Bob Menendez

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I am compelled to answer because now I hear about fraud and $25 billion. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot say this amendment costs money--what the Joint Committee on Taxation said is it could not determine a revenue score. And it is important to point out that this amendment does not spend an additional dime. And the only reason--the only reason--this amendment would have a revenue effect would be if the offset increases health insurance costs or cuts coverage for small businesses. Otherwise, there is no issue. So you can't have it both ways. Either there is an admission that it is going to cost small businesses more, cost taxpayers more, or it is not. That is No. 1. No. 2, this is not about fraud. This is not about someone seeking something they did not have the right to receive. Fraud is individuals who are deliberately underreporting their income or fraudulently trying to get extra support. That is not what we do. Those enforcement provisions in the law to combat fraud and abuse are untouched by my amendment. This is simply about someone who honestly got a subsidy. And we have a provision in the law that deals with how they pay back, but it doesn't throw them over the cliff and send them a surprise $10,000 tax bill. So that is simply not exactly quite the same thing. Yes, the doc fix--we did use a provision to deal with the SGR with the doc fix, but we did not put small businesses and families at harm, as H.R. 4 does. So the reality is that this amendment permits repeal to move forward. After the repeal, a study is done. If there is no harm, if it supposedly does not cost small businesses any more money, does not drive up insurance costs, does not cost the taxpayer maybe $10,000 or $12,000, fine. But if it does, then we would ultimately not have that harm come upon small businesses, come upon individual taxpayers with a surprise bill. And we could, of course, if that is the end result, which we don't know--that is why the Joint Tax Committee could not come up with a determination. We will not know until the study is done. Instead of having a risky venture, let's have the actual facts. Repeal will have gone through. We can protect small businesses and those taxpayers, and, if necessary, we can find a different offset. If they are wrong and I am right, that this concern about taxpayers getting a surprise bill and small businesses having greater insurance costs is true, then we will protect them and we can look for a different offset at the time. Repeal will have taken place no matter what. Why would you not want to protect small businesses and taxpayers from getting a surprise bill? That is all my amendment does, and that is why I urge its passage.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I rise to call up amendment No. 284, cosponsored by Senators Kerry and Rockefeller, which is at the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I know we often read that Democrats and Republicans cannot agree. Here is a news flash: We agree on repealing 1099. I have listened to my three distinguished colleagues spend a lot of their time talking about repeal of 1099. We absolutely agree. I have voted six times to do that. That is not an issue. What is an issue, and my distinguished colleague from Nebraska--with whom I have worked with before in passing some important legislation, and I have a great deal of respect for him--talked about a victory for small business. I agree. But I want a total victory for small business, and a total victory for small business is not repealing 1099 and then giving them a bigger tax bill for their employees or raising the cost of insurance for that small business. A real victory is an opportunity to make sure we repeal 1099--my amendment clearly has 1099 repeal going forward--but then does a study that says if small businesses are going to face higher costs or their employees are going to face a $10,000 tax bill, then that part of it should not proceed. If I am wrong, nothing will happen. The study will come. They will say: No, small business is not going to have an increase; no, taxpayers are not going get a surprise tax bill. Then the repeal will have already gone through and there is no foul, no harm. But if I am right, then voting against my amendment is voting for a tax bill for middle- class families, voting to increase insurance on small businesses. The issue about going quickly to the President, first of all, is a priority. So if we pass this, this is not, as has been suggested, an alternative; it is just a single amendment to the existing bill on a provision that allows for the repeal to go through but makes sure small businesses and individuals do not get higher costs. That can go to the House. The House can pass it and send it to the President--away we go; we do not have a problem. Helping small businesses by reducing their paperwork while at the same time driving up health care costs and forcing coverage cuts for small businesses is simply not good policy. In all fairness, I did not hear voices rise up when this bill was being delayed over the last week by some of my Republican colleagues trying to get their amendments considered, and those amendments were extraneous to small business. So we either have a double standard here or a desperate attempt to defeat what I think is a good amendment. The House could have taken up the amendment, H.R. 4, and passed it into law by now. So I think it is somewhat disingenuous to have an argument that says we can't afford one amendment to proceed on this bill when our colleagues, at the beginning of this Congress, made a big production about a full debate and an open amendment process on all things considered on the Senate floor, but when there is one amendment that is meant to protect taxpayers and small businesses, oh, no, that is going to create an inordinate delay, after we had well over a week of delays by Republican colleagues seeking extraneous amendments to a small business bill. Please. Now, I love Senator Hatch's jalopy. I remember that movie, took my family to see it. But the worst jalopy would be taking away 1099 and then going ahead and giving small businesses higher costs and a higher tax bill for individuals. That is a real jalopy. That is a lemon. So we have an opportunity to take away and undo and repeal the 1099. My amendment permits that to go forward but at the same time makes sure small businesses do not get hurt. How will they get hurt? How may they get hurt? Well, a lot of States, for example, are considering whether to combine their small business and individual pools. For States that combine their pools, small businesses could see an increase in premium costs. The healthiest people with little to no health care costs will have the most