. MOORE, of California CYNTHIA MORENO, of Texas ROBERT R. MORTON II, of Virginia CHELSEA E. MOTTER, of Virginia LAURA A. MURPHY, of Virginia ANDREW R. NELSEN, of Virginia KEITH C. NELSON, of Virginia COURTNEY E. NICOLAISEN, of Virginia FRED FURAT ODISHO, of Illinois MICHAEL ARI OSKIN, of Illinois ANDREW H. PAGE, of the District of Columbia RICHARD J. PARR, of Texas LYNN M. PARTIK, of Virginia KURT PEARSON, of Washington RICHARD E. PINKHAM, of Ohio NATHAN MARC PINKUS, of Florida CHRISTOPHER JAMES PISTULKA, of South Dakota CALEB PORTNOY, of Massachusetts JUSTIN MICHAEL PRAIRIE, of Maryland PAIGE LINCOLN THORNER PUNTSO, of Virginia STACI RAAB, of Virginia STEPHANIE L. REMAR, of Virginia RYAN M. REYNOLDS, of Utah CHARLES LEWIS RIDLEY, of Florida ROYAL S. RIPLEY, of Florida JUDD L. ROBERTSON, of Virginia BRITTANY ELIZABETH ROGERSON, of the District of Columbia RANDY L. ROOT, of Virginia SEAN WHITING RUTHE, of Texas ANDREA MARIE SANTORO, of Georgia STEPHEN E. SAWKA, of Pennsylvania MARK JOHN SCHAVER, of Kentucky BRITTANY A. SCHICK, of Oklahoma KATHRYNE SCHILLING, of the District of Columbia DONALD R. SEMON, of Connecticut DAMON SEXTON, of Virginia AMELIA SHAW, of New York CRYSTAL SHERIDAN, of Virginia NABIL SIDDIQI, of Virginia GENEVIEVE C. SIEBENGARTNER, of Oregon NICHOLAS SHEAHAN SIEGEL, of Virginia HANNAH SIN, of California RICHARD N. SLOANE, of the District of Columbia JEFFREY SPOON, of Virginia SARAH RACHEL STEPHENS, of Oklahoma FREDERICK W. THIELKE, of Virginia SCOTT C. TUTTLE, of New York CHRIS J. TYLER, of Maryland MATTHEW THOMAS VAN WAES, of New York OREN VARNAI, of Maryland JEREMY VENTUSO, of California HEATHER E. WADSWORTH, of Virginia JOSHUA W. WALKER, of Virginia MERRY MICHELLE WALKER, of Michigan BART J. WALKINS, of the District of Columbia JESSICA E. WARDER, of Florida MICHAEL Y. WARDER, JR., of Florida MICHELLE KRISTINE WARREN, of the District of Columbia KATHRYN WESTLUND, of the District of Columbia JOEL R. WILLETT, of Kentucky CALDWELL R. WILLIG, of Kentucky NICOLAS ROBERT WISECARVER, of Virginia SHIRLENE YEE, of Arizona VERA ZDRAVKOVA, of Idaho DA YU ZHAO, of Virginia JEFFREY R. ZIHLMAN, of Virginia IN THE AIR FORCE THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE TO THE GRADE INDICATED WHILE ASSIGNED TO A POSITION OF IMPORTANCE AND RESPONSIBILITY UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTION 601: To be lieutenant general MAJ. GEN. SAMUEL A. GREAVES THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE TO THE GRADE INDICATED WHILE ASSIGNED TO A POSITION OF IMPORTANCE AND RESPONSIBILITY UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTION 601: To be lieutenant general MAJ. GEN. JOHN F. THOMPSON THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTION 624: To be brigadier general COL. LEE E. PAYNE THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTION 624: To be major general BRIG. GEN. WARREN D. BERRY THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTION 624: To be major general BRIG. GEN. JON A. NORMAN THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTION 624: To be brigadier general COL. RICKY N. RUPP THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTION 624: To be brigadier general COL. WALTER J. LINDSLEY THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTION 8081: To be major general COL. ROOSEVELT ALLEN, JR. THE FOLLOWING AIR NATIONAL GUARD OF THE UNITED STATES OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE RESERVE OF THE AIR FORCE TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTIONS 12203 AND 12212: To be brigadier general COL. RICHARD W. KELLY THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE TO THE GRADE INDICATED WHILE ASSIGNED TO A POSITION OF IMPORTANCE AND RESPONSIBILITY UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTION 601: To be lieutenant general MAJ. GEN. CARLTON D. EVERHART II THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE TO THE GRADE INDICATED WHILE ASSIGNED TO A POSITION OF IMPORTANCE AND RESPONSIBILITY UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTION 601: To be lieutenant general MAJ. GEN. DARRYL L. ROBERSON THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE TO THE GRADE INDICATED WHILE ASSIGNED TO A POSITION OF IMPORTANCE AND RESPONSIBILITY UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTION 601: To be lieutenant general LT. GEN. ELLEN M. PAWLIKOWSKI 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. KAREN E. DYSON IN THE NAVY THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED STATES NAVY TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTION 624: To be rear admiral REAR ADM. (LH) MATHIAS W. WINTER THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED STATES NAVY RESERVE TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTION 12203: To be rear admiral (lower half) CAPT. THOMAS W. LUSCHER THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED STATES NAVY RESERVE TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTION 12203: To be rear admiral REAR ADM. (LH) ERIC C. YOUNG THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED STATES NAVY RESERVE TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTION 12203: To be rear admiral (lower half) CAPT. KEITH M. JONES THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED STATES NAVY RESERVE TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTION 12203: To be rear admiral REAR ADM. (LH) JANET R. DONOVAN THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED STATES NAVY RESERVE TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTION 12203: To be rear admiral REAR ADM. (LH) MARTHA E. G. HERB REAR ADM. (LH) JOHN F. WEIGOLD THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED STATES NAVY RESERVE TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTION 12203: To be rear admiral REAR ADM. (LH) ALTHEA H. COETZEE REAR ADM. (LH) VALERIE K. HUEGEL THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED STATES NAVY TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTION 624: To be rear admiral REAR ADM. (LH) BRIAN B. BROWN REAR ADM. (LH) SEAN R. FILIPOWSKI REAR ADM. (LH) BRETT C. HEIMBIGNER THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED STATES NAVY RESERVE TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTION 12203: To be rear admiral (lower half) CAPTAIN KEVIN C. HAYES CAPTAIN DANIEL B. HENDRICKSON CAPTAIN THOMAS G. RECK CAPTAIN LINDA R.D. WACKERMAN CAPTAIN MATTHEW A. ZIRKLE THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED STATES NAVY TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTION 624: To be rear admiral REAR ADM. (LH) SEAN S. BUCK REAR ADM. (LH) MARK W. DARRAH REAR ADM. (LH) MICHAEL M. GILDAY REAR ADM. (LH) JEFFREY A. HARLEY REAR ADM. (LH) KEVIN J. KOVACICH REAR ADM. (LH) DIETRICH H. KUHLMANN III REAR ADM. (LH) VICTORINO G. MERCADO REAR ADM. (LH) JOHN C. SCORBY, JR. REAR ADM. (LH) JOHN W. SMITH, JR. REAR ADM. (LH) RICHARD P. SNYDER REAR ADM. (LH) SCOTT A. STEARNEY REAR ADM. (LH) JOSEPH E. TOFALO IN THE AIR FORCE THE FOLLOWING NAMED INDIVIDUAL FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE INDICATED IN THE REGULAR AIR FORCE UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTION 531: [[Page 6208]] To be lieutenant colonel SCOTT A. RABER THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE INDICATED IN THE REGULAR AIR FORCE UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTION 531: To be major MARK D. LEVIN THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE GRADE INDICATED IN THE REGULAR AIR FORCE UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTION 531: To be major JEREMY P. GARLICK DERICK A. SAGER THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR REGULAR APPOINTMENT IN THE GRADE INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTION 531: To be major TONYA Y. WHITE THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTION 624: To be major DANIEL L. ROSERA 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 JASON E. OBRIEN ERIK D. RUDIGER IN THE ARMY THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE INDICATED IN THE RESERVE OF THE ARMY UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTION 12203: To be colonel STANLEY F. ZEZOTARSKI THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTION 624: To be major ERIC S. COMETTE THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTION 624: To be major WILLIAM D. SWENSON THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTION 624: To be major GREGORY R. SHEPARD THE FOLLOWING NAMED ARMY NATIONAL GUARD OF THE UNITED STATES OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE INDICATED IN THE RESERVE OF THE ARMY UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTIONS 12203 AND 12211: To be colonel DAVID F. CAPORICCI JAMES G. JONES LARRY M. PINKERTON, JR. WILLIAM C. REITEMEYER CHRISTOPHER L. SELVEY TYLER B. SMITH DAVID J. UNDERWOOD ERIC G. WISHART THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTION 624: To be major STEPHEN R. ABRAMS LEONEL B. ACOBA VASILIOS AGAPIOS PAUL W. ALDAYA DANIEL R. ALEXANDER CHRISTOPHER R. ALLEN NATASJA K. ALLEN CARLOS D. ALVAREZ MATTHEW D. APOSTOL CHRISTOPHER M. ARDOHAIN BRYAN B. AULT ALEXANDER D. BAILEY SCOTT M. BAILEY BRIAN M. BAPTIST JODY L. BARTH TRISH A. BASILE JENNIFER L. BATES TIFFANY R. BATISTE SCOTT A. BEAL BRIAN R. BECK RACHEL K. BECK DAVID R. BEERS, JR. JOHN R. BELANGER LAUREN J. BELL PATRICK J. BELL MICHAEL G. BENNER WILLIAM R. BENNETT BRADFORD M. BETHEA II PAUL M. BISHOP CHRISTOPHER S. BIZOR CHARLES L. BONDURANT JEFFREY M. BONHEIM JONATHAN S. BORDERS DWAYNE E. BOWDEN SAMUEL J. BOYD ALAN R. BOYES CRAIG A. BREWER TIMOTHY M. BROOKS QUENTIN L. BROWN TERRENCE T. BRUNO DOLORES R. BRYANT KRISTEN M. BUMCROT MARREO T. BURCH DAX E. BURROUGHS SPENCER R. CALDER CHRISTOPHER N. CAMPBELL DANIEL C. CANCHOLA GLEN E. CARR II PAUL M. CARROLL JERMAINE A. CARTER JOHNATHAN N. CARTER RONALD A. CARTER DANIEL D. CASTLE RAYLEE D. CAVAZOSCAVASIER CHANEL M. CHAMBERLIN KENYARDA A. CHAMBERS ALICIA R. CHAPMAN REBECCA B. CHARLES CHRISTOPHER J. CHRISTIANA WOOWON CHUNG BARRIE J. CIOTTI ROBERT W. CLARKE, JR. TRICIA M. CLARKE MARC D. CLEVELAND SAMUEL E. CLONCH GARRETT A. CLOSE LOUIS D. COGSWELL RYAN E. COLLINS SERGIO CONTRERAS, JR. JAMES R. COOKE MICHAEL P. COOKE DAVID R. COOPER STEPHEN T. COPPEDGE CHAD D. CORBIN DANNY P. CORNEJO DAVID L. CORNELIUS NANCY I. CORTES BRENT P. COURTNEY WAYNE J. DAHL, JR. JEFFREY A. DALEY JASON K. DAVIDSON EVAN R. DAVIES KRISHNA L. DAVIS MICHAEL R. DAVIS WILLIAM J. DENN BRIAN A. DEVLIN AMANDA G. DODD CHRISTOPHER A. DRERUP DUSTIN W. DURST JORDAN J. EARLEY ADAM R. EATON NOAH A. EMERYMORRIS D S. EPSTEIN CRYSTAL D. ERNST SAMUEL O. FADARE TERRANCE E. FAVAROTH ERIN L. FELLA AARON J. FERGUSON MATTHEW D. FERGUSON JEFFREY R. FIELDS SLOAN C. FISK AARON S. FLETCHER MARAEA M. A. FLUKER MATTHEW J. FONTAINE NICHOLAS R. FORLENZA STEVEN L. FOSTER JEREMY J. FOX MICHAEL A. FRAAS ANDREW E. FULTON BRANDON M. FULTON THOMAS S. FURMAN THOMAS L. GAINES KELLEY L. GALLOWAY ARTURO M. GARCIA, JR. ANDREW D. GARDNER VITALY D. GELFGAT DANIEL J. GERSHEY SARAH E. GET WALTER A. GIBBONS ANDREW D. GIESEY MICHAEL A. GLOVER BENJAMIN W. L. GONG EDUARDO A. GONZALEZ JUSTIN S. GRATZEL EDWARD W. GREEN, JR. KYLE A. GREENBERG ROBERT L. GRIER ANDREW Z. GRIMES ALFRED W. GRISSIM, JR. MATTHEW P. GROSS ALLAN C. GRYSKEWICZ JASON C. HALL JEFFREY R. HAMER GREGORY I. HAMILTON DAVID L. HAMLIN MATTHEW D. HARDY STEPHEN B. HARKER MICHAEL S. HARMISON BRIAN J. HARRIS CLYDE D. HARRIS MARK R. HASEMAN WALTER G. HEDRICK IV MICHELLE A. HENDERSON STEPHANIE D. HENDERSON WILLIAM J. HENNESSY THOMAS M. HICKEY ANDREW J. HIGHTOWER DRUANN HILL JASON C. HILLMAN NICHOLAS J. HITT MAURIO S. HOLSTON NICHOLAS M. HOLTZ CLARISA A. HORTON PAUL E. HOUK DANIEL R. HUDALLA EDWARD A. HUDSON BLAKE K. HUFF DAVID S. HULSE TAMAR N. HURDITT JASON P. HUSSEY SCOTT A. HUTCHISON SHAMEKA T. HYDER OTIS J. INGRAM JOSEPH L. JACKSON JOSEPH A. JAUNICH NICHOLAS D. JEFFERSON JACOB M. JENDREY SPENGER JEUNE ANDREW R. JOHNSON JUSTIN L. JOHNSON MATTHEW J. JOHNSON TIMOTHY M. JONES STEPHEN J. JOOSTEN TODD C. JUSTICE LINCOLN L. KAFFENBERGER BRIAN P. KALAHER MUSTAFA KAMALREZA ISSA KAMARA BARCLAY D. KEAY ROBERT D. KEELER CHRISTOPHER J. KEGEL LEJUANA L. KEHL NICHOLAS A. KEIPPER EVAN B. KELLY ANDREW R. KEMP BRITNEY E. KENNEDY DARREN J. KERR BENJAMIN J. KIM JACOB J. KIM DANIEL J. KOEPKE JAMES P. KOLKY NICHOLAS J. KRANITES MICHAEL W. KUMMERER MERLIN J. KYNASTON DANIEL P. LAAKSO TIMOTHY W. LAMBERT JAMES M. LAMBRIGHT ERIK J. LAMPE BRIAN S. LANEY CHRISTOPHER M. LAREAU TIMOTHY H. LAWRENCE COLIN L. LAYNE BRIAN G. LEBIEDNIK ANDREW J. LEE PAUL H. LEE NATHAN A. LEPPERT CHRISTOPHER S. LILL JOSHUA B. LIMBERG NICHOLAS R. LINSE JESSAMYN J. LIU JOHN C. LIVINGSTON PETERO LOLE JAMIE C. LONG LEE C. LORENZ IZABELLA LUNDY KYLE R. LUOMA PAUL A. LUSHENKO SANTINO A. MAFFEI RYAN J. MANN MARVIN S. MARK WILLIAM N. MARMION DAVID W. MATHEW DEAN A. MATHIS MICHELLE S. MCCARROLL QUENTIN D. MCCART RICHARD J. MCCUAN JOSHUA L. MCDONALD TIMOTHY M. MCGEE PAUL MCKNIGHT JOSHUA S. MEADOR GILBERT C. MENDOZA JOSHUA A. MENDOZA SAUL MEREJO JASON W. MERRIMAN RICARDO MEZA RICHARD K. MICHEL GREGORY J. MINETOS TABBER N. MINTZ TYLER J. MITCHELL TYRONE A. MOORE JASON R. MORALES MALIKAH S. MORGAN MARCUS A. MORGAN EROL K. MUNIR RYAN M. NEELY FRANCIS S. NELSON RUSSELL J. NELSON RYAN M. NELSON UCHENNA K. NJOKU [[Page 6209]] PRISCELLA A. NOHLE CHRISTIAN S. W. NOUMBA SAMUEL E. NUXOLL JOHN M. OLIVER COURTNEY R. OLSON KYLE D. PACKARD JENNIFER R. PARKER NATHAN L. PARKER DAVID S. PARSONS JOSHUA J. PASSER EDWARD D. PATTERSON STEVEN P. PATTERSON BRANDON H. PAYNE MICHAEL J. PEDERSON DANIEL P. PESATURE DAVID J. PETERSON SPENCER W. PHILLIPS TIFFANY L. PHILLIPS NICHOLAS B. PICKFORD MATTHEW J. PICKLE FRANTZ PIERRE THOMAS C. PLANT FRANCISCO R. POLZIN ERIC F. PRAZINKO AARON M. PROBST JOELLE S. QUIAPO CHRISTOPHER J. RANKIN ANDREW J. RAYMOND FRANK D. REMILLARD AARON J. RETTKE JOEL W. RHEA BRANDON W. RICHARDS PAUL F. RICKMEYER DANIEL W. RIESENBERGER ROBERT D. RIGGS AARON S. RITZEMA JEAN F. RIVERAGARCIA ELIEZER D. RIVERALOPEZ ANGEL L. ROBLES DAVID G. RODRIGUEZ JESUS S. RODRIGUEZ VIVIANA RODRIGUEZ STEPHANIE ROGERS DAVID ROKHLIN MARTIN R. ROSARIO JAMES F. ROSEBERY JERWIN P. RUAZOL COREY H. RUCKDESCHEL JOSEPH D. RUHL KEVIN M. RYAN BENJAMIN J. RYDER SIMON D. SANCHEZ ANDREW R. SANDSTRUM RANDY C. SCHNELL RAYMOND C. SCHULTZ JOSHUA D. SCHULZ JASON H. SEALES KERRIE M. SECOND DONALD E. SEDIVY RYAN M. SEE BENJAMIN J. SEIBERT MICHAEL D. SEMINELLI REZA SHAMS MICHELLE L. SHARP VICTOR M. SHEPHERD JASON J. SHERRILL CHRISTOPHER E. SHERWOOD WILLIAM J. SHIELDS HEIDI B. SHIRLEY ERIC J. SIDIO JASON T. SILER MICHAEL P. SILVERMAN CHRISTOPHER W. SIMS ARKORN SINGHASENI DAVID P. SINON JESSE L. SKATES TAD A. SLATTER CAROL M. SMITH KEVIN R. SMITH PHILIP J. SMITH VALARIE A. SOLIS CAMERO K. W. SONG TIMOTHY P. SORENSEN STEVEN K. SOUZA WILLIE C. SPENCER II CHRISTOPHER M. STACY CASSANDRA L. STALL JAMES J. STALL ROBIN A. STARK AUSTIN T. STARKEN CRAIG D. STARN BERRY M. STATON BRITTIANE V. STATON ZACHARY M. STAUDTER PATRICK R. STAUFFER JONATHAN D. STJOHN ERIC R. STOLLE DANIEL S. SUMMERS ERIC A. SWETT JEFFREY S. SWINFORD DERRICK N. SYED CALVIN W. TAETZSCH JONATHAN C. TAYLOR JASON P. TEMPLET WILBERT E. THIBODEAUX III DONALD W. THOMAS RODNEY J. THOMAS KATIE L. THOMEN LYNDSEY L. THOMPSON MATTHEW K. THOMPSON ARTURO A. TIBAYAN AUDREY T. TIUMALU DARIA A. TOLER TREVER P. TOLER KENNETH E. TORRES DAVID K. TOY JASON A. TURNER NICHOLAS R. TURNER MICHAEL A. VALENTINE CHARLES M. VANOTTEN DOUGLAS R. VASQUEZ MARC C. VIELLEDENT MICHAEL D. VILLALOBOS PATRICK S. WACHUTKA CHRISTOPHER S. WADSWORTH CHRISTOPHER J. WAGENER JOSEPH W. WALKER JOSHUA R. WALKER MARLON A. WALKER SAMUEL M. WALKER SCOTT D. WARES MATTHEW D. WATERFIELD JAMES B. WEAKLEY ANNAH M. WEAVER BRITTANY L. WEIGHTMAN BRYANT A. WELLMAN ASHLEY E. WELTE RYAN M. WEMPE BRENDAN T. WENTZ MATTHEW C. WESMILLER EVAN M. WESTGATE KIRA C. WEYRAUCH SARAH M. WHITTEN ROBERT H. WIDMYER GREGORY M. WILHELM AARON A. WILLIAMS ANTHONY WILLIAMS JAMILA N. WILLIAMS SIDNEY I. WILSON STEPHANIE J. WILSON KEVIN D. WINFREY GREGORY R. WORTMAN JON I. WRIGHT DONGSHENG XIE SONG H. YI DANIEL L. ZIMMERMAN CHAD M. ZINNECKER D011223 D011702 D011782 D011862 D011871 D012050 G010127 G010129 G010228 G010232 G010257 THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTION 624: To be major ISAIAH C. ABBOTT LEONARD D. J. ACQUISTAPACE JACOB P. ADDY ADEBAYO T. ADELEKE HENRY J. AGUIGUI KWAME O. AGYEMANG RAYMOND D. AKERS JOHN H. ALBRIGHT JAMES I. ALFARO ELLIS E. ALLEN III JEREMY W. ALLIE MARRIO A. ALMADA AUBREY R. ASHFORD JERMAINE A. ATHILL JASON C. ATKINSON STEVEN J. AUSTIN LEONARD J. BAKLARZ ARTHUR R. BALL, JR. ANDREW J. BAME APRIL L. BAPTISTE-ROBERTSON BRENDAN L. BARCLAY BENJAMIN A. BARRETT MATTHEW J. BARWICK WILLIAM P. BASS JOSE G. BELTRE DANIEL J. BELZER MATTHEW C. BENDER ROLAND L. BETHEA ANDREW D. BIONDI JEFFREY R. BLACKSHER MARK D. BLAIN BRYAN K. BLOCKLINGER, JR. ZACHARY R. BOCK ROBYN E. BOEHRINGER SHARI S. BOWEN DAVID J. BOWERS ADAM G. BRADFORD ORNA T. BRADLEY MARLON J. BRIDE BART B. BRIMHALL JAMES D. BROOKS JASON H. BROTHERTON CHRISTOPHER M. BROWN KEIRN C. BROWN MINDY A. BROWN NADIYA BRYANT RORI P. BUCHANAN STEPHANIE F. BUNKER MICHAEL F. BURNS BRIAN C. BUTCHER JUAN A. CANTU CATHERINE C. CARLSON RANDALLE M. CARTER TIMOTHY J. CASHEN MARY M. L. CASTERLINE PHILLIP CASTILLO DAVID E. CERRATO JIMMY Y. CHANG NICHOLAS J. CHERRY ERICA E. CHIN FELECIA S. CHINA ANGELA N. CHIPMAN YONG C. CHOE WON S. CHUNG NATHANIEL S. CINCALA FRANCINE Y. CLARKE TRAVIS T. COATES STUART A. COLEMAN ERIKA J. COLLINS ANDREW W. COLSIA NANCY A. COLSIA DAVID H. COOK JAMES R. COOK LEON A. COOK LAVONE J. CORDON TWYGENA M. COTTON ROBERT J. COVINGTON STEPHANIE B. CRAWFORD JOHN P. CRUMLEY MICHAEL A. CUMBIE STEVEN R. CUSACK ROBERT A. CUTHBERTSON ANDRE L. DARLING-WHITTEN FERNANDO M. DELRIO JORGE DELTORO FREDERICK T. DEQUINA MATTHEW J. DERFLER HEATHER S. DETERS DAVID V. DIELMANN MICAH J. DIGREZIO PHILIP H. DILLINGHAM DAMIAN L. DIXON JASON B. DOLAN KRISTIN M. DONETH KELVIN J. DOUGLAS YAKENA M. DOUGLAS CHARMAINE M. DOUSE RAYMOND J. DROESSLER TARON S. DUKES DUSTIN C. DUMBRAVO ROSALYN R. DUMBRAVO DERRICK H. DUNLAP WAYNE A. DUNLAP JOHN D. DUNLAPP BRETT T. DUNNING JASON C. DUPUIS JUSTIN J. DWYER TASHA M. DYER ANDREW M. ELJDID JOHN D. ENFINGER PATRICK J. ENGEMAN ROBIN A. ESKELSON YVONNE M. EVANGELISTA RAYMOND M. EVERHART KYLE D. FAILS BARRY B. FARMER PEDRO E. FERNANDEZ JAMES F. FINK JUSTIN M. FITCH PAUL R. FLANIGEN JEFFREY D. FOSTER RORY C. A. FOSTER CISCO J. FULLER BRIAN J. FURBER MEILING T. FYE PAUL M. GARCIA CHAD D. GARDINER CHRISTOPHER D. GARDINER JONATHAN G. GARDNER CHRISTOPHER B. GARRETT QUENELLA L. GARRETT DAVID C. GARRISON MATTHEW J. GARVIN BRANDON J. GATES FREDERICK A. GAYLES TIMOTHY P. GIBBONS RYAN P. GILLES CHRISTINA N. GILLETTE HALDANE C. GILLETTE JEREMY J. GLENZ ABRAHAM P. GOEPFERT MICHAEL A. GOLD ASHLEY M. GOLDMAN EDDIE M. GORBETT MARSHALL L. GRAY ANDREW T. GRAZIANO CALEB S. GREEN NATHAN L. GREER DEMARIO A. GROVER NATHANIEL J. GROVES JAMES O. GRUBE ELISABET GUILLEN DANIEL P. GUSTKE LARRY M. GWINN RONALD H. HAAS JOSHUA M. HAFER WILLIAM F. HAGUE ERIC J. HALLGREN JERRY M. HALLMAN, JR. MICHAEL R. HANNAH RONALD L. HARO MICHAEL S. HARRELL JAMES E. HARRIS IV [[Page 6210]] CHRISTOPHERJAMES A. HART JEFFREY M. HART DIRK C. HASBACH JASON A. HAYNES JEREMY HAYNES KEITH R. HEINDL JOSEPH D. HENDERSON RONALD A. HENDERSON PATRICK W. HENSON JAMES B. HICKEY MATTHEW E. HILL CRYSTAL E. HINES GEORGE E. HORNE MATTHEW T. HORSTMAN PATRICK T. HORVAT TROY D. HOUSTON BRAD R. HUCKO ERIC J. HUGGARD JERRICK J. HUNTER RYAN P. HURLEY CHADWICK E. HYMAN WALTER L. IVORY, JR. NICOLE L. JACKSON RODNEY D. JACKSON RONALD D. JACKSON LENDRICK Y. JAMES MISTY D. JAMES STEVEN D. JEFFERSON STACEY N. JELKS ANGELA N. JEWETT DEVANIE N. JOHNSON ERIC M. JOHNSON JOSEPH H. JOHNSON III NATHALIA J. JOHNSON PATRICE L. JOHNSON ROY C. JOHNSON CRYSTAL R. JONES JACOB V. JONES JEREMIAH JONES KEITH A. JORDAN REUBEN T. JOSEPH CHAD M. JUHLIN HASSAN M. KAMARA JASON T. KAPPES SAMUEL J. KARR MICHAEL Z. KEATHLEY KELLEY A. KEATING MICHAEL B. KEE ZACHARY J. KEEFER CAMERON M. KEOGH TODD KETTERER ISMAIL A. KHAN JOHN F. KIEFER THOMAS F. KIRCHGESSNER BRIAN R. KNUTSON WILLIAM B. KOBBE JODI D. KRIPPEL MATTHEW F. KROG LAMOND I. LACEY DEVEILLA N. LAMBERT PATRICK A. LANIER NOLAN O. LASITER GAVIN R. LASKOWSKI ROYDREGO V. LAVANT JOSEPH J. LEE MARIBEL M. LEE WAYNE R. LEE, JR. RYAN K. LERDALL CHARMAIN L. LETT DAVID B. LEVERETT ZACHARY M. LEWIS WALTER D. LILLEGARD WILLIAM D. LINCOLN JASMIN A. LIRIO YITEH LIU NORMAN D. LOCKHART CHRISTOPHER W. LOWRY BENJAMIN J. LUKAS ALLEN J. LUNA LIONEL MACKLIN, JR. BRIANNA M. MAIER STEPHEN M. MALLORY JAMES J. MANUEL CAMERON D. MAPLES ERIC J. MARAFFI ERIC P. MARTIN JOSEPH B. MARTIN LENFORD D. MARTIN MICHAEL J. MARTIN RYAN P. MARTIN CATHERINE M. MARTINEZ SIDNEY E. MASON ANTON H. MASSMANN AARON L. MATTHEWS TELISHA L. MATTHEWS BRADLEY A. MATTISON MATTHEW D. MATTISON MATTHEW G. MAXWELL LEV L. MAZERES EBRIMA F. MBAI JEREMY J. MCCRILLIS LATASHA D. MCCULLAR WILLIAM G. MCDUSTRELL LATECIA S. MCGRADY MAGEN L. MCKEITHEN DONIEL D. MCPHAIL SARAH E. MICHOLICK ANDREW P. MILLER MATTHEW C. MILLER WILLIAM R. MILLS II KEITH A. MINER JON D. MOHUNDRO SENECA H. MOORE JONATHON A. MORALEE CARLOS G. MORALES DAVID MORENO ALLISON N. MORSE RACHEL A. MULLHOLLAND TRAVIS J. MUNSCH DANIELLE D. MURRELL SHAWN C. NAIGLE JOSEPH W. NALLI PATRICK J. NELSON BRANDON