Al Franken

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. I rise to introduce the Rural Energy for America Program Reauthorization Act, along with my friend Senator Harkin from Iowa. Farmers and rural businesses form the backbone of this country, and rural communities are particularly crucial to Minnesota's culture and economy. In fact, in my State, one out of every five jobs is related to the agricultural economy. We all rely on farmers for our food. It is thanks to farmers that when we go to the grocery store there is an abundance of fresh food at cheaper prices than in many other countries. While family farmers and rural businesses work hard to keep our shelves stocked, they do so under difficult conditions. Weather and disease can wipe out a crop, profit margins can be small, and fluctuating market prices for their products can be devastating to a family farmer. Farm work is also very energy intensive, so when energy and gas prices rise, farmers have to make tough choices. High energy prices mean laying off farm workers, increasing crop prices, if they can, and squeezed budgets all around. To make matters worse, many of our government programs that help manage rising energy prices are under attack and on the budget chopping block. REAP, or the Rural Energy for America Program, can help farmers manage the cost of energy. The bill I am introducing today will reauthorize this important farm bill program that will help farmers and rural small businesses continue to cut energy bills and generate electricity on site. Let me go through a few examples of what REAP projects can look like. It is putting solar panels on barns. It is wind turbines in fields. There are wind turbines all over Minnesota. It is anaerobic digesters on dairy farms which actually use waste to create methane gas and electricity. It means energy efficiency improvements in poultry houses and geothermal pumps in factories. It means agricultural producers and businesses can reduce their costs and generate an additional stream of income. It means rural America can make high-tech investments, create jobs, and lead the world in producing clean energy. I know in the Presiding Officer's State of New Hampshire there is tremendous biomass and potential for energy biomass and the low carbon footprint that represents. The Rural Energy for America Program is a modest program, but it is a wise investment that effectively leverages private funds. Since it was created in 2002, this program has helped almost 6,000 farmers and small businesses across the Nation invest in alternative energy projects. The program has generated or saved enough energy to power about 600,000 homes a year. By providing just $192 million in grants and $165 million in loan guarantees, the program has brought in $800 million in private and State investments. Plus, the Rural Energy for America Program helps create demand for new jobs in rural economies. These are jobs in installation and operations and maintenance work--good jobs that rural America needs. It also bolsters American energy independence and fosters homegrown energy sources such as wind and solar and biomass and geothermal instead of foreign oil. Shirley Hovda's rural wood finishing and coating business, Quality Decorating, in Roseau, MN, is one of the 6,000 that benefited from the Rural Energy for America Program over the years. Roseau, in northern Minnesota, is cold in the winter and in the fall and in the early spring. When Shirley's heating bills spiked, she decided it was time to invest in a geothermal heating and cooling system to reduce costs in her newly constructed 6,000 square foot facility. With the help of a $7,920 grant from the Rural Energy for America Program, she was able to purchase and install the geothermal system in 2008. Over the past 5 years, Shirley has seen her energy bills reduced by 40 percent, saving thousands of dollars she has invested in more productive parts of her business. The bill we are introducing today reauthorizes the Rural Energy for America Program to continue helping farmers and small business owners such as Shirley to make smart investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency. It makes improvements to the program too. While the program has had a fantastic impact on the country's rural economy, farmers tell me they are facing challenges accessing it. So our bill removes barriers while ensuring taxpayer dollars are spent wisely. First, our bill simplifies the application process, making it easier for farmers and small businesses to access the program's grants and loans. The new application process matches the complexity of the application to the size of the project. That way, farmers and the USDA can avoid unnecessary and costly paperwork if the project doesn't warrant it. Second, my bill removes a regulation that currently requires farmers to use the program's funding to install a second electric meter that currently goes unread. In these tight fiscal times, I think it is important that every taxpayer dollar is well spent, so the bill will eliminate this redundancy and remove an unnecessary burden on program participants. Third, our bill requires the USDA to include stronger health and environmental criteria when evaluating potential projects, and it expands startup support and funds for feasibility studies so that farmers and businesses can start projects with sound planning. We are very grateful for the strong support from the agricultural community, including the National Farmers Union, the Minnesota Farmers Union, the Environmental Law and Policy Center, the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, the Agriculture Energy Association, the Distributed Wind Alliance, the Minnesota Corn Growers, and the Minnesota Soybean Growers. With the Chair's indulgence, I have about 30 seconds left. I have an inner clock. I think I am up against my 2 minutes, so I wish to say I am proud to introduce this legislation with Senator Harkin, who is a true champion to farmers here in the Senate. Going forward, I look forward to working with all of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to pass this reauthorization as part of the farm bill. I see Senator Johanns, the former Secretary of Agriculture, on the floor, whom I hope to work with on this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. I rise to introduce the Rural Energy for America Program Reauthorization Act, along with my friend Senator Harkin from Iowa. Farmers and rural businesses form the backbone of this country, and rural communities are particularly crucial to Minnesota's culture and economy. In fact, in my State, one out of every five jobs is related to the agricultural economy. We all rely on farmers for our food. It is thanks to farmers that when we go to the grocery store there is an abundance of fresh food at cheaper prices than in many other countries. While family farmers and rural businesses work hard to keep our shelves stocked, they do so under difficult conditions. Weather and disease can wipe out a crop, profit margins can be small, and fluctuating market prices for their products can be devastating to a family farmer. Farm work is also very energy intensive, so when energy and gas prices rise, farmers have to make tough choices. High energy prices mean laying off farm workers, increasing crop prices, if they can, and squeezed budgets all around. To make matters worse, many of our government programs that help manage rising energy prices are under attack and on the budget chopping block. REAP, or the Rural Energy for America Program, can help farmers manage the cost of energy. The bill I am introducing today will reauthorize this important farm bill program that will help farmers and rural small businesses continue to cut energy bills and generate electricity on site. Let me go through a few examples of what REAP projects can look like. It is putting solar panels on barns. It is wind turbines in fields. There are wind turbines all over Minnesota. It is anaerobic digesters on dairy farms which actually use waste to create methane gas and electricity. It means energy efficiency improvements in poultry houses and geothermal pumps in factories. It means agricultural producers and businesses can reduce their costs and generate an additional stream of income. It means rural America can make high-tech investments, create jobs, and lead the world in producing clean energy. I know in the Presiding Officer's State of New Hampshire there is tremendous biomass and potential for energy biomass and the low carbon footprint that represents. The Rural Energy for