flexibility to decide whether to purchase coverage, and they may simply pay the mandate penalty versus the potential for a $10,000 to $12,000 tax bill. With more healthy people opting out of buying insurance, the pool of people who ultimately enroll in the exchanges that would consist of, on average, less healthy individuals--that is going to push up the premiums for everybody else buying insurance in the exchanges, including small businesses and employees. That is only one example. The other problem is, when you are facing your constituents, I hope you are ready to tell them that through no fault of their own--when they had a job, they lost their job, you know, 6 months into the year, and they face the fact that they are still over the amount, and now they are going to get a $10,000 tax bill or, on the contrary, they didn't have a job when they got the subsidy, and then they got a job in the middle of the year and they are a dollar over the amount, and they are going to face a $10,000 tax bill. Is that what we want to do, send that type of bill to families? Finally, I appreciate hearing Senator Hatch say this is a downpayment on total repeal of the health care law. Well, you know, if we are going to do that, if that is what this is really all about, this is not helping small businesses. Helping small businesses means we repeal 1099 and don't increase their costs and don't send their employees a $10,000 or higher tax bill. So this is about, in my mind, making sure there is a win-win for small businesses because if we want to repeal the health care law, then that is about making sure we go back to preexisting conditions where a husband who had a heart attack on the job can no longer get insurance; where a child born at birth with a defect cannot get insurance; where a woman was facing 150-percent higher premiums than a man simply because she was a woman; where, in fact, you couldn't keep your child, up to age 26, on your insurance as they are going through school; where, in fact, we could close the prescription drug coverage for seniors. If that is what we are talking about, that is a different subject, and we can have that debate. But this debate is about making sure we repeal 1099 and making sure small businesses do not get higher costs and their employees do not get a tax penalty. I think everybody should want to be for that. We can send it straight to the House. The House can pass this version and send it to the President. That is ultimately the opportunity here. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment. That is why the Main Street Alliance, which also supports businesses, says: Our small business owners are very supportive of efforts to remove the imposition of the new 1099 reporting requirements. We cannot, however, accept a pay-for that undermines other important provisions of the law that helps small businesses and contains costs. My amendment ensures that we do both--repeal 1099 and not put the burden on small businesses in terms of higher health insurance costs, and their employees. I urge passage of my amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

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

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following staff of the Finance Committee be allowed on the Senate floor for the duration of the debate on H.R. 4: Andrew Fishburn and Eric Roberts.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, later, as we move to the bill on small business, I will be offering, I hope, a second-degree amendment to the amendment offered by Senator Johanns, and I speak today on behalf of middle-class families and on behalf of small businesses. I wish to start by saying that I fully support--as I have already done in a series of votes--repealing the 1099 reporting requirement, but I strongly believe we have to do so in a manner that does not--does not--increase the burden on our small businesses and employees. The amendment of Senator Johanns certainly helps only small businesses through the repeal of the 1099 provision, but--and this is less well- known--I believe it actually hurts small business employees. It is a double-edged sword. The Johanns amendment risks driving up health insurance costs and cutting health insurance coverage for small businesses. As you know, the affordable care act provides tax credits to families who earn under $74,000 per year to help them purchase health insurance. Those tax credits are set at the start of the year. At tax time, when families actually report their annual income, the tax credits are reconciled with their annual household income to ensure they receive the correct amount of assistance. But because income and other family circumstances can change during the course of a year, individuals might end up getting excess tax credits even though the amount of the payment was correct at the time. For example, a family with an unemployed worker who secures a job at a small business midway through the year--and, hopefully, can do so, as we continue to work on this economy to have it grow--has rightfully received a tax credit while unemployed but could face a stiff tax hike to repay the amount of the subsidy because the family's annual income ends up higher for the second half of the year. This family received the correct amount and did nothing wrong. Let me say that again. These individuals did nothing wrong. While unemployed, these individuals needed those tax credits to be able to get health insurance. That is why we passed this reform, to help those very same middle-class working families in need. Now, under current law, we provide a reasonable repayment requirement if the tax credit an individual receives exceeds the amount they should have received because of unexpected changes in income or family status. We don't give them a pass, but we don't expect all families with an annual income of $70,000 to have $10,000 in savings to pay the surprise tax bill they will get in April, either. So we set caps on what they would have to pay back depending on what they earn. The Johanns amendment makes harmful changes to these repayments for middle-class families. Under the Johanns amendment, some families could have to pay back as much as $12,000 in some cases, and that is too high a price. We shouldn't ask small business employees to take that much of a hit. They are the ones who are going to the exchanges to purchase coverage. They are the ones working for the mom-and-pop shop that doesn't offer coverage. My amendment isn't about these families alone, however, as difficult a situation as they may be in. This amendment is about what the Johanns offset could do to health care costs and coverage for small businesses and for those who make their living from small businesses. This risky offset could drive up premiums and force more