E. NIXON LYNDSEY R. NOTT JONATHAN D. OBLON KAI H. OBOHO THOMAS J. OBRIEN OTAZERIA B. ODIBO JUSTIN M. OLES JACOB P. OLSZEWSKI JOSHUA A. ONEILL MATTHEW B. OTTO TIMOTHY J. OWENS KIMBERLY E. PAGE DION D. PANDY SHAWN D. PARDEE JOEL PARKER KLAIROONG PATTUMMA TRAVIS G. PECK CHRISTOPHER D. PENDLETON ASHLEY E. PHILBIN CHARLES L. PHILLIPS TRAVIS A. PHIPPS CLINTON E. PIERCE NICHOLAS R. PINES JAMIE E. PITTMAN JOHN A. PLITSCH FELIPE POSADAMONTES CHRISTOPHER D. PRICE JUSTIN D. PRIESTMAN ROBERT J. PRIGMORE JERMAINE C. PRUITT CHAD E. RABURN BRYAN J. RALLS LUCAS J. RAND RUBEN A. RANGEL ELFONZO J. REED ALETHIA D. REYNOLDS JILLIAN C. RIVERA KATHERINE E. ROBERTSON STEVEN C. ROBINETTE EDWARD D. ROBINSON GERALD A. ROBINSON ESPERANZA RODRIGUEZSIDDALL RICHARD F. ROGERS WAYNE D. ROGERS, JR. CLINTON A. ROUNTREE NICHOLAS L. ROWLAND CASEY A. RUMFELT YASHICA T. RUSHIN JASON A. RUSSELL DARSHAREE J. SAIK ADAM M. SAMIOF ALFREDO M. SANCHEZ MARIA E. SANCHEZ MIGUEL N. SANTANA MATTHEW B. SCHADE HEATHER L. SCHMITT JASON M. SCHULZ ELIZABETH A. SCHWEMMER ANDREW M. SCRUGGS MARION P. SEWELL, JR. JOSIE E. SHAHEEN JEFFREY D. SHAMSI TYRONE D. SHIELDS LESLIE A. SHIPP ERIC P. SHOCKLEY JAMES E. SHORT SHAWN M. SKINNER DIECILLA T. SLEDGE ATIYA M. SMITH CHRISTIAN J. SMITH RACHEL Z. SMITH STEVEN T. SMITH EMILY H. SPENCER JASON E. STAIB JOSEPH C. STALNAKER GWENDOLYN E. STANCIL KEITH E. STEWART DAVID W. STORRS MIGDALIA SUMMERVILLE MATTHEW W. SWIM ROBERT M. SZYMANSKI ALLEN J. TAYLOR JUSTIN B. TEAGUE JOSEPH E. TEXIDOR KASANDRA B. THARP COLE M. THERKILDSEN LATASHA R. THOMAS WALDRELL J. THOMAS, JR. JOHN D. THOMPSON MATTHEW K. THOMPSON JEFFREY L. TIMMONS ALEX J. TORRES BELINDA C. TREVILLION MATTHEW A. TURCOTTE CHRISTINA S. VALENTINE AGUSTIN O. VALERIONUNEZ CHRISTOPHER P. VANDELIST RODRICO P. VARGAS ANGEL A. VEGACOLON NICHOLAS D. VIAR ALEXANDER B. VICTORIA PETER J. VILLALUZ CLIFTON J. VINCENT JUAN M. VIRUETCOLLAZO JASON D. WAGNER PETER C. WARNER NOAH WASHINGTON, JR. HAROLD K. WATSON MATTHEW M. WEBB DANIEL K. WEIDMAN RYAN P. WELCH GARY L. WHEELER BARRY J. WHITE REGINALD V. WHITE MICHAEL D. WHITTEN JASON E. WHITUS LATIA K. WICKLIFFE INGA A. WILDERMUTH ERVIN J. WILLIAMS STUART P. WILLIAMS YOLANDA G. WILLIAMS RYAN M. WILSON MATTHEW R. WIMMER SHADRIKA Y. WITHERSPOON ROSILYN C. WOODARD BRIAN W. WORSHAM YOLANDA V. WRIGHT JAMIL WYNN LOURDES M. YANESMOORE DWAYNE M. YOUNG VANCE E. ZEMKE SHERRI L. ZIMMERMAN D011465 D012187 THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTION 624: To be major JASON K. ABBOTT CLINTON M. ACKLIN DENVER K. AKI NEIL R. ALCARIA NICOLE M. ALEXANDER ANTHONY J. ALLEN JACOB A. ALLEN JONATHON M. ALLEN MOHAMADOU M. AMAR BLAKELY M. ANDERSON JAMES C. ANDERSON BENJAMIN K. ANDRUS CHRISTOPHER R. ANTHONY MICHAEL J. AREVALO ALLYN L. ARMESON SAMUEL A. ARNETT CRAIG D. ARNOLD II JAMES S. ARTHURS, JR. CHAD J. ASHE BRANNON L. ASKEW MARK C. ASKEW MARK A. AXTELL RICHARD A. BABBITT WILLIAM S. BADER WESLEY R. BAER RICHARD J. BAILEY ANDREW J. BAILIFF CHAD M. BAKER JONATHAN S. BAKER CHRISTOPHER L. BALA KEVIN S. BALENTINE MICHAEL D. BALES TIMOTHY S. BALL ANDREW R. BALLOW ROBERT J. BARNO JONATHAN D. BATE KEVIN M. BEASLEY THOMAS L. BEATTIE JEFFREY M. BEEMAN TYSON J. BEHNKE DANIEL R. BELL NICHOLAS P. BELL LUKAS B. BERG JEFFREY M. BERNARD JEFFREY C. BESS CELIO S. BIERING ADRIAN O. BIGGERSTAFF DONALD J. BIGHAM RANDALL F. BITTNER JEFFREY S. BLACK MICHAEL C. BLAKE JOSIAH B. BLALOCK BENJAMIN T. BLANE JOSHUA J. BLIZZARD JAMES A. BLOOM, JR. DUSTIN D. BLUM RYAN L. BOEKA JOSEPH C. BOGART ANDREW S. BOGGS JOHN Q. BOLTON CHRISTOPHER A. BOLZ JOSHUA P. BOST CRAIG W. BOSVELD JESSE H. BOULTON DANIEL K. BOURKE GERALD L. BOWMAN GABRIEL R. BOWNS ANDREW H. BOYD CHESTER D. BOYLES JORDAN G. BRADFORD MARK BRANA BRANDON W. BRANCA JOSEPH R. BRANCH MARVIN T. BRANCH [[Page 6211]] ROBERT C. BRAND BENJAMIN D. BRANDS NATHAN A. BRANEN ERIN E. BRASWELL KEVIN L. BRASWELL JAMES V. BRAUDIS NATHAN S. BRAXTON SEAN P. BREEN LANCE B. BRENDER KYLE P. BRENGEL DEVIN R. BRIGHT MICHAEL D. BRIMAGE ANDREW A. BROWN DAVID L. BROWN JENNIFER M. BROWN JEREMY P. BROWN MORGAN R. BROWN WILLIAM R. BROWN BENJAMIN P. BROWNLEE EREKE D. BRUCE TANYA J. BUCKLEY ERICK D. BUCKNER KATHERINE A. BUEHNER HERMAN E. BULLS, JR. JASON K. BURFORD JOHN A. BURKHART CLINT E. BURLESON ELLIOTT B. BURNS JOHN P. BYLER JOSEPH K. BYRNES MATTHEW J. CAHILL MATTHEW E. CAIN CHRISTOPHER R. CALWAY JOSHUA J. CAMBRA MICHAEL E. CAMPBELL RICHARD C. CAMPBELL GREGORY W. CANADY MICHAEL V. CANN DANIEL P. CAPOZZA DAVID CARATTINI PETER D. CARETTO JUSTIN D. CARLTON COURTNEY W. CARNEGIE CLAYTON O. CARPENTER JOSEPH R. CARR MICHAEL A. CARRION WILLIAM CARRION II JUAN M. CASTELLANOS SEAN M. CASTILLA MICHAEL D. CASTILLO FELIX CASTRO IVAN CASTRO JASON D. CASTRO MICHAEL J. CENTOLA JONATHAN M. CHAKERES JARED A. CHANDLER CHAD J. CHAPMAN ALBERT J. CHATWOOD TRINIDAD N. CHAVEZ KURT E. CHEESEMAN DEBORAH L. CHEN JEFFREY J. CHENARD CHAD P. CHENOWETH TIMOTHY W. CHESS GEOFFREY D. CHILDS SCOTT M. CHRISTIE JOHN K. CHUNG JON M. CHYCHOTA THOMAS J. CIESLAK TOBIAS R. CLARK STEVEN L. CLEGHORN JOSHUA W. CLEMMONS CHARLES T. CLIFFORD DANIEL J. CLINEBELLE JUSTON R. CLYMORE JEREMY T. COATES SEAN R. COCHRAN JONATHAN A. COE PETER N. COFFMAN SEAN R. COFFMAN JARED D. COIL CHRISTOPHER T. COLBERT PATRICK M. COLE TAD J. COLEMAN ANTHONY F. COLGARY MARK E. CONKLIN RYAN D. CONLEY WILLIAM F. CONNERS TIMOTHY C. CONNORS DANIEL G. CORBETT GREGORY J. CORMIER JOSEPH R. CORSENTINO RICKY COTTO JONATHAN S. COUCH JEFFREY M. COUGHLIN DAVID R. COWAN LUCAS M. CRABTREE CARL A. CRANDALL ADAM B. CREEL JUSTIN W. CROCKER WILLIAM A. CROSS MARY C. CRUMBY RICARDO CRUZ JUSTIN M. CUFF JEREMY P. CURRIN AARON J. DANIELE CARL J. DANKO ESTAN N. DAVIS KARL A. DAVIS, JR. MATTHEW D. DAVIS SEAN J. DAVIS ALEXANDER R. DEAN CLAYTON J. DEGENHARDT DAVID A. DELLERMAN REID M. DENSON BRIAN J. DERMODY RANDY S. DESJARDIN, JR. DAVID W. DESJARDINS DERRICK W. DEW MATTHEW J. DEWITT JASON R. DICKINSON JOHN A. DICKSON JOSEPH J. DIDOMENICO MATTHEW C. DIVICO SEAN M. DIXON RICHARD D. DOBKINS, JR. JOHN S. DOCKERY JOHN P. DOLAN ROBERT J. DOMITROVICH TIMOTHY J. DOWNING JOSHUA R. DRAKE JOHN T. DREW BRANDON R. DROBENAK BRIAN J. DROHAN NICHOLAS R. DUBAZ RYAN R. DUFFY THOMAS G. DULL CHRISTOPHER T. DUPREY STEVEN A. EATON WILLIAM N. EBERLE ADAM C. ECCLESTON SCOTT R. EDEN IAN D. EDGERLY BENJAMIN J. EDWARDS KENNETH P. ELGORT BRANDON T. ELLISON SCOTT D. ELWELL ANGELA M. ERALE JESSE J. ERICKSON VITO J. ERRICO JONATHAN W. ERWIN TYLER J. ESPINOZA JACOB M. ESTRADA MATTHEW T. ETHERIDGE BRIAN D. EVANS JAMES G. FALLS III DAVID R. FARRAR JENNIFER L. FAUTH DARRELL E. FAWLEY AURLBRIO L. FENNELL ANTHONY J. FERA KATIE R. FIDLER MICHAEL A. FIGER EDUARDO M. FIGUEROA FELIX FIGUEROA ARI D. FISHER SHAWN P. FITZGERALD DEREK R. FITZPATRICK THOMAS G. FITZPATRICK RYAN Q. FLAHERTY RANDOLPH J. FLEMING CORY S. FLORENCE JUAN FLORES LUIS N. FLORES VANCE C. FLOWERS THOMAS L. FLYNN OWEN G. S. FOGARTY MICHAEL Z. FOOR JOHN C. FORD CHAD M. FORSYTHE AMOS C. FOX JOHN J. FRAYER JUSTIN L. FRAZIER JOSEPH A. FREDERICK TARIK K. FULCHER CURT F. FULMER SEAN M. GAILEY STUART E. GALLAGHER JEFFREY R. GAMBLE TERRY E. GAMBREL JULIO A. GARCIA ROCKNEE M. GARDNER CHRISTOPHER R. GARNETT MEGAN J. GARRETT JAMES A. GARRISON WILFORD L. GARVIN JOHN P. GASSMANN ELISABETH C. GERHARDT JASON A. GILCHRIST JEFFERY M. GIVENS ERIC M. GLASSMAN JEFFREY D. GLICK JEFFREY L. GOINES ANDREW M. GOLDEN ALBERT J. GOMEZ DANIEL E. GONZALEZ DELVIN M. GOODE GARY C. GOODMAN DANIEL D. GOODWIN BENJAMIN J. GORCZYNSKI VINCENT C. GOTHARD JARED G. GRAHAM LARRY P. GRAHAM JEREMY L. GRAY WALTER C. GRAY BRADLEY S. GREAVER BRANT L. GREEN BRIAN P. GREEN ROBERT W. GREEN ROBERT W. GREEN KYLE L. GREENHECK GERALD W. GREENLEE DAVID W. GRIFFITH RUSSELL P. GRIGSBY BRIAN D. GRIMSLEY BRENDAN W. GRISWOLD VICTOR T. GRONENTHAL CLINTON J. GUTIERREZ DANIEL F. GWOSCH BRIAN L. HAAS TODD R. HABITZREUTHER MATTHEW C. HAITH DENNIS W. HALL JASON M. HALLIGAN DAVID P. HALPERN JOHN D. HAMMETT, JR. SANG K. HAN RORY P. HANLIN HENRY V. HANSEN PAUL W. HANSON TODD J. HARALSON PAUL B. HARGROVE STEPHEN G. HARNSBERGER JOSE A. HARO JACQUELINE A. HARRIS EDWARD N. HARRISON KELLY S. HAUX MICHAEL E. HAVEY, JR. JASON L. HAWKINS AARON E. HEATH SCOTT P. HEESEMANN ULRICH HELLMEIER JEREMY R. HENDRICKS DANIEL M. HENDRIX SEAN D. HENLEY DEVIN M. HENRY BRIAN R. HICKERSON ANDREW M. HILL DAVID C. HILLING WILLIAM M. HILLS RYAN A. HINTZ SCOTT M. HINZ CRAIG HOBBS ANTHONY T. HOEFLER DOUGLAS E. HOER TROY A. HOKANSON MATTHEW T. HOLDEN SEAN M. HOLLARS MATTHEW R. HOLLEY SAMUEL D. HONE II EDWARDARTHUR K. HOOMALU ZACHARY T. HOOVER BENJAMIN J. HORNER KEVIN A. HORRIGAN JEREMY N. HORTON PAUL C. HORTON MATTHEW A. HOVDE JOSHUA A. HOWARD RYAN D. HOWELL LISA J. HUBBARD JACOB J. HUBER DANIEL R. HUFF TY HUFFMAN BREG A. HUGHES JAYSON L. HUGHES TUCKER N. HUGHES LEE C. HUMPHREY ROBERT W. HUMPHREY JESSICA B. HUTTON RICHARD W. B. HUTTON NICHOLAS R. INGRAO JACK B. IRBY JEREMY L. IRVINE RUSSELL J. ISAACS ROBERT B. ISRAEL MATTHEW A. IVES MARK W. IVEY JOSHUA J. JACQUEZ BRIAN W. JAMES NICHOLAS M. JAMES MICHAEL C. JEANETTA HEATH L. JENNI NATHAN A. JENNINGS BRIAN R. JENSON CHRISTIAN R. JOHNSON JACOB T. JOHNSON ROLLAND H. JOHNSON RYAN R. JOHNSON KYLE M. JOHNSTON SHAWN R. JOKINEN KELLY S. JONES MICHAEL L. JONES RICKY R. JONES CAMDEN S. JORDAN STEPHEN M. JUNG MICHAEL J. KAISER MATTHEW J. KAPLAN DOUGLAS K. KAPULE ADAM M. KARR MICHAEL R. KEASLER CHRISTINE M. KEATING THEODORE A. KEHLER ADAM C. KELLER PATRICK J. KELLEY SHAWN H. KELLEY DAVID R. A. KELSO DAVID A. KENDZIOR CHRISTIAN S. KENNERLY ELIJAH S. KERNRUESINK ALEXANDER A. KERR CHAD E. KESSLING DON Y. KIM JONATHAN T. KIM STEVE Y. KIM WILLIAM J. KIMMINS CARL A. KING, JR. [[Page 6212]] CHARLES W. KING BRENT B. KINNEY NATHAN G. KISH KYLE A. KIVIOJA JASON R. KNEIB ANDREW M. KOCHLI MICHAEL J. KOLLER SHANNON E. KONVALIN MICHAEL P. KOVALSKY BRADLEY J. KRAUSS WILLIAM K. KREBS JEFFREY J. KROHN KEVIN F. KRUPSKI MORGAN H. LAIRD WILLIAM R. LAMBERT JOHN E. LANDRY JAMES E. LANGFORD STEVEN M. LANNI JOSHUA A. LARSON CLIFFORD D. LATTING PETER A. LAWALL JOSHUA D. LAZZARINI JOHNATHAN D. LEE MARK J. LEE MICHAEL H. LEEPER JOSHUA O. LEHMAN MICHAEL A. LENGEL KENYON M. LENO DAVID J. LENZI II JOSHUA T. LEVALLEY LEVI M. LEWELLYN MELISSA L. LEWIS JUSTIN A. LIESEN MICHAEL S. LINNINGTON LISA M. LIVINGSTON KEVIN W. LOCKETT PAUL G. LOCKHART ALBERTO J. LOCSIN MATTHEW R. LOMMEL NATHAN P. LONGWORTH JASON W. LOPEZ CHRISTOPHER G. LOSCHIAVO CHRISTOPHER R. LOSSING KEVIN M. LOUGHNANE THOMAS R. LOVELESS CURTIS T. LOWRY DANIEL R. LUDWIG WILLIAM C. LUKA, JR. JOSHUA A. LYONS JERRAULD MA IAN B. MACGREGOR WILLIAM T. MACH III TANIKA T. MACIAS BRANDON J. MACKEY DAVID N. MACPHAIL JOHN F. MADDEN MORGAN MAIER NICHOLAS J. MAKSIM NATALIE G. MALLICOAT JOSEPH R. MANGAN EMBER S. MANIEGO DONNALE L. MANN REIMUND G. MANNECK BENJAMIN H. MARCH REED T. MARKHAM ADAM M. MARSH KEITH A. MARSHALL JEFFREY L. MARSHBURN ANDREW P. MARTIN BRANDON K. MARTIN JACOB J. MATHEWS RONNIE L. E. MATHIS JASON J. MATOVICH SCOTT K. MATTINGLY BRETT M. MATZENBACHER JOEL D. MAXWELL THOMAS J. MCCARTHY DAVID A. MCCOLLUM IAN M. MCCONNELL CHARLES T. MCCORMICK BENJAMEN A. MCDANIEL EDWARD L. MCDONALD PATRICK M. MCGUIGAN JAMES M. MCKAY PATRICK W. MCLAIN DANIEL W. MCMANUS TERENCE L. MCMILLAN JOSEPH E. MCNAIR WILLIAM R. MCNALLY MATTHEW D. MCNEAL JORGE A. MEDINA JEFFREY B. MEINDERS MATTHEW A. MELONI GEORGE B. MELTON DANIEL N. MENDEZ THOMAS J. MENN ERIC W. MERCER GRIFFIN J. MERRILL RALPH C. MERRILL SEAN A. MERRITT SCOTT F. MERTZ ANTHONY A. MESSENGER JOHN A. MEYER JOSEPH I. MEYER JOSHUA A. MEYER JASON G. MICHAELS RUSSELL J. MICHO RYAN R. MIDDLEMISS BRIAN M. MIDDLETON PAUL J. MILAS CHRISTOPHER M. MILLER MATTHEW R. MILLER STEVEN J. MILLER DONALD S. MINCHEW NICOLE R. MINER PAUL B. MINNIE KELLY R. MISELES RUSSELL G. MITSCHERLING MICHAEL T. MIXON MICHAEL P. MOAD WECHNER MOMPREVIL KENT B. MONAS DYLAN J. MONTGOMERY APRIL M. K. MOORE JEFFREY P. MOORE MICHAEL B. MOORE JOHN R. MORRIS RONALD L. MORRIS DOUGLAS J. MORRISON DANIEL D. MORSE MICHAEL J. MOYER JONATHAN R. MRAZ JOHN F. MULHOLLAND RYAN A. MURPHY WILLIAM C. MURRAY ELIJAH A. MYERS MICHAEL S. NAFF JOSHUA A. NAILLON CHAD A. NAKAMURA SETH B. NASON JOSEPH M. NATTER MATHEW B. NEYLAND KHA M. NGUYEN COREY A. NICHOLS CHRISTIAN C. NICOLAS SETH R. NIEMAN MATTHEW G. NOREUS ERIK S. NORMAN JASON L. NORQUIST KELLY R. NORRIS ERIKA A. NOYES PATRICK J. OBRIEN, JR. CHRISTOPHER B. ODOM NICOLO O. OLCESE MARCO D. OLEDAN TREVOR P. OMALLEY PATRICK J. OROURKE JUAN J. ORTIZ JOSEPH F. OSMANSKI III RUBEN A. OTERO JUSTIN J. OTTENWALTER ALAN R. OVERMYER JOSEPH E. OWENS DANIEL V. PACE MICHAEL J. PADDEN LAURA E. PANGALLO CHEYNE C. PARHAM RALPH S. PARLIN CHARLES R. S. PARSONS ROBERT A. PARSONS GREG A. PASQUANTONIO TYLER J. PATTERSON JAMES P. PATTON JUSTIN S. PATTON SEAN M. PATTON CHRISTINA A. PAYNE ROBERT D. PAYNE JONATHAN L. PAYNTER JOSEPH W. PAYTON THOMAS E. PEABODY DANIEL K. PECK CHAD A. PELTIER CHARLES E. PENN IAN T. PEOPLES MATTHEW A. PERDUE DAVID PEREZ JOSEPH D. PERRY JEROME A. PETERSEN ANDREW A. PFEIFFER BRENT PFEIFFER ANDREW R. PHILLIPS CALEB G. PHILLIPS JOSEPH J. PHILLIPS THOMAS G. PIERCE IAN C. PITKIN LARRY M. PITTS ROSS C. PIXLER BRIAN P. PLOVER JONATHAN P. PLUNDO FRENCH D. POPE MICHAEL A. PORGES DANIEL J. POUTIER JAMES M. POWERS MATTHEW L. PRATT SAMUEL M. PRICE III LAURA A. PROFFIT RICHARD P. PURCELL WILLIAM C. PYANT KRISTOPHER M. PYETTE DAVID B. QUAYLE MICHELE C. QUILLE JOHN D. RADNOCZI RAMON A. RAMOS RUBEN RAMOS BENJAMIN D. RAPHAEL TIMOTHY M. RATLIFF JULIAN A. RAVILIOUS DOUGLAS W. K. RAY RANDY D. READY JEFFREY C. REED TYE L. REEDY JAMES M. REILLY TRAVIS N. REINOLD MIKEL E. D. RESNICK EFRAIN REYNA DOUGLAS W. REYNOLDS KEVIN R. RICE PATRICK R. RICE RACHEL M. RICE THOMAS C. RICHERT ROSS M. RIDGE TERRY L. RIESEL, JR. BETH A. RIORDAN ANGEL J. RIOSPELATI JARED A. RIPPERGER ERICH K. ROBERTS JOHN R. ROBINSON STEVEN S. ROBINSON JASON L. ROCK ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ ERIC N. ROLES WIDMAR J. ROMAN JASON ROMANELLO JONATHAN ROMANESKI RITA C. ROSALESGONZALEZ MICHAEL E. ROSCOE ALBERT L. ROSS CHRISTOPHER P. ROSSI CHARLES P. ROWAN TYLER J. RUND JASON A. RUSSELL LAWRENCE W. RUSSELL, JR. WILLIAM A. RUSSO KEVIN E. RYAN LINDSAY A. RYAN PHILIP A. SANABRIA CESARE A. SANTAROSA CESAR H. SANTIAGOSANTINI PHILLIP R. SAULS HAYDEN D. SCARDINA KURTIS J. SCHAAF CHARLES L. SCHAEFER CLIFFORD K. SCHAEFER ROBERT J. SCHAFFLING MATTHEW B. SCHARDT RANDY M. SCHILLING ERIC J. SCHMITZ CARLTON M. SEARCY KENNETH A. SEGELHORST JAMES L. SELF DAVID T. SHAMS KIRK K. SHANDS JOSHUA B. SHAVER BENJAMIN G. SHEAN JEREMIA Z. SHEEHAN JOHN T. SHELTON JOHN J. SHERIDAN JONATHAN L. SHERRILL JASON M. SHICK WOO C. SHIN NATHAN E. SHOWMAN ROBERT J. SHUMAKER STEPHEN M. SIEGNER SCOTT T. SIGGINS JOSHUA I. SILVER JOSHUA C. SIMS WILLIAM R. SITZE DANIEL A. SJURSEN AARON K. SMITH CHRISTOPHER D. C. SMITH HOWARD R. SMITH JUSTIN M. SMITH MICAH S. SMITH MICHAEL K. SMITH RICHARD J. SMITH SCOTT W. SMITH WADE H. SMITH MATTHEW C. SMOOSE ANTHONY J. SNIPES ROBERT E. SNOW JOHN M. SOLOMON NICHOLAS A. SOROKA DAVID M. SPANGENBERG GRANT M. SPEAKES DAARON L. SPEARS JOHN D. STAEHELI MICHAEL P. STALLINGS DANIEL R. STANLEY, JR. SEAN R. STAPLER TERENCE K. STAPLES ANNE M. STARK NEIL B. STARK COREY M. STEINER TRAVIS J. STELLFOX DANIEL M. STEPHENS THEODORE W. STEPHENS BRADLEY STUBBLEFIELD LYNN W. SULLIVAN ADAM F. SUMMERS BENJAMIN T. SUMMERS JOSHUA T. SUTHOFF STANLEY S. SWAINTEK MICHAEL P. SWANGER NATHANIEL L. SWANN MARK A. SWINEY CHRISTOPHER S. SYLVAIN ADAM L. TALIAFERRO NICHOLAS B. TARAN MATTHEW M. TARAZON GRACIETTE TAVARES ANDREW W. TAYLOR ANDREW M. TEAGUE JASON C. TEBEDO CHARLES A. TELESCO THOMAS J. TEPLEY ALEXANDER J. TESAR [[Page 6213]] JEREMY M. TETER CHAD E. THIBODEAU CHRISTOPHER R. THIELENHAUS ANTHONY S. THIES ANNE N. THOMAS CURTIS A. THOMAS DEMARIUS L. THOMAS JOHN C. THOMAS CHARLES E. THOMPSON LEVI THOMPSON GABRIEL M. THORN MASON W. THORNAL JAMES D. THORNTON MARY E. THORNTON JEREMY E. TILLMAN TIMOTHY R. TOERBER JOHN P. TOLL WALTER R. TOMPKINS TRAVIS N. TOOLE CESAR TORRES GERARD L. TORRES LEHA R. TOTTENWADE RYAN T. TRAVIS DAVID C. TRENT TRAVIS A. TRIPP KYLE T. TROTTIER ALLEN M. TRUJILLO GARRETT P. TURLEY CHRISTOPHER A. TURNER JAMES R. VANCE MATTHEW R. VANEPPS ALAN M. VARGO RUSSELL VARNADO PHILLIP T. VAUGHN LORIN D. VEIGAS MICHAEL L. VENAFRO DAVID W. VENEY RICHARD W. VESPA, JR. JOHN P. VICKERY RONALD K. VINYARD JOSEPH F. VOGEL TREVOR J. VONNAHME LUCAS R. WADSWORTH JARED H. WAGNER JULIE A. WAGNER BRIAN C. WALKER JOSHUA J. WALKER LIAM P. WALSH SHANNON M. WALSH SEAN C. WALSTROM PETER B. WALTHER TIMOTHY C. WALTON LINCOLN R. WARD CHRISTOPHER M. WARDLAW MOHAMMAD I. WASEEM JAMES L. WATSON JASON C. WATSON CHRISTOPHER D. WEBB JUSTIN T. WEBB CAROLYN M. WEHRHEIM IAN A. WELCH NICKOLAS J. WELCH DOUGLAS M. WELLS JASON S. WENGER MARCO P. WENNESON ANTHONY M. WERTZ PETER J. WETTERAUER JACOB A. WHARTON TERRON O. WHARTON ANTHONY A. WHEELER GARY M. WHIDDEN JASON L. WHITE JAY S. WHITTAKER JORY E. WHORTON DANIEL S. WILCOX MATTHEW P. WILKINSON CHRISTOPHER G. WILLIAMS DORIAN J. WILLIAMS JAMAINE J. WILLIAMS JASON A. WILLIAMS JOSEPH W. WILLIAMS III TIMOTHY J. WILLIAMS ROBERT F. WILLIAMSON AUSTIN M. WILSON DAVID A. WILSON LINUS D. WILSON JOSHUA D. WINES PAUL S. WINTERTON LLOYD B. WOHLSCHLEGEL SCOTT F. WOIDA CECIL E. WOLBERTON MASEY V. WOLFE THOMAS P. WOMBLE CHRISTOPHER L. WONG MATTHEW R. WOOD SHAWN T. WOODARD PHILLIP J. WORKS GERALD F. WYNN CANESSA R. YANCEY AMOREENA L. YORK SHAUN M. YOUNG DAVID S. YU RONALD J. YUHASZ, JR. PATRICK H. YUN TIMOTHY D. ZALESKY JOSHUA J. ZARUBA RUSSELL D. ZAYAS LUKE A. ZECK WILLIAM B. ZEWADSKI ANDREW F. ZIKOWITZ AMY M. ZOLENDZIEWSKI SCOTT M. ZOLENDZIEWSKI D011352 D011701 D011804 D012084 IN THE MARINE CORPS THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS RESERVE UNDER TITLE 10, U. S.C., SECTION 12203: To be colonel JAMES P. EDMUNDS III MICHAEL T. LEGENS, JR. RUSSELL W. MANTZEL CRAIG J. PRICE THOMAS E. RINGO TERRY L. STEIN, JR. JASON L. WALLACE PAUL B. WEBB THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS RESERVE UNDER TITLE 10, U. S.C., SECTION 12203: To be colonel LEONARD F. ANDERSON IV MARK H. BACHARACH TIMOTHY J. BLEIDISTEL MICHAEL G. BRENNAN DARRIN S. BRIGHTMON ROBERT W. BRUCE KIP P. BUNTEN CHAD J. BURKE THADDEUS COAKLEY SCOTT A. CRAIG SCOTT D. CROCKETT LUIS G. DELVALLE SARAH Q. FULLWOOD MAX GORALNICK THOMAS C. GRESSER II JOHN P. HANLON WILLIAM W. HOOPER PATRICK S. HOULAHAN BURL Z. HUDSON KENNETH E. HUMPHREY BRADLEY S. JEWITT TROY F. LIDDI JEFFREY P. LIPSON THOMAS F. MARBLE PETER C. MCCONNELL JEFFREY J. MCNEIL ABRAHAM M. MUNOZ BRIAN M. OLEARY KARL D. PIERSON BRIAN H. ROBERTS BRIAN P. ROBINS STEVEN J. SINNER JEFFREY A. STIVERS CHRISTOPHER P. TANSEY TERRANCE R. THOMAS III CHARLES R. WATKINS SCOTT A. WILLIS DERRICK C. YOUNG KONSTANTIN E. ZOGANAS IN THE NAVY THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES NAVY UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTION 624: To be captain WILLIAM A. GARREN THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES NAVY UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTION 624: To be commander LEANDER J. SACKEY THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE GRADE INDICATED IN THE REGULAR NAVY UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTION 531: To be lieutenant commander CHRISTOPHER M. DAVIS ____________________ CONFIRMATIONS Executive nominations confirmed by the Senate April 10, 2014: IN THE COAST GUARD THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES COAST GUARD UNDER TITLE 14, U.S.C., SECTION 271(D): To be rear admiral LINDA L. FAGAN THOMAS W. JONES STEVEN D. POULIN JAMES E. RENDON THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT TO A POSITION OF IMPORTANCE AND RESPONSIBILITY IN THE UNITED STATES COAST GUARD AND TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 14, U.S.C., SECTION 50: To be vice admiral REAR ADM. WILLIAM D. LEE THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT TO A POSITION OF IMPORTANCE AND RESPONSIBILITY IN THE UNITED STATES COAST GUARD AND TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 14, U.S.C., SECTION 50: To be vice admiral REAR ADM. CHARLES W. RAY THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT TO A POSITION OF IMPORTANCE AND RESPONSIBILITY IN THE UNITED STATES COAST GUARD AND TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 14, U.S.C., SECTION 50: To be vice admiral REAR ADM. CHARLES D. MICHEL THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT AS VICE COMMANDANT OF THE UNITED STATES COAST GUARD AND TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 14, U.S.C., SECTION 47: To be vice admiral VICE ADM. PETER V. NEFFENGER COAST GUARD NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH RUBY L. COLLINS AND ENDING WITH MICHAEL W. WAMPLER, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON JANUARY 16, 2014. COAST GUARD NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH WILLIAM C. ADAMS AND ENDING WITH ADAM K. YOUNG, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON JANUARY 16, 2014. COAST GUARD NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH KEVIN J. LOPES AND ENDING WITH MARIETTE C. OGG, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON FEBRUARY 6, 2014. [[Page 6214]] EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS ____________________ EXTENDING CONGRATULATIONS TO PATTI ALDERSON _____ HON. JOHN A. BOEHNER of ohio in the house of representatives Thursday, April 10, 2014 Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate Patti