America Program is a modest program, but it is a wise investment that effectively leverages private funds. Since it was created in 2002, this program has helped almost 6,000 farmers and small businesses across the Nation invest in alternative energy projects. The program has generated or saved enough energy to power about 600,000 homes a year. By providing just $192 million in grants and $165 million in loan guarantees, the program has brought in $800 million in private and State investments. Plus, the Rural Energy for America Program helps create demand for new jobs in rural economies. These are jobs in installation and operations and maintenance work--good jobs that rural America needs. It also bolsters American energy independence and fosters homegrown energy sources such as wind and solar and biomass and geothermal instead of foreign oil. Shirley Hovda's rural wood finishing and coating business, Quality Decorating, in Roseau, MN, is one of the 6,000 that benefited from the Rural Energy for America Program over the years. Roseau, in northern Minnesota, is cold in the winter and in the fall and in the early spring. When Shirley's heating bills spiked, she decided it was time to invest in a geothermal heating and cooling system to reduce costs in her newly constructed 6,000 square foot facility. With the help of a $7,920 grant from the Rural Energy for America Program, she was able to purchase and install the geothermal system in 2008. Over the past 5 years, Shirley has seen her energy bills reduced by 40 percent, saving thousands of dollars she has invested in more productive parts of her business. The bill we are introducing today reauthorizes the Rural Energy for America Program to continue helping farmers and small business owners such as Shirley to make smart investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency. It makes improvements to the program too. While the program has had a fantastic impact on the country's rural economy, farmers tell me they are facing challenges accessing it. So our bill removes barriers while ensuring taxpayer dollars are spent wisely. First, our bill simplifies the application process, making it easier for farmers and small businesses to access the program's grants and loans. The new application process matches the complexity of the application to the size of the project. That way, farmers and the USDA can avoid unnecessary and costly paperwork if the project doesn't warrant it. Second, my bill removes a regulation that currently requires farmers to use the program's funding to install a second electric meter that currently goes unread. In these tight fiscal times, I think it is important that every taxpayer dollar is well spent, so the bill will eliminate this redundancy and remove an unnecessary burden on program participants. Third, our bill requires the USDA to include stronger health and environmental criteria when evaluating potential projects, and it expands startup support and funds for feasibility studies so that farmers and businesses can start projects with sound planning. We are very grateful for the strong support from the agricultural community, including the National Farmers Union, the Minnesota Farmers Union, the Environmental Law and Policy Center, the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, the Agriculture Energy Association, the Distributed Wind Alliance, the Minnesota Corn Growers, and the Minnesota Soybean Growers. With the Chair's indulgence, I have about 30 seconds left. I have an inner clock. I think I am up against my 2 minutes, so I wish to say I am proud to introduce this legislation with Senator Harkin, who is a true champion to farmers here in the Senate. Going forward, I look forward to working with all of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to pass this reauthorization as part of the farm bill. I see Senator Johanns, the former Secretary of Agriculture, on the floor, whom I hope to work with on this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Madam President, I would like to discuss the votes that we have taken over the last few days. Tuesday, along with 54 of my colleagues, I voted in support of the INVEST In America Act as a substitute for H.R. 3606. In fact, I was an original cosponsor of the INVEST In America Act because it strikes the right balance between promoting entrepreneurship and protecting investors. But before I go into a long explanation, I would like to begin with a story. Bemidji is a town of about 14,000 people in northern Minnesota and might not be the first place you would think of as being a hotbed for start-up investment. But you would be wrong. Three entrepreneurs there, Tina, Bud and Tim, harnessed the power of the Internet and the crowd-sourcing website Kickstarter to raise over $17,000. With that money, they are opening a micro-brewery--the Bemidji Brewing Company. Two hundred and fifty individuals contributed to their efforts--about half of them were friends and family, and half of them were strangers. Many contributors gave $20--and in return, Bemidji Brewing is sending them a bottle opener and decal, and will carve their name into the walls of the future brewery. Bemidji Brewing hopes to have batches out to local establishments this summer. This is an amazing story. And there are thousands of others just like it. I support efforts to promote these types of crowd-sourced endeavors. But we don't need H.R. 3606 to produce more success stories like Bemidji Brewing. Instead, we need a balanced approach--one that limits investor risk and keeps our markets transparent and stable. When the public has the opportunity to contribute to start-up businesses, they should be aware of the risks--what are they getting in return for their money? Investing in securities comes with risks, but those risks are balanced with SEC requirements to provide full information and investor disclosure. H.R. 3606 just has too many problems. H.R. 3606 opens the door for large companies to more easily cook their books. It lets companies with tens of thousands of shareholders evade SEC oversight. It eliminates provisions to prevent conflicts of interest in company research that contributed to the dot com bubble. There are so many downsides and dangers to H.R. 3606 that it will destroy more jobs than it creates. The INVEST In America Act, however, promotes the same ideas contained in H.R. 3606--providing for investment opportunities for small business start-ups, easing the regulatory burden for emerging companies--but does so in a way that protects investors and our markets. Don't take it from me--take it from securities law experts. I have heard from Richard Painter, a professor of corporate law at the University of Minnesota, a former Associate Counsel to President George W. Bush, and Chief White House Ethics Lawyer from 2005 to 2007. Here is what he said about this debate: I strongly support these amendments to the JOBS Act. Reckless and fraudulent conduct in connection with the offer and sale of securities is a large part of what got us into our present economic difficulties. Lowering the bar for the offer and sale of risky securities to the public is no way to get us out. If Congress changes the securities laws at all in this Act, these amendments should be included. The current Chairman of the SEC, Mary Schapiro, has said that one component of H.R. 3606 is ``so broad that it would eliminate important protections for investors in even very large companies.'' Former SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt went much further, calling H.R. 3606 ``a disgrace'' and the ``most investor-unfriendly bill that I have experienced in the past two decades.'' Lynn Turner, former Chief Accountant at the SEC said, ``It won't create jobs, but it will simplify fraud.'' And this is what Mike Rothman, the Commissioner of Minnesota's Department of Commerce, had to say: Too many Minnesotans have suffered too long from unemployment. With nearly 170,000 Minnesotans out of work, our State's highest priorities are supporting economic and business growth and creating jobs. The Jobs bill passed recently by the U.S. House of Representatives strives to achieve much-needed job growth, but contains unwarranted reduction in significant investor protections. The Minnesota Department of Commerce works to prevent securities fraud. Last year, the Commerce Department registered over 7,000 new licenses to broker dealers, agents, and investment advisers and has over 125,000 individuals and entities currently licensed. Through our State registration process, we work to ensure that those selling