individuals to refuse coverage. We are not talking about paying back tax credits; we are talking about driving up the costs on families and small businesses, many who have never even taken a tax credit to begin with. My amendment would simply direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to decide the offset in the Johanns amendment and determine its effect on small business. What is so wrong about that--determining its effect on small business? We are trying to help small businesses by eliminating the 1099 provision. Let's make sure we continue to help them and not put extra costs on them. Specifically, we want to determine whether there is an increase in health insurance costs or a decrease in health coverage for small businesses. If the study finds either, then current safe harbor provisions would remain in effect--the same safe harbors we supported in the SGR bill, or the doc fix, in December. Passing 1099 would not be affected. That would move forward. So the claim that somehow, ultimately, 1099 wouldn't be eliminated is false. The 1099 would not be affected. That would move forward. We would eliminate that responsibility from small businesses. So you can be both for my amendment and the Johanns amendment because it would still repeal 1099. Let me make it clear. We all want 1099 repealed, and I have voted in a series of ways to do exactly that. My amendment does not in any way affect or delay the repeal of 1099. The only potential change my amendment makes would be to the risky offset in the underlying amendment and only if this study finds that it actually hurts small businesses. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have come to the floor arguing that a study would simply delay repeal of 1099; that further studying this risky offset would prolong the 1099 issue; that if we just passed the amendment without protecting small businesses, this bill can go right to the President. Well, we have actually passed 1099 repeal already and shown we have the votes necessary to make this become law. It is not going to the President to become law in this bill because this bill hasn't even cleared the House. At the same time, I have heard no mention of what this offset could do to small businesses and their health care costs--not one word. I did hear that further studying the impacts it may have on small businesses would only delay repeal of 1099. A simple read of my amendment would be enough to know that is incorrect. My amendment directs a study to be done after--after--repeal of 1099 is signed into law. Let me make it clear. Nothing in my amendment slows down repeal of 1099. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are also trying to frame this debate as either you are for or against small businesses. But they are helping and harming them at the same time with the Johanns amendment. With this second-degree amendment, we can have a conversation about helping small businesses and ensuring that small business employees will not get hurt at the end of the day. Now, we haven't had the Joint Tax Committee determine a revenue score as yet, but it is important to point out that this amendment does not spend--does not spend--an additional dime. It simply protects small businesses from higher health care costs and coverage cuts. If there is any revenue score associated with it, that would only be due to the study finding that this offset drives up health care costs or drives down health coverage for small businesses. Would we not want to know that? We are all here supposedly arguing to try to enhance the opportunity for small businesses to have less burdens, to be able to grow, to be able to prosper, to be able to create jobs. Well, we certainly would want to know--we certainly would want to know whether this offset drives up health care costs associated with small businesses or drives down the health care coverage for small businesses. Why is anyone afraid of that? Why is anyone fearful of that? So to those who may consider opposing my amendment, think of this: On the one hand, if you do not believe this offset will hurt small businesses, there is no harm in voting for it because you believe the study will not show premium increases or coverage cuts. So the offset would remain in place. If you believe my amendment would have a revenue score, then you are assuming the offset hurts small businesses. It is one way or the other, not a gray area. The idea of protecting small businesses in this manner has precedent. I have a history working across the aisle to support small businesses, including cosponsoring a Republican amendment to the Wall Street reform bill which requires regulators to ensure new rules do not harm small businesses. We thought it was a good idea then to protect small businesses in the event new rules might unfairly impact them. I strongly believe we should come together now to protect small businesses if this risky offset drives up health care costs on small businesses or forces cuts in their coverage. I would just simply ask, who in the world, especially during these fragile economic times, would want to do anything that could raise costs on small businesses? Let's protect them and the 1099 repeal by supporting my second-degree amendment. Now, I listened to my colleague from Nebraska with whom I have worked on some bipartisan efforts on housing for the disabled. We get along very well. I respect him, and actually I supported 1099 repeal as one of the 20 Democrats who voted for his amendment in November and other issues such as housing for the disabled. So it is with some regret that we find ourselves in a different view. There have been questions raised about the sincerity of our opposition to the manner in which the offset is included in the Senator's amendment. The Senator from Nebraska says an almost identical offset was passed unanimously by the Senate just 4 months ago. I think our definitions of ``almost identical'' are very different. Yes, it is true we made changes in the payback tax to pay for the doc fix in December, but that provision was very different from the one we are debating today. The one today, unlike before, removes protections we included in December in the doc fix to protect families from unlimited tax liability which could be as high as $12,000. I mean, you are talking about taxing these families, through no fault of their own. What family of three making $74,000 annually, gross, can afford an unexpected $12,000 tax bill in April? I cannot think of many. But that is exactly what could happen under the Senator's amendment. That was not the case--not the case--in the provision that was enacted at the end of last year in the doc fix. We provided a phaseout that would have avoided this clip and thus tax shock on middle-class families. The Senator from Nebraska also said my