Jay Rockefeller

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

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

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I don't see any other folks who want to speak on the FAA bill for the moment or on much else for the moment. I will suggest the absence of a quorum but not yet. I am hoping Senator Baucus and Senator Hatch will come down to oversee the 1099 argument and repeal of the health care bill, which is about the worst idea I have ever heard. I think it will be voted down, and I believe the minority knows that. I don't know who they are trying to speak to. When I think of the health care bill and all the work that went into it--the work that went into it is not that important, it is the product that came out. When he says the American people are against it, that was actually quite true for a year and a half, maybe almost 2 years, because we were in the process of making the bill and it was kind of like making sausage, and people turned against it. But now it is going in quite the opposite direction. Now as people begin to get some of the benefits, they understand some of the conditions they will be unbonded from, that they won't be slaves anymore to costs determined by others who don't care about their health care, I think the momentum is swinging. What we would be condemned to, if the amendment were to pass and health care were to be repealed, in that there aren't any particular ideas of note which were put forward by the other party about what we should do to make it better other than to repeal it, is another 2 or 3 years trying to write a bill and not having a bill. We would be in a situation as follows: I recall in the year 2008--and I just happen to recall this because we worked on this in the Commerce Committee--the five largest health insurance companies in America made profits of $12.4 billion. I don't have a problem with that. What I do have a problem with is what they were doing and what will continue to happen if we repeal the health care bill; that is, while they were making all that money, they were, through the process of rescission--and that means a unilateral decision that because somebody has acne or has been through a C-section or asthma or any number of things--they actually insured 3 million fewer people while they were making that $12.4 billion by the sole act, which is their right under previous law, which we corrected, to do rescission. That is, by their own decision to simply remove health care from people who made an agreement with them, signed up, had been sending in premiums and all the rest of it. I also think about a young 8-year-old I met in Charleston at a town meeting. He had had leukemia for a while. Without this health care bill, there are lifetime limits and annual limits on what one can get in the way of health insurance. And when you have leukemia, the lid is lifted off. The boy died. He died because he couldn't get insurance. His family obviously couldn't afford to pay for it, and he couldn't get it so he died. People say that is kind of an extra dramatic example. Unfortunately, it is not. It is very common. Something else that would disappear, if the health care bill were repealed, is something which nobody ever talks about but which is sort of the philosophical basis for a lot of this, and it is called the fee- for-service system which we now have in America on medical care, particularly with Medicare, but generally. That is the person who provides the service or the medical equipment person who provides the medical equipment or the hospital which provides the service, they provide the service, and they bill Medicare. Medicare doesn't ask any questions. Medicare just pays the bill. That is one of the reasons, of many, if the bill is repealed, we will go into hock $1.3 trillion more on our deficit, because our bill saves that kind of money. Their bill would vitiate that savings. Fee-for-service is not the way health care ought to work. The way it ought to work is that like anything else, this very bill, there is no tree on this bill. What happened in the Senate? It was an epiphany of some sort. We decided to be transparent and accountable. So anybody can offer amendments on anything. And indeed, they are and will. But accountability causes efficiency and makes better results. Under the bill that has been passed, people are held accountable for what they do. Hospitals, for example, or doctors or medical equipment people, are measured by their outcomes. In other words, it is evidence-based outcomes. What are the results of what you have been doing in health care? Are they better? Are they worse? Did fewer people die? MRSA is a reason hundreds of thousands of people in this country die. Basically that comes from relatively unclean bathrooms in hospitals that don't pay attention to that and accreditation folks who don't pay enough attention to that either. That is a disease which is easily cured, one, by cleaning up bathrooms and, secondly, it is just automatically a part of the expense part of health care and it should not be. Evidence-based outcomes, you prove to me that you are doing a better job this year than you were in the last 2 or 3 years, or whatever the range might be. So it is not fee-for-service. It is fee after the explanation of the efficacy and the lifesaving quality of the service. That is the direction health care has to go. That isn't discussed but if this whole bill is repealed, that is exactly what will happen. Everybody is held accountable. We are being held more accountable. The big three automobile companies were held more accountable. They were embarrassed, but they have come back pretty nicely. The way we make our progress in America now is to make sure that people do what they are meant to be doing, and they do it well, and they can show it. Actually some of the paperwork is you have to convince the folks from Medicaid and Medicare, whatever else it is, that you are doing a better job. If half of all Medicare is spent, as it is, in the last 6 months of life, that bears analysis. Why is that so? What are we doing? What are we not doing? Don't just pay the bill because it is sent to you. You look at it and you ask questions. That is the direction of the new health care. I think it is a fair direction. It is one which I am sure the Mayo Clinic does routinely. But it is not a good idea. I will speak on this more later. I am now waiting for Senators Baucus and Hatch to handle both matters since it is within their jurisdiction. I am on the Finance Committee. I am close to Senator Baucus, but I am not Senator Baucus. He needs to be down here to do that. I hope he will be down shortly. Pending that situation, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, after that last sentence, I had to drink a little water to sort of balance myself out. To be praised at such length by Senator Schumer--one can't take it lightly. I wish to make a few comments on the health care bill, which, in and of itself, interests me because we are here doing FAA. If I remember correctly, I stood here at excessive length and gave a speech about the importance of the FAA bill. Kay Bailey Hutchison did the same. Then, all of a sudden, here we are on health. That is very interesting because we have sort of made ourselves entirely transparent. Anybody can offer amendments. The leader doesn't fill up the tree, so it is open. And what happens is, immediately everybody pops in with their favorite amendment. I don't resent that; I just say it is an interesting phenomenon which is showing itself on the very first day. Whether that will last, I don't know. In any event, I think they are still working--Senators Baucus and Hatch and others--on the FAA stuff and the 1099 matter, so I wish to talk about a couple of things on health care. I think it is very important--and I mentioned this in my earlier comments--when you say the American people don't want this bill, there was a period of time when that was correct because the bill was made in front of everybody on C-SPAN--whoever watches it, but enough people did because a lot of people were interested in what was happening--and it wasn't a very pretty process. The public option, for example--Al Franken and I put a public option bill on the floor and thought it would save the world. Then all the talk shows took it up, either blasting it or loving it--in excess in both cases. There was one problem with the public option: It didn't have any votes in the Finance Committee, which means it couldn't have gotten far. That was based on a $50 billion Medicare benchmark. So it was a real cost saver and a very good--obviously, to get a nonprofit option as you buy your health care is very appealing--all of which is true but all of which was unpersuasive because it sounded like too much government. Maybe if we had called it the freedom option, it would have been different. That doesn't matter. It didn't get the votes. My version got 10 votes, and Chuck Schumer got 8 votes on his--or maybe it was the opposite. We then came up with a medical loss ratio, which nobody understood because of the ridiculous wording, except that it works. I want to talk about a couple of things like that until somebody comes, and then I will humbly and gladly yield the floor. Does the Senator wish to speak?