securities and advising consumers about securities are both knowledgeable and capable. This essential level of oversight helps ensure basic protection of Minnesota investors and consumers. The House version of the Jobs bill threatens to unravel what years of experience teaches us is required to protect investors by curtailing state oversight and, in the interest of protecting our State's capital market, I urge you to support the substitute amendment. Working together, we can make every reasonable effort to create jobs while safeguarding the need for basic and essential measures of consumer protection. That is from Minnesota's Department of Commerce, the primary watchdog for securities in the state of Minnesota. Minnesota's AARP State President, Dr. Lowery Johnson, summarized the issues this way: Older Americans who have saved their entire lives by accumulating savings and investments are disproportionately represented among the victims of investment fraud. This legislation before the Senate undermines vital investor protections and threatens market integrity. Older Minnesotans deserve safeguards that ensure proper oversight and investor protection. We must not repeat the kind of penny stock and other frauds that ensnared vulnerable investors in the past. The absence of adequate regulation in the past has undermined the integrity of the markets and damaged investor confidence while having no positive impact on job creation. Please preserve essential regulations that protect older investors from fraud and abuse, promote the transparency, and ensure a fair and efficient marketplace. We believe the amendment to be offered by Senators Reed, Landrieu and Levin moves closer to achieving this balance and deserves your support. I have also heard from other consumer groups from around the country. The Consumer Federation of America supports the INVEST In America Act, and cautions against H.R. 3606, noting that it would ``undermine market transparency, roll back important investor protections, and, if investors behave rationally, drive up the cost of capital for the small companies it purports to benefit.'' All of these voices--from Minnesota and across the country--shaped my position on these bills. That is why I supported the INVEST In America Act. That is why 55 Senators voted in favor of it. The INVEST In America Act also included reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank, which has supported almost $1.2 billion in export sales in Minnesota over the last 5 years, and well over half of those exporters are small businesses. That is a lot of jobs in Minnesota. We have made some improvements to this bill. The amendment passed in the Senate is better than the language in the House bill. But it still leaves too many opportunities for harm. Here is the bottom line: I strongly support entrepreneurs, I support innovation, and I support job creation. The INVEST In America Act struck the right balance between promoting jobs and entrepreneurship while preserving the integrity that our markets have historically enjoyed. American public companies have benefited from the lowest cost of capital in the world, and this is because of the low risks associated with investing in transparent, well-regulated markets. America is a great place to invest because the entire world has confidence in our markets. If H.R. 3606 increases fraud, or even just investment losses, this bill runs the risk of backfiring completely--decreasing investor confidence and ultimately increasing the cost of doing business. And this will ultimately destroy jobs, not create them. In the end, I couldn't support H.R. 3606 for all those reasons. It is a bill that is going to enable fraud, a bill that turns our securities market into a lottery game, and a bill that will lead to many Minnesotans, especially seniors, losing their hard-earned savings and investments.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

Mr. FRANKEN. Madam President, I would like to join many of my colleagues who are each talking a little bit about the affordable care act, which celebrates its second anniversary of being signed into law by the President tomorrow. Even though the law will not be fully implemented until 2014, millions of Americans and Minnesotans are already enjoying the benefits from important provisions in the law. For example, no child in Minnesota, no child in New Hampshire, and no child in America can now be denied health insurance coverage because he or she has a preexisting condition. Parents across Minnesota and around the country can sleep a little bit easier knowing that if their child gets sick, they will still be able to get the health care coverage they need. That is a big deal. Speaking of parents, young adults can now stay on their parents' health insurance until they are 26. Thanks to the affordable care act, 32,189 young adults in Minnesota are now insured on their parents' policy. Because of this law health insurance companies can no longer impose lifetime limits on health care benefits. Just a few weeks ago, I heard from a Minnesotan in his thirties who has hemophilia. He had already hit his lifetime cap three times, but because of the health care reform law he still has insurance. No American can ever again have their health insurance taken away from them because they have reached some arbitrary lifetime limit, and I am proud of that. Let's talk about seniors. I go to a lot of senior centers around my State. I know the Presiding Officer goes to senior citizen centers around New Hampshire. Because of the health care law more than 57,000 seniors in Minnesota receive a 50-percent discount on their covered brand-name prescription drugs when they hit the doughnut hole, at an average savings of $590 per senior. By 2020, the law will close the doughnut hole entirely. You know who likes that--seniors. You know what else seniors like--the fact that in 2011, 424,000 Minnesotans with Medicare received preventive services without copays, such as colonoscopies and mammograms and free annual wellness visits with their doctors. I could go on and on with what we have already gained, but I wish to talk a little bit about a provision I wrote with the catchy name ``medical loss ratio,'' which is sometimes called the 80/20 rule because of my medical loss ratio provision which I based on a Minnesota law. Health insurance companies must spend 80 to 85 percent of their premiums on actual health care. This is 85 percent for large group policies, 80 percent for small group and individual policies on actual health care, not on administrative costs, marketing, advertisements, CEO salaries, profits but on actual health care. We have already heard the medical loss ratio provision is working. The plan is already lowering premiums in order for companies to comply with the law. For example, Aetna in Connecticut lowered their premiums on an average of 10 percent because of this provision in the law. Another key provision in the law is the value index. The value index rewards doctors for the quality of the care they deliver, not the quantity--for the value of the care, not the volume. My home State, Minnesota, is a leader--if not the leader--in delivering high-value care at a relatively low cost. Traditionally, in Minnesota, our health care providers have been well underreimbursed for it. For example, Texas gets reimbursed 50 percent more per Medicare patient than Minnesota does. This isn't about pitting Minnesota against Texas or Florida, it is about rewarding those low-valued States to become more like Minnesota. Imagine if we brought down Medicare expenditures by 30 percent around the country while increasing its effectiveness. It will bring enormous benefits not just to Minnesota but across the country because it will bring down the cost of health care delivery nationwide, and that is what we need to be addressing, the cost of health care delivery, because we all know bringing down the health care costs is key to getting our long-term deficits in order. In fact, there is probably nothing more important that we can do. That is where the value index is so important. I have gone over a number of the benefits from health care reform that have already kicked in, but I obviously didn't mention them all. According to the Wall Street Journal, health care reform has already added jobs to our economy. I barely touched on the great stuff that kicks in, in 2014, such as the exchanges which will allow individuals and small businesses to pool with others to get more affordable health insurance that is the right fit for them. Of course, while presently no child can