second-degree amendment was just a delay tactic. That simply is not true. I and 80 of my colleagues have already passed 1099 repeal in the Senate this year. So to question our support for 1099 repeal would be misleading. My understanding is that the Johanns proposal is an amendment to the small business bill we are debating, which has not passed the House. So this amendment we are debating today would not go directly to the President for his signature. It still needs to go through the whole process of the House. We are not delaying anything in that regard. Finally, the only way there would be any revenue shortfall--I say to those who would make the assertion that our amendment creates a revenue shortfall, well, then, what you have to be saying, if you make that statement, is you believe the savings from the Johanns offset comes from increasing premiums and reducing coverage on those who earn it through making our Nation's small businesses run. That is not a proposition I think they want to assert. So I will come back to the floor later to offer this second-degree amendment. And because it works to both repeal 1099 and ensure there is not a tax on our small businesses and small business employees or a diminution of health care coverage, I am sure we will get the support of our colleagues. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

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

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. MENENDEZ

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

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 20 minutes.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I understand we are in a period of morning business.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, as someone who voted to freeze salaries, to end earmarks in this budget process, as someone who has already voted to cut $45 billion from the budget, I rise today in recognition that business as usual cannot continue. I recognize the critical importance of addressing our Federal deficit--a deficit, I would add, inherited by this administration, a deficit driven by two wars, both unpaid for, and the unprecedented need for governmental action to mitigate the wild excesses of Wall Street and American financial markets, excesses that were effectively condoned by the last administration, whose policies took this Nation to the brink of a second Great Depression and cost millions of American jobs. I never forget that time in late 2008 when Chairman Bernanke, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, came before members of the Banking Committee and members of the leadership and described the circumstances that were unfolding in the country in which a series of financial institutions, according to Chairman Bernanke and then-Secretary Paulson, the Secretary of the Treasury--they said: We are going to have a series of financial institutions collapse, and if they collapse, they will create systemic risk to the entire country's economy, and every American will feel the consequences of that collapse. I remember how hushed that room was. I remember also the question being put to Chairman Bernanke: Surely you must have enough tools at the Federal Reserve to get us through this period of time. I remember the response to that question, which was basically: Senator, if you and your colleagues do not act in a matter of days, maybe a week, we will have a global financial meltdown, which really meant a new depression. Chairman Bernanke is an academician. His expertise is in depression- era economics, how this Nation got into the last depression, how Roosevelt got us out of it. So when he made that statement, it was all the more chilling. It is from that moment in 2008, before this President took office and Democrats were in full control here, that, in fact, we were facing the challenges we are today. Those of us who believe in a free market also know you cannot have a free-for-all market. We had economic policies for the Bush 8 years, two wars raging abroad, an unregulated market that allowed for the free- for-all that brought us on the brink of a new depression, and that is what we are meeting the challenges of today. Those choices then and the choices we make, what we choose to cut and what we determine is in our interest, will speak volumes about our values, our priorities as a people and as a Nation. Mr. President, I favor smart cuts, not dangerous ones. In an independent analysis of H.R. 1, which we are going to be voting on tomorrow--the Republican vision of where we should take the country-- shows we are losing about 700,000 jobs. But we are trying to grow jobs in America. We have finally gotten into positive gross domestic product of our Nation's economy. We are seeing job growth. I would like to see it be even more robust, but H.R. 1 takes us back the opposite way and threatens the very essence of this economic recovery--700,000 jobs. Don't believe what I say because I say it is so, but because those in the know say it--Ben Bernanke: ``The GOP's plan will cut jobs.'' Economist Mark Zandi: ``The GOP plan would cost 700,000 jobs.'' Here is another analysis: House spending cuts will hurt economic growth. So what we have is economist after economist telling us that H.R. 1 is a recipe for disaster when it comes to the question of jobs in America. That analysis which says we would slash 700,000 jobs directly impacts the lives of middle-class and working families struggling to get back on their feet. They are severe cuts that run roughshod over the green shoots of economic recovery just to satisfy a political agenda. I favor smart commonsense cuts--cuts made with a surgeon's knife not a meat ax; cuts that are thoughtful, surgically precise cuts that actually reduce the deficit, not cuts that eliminate jobs and disinvest in educational opportunities for millions of promising young Americans, not cuts that hurt middle-class families struggling to make ends meet, make our workforce less competitive, our communities less safe, and strip away basic protections Americans have come to take for granted. In my view, we can preserve our values and invest in the future, invest in out-educating, out-innovating, out-greening, and out-growing the world and still cut the deficit. To begin with, Secretary Gates of the Department of Defense has identified $78 billion in defense spending cuts alone. He has identified $178 billion in program reductions over 5 years, including delaying or terminating high-profile weapon systems. I agree with Secretary Gates that we can live without the Marine Corps variant of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter as well as the Marine Corps Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle. The Secretary has identified $54 billion in cuts in overhead costs and improved efficiency