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, that was a magnificent speech. For the information of all Senators, there will be no rollcall votes this evening. I will continue to work with my ranking member, Senator Hutchison, and the leadership on both sides of the aisle on an agreement to dispose of the pending amendments tomorrow. Actually, it is on the FAA bill. Remember that? We sort of started out the day doing that. That is a very important bill, as the Senator from Maryland pointed out. I ask unanimous consent that there be debate only on the FAA authorization bill for the remainder of the evening.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I will not be too long. As it happens, on the poll, over a period of months and months, people saw this thing happening, and they didn't like it. People lined up on one side or the other--mostly one side--and they didn't like it. It turns out that the New York Times and CBS did a poll--I don't necessarily have to trust them because they took a poll; I don't trust polls--that says 80 percent of Americans oppose repeal. I found that in the cloakroom. I don't live by polls. But that is based on January 20 of this year. Let's suppose it is off by 10 percent or 15 percent. One thing that becomes clear from the generalization of that number-- certainly it could go lower--is that people don't want repeal. Then that takes you to, well, what if we do have repeal? Does the repeal then lead you to a thought-out process that would then be substituted for what we created and the President signed? And then very quickly one comes to the realization that there isn't an alternative from the other side. There never has been. From that, it quickly follows that the deduction is what they want is the present system. If that is not true, then they can come down and tell me about that. That is what I have to believe because I haven't heard the new ideas or the alternatives to what it was we worked on and accomplished over a very difficult period of many months and much angst, agony, and screaming at townhalls and all the rest of it, which was worth it. The bill, although not perfect, was a real step forward. It looks at the fee-for-service system, which has always been a fallacy in the American health care system, that you automatically get paid for whatever you do if you are a doctor, a hospital, or you sell medical equipment, no questions asked. You don't save money, you don't improve health care by doing that. Productivity, efficiency, and excellence are done by oversight, by accountability, by asking questions, asking people to show, through the evidence of what they have done for a particular service, that it is better than it was the year before. I will mention--unpleasant probably and not fit for this floor--that one of the biggest problems we have in health care today is something called MRSA. MRSA is in almost every hospital in the country. Unfortunately, it emanates from bathrooms that are not kept that clean. So if we don't do our bill and it is repealed and hospitals then are not judged on MRSA and many other things, such as too many MRIs in one hospital, too many MRIs in one town that can only support two but has seven because you have to make money off of them but they are not used very much--all of these have to be checked and looked at carefully before people are paid. That is the way you save money, and that is the reason the health care bill that was finally signed saves $1.3 trillion over 20 years and $240 million or $280 million in the very first year. It is a cost saver. So, by definition, if we went back to the present system, you would have to start with the fact that we would be losing those savings and therefore adding it onto our deficit. So we would have $1.3 trillion more in deficit over 20 years, et cetera, et cetera. It is unwise. But then cost isn't absolutely everything. We understand that. The Senator from New Hampshire understands that. We have to use good judgment. Then you look at the public option, which didn't work, and then you look at the medical loss ratio. Folks don't know what that is--even some in this body. It is a simple system where you simply say--and it will disappear if Senator McConnell's amendment passes--that health insurance companies are required to spend 80 percent of all--85 percent if it is a large institution or, if it is a small business or an individual, 80 percent--they have to spend that percentage of their premiums they collect on health care, and then they have to show to HHS that it is being spent on health care that makes Americans better or at least keeps them where they are. The bathrooms get cleaner, to be crude about it but actually quite accurate about it. That is a very good system because it is not sort of mandating; it is called oversight. The American people should want to do oversight over their health care dollars because it is so much of their income they have to spend on health care. The medical loss ratio--a strange name but a sound principle--is where 85 or 80 percent of all premium dollars have to be spent on health care, and health care cannot just be health care but better than it was in the previous year or 2 or 3 years. Obviously, we are not into that system entirely yet and won't be until 2014. Is it possible for me to explain that I am very disturbed that this bill we are now wanting to repeal will insure 32 million people who don't have health insurance, and then I am saying to myself that there are a lot more than that who are uninsured in this country, but that is all we could afford to do because we didn't have enough money. So let's say it is really 45 million and then decide there are many millions more than that who are underinsured. You may be dealing with 50 million people, and all of a sudden, their prospects for getting health insurance disappear. They simply disappear because we repeal the bill. Now, truth in telling, the 32 million people--we weren't going to be able to get that all done until 2020 because of the lack of funds. We had to do as much as we could as soon as we could, but we couldn't do more than that because we didn't have the money. Everything was scored by CBO, which is very tough. But I am astounded by the prospect of the excellent people who are on that side of the aisle--they are like us; a different party, but so what--saying that 32 million would lose their health insurance--or they were going to get health insurance, but now they will not, so they are on their own. What happens then? Well, they take up the practice, which I saw first when I was chairman of the Children's Commission for 4 years in the early 1980s or the late 1980s--we went out to Chicago in one visit, to Cabrini-Green, and Chicago was a robust health care city, and the folks out there told me that in that particular year, eight emergency rooms in hospitals had closed down. Why? Because they were being overwhelmed even then. Secondly, they are by far the most expensive part of the hospital. They cost the most. They drain health care because of all the emergency service. People wait 5, 6 hours--we have all been through it--and they get their health care, maybe. It is so inefficient, so brutal, such an awful system where more attention, because of health insurance, would allow more cautious, attentive, logical work to be done on patients. That is gone. That is simply gone. Emergency rooms are important, but a lot of them are going out of business because they still cannot afford to stay open. They are too expensive for the hospital corporation that makes that decision. I do not blame them for that. I know my colleague wants to speak. I think of when I was a VISTA volunteer--I sometimes talk about that on the floor--a long time ago. There were no jobs, no health care. Nobody went to school because the schoolbus did not come to pick up any of the kids because we were considered too far away. It was kind of a bad community. I latched on to that community. It is the reason I went to West Virginia and then stayed in West Virginia. They depended on a rural community center. It was right next door, the Lincoln County Community Health Center. It was not a hospital so they did not have to worry about going up in an elevator because many of them in very rural parts of the State have not been in an elevator before, have not crossed a traffic light, red or green. That is new to them. They live in rural places. They deal with it that way. I suspect it is true in parts of New Hampshire, although New Hampshire has gotten sophisticated. People trust rural health centers. Why? Because they are not hospitals. They are on the first floor. They are an old Kroger store, an old Safeway store, an old hardware store. But inside are doctors, nurses, and now health IT, which is in this bill and heavily promoted, which may be coming on its own, but I doubt it. This bill is really important to health IT. They could communicate with any university, any medical center, not just in West Virginia but in the world. They can get experts to look at, let's say, a mole on a 14-year-old's arm. Is that just a mole or is that cancer? I have seen that done. A doctor at West Virginia University--this was 20 years ago--I can't believe that--looking at a kid in Moscow with a physician assistant attending. They put the then-technology on that mole. The doctor in West Virginia was able to analyze it and say it is not cancerous. That was a wonderful event. People gravitate to community centers. Poor people gravitate to them. Rural people gravitate to them. They are easily accessible. They have very good doctors. There is a lot in the bill to help with those kinds of doctors, those kinds of nurses, the staff, those kinds of places and the whole health IT issue which makes the work they do there checkable, accessible anywhere else in the State, the country, or in the world. Those would be gone. We have $10 billion in our bill for 1,000 new community health centers all across America. I am excited about that. I think that is great for rural America, and a lot of America is rural. Most of America is rural. That goes. Then I think about subsidies for small business. I spoke to a Chamber of Commerce in a rural part of West Virginia, a conservative part of West Virginia. They did not like the bill. That is why I went there. They were all small business people. There are no big businesses down there. I spent 3 hours with them. I went through the whole health care bill. What was unusual to them is I stayed around and answered all their questions. That was interesting. In other words, you do not just say this is good, this is bad, here I am. You say: Have at me and I will answer you as best as I can. Where you do not agree with me, you tell me that. They had no idea that they get a 35-percent tax reduction, a tax credit for giving health insurance. They cannot afford to give health insurance. Maybe 35 percent is not enough, but they get that, and they get that until 2014. And then after 2014, it goes up to 50 percent. They did not know that. All of a sudden the possibility of keeping their employees and doing the right thing by their employees--people in New Hampshire, people in Wyoming, and people in West Virginia care about each other. That is one of the beauties of small States. People really care. They want to do the right thing because they all live together. They do not commute out to the suburbs. There are not a lot of suburbs around. That was impressive to me. When I left, I got a standing ovation. I am going to put that aside because I cannot believe that standing ovation, but what I do believe is that they were interested. They at that point did not know it was in the bill and there is no reason they should have known it was in the bill. Then someone who had been a major part in writing that bill talks to them and answers all their questions, the end point of which is 3 hours, and I get up and leave. That perplexes me. If the minority leader's amendment prevails in that I do not think there is an alternative coming, we go back to the present system. That all goes. The Senator from Wyoming, when he speaks, may say, yes, there is an alternative, and we will have to listen to that. If we do an alternative, that whole negotiation may be 2 to 3 more years. I do not think people can wait that long. In any event, I worry about the doughnut hole. Madam President, you know that. It is so unfair that seniors pay up to a certain amount, they get their prescription drugs, and they keep paying the premiums. But then from $2,000 something to $5,000 something, they have to keep paying their premiums but they do not get any prescription drugs. That is the doughnut hole which we close, again not until the year 