Mark Pryor

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. I want to thank Senator Boxer for her comments on balancing the budget. One of the things we need to understand is that we can do this. It was not that long ago when President Clinton was elected and he focused on balancing the budget. He made it a priority of his administration. He made it a Democratic priority for the Democratic Party. They passed the Balanced Budget Act of 1993. It passed without one Republican vote in this Chamber and without one Republican vote in the House Chamber. But nonetheless it did pass. It probably caused some people some elections a couple years later, but nonetheless it was the right thing to do. It got us on the course to fiscal stability. It took 4 years, but we did balance the budget. But there is one thing we also need to mention as we talk about that. One advantage Bill Clinton had that we have not had in the last few years is a robust, vibrant, and growing economy. He had the longest economic expansion in U.S. history. That did not happen by accident. That took a lot of work. It took a lot of bipartisan effort here in the U.S. Senate, there in the U.S. House of Representatives, and down at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. It had Governors working together. It had all of us working together to try to make sure we got the economy back on track because if the economy is growing, the revenues improve, and also your safety net programs are not hit nearly as hard. So one of the things we need to focus on as a Congress--certainly as a Senate--is we need to focus on growing the U.S. economy. That brings me to my discussion today about sequestration. When we look at the analysis on what sequestration could do to the U.S. economy, there could be 750,000 jobs lost in this economy. That is a .6 percent shrinkage of the economy by the end of this year. We are not talking about somewhere way down the road, out in the outyears. We are talking about at the end of this year it will have a negative impact on the U.S. economy. That is going to continue to hurt our debt and deficit problem. We need to do all we can to avoid this and to grow the U.S. economy. We need a growing U.S. economy. There should not be government policies that are shrinking the economy. We should be growing the economy. I wish to say, if you look at the numbers for government employees-- and I think a lot of the news media has focused on government employees. There has been a lot of discussion in the press conferences and there is all the blame game that has been going on, and I want to talk about that in a few moments. But if you look at the numbers in the public sector--the Federal employees who will either be laid off or furloughed or for whatever reason will not be able to function--those are big numbers. But that only tells part of the story. In fact, that only tells a small part of the story because this sequester is going to harm the private sector much more than it harms the public sector. This is something we should understand, that the American people should understand. I would hope the American people would insist we work together to get something done here in the next few days if possible, certainly in the next few weeks to avoid this sequester. In my State of Arkansas, there are 91 poultry and meat processing facilities that will have to close their doors at least at some point because they do not have meat inspectors and food inspectors on site. That is 91 facilities. That is a lot of employees. We have employees at 52 Arkansas FSA offices. These are Department of Ag offices that are out around the counties to help people in the farming industry, to give them some government resources, advice, et cetera. Fifty-two of those offices are not going to close their doors, but they are going to have to furlough their employees. There is no doubt they will be at partial strength instead of full strength at a very critical time for farmers all over the State of Arkansas. Also, we have an FDA facility there, the National Center for Toxicological Research, and it is going to be cut by an estimated $3 million. Well, that facility is a nice little economic engine for that part of the State. That means when they cut it, it is going to have a negative ripple effect, an adverse ripple effect in that part of our State's economy. I know in this Chamber and in this town there is a lot of discussion about making the government small and how we should cut the government and how the government should be lean and all that. Do you know what. A lot of that I do not disagree with. But I do think it is important for all of us, as responsible policymakers, to understand the reality that whether we like it or not--and many of us have philosophical disagreements on this; and I am not trying to get into that, but whether we like it or not, our government is very intertwined in the U.S. economy, our government is a critical part of the U.S. economy. So you take something like the food industry--and I am chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture--if you take something as basic as agriculture--something that may not be very sexy, that does not get a lot of headlines, that people do not think a lot about because we take it for granted in this country that we are going to have a good, healthy, robust food supply, but that does not have to be the case. It certainly is not the case in most countries