across defense agencies and the civilian bureaucracy by reducing the number of defense contractors and wholly redundant intelligence organizations, among other improvements. Again, these are smart decisions that do not burden military families or affect our defensive capabilities. I would add to that list of smart defense cuts the elimination of $1.75 billion for the F-22 aircraft and $439 million for an alternative engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program, a cut for which I voted. These, among others, are smart cuts. But I think it is a mistake to pursue a budget-cutting strategy that costs this Nation 700,000 jobs through 2012, as the Republican plan will do--20,000 of those jobs from my home State of New Jersey, including more than 3,000 community health center jobs and 3,400 transportation and infrastructure jobs. Another smart cut would be to do away with corporate subsidies that do nothing but pad the profits of companies that do not need them to be profitable and grow. We can repeal, for example, oil subsidies, as I have proposed, that would save $33 billion over 10 years on a windfall giveaway program to big oil that hardly needs a government handout. Over the past decade, BP, Exxon, Chevron, Shell, and Conoco have had combined profits of just under $1 trillion. Yet we have a system that provides them billions in subsidies every year. That is simply outrageous. Even traditional oil industry supporters, such as former President George W. Bush and Shell's former CEO, have admitted when oil prices are this high oil companies do not need subsidies. They have the economic incentive they need to explore and drill. In 2010 alone, last year, they made over $75 billion, and that includes the $41 billion BP has spent trying to clean up the spill in the gulf--cleaning up the environment and paying for the economic damage they caused. The fact is, cutting unnecessary defense programs and cutting oil subsidies are among the smart cuts that will save money while doing no harm to middle-class families. But the Republican plan, on the other hand, will take money away from the one thing that will allow millions of young people to reach their goals and prepare them to help America meet its competitive future; namely, a good education. That is a terrible mistake. It is a mistake to cut the average New Jersey undergraduate's Pell grant by more than $845, an 11-percent cut. It is a mistake to take $115 million in Pell grants from 183,000 promising students in my State, as the Republican cuts would do. It is a mistake to cut funding to 18,000 students in Union County, NJ, or 16,500 in Middlesex County and 15,500 in Essex County, and to continue to cut Pell grants by $56 billion over the next 10 years. It is simply a mistake not to invest in education. We are globally challenged for human capital in the delivery of a service or the production of a product. The boundaries of mankind have largely been erased in pursuit of that human capital so that an engineer's report is done in India and sent back to the United States for a fraction of its cost, a radiologist's report is done in Northern Ireland and read to your local hospital by your doctor, or if you have a problem with your credit card--as I recently did because there was a charge that wasn't mine--you end up with a call center in South Africa. In the pursuit of human capital for the delivery of a service or a product we are globally challenged, which means for the Nation to continue to be a global economic leader it needs to be, at the apex of the curve of intellect, the most highly educated generation of Americans the Nation has ever had. That is how we will grow this economy and prosper and compete in the world. Yet the Republican budget moves us exactly the opposite way. It is wrong to leave 4,000 New Jersey children without access to Head Start while at the same time continuing tax cuts for millionaires and multimillionaires. It is shortsighted to cut job training. I went to a job training site in one of our counties. The place was packed--packed with individuals who have worked in the past but are unemployed now and looking to get the additional training that will make them competitive in a tough job market. So instead of helping our fellow Americans be as competitive as they can be for the job opportunities that may exist, we are going to cut job training for 70,000 New Jerseyans rather than seriously look at cutting farm subsidies. We need to be smarter about the cuts we make. I think we would all agree that there are certain farm subsidies that are no longer needed, and we could certainly make smart cuts in some of those programs. We are all well aware that farm subsidies are not about the small American farm. I want to nurture that small American farm, including back home in New Jersey. We call New Jersey the Garden State. We are proud we are No. 2 in blueberries, No. 4 in asparagus. If you had cranberry for Thanksgiving last year, it probably came from the pine barrens of New Jersey with cranberry bogs. But that small farmer is not who we are talking about. This is about systematic efforts to move land from small farms to large corporate farms that mass-produce commodity crops such as cotton. We pay out billions in agricultural subsidies every year that have created problems such as the ones we saw in Brazil earlier this year. Brazil went to the World Trade Organization and complained that what we were doing was an unfair trade practice, and the World Trade Organization agreed. So to avoid retaliatory tariffs--in essence, taxes against our products by Brazil--the United States agreed to pay $147 million in assistance to Brazilian producers. Yes, you heard me right-- $147 million that American taxpayers are now paying to subsidize not American farmers but, because of our unfair trade practice, we are now subsidizing Brazilian farmers with our tax dollars. Something is wrong about that process. We need to put an end to such ridiculous policies and save taxpayers billions of dollars. But instead of saving billions in smart cuts like that, the Republican plan under H.R. 1 goes after homeland security funding. That bill will cut homeland security investments by $3 million in my home State of New Jersey alone--home, according to the FBI, of the two most dangerous miles in America because of the chemical causeway along the Hudson waterfront that creates a real challenge-- directly affecting the budgets of first responders such as the courageous men and women who responded on September 11. It is dangerous to cut more than $22 million in port security grants and more than $16 million in transit security grants from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. I have worked hard, from implementing the 9/11 recommendations to fighting for port cargo