Jay Rockefeller

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I introduce the Military Family Home Protection Act, a bill to strengthen the legal protections our military personnel are guaranteed under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, SCRA. Entering military service can sometimes make it difficult or impossible for our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines to meet their civilian legal and financial obligations. In laws dating back to the Civil War, Congress has given active-duty military personnel special protections against legal actions that might be taken against them while they are away from home because of military service. The purpose of these laws, according to a 1943 Supreme Court decision, is ``to protect those who have been obliged to drop their own affairs to take up the burden of the nation.'' Congress re-wrote the World War II-era ``Soldiers and Sailor Relief Act'' in 2003, as full-time military, Reservists, and National Guard personnel were deploying in large numbers to Iraq and Afghanistan. This comprehensively updated statute was re-named the ``Servicemembers Civil Relief Act.'' Since the September 11 attacks, we have asked our military personnel--both our active-duty and reserve components--for unprecedented service and sacrifice. We have asked them to deploy multiple times to Iraq and Afghanistan, and we have asked their families to live without their loved ones for long periods of time. We have asked our National Guard and Reserve personnel--not just once, but sometimes two or three times--to leave their jobs, put their civilian lives on hold, and answer their country's call to service. The promise the SCRA makes to these Americans is that while they are engaged in the defense of our country, we will protect them and their families from adverse financial actions on the home front. One important way the SCRA protects these servicemembers is by lowering their mortgage interest rates while they are on active duty, and by prohibiting banks from foreclosing on their homes without first getting court approval. Unfortunately, as I learned during a joint House-Senate forum I held in the Senate Commerce Committee hearing room in July 2011, not all banks have been following the law. In May 2011, for example, the Department of Justice settled lawsuits with the former Countrywide Home Loans, now a subsidiary of Bank of America, and Saxon Mortgage, a subsidiary of Morgan Stanley, for $22 million. In these lawsuits, DOJ alleged that the companies violated the SCRA by foreclosing on more than 170 servicemembers without court orders. At the House-Senate forum, which I organized with Representative Elijah Cummings, the Ranking Member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, we heard from two members of the military and other experts about how these SCRA violations can devastate military families. Mrs. Holly Petraeus, who is the Director of Servicemember Affairs at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, as well as the wife of General David Petraeus, told us that: . . . [W]hile a foreclosure is devastating for any American family, it can be especially painful for military families. Both the family back home and the deployed servicemember, who feels helpless to take action to prevent the foreclosure, are put in a terrible situation. It is vital that servicemembers receive all the protections afforded to them by the SCRA. At the time we held this forum, legislators in both houses were already hard at work on legislation to strengthen the SCRA and improve banks' compliance with the SCRA. In late 2010, Congress passed a new law, P.L. 111 275, that allowed deploying soldiers to terminate their cell phone contracts without penalties, and that gave the United States Attorney General new powers to enforce the SCRA against creditors. In June 2011, the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, on which I serve, approved a bill sponsored by Senator Begich, S. 941, which included a provision to extend the period of SCRA mortgage protections from nine months to twelve months after a servicemember leaves military duty. The Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee is also actively considering other proposals to improve the SCRA. The legislation I am introducing today with Senator Cardin was introduced in the House of Representatives as H.R. 5747 on May 15, 2012, by Ranking Member Cummings, along with the Ranking Member of the House Armed Services Committee, Representative Adam Smith, and the Ranking Member of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, Representative Bob Filner. Two days later, it was adopted as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act by an overwhelming vote of 394 27. Now that the House has expressed its bipartisan support for this legislation, I am introducing it in the Senate for consideration. The recent House vote shows that this is an issue that should rise above partisan politics. I hope that the House's recent action will give the Senate new momentum to look at what we can do to strengthen the SCRA and protect our military personnel and their families. A short summary of the bill is provided below. The Military Family Home Protection Act expands the class of covered individuals under the SCRA's mortgage provisions to include: All servicemembers serving on the battlefield, regardless of when they bought their home. Servicemembers retiring 100 percent disabled due to service-connected injuries and surviving spouses of servicemembers who died in military service. The act stays mortgage foreclosure proceedings against SCRA-covered persons for 1 year following their service; it also eliminates a current sunset provision that will reduce this protection to 90 days beginning January 1, 2013. The Act doubles the civil penalty for SCRA mortgage violations to $110,000 for the first offense and $220,000 for subsequent violations. The act protects servicemembers and their families against discrimination by banks and lenders on account of servicemembers' eligibility for SCRA protections. It also requires banks and lenders to take further steps to ensure SCRA compliance. These steps include: Designating an SCRA compliance officer. Requiring SCRA compliance officers to distribute information to servicemembers about their SCRA protections, and providing a toll-free telephone number and website to help servicemembers better understand their SCRA protections.