around the world. We are very spoiled. We are very fortunate in this country to have that. But the agricultural sector cannot function without the government. Again, we have a safe food supply. We need inspectors out there to make sure that meat and other foods that are being processed get that USDA seal of approval--grade A, whatever it is. That means something. If we cannot know our food is safe, then we have diminished what it means to live in this country. We do not want to get into that. Let's avoid that. This is avoidable. I know a lot of Arkansans, when I talk to them, say: Can't you all do something? Can't you work together? The answer is yes, we can work together. It is just a matter of political will. We have to make up our minds that is what we are going to do, that we are going to work together. In 2011, we passed the Budget Control Act. Here again, I think the news media has not covered this a lot, has not explained this very well to most Americans. But one of the things the Budget Control Act of 2011 did, among other things, is it set spending caps for the Federal Government. So as back in the 1980s, when people worried about $180 billion deficits--now we have much larger deficits than that, but back then in the 1980s, we put on the Gramm-Rudman spending caps and things such as that--Gramm-Rudman-Hollings--and there were other efforts over the years. Well, that is what we have done with the Budget Control Act. We have spending caps for the next 10 years--now it is for the next 9 years when it comes to Federal spending. I think people do not always appreciate that because what they hear out of Washington--instead of people explaining what is going on and trying to help the American people understand what they get from Washington--is blame, blame, blame. I cannot count the number of press conferences we have had where one side has come out to blame the other side. I know some of the House Members just came out and blamed the Senate. Democrats are blaming Republicans. Republicans are blaming the President. The President is blaming the Congress. It goes on and on and on. It never stops. It is a dead-end street. The truth is we voted for sequester. I do not care who came up with the idea, we voted for it. As we have talked about many times on this floor, the reason we put sequester in in the first place was because it was such a bad idea; it will be so hard to do; it does not make a lot of sense. But, nonetheless, it was to try to force our folks to get to a budget deal. It did not happen. But I think the important thing is, all Americans need to know everybody in Washington owns this. You can blame all you want. You can have as many press conferences as you want, but everybody in Washington owns this. We need to own up to our responsibility as Congressmen and Senators and as the President and do what we can to not hurt this country. Let me talk for a few more moments because I see one of my colleagues has arrived here. Let me say the sequestration, again, was an idea that was put together because they wanted it to be so painful that we would never get here. These are arbitrary cuts. You do not take into account the efficiency of programs, the effectiveness of programs. You do not take into account the merits of programs. You just cut across the board. I think we probably will do some more cuts. We probably should do some more cuts. I think if you look at the Simpson-Bowles blueprint-- that proposal a lot of us have talked about over the last couple years--they would probably look at that and look at the numbers and say we still need to do some cutting. But we also need some revenue. We still need to do that. But our cuts should be smart and they should be deliberate and they should increase the bang that the taxpayer gets for their buck. That is not what sequestration does. It does not achieve any of those goals. One thing about the Department of Agriculture--here again, people need to understand this; we talk about this here in our committee rooms and whatnot, but I think a lot of times the message does not get out-- agriculture funding has already been cut by 15 percent. There has already been a 15-percent cut to agriculture, starting in 2010 to today: 15 percent. I think it is unwise for us to cut an industry which is one of the core strengths of the U.S. economy. If we look at the U.S. economy, there are a lot of things we do well. But there is no doubt at all we do agriculture better than anyone else in the world. There is not even a close second place. You innovate when it comes to agriculture. This is where you maximize crops. The United States of America is the gold standard for agricultural productivity and new technology and innovation and all these great things to make this country the breadbasket that it is. So why in the world are we going to cut, cut, cut agriculture? It does not make any sense. Of course, rural America is struggling disproportionately. With the recession and all that has hit rural America, it is tough out there. Let me tell you, I come from a very rural State. It is tough. These cuts are going to harm rural America much more than they will harm urban America and suburban America. It is a fact of life. Again, that is another reason why we need to avoid this. So in closing--I know I have one of my colleagues here who wishes to speak--let me get back to the meat inspectors. The Department of Agriculture says they may have to be furloughed