2020, but they know it is going to close. That is gone. They have to work the system as best they can, pay their premiums if they can, and if they cannot they are out of luck. They will get cut off. To me it would be brutally devastating if preexisting conditions, for children in particular, which starts right away, which is in effect now, disappears. I was speaking about a 9-year-old kid who had cancer. He was killed by the fact that he could not get any treatment because of annual limits. That is in effect now, and no lifetime limits is in effect now. Annual comes into effect in 2014. He died. I was a friend of that kid. I met with that kid. I met with his parents. I keep in touch with them. He died. He could not get health care under the present system. Under our bill, he would have gotten health care. One can say maybe it was too late, but that does not matter in the sense that he is just an example of somebody who is sick, who could get health care, and who otherwise could not get health care and he died. I am haunted by that because I remember his face. His name was Sam. He was a lovely kid. He is not around any longer because of the old health care system. Health care is a very hard subject. It uses all kinds of words and acronyms. It is true in the Federal aviation bill, too, if we ever get back to that. Acronyms are not bad, they are just not friendly. They still mean something, and because something is complicated it does not mean it is bad or wrong, it means it is complicated. Health care by definition has to be complicated. People have to understand how the parts work together. It is very hard to do. I plead with my colleagues to be cautious about repealing something which is in place which appears people do not want to see repealed. They certainly want to give it a chance. They certainly are seeing the benefits from it. We are already reading about those things, and it has just literally started. It is a month-and-a-half old or a month old. We need to be cautious about that, particularly on repeal if it means going back to our present system or any substantial part of our present system. That would be a tragedy. I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today is the 110th birthday of Frank Buckles, the longest surviving American veteran of the First World War. Frank Buckles is a wonderful man who still lives on his farm in West Virginia thanks to the extraordinary care provided by his daughter Susannah Flanagan. I am sure that my colleagues will join me in wishing Frank, ``Happy Birthday.'' I also believe it is important that we as a nation express our deep conviction for the sacrifices that Mr. Buckles and all the World War I veterans endured for our country. Frank is a representative of the extraordinary men who fought in numerous battles of the Great War in the defense of our nation. They have made sure that we as Americans are able to enjoy the quality of life that we so cherish. Mr. Buckles has witnessed the world change drastically throughout his lifetime and has experiences that most of us can only dream about. He has seen the metamorphosis that has defined the American social and cultural revolutions of the last century. As a young man, he served in the Army's ambulance corps in France and Germany, where he evacuated wounded soldiers from the battlefield. During the Second World War, he spent over three years confined to a Japanese prison camp in the Philippines as a civilian. Today, I am introducing a resolution to allow for a tribute in the Capitol to Frank Buckles as the representative of all World War I veterans during the 112th Congress. As the longest surviving veteran, Frank represents nearly 4.5 million U.S. soldiers, sailors, and airmen who joined forces with over 37 million Allied soldiers to defeat the Central Powers. These men witnessed atrocities such as gas warfare that were unprecedented at the time. Each and every serviceman made his own significant contribution to the war effort that cannot be understated. This generation of dynamic young men was able to alter the course of history for the betterment of each and every one of us here today. Frank, like many young men of this time, worked hard to enlist and serve his country, and in doing so helped to change our world. As America's last surviving veteran of the First World War, Mr. Buckles represents our final link to a generation that built a legacy as the defenders of the free world in the first large-scale global conflict. I can promise you that his legacy and the legacy of all veterans will live on forever in the ideals and values that make America the strongest nation in the world. I appreciate the bipartisan support of our cosponsors and hope more will join our effort to honor such a special veteran.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President. I rise today with Senators Webb, McCaskill, Tim Johnson, Manchin, Ben Nelson, and Conrad to introduce the EPA Regulations Suspension Act of 2011. We are introducing this legislation for a simple but enormously important reason. At a time when our economy is finally headed toward a recovery, the last thing we want to do is add new burdens to American companies that could result in them cutting jobs or being less productive in the global marketplace. In fact, I believe that the fate of our entire economy, our wide and varied manufacturing industries and our workers, especially our coal workers, rests in part on the decisions we make here in Washington. One thing we should never do is put the fate of an entire industry into the hands of the Environmental Protection Agency. My legislation is simple and reasonable. It requires that for 2 years the EPA can take no regulatory action, regarding carbon dioxide and methane emission from stationary sources. During that time no facility can be subjected to any requirement to obtain a permit or meet a New Source Performance Standard under the Clean Air Act with respect to carbon dioxide or methane. At the same time the legislation specifically allows for the widely-supported motor vehicle emission standards to continue moving forward. At the beginning of this year regulations came into effect that say if a company wants to retrofit an existing or build a new power plant, or factory, they now have to find ways to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Later this year the EPA will propose expanding these rules to cover existing stationary sources that are not expanding their operations. The impact of these rules is that companies will sit on the sidelines and opportunities for innovation and job creation will be lost. Because of these new rules companies won't build that new factory. They won't build that new power plant. And so they won't employ some of the millions of Americans who are out of work. That is why I believe these regulations need to be suspended. I want to make one thing perfectly clear. I believe that climate change is an important issue and Congress should and will address it working collaboratively with the administration and the private sector. But the lead should come from Congress and not the EPA. Congress, unlike the EPA, can craft proposals that reduce greenhouse gases while simultaneously protecting our economy. Most importantly, Congress is directly accountable to the people whose lives we impact. We are capable of tackling this great challenge in a way that supports rather than undermines our economy and our future. But the process has to work. It has to be open. It has to be truly bipartisan. It has to acknowledge the fact that all of our States use energy in very different ways. It has to protect our economy. This will not be achieved overnight, but it is possible. Technology can be a solution to this problem. West Virginia is poised to lead the effort on clean energy technology: because we know energy. We know coal. We know natural gas. We know Carbon Capture and Storage or CCS as few others do. We are coming to know wind and we have great potential in learning how to use our geothermal resources as well. The fact is, we in West Virginia know and embrace what too many others either don't understand or refuse to see, which is that our Nation and countries around the world are dependent on coal. That is not something that will change when half the globe is struggling to rise out of poverty. In this country we get almost half our electricity from coal. That will not change anytime soon. Globally countries such as China and India continue to increase their usage of coal as they develop their economies. To fight climate change we can't just choose to stop using coal. Even if we in the United States did, the rest of the world wouldn't; and the problem would continue. Instead we must find the technological solution that allows us to use coal, while reducing its impact on the Earth and her people. I know that there are many on the Republican side of the aisle who believe it does not go far enough. There are many on my side of the aisle who believe it goes too far in tying the EPA's hands. Ultimately I believe this is good legislation because it is an achievable compromise. Too often in this body we seek to score political points on issues rather than solve problems that the country is facing now. And right now our Nation's manufacturing and industrial sectors are facing the prospect of overwhelming EPA regulation. Regulation that makes it harder for them to put America back to work. While many might think this is not the perfect solution it is a solution that I believe we can and should move early this year. One piece of the debate that is often missing in our discussions is to keep our focus on people and all the problems, including the problem of climate change, that affect their future. My focus is on protecting the hard-working people I represent--people who changed my life when I was born anew in the coalfields of West Virginia at the age of 26. These people, their work and their lives matter. Any regulatory solution that creates more problems for them than it fixes; and causes more harm than good in their lives is no solution at all. EPA regulation of greenhouse gases does just that. So that, Mr. President, is why I have introduced this legislation today. I hope that this body will act on it quickly, for we do not have time to waste. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise before you today with Senators Snowe, Leahy, Wyden, Johnson and Kerry to introduce important legislation--the Guardians of Freedom Act of 2011--which will make the Chief of the National Guard Bureau a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. This legislation will strengthen our national security both abroad and here at home. The Joint Chiefs of Staff does an outstanding job providing support to the Secretary of Defense and performing oversight of military personnel and resources within the Department of Defense. However, it lacks the voice of the Chief of the National Guard Bureau who represents more than twenty percent of the uniformed service members. This is important because each member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is a military adviser to the President, the National Security Council, the Homeland Security Council, and the Secretary of Defense. In that role, they may offer their advice and opinions to the President, the National Security Council, the Homeland Security Council, or the Secretary of Defense. And, as we all know, the National Guard has important homeland security responsibilities in addition to national defense responsibilities. As the former Governor of West Virginia, I cannot say enough about the importance of the National Guard. The National Guard is always there. Whether it is flooding, snow storms, tornadoes, or other disasters, the National Guard comes to the rescue of communities in every State throughout our Nation. And, I would bet that there is a member of the National Guard living in every single congressional district and every single community in our country. These citizen- soldiers are our Governors' emergency force. Unlike our active-duty forces, the National Guard has both a State and Federal mission. Now I'm not taking anything away from our active- duty or reserve forces as they have always performed, and will continue to perform, in an outstanding fashion. However, the National Guard is unique in that it serves each State's Governor in addition to the President and Commander-in-Chief. The National Guard's State mission includes responding to natural and man-made disasters as well as domestic emergencies. They have been called to respond to hurricanes, floods and snow storms. They serve next door to each of us. Among the National Guard's Federal responsibilities is providing homeland defense