be denied health insurance for preexisting conditions, starting in 2014 no American will be denied health insurance or penalized for having a preexisting condition. The Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan agency of Congress, has crunched the numbers and reported that the affordable care act will insure 31 million additional Americans and bring down our national deficit by billions of dollars in its first 10 years and by approximately $1 trillion in its second 10 years. I ask the American people not to fall victim to disinformation. There are no death panels. The affordable care act cuts the deficit. Under this law, businesses under 50 employees don't have to provide insurance for their employees and will not suffer penalties if they don't. They will not have to pay fines and they will not be dragged into prison. There is so much junk out there that is just plain false, and it is doing everyone in this country a giant disservice. My colleagues and I disagree on many things. Can we all at least agree to talk about this law in a factual manner? The benefits of this law are tremendous and Americans across the country are already experiencing it. I urge all my colleagues to acknowledge these benefits and to support the continued implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. (The remarks of Mr. Franken pertaining to the introduction of S. 2225 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Madam President, I would like to associate myself with the words of the Senator from California for the tremendous work she did on the Transportation bill, which is a bipartisan bill that passed overwhelmingly in the Senate.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I rise today also to pay tribute to my colleague, the senior Senator from Maryland, Barbara Mikulski. As everyone has said, this is a landmark, this is a milestone: the longest serving woman Senator and Member of Congress in the history of Congress, serving more than 35 years. As a relatively junior Member of this body, I love Barbara Mikulski. I love her because she calls me ``Franken.'' That is music to my ears. We are in the caucus lunch, I may be in her way, and she says: Franken. I am not only a relatively junior Senator, I actually kind of recently was a comedian at one point. And she is really funny--Barbara. I remember the first time I saw her speak--it was years ago, years ago; I cannot remember what the event was--and I am going to try to quote her joke. It was her joke, remember, about herself. She talked about her first campaign effort. I think it was for city council or something like that. She said: I knocked on 7,387 doors, and I walked a total of 372 miles, and I didn't lose a pound. So I love Barbara. And she is a force--a force--of nature. Being the dean of women here is not her most commanding title. Her most commanding title is: a fighter. She is a fighter. When she commits herself to a cause, she is a true champion. She is a true champion for America's seniors, preserving pensions; of Medicare, defending Medicare--boy, do not attack Medicare around Barbara Mikulski--and combating poverty. No one works harder for quality education, fighting to make sure every child has a quality education, so that child can pursue the American dream. And she is committed to fulfilling our country's promises to our veterans, which is so important, and to increasing community service and voluntarism. As anyone who has watched proceedings here in the Senate knows, Barbara Mikulski, as my colleague from Washington stated, is the greatest champion in the body for women's health. Here is something that is pretty amazing to understand. I want the pages to hear this. She fought to include women in NIH clinical trials. Women were not included in the National Institutes of Health clinical trials until she made sure they were. This is hard to believe, isn't it? But in your 16 years of life, you--at 16, you cannot conceive of this. This is how backward we were. Think of what she did. That is who we are talking about today. She has improved access for women to mammograms and cancer screenings--for all women. She has fought for women to have their own say over their own body and reproductive system. Basically what I am saying is, when you have Barbara Mikulski on your side, you have a strong voice in the U.S. Senate. We have heard reference to her accomplishment on the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. When advocating for this bill, Senator Mikulski said: Women earn just 77 cents for every dollar [their] male counterparts make. Women of color get paid even less. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act will empower women to fight for fair pay by once again making employers accountable for pay discrimination. I will fight on the Senate floor to get this bill passed. And the bill was passed. It was the first bill President Obama signed in office. Senator Mikulski and I share a number of passions. One of them is early childhood education. Increasing early childhood education--access to it--is one of my top priorities because we know over and over that the benefits of early childhood education have been demonstrated. And Barbara knows this. I wanted to have a hearing on just the economic benefits of early childhood education--just the economic benefits--because a child who has a quality early childhood education is less likely to be a special ed kid, is less likely to be left back a grade, has better health outcomes; a girl is less likely to get pregnant before she graduates from high school, a child is more likely to graduate high school, more likely to go to college, more likely to graduate college, more likely to get a good-paying job and pay taxes, and much less likely to go to prison. It has been shown over and over that the cost-benefit is, for every $1 spent, like $16 in return. I wanted to get a hearing just on this. Because we were talking about education, I thought this needed to be discussed, and we needed experts, economists who were credible on this. So I went to Barbara and she, of course, said: Oh, yeah. OK. Let's do it. She is Chair of the Subcommittee on Children and Families. I thought that would be a good place to do it, except I am not on that subcommittee. I am on the HELP Committee, which this is a subcommittee of, but I am not on that subcommittee. She said: OK, that doesn't matter. You come anyway. And not only that but: What witness do you want? She let me pick a witness, Art Rolnick, an expert in early childhood education--on the economics of it--who started out as an economist at the Federal Reserve in Minneapolis and got into the economic benefits of it. She is a true ally. She is someone who used her resources as chairwoman of a committee to make sure something you feel strongly about will be aired, will be discussed. You learn from Barbara that what we do around here is not so much about policy, it is about people. For her, it is about the people of Maryland. She goes to bat for them time and time and time again. It is about kids. And it is about women, who often have to be both the breadwinner and the caregiver, and who should have every right and every opportunity at work and in society that men have. As both a Member of the Senate and as a father of a wonderful daughter, I am enormously grateful to Senator Mikulski for being a tremendous role model to women in this country, for having fought her way to the Senate, and for proving that legislating was not a man's job--or only a man's job--it is a man's job too. This body is so much the richer for her, and Americans are so much better off as a result. But her work, our work is not over. Out of 100 Senators, there are still only 17 women. Our Nation is facing tremendously difficult challenges, and having more women like Senator Mikulski in the room will help us solve those problems. I am glad she is here leading the way. With that, I would like to thank Barbara for her leadership, her friendship, and for being such a fierce advocate. Congratulations, Barbara, on your achievements thus far and on this milestone. I look forward to many years fighting alongside you.