for up to 15 days. That means you are going to have to temporarily close--maybe for a day at a time--6,000 processing plants nationwide. There are over 90 of those in Arkansas. Just in my State, that is going to have an impact on not those few government jobs, it is going to have an impact on 40,000 jobs in the private sector--40,000 jobs in the private sector--because of this. It also is going to disrupt the efficiencies we have in the protein markets in this country. What that means is, prices are going to go up, people are going to pay more for their meat products at the grocery store and at the restaurant. This is not going to be a win for anybody. And I think you are going to see about $400 million in industry wages that could be lost as a result. That is not going to help the U.S. economy. Then you expand what the U.S. Department of Agriculture does beyond row crop and livestock-type agriculture. They do a lot in the area of clean water, fire and rescue vehicles in rural communities. They do community building in rural America--things such as hospitals, school construction. They do rental assistance programs, and a lot of these are for the poorest of the poor out there around our country. Again, it is going to disproportionately hurt these people who can least afford it. I mentioned the U.S. Department of Agriculture, but also at the FDA, it seems to me almost every one of their employees around the country could be subject to these furloughs and these cuts and will be adversely affected. Do we want to interrupt the gold standard we have with food and drugs in this country through the FDA? I would say no. I think it is time for us to come together, to work together, to find a solution. I think one of the bits of good news we see in Washington is there is nothing wrong here that we cannot fix with some political will. I think that is what this is all about. It is a little bit of a test of wills right now, but I think there is no doubt we can fix this with some political will. Mr. President, with that, I will yield the floor. I see my colleague from Vermont is in the Chamber. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, Hurricane Sandy was the most devastating storm to hit the northeast United States in recorded history. Rebuilding after the storm will be a formidable challenge and this aid bill will go a long way towards meeting that challenge. When Hurricane Sandy struck the East Coast, it flooded electrical substations and knocked down trees onto power lines, shutting off power for 8.2 million customers, and causing billions of dollars in damage. Over 300,000 homes in New York City and 72,000 homes and businesses in New Jersey were damaged or destroyed. Four New York City hospitals had to shut their doors. The storm sent floodwater gushing into New York's five boroughs, flooding tunnels and the subway system and making the equipment inoperable. In many hard-hit areas wireless networks suffered widespread outages primarily due to lack of power. When smart technologies are in place, power outages can be avoided and lives, homes and businesses are protected. As the massive rebuilding effort gets under way, decision makers should rebuild the smart way by ensuring that reconstruction funds maximize the deployment of technologies to improve the resilience of the electric grid, mitigate future power outages and ensure continued operation of facilities critical to public health, safety and welfare. Resilient and reliable power is critical for first responders, communications, health care, transportation, financial systems, homeland security, water and waste-water treatment, emergency food and shelter, and other vital services. Examples of relevant technologies include smart grid technologies to isolate problems and repair them remotely, such as smart meters, high- tech sensors, grid monitoring and control systems, and remote reconfiguration and redundancy systems; microgrids, energy storage, distributed and backup generation to power critical facilities and operations; wiring, cabling, submersible and other distribution components and enclosures to prevent outages; and electronic controlled re-closers and similar technologies for power restoration. The funding provided by the Hurricane Sandy disaster relief appropriations bill should enable these States to wisely make cost- effective investments in these technologies for their long-term infrastructure resiliency. Rebuilding these essential infrastructure systems with technology that is equipped to deal with extreme weather should make recovery from any future storm faster, cheaper, and better.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I wish to thank Senator Levin and Senator Alexander for their kind comments about me. The Senator from Tennessee and I came to the U.S. Senate at the same time. That was 10 years ago. One of the things I think everyone would agree with is we have seen over the last 10 years a waning of effectiveness in the Senate. A large part of that is the fact that this floor is not used as it should be. This floor has been used to block and obstruct. Both parties are guilty of that. This floor should be the marketplace of ideas. It should be where we come together and we work to resolve our differences. Our differences may be partisan, they may be regional, they may be philosophical, they may be generational, whatever, but our Founding Fathers set up our system of government where there