and defense support to civil authorities. The National Guard accomplishes its Federal mission through a variety of programs. One of those programs is the Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, or High-Yield Explosive Teams, which respond to incidents and support local, State, and Federal agencies as they conduct decontamination, medical support, and casualty search and extraction. Last year's Quadrennial Defense Review acknowledged that the Department of Defense must be prepared to provide appropriate support to civil authorities. One key finding of the Quadrennial Defense Review was the recognition of the need to field faster, more flexible chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and high-yield explosives events consequence management response forces. As a result of this finding, the National Guard will build a Homeland Response Force in each of the 10 Federal Emergency Management Agency regions. These 10 Homeland Response Forces will provide the needed response capability. These are just two of the many ways in which the National Guard works directly with the homeland security community as the central connection between the Federal Government and State and local officials. And, I would be remiss if I did not mention that a primary training unit for these Homeland Response Forces is the West Virginia National Guard's Joint Interagency Training & Education Center. These Federal programs, along with the National Guard's State mission, clearly illustrate the National Guard's unequivocal role in protecting our home front. And, it goes without saying that our Guard members make tremendous contributions to military operations outside of the United States. Today, tens of thousands of Guard members train with first responders and protect life and property here at home, while also engaging in combat operations in far-off, dangerous locations--including Iraq and Afghanistan. Since September 11, 2001, our National Guardsmen have been called upon to deploy abroad at a higher rate than ever before. At the same time their domestic and State missions have expanded. Given the National Guard's role in defending our country, it is important that the National Guard be resourced and equipped to fulfill its dual mission. Our Guard members must be assured of the ability to meet their obligations to their Governors, their next door neighbors, and to our Nation as a whole. In order to do that, the National Guard's voice must be heard at the highest levels of our government. By making the Chief of the National Guard Bureau a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Guardians of Freedom Act of 2011 will guarantee that the National Guard is a part of the discussion as the Nation responds to threats both foreign and domestic. It also makes certain that the concerns of the Nation's Governors are considered when resources are scarce. And it will build upon the relationship developed between the active-duty forces and the National Guard, a bond has been strengthened as a result of the ongoing operations. Before I end my remarks, I want to acknowledge Major General Allen Tackett, the Adjutant General of the West Virginia National Guard for the last 15 years and the longest serving Adjutant General in the country. Major General Tackett is retiring today after enlisting in the Army more than 45 years ago. He has been a great partner and visionary over the years. He led the transformation of the West Virginia National Guard and, according to General McKinley, Chief of the National Guard Bureau, is leaving West Virginia with the Nation's finest National Guard. I can honestly say that we are better off as a Nation because he chose to dedicate his life to defending ours. Thank you, Major General Tackett. God smiled on West Virginia the day he gave us you, and we are eternally grateful.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise before you today with Senators Snowe, Leahy, Wyden, Johnson and Kerry to introduce important legislation--the Guardians of Freedom Act of 2011--which will make the Chief of the National Guard Bureau a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. This legislation will strengthen our national security both abroad and here at home. The Joint Chiefs of Staff does an outstanding job providing support to the Secretary of Defense and performing oversight of military personnel and resources within the Department of Defense. However, it lacks the voice of the Chief of the National Guard Bureau who represents more than twenty percent of the uniformed service members. This is important because each member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is a military adviser to the President, the National Security Council, the Homeland Security Council, and the Secretary of Defense. In that role, they may offer their advice and opinions to the President, the National Security Council, the Homeland Security Council, or the Secretary of Defense. And, as we all know, the National Guard has important homeland security responsibilities in addition to national defense responsibilities. As the former Governor of West Virginia, I cannot say enough about the importance of the National Guard. The National Guard is always there. Whether it is flooding, snow storms, tornadoes, or other disasters, the National Guard comes to the rescue of communities in every State throughout our Nation. And, I would bet that there is a member of the National Guard living in every single congressional district and every single community in our country. These citizen- soldiers are our Governors' emergency force. Unlike our active-duty forces, the National Guard has both a State and Federal mission. Now I'm not taking anything away from our active- duty or reserve forces as they have always performed, and will continue to perform, in an outstanding fashion. However, the National Guard is unique in that it serves each State's Governor in addition to the President and Commander-in-Chief. The National Guard's State mission includes responding to natural and man-made disasters as well as domestic emergencies. They have been called to respond to hurricanes, floods and snow storms. They serve next door to each of us. Among the National Guard's Federal responsibilities is providing homeland defense and defense support to civil authorities. The National Guard accomplishes its Federal mission through a variety of programs. One of those programs is the Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, or High-Yield Explosive Teams, which respond to incidents and support local, State, and Federal agencies as they conduct decontamination, medical support, and casualty search and extraction. Last year's Quadrennial Defense Review acknowledged that the Department of Defense must be prepared to provide appropriate support to civil authorities. One key finding of the Quadrennial Defense Review was the recognition of the need to field faster, more flexible chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and high-yield explosives events consequence management response forces. As a result of this finding, the National Guard will build a Homeland Response Force in each of the 10 Federal Emergency Management Agency regions. These 10 Homeland Response Forces will provide the needed response capability. These are just two of the many ways in which the National Guard works directly with the homeland security community as the central connection between the Federal Government and State and local officials. And, I would be remiss if I did not mention that a primary training unit for these Homeland Response Forces is the West Virginia National Guard's Joint Interagency Training & Education Center. These Federal programs, along with the National Guard's State mission, clearly illustrate the National Guard's unequivocal role in protecting our home front. And, it goes without saying that our Guard members make tremendous contributions to military operations outside of the United States. Today, tens of thousands of Guard members train with first responders and protect life and property here at home, while also engaging in combat operations in far-off, dangerous locations--including Iraq and Afghanistan. Since September 11, 2001, our National Guardsmen have been called upon to deploy abroad at a higher rate than ever before. At the same time their domestic and State missions have expanded. Given the National Guard's role in defending our country, it is important that the National Guard be resourced and equipped to fulfill its dual mission. Our Guard members must be assured of the ability to meet their obligations to their Governors, their next door neighbors, and to our Nation as a whole. In order to do that, the National Guard's voice must be heard at the highest levels of our government. By making the Chief of the National Guard Bureau a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Guardians of Freedom Act of 2011 will guarantee that the National Guard is a part of the discussion as the Nation responds to threats both foreign and domestic. It also makes certain that the concerns of the Nation's Governors are considered when resources are scarce. And it will build upon the relationship developed between the active-duty forces and the National Guard, a bond has been strengthened as a result of the ongoing operations. Before I end my remarks, I want to acknowledge Major General Allen Tackett, the Adjutant General of the West Virginia National Guard for the last 15 years and the longest serving Adjutant General in the country. Major General Tackett is retiring today after enlisting in the Army more than 45 years ago. He has been a great partner and visionary over the years. He led the transformation of the West Virginia National Guard and, according to General McKinley, Chief of the National Guard Bureau, is leaving West Virginia with the Nation's finest National Guard. I can honestly say that we are better off as a Nation because he chose to dedicate his life to defending ours. Thank you, Major General Tackett. God smiled on West Virginia the day he gave us you, and we are eternally grateful.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President. I rise today with Senators Webb, McCaskill, Tim Johnson, Manchin, Ben Nelson, and Conrad to introduce the EPA Regulations Suspension Act of 2011. We are introducing this legislation for a simple but enormously important reason. At a time when our economy is finally headed toward a recovery, the last thing we want to do is add new burdens to American companies that could result in them cutting jobs or being less productive in the global marketplace. In fact, I believe that the fate of our entire economy, our wide and varied manufacturing industries and our workers, especially our coal workers, rests in part on the decisions we make here in Washington. One thing we should never do is put the fate of an entire industry into the hands of the Environmental Protection Agency. My legislation is simple and reasonable. It requires that for 2 years the EPA can take no regulatory action, regarding carbon dioxide and methane emission from stationary sources. During that time no facility can be subjected to any requirement to obtain a permit or meet a New Source Performance Standard under the Clean Air Act with respect to carbon dioxide or methane. At the same time the legislation specifically allows for the widely-supported motor vehicle emission standards to continue moving forward. At the beginning of this year regulations came into effect that say if a company wants to retrofit an existing or build a new power plant, or factory, they now have to find ways to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Later this year the EPA will propose expanding these rules to cover existing stationary sources that are not expanding their operations. The impact of these rules is that companies will sit on the sidelines and opportunities for innovation and job creation will be lost. Because of these new rules companies won't build that new factory. They won't build that new power plant. And so they won't employ some of the millions of Americans who are out of work. That is why I believe these regulations need to be suspended. I want to make one thing perfectly clear. I believe that climate change is an important issue and Congress should and will address it working collaboratively with the administration and the private sector. But the lead should come from Congress and not the EPA. Congress, unlike the EPA, can craft proposals that reduce greenhouse gases while simultaneously protecting our economy. Most importantly, Congress is directly accountable to the people whose lives we impact. We are capable of tackling this great challenge in a way