Alderson, who is being honored on April 11, 2014, by the Boy Scouts of America Fort Hamilton District for her service to her community at the ``Do a Good Turn Daily'' event. This recognition is awarded annually to an individual in the Butler County, Ohio, community who has demonstrated outstanding character and commitment to others. As a mother, caregiver, volunteer, and fundraiser, Patti has dedicated her life to the service of her family, friends, community members, and those in need. In 1999, Patti led a group of women to establish The Community Foundation of West Chester/Liberty. At its founding, and in the fifteen intervening years, the Community Foundation has sought to respond to the needs of the community and provide a vehicle for volunteerism and philanthropy. Among its many initiatives, the Community Foundation has sent children to camp, established a high school-aged student philanthropy group, raised money for the local food pantry, and provided dental screenings to elementary-aged students in need. In 2010, seeking to help the local youth, Patti stepped in and led the initiative to establish a Boys and Girls Clubs of America in the townships of West Chester and Liberty, Ohio. With hard work and persistence, the Boys and Girls Club of West Chester/Liberty in 2013 became the grateful recipient of a $750,000 grant, allowing the center to become a reality. The Boys and Girls Club of West Chester/Liberty opened in March of this year and will initially serve approximately 400 students. I am very proud to call Patti Alderson my good friend, and I extend my most sincere congratulations to her. Her drive is unparalleled; her devotion to serving others is both unwavering and inspiring. Each day, many lives are touched by the initiatives that are the outgrowth of Patti's efforts. Thank you, Patti, for your passion and longstanding commitment to our community. ____________________ TRIBUTE TO JAY REAVIS ______ HON. TOM LATHAM of iowa in the house of representatives Thursday, April 10, 2014 Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate and recognize Jay Reavis of Innovative Captive Strategies in West Des Moines, Iowa, for being named a 2014 Forty Under 40 honoree by the award-winning central Iowa publication, Business Record. Since 2000, Business Record has undertaken an exhaustive annual review to identify a standout group of young leaders in the Greater Des Moines area who are making an impact in their communities and their careers. Each year, forty up-and-coming community and business leaders under 40 years of age are selected for this prestigious distinction, which is based on a combined criteria of community involvement and success in their chosen career field. The 2014 class of Forty Under 40 honorees join an impressive roster of nearly 600 business leaders and growing. Mr. Speaker, it is a profound honor to represent leaders like Jay in the United States Congress and it is with great pride that I recognize and applaud Mr. Reavis for utilizing his talents to better both his community and the great state of Iowa. I invite my colleagues in the House to join me in congratulating Jay on receiving this esteemed designation, thanking those at Business Record for their great work, and wishing each member of the 2014 Forty Under 40 class continued success. ____________________ CONGRATULATING MRS. LEONA DAYTON ON HER 100TH BIRTHDAY ______ HON. K. MICHAEL CONAWAY of texas in the house of representatives Thursday, April 10, 2014 Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mrs. Leona Eunice Dayton on her 100th birthday. It is an honor to have the opportunity to recognize the life of such a distinguished citizen. Mrs. Dayton, known to her family and friends as Bobby, was born on this day in 1914 to Amos and Lelia Brewer in the small town of Erna, Texas. As a member of the ``Greatest Generation'' she witnessed many historic events during the 20th century and played a part in making this nation great. Bobby married her high school sweetheart, Jack Cooper Dayton, and together they embodied the entrepreneurial spirit that has defined this country and its people since its inception. With a little bit of luck and a lot of love and hard work, they began several small businesses, including the Dayton Oil Company, which they owned for over 30 years. Throughout her life, Bobby established herself as a pillar of the community in London, Texas where she devoted herself to the service of others through Eastern Star and as Postmaster of the London Post Office. She could also often be seen at the London Methodist Church teaching Sunday School or playing piano for early morning services. Today, she continues her commitment to others by spending her days traveling, gardening, and filling her house with love, laughter, and great food. The fruits of her life-long endeavors can be seen by the smiles on the faces of her children, five grandchildren, ten great grandchildren and four great-great grandchildren as they gather to celebrate this momentous occasion. We all, including my colleagues in the House, could learn a bit from Mrs. Dayton's commitment to family, friends, and community. I am honored to have the opportunity to help celebrate this special day. Her accomplishments throughout her life represent an important part of the American story. Again, congratulations to Leona Eunice Dayton and Happy 100th Birthday. ____________________ CONGRATULATING PAUL MONROE ______ HON. JARED HUFFMAN of california in the house of representatives Thursday, April 10, 2014 Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to offer my congratulations to Paul Monroe who, after 43 years of dedicated service, will be retiring from Fireman's Fund Insurance Company on Friday, April 11. Paul began his career at the Fireman's Fund Houston office in 1971 as a loss control trainee, following his graduation with a degree in Aerospace Engineering from the University of Texas in Arlington. He subsequently became the head of the Loss Control Department in Houston before becoming trained in property casualty insurance sales and underwriting. Over the years, he made a series of transitions and promotions within Fireman's Fund, which included moves to San Antonio, Texas; Greensboro, North Carolina; and New York City. In 2002 he came to the Fireman's Fund headquarters in Novato, California and in his latest job served as Assistant Vice President for Underwriting Quality. In this capacity, he and his team were instrumental in creating a number of systems designed to enhance and provide better consistency in the underwriting process. Successful people are typically characterized by their discipline and their desire to constantly improve and Paul exemplifies these virtues. He received his Masters in Mechanical Engineering at the University of Houston in 1976 and while living in Greensboro, he obtained his MBA. He has participated in several industry groups and has served as a Board Member of the Pennsylvania Joint Underwriting Association since 2002. His hobbies include golf and running, and he has run seven Marathons, including five in New York City. He has been happily married to his wife Druella (Dru) for 42 years and they have two grown children, Jay and Molly. 43 years is a long time and the world has changed significantly from when Paul first [[Page 6215]] started. Paul Monroe's career has spanned a remarkable period of time, and his dedication to Fireman's Fund and his adherence to the finest virtues of solid character, integrity, mentorship and personal kindness is truly inspiring. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in offering my praise and congratulation to Paul Monroe, and extend our best wishes for a happy retirement to Paul and Dru as they prepare for the next chapter of their life together. ____________________ IN SUPPORT OF THE UKRAINE, AZERBAIJAN, AND GEORGIA ______ HON. FILEMON VELA of texas in the house of representatives Thursday, April 10, 2014 Mr. VELA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to condemn the actions of Russia in the Crimean Peninsula. Now is the time for the United States to show our solidarity with former Soviet states such as Ukraine, Azerbaijan, and Georgia, while encouraging these nations to continue to institute democratic reforms and modernize their economies. Countries in the Caucus region such as Azerbaijan and Georgia are located at the crossroads of Western Asia and Eastern Europe--a strategic location for U.S. foreign policy objectives given that Russia is to the north and Iran is to the south. With the volatility and strategic importance of this region, the U.S. must continue to work with its allies such as Ukraine, Azerbaijan, and Georgia to ensure their sovereignty is protected, especially in light of Russia's actions in the Crimean Peninsula. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to recognize the importance of our country's relationship with Ukraine, Azerbaijan, and Georgia. ____________________ RECOGNIZING THE WEEK OF THE YOUNG CHILD ______ HON. KATHERINE M. CLARK of massachusetts in the house of representatives Thursday, April 10, 2014 Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to commemorate the Week of the Young Child, which is celebrated this year from April 6 to April 12. I also rise to recognize the tireless work of the National Association for the Education of Young Children, which was instrumental in launching this week in 1971, and which works every day to create a brighter future for our nation's youngest learners. Mr. Speaker, the evidence is clear: strong investments in early education are vital to America's future. Young children experience astonishing brain growth, forming more neural pathways from birth to age five than at any other point in their lives. Investment in this phase of life pays serious dividends--not just individually, but societally as well. Studies have consistently shown that each dollar invested in quality preschool yields $7 over the life of a child; and the urgent need for support in this area has never been greater. Today, one in five American children begins their life in poverty. Among these children are the world's future doctors, scientists, teachers, astronauts, CEOs, innovators and outstanding citizens. As we observe the Week of the Young Child, these facts should give reflective pause to every member of this House. If we fail to provide each American child with a fair opportunity to succeed, we as a society will fail to reach our full potential. The stakes are high, it is incumbent upon each of us to step up and do what's unquestionably right for America's future. I would also like to note that when paired with quality child care, early education yields immediate and long-term economic dividends. Too often, American parents are forced to choose between joining the workforce and ensuring the healthy development of their child. The Child Care Development Block Grant reduces this gap by providing a modest subsidy to eligible working parents, allowing them to purchase quality child care for their children, join the work force, and contribute to our nation's economic prosperity. Last month, I was proud to lead 111 of my House colleagues in a letter to House Appropriators supporting this critical program. In today's day in age, Mr. Speaker, I find it unacceptable that any child's zip code would determine whether they, or their parents, have a fair chance to reach for the American Dream. I look forward to the day when true equality of access to early education is finally achieved, and I'm proud to stand with the National Association for the Education of Young Children, as well as the Massachusetts Association for the Education of Young Children, in working to make this future a reality. ____________________ HAPPY BIRTHDAY MRS. MARGARITA MUNOZ ______ HON. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of california in the house of representatives Thursday, April 10, 2014 Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate a life-long resident of my district on her upcoming centennial birthday. On April 11, 2014, Mrs. Margarita Munoz will celebrate 100 years of life. Born in 1914, Margarita is the middle sibling to two older brothers and two younger sisters. When she was a young girl, Margarita's family moved from Arizona to California in search of a better life and settled in downtown East Los Angeles. Margarita attended the local elementary and middle school with her brothers and sisters. She graduated from Lincoln High School in 1932 where she met her sweetheart, Augustine Munoz. Margarita and Augustine married in 1935 and gave birth to their first son, Charles, in 1936. The young family was blessed with the birth of their second son, Robert, in 1937, daughter Dorothy in 1943, William and John in 1944 and 1950, and daughter Carol in 1955. In 1955, Margarita and Augustine moved their growing family from East Los Angeles to the city of Montebello. The children attended Eastmont Elementary and Montebello Junior High and Montebello High School. For Margarita and Augustine Munoz, Montebello proved an ideal place to raise a family. In 1964, Margarita's husband passed away from a sudden heart attack and was left to raise their children on her own. During this difficult time, Margarita demonstrated tremendous work ethic and resiliency; despite tremendous adversity, she succeeded in providing for her children and giving them a home in which to flourish. Margarita's life revolved around her children. She dedicated herself to giving them the best upbringing possible and made sure to instill in them strong values. With her support and guidance, all of Margarita's children went on to be successful members of their community; among many impressive achievements, two of her children earned their masters degrees. Today, Margarita still lives in the same Montebello home where she and her family settled in 1955. She enjoys knitting, crocheting, gardening, and of course seeing her family, which has grown quite a bit since 1935. At family celebrations and holidays she has the joy of spending time with her 18 grandchildren, numerous great grandchildren and great, great grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, Margarita Munoz represents the best in our community. Margarita exemplifies the true meaning of family, and her community is grateful to have such a role model of commitment and dedication. I respectfully ask that you and my other distinguished colleagues join me in wishing Margarita a very happy 100th birthday. ____________________ TRIBUTE TO JC RISEWICK ______ HON. TOM LATHAM of iowa in the house of representatives Thursday, April 10, 2014 Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate and recognize JC Risewick of Seneca Companies in Des Moines, Iowa, for being named a 2014 Forty Under 40 honoree by the award-winning central Iowa publication, Business Record. Since 2000, Business Record has undertaken an exhaustive annual review to identify a standout group of young leaders in the Greater Des Moines area who are making an impact in their communities and their careers. Each year, forty up-and-coming community and business leaders under 40 years of age are selected for this prestigious distinction, which is based on a combined criteria of community involvement and success in their chosen career field. The 2014 class of Forty Under 40 honorees join an impressive roster of nearly 600 business leaders and growing. Mr. Speaker, it is a profound honor to represent leaders like JC in the United States Congress and it is with great pride that I recognize and applaud Mr. Risewick for utilizing his talents to better both his community and the great state of Iowa. I invite my colleagues in the House to join me in congratulating JC [[Page 6216]] on receiving this esteemed designation, thanking those at Business Record for their great work, and wishing each member of the 2014 Forty Under 40 class continued success. ____________________ HONORING THE CAREER AND SERVICE OF DR. KULWANT S. BHANGOO ______ HON. BRIAN HIGGINS of new york in the house of representatives Thursday, April 10, 2014 Mr. HIGGINS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize a respected member of my Western New York community, Dr. Kulwant S. Bhangoo. Dr. Bhangoo is a specialist in plastic and reconstructive surgery and has a practice in Buffalo, New York. He has earned an undergraduate degree from the University of Cambridge and his medical degree from the University of East Africa, where he won the Mulgibhai Madhavani recognition which is awarded to the best student of the year. He completed his surgical training in England before coming to the Mercy Hospital of Buffalo to complete his residency in plastic surgery. He has continued his distinguished academic record in Buffalo, where he has been published on subjects including wound healing and scar tissue and is a Clinical Assistant Professor of Plastic Surgery at the University at Buffalo School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences. The history of Western New York is the story of immigrants who have brought their experience, training and drive to enrich our community, and Dr. Bhangoo's story is no different. Yet he has remained engaged with his native India. He travels often to conduct workshops and training for surgeons in India and has been recognized for his good work with the Lifetime Achievement Award by the Association of Aesthetic Surgeons of India. Through his hard work and generous spirit Dr. Bhangoo has changed the lives of patients and enriched the careers of surgeons on four continents. We are proud to have him in our community and look forward to many years of his continued service in Western New York. ____________________ RECOGNIZING THE 99TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE ______ HON. DANIEL LIPINSKI of illinois in the house of representatives Thursday, April 10, 2014 Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 99th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide, also known as the Meds Yeghern or ``Great Crime,'' to those of Armenian descent. In the wake of World War I, the Ottoman Empire launched a campaign of terror against Ottoman Armenians. From 1915 to 1923, forced deportations displaced 2 million Armenians. Unarmed men were separated from their families and were either forced into concentration camps or taken away to be executed. Innocent women and children were systematically stripped of their possessions and driven into what is now the Syrian Desert. During these ``Death Marches'' they were subjected to starvation, sickness, and abuse amid brutal conditions. In the end, nearly 1.5 million Armenians had lost their lives in what became the first genocide of the 20th century. Although these atrocities occurred almost a century ago, it is imperative to remember the suffering that was endured as a result of unrestrained human malice. To acknowledge this truth is necessary, not just out of respect for our fellow citizens of Armenian descent, but also in hope that we can prevent such heinous crimes from occurring in the future. Very few survivors of the genocide are alive today, which makes preserving the memory and history of this crime even more important. Today, I call on my colleagues to join me in somber remembrance of the 1.5 million Armenians who perished during this dark period of history, and to honor the strength and resolve of the Armenian community still working to deal with this tragedy. ____________________ HONORING DR. ANNETTA CHEEK ON HER RETIREMENT FROM THE CENTER FOR PLAIN LANGUAGE _____ HON. BRUCE L. BRALEY of iowa in the house of representatives Thursday, April 10, 2014 Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Dr. Annetta Cheek on her retirement as Chair of the Center for Plain Language. Annetta has been a tireless advocate for plain language. She spent 25 years as a Federal employee witnessing firsthand the government's failure to communicate effectively. While serving as a government employee, Dr. Cheek was the chair of PLAIN, a federal interagency plain language advocacy group. In her role as chair, Annetta administered the group's website, and taught courses on plain language to different government agencies. Annetta also spent four years as the chief plain language expert on Vice President Gore's National Partnership for Reinventing Government. In 2003, Annetta founded the Center for Plain Language, a non-profit organization dedicated to plain language advocacy. Annetta has served as Chair of the organization since 2003. In her role as Chair, Dr. Cheek has urged both the Federal Government and the private sector to communicate in a clear and understandable way. Dr. Cheek's biggest success was her work to pass the Plain Writing Act into law. I was honored to work with Annetta in writing this important legislation which requires government agencies to communicate in plain language. Thanks to her great work in getting the Plain Writing Act passed millions of Americans are now receiving easy-to- understand communication from the Federal Government. I'm very proud of Annetta, and honored to call her a friend. I congratulate her on retirement, and wish her and Charles all the best in their future endeavors. ____________________ TRIBUTE TO GAIL MAYFIELD HAMM _____ HON. JANICE HAHN of california in the house of representatives Thursday, April 10, 2014 Ms. HAHN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the life of Gail Mayfield Hamm. Gail was a pillar of strength within San Pedro, California. She loved children, and for over three decades, she was a respected elementary school teacher at Barton Hill Elementary. She was also a long time volunteer at the Toberman Neighborhood Center, which offers beneficial programs to community including youth mentoring, a food pantry, legal services, and gang intervention. In fact, Gail was one of the founding members of the philanthropic Toberman Auxiliary, which raises money through a gift shop to fund Toberman programs. Despite being so active in her neighborhood though, she cherished her time with her own family comprising of three surviving children, nine grandchildren, and six great grand children. I had the honor of working with Gail while on the Los Angeles City Council and I found her dedication and good nature to be inspiring. Mr. Speaker, I ask that all the members of the House join me in a moment of silence to commemorate the life of Gail Mayfield Hamm. ____________________ CONGRATULATING THE SEATTLE SEAHAWKS ______ HON. ADAM SMITH of washington in the house of representatives Thursday, April 10, 2014 Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the Seattle Seahawks on being named the Washingtonians of the Year by the Association of Washington Generals. Given each year to those who have demonstrated leadership, selflessness, generosity, and compassion in their service to others, this award is a well-deserved recognition of all that the Seattle Seahawks have contributed to our community. Though their work off the field may be less visible than their stellar on-field performances, it is no doubt equally as valuable. From individual visits by players and coaches to area hospitals, to the innovative work of the Seattle Seahawks Charitable Foundation, the team has contributed to the well-being of our community at all levels of the organization. A shining example of this is the work of the Seattle Seahawks' ``A Better Seattle'' program. This program, in partnership with the YMCA and the City of Seattle, has invested in the future of our youth in powerful ways. Through their support of the YMCA's ``Alive & Free'' street outreach program, the Seattle Seahawks have helped to transform the lives of hundreds of youth in our area by ensuring a safer and more peaceful future. Combined with the many other youth and child focused efforts of the Seattle Seahawks, the Seahawks organization has solidified itself as one of the [[Page 6217]] greatest advocates for the welfare of young people in our region. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Seattle Seahawks on their recognition as Washingtonians of the Year. They are richly deserving of this award, and I look forward to their continued excellence on and off the field. ____________________ TRIBUTE TO ERIN ROLLENHAGEN ______ HON. TOM LATHAM of iowa in the house of representatives Thursday, April 10, 2014 Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate and recognize Erin Rollenhagen of Entrepreneurial Technologies in Urbandale, Iowa, for being named a 2014 Forty Under 40 honoree by the award-winning central Iowa publication, Business Record. Since 2000, Business Record has undertaken an exhaustive annual review to identify a standout group of young leaders in the Greater Des Moines area who are making an impact in their communities and their careers. Each year, forty up-and-coming community and business leaders under 40 years of age are selected for this prestigious distinction, which is based on a combined criteria of community involvement and success in their chosen career field. The 2014 class of Forty Under 40 honorees join an impressive roster of nearly 600 business leaders and growing. Mr. Speaker, it is a profound honor to represent leaders like Erin in the United States Congress and it is with great pride that I recognize and applaud Ms. Rollenhagen for utilizing her talents to better both her community and the great state of Iowa. I invite my colleagues in the House to join me in congratulating Erin on receiving this esteemed designation, thanking those at Business Record for their great work, and wishing each member of the 2014 Forty Under 40 class continued success. ____________________ INTRODUCTION OF THE HOUSING FINANCIAL LITERACY ACT OF 2014 ______ HON. JOYCE BEATTY of ohio in the house of representatives Thursday, April 10, 2014 Mrs. BEATTY. Mr. Speaker, owning a home is the cornerstone of achieving the American Dream for many Americans. Homeownership is a source of pride and develops robust and stable communities. However, for many prospective first-time homeowners, the process of purchasing real estate may be confusing and daunting and may leave uninformed buyers victims of unaffordable or predatory loans. I believe that we must support access to homeownership and the financial literacy necessary to become a successful first-time homeowner. That is why today I am introducing the Housing Financial Literacy Act of 2014 which would provide a discount on Federal Housing Administration, or FHA, upfront mortgage insurance premiums of 25 basis points to first-time homebuyers who complete a housing counseling program certified by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, or HUD. This bill would encourage first time homebuyers to take advantage of these critical counseling resources that can increase their financial literacy skills and capabilities. Currently, HUD's Housing Counseling Assistance Program provides counseling to consumers on the entire spectrum of housing counseling needs: from finding and financing, to maintaining and owning a home. Studies have shown that homebuyers who receive pre-purchase housing counseling courses are nearly one-third less likely to fall behind on their mortgage, and that housing counseling can improve prospective borrowers' access to affordable, prudent mortgage loans. Consequently, an additional anticipated benefit is a reduction in delinquencies and defaults by better-informed first-time homebuyers that should serve to strengthen the FHA's Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund. Mr. Speaker, for many Americans, their home is the largest financial asset they will ever own. Ensuring that first-time buyers have the knowledge and tools necessary to be successful homeowners is an objective that we can all share. My thanks goes out to the bipartisan group of original cosponsors who recognized the importance of this legislation, including the Democratic and Republican Co-Chairs of the Financial Literacy Caucus. I urge my colleagues to join in our efforts to increase financial literacy by cosponsoring the Housing Financial Literacy Act of 2014. ____________________ HONORING SGT. FELIX CONDE-FALCON ______ HON. JOHN R. CARTER of texas in the house of representatives Thursday, April 10, 2014 Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a true American hero. A native son of Puerto Rico, Sgt. Felix Conde-Falcon volunteered to join the Army in 1963 and was soon stationed in Texas at both Fort Bliss and Fort Hood. He settled in the Lone Star State with his wife and young family before answering the call to fight for freedom in Vietnam. On April 4, 1969, while serving as platoon leader in the vicinity of Ap Tan Hoa, Vietnam, Sgt. Conde-Falcon showed extraordinary leadership under heavy fire as he took out multiple enemy positions. While his heroic actions saved the soldiers serving with him, he was shot and killed just as he eliminated the final bunker. He was laid to rest in Rogers, TX. Nearly a half century later, Sgt. Conde-Falcon was awarded the Medal of Honor. Reserved for personal acts of valor above and beyond the call of duty, it is our nation's highest military tribute. Were Sgt. Conde-Falcon still with us, generals, admirals, and fellow warriors of all ranks would honor the hallowed custom of saluting him. This simple gesture of respect, admiration, and courtesy speaks volumes about the reverence shown to Medal of Honor recipients. Were Sgt. Conde-Falcon still with us, he would know how grateful his nation is for his service, his heroism, and his commitment to duty. He'd know how admired he is by his fellow soldiers. Because of his valor, many of his platoon brothers were able to return home. Some would honor promises made in the jungles of Vietnam and spend decades tracking down Sgt. Conde-Falcon's family to let them know of his bravery, leadership, and the impact he had. Were Sgt. Conde-Falcon still with us, he would have seen his family grow and prosper. His children carried on the tradition of proud service in the military. His son Richard would receive the Medal of Honor on his behalf. Sgt. Conde-Falcon's name, like those of over 58,000, is enshrined forever in black stone at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. Those extraordinary men and women, from a multitude of races, faiths, and backgrounds, fought for a country brave enough to confront its past imperfections and hopeful enough to embrace a better tomorrow. His story, like all of theirs, was one of sacrifice and devotion to freedom. There is no more deserving recipient of the Medal of Honor than Sgt. Felix Conde-Falcon. Despite a life cut short, this brave warrior's patriotism, valor, and commitment to service reflect the very best of both America and Central Texas. May his legacy remind us of the values and freedoms we must never cease to defend. ____________________ INTRODUCTION OF A RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE APRIL 18, 2014, AS NATIONAL LINEMAN APPRECIATION DAY ______ HON. PHIL GINGREY of georgia in the house of representatives Thursday, April 10, 2014 Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise to call for designation of April 18 as a day of honor for Journeymen Linemen. Accordingly, I have introduced a resolution to recognize April 18, 2014, as National Lineman Appreciation Day in order to honor these brave men and women for their contributions to protect public safety. Linemen are often the first responders during a storm or other catastrophic event, which means these brave men and women are often required to make the scene safe for other public safety heroes. Linemen work with thousands of volts of electricity high atop power lines every day of the year in order to protect the nation from dangerous electrical currents. The profession of Lineman is steeped in tradition and family, both professionally and personally. Generations ago, Linemen climbed poles using hooks and blocks, but as technology has grown through the years, inventive Linemen have pioneered advancements with innovative materials, altering the direction of line work for the future. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me today in honoring the extraordinary commitment and courage demonstrated every day by the nation's Linemen. [[Page 6218]] ____________________ CELEBRATING AMERICA'S 143RD ARBOR DAY ______ HON. DANIEL LIPINSKI of illinois in the house of representatives Thursday, April 10, 2014 Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in celebration of Arbor Day which in Illinois takes place on April 25th. This year will mark the 65th Arbor Day celebrated by the state and the 143rd in the United States. This event that is held each year to recognize and celebrate the critical role trees play in our communities and in our daily lives. There are very few things as intrinsic to a nation as its land. Trees are the lungs of our land, purifying the air and giving strength to our people. That is why in 1872, J. Sterling Morton proposed to the Nebraska Board of Agriculture that a special day be set aside for the planting of trees. This holiday, called Arbor Day, was first observed with the planting of more than a million trees in Nebraska. Since then, Arbor Day has become a holiday celebrated throughout America and the world. In addition to their magnificent beauty, trees provide vital ecological services to humanity. They reduce the erosion caused by wind and water on our precious topsoil, reduce heating and cooling costs, moderate the earth's temperature, and provide habitats for our wildlife. In addition, trees are a renewable resource giving us paper and wood for our homes. Our dependence on trees acts as a reminder that we are eternally reliant on nature and that we must to do our best to pay back the debt we owe to our environment. If our nation is to continue being the greatest nation on earth, it is important that we continue to safeguard what makes us great, our people and our resources. I urge each and every citizen to help make our communities greener, cleaner, and more pleasant places to live by joining me and taking the time to plant a tree. It is with great gratitude and pride that I rise to honor and celebrate Arbor Day and all that it stands for. ____________________ HONORING IOWA MIDDLE LEVEL PRINCIPAL OF THE YEAR GARY HATFIELD ______ HON. BRUCE L. BRALEY of iowa in the house of representatives Thursday, April 10, 2014 Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Gary Hatfield on being selected as the Iowa Middle Level Principal of the Year. Gary serves as the principal at Taft Middle School in Cedar Rapids which is in my district. Gary was selected because of his leadership in implementing a system of learning supports for students and teachers. Mr. Hatfield began his career as a math teacher at Wilson Middle School. In 2008, he came to Taft Middle School to serve as the principal. He received his bachelor's degree in math from Iowa State University, and master's degrees in middle school math education and educational administration from the University of Northern Iowa. Mr. Hatfield was selected for this award by a committee of Iowa middle level principals, and he is now a candidate for National Middle School Principal of the Year. Gary has proven that he is a leader at his school and throughout the Cedar Rapids community. I'm proud to call him a constituent, and congratulate him on all of his success. ____________________ INTRODUCTION OF THE STRENGTHENING HEALTHCARE OPTIONS FOR VULNERABLE POPULATIONS ACT ______ HON. KYRSTEN SINEMA of arizona in the house of representatives Thursday, April 10, 2014 Ms. SINEMA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to join me in supporting the bipartisan Strengthening Healthcare Options for Vulnerable Populations Act. This legislation, which I will introduce today, extends the authorization of Medicare Advantage Dual Special Needs Plans, D-SNPs, and makes necessary improvements to this valuable program for vulnerable seniors. Special Needs Plans, or SNPs, are a type of Medicare Advantage Plan with membership limited to a specific population with specific diseases or characteristics, and tailored benefits, provider choices, and drug formularies developed to best meet the needs of the group they serve. Dual Special Needs Plans, or D-SNPs, are plans developed for individuals who are both Medicare and Medicaid eligible. The Medicare dual eligible population is low-income and more likely to have complex and costly healthcare needs. Nationally, it costs $300 billion to care for this population. D-SNPs are driving improved care outcomes and greater efficiency eliminating redundancies between the two programs. There are 125,000 dual eligible individuals in Arizona and nine million nationally. More than half of the dual eligibles in my state are enrolled in a D-SNP. D-SNPs in Arizona are well-run and have demonstrated success: 31 percent lower rate of hospitalization; 43 percent lower rate of days in hospital; 9 percent lower emergency use; 21 percent lower readmission rate; 3 percent higher preventive care services. But D-SNPs are not just about controlling cost and improving healthcare delivery for a vulnerable population. D-SNPs, because of their innovative and targeted services, are a valuable option for seniors trying to live with dignity or people with disabilities trying to live fuller lives. Bonnie Grant is in her 60s and lives in south Phoenix. Through her D- SNP, she has access to a transportation called Van Go. Bonnie uses the service to go shopping and other places ``instead of being stuck at home.'' She said that it helps because ``instead of being holed up in your home,'' she can be engaged in the community and enjoy her life. The Van Go benefit is the type of creative service offered by D-SNPs that improve the wellbeing of enrollees. Joseph Ford lives in suburban Phoenix. He was disabled in a car accident. The hands-on managed care he receives through his D-SNPs, including in-home visits, allows Mr. Ford to stay in his home and live a fuller life. Keeping individuals like Mr. Ford in their homes instead of institutional care facilities is better for the beneficiary and a significant cost savings to the Medicaid and Medicare programs. We need creative and commonsense solutions to control the cost and improve the quality of services provided to this vulnerable population, which includes seniors and single working mothers. That is what D-SNPs are doing and that is why we introduce this bill today. The Strengthening Healthcare Options for Vulnerable Populations Act will allow seniors to have greater choice, help drive down cost and improve outcomes. First, this bill extends authorization for D-SNPs and requires that plans fully integrate Medicare and Medicaid services, while providing states with flexibility to make the plans work for their citizens. This long term authorization will create stability in the SNP program, thereby allowing states, the federal government and the private sector to begin to develop consistent strategies for addressing care for dual eligibles. Beneficiaries will also know that the plan they have chosen will not be taken away. Second, the bill directs CMS in coordination with State Medicaid Directors to develop a clearly defined role for state Medicaid agencies in contracting and oversight of integrated D-SNPs. Third, the legislation follows the recommendation of National Association of Medicaid Directors (NAMD) to designate the Medicare- Medicaid Coordinating Office within CMS as the dedicated point of contact to assist states with ongoing D-SNP administration issues, including eliminating redundancies and improving coordination of Medicare and Medicaid services and streamlining the flow of information to beneficiaries. The bill would also allow HHS to adjust Medicare's processes, timelines and requirements to improve the seamless delivery of patient-centered services across the care continuum. Fourth, the bill provides additional protections to beneficiaries by requiring CMS, in coordination with states, to establish a streamlined dispute resolution process and by requiring Medicare to continue to provide coverage during the dispute process. Lastly, our legislation improves the Medicare Advantage star ratings program to better evaluate and incentivize D-SNP performance. The bill directs CMS to take the necessary steps to recognize and incentivize performance by plans who serve more difficult or complex populations like the dual population. Ensuring that vulnerable seniors continue to have access to these valuable plans is an important part of ensuring that they can live out their golden years with dignity. The Strengthening Healthcare Options for Vulnerable Populations Act extends an important program for one of Arizona's most vulnerable populations. This bill ensures that seniors and others in these plans will be able to keep the managed care services they have selected. This bill provides states with greater flexibility to control cost and provide improved [[Page 6219]] services. Finally, this bill can help control cost for a very expensive population nationally while at the same time improving healthcare outcomes. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this important legislation. ____________________ TRIBUTE TO ANDREA STACKHOUSE ______ HON. TOM LATHAM of iowa in the house of representatives Thursday, April 10, 2014 Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate and recognize Andrea Stackhouse of Neumann Monson Architects in Des Moines, Iowa, for being named a 2014 Forty Under 40 honoree by the award-winning central Iowa publication, Business Record. Since 2000, Business Record has undertaken an exhaustive annual review to identify a standout group of young leaders in the Greater Des Moines area who are making an impact in their communities and their careers. Each year, forty up-and-coming community and business leaders under 40 years of age are selected for this prestigious distinction, which is based on a combined criteria of community involvement and success in their chosen career field. The 2014 class of Forty Under 40 honorees join an impressive roster of nearly 600 business leaders and growing. Mr. Speaker, it is a profound honor to represent leaders like Andrea in the United States Congress and it is with great pride that I recognize and applaud Ms. Stackhouse for utilizing her talents to better both her community and the great state of Iowa. I invite my colleagues in the House to join me in congratulating Andrea on receiving this esteemed designation, thanking those at Business Record for their great work, and wishing each member of the 2014 Forty Under 40 class continued success. ____________________ HONORING GARIFUNA-AMERICAN HERITAGE MONTH ______ HON. JOSE E. SERRANO of new york in the house of representatives Thursday, April 10, 2014 Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor that I rise today to recognize the 217th anniversary of the forcible transfer of the Garifuna people from St. Vincent to Central America, which is to be observed on April 12, 2014. Each year this day serves as an important reminder of the rich history and heritage that is an intrinsic part of this community, and of the history of the United States. This commemoration is the culmination of Garifuna-American Heritage Month, which celebrates the important and unique contributions of the Garifuna community to my home borough of the Bronx, to New York City, and to our nation as a whole. The Garifuna community has a unique heritage, language, and culture. As descendents of West African slaves, Venezuelan Caribs and Arawaks, Garifuna community has long been an important part of several nations, including Belize, Guatemala, Honduras, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, and Nicaragua. The Garifuna people first arrived in New York City in the 1930s as part of the merchant marines, and their numbers quickly grew in several neighborhoods. The Garifuna people are now a long established part of the fabric of New York City, and of my district in the Bronx. Today, I am proud to be able to pay tribute to their history and their future. Mr. Speaker, Garifuna-American Heritage Month celebrates the unique cultural contributions and ethnic pride this community has provided to the melting pot that is New York City. I am confident that this month will continue to exist as an important cultural landmark celebration for many years to come. I hope my colleagues will join me in recognizing the significance of April 12th in the history of the Garifuna people, and in recognizing their contributions to New York City and to our nation. ____________________ HONORING MAINE'S PUBLIC SAFETY TELECOMMUNICATORS ______ HON. MICHAEL H. MICHAUD of maine in the house of representatives Thursday, April 10, 2014 Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Maine's Public Safety Dispatchers for their essential service to our communities in times of emergency. Maine's public safety telecommunicators are committed to putting the safety and interests of the community before themselves, and I would like to commend them for their invaluable hard work and commitment to ensuring our safety. These unsung heroes are our country's ``unseen first responders.'' They are the men and women who answer the calls of those citizens asking for help with a promise that help is, in fact, on its way. We place our trust in these individuals every day of the year and rely on their knowledge and professionalism as they make critical decisions, obtain information, and quickly dispatch needed aid. Regardless of the call, they always answer with compassion, persistence, and patience. As a result, their work is imperative to our country's citizens, police, fire and emergency medical assistance personnel. They remain calm in times of crisis and helpful in times of hurting. Their voices guide a young mother through infant CPR, talk an accident victim out of going into shock, and provide comfort to those who have been harmed or injured as they wait for emergency personnel to arrive. Yet, they seldom witness the product of their good work because they do not see the young mother's face when her infant begins to breathe again or the accident victim's face as first responders come into sight. It is for these reasons that they deserve our special appreciation and recognition. In addition to the services they directly provide to the general public, they also handle governmental communications related to forestry, conservation, highway safety, and natural disasters. This means that while most individuals seek shelter during a flood or blizzard, the public safety telecommunicators are at their posts ensuring that everyone in their communities, including the police officers and firefighters, return home safely. These telecommunicators are selfless, skilled, and often overlooked. Their daily service to the public goes without due recognition by the many beneficiaries of their services. Today, I would like to take a moment and extend my deepest gratitude on behalf of the state of Maine and applaud them for their honorable service. Mr. Speaker, please join me in recognition and appreciation of the many public safety telecommunicators of Maine. ____________________ HONORING THE EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT'S 80TH BIRTHDAY ______ HON. JERRY McNERNEY of california in the house of representatives Thursday, April 10, 2014 Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to recognize the East Bay Regional Park District (the District) for 80 years of creating beautiful parkland and open spaces in both Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. The District has over 114,000 acres, 65 parks and 1,200 miles of trails, which allow people to enjoy nature, outdoor recreation, and environmental education experiences. Through its Healthy Parks, Healthy People Campaign, the District has worked to promote awareness of the parks, trails and events they offer to both counties. The District has always been forward thinking in planning how to manage and conserve our nation's resources while also providing the public with a variety of recreational activities. East Bay Regional Parks has been a key participant in conservation for eighty years. The Park District has been created a master plan for the East Bay to preserve our resources through good management while also providing the public with a variety of recreation and outdoor activities. I ask my colleagues to congratulate the East Bay Regional Parks on its 80th birthday and to recognize its invaluable contributions to our natural resources and our communities. ____________________ IN RECOGNITION OF THE CLEBURNE COUNTY 911 ______ HON. MIKE ROGERS of alabama in the house of representatives Thursday, April 10, 2014 Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, today ask for the House's attention to honor the Cleburne County 911 for their outstanding service to the citizens of Cleburne County. The second week of April is designated as National Public Safety Communicator Week. This is a time to honor the telecommunications personnel in the public safety community. The Cleburne County 911's mission states that they strive to provide effective public safety services through the appropriate dispatch of [[Page 6220]] fire, police, medical, and rescue units with the least possible delay. They live up to this mission each and every day. Like all of East Alabama's 911 public safety personnel, Cleburne County's Public Safety Communicators provide local citizens with an invaluable service. They offer peace of mind, and they provide the highest level of emergency communications service possible. Mr. Speaker, please join me in thanking the Public Safety Communicators at the Cleburne 911 for their dedication to protecting the citizens of Cleburne County. ____________________ HONORING IOWA ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL OF THE YEAR RYAN DAVIS ______ HON. BRUCE L. BRALEY of iowa in the house of representatives Thursday, April 10, 2014 Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Ryan Davis on being selected as the Iowa Assistant Principal of the year. Ryan serves as the assistant principal at Vinton-Shellsburg High School in my district. Ryan was selected because of his commitment to student success, his vision of student learning and his work with parents and the community. Mr. Davis began his career as a science teacher in Minnesota. In 2008, he came to Vinton as the assistant principal and at-risk coordinator. He received his bachelor's degree from the University of Northern Iowa, his master's degree in educational leadership from Southwest State University and his certificate in education administration from Saint Mary's University. Mr. Davis was selected for this award by a committee of Iowa assistant principals, and he is now a candidate for National Assistant Principal of the Year. Ryan has proven that he is a leader at his school and throughout the Vinton-Shellsburg community. I'm proud to call him a constituent, and congratulate him on all of his success. ____________________ TRIBUTE TO SHANE STARK ______ HON. TOM LATHAM of iowa in the house of representatives Thursday, April 10, 2014 Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate and recognize Shane Stark of Carrier Access in West Des Moines, Iowa, for being named a 2014 Forty Under 40 honoree by the award-winning central Iowa publication, Business Record. Since 2000, Business Record has undertaken an exhaustive annual review to identify a standout group of young leaders in the Greater Des Moines area who are making an impact in their communities and their careers. Each year, forty up-and-coming community and business leaders under 40 years of age are selected for this prestigious distinction, which is based on a combined criteria of community involvement and success in their chosen career field. The 2014 class of Forty Under 40 honorees join an impressive roster of nearly 600 business leaders and growing. Mr. Speaker, it is a profound honor to represent leaders like Shane in the United States Congress and it is with great pride that I recognize and applaud Mr. Stark for utilizing his talents to better both his community and the great state of Iowa. I invite my colleagues in the House to join me in congratulating Shane on receiving this esteemed designation, thanking those at Business Record for their great work, and wishing each member of the 2014 Forty Under 40 class continued success. ____________________ RECOGNIZING OAK LAWN COMMUNITY HIGH SCHOOL'S DRAMA TEAM ______ HON. DANIEL LIPINSKI of illinois in the house of representatives Thursday, April 10, 2014 Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Oak Lawn Community High School's Drama team for winning two state championship titles at the Illinois High School Association's Drama & Group interpretation State finals. On March 29th the drama team was in Springfield to compete at the Illinois High School Association Tournament. Oak Lawn was awarded first place in the drama finals for their performance of ``The Normal Heart'' by Larry Kramer. Cast members included Taylor Lindemann, Leonardo Quezada, Joe DeLaMora, Lauren Montesano, Danny Swanberg, Jonathan Cortez, Charlie Doria, Carl Seibel, Vaughn Smith, Josh Cash, with Riley Faille as the student director. In addition to the first place in the drama final, Oak Lawn took first place in the group interpretation finals for their performance of ``She Kill Monsters'' by Qui Nguyen. Cast members include Laura Akouris, Erin Beland, Kaeley Clark, Cameron DeLaMora, Paul Harris, Valentina Lopez, Tina Maciaga, Joey Probst, Emily Salomone, Andrew Waterstraat, with Julia Bugaj as the student director. This tremendous achievement is made possible through the hard work and enthusiasm of the students, and the dedicated guidance of their coaches. This tournament showcased the tremendous talent and dedication that is fostered in the Oak Lawn drama program. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the outstanding talent of the Oak Lawn Community High School's drama team, and to congratulate them on their winning performances. ____________________ TRIBUTE IN HONOR OF BERNICE HUDSON WASHINGTON ______ HON. TERRI A. SEWELL of alabama in the house of representatives Thursday, April 10, 2014 Ms. SEWELL of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and pay tribute to the life and legacy of Bernice Hudson Washington, a beloved public servant remembered for her extraordinary display of compassion and kindness as a life-long addiction and home service counselor in the city of Tuscaloosa, Alabama. Bernice Hudson Washington passed away on Sunday, April 6 at the age of 84. While I join the Tuscaloosa community in being deeply saddened by her passing, I know her legacy is one that will live on in the lives of those she touched through her work as a counselor. Mrs. Washington was the proud mother of a daughter, Alice Page of Northport, grandmother of Sonja Henley and Vanraybern Thames and stepmother of Betty Dickerson. After helping her brother to overcome alcohol addiction, Mrs. Washington was drawn into a lifelong career counseling and empowering those who suffer from addiction. She began her career as an addiction counselor in 1972 when she joined the inaugural staff at Indian Rivers Community Mental Health and Mental Retardation Center. Mrs. Washington established the Insight Center, a center that offered preventive programs for alcoholics and drug addicts, in 1974. She directed the Insight Center until her retirement in October 1994. The Insight Center was dedicated in her honor on May 29, 1993, as the Bernice Hudson Washington Insight Center. Mrs. Washington spent 20 years as a certified addiction counselor at the Insight Center. During this time, she expanded the concept of addiction treatment by helping the families of addicts to overcome the difficulties associated with addiction. Mrs. Washington's opened her home to recovering addicts providing them with home-cooked meals and games of checkers and dominoes on the weekends. Mrs. Washington also served as resident commissioner for the Tuscaloosa Housing Authority and provided invaluable counseling services to first-time homeowners. The housing authority dedicated a nine-house development for new homeowners in her honor in 2012 as the Bernice Hudson Washington Estates. At the dedication ceremony for the Bernice Hudson Washington Estates, one of the new homeowners explained his admiration for Mrs. Washington to a local reporter, ``She molded me and my mom, my thinking and the type of person that I am,'' he said. ``If God can give me just a little bit of what she did to inspire people, I'll be so grateful.'' Mrs. Washington best explained her motivation: ``It meant a whole lot to me to be able to help give some of these folks that I work with a chance to have some of the stuff that I had,'' she told a local reporter. ``Because we'd share what we had with others, we grew up doing that--sharing. So it meant a lot for me to just keep doing what my father was doing for others. That's all I know--to give.'' Mrs. Washington has been described by family members and community leaders as a true public servant with a contagious spirit who, through her actions, inspired those around her to serve others. Mrs. Washington has made an indelible mark on the city of Tuscaloosa and the state of Alabama. Today, we pay tribute to her resolute dedication and concern for those who suffer from addiction and her extraordinary contributions to first-time homeowners. [[Page 6221]] On behalf of the 7th Congressional District, the State of Alabama and this nation, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Mrs. Bernice Hudson Washington for her inspirational servant leadership. We are truly grateful for this extraordinary public servant. ____________________ CELEBRATING THE 100TH BIRTHDAY OF MR. CLARENCE ROSTAD ______ HON. PAUL C. BROUN of georgia in the house of representatives Thursday, April 10, 2014 Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the 100th birthday of Mr. Clarence Rostad of Big Timber, Montana. Clarence Rostad was born on April 28th, 1914, in Big Timber, Montana, to George and Susanna Rostad. Clarence and his ten siblings grew up on the East Fork of the lower Sweet Grass Creek and on the family's ranch on the Boulder River near McLeod. It was here that his love for ranching and farming truly developed. Clarence attended school at Big Timber Grade School. After a few years of working on the ranch, he attended college classes at Montana State College. He also served his country in the United States Army. In 1946 he married his beloved wife Ruth, whom he shared 57 years on their ranch on the Boulder River. The two raised six children and regularly hosted their 14 grandchildren and 19 great-grandchildren. Clarence loves his ranch on the river--but even more, he loves welcoming others to enjoy the beauty of the mountains and the blue- ribbon river surrounding his ranch. Clarence's desire to welcome strangers to the ranch resulted in having friends of multiple generations in the same family--all of whom have enjoyed the ranch and the company of Clarence's hospitality, as well as him serenading them with his harmonica. One of Clarence's great loves in life, in addition to his family and ranching, is his love for God. As evidenced in his patience and love for his family and ranching, Clarence is a strong man of faith in his Lord Jesus Christ. As described by his family, his love of raising sheep and cattle has truly blessed him with the heart of the Good Shepherd. Today, one of Clarence's greatest desires is to honor God through playing sacred music on his harmonica. Having learned to play his harmonica in the solitude of the foothills and mountains in the Boulder River valley, Clarence has the great ability to play complex tunes despite not having any formal music education. Clarence keeps his mind refreshed and his heart renewed by playing music of faith that expresses his love for God. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating the 100th birthday of Clarence, who has led an outstanding life dedicated to loving God, his family, and loving his neighbor as himself. I wish him many more joyful years of health and happiness. ____________________ CELEBRATING THE LAUNCH OF FRESH NEW START ______ HON. ANDER CRENSHAW of florida in the house of representatives Thursday, April 10, 2014 Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Speaker, several years ago I had the privilege of employing a brilliant and dedicated young staffer named Francis B. Gibbs. Francis was one of my first campaign staffers and I was privileged for him to come with me to Washington as I began my congressional career in 2001. He was a trusted aide and a true friend who always gave me the straight answer. He left my office to become Legislative Director, then Chief of Staff for U.S. Representative Connie Mack and later served as Chief of Staff for the Florida Department of Transportation. Rooted in principle, Francis was an honest, committed public servant, friend to many, and devoted husband to LeAnne and father to children Couper and Riley. He faced a world of possibility and wasn't afraid to tackle challenges head on. So it was devastating when he received a cancer diagnosis that turned his world--and that of his family--upside down. It was a challenge that, despite every effort, he ultimately was unable to overcome. Francis passed away on May 17, 2013, at the age of 40, leaving behind grieving family and friends who could only ask themselves the age-old question: ``Why?'' Struggling with the ``why'' and feeling overcome by the pain that comes with losing someone you love so much can be debilitating. Our human nature tells us to withdraw from the world, to isolate and self- protect. And as hard as it is to pick ourselves up and carry on, it is the only way that beauty can be born from ashes. LeAnne Holdman Gibbs did just that. In the midst of her own pain, this extraordinary young widow and mother of two young children decided that she needed to honor Francis' wish for her and reconnect with the world after a year of cancer-caregiving. So she took a group of girlfriends on a trip to Florence, Italy, using the trip to renew and refresh, to rediscover passions, and to dream about her future. But it didn't end there. Before his death, Francis and LeAnne talked about how she might use her own experience to inspire other young women who were in a similar situation. As she began her own widowhood journey, she was surprised and frustrated to find that there were so few resources dedicated to serving young cancer widows who had been their spouses' primary caregivers. She was determined to do something about that, and has since dedicated herself to supporting such women. The concept for a not-for-profit corporation was born. With tremendous courage, hard work, and help from a core group of friends, LeAnne founded Fresh New Start, an organization ``that seeks to refresh and renew the young woman who has lost her husband to cancer and to offer encouragement and support as she both starts and endures her journey through widowhood.'' Fresh New Start will sponsor trips/ retreats for selected candidates and up to three adult friends to give other young cancer widows the opportunity to ``renew, refresh, and restart.'' The corporation will also serve these women by providing connections to other young cancer widows and additional resources for them and their caregivers. Fresh New Start officially launched on the first day of spring--March 20, 2014. I am proud