would be one place where difficult, complex, thorny, even sometimes politically treacherous issues can be resolved, and that is on the floor of the U.S. Senate. When we, again Democrats and Republicans, abuse the rules around here and we stymie the Senate from acting, we get gridlock, and gridlock is not good for the country. I firmly believe one of the reasons the American public is so disgusted with Congress right now is because of the things that are happening and not happening on this floor. When we think about our system of government and when our Founding Fathers set it up, of course we have the three branches, but as a practical matter, the floor, right here, is the only place in our government where the American people--the people we represent--can actually see their law being made. Americans don't see law being made at the White House. They go out there and they huddle up in their conference rooms and they come out to the Rose Garden and they make the announcement. We never see the process. We don't see the process in the U.S. Supreme Court or in the courts of appeals. What happens there is the lawyers and the parties come in and make their cases and then the Justices and judges go back and conference and they talk about it back in their chambers, and they come out with their decision, and that is what we have. We don't always know what the deliberations are. We don't know all the considerations. The same thing in the U.S. House of Representatives, with all due respect to our other Chamber down the hall. Because of the way their rules operate, because of the Rules Committee and the way it is structured and their history and, quite frankly, their DNA, it is a majoritarian body. But not the U.S. Senate. In the Senate we allow Senators to amend and debate and to vote. That has been one of the problems here in the last 10 years. The Senator from Tennessee--and I see the Senator from Texas on the floor--we all came in together. This Senate has lost a lot of ability to do that. I am firmly convinced we have sufficient verbiage in rule XXII of the Senate Rules to require a talking filibuster. I think that is critically important. It is not a new interpretation, but it is utilizing the existing interpretations, the longstanding history of the Senate, based on parliamentary decisions, based on decades of things that have happened here on the floor, where we have the authority already in rule XXII. But we have asked our two leaders to clarify and state and notify all of us how we are going to handle issues during this Congress. The way we are going to handle it when it comes to the talking filibuster is we are going to require Senators to be here to object. No more phone-in filibusters. We are going to require Senators to come down and state their objections, to come down and actually speak. If they have a problem with moving forward, they need to come and speak about it. If they want to start a filibuster, they should be here to speak on the floor. What is going to happen is the majority of Senators who want to see legislation get done may have to do a little work and be here late nights, but that is part of it. That is what we signed up for. It is like the Senator from Tennessee said a few moments ago. We all worked very hard to get here, and we came here to work for the country. If we are ever going to have a chance of resolving the big and difficult issues that face our Nation--issues such as our debt and deficit; issues such as the fiscal cliff; a whole set of issues including tax reform, entitlement reform--we can bet our last dollar those things are going to happen in the Senate. That is where things get done. The fiscal cliff, with all due respect to the House, didn't happen in the House, it happened in the Senate. The minority leader and the Vice President worked it out. That is the way things have always gotten done, for the most part, in American history, and that is the way we need to allow things to get done in this Congress, because we have too many big issues to block everything that is coming through on the Senate floor. Again, I wish to thank Senator Levin and Senator McCain for leading this effort. They are great leaders. I thank Senator Kyl, Senator Barrasso, Senator Alexander. Participating in those meetings with my Republican colleagues was a great experience, to listen to them, listen to their concerns. I think it was an education for all the Democrats to have that quality time where we did listen and then they listened to us. I think that was very important. We need to do more of that around here. We will get a lot more done if we do. Also, our Democratic colleagues, of course led by Senator Levin, Senator Schumer, and Senator Cardin, everybody contributed, and I think it is something we should be proud of and it is also a great victory for bipartisanship. It is a great victory for bipartisanship. I think that is what the American people are screaming out for: for us to work together to get things done, and this is a good example of that.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the period of morning business be extended until 7:15 p.m. today, and that all provisions of the previous order remain in effect.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the previous order.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 629, which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the resolution be printed in the Record as if read.