that supports rather than undermines our economy and our future. But the process has to work. It has to be open. It has to be truly bipartisan. It has to acknowledge the fact that all of our States use energy in very different ways. It has to protect our economy. This will not be achieved overnight, but it is possible. Technology can be a solution to this problem. West Virginia is poised to lead the effort on clean energy technology: because we know energy. We know coal. We know natural gas. We know Carbon Capture and Storage or CCS as few others do. We are coming to know wind and we have great potential in learning how to use our geothermal resources as well. The fact is, we in West Virginia know and embrace what too many others either don't understand or refuse to see, which is that our Nation and countries around the world are dependent on coal. That is not something that will change when half the globe is struggling to rise out of poverty. In this country we get almost half our electricity from coal. That will not change anytime soon. Globally countries such as China and India continue to increase their usage of coal as they develop their economies. To fight climate change we can't just choose to stop using coal. Even if we in the United States did, the rest of the world wouldn't; and the problem would continue. Instead we must find the technological solution that allows us to use coal, while reducing its impact on the Earth and her people. I know that there are many on the Republican side of the aisle who believe it does not go far enough. There are many on my side of the aisle who believe it goes too far in tying the EPA's hands. Ultimately I believe this is good legislation because it is an achievable compromise. Too often in this body we seek to score political points on issues rather than solve problems that the country is facing now. And right now our Nation's manufacturing and industrial sectors are facing the prospect of overwhelming EPA regulation. Regulation that makes it harder for them to put America back to work. While many might think this is not the perfect solution it is a solution that I believe we can and should move early this year. One piece of the debate that is often missing in our discussions is to keep our focus on people and all the problems, including the problem of climate change, that affect their future. My focus is on protecting the hard-working people I represent--people who changed my life when I was born anew in the coalfields of West Virginia at the age of 26. These people, their work and their lives matter. Any regulatory solution that creates more problems for them than it fixes; and causes more harm than good in their lives is no solution at all. EPA regulation of greenhouse gases does just that. So that, Mr. President, is why I have introduced this legislation today. I hope that this body will act on it quickly, for we do not have time to waste. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today, I rise to introduce the Child Support Protection Act of 2011 with my colleagues, Senators Cornyn, Kohl, and Snowe. This bill continues the long-standing, bipartisan support of Congress for the Child Support Enforcement program, which began with the passage of the authorizing legislation in 1974. Child support enforcement is a strong partnership between the Federal Government and State governments to help parents provide long-term support for their children. It includes a network of 60,000 dedicated staff serving 17 million children across this country. It provided $24.4 billion to children in 2009. The Congressional Research Service reports that receipt of child support reduces child poverty by nearly 25 percent. The Urban Institute estimates that $4 in child support expenditures reduces spending in other public programs by $5. So, the Child Support Enforcement program's results are impressive and it is widely recognized as one of the most effective programs operated by the Federal Government. In fact, the program is notable for collecting $4.78 for each dollar of expenditure. It is a true bargain that works well. Child support programs do much more than just collect money. It works with noncustodial parents who need employment so that they can make regular payments. Child support staff also plays a critical role in times of high unemployment, by processing adjustments to support orders so that noncustodial parents do not fall hopelessly behind. When Congress passed the Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998, CSPIA, it created an innovative incentive program that rewards efficient, results-oriented child support enforcement efforts. These earned performance incentives must be used for child support activities. One of every four dollars from State expenditures to fund the child support program comes from CSPIA incentives and matched Federal funds. The Deficit Reduction Act, DRA, of 2005 repealed the authority to use the earned performance incentives as a match for Federal funds. The bill we have introduced today reverses the funding reduction imposed by the DRA. States are using the incentives in a variety of ways. In my State of West Virginia, the incentive dollars are being used to invest in technology to upgrade services and enhance customer service. Thirty States or territories are investing in staff and program operations. Sixteen States are investing in technology, and three others are investing in customer service programs. The Child Support Protection Act would give States the authority to use earned performance incentives to fund this important work and continue the impressive results that are being achieved. This permanent reversal is critical so that those in State and local government can budget for the future. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to cosponsor this much needed legislation that is not only important to child support enforcement, but our children, their families, and the States.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the Public Safety Spectrum and Wireless Innovation Act. Radio spectrum is a tremendous resource. It can grow our economy and put innovative wireless services in the hands of consumers and businesses. It also can enhance our public safety by fostering communications between first responders when the unthinkable occurs. But it is also scarce. That is why we need a forward-thinking spectrum policy that promotes smart use of our airwaves--and provides public safety officials with the wireless resources they need to keep us safe. For all of these reasons, I believe in the Public Safety Spectrum and Wireless Innovation Act and call on my colleagues to join me and support it. I commit to them that I am open to their input and will work tirelessly with the administration, my Senate and House colleagues, and public safety officials to pass this legislation this year. The Public Safety Spectrum and Wireless Innovation Act does two things. First, as we approach the tenth anniversary of 9/11, this legislation will provide public safety officials with an additional 10 megahertz of spectrum known as the ``D-block.'' This spectrum will at long last, support a national, interoperable, wireless broadband network that will help first responders protect us from harm. I believe this is the right thing to do, because we owe those courageous individuals who wear the shield the resources they need to do their job. Second, this legislation will promote smart spectrum policy and efficient use of our Nation's wireless airwaves. It will do this by providing the Federal Communications Commission with the authority to hold voluntary incentive auctions. These auctions will help put valuable spectrum into the hands of companies that can create innovative new services for American consumers and businesses. This proposal will not require the return of spectrum from existing commercial users, but instead will provide them with a voluntary opportunity to realize a portion of auction revenues if they wish to facilitate putting spectrum to new and productive uses. Then the remaining revenues from these auctions will provide a revenue stream to assist public safety with the construction and maintenance of their spectrum network. Marrying together these ideas--good spectrum policy and the right resources for our first responders--makes good sense. It is also the right thing to do. Because the American people deserve to have the best and most innovative uses of wireless networks anywhere. They deserve to know our first responders have access to the airwaves they need when tragedy strikes. So I urge my colleagues to join me and support this important legislation.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce the Robert C. Byrd Mine and Workplace Safety and Health Act of 2011. This legislation is identical to the bill I introduced last Congress with Senator Carte Goodwin and will afford miners in West Virginia and employees across the country the safest possible workplace, which is what they deserve. As I have mentioned before, this legislation is a tribute to all miners who have lost their lives and also to my dear friend and colleague, the late Senator Robert Byrd, who devoted his career to improving the working conditions of West Virginia's miners and worked diligently with me to develop this bill. I am also very pleased that Senators Tom Harkin, Patty Murray, and Joe Manchin are joining me in cosponsoring this legislation. Chairman Harkin and Senator Murray are strong advocates for America's workforce and worked closely with me to draft this bill. Their contributions and expertise on this issue are immeasurable. Senator Manchin and I also have a history of working together, when he was Governor, to improve the safety of West Virginia's mining community. We were there with the families after the Sago, Aracoma, and Upper Big Branch tragedies, and I know that he shares my commitment to keeping miners safe. I firmly believe that every American deserves a safe and healthy work environment. No family should have to experience the sadness and grief that is felt by the families of Upper Big Branch victims. Sadly, the Upper Big Branch families are still waiting. They are waiting for answers regarding this horrible tragedy. And, they are waiting for Congress to do even more to strengthen the mine safety laws of the land. The Upper Big Branch tragedy and several other high-profile workplace accidents around the country last year serve as stark reminders of the need to make sure that all workers can return home to their loved ones at the end of the day. Yet, these types of tragedies are far too common. Each year, thousands of employees die on the job and millions more are injured or become ill. These fatalities, injuries, and illnesses result not only in loss of life and quality of life, but also substantial costs for employers. It is in everyone's interest to improve the safety and health of America's workforce. I also know that improving the safety of our workforce will require hard work and dedication by everyone involved including state and federal officials, businesses, unions, employees, and safety experts. Here in the Senate, I am committed to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle--there is no question that we must work together to find real solutions that will save lives in mining and other industries in our country. I have no doubt that we will continue to learn more about the Upper Big Branch disaster as the investigations move forward. But I also know that there are several areas of the law that we can work to fix right now. These improvements will make us more proactive in identifying hazards before they become fatal, foster cooperation between employers and employees to keep everyone safe, improve the efficiency and effectiveness of our regulators, and increase the accountability for those responsible for keeping our workforce safe. The Robert C. Byrd Mine and Workplace Safety and Health Act of 2011 takes important steps to empower miners to report safety concerns and keep themselves and their coworkers safe. Specifically, it gives whistleblowers up to 180 days to file a complaint if they have been retaliated against, permits the assessment of punitive damages and criminal penalties against operators that retaliate against miners who report safety problems, makes sure that miners do not lose a paycheck when their mines are shut down for safety reasons, and allows miners to give private interviews to MSHA without the operator or union representative present, so that they can speak openly about investigations. Our legislation allows MSHA to be more effective and efficient in its enforcement of our mine safety laws, while also increasing accountability and making sure