of LeAnne for honoring Francis' memory by launching Fresh New Start and offer my congratulations on the creation of an organization that will benefit many young widows for years to come and honor the legacy of a friend I miss dearly, Francis B. Gibbs. ____________________ IN HONOR OF GEORGE W. KOCH ______ HON. SAM FARR of california in the house of representatives Thursday, April 10, 2014 Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of my friend George W. Koch who passed away on January 26, at the age of 87. George William Koch was born on April 8, 1926, in Cincinnati. After serving in the Navy during World War II, he received a bachelor's degree in business in 1948, a bachelor of laws degree in 1950 and a juris doctor degree in 1950, all from the University of Cincinnati. After working as an assistant city attorney in Cincinnati, George became director of the Ohio Council of Retail Merchants before joining Sears and then the Grocery Manufacturers of America. George led the Grocery Manufacturers of America, GMA, trade association from 1966 to 1990. He was an inspiring leader who led the GMA to become one of the most influential and effective trade associations in America. Last year, George W. Koch received the first- ever Grocery Manufactures Association's Leadership in Public Policy and will name the award in his honor going forward. As consumers, we all benefit from George's leadership in promoting good practices at stores and grocery chains across America. Among his countless achievements, George is responsible for leading the initiative at GMA to introduce the Universal Product Code in 1974, and the development of tamper-resistant packaging in the wake of the Tylenol poisonings of 1982. He is survived by his wife of 63 years, Helen Lawton Koch; his six children, Jorie Koch Kenny, Daniel, Patrick, Robert, Monte, and Lucy Lawton Koch; and 14 grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of my friend George W. Koch and to wish his family peace and solace during this difficult time. ____________________ TRIBUTE TO CHRYSTAL TAMILLO ______ HON. TOM LATHAM of iowa in the house of representatives Thursday, April 10, 2014 Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate and recognize Chrystal Tamillo of [[Page 6222]] Flemings Steakhouse in West Des Moines, Iowa, for being named a 2014 Forty Under 40 honoree by the award-winning central Iowa publication, Business Record. Since 2000, Business Record has undertaken an exhaustive annual review to identify a standout group of young leaders in the Greater Des Moines area who are making an impact in their communities and their careers. Each year, forty up-and-coming community and business leaders under 40 years of age are selected for this prestigious distinction, which is based on a combined criteria of community involvement and success in their chosen career field. The 2014 class of Forty Under 40 honorees join an impressive roster of nearly 600 business leaders and growing. Mr. Speaker, it is a profound honor to represent leaders like Chrystal in the United States Congress and it is with great pride that I recognize and applaud Ms. Tamillo for utilizing her talents to better both her community and the great state of Iowa. I invite my colleagues in the House to join me in congratulating Chrystal on receiving this esteemed designation, thanking those at Business Record for their great work, and wishing each member of the 2014 Forty Under 40 class continued success. ____________________ PERSONAL EXPLANATION ______ HON. JOHN R. CARTER of texas in the house of representatives Thursday, April 10, 2014 Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, I was absent from votes earlier this week in order to attend the memorial services held for the victims of the tragic shooting at Fort Hood, TX, last week. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: April 7, 2014: Rollcall No. 165, Motion to Recommit H.R. 1872--``nay.'' Rollcall No. 166, Passage of H.R. 1872--``yea.'' April 8, 2014: Rollcall No. 167, Motion to Recommit H.R. 1871--``nay.'' Rollcall No. 168, Passage of H.R. 1871--``yea.'' Rollcall No. 169, Ordering the Previous Question on H. Res. 544-- ``yea.'' Rollcall No. 170, Adoption of H. Res. 544--``yea.'' April 9, 2014: Rollcall No. 171, Substitute Amendment No. 1--``nay.'' Rollcall No. 172, Substitute Amendment No. 2--``nay.'' Rollcall No. 173, Substitute Amendment No. 3--``nay.'' Rollcall No. 174, Passage of H.R. 4414--``yea.'' ____________________ HONORING DR. ROBERT EDWARD PAINE, JR. ______ HON. H. MORGAN GRIFFITH of virginia in the house of representatives Thursday, April 10, 2014 Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I submit these remarks in honor of Dr. Robert Edward Paine, Jr.--also known as Dr. Bob or Grandoc--of Salem, Virginia, who ``completed his earthly tour-of-duty'' on Wednesday, March 19. Born on April 28, 1925 in Roanoke, Dr. Paine was an athlete, student, veteran, caregiver, volunteer, friend, lifelong learner, and more. He graduated from Jefferson High School, and then went on to graduate from the University of Richmond before completing requirements for his MD degree from the Medical College of Virginia. During World War II, Dr. Paine served in the U.S. Navy Reserves and during the Korean War, served on the staff of Fleet Air Atlantic. Dr. Paine had internships and residencies at Norfolk General and ``old'' Lewis-Gale Hospital, and he also did post-graduate work in internal medicine at Johns Hopkins Hospital. He had a solo practice in Salem for 15 years, and had the first EKG machine in town. In 1967, Dr. Paine set up the first alcohol and drug rehabilitation program at the Salem VA hospital, where he continued volunteering even after his retirement. Dr. Paine tended patients at seven area hospitals and medical centers over the years, and taught students at area hospitals as well. He also served as a volunteer physician with such groups as the Andrew Lewis High School football team, Boy Scout Troup 54, the 1964 National Boy Scout Jamboree medical team, and the Red Cross. Throughout the years, Dr. Paine was active with Salem Presbyterian and later St. Paul's Episcopal, Friends of the Salem Library, the Salem and Roanoke Valley Historical Societies, the Salem Museum, the Salem Sports Foundation, the City of Salem Long-range Planning Committee, the Military Order of World Wars, the Mayflower Society of Virginia, the Magna Carta and Jamestowne Societies, and the Island Ford Hunt Club (for the camaraderie and nature). He also was a 32nd-degree mason with Lakeland Lodge, and a member of Scottish Rite and Kazim Temples. Roanoke Valley's 1982 Father of the Year for Family Life, Dr. Paine and his wife Alice had two children, Robert Parson Paine and Emily Paine Carter. Those who knew him well are heard to talk of Dr. Paine's wit, generosity, kindness, humor, determination, and humility, all of which have made the Roanoke Valley a better place to live. My thoughts and prayers go out to Dr. Paine's family and loved ones. His love for his family, friends, neighbors, and community will always be remembered and cherished in Salem and throughout the region. ____________________ A TRIBUTE IN HONOR OF WIGGSY SIVERTSEN _____ HON. ANNA G. ESHOO of california in the house of representatives Thursday, April 10, 2014 Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, we rise today to express our deepest gratitude and heartfelt congratulations to Wiggsy Sivertsen on the occasion of her retirement from San Jose State University where she has been a Personal Counselor and Licensed Clinical Social Worker for forty five years. Wiggsy Sivertsen has given generously of her time and considerable talent to the students at San Jose State, supporting them in their personal struggles and helping them achieve their professional goals. The student evaluations on an online site speak volumes about this extraordinary woman. ``Awesome teacher and subject! Best class I have ever taken in college.'' ``Concerned/outgoing/extremely funny/ sensitive. Busy woman that will make time for you.'' These are only two of many, many outstanding evaluations. Wiggsy Sivertsen earned a Bachelor's degree from San Jose State University and a Master's degree in Social Work from Tulane University. In the early 1980's, Wiggsy, fearless and ahead of her time, cofounded Bay Area Municipal Elections Committee (BAYMEC) to advocate for members of the LGBT community to address burgeoning discrimination against the LGBT community. She envisioned and designed BAYMEC to educate our communities and advocate for the rights of all. Wiggsy has spent thousands of hours lobbying elected officials for hate-crime legislation, marriage equality, and other LGBT rights. In addition to BAYMEC, she founded two other LGBT advocacy groups: Advocates for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual Youth, a legal organization; and Open Mind Network, Inc, an organization which is an educational platform to inform organized groups of the legitimate rights of LGBT communities. She has also worked side-by-side with several community organizations and law enforcement to achieve these goals. Wiggsy's contributions to our country have been recognized by the Civil Liberties Union ``Don Edwards Defender of Constitutional Liberty'' Award, and the California State Special Recognition Award for Service to the Lesbian and Gay Community. She was also recognized by the San Jose Mercury News as one of ``The Millennium 100, Pillars of Their Communities''. Mr. Speaker, we ask our colleagues to join us in thanking Wiggsy Sivertsen for her extraordinary career as an educator at San Jose State University, and for her unswerving commitment to social justice for all, particularly the civil rights of the LGBT community. Her contributions will live on as her lasting legacy, and we honor her for strengthening our community immeasurably and making our country a more just and equitable one. [[Page 6223]] ____________________ TRIBUTE TO TIMOTHY WHIPPLE ______ HON. TOM LATHAM of iowa in the house of representatives Thursday, April 10, 2014 Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate and recognize Timothy Whipple of Iowa Economic Development Authority in Des Moines, Iowa, for being named a 2014 Forty Under 40 honoree by the award- winning central Iowa publication, Business Record. Since 2000, Business Record has undertaken an exhaustive annual review to identify a standout group of young leaders in the Greater Des Moines area who are making an impact in their communities and their careers. Each year, forty up-and-coming community and business leaders under 40 years of age are selected for this prestigious distinction, which is based on a combined criteria of community involvement and success in their chosen career field. The 2014 class of Forty Under 40 honorees join an impressive roster of nearly 600 business leaders and growing. Mr. Speaker, it is a profound honor to represent leaders like Timothy in the United States Congress and it is with great pride that I recognize and applaud Mr. Whipple for utilizing his talents to better both his community and the great state of Iowa. I invite my colleagues in the House to join me in congratulating Timothy on receiving this esteemed designation, thanking those at Business Record for their great work, and wishing each member of the 2014 Forty Under 40 class continued success. ____________________ COLUMBIA REGIONAL CENTER OF INNOVATION _____ HON. GREG WALDEN of oregon in the house of representatives Thursday, April 10, 2014 Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a remarkable economic partnership under way in the Pacific Northwest, where the Columbia River Gorge joins the states of Oregon and Washington. This initiative, the Columbia Gorge Regional Center of Innovation, is aimed at streamlining the region's education to prepare its students for the modern workforce, in turn, bringing economic growth and development to the region. With economies originally based firmly in agriculture and natural resources, communities within the Columbia Gorge have become a center for a burgeoning technology sector, anchored by a Google data center in The Dalles, Oregon, and a Boeing subsidiary, Insitu, in Bingen, Washington. Quality of life, outdoor recreation, and natural beauty helped attract those employers. While regional prosperity beckons, challenges remain. The cost of housing in the area makes it difficult for persons on low to moderate incomes to live where they work. There are significant infrastructure concerns, most notably two interstate bridges serving the central Columbia Gorge. And most importantly, the continued growth of the region's technology sector requires a skilled workforce. This is a special challenge in a region where 80,000 people are dispersed over a rural area roughly the size of Massachusetts. Innovation, creativity and collaboration are essential to address these common challenges. The Columbia Gorge Regional Center of Innovation is a cross-sector partnership that brings together private industry, economic development, a regional housing authority, workforce training, K-12 school districts, early childhood education, community colleges, the land-grant universities of Oregon and Washington, and other regional public and private universities to find solutions to these challenges. The result of this partnership is improved cooperation across the state line; innovative strategies to construct ``attainable housing'' for the region's workforce and tackle infrastructure concerns; and promoting job creation through improved access to industry-specific skills. This dialogue will continue on Friday, April 18, when the first-ever Columbia Gorge Education and Industry Summit takes place on The Dalles Campus of Columbia Gorge Community College, and on May 16, 2014, when the first-ever Columbia Gorge Bi-State Legislative Summit will bring together state lawmakers from Salem and Olympia. The goal is to recognize the Columbia Gorge as a bi-state region with common concerns, which can best be resolved through improved cooperation across the state boundary in partnership with the federal government, Mid-Columbia Economic Development District, and the Columbia River Gorge Commission. I ask my colleagues to join me in commending local leaders of the bi- state Columbia Gorge for their innovation and courage in addressing the economic challenges that still confront their region. Their hard work deserves our recognition. ____________________ WORKER'S MEMORIAL DAY RESOLUTION ______ HON. BRUCE L. BRALEY of iowa in the house of representatives Thursday, April 10, 2014 Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, on April 28, millions of workers worldwide come together to recognize Worker's Memorial Day. Worker's Memorial Day commemorates those who have been injured or killed on the job. My own family experienced tough times when my Dad was permanently injured in a workplace fall when I was very young. Over the past several decades in the United States we have made great progress in preventing injuries and deaths at the workplace. However, there is still work to be done as each year more than 5,000 Americans are killed due to workplace related injuries, and millions more experience occupational injuries and illnesses. Work related accidents are still too common in the United States. An average 16 Americans are killed each day due to workplace injuries. It is clear we must continue work towards ensuring that every workplace is a safe one. While in the United States we have improved workplace safety in recent decades, the numbers across the globe are overwhelming. It is estimated that nearly 2 million workers die each year due to work related accidents or diseases worldwide. More people are killed due to workplace injury or disease than are killed in war. As a member of Congress, I will continue to fight for workplace safety. I'm also committed to recognizing Worker's Memorial Day and the millions of workers across the world who have given their lives while on the job. That is why I'm proud to have co-introduced a resolution honoring Worker's Memorial Day with Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson. We must continue to honor the millions of men and women who have given their lives for the continued progress of humankind. As long as I'm in office, I will continue to work towards strengthening the middle class and advocating for workplace safety. ____________________ RECOGNIZING THE ALARMING MORTALITY RATE OF AFRICAN-AMERICAN BREAST CANCER PATIENTS RESOLUTION ______ HON. JANICE HAHN of california in the house of representatives Thursday, April 10, 2014 Ms. HAHN. Mr. Speaker, April has been designated Minority Health Awareness Month, and I want to shine a spotlight on a crucial minority women's healthcare issue--the alarming mortality rate of African- American women from breast cancer. In the last few months, both the New York Times and Los Angeles Times featured articles about the disparity in mortality rates between African-American and white women with breast cancer. The New York Times wrote ``After her doctor told her two months ago that she had breast cancer, Debrah Reid, a 58-year-old dance teacher, drove straight to a funeral home. She began planning a burial with the funeral director and his wife, even requesting a pink coffin. . . `I was just going to sit down and die.''' That is heartbreaking. Much progress has been made over the last two decades to increase awareness, screening, and treatment of breast cancer, but unfortunately this progress has not been made for all women. In the 1980s, the mortality rate for African-American and white women were nearly identical. Today, shockingly, African-American women are 40 percent more likely to die from breast cancer than white women. Much of this difference results from a lack of screening, access to life-saving treatments, and quality of treatment. Additionally, the higher difference in the death rate from breast cancer varies by region. In my city of Los Angeles, sadly, an African- American woman with breast cancer is 70 percent more likely to die than a white woman. This is not true in other cities, such as New York, where the disparity is nominal. Clearly, this demonstrates that public health improvements can be made to improve the survival rates for African-American women. Therefore, I am introducing a resolution to highlight the high mortality rate for African- [[Page 6224]] American women confronting breast cancer. My hope is that this resolution will bring awareness to this injustice to ensure that quality screening and treatment is available for all women, regardless of race. This is an issue of life and death and we must take every action available to ensure that every woman has access to the resources and treatment she needs to survive. ____________________ IN HONOR OF COLONEL DANIEL D. PICK ______ HON. SAM FARR of california in the house of representatives Thursday, April 10, 2014 Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a truly great American on the occasion of his retirement from the United States Army. On April 18, 2014, Colonel Daniel D. Pick will relinquish his command of Commandant of the Defense Language Institute for the Presidio of Monterey and retire from the Army after 29 years of exemplary service. It is my great pleasure to have had the opportunity to get to know this soldier scholar. He truly represents for me the highest qualities of military leadership: courage, vision, integrity, and keen understanding of the broader world that we live in. Peace is best served when we can bridge cultures. In light of his commitment to military language capacity, his own language and cultural skills, and his experience as a diplomat and soldier overseas, Colonel Pick is the personification of this truth. In 1987, Colonel Pick graduated from the University of Washington and began his Army career as an active duty military intelligence officer. His early career took him many places, including serving as a scout platoon leader and battalion S2 in 3rd Battalion, 66th Armor Regiment in Garlstedt, Germany. In addition, he had a deployment to Operations Desert Shield/Storm in January 1991 as S2 3/66 Armor Battalion. Following his graduation from the Military Intelligence Officer Advance Course, Colonel Pick served with 1st Special Forces Group (Airborne) as Commander, Military Intelligence Detachment and Group S2. Colonel Pick became a Middle East Foreign Area Officer (FAO) in 1996. His FAO assignments include: Kuwaiti Land Forces Advisor, OMC-Kuwait; FAO Assignment Officer, Army Human Resources Command, WAD.C.; Executive Officer, Human Intelligence Team, 2nd Battalion, 10th Special Forces Group (Airborne), Northern Iraq; Army attache, U.S. Embassy, Amman, Jordan; Policy Officer, Office of the Secretary of Defense; and FAO Program Director, Defense Language Institute. Colonel Pick holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in Near Eastern Languages and Civilization from the University of Washington, a Master of Military Studies from Marine Corps University, Quantico, and a Master of Arts degree in Near Eastern Studies from Princeton University. He speaks Arabic, Persian-Farsi, Persian-Dari, and