screening. We don't need a nuclear or biological weapon coming into our ports or a threat like we saw from the terrorists in Mumbai in our transit systems that would result in a devastating attack and then further threaten our economy. Yet that is exactly what the Republican budget does. I believe it is dangerous to cut $4.5 million in transit security grants for northern New Jersey, more than $3.5 million from the Philadelphia area and southern New Jersey, leaving families in my State and throughout that corridor who travel between States less safe. I have a different take than my Republican colleagues on how we achieve deficit reduction. Quite simply, it comes down to one truism that we should keep in mind during this budget process, and that is this: You show me your budget, and I will show you your values. We have that in our own family budgets. Families struggle together to have a place to call home for their families, to educate their children, to put food on the table, to be able to realize their hopes and dreams and aspirations. And how we spend our money as families speaks to our values, and, of course, the work we do to earn that money. That is true about the Nation's budget. The Nation's budget is a reflection of our collective values as a country. Those values are clearly evident in what we choose to fund and what we choose to cut. I would remind my colleagues this debate is about more than numbers on a page. It is a portrait of America, a reflection of who we are and what we want this Nation to be. To make cuts simply to reach a numerical goal that isn't established by any sound science is to say that we care more about the bottom line than about investing in people, investing in jobs, in education, in infrastructure, in building and growing this economy, and protecting a safe, clean way of life that we have too often come to take for granted. I want to talk about that for a moment. From the moment we get up in the morning, to the moment we go to bed at night, the Republican plan would make cuts that affect the daily lives of millions of Americans and millions of jobs in every economic sector. In America, when you turn on the tap for a glass of water or take your child fishing at a local lake, someone is at work--someone with a family--who is making sure the water is safe to drink and the lake is not polluted. But the Republican plan cuts $700 million from the Clean Water State Revolving Fund and $250 million from the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund that have helped municipalities and communities put people to work on water quality protection projects. The Republican plan cuts almost $1 billion from clean water and that means cutting not just funding, but jobs of those whose work is to keep our water safe and clean. Is that a smart cut? Does that reflect who we are and what we want this Nation to be? If you live on a river, a flood plain, or on the coast and a storm strikes, you know that in America there will be someone there to help if there is a flood or a coastal emergency. The Republican plan, even after the disastrous experience in the wake of Katrina, cuts $30 million from flood control and coastal emergencies. Is that what we learned from New Orleans? Is that what we, as a nation, believe is a smart cut? If you wake up in the middle of the night and your child is sick and you don't know why, or you think that child may have accidently ingested something poisonous, or your child is diagnosed with a life- threatening disease, in America you can call the Poison Control Center, take your child to a community health center, know that the Centers for Disease Control is doing its job. In America you know that the National Institutes of Health is working every day to find the next treatment or cure that affects our families, friends, and neighbors, $300 million of that in New Jersey, bringing thousands of new 21st century jobs to my State to help continue our economic recovery. But the Republican plan cuts $755 million from the CDC; $1 billion from the National Institutes of Health; $27 million from Poison Control Centers; $1.3 billion from community health centers and 3,400 community health center jobs in my State of New Jersey--3,400 more unemployed New Jerseyans. We may not immediately make the connection between what these cuts mean and our lives, but they have consequences to our lives, to our families, to our prosperity. It also means some people will lose their jobs. This morning millions of Americans got up and scrambled a few eggs and made some bacon for breakfast. Fortunately, in this country we know it was someone's job to inspect those eggs. It was someone's job to inspect that bacon and make sure it was safe to eat. The Republican plan cuts $53 million from Food Safety and Inspection Service, the loss of more safety inspectors at a time when we have heard numerous reports of tainted food and the need for more, not fewer, food inspectors keeping our food supply safe. Is that reflective of our values? Is that what we think of as life in America? If you were a middle-class New Jerseyan who, after a year of looking for a job, finally had an interview and wanted to take the train because you thought it would be a faster, easier, and more convenient way to get to that interview, you may find there are not as many opportunities because the Republican budget cuts $224 million from Amtrak. In a post-September 11 world in which multiple modes of transportation are critical to our security, for so we learned on September 11 that when there are no trans-Hudson crossings through the tunnels or through PATH, which is the rail connection between New York and New Jersey, we had ferries that took people out of Lower Manhattan and to New Jersey hospitals. Multiple modes of transportation is not only about economic opportunity, it is about security in the post- September 11 world. Yet the budget cuts $224 million from Amtrak, which is how we send our businesspeople to sell their products between cities, go to great research universities and to hospitals to be cured. You would be forced to take the car, buy the gas, burn the fuel, fight the traffic, and park in the city to get to your interview. Is that how we invest in our infrastructure? Is that the type of smart growth that will help us achieve a greener, cleaner future? When you park the car and walk to your interview you expect to have enough police on the street to protect you from gangs and criminals. Well, this Republican plan cuts the National Drug Intelligence Center by $11 million; law enforcement wireless communications by $52 million; the U.S. Marshals Service by $10 million; the FBI that deals with domestic terrorism by $74 million; State and local law enforcement assistance by $256 million; juvenile justice by $2.3 million; and the COPS