that the agency is doing everything in its power to keep miners safe. Importantly, it expands MSHA's authority to subpoena documents and testimony, seek injunctions to stop dangerous acts, and implement additional safety training at unsafe mines. It also creates an independent panel to determine MSHA's role in serious accidents, and requires that MSHA conduct its inspections in a way that protects every miner regardless of when the miner's shift occurs. Another key piece of this bill is the section that reforms the broken ``pattern of violations'' process and requires MSHA to focus on rehabilitating unsafe mines. The original pattern of violations process was meant to allow MSHA to take additional action against mines that repeatedly violate our laws, but unfortunately it has never been effectively implemented. This bill requires unsafe mines to adopt safety plans, undergo additional safety inspections, and meet specific safety improvement benchmarks. To make sure that MSHA's pattern of violations criteria accurately identifies unsafe mines, the Government Accountability Office will evaluate the implementation of MSHA's new criteria. I know that Secretary Hilda Solis and Assistant Secretary Joe Main have made mine safety a priority, and I deeply appreciate their work. They are currently examining proposals to administratively change how the pattern of violations process is used, and I support them in those efforts. But ultimately, there is only so much that MSHA can do under existing statute, which is why I believe that Congress must address this matter legislatively. We also know that workplace disasters are not confined to the mining industry, which is why our bill provides important, protections for workers across all industries under the jurisdiction of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. This legislation allows employees to refuse to perform unsafe life-threatening work, updates civil penalties that have not been increased in two decades, gives victims and their families a voice in the investigation and enforcement process, requires employers to immediately correct hazardous conditions in the workplace, and improves whistleblower protections for employees. With these common-sense reforms, we can keep workers safe on the job, while also reducing the costs associated with occupational injuries and illnesses. By doing so, we can save lives, help employers save money, improve productivity, and increase the competitiveness of our workforce. I hope that my colleagues will carefully consider this legislation and that we can work together on a bipartisan basis to pass meaningful mine and workplace safety legislation this Congress. After the Sago and Aracoma disasters, the Senate passed the MINER Act with strong bipartisan support. We showed then that we can get the job done, and I am confident that we can do it again.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the Public Safety Spectrum and Wireless Innovation Act. Radio spectrum is a tremendous resource. It can grow our economy and put innovative wireless services in the hands of consumers and businesses. It also can enhance our public safety by fostering communications between first responders when the unthinkable occurs. But it is also scarce. That is why we need a forward-thinking spectrum policy that promotes smart use of our airwaves--and provides public safety officials with the wireless resources they need to keep us safe. For all of these reasons, I believe in the Public Safety Spectrum and Wireless Innovation Act and call on my colleagues to join me and support it. I commit to them that I am open to their input and will work tirelessly with the administration, my Senate and House colleagues, and public safety officials to pass this legislation this year. The Public Safety Spectrum and Wireless Innovation Act does two things. First, as we approach the tenth anniversary of 9/11, this legislation will provide public safety officials with an additional 10 megahertz of spectrum known as the ``D-block.'' This spectrum will at long last, support a national, interoperable, wireless broadband network that will help first responders protect us from harm. I believe this is the right thing to do, because we owe those courageous individuals who wear the shield the resources they need to do their job. Second, this legislation will promote smart spectrum policy and efficient use of our Nation's wireless airwaves. It will do this by providing the Federal Communications Commission with the authority to hold voluntary incentive auctions. These auctions will help put valuable spectrum into the hands of companies that can create innovative new services for American consumers and businesses. This proposal will not require the return of spectrum from existing commercial users, but instead will provide them with a voluntary opportunity to realize a portion of auction revenues if they wish to facilitate putting spectrum to new and productive uses. Then the remaining revenues from these auctions will provide a revenue stream to assist public safety with the construction and maintenance of their spectrum network. Marrying together these ideas--good spectrum policy and the right resources for our first responders--makes good sense. It is also the right thing to do. Because the American people deserve to have the best and most innovative uses of wireless networks anywhere. They deserve to know our first responders have access to the airwaves they need when tragedy strikes. So I urge my colleagues to join me and support this important legislation.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce the Robert C. Byrd Mine and Workplace Safety and Health Act of 2011. This legislation is identical to the bill I introduced last Congress with Senator Carte Goodwin and will afford miners in West Virginia and employees across the country the safest possible workplace, which is what they deserve. As I have mentioned before, this legislation is a tribute to all miners who have lost their lives and also to my dear friend and colleague, the late Senator Robert Byrd, who devoted his career to improving the working conditions of West Virginia's miners and worked diligently with me to develop this bill. I am also very pleased that Senators Tom Harkin, Patty Murray, and Joe Manchin are joining me in cosponsoring this legislation. Chairman Harkin and Senator Murray are strong advocates for America's workforce and worked closely with me to draft this bill. Their contributions and expertise on this issue are immeasurable. Senator Manchin and I also have a history of working together, when he was Governor, to improve the safety of West Virginia's mining community. We were there with the families after the Sago, Aracoma, and Upper Big Branch tragedies, and I know that he shares my commitment to keeping miners safe. I firmly believe that every American deserves a safe and healthy work environment. No family should have to experience the sadness and grief that is felt by the families of Upper Big Branch victims. Sadly, the Upper Big Branch families are still waiting. They are waiting for answers regarding this horrible tragedy. And, they are waiting for Congress to do even more to strengthen the mine safety laws of the land. The Upper Big Branch tragedy and several other high-profile workplace accidents around the country last year serve as stark reminders of the need to make sure that all workers can return home to their loved ones at the end of the day. Yet, these types of tragedies are far too common. Each year, thousands of employees die on the job and millions more are injured or become ill. These fatalities, injuries, and illnesses result not only in loss of life and quality of life, but also substantial costs for employers. It is in everyone's interest to improve the safety and health of America's workforce. I also know that improving the safety of our workforce will require hard work and dedication by everyone involved including state and federal officials, businesses, unions, employees, and safety experts. Here in the Senate, I am committed to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle--there is no question that we must work together to find real solutions that will save lives in mining and other industries in our country. I have no doubt that we will continue to learn more about the Upper Big Branch disaster as the investigations move forward. But I also know that there are several areas of the law that we can work to fix right now. These improvements will make us more proactive in identifying hazards before they become fatal, foster cooperation between employers and employees to keep everyone safe, improve the efficiency and effectiveness of our regulators, and increase the accountability for those responsible for keeping our workforce safe. The Robert C. Byrd Mine and Workplace Safety and Health Act of 2011 takes important steps to empower miners to report safety concerns and keep themselves and their coworkers safe. Specifically, it gives whistleblowers up to 180 days to file a complaint if they have been retaliated against, permits the assessment of punitive damages and criminal penalties against operators that retaliate against miners who report safety problems, makes sure that miners do not lose a paycheck when their mines are shut down for safety reasons, and allows miners to give private interviews to MSHA without the operator or union representative present, so that they can speak openly about investigations. Our legislation allows MSHA to be more effective and efficient in its enforcement of our mine safety laws, while also increasing accountability and making sure that the agency is doing everything in its power to keep miners safe. Importantly, it expands MSHA's authority to subpoena documents and testimony, seek injunctions to stop dangerous acts, and implement additional safety training at unsafe mines. It also creates an independent panel to determine MSHA's role in serious accidents, and requires that MSHA conduct its inspections in a way that protects every miner regardless of when the miner's shift occurs. Another key piece of this bill is the section that reforms the broken ``pattern of violations'' process and requires MSHA to focus on rehabilitating unsafe mines. The original pattern of violations process was meant to allow MSHA to take additional action against mines that repeatedly violate our laws, but unfortunately it has never been effectively implemented. This bill requires unsafe mines to adopt safety plans, undergo additional safety inspections, and meet specific safety improvement benchmarks. To make sure that MSHA's pattern of violations criteria accurately identifies unsafe mines, the Government Accountability Office will evaluate the implementation of MSHA's new criteria. I know that Secretary Hilda Solis and Assistant Secretary Joe Main have made mine safety a priority, and I deeply appreciate their work. They are currently examining proposals to administratively change how the pattern of violations process is used, and I support them in those efforts. But ultimately, there is only so much that MSHA can do under existing statute, which is why I believe that Congress must address this matter legislatively. We also know that workplace disasters are not confined to the mining industry, which is why our bill provides important, protections for workers across all industries under the jurisdiction of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. This legislation allows employees to refuse to perform unsafe life-threatening work, updates civil penalties that have not been increased in two decades, gives victims and their families a voice in the investigation and enforcement process, requires employers to immediately correct hazardous conditions in the workplace, and improves whistleblower protections for employees. With these common-sense reforms, we can keep workers safe on the job, while also reducing the costs associated with occupational injuries and illnesses. By doing so, we can save lives, help employers save money, improve productivity, and increase the competitiveness of our workforce. I hope that my colleagues will carefully consider this legislation and that we can work together on a bipartisan basis to pass meaningful mine and workplace safety legislation this Congress. After the Sago and Aracoma disasters, the Senate passed the MINER Act with strong bipartisan support. We showed then that we can get the job done, and I am confident that we can do it again.