Mr. PRYOR

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

Mr. PRYOR

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

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the title amendment with respect to H.R. 8, which is at the desk, be agreed to.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Energy Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 6060 and the Senate proceed to its consideration and consideration of Calendar No. 269, S. 302 en bloc.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bills be read a third time and passed en bloc, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements related to the bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask that the Senate proceed to a voice vote on adoption of the resolution.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the preamble be agreed to and the motions to reconsider be made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 628, submitted earlier today by Senators Landrieu and Blunt.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 6586, which is at the desk.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Nelson- Hutchison substitute amendment which is at the desk be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed; the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate; and that any statements relating to this measure be printed in the Record.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, January 1, 2013; that following the prayer and the pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that following any leader remarks the Senate proceed to a period of morning business until 3:30 p.m. for debate only, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, on rollcall vote 248 I voted no. It was my intention to vote aye. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to change my vote since it will not affect the outcome.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, Hurricane Sandy had a devastating effect on the electric and transportation infrastructure in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states. When Hurricane Sandy struck the east coast, it flooded electrical substations and knocked down trees onto power lines, shutting off power for 8.2 million customers, and causing billions of dollars in damage. The storm sent floodwater gushing into New York's five boroughs, flooding tunnels and the subway system and making the equipment inoperable. In many hard-hit areas wireless networks suffered widespread outages primarily due to lack of power. We have seen this scenario play out before. Just this past summer, a derecho thunderstorm knocked out power for more than 1 million residents near Washington for several days. Do such storms have to result in such widespread outages and does the restoration of a power grid have to take so long? Several experts have said that America's power infrastructure could be more resilient--even when tested by a once-in-a-century storm. The intent of section 52005 of the supplemental Appropriations bill is to encourage recipients of these disaster assistance funds to rebuild the electrical infrastructure so that it is more resilient to future storms. We can achieve a more resilient electric grid by maximizing the utilization of technologies that can mitigate future power outages and by ensuring the continued operation of facilities critical to first responders, communications, health care, transportation, financial systems, homeland security, emergency food and shelter, government offices, as well as other vital services such as hospitals and wastewater treatment systems. Rebuilding these essential infrastructure systems with technology that is equipped to deal with extreme weather will better enable the electric grid to withstand potential damage and continue to deliver these vital services and maintain electric power to facilities critical to public health, safety and welfare. There are numerous proven technologies that are ready to be deployed to enhance our electric infrastructure resiliency including smart grid technologies to isolate problems and repair them remotely, such as smart meters, high-tech sensors, grid monitoring and control systems, and remote reconfiguration and redundancy systems; microgrids, energy storage, distributed and back-up generation to power critical facilities and operations; wiring, cabling, submersible and other distribution components and enclosures to prevent outages; and electronically controlled re-closers and similar technologies for power restoration. When we look at the damage caused by Hurricane Sandy, and the suffering by millions of people who could not get electricity or communicate by phone or the internet, it makes smart sense to rebuild the electric grid so that it is more resilient and better able to withstand whatever nature may next throw at it.

Mr. PRYOR

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

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I have a couple things to say. First, I know the Senator from New York just left, Mr. Schumer. I want the people of New York to know, all the citizens of that State, how hard he worked to get this legislation passed. The entire delegation of New York and New Jersey were outstanding. But Senator Schumer, when the storm was still raging, was on the phone calling Senators and Congressmen and calling the White House to get help for his State and the region. He deserves a lot of credit for getting us here. But truthfully, the delegations of those States pulled together and showed a lot of leadership. We appreciate that. Also, we were so pleased Senator Mikulski was able to take the lead on this bill. It was a lot of fun for all of us to see her in action in her first real bill that she handled on the floor as chairman of the Appropriations Committee. I yield the floor.