Assyrian. He is a graduate of Marine Corps Command and Staff College, Defense Language Institute Basic Arabic Course, Jumpmaster Course, Military intelligence Officer Basic and Advance Courses, Ranger School and Airborne School. In addition, his decorations include the Combat Action Badge, Bronze Star Medal with an oak leaf cluster, and Iraq Campaign Medal with arrowhead device. Mr. Speaker, I know I speak for the whole House in extending our most sincere gratitude for Colonel Pick's service to our Nation. The United States is a more secure and fruitful place as a consequence of his efforts. I want to wish Colonel Pick, his wife Karen, and children Dalton and Lauren, all the best as he transitions from active duty to what will surely be an active and fruitful second career of continued public service. And while the Army is losing one of its most capable officers, the Monterey Bay region is retaining one of its most capable citizens. ____________________ RECOGNIZING THE RETIREMENT OF KERN HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT DON CARTER ______ HON. KEVIN McCARTHY of california in the house of representatives Thursday, April 10, 2014 Mr. McCARTHY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the retirement of a man who has dedicated much of his life to the educational system in Kern County. Superintendent Don Carter recently announced his retirement after 38 years of service, serving as Kern High School District Superintendent over the past 10 years. A graduate of West High School, Don went on to earn his master's degree from California State University, Bakersfield and an Ed.D from the University of La Verne. In 1976, Don joined the teaching staff at Bakersfield High School as a math and science teacher before eventually becoming the school's assistant principal and principal. After serving as the district associate superintendent for instruction, he was promoted to Superintendent in 2004. Though his tenure at Kern High School District is coming to an end, his impact will be long-lasting. Serving California's largest high school district, Don was responsible for the oversight of 18 high schools and over 3,700 employees. A strong advocate of academic achievement, Kern High School District's performance index improved every year under Don's tenure, including the significant improvement in the number of graduates that met entrance requirements for the University of California and California State University systems. As a proud former student of Superintendent Carter, I know personally of his dedication and steadfast commitment to ensure that every student he taught, and every student within our high school district, had the opportunity to achieve academic success. On behalf of a grateful community, I am honored to thank Don Carter for his dedication to our youth and I wish him a well-deserved retirement. ____________________ IN REMEMBRANCE OF MARJORIE KECK ______ HON. DOUG LaMALFA of california in the house of representatives Thursday, April 10, 2014 Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Marjorie Bertha Keck, who passed away on April 6, 2014, at the age of 93. She was a beloved wife and mother to four children who was known in recent years for saying, ``Growing old isn't for wimps!'' She was all about family. Whether it was hosting boat rides on the bay or a day at the ballpark with the Oakland A's, Marjorie would always find a way for family and friends to relax together amongst their busy lives. As a devout follower of the Lord, her family and friends rejoice that she is reunited with her beloved husband Lee, and is in the arms of her Savior. She will be missed by all, but her spirit and love will always be with us. ____________________ TRIBUTE TO JASON WHITE ______ HON. TOM LATHAM of iowa in the house of representatives Thursday, April 10, 2014 Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate and recognize Jason White of Warren County Economic Development in Indianola, Iowa, for being named a 2014 Forty Under 40 honoree by the award-winning central Iowa publication, Business Record. Since 2000, Business Record has undertaken an exhaustive annual review to identify a standout group of young leaders in the Greater Des Moines area who are making an impact in their communities and their careers. Each year, forty up-and-coming community and business leaders under 40 years of age are selected for this prestigious distinction, which is based on a combined criteria of community involvement and success in their chosen career field. The 2014 class of Forty Under 40 honorees join an impressive roster of nearly 600 business leaders and growing. Mr. Speaker, it is a profound honor to represent leaders like Jason in the United States Congress and it is with great pride that I recognize and applaud Mr. White for utilizing his talents to better both his community and the great state of Iowa. I invite my colleagues in the House to join me in congratulating Jason on receiving this esteemed designation, thanking those at Business Record for their great work, and wishing each member of the 2014 Forty Under 40 class continued success. ____________________ 99TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE ______ HON. SANDER M. LEVIN of michigan in the house of representatives Thursday, April 10, 2014 Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 99th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide. [[Page 6225]] The 9th Congressional District of Michigan, which I represent, is home to a vibrant Armenian-American community. Every member of this community has been tragically affected by the Armenian Genocide, despite the distance of time. I am proud to call them my friends. And I am proud to stand with them today. This time every year, we pause in solemn remembrance and honor the victims who perished at the hands of the Ottoman Empire 99 years ago. The Armenian Genocide, an intentional and systematic campaign of mass murder, began with the deliberate targeting of 300 Armenian leaders and culminated in one and a half million dead and 500,000 forcibly exiled from their homes. And while the primary purpose of Armenian Remembrance Day is to remember, it also serves another important purpose. Indeed, the act of remembering, the commitment to never forget, sends a clear message to the world that we cannot abide a culture of impunity. That we will not gloss over historical atrocities. That we must not fail to hold to account those responsible for gross human rights violations. If we fail to remember horrific acts like the Armenian Genocide, we doom ourselves to repeat the most tragic chapters of history. Accordingly, during my time in Congress, I have cosponsored House resolutions that have clearly stated the U.S. record regarding the true nature of the Armenian Genocide--an officially orchestrated ethnic execution of innocent men, women and children. In closing, I respectfully request that all my colleagues join me today in honoring the victims and survivors of the Armenian Genocide. ____________________ HONORING APRIL GREEN ______ HON. CORRINE BROWN of florida in the house of representatives Thursday, April 10, 2014 Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of my constituent, April Green. Born April Smith, Ms. Green was born in Clarksburg, West Virginia to Janet Smith Thomas on April 12, 1969. Raised by Janet and Daniel Thomas in Jacksonville, Florida, she was educated in the public school system, graduating from Sandlewood High School in 1987. Upon completion of high school she attended Georgia Southern University in Statesboro, Georgia where she majored in biology and played on the basketball team. April then enlisted in the Air Force Reserve, and shortly after enlisting was deployed to the Middle East in support of Operation Desert Storm, where she served in the Medivac Unit as a medical assistant. After serving her country and completing college at Georgia Southern she returned to Jacksonville, Florida and began a career in banking. After many years at Barnett Bank of Florida, reaching the position of Vice President of Loans, April was called upon to serve in a different capacity. In 2003 she was contacted by her pastor, Bishop Rudolph McKissick, Sr. to provide leadership in the role as the church administrator and chief financial officer. At Bethel Baptist Institutional Church, April oversees the day to day operation of the church staff, finances and development. Bethel is the oldest African American Church in the State of Florida with a membership of approximately 11,000. Always wanting to give back to the community and having a passion to assist kids with their quest to attend college and further their education, April started the Jacksonville Pistons, a non-profit organization that would accomplish that goal. She created a traveling basketball organization for boys and girls between the ages of 8-17 with an emphasis on academic achievement and personal growth. To date she has mentored over 200 kids whom attended college. As she celebrates her 45th birthday, I speak for the entire Fifth District in thanking April Green for all her hard work serving the Jacksonville Community. ____________________ PERSONAL EXPLANATION ______ HON. MICHAEL C. BURGESS of texas in the house of representatives Thursday, April 10, 2014 Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I missed the House's vote on Mr. Mulvaney's Substitute Amendment to H. Con. Res. 96. The Substitute Amendment that Mr. Mulvaney called for was the President's Budget for Fiscal Years 2015 through 2024. I was unfortunately not present while the voting occurred. However, I would like the Record to reflect that it was my intention to vote ``no'' on the President's Budget. ____________________ NATIONAL FAIR HOUSING ALLIANCE COMPLAINT AGAINST SAFEGUARD PROPERTIES ______ HON. MARCY KAPTUR of ohio in the house of representatives Thursday, April 10, 2014 Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the National Fair Housing Alliance and the Toledo Fair Housing Center filed a Federal housing discrimination complaint with the Department of Housing and Urban Development against Safeguard Properties headquartered in Ohio. Safeguard is the Nation's largest privately held mortgage field services property preservations company. Their business model involves maintaining and marketing bank owned, foreclosed homes (REO properties). The National Fair Housing Alliance and its member organizations have recently gathered evidence that shows that companies like Safeguard are neglecting and failing to maintain foreclosed homes in minority and low income neighborhoods. In Toledo, Dayton, Baton Rouge, New Orleans and Memphis, Safeguard has failed to prevent blight from entering into the neighborhoods that are most venerable in our country. In an Office of the Inspector General report they were named as one of the preservation companies that would provide inaccurate information and would manipulate photos of foreclosed properties that it managed in their reports to Fannie Mae. We cannot allow these big corporations to continue taking advantage of the American people. I would encourage more States and representatives to investigate situations like this and send a message to these companies that we will not sit back and allow them to profit off of the suffering of the American people any more. ____________________ HONORING IOWA SECONDARY PRINCIPAL OF THE YEAR AIDDY PHOMVISAY ______ HON. BRUCE L. BRALEY of iowa in the house of representatives Thursday, April 10, 2014 Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Aiddy Phomvisay on being selected as the Iowa Secondary Principal of the year. Aiddy serves as the principal at Marshalltown High School which is in my district. Aiddy was selected because of his work in creating a culture of high expectations for all learners. Mr. Phomvisay began his career as a ninth and tenth-grade teacher for the Ames Community School District. In 2008 he came to Marshalltown to serve as the principal. He received his bachelor's degree, master's degrees in curriculum and instruction and educational leadership, and his superintendent certification from Iowa State University. Mr. Phomvisay was selected for this award by a committee of Iowa secondary principals, and he is now a candidate for National High School Principal of the Year. Aiddy has proven that he is a leader at his school and throughout the Marshalltown community. I'm proud to call him a constituent, and congratulate him on all of his success. ____________________ TRIBUTE TO JULIE VANDE HOEF ______ HON. TOM LATHAM of iowa in the house of representatives Thursday, April 10, 2014 Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate and recognize Julie Vande Hoef of Clive, Iowa, for being named a 2014 Forty Under 40 honoree by the award-winning central Iowa publication, Business Record. Since 2000, Business Record has undertaken an exhaustive annual review to identify a standout group of young leaders in the Greater Des Moines area who are making an impact in their communities and their careers. Each year, forty up-and-coming community and business leaders under 40 years of age are selected for this prestigious distinction, which is based on a combined criteria of community involvement and success in their chosen career field. The 2014 class of Forty Under 40 honorees join an impressive roster of 600 business leaders and growing. Julie Vande Hoef currently serves as Policy Advisor to Iowa Governor Terry Branstad and Lieutenant Governor Kim Reynolds. She maintains a wide breadth of expertise on several policy issues including agriculture, natural resources, financial services, insurance, cultural [[Page 6226]] affairs, and trade. Growing up on a family farm in Jackson County, Julie's family endured and survived the 1980s farm crisis. Since then, Mrs. Vande Hoef has immersed herself in government service to promote policies that benefit the people of Iowa. Before working for the Office of the Governor, Julie served Iowa Congressman Jim Leach as a Legislative Assistant, directed government affairs for Policy Works, and was a member of the Greater Des Moines Partnership's government affairs committee. Mrs. Vande Hoef has also donned a bulletproof vest in Iraq as she represented the United States and instructed women and minorities on the merits of democracy. Amidst all her impressive accomplishments and continued service to our state, Julie's top priority remains being the best wife and mother she can be to her husband Dustin and their son Tyson. In all aspects of her life, Mrs. Vande Hoef is an example of service, hard work, and Iowa values that our state can be proud of. Mr. Speaker, it is a profound honor to represent leaders like Julie in the United States Congress and it is with great pride that I recognize and applaud Mrs. Vande Hoef for utilizing her talents to better both her community and the great state of Iowa. I invite my colleagues in the House to join me in congratulating Julie on receiving this esteemed designation, thanking those at Business Record for their great work, and wishing each member of the 2014 Forty Under 40 class continued success. ____________________ HONORING REV. DR. ALBERT LOUIS PATTERSON, JR. OF HOUSTON, TEXAS, SENIOR PASTOR OF MOUNT CORINTH MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH, COMMUNITY LEADER, AND GODFATHER OF EXPOSITORY PREACHING ______ HON. SHEILA JACKSON LEE of texas in the house of representatives Thursday, April 10, 2014 Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the late Rev. Dr. Albert Louis Patterson, Jr., an amazing leader who touched and changed the lives of thousands for the better through his pastorship of the Mount Corinth Missionary Baptist Church in Houston, which he led for 36 years. This beloved man of God was requested to join our Lord on Wednesday, April 9, 2014. The Rev. Dr. Albert Louis Patterson, Jr., or ``Dr. Pat'' as he was affectionately known by many, trained and mentored hundreds of preachers of the gospel. Among his peers, he was regarded as the acknowledged master and `Godfather of Expository Preaching.' One of his proteges, the Rev. Robert Earl Houston, put it best: He wasn't just an expository preacher. He was a preaching lyricist of the highest order. To hear Dr. Patterson was to hear gumbo-listic preaching--he hit you with the text, oratory, poetry, interrogative statements, engagement, tenacity for the truths of the text, humor and truth. You would leave a preaching moment with Dr. Patterson in awe. Mr. Speaker, I would like to share just a few of the highlights of the remarkable career of this extraordinary preacher, pastor, theologian, husband and a father of three children. His traveling companion was his beloved wife, Melba and he had three children--Anthony, Albert III, Alan, and Alette. Rev. Patterson was recognized three times by his peers as a ``Living Legend.'' He taught and preached at the National Baptist Convention, USA, Inc. and lectured for the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, for the Promise Keepers, and the Preachers Division, National Baptist Congress. Rev. Patterson was named by Ebony Magazine as one of America's greatest black preachers and was inducted into the Morehouse College Hall of Preachers. Rev. Patterson pastored congregations in California and Texas and was the author of three books: ``Joy For the Journey''; ``Wisdom in Strange Places''; and ``Prerequisites for a Good Journey.'' Mr. Speaker, the Rev. Dr. Albert Louis Patterson lectured at the Morehouse College of Religion, the American Baptist College in Nashville, Tennessee and the Mid-American Theological Seminary. He conducted revivals in more than 25 cities and preached more than 100 sermons and lectures in the National Baptist Convention. The Rev. Dr. Albert Louis Patterson lived a consequential life in the service of his community, his family, and our country. He has gone on to receive his great reward, a place in the Lord's loving arms. My thoughts and prayers are with his family and loved ones. I ask that a moment of silence be observed in memory of the Rev. Dr. Albert Louis Patterson, Jr., of Houston, Texas. ____________________ THE WORLD WAR II MERCHANT MARINER SERVICE ACT ______ HON. CHARLES B. RANGEL of new york in the house of representatives Thursday, April 10, 2014 Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of this Congress matter of utmost importance--The World War II Merchant Mariner Service Act, which was included in the omnibus veteran's bill, FIR 2189. The bill passed the House on October 28th, 2013. The World War II Merchant Mariner Service Act directed the Secretary of Homeland Security to accept additional documentation when considering the application for Veterans status of an individual who performed service in the Merchant Marines during World War II. The Merchant Marine is a civilian auxiliary of the U.S. Navy, but not a uniformed service, except in times of war when, in accordance with the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, Mariners are considered military personnel. In an effort to support the American war effort during World War II, they became an auxiliary to the United States Navy. Their mission was to transport bulk war materials including food, clothing, and weapons, as well as troops to all areas of conflict as well as domestic coastal installations. During their missions in open waters, Merchant Marines often encountered the enemy and took hostile fire. Almost 250,000 Merchant Marines served during World War II and approximately 10,000 were killed while serving and protecting the United States. In 1977 President Jimmy Carter signed into law the GI Bill Improvement Act of 1977. This bill granted authorization to the Secretary of Defense to determine the service performed by an ``organized group of citizens'' to be considered ``active service'' for purposes of Veterans benefits and established the Department of Defense Civilian/Military Service Review Board and Advisory panel. In 1988, President Reagan signed a bill into law granting veteran status to merchant mariners who served in war. Moreover, the Veterans Programs Enhancement Act of 1998 expanded Merchant Marine Veteran benefits to include burial in a National Cemetery. I am proud that the Borough of Manhattan Community College is working on a documentary titled ``The Sea of My Brother'' about my constituent Gabriel Frank, an 85-year-old veteran of the World War II and Korea, who served in the merchant marine for 23 years, and whom I had the honor and privilege to meet. The film follows the fight of Gabriel and others for the passage of a bill in Congress, H.R. 1936--Honoring Our WWII Merchant Mariners Act of 2013, to provide a benefit to veterans who served in the US Merchant Marine during 1941-1946. From rallying his fellow veterans to meeting with politicians, Gabriel and his comrades passionately fight to win this dignity for their community. Today, elderly veterans continue their fight for this recognition. Their strong, positive and fighting spirit will not let them give up as they choose to advocate for their fellow veterans, leaving a legacy of inspiration for all. I am urging the Senate to act on their Omnibus Bill so this