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes to remember the life of Minnesota Senator Gary Kubly, who died on Friday, March 2, after a battle with Lou Gehrig's disease. Gary was a model Midwestern politician--one who worked hard, but quietly, on behalf of his constituents. He was a strong voice for the rural communities that he served, communities whose struggles continue to mount and are shared across this country. He cared deeply about issues from agriculture and rural development to education and the environment. In 2010, Gary was diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, more commonly known as Lou Gehrig's disease. As a Lutheran pastor, Gary met his diagnosis with strong faith and determination. He chose to continue his work in public service, always putting his constituents first. Gary wasn't the stereotypical politician whom many disparage so often in today's discourse. He kept his head down and just worked for the people who elected him, reaching across ideological boundaries to do his job. In his 16 years in the Minnesota House and Senate, he didn't seek out the limelight. He simply served as a voice for rural Minnesota, and he was remarkably effective. We in this body have a lot to learn from Gary's style of legislating. Minnesota benefited greatly from his work, and we have lost a hard- working public servant and friend. I would like to conclude with a prayer that Gary read at a Minnesota Farmers Union convention in 2010, which I think is a perfect reflection of his values: Creator God, Redeemer Son and Indwelling Spirit, we thank You for bringing us together this weekend. Be with us as we attempt to move our industry forward in ways that benefit the people of our State and Nation. Help us to see that the decisions we make in caring for the land, marketing local foods, sustaining our resources for all of these things are part and parcel of our call as Your people to care for our neighbor. Help us to embrace once again the values of community that allow us to see our neighbors in the same light that You see them for You have created all of us in equal standing before You. Move us from our tendency to isolate ourselves from one another to seeing our neighbors as benefactors along with us of Your love and grace. Bless us now as we received these gifts of nourishment from Your hand that we might be sustained in our call to care for our neighbor coupled with our own call to farm the land You have given into our keeping. In Your strong name, Amen.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to honor the 125th birthday of South St. Paul, MN. First, I feel the need to clarify for this body that South St. Paul isn't exactly directly south of Saint Paul. West St. Paul is. And I know that's confusing. South St. Paul is closer to Southeast. And West St. Paul is South. And Minneapolis is, of course, West. I'm sure there's a very good reason for the confusing names, but I have no idea what that would be. South St. Paul is the perfect example of the kind of hard-working, Midwestern industrial town that has been the anchor of America. The South St. Paul Stockyards opened in 1886 and eventually grew to be one of the leading livestock centers in the world, with millions of livestock being sold from its pens. A shifting marketplace finally forced the stockyards to close in 2008, but like much of America, South St. Paul has adapted along with the changing world. The stockyards, which had existed since South St. Paul's founding, left an indelible mark on the city even after they closed. The people of South St. Paul are instilled with a hardy work ethic, which will serve the city well in its next 125 years. As a part of the greater Twin Cities metropolitan area where I grew up, I know the sky is the limit for the people of South St. Paul. It is my distinct pleasure to represent them in the United States Senate. Congratulations to the residents of South St. Paul.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about my amendment to the transportation reauthorization bill that I have introduced with Senator Blunt. I am grateful this amendment has been included in the base bill of Leader Reid's substitute amendment. I will take a couple of minutes to explain this amendment. It is a simple commonsense amendment. I am glad it has been accepted. It is also particularly significant to my home State of Minnesota. On August 1 of this year, we will mark the fifth anniversary of the tragedy in my home State of the collapse of the Interstate 35W bridge in Minneapolis. The collapse killed 13 people and injured 145. That tragedy should have been a wake-up call in America and in this body. Bridges should not collapse in the United States of America. Unfortunately, the state of many of our bridges today is still extremely concerning. According to the most recent data compiled by the Federal Highway Administration, one in nine highway bridges in this country is classified as ``structurally deficient.'' Let me say it another way. One of nine bridges in our country needs significant rehabilitation or replacement and requires yearly inspection. In Minnesota alone, more than 1,100 bridges were listed as being structurally deficient. The bill we are debating today consolidates many varied surface transportation programs into five main pots of money. The Highway Bridge Program would be consolidated in the new National Highway Performance Program, and of this new program, 60 percent would have to be spent on restoring National Highway System roads and bridges into a state of good repair. The other 40 percent is more flexible and can be spent on a variety of projects, including Federal-aid highways that are not on the National Highway System, or the NHS. However, if those non-NHS roads have a bridge that needs repair, that project would not have been an allowable use of this flexible pot of money. My amendment, which is now included in the base bill, fixes that. It allows the 40-percent pot of money to be used to repair bridges on non-NHS Federal-aid highways. It is common sense. If roads are eligible for this funding, then bridges along these roads should be eligible as well. This is a no- brainer to me, especially given the poor state of our bridges today. The I 35W bridge collapse was a tragedy. It was a monumental failure of policy. I am determined not to let that happen again. I thank Senator Blunt for joining me in this effort. I also wish to thank Transportation for America and Smart Growth America for their support on this important fix. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. FRANKEN. Madam President, I would like to talk for a moment about religious freedom. Our country was founded on the belief that all Americans should have the right to practice their religious beliefs as long as their faith does not infringe on the rights of others. This concept, which is, I have the freedom to stretch out my hand as far as I can unless I punch Hannah here in the face--I do not have the freedom to do that; that is impinging on Hannah's rights--actually pertains to more than just freedom of religion but our basic concepts of what people's rights are, and this is an idea that is woven through our Constitution and our Bill of Rights. I have the right to choose my profession, where I live, and I have a right to choose my doctor according to my own faith, but I do not have the right to choose yours. When we wrote the health reform bill, we made sure to account for this balance. The health reform law required insurance companies to cover preventive health benefits without copays, and we asked the Institute of Medicine to study which preventive health benefits should be included. Last summer, the IOM--the Institute of Medicine-- recommended to the Department of Health and Human Services that contraceptives should be covered, along with cancer screening, screening for domestic violence, and many other services that have been shown to improve women's health. A number of religious institutions objected to being required to cover contraceptive services as a preventive health benefit for their employees. President Obama heeded their concerns, and he created an exception for churches and other religious institutions. The President went even further by saying that religiously affiliated organizations will not have to pay for contraceptive coverage for their employees. I will say that again. A religiously affiliated, nonprofit employer will not have to pay for contraceptives for their employees--and that was applauded by a lot of Catholic groups, for example--but the employees would have the right to contraception, to exercise their religious rights. And very often, contraception is used as a medical preventive-- I think 15 percent of all use of contraception is to prevent maladies women have. I believe all Americans should be able to freely and fully practice their religious beliefs to the extent their practice does not infringe on the freedom of others. I believe this freedom is at the heart of our society in America. I