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I will try to keep my remarks to about 5 minutes, although I would first like to thank Senators Levin and McCain for their leadership on this legislation. They truly set the tone, and they have been good role models for the entire Senate on how legislation should be conducted. So I wish to thank both of them. I think many of my colleagues feel the very same way; that we appreciate how they have handled the national defense authorization bill. It has been a massive undertaking and sometimes, as we know, we have a lot of gridlock around here, but because of the way they have handled it, they have been able to get this bill to this point. I am not going to object to this bill at all. At one point I thought about it because I am so upset--in fact, my staff has even said livid, and I have been livid--about how one item has been handled by the Air Force; that is, as we all know, about 10 months ago the Air Force came out with a proposed force restructure and that included taking an A-10 unit away from the Arkansas National Guard that is based in Fort Smith, AR. Understandably, when something such as that happens, we have questions. So, 10 months ago, I started asking: Why are you doing this? Give me your analysis. Tell me how much money you are going to save. Are you aware you have Fort Chaffee right off the end of the runway-- and I will talk about this in just a minute. Are you aware that this just went through BRAC, that they had F-16s there and now they have A- 10s, and the BRAC commission has gone through this process and they said this is the best place; we can have A-10s right here in Fort Smith, AR. So we basically got stonewalled. They wouldn't tell us any of their analysis. They wouldn't tell us how much it is costing or saving. They basically stonewalled not just my office but the whole Congress, as far as I know. I have talked to people all over this place on the Senate side and the House side. They never got any numbers. Finally, just in the last few weeks, in talking to members of the Air Force who have stars on their shoulders, they have told me there was no business analysis. There was no base-by-base analysis. Basically, what this boils down to is we need to make some cuts and more or less your number came up, and they go back to the one flying mission per State. We can talk about that more if we want to. But the problem is we are in a budget environment where we are having downward pressure on military spending, and we know that. We are going to have to make military cuts not just this year but in the outyears. There is no doubt about it. The U.S. Air Force should always count the cost. They should always make a determination on how much these things cost and how much they save. They did not do that here. They should also know we are going to have a smaller force in the future. So as we wean out some units--and it is going to happen; it is going to be painful; people are not going to like it--you should keep the best units you have, the strongest units you have. And the 188th at Fort Smith, AR, is the best unit in the system. I say that objectively because there are numbers to back that up. It is the cheapest to operate. Even though it went through the transition from F-16s to A-10s just a few years ago, they have already deployed twice. They have deployed twice. One reason they got extended in a deployment was because another A-10 unit was not ready. What this does is it puts those pilots--those men and women in uniform, who just got back from Afghanistan-- they get off the plane, they are being hugged by their spouses and their children and their communities, and basically the Air Force is giving them a pink slip. The ultimate slap in the face happened this week when the National Guard Bureau had the audacity to contact the 188th Flying Wing at Fort Smith and say: Hey, by the way, could you deploy one more time? There is another unit that is not ready. Can you deploy one more time? It is astonishing that the Air Force would do this. We had a commission in there. The commission did not survive. I have talked about that with several of my colleagues who were on the conference. Even though this wing has had more nautical miles of military training than any other unit in the Air National Guard, even though it is closer in proximity to its flying range, its bombing range than any other unit--it is the best setup in all of North America to have the 188th where it is located at Fort Smith and at Fort Chaffee, which is basically the Army National Guard's national training center right there--they love to train with A-10s; we are talking about close air support vehicles here--I do not think the Air Force took that into consideration for 1 minute. I think they made an arbitrary decision here. I do not think it is in our national interests. I do not think it is in the interests of our national security. I am putting people on notice that this fight is not over. I understand about the down pressure. I get all that stuff. But this fight is not over. I am not going to object to this bill today. I am going to vote for its adoption. Again, I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for their great leadership. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise today to address an issue that has arisen between companies within the moving industry. Recently, a group of full-service moving companies has attempted to change rules established by law, regulations, and court findings. These full-service moving companies are aiming to undermine the clear intent of Congress by avoiding the formal rulemaking or legislative process. The changes sought would benefit their companies and damage their competitors within the sector. In recent years, full-service moving companies have faced new competition from a growing number of companies that allow consumers a ``do it yourself'' alternative to more expensive, traditional movers. Some general freight motor carriers have been offering ``do it yourself'' consumers an option for moving: a non-household goods motor carrier drops off empty containers or trailers at the consumer's doorstep for the consumer to load, the consumer loads the trailer-- individually, with help from neighbors, or by hiring a third party. After loading, the consumer calls the container company or freight carrier to pick up the container or trailer, the container company then arranges for an authorized general freight or flatbed carrier to pick up and haul the loaded container, dropping it off on the requested delivery date for the consumer to unload; and the carrier returns to pick up the empty container or trailer when unloaded. The customer is able to purchase the level of service he or she wants and manage the process themselves from start to finish. Mr. President, that is precisely the type of service alternative Congress intended to encourage when it included the so-called ``Limited Service Exclusion'' in the ``Household Goods Mover Oversight Enforcement and Reform Act of 2005,'' enacted as Sec. Sec. 4201-16 of Pub. L. No. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144 (2005), now known as ``SAFETEA-LU.'' This Limited Service Exclusion, codified at 49 U.S.C. Sec. 13102 (12)(c), expressly states that: The term [household goods motor carrier] does not include a motor carrier when the motor carrier provides transportation of household goods in containers or trailers that are entirely loaded and unloaded by an individual (other than an employee or agent of the motor carrier). I sponsored this provision and worked with others in Congress to incorporate this Limited Service Exclusion into law and want to be clear of the intent of the law. The ``Limited Service Exclusion'' was intended for the non-household goods motor carrier that drops off empty containers or trailers, which are loaded by the consumer or a third party, and then delivered or stored by the container company or freight carrier. The exclusion's intent was to keep portable container supply companies and general freight carriers from the regulations required for household good movers. The written guidance that has been requested by the full-service moving companies are pushing would ignore the Limited Service Exclusion's intent by blocking portable container supply companies and general freight carriers from relying on this statutory exclusion to work together and with the do it yourself consumer to move the consumer's belongings to his new home. That requested interpretation would reverse decades of legal precedent and rule that if the container supplier or general freight carrier refers the consumer to a third party who provides the labor to load or unload the containers and trailers, and the consumer elects to use those services, this third party automatically becomes the ``agent'' of that container company or trucking company. This attempted change of the statute with its anticompetitive effects is exactly the opposite of what I and my colleagues in the Senate and the House who voted for SAFETEA-LU intended. The traditional moving companies urge the FMCSA to adopt a definition of ``agent''--as such term is used in the Limited Service Exclusion. This would result in greater costs to consumers and will prevent container and general freight carriers from using the Limited Service Exclusion as Congress intended. The FMCSA already has embedded in its regulations the ideal basis for arriving at a definition of ``agent'' that is consistent with our intent. The FMCSA's own regulation, 49 CFR Sec. 375.103, requires it to apply the ``ordinary practical meaning'' to the term ``agent.'' The ``ordinary practical meaning'' of the term agent is well settled as a matter of black letter law and there is no cause for a federal agency to attempt to further interpret such a well- established term. Simply put, the definition compels a finding that: as long as the container or freight carrier does not control the third party who the consumer engages to load and unload the container or trailer, the carrier does not authorize the third party to act for and on behalf of this carrier, and the third party does not agree to act on behalf of the carrier, then the third party is not the agent of the carrier. Facilitating the consumer to contract with a third party that provides loading and unloading services does not create an agency relationship as we intended that term in the Limited Service Exclusion. Moreover, on a related issue, the Limited Service Exclusion should remain intact even if the carrier receives compensation for facilitating the consumer to contract with packing and loading providers, provided that the carrier does not have an agency relationship with the packing and loading providers.

Mr. PRYOR. Along with the growth of general freight motor carriers and container-supply companies catering to the needs of do-it-yourself consumers, we have seen some of these same companies become regulated property brokers and step forward in this capacity to assist these consumers. For a negotiated fee, they offer to arrange with portable container companies and general freight carriers to place the containers and trailers for loading and to have them transported to their destinations when loaded. To counteract this middleman-service, the full-service traditional moving companies are now urging the FMCSA to require do it yourself consumers desiring broker assistance to engage only brokers registered with and regulated by the FMCSA as ``household goods brokers'' to make these arrangements on their behalf and to require them to use only registered, full-service ``household goods motor carriers'' to perform the underlying transportation. Their principal argument relies upon a false negative inference they want the FMCSA to draw from the absence of a similar ``Limited Service Exclusion'' from the ``household goods broker'' definition for brokers that arrange household goods moves for do-it-yourself consumers. This effort at changing the meaning of the statute further obstructs the intent behind the Household Goods Mover Oversight Enforcement and Reform Act of 2005. We want the consumers to have access to low-cost transportation services as an alternative to the traditional full- service moving companies when motor carriers, lacking specific household goods authority and not providing specialized household goods related services, perform the underlying transportation in reliance upon the Limited Service Exclusion codified at 49 U.S.C. Sec. 13102(12)(c). No broker-specific Limited Service Exclusion is required: if the underlying motor carrier service does not provide packing and loading services, then the motor carrier need not hold household goods authority from the FMCSA. In turn, the broker engaged by the consumer to arrange the transportation (without any packing and loading services) likewise need not hold household goods broker authority and need not use a household goods motor carrier. Accordingly, a motor carrier authorized to haul property (excluding household goods) can perform the move.