important legislation can be acted into law. ____________________ HONORING NEW MEXICO HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS _____ HON. MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM of new mexico in the house of representatives Thursday, April 10, 2014 Ms. MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker: I rise today to honor 32 high school students from Highland High School and Moriarty High School that will represent New Mexico this month in the We the People National Finals, a three-day academic national civics competition on the U.S. Constitution. During the competition these exceptional students will have the opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge of constitutional principles in simulated congressional hearings before panels of judges. The We The People program of constitutional study was initiated in 1987 and since its inception more the 30 million students have benefited from the program. The program divides students into teams where they are able to learn together and challenge each other. Surveys have shown that these students are more civic minded, politically active and have a better understanding of how the government functions. [[Page 6227]] Highland High School was the winner of the New Mexico We the People state competition and Moriarty High School is a wild card entry. I commend these students and their dedicated teachers and coaches for participating in this instructional program that fosters attitudes that students need in order to participate as effective, responsible citizens. School: Highland High School; Teacher: Bob M. Coffey; Students: Ethan Alley; Ezra Geilin Baldwin; Dakson Byle; Kathryn Cook; Giuseppe DeLeers-Certo; Diana Garcia; Hannah Glasgow; Brendan Heath; Rachel Lentz; Angelina Malagodi; Pilar Martinez; Gabriel Pereira De Medeiros; Morgan Roberts; Alexandra Shomaker; Sahleah Tubbeh; Francisco Viramontes; Rosemary White. School: Moriarty High School; Teacher: Amy Page; Students: Arianna Abrams; Peter Brown, Shelbee Geyer; Mason Howells; Tyler Cruzz Howse; Brian Landes; Emily Montano; Alexander Neverdousky; Allison New; Alicia Page; Rachel Pozzi; Jenna Purpura; Tony Ramirez; James Saunders; Cassandra Scott; Griffin Woolery; Donzlynn Worthington. I congratulate these outstanding students and thank them for their contributions to New Mexico. ____________________ TRIBUTE TO THE HONORABLE ZEV YAROSLAVSKY _____ HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN of california in the house of representatives Thursday, April 10, 2014 Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to rise today to pay tribute to my trusted, long-time friend, Los Angeles County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky. Zev is retiring at the end of this year after forty years of exceptional public service. I first met Zev more than four decades ago when he headed California Students for Soviet Jews at the University of California-Los Angeles (UCLA). It was clear at that time that Zev was driven by idealism, an inherent sense of fairness, and a commitment to public service. And, it was clear that he was a pragmatic problem solver and knew how to get things done. Zev started his career in elected office in 1975 at the age of twenty-six after winning a hard fought grassroots campaign for a seat on the Los Angeles City Council against a much more experienced candidate who had the strong support of the Democratic political establishment. Zev chaired the Los Angeles City Council's Finance Committee and worked very hard and very creatively to find solutions to difficult budgetary problems. As chair of the Police, Fire, and Public Safety Committee, he fought against the Los Angeles Police Department's use of choke-holds and against the department's intelligence activities, which included spying on critics of the department and individuals who held liberal political beliefs. Two of the most intractable problems Zev tackled on the City Council were unrestrained commercial development and traffic congestion. He co- authored Proposition U, which proposed to halve the size of new buildings allowed on most of the city's commercial and industrial property. The initiative passed by a wide margin in 1986. He then worked for Proposition O, which passed in 1988 and blocked Occidental Petroleum Corp.'s long battle to drill for oil along the Los Angeles coastline. Zev served on the Los Angeles City Council until 1994 when he won a seat on the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors. A strong environmentalist, Zev made major significant progress in protecting precious county land. He sponsored the 1996 Proposition A park bond to protect open space and develop urban parks and inner-city recreation programs countywide. He led the effort to acquire more than 7,000 acres of county parkland and worked hard on the purchase of the 588-acre King Gillette Ranch in the Santa Monica Mountains from Soka University. As the largest, most populated county in the United States, Los Angeles County has complex transportation needs. Zev has championed a diversity of transit alternatives to most efficiently and cost- effectively meet the needs of the different communities and geographic make-up of the County. He has worked to bring to densely populated areas subway access and to less densely populated areas light rail and busways. He advanced the Orange Line busway in the San Fernando Valley, which has been tremendously popular. He has fought for the new light rail Expo Line, which, upon completion, will travel from Downtown Los Angeles to Santa Monica. And, he has been a driving force to extend the subway to the Westside of Los Angeles. Zev also led the effort to rebuild and modernize the world famous Hollywood Bowl amphitheater which re-opened in 2004, and he was instrumental in the development of Walt Disney Concert Hall, the home of the L.A. Philharmonic Orchestra. He has also helped fund major investments in the L.A. County Museum of Art and the County's Museum of Natural History. On health care, Zev has worked to secure the viability of our nation's second largest public health system and pushed for reforms that have brought access to care for millions of vulnerable individuals. He led the push for more primary care and strong partnerships that endure today between LA County's public system and primary care clinics throughout the County. He has been a tireless advocate for implementation of the Affordable Care Act and its expansion of Medicaid. Medicaid expansion alone has brought health coverage to more than 300,000 uninsured individuals in LA County. One of Zev's most passionate goals has been the end of homelessness in LA County. In 2007, he initiated Project 50, a pilot project using a ``housing first'' approach for the most chronically homeless individuals on Skid Row. Project 50 was so successful that the VA created Project 60 in Los Angeles and uses the ``housing first'' model to work with veterans who are chronically homeless veterans. Zev showed that it is not only possible to help the dispossessed regain their dignity and their lives, but that it can be done while saving taxpayer dollars. Zev's extensive accomplishments as County Supervisor have touched every part of LA County and improved the lives of every County resident. LA County, the State of California, and our nation owe Zev a debt for his tireless work. I ask all of my colleagues to join me in thanking Zev for his exceptional service and extending to him, his wonderful wife Barbara, and their two children, Mina and David, our very best wishes for the future. ____________________ HONORING THE LIFE AND LEGACY OF LEO ALEXANDER VOSKAN _____ HON. JOHN L. MICA of florida in the house of representatives Thursday, April 10, 2014 Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the legacy and service of Leo Alexander Voskan. From the day he was born in New York in 1915, Leo had a keen thirst for adventure. The son of Armenian immigrants who came to the United States in search of a better life for their family, Leo spent his childhood on the waterfront in New York City. By the time Leo reached High School, he had developed into quite the athlete and was the quarterback for his high school's football team and was also a member of the school's track team. His physical talents extended beyond the athletic field and onto the stage. As an avid dancer, Leo taught dance for the Arthur Murray Studio and was also a competitive dancer at the famous Rainbow Room in New York's Rockefeller Center. While attending New York City College following High School, Leo was forced to leave school and assume the responsibilities of the family's manufacturing business due to his father's failing health. With World War II looming on the horizon, Leo voluntarily enlisted into the U.S. Army for both patriotic and family reasons. Leo's goal was to keep his younger brother George out of the military as long as he possibly could so that he could maintain the family business while Leo went overseas to fight. While serving as a member of the U.S. Army's Signal Corps, his superiors recognized his leadership potential and sent him to Officer's Candidate School where upon his commission he earned the rank of 2nd Lieutenant. Leo was in command of a Combat Engineering Platoon that participated in the Normandy invasion, where despite his leadership; many of his men were lost including his Company Commander. Leo was given a battlefield promotion and assumed Command of the entire Company. In Normandy, Leo's Company fell under the command of General George Patton and went on to liberate France and eventually fought in the Battle of the Bulge. Leo was also involved in the liberation of several concentration camps across Nazi Germany. Upon returning home Leo and his brother George resumed their roles in the family's manufacturing business. During this period, Leo also met the love of his life, Joan. Leo and Joan soon married, moved to the New Jersey suburbs and began their family. Leo was a loving father to four children, Craig, Gail, Lynn and Diane who tragically died of pneumonia at the age of three. [[Page 6228]] In 1952, Leo moved his family to Longwood, Florida to start an orange grove business which was devastated in the freeze of 1958. Always the determined entrepreneur, Leo continued his professional life by starting several businesses's including, a night crawler supply company and a pallet manufacturing company which helped sustain his family. Leo was also passionate about politics and teaching others about business including real estate licensing. Leo's zest for life will always be treasured by those who knew him and his service to our nation will never be forgotten. Mr. Speaker, I ask all Members of the U.S. House of Representatives join me in recognizing the distinguished life and service of Leo Alexander Voskan. ____________________ HONORING SADIE AND DOUG HODO ______ HON. BILL FLORES of texas in the house of representatives Thursday, April 10, 2014 Mr. FLORES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Doug and Sadie Hodo of Texas. In light of their commitment to Christian higher education in Texas, Houston Baptist University is dedicating the Sadie and Doug Hodo Residence College on their campus. Dr. Doug Hodo served as the second President of Houston Baptist University from 1987 to 2006. During that time, Dr. Hodo's wife, Sadie served as First Lady of Houston Baptist University. It is a true honor to acknowledge Doug and Sadie Hodo's service and dedication to Houston Baptist University as well as their commitment to Christian higher education. Under the leadership of Dr. Hodo, Houston Baptist University developed new academic programs and expanded its campus facilities. During his service as president, he created an integrated leadership team that resulted in informed decision making and effective internal communication processes for the University. As First Lady of Houston Baptist University, Sadie Hodo served the university with grace and distinction. On February 18, 2014, the Houston Baptist University Board of Trustees unanimously approved the dedication of the residence college to Doug and Sadie Hodo. The dedication will take place on April 28, 2015. Sadie and Doug Hodo's visionary leadership and extraordinary love for students built Houston Baptist University to be the great University that it is today--and they kept Christ at the center of both the University and their own lives while doing so. God bless Sadie and Doug Hodo and God Bless the United States of America. ____________________ UCONN BASKETBALL WINS ______ HON. ROSA L. DeLAURO of connecticut in the house of representatives Thursday, April 10, 2014 Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise with enormous pride to congratulate the University of Connecticut men's and women's basketball teams on a season of unprecedented athletic achievement. Under coaches Kevin Ollie and Geno Auriemma, the Huskies won both national championships, making UConn the only school to complete this feat twice. The men's team pulled off a gritty title run, defeating St. Joe's, Villanova, Iowa State, Michigan State, Florida, and Kentucky and shocking the nation as a seven-seed. And the women's team continued a tradition of dominance, winning their ninth national championship and going 40-0 this season. This double victory takes more than talent to accomplish. It takes perseverance, sacrifice, and a commitment to the team ideal, and the men and women of UConn have shown each in surpassing measure. They have shown that, through hard work and dedication to a common goal, anything is possible. I congratulate both teams on two amazing victories, and I look forward to seeing them in action again next season. ____________________ PERSONAL EXPLANATION ______ HON. SHEILA JACKSON LEE of texas in the house of representatives Thursday, April 10, 2014 Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, on April 9 and 10, 2014, I was unavoidably detained attending to representational activities in my congressional district, including attendance at the memorial services for the victims of the tragic shooting at Fort Hood and thus unable to return in time for rollcall votes 171 through 177. Had I been present I would have voted as follows: 1. On rollcall No. 171 I would have voted ``no'' (April 9)--(H. Con. Res. 96, Rep. Mulvaney of South Carolina Substitute Amendment No. 1). 2. On rollcall No. 172 I would have voted ``yes'' (April 9)--(H. Con. Res. 96, Congressional Black Caucus Budget, Rep. Moore of Wisconsin Substitute Amendment No. 2). 3. On rollcall No. 173 I would have voted ``yes'' (April 9)--(H. Con. Res. 96, Progressive Caucus Budget, Grijalva of Arizona Substitute Amendment No. 3). 4. On rollcall No. 174 I would have voted ``no'' (April 9)--(H.R. 4414, Expatriate Health Coverage Clarification Act of 2014). 5. On rollcall No. 175 I would have voted ``no'' (April 9)--(H. Con. Res. 96, Rep. Woodall of Georgia Substitute Amendment No. 4). 6. On rollcall No. 176 I would have voted ``yes'' (April 9)--(H. Con. Res. 96, Democratic Alternative Budget (Rep. Van Hollen--Budget)). 7. On rollcall No. 177 I would have voted ``no'' (April 9)--(H. Con. Res. 96, Republican Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Resolution (Rep. Ryan-- Budget)). ____________________ TRIBUTE TO FRANKIE POWELL NEAL ______ HON. JANICE HAHN of california in the house of representatives Thursday, April 10, 2014 Ms. HAHN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the life and legacy of Frankie Powell Neal. Frankie was a loving woman and a devout Christian. She was dedicated to serving others in all aspects of her life. For over 30 years, she cared for our veterans as a nurse at the Long Beach Veterans Hospital and Harbor UCLA Medical Center. Frankie was also the matriarch of a great family that includes three children, eight grandchildren, and ten great grandchildren. I have the distinguished honor of having a strong relationship with her son, Long Beach City Councilman Steve Neal. I know that she would be proud of his achievements and service to the great residents of the community in which he serves. Mr. Speaker, I ask that all members of the House join me in a moment of silence to commemorate the life of Frankie Powell Neal. ____________________ HONORING IOWA ELEMENTARY PRINCIPAL OF THE YEAR KIM TIERNEY ______ HON. BRUCE L. BRALEY of iowa in the house of representatives Thursday, April 10, 2014 Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Kim Tierney on being selected as the Iowa Elementary Principal of the year. Kim serves as the principal at Denver Elementary School which is in my district. Kim was selected because of her leadership in implementing professional learning communities. Mrs. Tierney began her career as a teacher in the Waukee Community School District. She has been the Principal at Denver Elementary for six years. She received her bachelor's degree in elementary and middle school education from the University of Northern Iowa, and her master's degree in educational leadership from Iowa State University. Mrs. Tierney was selected for this award by a committee of Iowa elementary school principals. The National Association of Elementary School Principals will also honor her as a National Distinguished Principal this fall in Washington, D.C. Kim has proven that she is a leader at her school and throughout the Denver community. I'm proud to call her a constituent, and congratulate her on all of her success. ____________________ PERSONAL EXPLANATION ______ HON. ADAM SMITH of washington in the house of representatives Thursday, April 10, 2014 Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on Friday, April 4, 2014, I was unable to be [[Page 6229]] present for recorded votes. I would have voted: ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 157 (on ordering the previous question on H. Res. 539), ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 158 (on agreeing to the resolution H. Res. 539), ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 159 (on agreeing to the Connolly amendment to H.R. 1874), ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 160 (on agreeing to the Israel amendment to H.R. 1874), ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 161 (on agreeing to the Cicilline amendment to H.R. 1874), ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 162 (on agreeing to the Jackson Lee amendment to H.R. 1874), ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 163 (on the motion to recommit H.R. 1874, with instructions), and ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 164 (on passage of H.R. 1874). ____________________ TRIBUTE TO TYLER DE HAAN ______ HON. TOM LATHAM of iowa in the house of representatives Thursday, April 10, 2014 Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate and recognize Tyler De Haan of Principal Financial Group in Des Moines, Iowa for being named a 2014 Forty Under 40 honoree by the award-winning central Iowa publication, Business Record. Since 2000, Business Record has undertaken an exhaustive annual review to identify a standout group of young leaders in the Greater Des Moines area who are making an impact in their communities and their careers. Each year, forty up-and-coming community and business leaders under 40 years of age are selected for this prestigious distinction, which is based on a combined criteria of community involvement and success in their chosen career field. The 2014 class of Forty Under 40 honorees join an impressive roster of 600 business leaders and growing. Originally from Storm Lake, Tyler obtained his bachelor's degree in Political Science from Northwestern University in Orange City and his master's degree in Public Administration from Drake University. As Principal Financial Group's Internal Wholesaler, Tyler has excelled at his role by implementing a new customer relationship management system while increasing the efficiency of his sales territory and sales totals as a whole. Outside of work, Mr. De Haan is an active leader in the Iowa Republican Party serving in leadership roles with the Dallas County Republicans and the 3rd Congressional District Executive Committee. He has also been extensively involved in countless candidates' races as well as organizing the nationally influential Iowa Caucuses. As a member of the Waukee United Methodist Church, Tyler serves on the Finance Committee and as worship leader. Mr. De Haan has also volunteered his time to assist with several fundraising events for the Leukemia Lymphoma Society. Tyler resides in Urbandale with his wife Stacie and their daughter Isabelle. In all aspects of his life, Mr. De Haan is an example of service, hard work, and Iowa values that our state can be proud of. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to represent leaders like Tyler in the U.S. Congress and it is with great pride I applaud Mr. De Haan for utilizing his talents to better both his community and our great state. I invite my colleagues in the House to join me in congratulating Tyler on receiving this esteemed designation, thanking those at Business Record for their great work, and wishing each member of the 2014 Forty Under 40 class continued success.