applaud the President for finding a solution that protects religious freedoms while also providing health care to nearly all women. However, my friend Senator Blunt, with whom I am actually working on a separate transportation amendment, has filed a nongermane amendment that goes much further than the President's accommodation of religious employers. His amendment says that any employer or health insurer could opt out of any essential benefit or preventive service required by the Affordable Care Act. All they have to do is say that their objection is on religious or moral grounds. This amendment would upend how our entire insurance system works. It would allow any employer to opt out of covering any health care service guaranteed to Americans by the Affordable Care Act. This is an unprecedented proposal, one that could change the structure of health care in our country much for the worse. The President found a balanced approach that maintains women's access to health care, while allowing religiously affiliated organizations to opt out of paying for it. On the other hand, Senator Blunt's amendment would allow employers to prohibit health plans from providing preventive health services guaranteed by the Affordable Care Act. For example, under this amendment, an employer could object to covering vaccines for children. There are people in this country--I am sure many of them are employers--who have a moral objection to vaccines, so the plan would not be required to cover it or an employer could choose not to allow an insurer to cover maternity care for a single woman. There are people with moral objections to people having children outside marriage. So the woman would have to pay for her prenatal care and her maternity care out of pocket, if the employer just says: Oh, nope. I have a moral problem with that. Of course, Senator Blunt's amendment ignores the religious freedom of women to be able to access contraceptives. The President's accommodation a couple weeks ago protected the religious freedom of religious organizations, while also protecting the religious freedom of the women who are their employees. Remember, the employees have religious freedom too. The Blunt amendment violates the freedom of women to receive the kind of scientifically proven health care that she chooses--she chooses. This proposal does not simply put women's access to birth control in the hands of their employers, it does not simply allow politics to get between women and their doctors, it changes the way health care is provided in our country. It violates a core belief in our society that our religious decisions are our own and that each of us, every woman and man in our society, has the right to make decisions about our own health for ourselves and for our families. Over the last decade, we have seen proposal after proposal that would politicize the decisions that women make with their doctors. Now we are seeing an all-out attack on women's rights to protect their health by using contraceptives, something that almost all women in this country use at some point in their lives. These women choose to do that. It conforms with their own beliefs about what is best for them. I think we all believe, or almost all of us believe that women should have that right. This seems to be a clear case of one person's religious beliefs impinging on the rights of others. It is a deeply worrying case of one person's hand meeting another's face. I rise to urge my colleagues to fight back against these assaults. I urge my friends on both sides of the aisle to think about this, to respect the decisions that each woman makes about her health care, to protect each woman's religious freedom, her liberty, and to oppose Senator Blunt's amendment to undermine this basic freedom. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. I thank the Senator from Vermont and also the Presiding Officer and the Senator from Rhode Island for engaging in this colloquy that is so important. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues in the Senate to support an extension of the renewable energy production tax credit. This tax credit, slated to expire at the end of this year, has created thousands of jobs for the wind industry, has reduced our dependence on foreign oil, and is hugely important to Minnesota and to the Nation. But because it takes a lot of time to order and manufacture new wind turbines, investors need to know the credit will exist in 2013 or else they will not invest. That is why the credit must be extended now, along with the payroll tax extension and unemployment benefits. If Congress lets the renewable energy production tax credit expire, we will let down the 80,000 people working on wind farms and manufacturing facilities across the Nation, and we may cost this country $10 billion in lost investment. Already, because of uncertainty about the fate of the production tax credit, investment in the wind industry is drying up. America cannot afford to wait any longer. Congress must act now to extend this important measure for American business and manufacturing and, indeed, for the future of our planet. Just a few weeks ago, I received a letter from Terry and Janet Carlson, who run a family farm in Parkers Prairie, MN, and are developing a wind project in their community. They write: Our family believes in renewable energy and the benefits it can provide to our local community. Besides being environmentally friendly, wind energy has proved to be a great economic benefit to the State of Minnesota and small communities such as ours. But the 2012 expiration of the production tax credit has created a high level of uncertainty in the wind industry. . . . We have a significant amount of time and money invested in this project and the production tax credit expiration has a significant impact on our project moving forward. It also has a significant impact on the thousands of renewable energy related jobs in America and the economic boon it would provide to our community. Terry and Janet have good reasons to be concerned. A Navigant Consulting study found that if the tax production credit is not extended, construction of wind turbines will drop by 75 percent in 2013. That means a lot fewer manufacturing jobs and construction jobs. And, in fact, if Congress fails to extend the production tax credit, the wind industry will lose half of its jobs, dropping from 80,000 in 2012 to 41,000 in 2013. That means 39,000 well-paying construction and manufacturing jobs will evaporate if Congress fails to extend this tax credit. What a shame that would be. We have had this discussion. We have had a colloquy before on global warming. As the Senator from Vermont said in his opening remarks, the world community knows this exists. The world scientific community knows where this is going. And so China is doing wind, Germany is doing wind, and Denmark is doing wind. This is the future of our energy. If we stop producing wind energy, we are going to cede this to the rest of the world. If we don't act now, and renew the production tax credit, we are going to lose 40,000 jobs right now, but we are also going to lose the future. On the other hand, this tax policy has major potential for the American economy now and in the future. With a 4-year extension, the production tax credit will continue to support growth in the wind industry, boosting construction of wind farms by 25 percent, and instead of losing 39,000 jobs, an extension of the wind production credit will create 15,000 additional well-paying construction and manufacturing jobs. With the help of the renewable energy production tax credit, the wind industry has been a bright spot in these tough economic times. There are over 400 facilities across 43 States manufacturing for the wind energy industry. Sixteen of these facilities are in Minnesota and support about 3,000 jobs. Currently, a majority of wind industry parts are produced here in America. I think that is so important. We talk about the future of our economy. We talk about all the time here, or at least should be talking about all the time here, the future of our economy. Think about that. Over half of wind energy parts are now produced here in America, whereas in 2005, a quarter of components were made in this country. That is what we have to continue to do. That is the story we want to hear. Instead of exporting manufacturing jobs to other countries, the wind industry has been bringing well-paying, high-tech jobs back to America, where the technology was first invented, and that is thanks to the renewable energy tax credit. If we don't extend this