Program that puts police on the street and provides them with state-of-the-art equipment they need by $600 million; $600 million from the COPS Program means fewer cops on the beat. Are those the kind of cuts that we want. Are those the kind of cuts that will keep our communities safe? Are they smart cuts that reflect our values in a post 9-11 world? Let me also mention one thing that is not specifically a cut in the Republican plan, but something it does that runs contrary to our belief as a nation that the air we breathe should be clean and safe. The legislation presented by the Republicans eliminates many environmental protections with cuts to the EPA's budget, but it is also loaded with policy riders designed specifically to gut the Clean Air Act. I believe that is wrong. I believe it runs contrary to American values, and I consider any attack on the Clean Air Act to be an attack on New Jersey. Because of the emissions of dirty, old out of state coal plants, every county in my State is deemed to be out of compliance with the Clean Air Act. One of these coal powerplants is the Portland Generation Station just across the Delaware River in Pennsylvania. It emitted 30,000 tons of sulfur dioxide in 2009--almost three times the amount of all seven of New Jersey's coal plants combined. This sulfur dioxide wafts into Warren, Sussex, Hunterdon and Morris counties and acts to cause and exacerbate a whole host of respiratory illnesses from asthma to heart disease. We simply cannot gut the one piece of legislation that protects the very air we breathe and makes it safe for our children to go out and play without fear of being sick. This Republican plan that guts the Clean Air Act does not reflect our values as a Nation. It is simply not reflective of who we are, what we want this Nation to be, or what we want for our children's future. The list of H.R. 1's short-sighted dis-investments in this Nation's future goes on and on. ``Show me your budget and I'll show you your values.'' The Republican proposal before us is, in my view, an affront to American values, not a reflection of them. I for one do not believe for one second that it reflects who we are and what we want this Nation to be. I do believe that at a time that we are finally growing this economy, these indiscriminate cuts, as many economists have said, will throw this economy right back to the deep recession we are coming out of. That means fewer jobs here in America. That certainly cannot be part of our values. That is why I will be voting against H.R. 1, to protect American values and protect American jobs. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. I thank the Senator for that clarification. I too am very concerned about continuity in the World Trade Center Health Program. The mandatory funding will start on July 1, 2011, and it is critically important that the transition be as smooth as possible. I would like to thank the Senator for ensuring that this program will be able to continue under the 2011 CR, and I would like to ask, on behalf of all of us and our constituents, that we work together to ensure that the fiscal year 2011 discretionary funds support the full and timely implementation of the mandatory program. It is very important that funding is provided to ensure that NIOSH and the World Trade Center monitoring and treatment programs can seamlessly continue their work.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, pursuant to the previous order, I ask that my amendment be modified with the changes that are at the desk.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. President. With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, this modified amendment, cosponsored by Senator Bennet, would allow the Patent Office Director to prioritize patents that are important to the national economy or national competitiveness. The amendment will ensure that patents that are vital to our national interests do not languish in any backlog at the Patent Office and that they ultimately promote the national economy and national competitiveness. My understanding is that by previous agreement the amendment, as modified, is agreed to.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending business and I call up amendment No. 124, which is at the desk.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, the goal of the patent reform legislation is to incentivize investment in the American economy, to create jobs, and allow this great country to continue to win in the global marketplace. The amendment I am offering here today would do just that. It would incentivize innovation and investment by prioritizing patents that are vital to the American economy and American competitiveness. It will enable us, in essence, to incentivize that innovation by creating that prioritizing. My amendment would allow the Patent Office to prioritize patent applications that are vital to our national interests. Specifically, the amendment says the Patent Office Director may prioritize the examination of applications for technologies that are important to the national economy or national competitiveness, such as green technologies designed to foster renewable energy, clean energy, biofuels, agricultural sustainability, environmental quality, conservation, or energy efficiency. Currently, the Patent Office runs a green technology pilot program. An application for green technologies may be fast-tracked, leading to an expedited decision. This fast-track process is reserved for a small number of applications that are vitally important, so it has little to no adverse impact on other patent applications. Currently, the patent process is rather lengthy. Patent decisions regularly take 2 to 3 years for a final decision. Our country is at risk of having vital new technologies buried in a sea of paperwork at the Patent Office. We want to make sure patents that are important to our national economy are fast-tracked rather than sidelined. The goal here is to create jobs at home. We have to make sure the Patent Office has the resources and ability to prioritize patents that do just that--create jobs, incentivize investment, and support innovation. The Patent Office supports this amendment because they need the tools to make sure this bill reaches its intended goal of improving America's economy. This amendment will create green jobs and support America's transformation to a self-sustaining economy that, among other things, is not reliant on foreign oil. It is vitally important we do our best to ensure that all Americans have good-paying jobs and that we secure our Nation's economic future. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. It codifies an existing, successful program at the Patent Office. It is good commonsense policy that can help America propel forward in the 21st century.