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I want to join my colleagues in congratulating Senator Barbara A. Mikulski as she becomes the longest serving female Senator in American history. Senator Mikulski and I began our Senate careers in the 1980s, and it has been my privilege to serve with her. We have worked together on many, many issues, including 975 bills. Two hundred eighty-five of those bills passed the Senate and 184 were signed into law, including the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 in the last Congress. I am proud of our combined accomplishments and to call her my colleague and friend. It is a great honor to serve with Senator Mikulski. Senator Mikulski and I have more in common than some know. My life-changing experience with the VISTA program in the 1960s fueled my commitment to public service in much the same way Senator Mikulski's experience as a social worker in Baltimore fueled hers. Our early experiences remain the foundation of our shared commitment to quality health care for all people. Senator Mikulski and I have worked tirelessly together to expand access to cancer screenings and increase funding for medical research, including Alzheimer's disease. I was proud to stand with Senator Mikulski last year to pass historic health care reform. Her commitment to opening doors for all members of our society is to be commended. Even though she stands at 4'11" and I at 6'7", we have stood eye-to- eye in supporting our veterans. And, we had many opportunities for collaboration as she was working on the Appropriations Committee and I chaired the Veterans' Affairs Committee. It is easy to work with someone like Senator Mikulski who is so committed to her values and the people she represents. The first female senator, Rebecca Latimer Felton of Georgia, only held office for 1 day in 1922, having been appointed by Governor Thomas Hardwick upon the death of Senator Thomas Watson. During her first and last Senate address, she said ``When the women of the country come in and sit with you, though there may be but a very few in the next few years, I pledge that you will get ability, you will get integrity of purpose, you will get exalted patriotism, and you will get unstinted usefulness.'' Rebecca Felton's words forecast Senator Mikulski. There is no question that she has brought all of these skills and attributes, and much more, to the U.S. Senate over these last 24 years. In some ways it is hard to believe Senator Mikulski is now the Senate's longest serving female Senator. She does a great job, and I understand she takes on the additional role of mentor to many new female Senators. I am thankful for that contribution which surely strengthens our entire Senate. The people of Maryland made a wise choice in reelecting this remarkable Senator. I look forward to celebrating her next milestone in just over 2 years when she will become the longest serving female Member in the history of Congress.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, for the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Record on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. The bill would not consider the company providing backend billing and other services for the initial merchant to be a posttransaction third party seller. Therefore, the provisions of the bill governing post-transaction third party sellers would not apply. This legislation is intended to prevent the kind of fraudulent transactions the Commerce Committee exposed in its recent investigation--where a consumer intentionally purchases products or services from one company and ends up unknowingly purchasing products or services from a different, unrelated company. As we have discussed, this bill is not intended to prevent a company from making a business deal that would provide continuity of service to its customers by entering into a business arrangement that gives another company the right to deliver products and services intentionally purchased by consumers and to bill for those products and services.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. This legislation is not intended to limit a company's ability to provide its customers with a seamless transition when a company sells its assets or arranges to have a new entity provide the products and services it previously provided to its customers.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, Congress has acted to improve our Nation's intelligence community--and therefore our national security-- by passing an intelligence authorization bill and sending it to the President. The President's signature will enact this bill into law and will implement several common sense solutions to problems in our large and unwieldy intelligence community that we have recognized for years. I believe the new Director of National Intelligence, Jim Clapper, is the right leader at the right time, and this timely bill will provide him the authorities he needs to do this job well. The bill provides the DNI streamlined personnel management authorities throughout the intelligence community, including the authority to convert contractor positions to government jobs, move personnel from one agency to another, provide annual assessments of personnel levels for each agency, harmonize language training in different agencies, and conduct performance evaluations of personnel throughout the intelligence community. It provides the DNI streamlined oversight for major acquisitions-- perhaps most critically, to provide for interoperable information technology systems in different intelligence agencies--and strengthened budget authorities for his management of the intelligence community. Beyond these improved DNI authorities, which I believe will significantly improve intelligence integration among the 16 agencies of the intelligence community, this bill also makes three substantial improvements in the independent oversight of intelligence. This constructive oversight is necessary to ensure that secret intelligence activities are legal, effective, and serve the national security interests of the United States. First, the bill establishes a Senate-confirmed inspector general for the intelligence community who will have the authority to inspect any element or activity in any intelligence agency. Inspectors general play an important troubleshooting role in all agencies of our government, but nowhere is this role more important than in the intelligence community, where--unlike in government agencies whose activities are public--problems can often escape scrutiny. For instance, in 2004 the CIA inspector general's report on the CIA detention and interrogation program played a significant role in alerting the executive branch and the congressional Intelligence Committees to significant problems with the program. The new intelligence community inspector general that this bill establishes will complement and supplement the important work of the inspectors general of individual intelligence agencies. Second, the bill provides for access by the Comptroller General and the Government Accountability Office to information regarding intelligence activities. This access will be similar to the GAO's access to the Department of Defense's Special Access Programs. I believe that this agreement between Congress and the administration on this GAO provision bodes well for future cooperation on intelligence issues. On that note, the third--and, I believe, most important--improvement this bill makes to the independent oversight of intelligence activities pertains to congressional oversight. Constructive congressional oversight of intelligence activities is crucially important--both for our national security and our national identity. We are a transparent democracy, and there is a natural tension between transparent democracy and secret intelligence activities. The Congressional Select Intelligence Committees--which consist of representatives of the American people, selected from other specific congressional committees with jurisdiction over foreign policy, defense and judiciary issues--are vital to resolving that tension between democracy and secrecy. Simply put, these committees act as a board of directors who verify that secret executive actions serve the interests of the shareholders-- the American people. That is why title V of the National Security Act of 1947 requires the President to keep the congressional Intelligence Committees ``fully and currently informed'' on all intelligence activities. However, during the time that I was chairman and vice chairman of the committee from 2003 through 2009, I became very concerned about the way in which the executive branch interpreted this obligation. Rather than briefing the full committee, the executive branch restricted briefings about certain classified programs to the chairman and vice chairman only. These restrictions impeded our oversight of these programs. This is not an academic issue; it is crucial to how our democracy makes secret national security decisions. Without the intelligence committees' meaningful independent review and oversight--the very reason for the committees' existence--intelligence programs are more susceptible to both mistakes and illegitimacy. This is the case regardless of which party is in the White House or which party has a majority in Congress. With this in mind, last year I offered an amendment to this authorization bill that will establish in statute new requirements regarding congressional notification. My intent was to strengthen the committees' constructive oversight relationship with the executive branch and the intelligence community. A bipartisan majority of the committee approved my amendment. While this provision has undergone some changes in the process of Congress's consideration of this bill over the past year, the key elements of these new notification requirements remain. The bill that the President will soon sign into law requires that: (1) the congressional Intelligence Committees and the President must establish written procedures regarding the details of notification processes and expectations; (2) the President must provide the committees written notice about intelligence activities and covert actions, including changes in covert action findings and the legal authority under which an intelligence activity or a covert action is or will be conducted; (3) the President must provide written reasons for limiting access to notifications to less than the full committee, and in such cases, provide the full committee a general description of the covert action in question; and (4) the President must maintain records of all notifications, including names of Members briefed and dates of the briefings. I strongly believe that congressional oversight of the executive branch's intelligence activities should not be adversarial; it should be a true, trusted and confidential partnership aimed exclusively at improving our Nation's collection and analysis capabilities, and ensuring the effectiveness and legitimacy of our covert action programs. I think these new requirements for congressional notification are an important step toward such a partnership. These new requirements--and this authorization bill as a whole--are the result of hard work and difficult negotiations after years of partisan divisions on intelligence issues. The President has not signed an authorization bill into law since December 2004, and the last time Congress passed an intelligence authorization bill was February 2008, when I was chairman of the committee. Unfortunately, President George W. Bush vetoed that bill because it banned the use of coercive interrogation methods by any agency of our government, and the bipartisan majorities that passed the bill were not large enough to overcome the President's veto. After all these difficult years, the bill that we are sending to the President today is exemplary of the bipartisan cooperation that is absolutely necessary for our intelligence community to perform as well as we need it to perform. I want to commend my Intelligence Committee colleagues, particularly Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein and Vice Chairman Kit Bond and their staff, for sticking to it and completing the difficult negotiations with the administration and the House that brought this bill across the finish line. This law will make our country more secure. Let us continue to build on this effort in the months and years to come.