tax credit, we will fail these facilities and the people whose jobs are at stake. As uncertainty about the tax credit deepens, we have already seen that orders to wind manufacturing facilities are slowing down and companies are making layoffs. This is our fault, here in Congress, and it is unacceptable. The longer we wait, the worse the layoffs and shutdowns will become. In fact, if we don't extend the tax credit this month, it will be too late for the wind industry to build any turbines in 2013. Wind turbines are big, and wind farms need to plan and order parts a year in advance. If the wind farms can't depend on the tax credit of 2013, they can't make plans to build for the next year, which means they can't make orders to 400 manufacturing facilities across the country for parts. Because of the uncertainty of the tax credit in 2013, production now in 2012 has already come to a halt. That is why we need to extend this tax credit now, immediately, in the payroll tax package. For the past several months, we have been celebrating reports that the unemployment rate is improving. This is fantastic news. But we can't rest on our laurels yet. We must be sure to enact smart policies that promote businesses and job growth in the parts of the economy that need it most and which are the future. The renewable energy tax credit does just that. It will promote growth in manufacturing and construction--industries that deserve our help the most. America has tremendous wind resources, most of which are still untapped. Take Minnesota, for example. We are ranked fifth in the country for the most installed wind capacity. Yet our wind resources could still provide 25 times more energy. This is a huge opportunity for this country--an opportunity that we can't afford to dismiss. Wind blows all over this Nation. It blows in red States and in blue States alike. It is an abundant, cheap, clean energy resource that is proving to be a boon to our economy. We cannot stop developing it now. I urge my colleagues to extend the renewable energy production tax credit immediately, at the same time we extend the payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits. I want to thank the Presiding Officer for his leadership, and I want to thank the Senator from Vermont and the Senator from Rhode Island, and so many others, who are leading this fight. This is smart on an economic basis, but we are facing a crisis that scientists around the world agree on. I yield to the Senator from Vermont. I have said what I wanted to say about the wind production tax credit and the other renewable energy tax credits. I thank the Senator from Vermont for his leadership.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended until 6 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each with the Republicans controlling the time from 4 to 5 p.m. and the majority controlling the time from 5 to 6 p.m.; further, that the majority leader be recognized at 6 p.m.

Mr. FRANKEN. I yield the floor.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 7, 2012, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. FRANKEN. 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, to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Promise of Accessible Technology: Challenges and Opportunities'' on February 7, 2012, at 2:30 p.m., in room G-50 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 7, 2012, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 7, 2012, at 10 a.m.

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 7, 2012, at 3 p.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to consider a Chairman's Mark entitled, ``The Highway Investment, Job Creation and Economic Growth Act of 2012.''

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, Sue Lantto is an advocate of victims of domestic violence. She often visits a local courthouse in suburban Minneapolis to help her clients obtain protective orders. Last month, she wrote an editorial in which she acknowledged that ``[m]ost of us who work at the courthouse have had moments when we were frightened'' because cases sometimes ``become volatile.'' Patricia Buss handles family court matters in Dakota County, MN. She says she ``personally think[s] of the risks every time [she] walk[s] into the courthouses.'' John Baker is an attorney in Maplewood, MN. He is also a retired marine. He concurs with Sue and Patricia. He says: I am not saying that we need to create fortresses in our courthouses, but basic security screening and training can go a long way. That is not being done. The local courthouse is a workplace for many people, for secretaries, custodians, and clerks who clock in and clock out every day. It is also where justice is administered. It is where we report for jury duty and fight traffic tickets. It is where adoptions are processed, divorces are finalized, and misdemeanors are adjudicated. But as Sue, Patricia and John explained, local courthouses can be dangerous places--stakes are high, tempers flare, victims confront their assailants, defendants confront their accusers, prosecutors argue with defense lawyers. A rash of incidents in late 2011 raised concerns about security at local courthouses, especially in rural and suburban communities. In September, a defendant opened fire in the Crawford County Courthouse in Arkansas, shooting a judge's secretary. Authorities reported the gunman entered the courthouse unopposed, wearing tactical gear, armed with semiautomatic weapons. The local newspaper later noted the shooting ``highlighted the vulnerability of the state's many small, rural courthouses where the guards, armed police and metal detectors common in large cities are often too expensive.'' Two days later, there was a shooting in the Adams County Superior Court in Indiana. According to media accounts, that courthouse did not have a metal detector either. A local judge observed that there were ``a lot of security problems here that need to be corrected'' and that the shooting ``really drove home the point that things need to change.'' Then, in December, a defendant retrieved a gun from his car and walked into the Cook County Courthouse in Grand Marais, MN. The courthouse did not have a metal detector and the gunman was not screened. He shot and wounded the prosecuting attorney and a witness. The bailiff also was injured during the encounter. After the shooting, a Minnesota judge wrote to his colleagues expressing concerns about courthouse security. He put the issue very well. He said: ``I'm no longer willing to risk my life, the life of court staff, the life of the public who have no choice about going to court.'' He said he was worried about being ``carried out in a body bag.'' These are not isolated incidents. The Center for Judicial and Executive Security in St. Paul tracks court-targeted acts of violence across the Nation and estimates there were 23 such incidents at local courthouses in 2010 and 2011 or about 1 per month. This is not the first time we have confronted this issue in Minnesota. A few years ago, a man took hostages at the courthouse in Morrison County. After the shooting in Grand Marais, in December, a local sheriff recalled that ``[t]here were a lot of heroes who really averted something much more serious.'' I am grateful for those heroes. Minnesota's sheriffs and law enforcement personnel across our Nation are among them. These brave men and women have many duties, including the daunting task of keeping our local courthouses safe. In fact, the National Sheriffs Association sent me a letter last week. I think it is worth noting, so let me read it. Sheriffs are typically responsible for the safety and security of the local courthouses in their counties--along with performing traditional law enforcement duties and operating the local jails. Sadly, in recent years, there has been a spike in violent incidents in courthouses across the country. This violence places law enforcement, judicial personnel, and the general public in harm's way. As such, it is imperative that sheriffs have the resources, particularly in rural areas where resources are extremely limited, to ensure courthouses have the appropriate equipment and tools necessary to improve security, enabling for the protection of courthouses throughout the United States. Our sheriffs need support, and we should not wait for the next courthouse shooting before we give it to them. That is why today I am introducing the bipartisan Local Courthouse Safety Act. It does three simple, commonsense things. First, the bill cuts through bureaucratic redtape, giving local courts direct access to security