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

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period for the transaction of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I would like to recognize Brigadier General (Retired) William S. Greenberg, one of my constituents, who was honored on October 14, 2010, with the Rutgers Law School Alumni Association Public Service Award. Bill Greenberg has a long association with Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey. He is a member of the Newark law class of 1967. In 1966, as president of the Student Bar Association, he gave a memorable speech accepting the new law school building on behalf of the student body. He was joined in that ceremony by then-Chief Justice of the United States Earl Warren. Following his graduation from Rutgers, he enlisted in the 5th Squadron of the 117th Cavalry of the 50th Armored Division, the Jersey Blues, and was selected as the outstanding enlisted cavalry trooper of the training cycle while at Fort Knox. Returning to New Jersey, he served as law secretary to Judge Robert A. Matthews, a Rutgers Law School alumnus, then sitting as a judge of the New Jersey Superior Court, Chancery Division, in Hudson County, and later as presiding judge of the Superior Court, Appellate Division. Bill Greenberg began a long and distinguished career as a lawyer, bar leader, and soldier, author, public servant, and benefactor with McCarter & English, New Jersey's oldest and largest law firm and one of the region's most respected, where Bill is a senior partner today. Throughout his career, his connection to Rutgers has remained strong, as exemplified by his support of the Justice Morris Pashman Scholarship Fund. He was chosen one of four commissioners of the New Jersey State Commission of Investigation by his Rutgers Law classmate, the late Alan J. Karcher, then-speaker of the New Jersey General Assembly. During a public-service leave from McCarter & English, he served as assistant counsel to Gov. Richard J. Hughes, himself a graduate of Rutgers Law School. He represented the Governor in an important case involving senatorial courtesy before the New Jersey Supreme Court. This was the first of many important cases Bill Greenberg has argued. He has more than 100 published opinions to his credit. During his more than 40 years of private practice, he has founded his own law firm, served in many public positions, has been a noted litigator and bar association leader, as well as an author and benefactor of many educational and charitable institutions. He served as prosecutor of Princeton. He was a commissioner of the New Jersey State Scholarship Commission. He was appointed by the Supreme Court of New Jersey to the Mercer County Ethics Committee and the Civil Practice Committee. He also served as a member of the New Jersey Supreme Court Committee on the admission of foreign attorneys, a groundbreaking effort by the New Jersey Supreme Court to permit Cuban lawyers who had emigrated to New Jersey to be permitted to take the bar examinations. He was a trustee of both the New Jersey State Bar Association and the New Jersey State Bar Foundation. He served as chair of the Military Law Section of the New Jersey State Bar Association. In addition to holding many offices in the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, New Jersey--the New Jersey Association for Justice--he served as its president. He is an author and frequent lecturer on many litigation matters, and for over 20 years he has been the author and editor of the Civil Trial Handbook, Volume 47 of the New Jersey Practice Series, now in its fifth edition. Civic minded and charitable, Bill Greenberg serves as a vice president of the Thanks To Scandinavia Educational and Charitable Trust of New York, which gives educational scholarships to recognize the efforts made by the Scandinavian countries to save Jews during World War II. He is chairman of the Mary Sachs Charitable Trust in Harrisburg, PA, established by his great aunt, which has over the past 50 years distributed millions of dollars in scholarships and other aid to educational and charitable organizations in central Pennsylvania. He and his wife, the former Betty Kaufmann Wolf of Pittsburgh, have established the Dr. Peter Scardino Trust at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center to aid needy cancer patients. In addition, he and his wife have established endowed scholarships at Johns Hopkins and Brown Universities for needy students and have contributed substantially to the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton. He recently received the Distinguished Alumnus Award from Johns Hopkins and serves on its undergraduate advisory board. In December 2009, he was selected Lawyer of the Year by the New Jersey Law Journal, the leading law publication of record in our State. This year, he received the Major General Howard Louderback Award for lifetime service from the New Jersey Committee of the Department of Defense Committee for Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve. I was pleased to recommend Bill Greenberg to the White House to be Chairman of the Reserve Forces Policy Board. He was selected by Secretary Gates for that important position in August 2009 and reappointed in August 2010. This board, created by Congress in 1952, is the principal policy adviser to the Secretary of Defense for Reserve component matters. I was pleased to make this recommendation because of General Greenberg's background of 27 years of military service in the Reserve components as an enlisted cavalry trooper, a member of the Judge Advocate General's Corps, and as a flag officer. More importantly, he established the Military Legal Assistance Program of the New Jersey State Bar Association for wounded or injured reservists called to duty after September 11, 2001. He personally and with members of his law firm, McCarter & English, has represented over 50 individual soldiers at Walter Reed in obtaining adequate military and veterans compensation. He is widely recognized as an expert in the field as well as a selfless advocate for individual soldiers and veterans in their legal struggles. To those of us who are privileged to know Bill Greenberg personally, he brings passion, energy, hard work, patriotism, and dedication to all that he undertakes. These qualities have been recognized by his colleagues in the legal profession and in the Pentagon, where he has served with distinction and has consistently put foremost the interests of the individual reservist and the veteran. The American soldier has no greater friend than Bill Greenberg.