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I thank you for allowing me to speak on this important legislation, the Guardians of Freedom Act of 2010, that will make the Chief of the National Guard Bureau a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. As the former Governor of West Virginia, I recognize the importance of the National Guard. I can tell you that the National Guard is always there. Whether it is flooding, snow storms, tornados, or other disasters, the National Guard comes to the rescue of the community. And I would bet there is a member of the National Guard living in every congressional district and every community in our country. These citizen-soldiers are the Governor's 911 force. The National Guard is the oldest element of our Armed Forces. Our Guard members celebrate their 374th birthday on December 13, 2010. For 374 years they have served this country with great distinction. Unlike our active-duty forces, the National Guard has both a state and federal mission. Now I'm not taking anything away from our active- duty military as they have always performed, and will continue to perform, in an outstanding fashion. However, the National Guard is unique in that it serves each State's governor as well as the President and Commander-in-Chief. The National Guard's state mission includes responding to invasions, insurrections, natural and man-made disasters, and domestic emergencies. In recent times, the National Guard has been called to assist with border security, to respond to hurricanes, floods, snow storms, and to provide support for other operations, such as the G20 summit and the Presidential Inauguration. Perhaps the best example of our Guard members' domestic responsibilities is their historic response Hurricane Katrina. There the National Guard, in the largest and swiftest response to a domestic disaster in history, deployed more than 50,000 troops in support of the Gulf States. As I have mentioned, the National Guard also has its Federal mission. Among those responsibilities are providing Homeland Defense and defense support to civil authorities. It accomplishes its federal mission through a variety of programs. One of those programs is the Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, or High-Yield Explosive Teams, which respond to incidents and support local, state, and federal agencies as they conduct decontamination, medical support, and casualty search and extraction. Much of this training is performed at the Joint Interagency Education and Training Center in West Virginia. Other programs include the Counterdrug Program, which bridges the gap between the Department of Defense and local, State, and Federal law enforcement agencies in the fight against illicit drugs, and the Civil Support Teams, responsible for assessing suspected Weapons of Mass Destruction attacks. These Federal programs, along with the National Guard's state mission, clearly show that it has always been here to protect the home front. I have yet to even mention our Guard members' tremendous contributions to military operations outside of the United States. They have bravely fought in every war this country has declared. They have been subjected to activation more and more often in order to respond to global crises. Prior to 9/11 the National Guard participated in operations in Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, and in the skies over Iraq. Since 9/11 more than 50,000 Guard members have been called up by both their states and the Federal Government to provide security at home and combat terrorism in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere around the world. Today, tens of thousands of Guard members are serving here at home and in harm's way as they fulfill the obligations of their dual mission. They continue to train with first responders and protect life and property here at home, while also engaging in combat operations in far-off, dangerous locations. Given the National Guard's role in defending our country, it is important that it be resourced and equipped to fulfill its dual mission. Our Guard members must be assured of the ability to meet their obligations to their governors and their next door neighbors. The relationship between the active-duty forces and the National Guard is one of great mutual respect and dependence--a relationship that has only become stronger since 9/11. Each knows why the other is so important to the nation. The repeated deployments of both the National Guard and active-duty units has built a bond between the two. You cannot tell the difference between a member of the National Guard and an active-duty servicemember. By making the Chief of the National Guard Bureau a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Guardians of Freedom Act of 2010 will guarantee that the National Guard is a part of the discussion as the nation prepares to respond to threats both domestic and foreign. It also makes certain that the concerns of the nation's governors are considered when resources are scarce. It will build upon the relationship developed between the active-duty forces and the National Guard, a bond has been strengthened as a result of the ongoing wars. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I thank you for allowing me to speak on this important legislation, the Guardians of Freedom Act of 2010, that will make the Chief of the National Guard Bureau a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. As the former Governor of West Virginia, I recognize the importance of the National Guard. I can tell you that the National Guard is always there. Whether it is flooding, snow storms, tornados, or other disasters, the National Guard comes to the rescue of the community. And I would bet there is a member of the National Guard living in every congressional district and every community in our country. These citizen-soldiers are the Governor's 911 force. The National Guard is the oldest element of our Armed Forces. Our Guard members celebrate their 374th birthday on December 13, 2010. For 374 years they have served this country with great distinction. Unlike our active-duty forces, the National Guard has both a state and federal mission. Now I'm not taking anything away from our active- duty military as they have always performed, and will continue to perform, in an outstanding fashion. However, the National Guard is unique in that it serves each State's governor as well as the President and Commander-in-Chief. The National Guard's state mission includes responding to invasions, insurrections, natural and man-made disasters, and domestic emergencies. In recent times, the National Guard has been called to assist with border security, to respond to hurricanes, floods, snow storms, and to provide support for other operations, such as the G20 summit and the Presidential Inauguration. Perhaps the best example of our Guard members' domestic responsibilities is their historic response Hurricane Katrina. There the National Guard, in the largest and swiftest response to a domestic disaster in history, deployed more than 50,000 troops in support of the Gulf States. As I have mentioned, the National Guard also has its Federal mission. Among those responsibilities are providing Homeland Defense and defense support to civil authorities. It accomplishes its federal mission through a variety of programs. One of those programs is the Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, or High-Yield Explosive Teams, which respond to incidents and support local, state, and federal agencies as they conduct decontamination, medical support, and casualty search and extraction. Much of this training is performed at the Joint Interagency Education and Training Center in West Virginia. Other programs include the Counterdrug Program, which bridges the gap between the Department of Defense and local, State, and Federal law enforcement agencies in the fight against illicit drugs, and the Civil Support Teams, responsible for assessing suspected Weapons of Mass Destruction attacks. These Federal programs, along with the National Guard's state mission, clearly show that it has always been here to protect the home front. I have yet to even mention our Guard members' tremendous contributions to military operations outside of the United States. They have bravely fought in every war this country has declared. They have been subjected to activation more and more often in order to respond to global crises. Prior to 9/11 the National Guard participated in operations in Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, and in the skies over Iraq. Since 9/11 more than 50,000 Guard members have been called up by both their states and the Federal Government to provide security at home and combat terrorism in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere around the world. Today, tens of thousands of Guard members are serving here at home and in harm's way as they fulfill the obligations of their dual mission. They continue to train with first responders and protect life and property here at home, while also engaging in combat operations in far-off, dangerous locations. Given the National Guard's role in defending our country, it is important that it be resourced and equipped to fulfill its dual mission. Our Guard members must be assured of the ability to meet their obligations to their governors and their next door neighbors. The relationship between the active-duty forces and the National Guard is one of great mutual respect and dependence--a relationship that has only become stronger since 9/11. Each knows why the other is so important to the nation. The repeated deployments of both the National Guard and active-duty units has built a bond between the two. You cannot tell the difference between a member of the National Guard and an active-duty servicemember. By making the Chief of the National Guard Bureau a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Guardians of Freedom Act of 2010 will guarantee that the National Guard is a part of the discussion as the nation prepares to respond to threats both domestic and foreign. It also makes certain that the concerns of the nation's governors are considered when resources are scarce. It will build upon the relationship developed between the active-duty forces and the National Guard, a bond has been strengthened as a result of the ongoing wars. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, first, I wish to reemphasize how much I respect Senator Enzi, the senior Senator from Wyoming, and the fact that he is quite right about the MINER Act and what took place after Sago, which was another rural spot in West Virginia where a number of people were killed--a lot of anguish--and it was the first time in 30 years that there had been any revision of the Federal mine safety laws. I have to say, though, that the bill we passed, the MINER Act, was not fully--because it had to pass through the committee at that time that was controlled by the present minority, it did not come out as strongly as I would have preferred. However, it was a good bill and has had a good effect in mining. One of the aspects of mining, which is hard for people to understand, is that there is no margin for error. There is no margin for it. It is a discreet industry, which, for the most part, is carried on out of sight--in this case, underground. The great majority--I would say well over 95 percent--of West Virginians and people from the Presiding Officer's State have never been underground--or I guess sometimes Senators and Congressmen and Cabinet officers. Obviously, I am disappointed that my colleague objected to this bill. However, I very much believe Senator Enzi when he said that he wants to start working on a bill that will keep people safe. I point out to him that at no point did we call off the negotiations. We were simply at the end of the work period, at the end of August, and there had to be a period of negotiation going on with the staff, and we would come back and take the fruits of that negotiation and go ahead and work on the bill. That is what I would have wished to have seen happen, and what still can happen. As I listened to the Senator from Wyoming, I believe he wants that to happen. As it turns out, so do I, and I am sure Senator Goodwin does too. People are counting on us to get this done. They deserve nothing less. I look forward to working on this. Obviously, it cannot be passed now. We have our work to do, but then again we have our work to do in any event. Senator Goodwin and I and Senators Patty Murray and Tom Harkin wanted to lay this down as a benchmark of what a mine safety bill should be. It probably won't end up being in a bill, but that doesn't mean it should not be this bill. You can't do everything at once, and I understand that. I have faith that the process will produce--as the Senator indicated, a number of things were agreed on by Senators, and sometimes I wish it were the Senators negotiating with each other; I think we would get a better bill. In any event, I have faith in the future, and we all have the eyes of 29 miners and so many others looking down on us waiting for us to take action. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.