equipment that Federal agencies no longer are using. This provision is modeled after a Defense Department program that allows the Pentagon to give its excess equipment to local police and firefighters. The Local Courthouse Safety Act would do the same thing for local courts. It would give them direct access to the Federal Government's excess metal detectors, wands, and baggage screening machines. Second, the Local Courthouse Safety Act gives States the flexibility they need to make investments in courthouse security. It clarifies that States may use their Byrne Justice Assistance grants, the Byrne JAG grants, and State Homeland Security grants to improve safety at local courthouses. The bill does not require any new spending, and it does not impose any new mandates on anyone. It simply says that States can use existing Federal resources for courthouse security upgrades if they so choose. Finally, the Local Courthouse Safety Act provides statutory authorization for the Justice Department's VALOR Initiative, which provides training and technical assistance to local law enforcement officers teaching them how to anticipate and survive violent encounters. This is a bipartisan issue, and this should be legislation we can pass even in this divided Congress. I am proud to introduce this legislation with Senator Boozman, my Republican colleague from Arkansas, and a champion for law enforcement personnel in his State and across the country. I encourage my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to join Senator Boozman and me in advancing this bill. In doing so, they will join a long and growing list of groups who support it, including the National Sheriffs Association, the Conference of Chief Justices, and the Conference of State Court Administrators. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, Sue Lantto is an advocate of victims of domestic violence. She often visits a local courthouse in suburban Minneapolis to help her clients obtain protective orders. Last month, she wrote an editorial in which she acknowledged that ``[m]ost of us who work at the courthouse have had moments when we were frightened'' because cases sometimes ``become volatile.'' Patricia Buss handles family court matters in Dakota County, MN. She says she ``personally think[s] of the risks every time [she] walk[s] into the courthouses.'' John Baker is an attorney in Maplewood, MN. He is also a retired marine. He concurs with Sue and Patricia. He says: I am not saying that we need to create fortresses in our courthouses, but basic security screening and training can go a long way. That is not being done. The local courthouse is a workplace for many people, for secretaries, custodians, and clerks who clock in and clock out every day. It is also where justice is administered. It is where we report for jury duty and fight traffic tickets. It is where adoptions are processed, divorces are finalized, and misdemeanors are adjudicated. But as Sue, Patricia and John explained, local courthouses can be dangerous places--stakes are high, tempers flare, victims confront their assailants, defendants confront their accusers, prosecutors argue with defense lawyers. A rash of incidents in late 2011 raised concerns about security at local courthouses, especially in rural and suburban communities. In September, a defendant opened fire in the Crawford County Courthouse in Arkansas, shooting a judge's secretary. Authorities reported the gunman entered the courthouse unopposed, wearing tactical gear, armed with semiautomatic weapons. The local newspaper later noted the shooting ``highlighted the vulnerability of the state's many small, rural courthouses where the guards, armed police and metal detectors common in large cities are often too expensive.'' Two days later, there was a shooting in the Adams County Superior Court in Indiana. According to media accounts, that courthouse did not have a metal detector either. A local judge observed that there were ``a lot of security problems here that need to be corrected'' and that the shooting ``really drove home the point that things need to change.'' Then, in December, a defendant retrieved a gun from his car and walked into the Cook County Courthouse in Grand Marais, MN. The courthouse did not have a metal detector and the gunman was not screened. He shot and wounded the prosecuting attorney and a witness. The bailiff also was injured during the encounter. After the shooting, a Minnesota judge wrote to his colleagues expressing concerns about courthouse security. He put the issue very well. He said: ``I'm no longer willing to risk my life, the life of court staff, the life of the public who have no choice about going to court.'' He said he was worried about being ``carried out in a body bag.'' These are not isolated incidents. The Center for Judicial and Executive Security in St. Paul tracks court-targeted acts of violence across the Nation and estimates there were 23 such incidents at local courthouses in 2010 and 2011 or about 1 per month. This is not the first time we have confronted this issue in Minnesota. A few years ago, a man took hostages at the courthouse in Morrison County. After the shooting in Grand Marais, in December, a local sheriff recalled that ``[t]here were a lot of heroes who really averted something much more serious.'' I am grateful for those heroes. Minnesota's sheriffs and law enforcement personnel across our Nation are among them. These brave men and women have many duties, including the daunting task of keeping our local courthouses safe. In fact, the National Sheriffs Association sent me a letter last week. I think it is worth noting, so let me read it. Sheriffs are typically responsible for the safety and security of the local courthouses in their counties--along with performing traditional law enforcement duties and operating the local jails. Sadly, in recent years, there has been a spike in violent incidents in courthouses across the country. This violence places law enforcement, judicial personnel, and the general public in harm's way. As such, it is imperative that sheriffs have the resources, particularly in rural areas where resources are extremely limited, to ensure courthouses have the appropriate equipment and tools necessary to improve security, enabling for the protection of courthouses throughout the United States. Our sheriffs need support, and we should not wait for the next courthouse shooting before we give it to them. That is why today I am introducing the bipartisan Local Courthouse Safety Act. It does three simple, commonsense things. First, the bill cuts through bureaucratic redtape, giving local courts direct access to security equipment that Federal agencies no longer are using. This provision is modeled after a Defense Department program that allows the Pentagon to give its excess equipment to local police and firefighters. The Local Courthouse Safety Act would do the same thing for local courts. It would give them direct access to the Federal Government's excess metal detectors, wands, and baggage screening machines. Second, the Local Courthouse Safety Act gives States the flexibility they need to make investments in courthouse security. It clarifies that States may use their Byrne Justice Assistance grants, the Byrne JAG grants, and State Homeland Security grants to improve safety at local courthouses. The bill does not require any new spending, and it does not impose any new mandates on anyone. It simply says that States can use existing Federal resources for courthouse security upgrades if they so choose. Finally, the Local Courthouse Safety Act provides statutory authorization for the Justice Department's VALOR Initiative, which provides training and technical assistance to local law enforcement officers teaching them how to anticipate and survive violent encounters. This is a bipartisan issue, and this should be legislation we can pass even in this divided Congress. I am proud to introduce this legislation with Senator Boozman, my Republican colleague from Arkansas, and a champion for law enforcement personnel in his State and across the country. I encourage my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to join Senator Boozman and me in advancing this bill. In doing so, they will join a long and growing list of groups who support it, including the National Sheriffs Association, the Conference of Chief Justices, and the Conference of State Court Administrators. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Franken pertaining to the introduction on S. 2076 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.