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I introduce the Military Family Home Protection Act, a bill to strengthen the legal protections our military personnel are guaranteed under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, SCRA. Entering military service can sometimes make it difficult or impossible for our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines to meet their civilian legal and financial obligations. In laws dating back to the Civil War, Congress has given active-duty military personnel special protections against legal actions that might be taken against them while they are away from home because of military service. The purpose of these laws, according to a 1943 Supreme Court decision, is ``to protect those who have been obliged to drop their own affairs to take up the burden of the nation.'' Congress re-wrote the World War II-era ``Soldiers and Sailor Relief Act'' in 2003, as full-time military, Reservists, and National Guard personnel were deploying in large numbers to Iraq and Afghanistan. This comprehensively updated statute was re-named the ``Servicemembers Civil Relief Act.'' Since the September 11 attacks, we have asked our military personnel--both our active-duty and reserve components--for unprecedented service and sacrifice. We have asked them to deploy multiple times to Iraq and Afghanistan, and we have asked their families to live without their loved ones for long periods of time. We have asked our National Guard and Reserve personnel--not just once, but sometimes two or three times--to leave their jobs, put their civilian lives on hold, and answer their country's call to service. The promise the SCRA makes to these Americans is that while they are engaged in the defense of our country, we will protect them and their families from adverse financial actions on the home front. One important way the SCRA protects these servicemembers is by lowering their mortgage interest rates while they are on active duty, and by prohibiting banks from foreclosing on their homes without first getting court approval. Unfortunately, as I learned during a joint House-Senate forum I held in the Senate Commerce Committee hearing room in July 2011, not all banks have been following the law. In May 2011, for example, the Department of Justice settled lawsuits with the former Countrywide Home Loans, now a subsidiary of Bank of America, and Saxon Mortgage, a subsidiary of Morgan Stanley, for $22 million. In these lawsuits, DOJ alleged that the companies violated the SCRA by foreclosing on more than 170 servicemembers without court orders. At the House-Senate forum, which I organized with Representative Elijah Cummings, the Ranking Member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, we heard from two members of the military and other experts about how these SCRA violations can devastate military families. Mrs. Holly Petraeus, who is the Director of Servicemember Affairs at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, as well as the wife of General David Petraeus, told us that: . . . [W]hile a foreclosure is devastating for any American family, it can be especially painful for military families. Both the family back home and the deployed servicemember, who feels helpless to take action to prevent the foreclosure, are put in a terrible situation. It is vital that servicemembers receive all the protections afforded to them by the SCRA. At the time we held this forum, legislators in both houses were already hard at work on legislation to strengthen the SCRA and improve banks' compliance with the SCRA. In late 2010, Congress passed a new law, P.L. 111 275, that allowed deploying soldiers to terminate their cell phone contracts without penalties, and that gave the United States Attorney General new powers to enforce the SCRA against creditors. In June 2011, the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, on which I serve, approved a bill sponsored by Senator Begich, S. 941, which included a provision to extend the period of SCRA mortgage protections from nine months to twelve months after a servicemember leaves military duty. The Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee is also actively considering other proposals to improve the SCRA. The legislation I am introducing today with Senator Cardin was introduced in the House of Representatives as H.R. 5747 on May 15, 2012, by Ranking Member Cummings, along with the Ranking Member of the House Armed Services Committee, Representative Adam Smith, and the Ranking Member of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, Representative Bob Filner. Two days later, it was adopted as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act by an overwhelming vote of 394 27. Now that the House has expressed its bipartisan support for this legislation, I am introducing it in the Senate for consideration. The recent House vote shows that this is an issue that should rise above partisan politics. I hope that the House's recent action will give the Senate new momentum to look at what we can do to strengthen the SCRA and protect our military personnel and their families. A short summary of the bill is provided below. The Military Family Home Protection Act expands the class of covered individuals under the SCRA's mortgage provisions to include: All servicemembers serving on the battlefield, regardless of when they bought their home. Servicemembers retiring 100 percent disabled due to service-connected injuries and surviving spouses of servicemembers who died in military service. The act stays mortgage foreclosure proceedings against SCRA-covered persons for 1 year following their service; it also eliminates a current sunset provision that will reduce this protection to 90 days beginning January 1, 2013. The Act doubles the civil penalty for SCRA mortgage violations to $110,000 for the first offense and $220,000 for subsequent violations. The act protects servicemembers and their families against discrimination by banks and lenders on account of servicemembers' eligibility for SCRA protections. It also requires banks and lenders to take further steps to ensure SCRA compliance. These steps include: Designating an SCRA compliance officer. Requiring SCRA compliance officers to distribute information to servicemembers about their SCRA protections, and providing a toll-free telephone number and website to help servicemembers better understand their SCRA protections.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, in the shadow of one seemingly narrow Senate vote, that being the Inhofe resolution of disapproval of the EPA's rule on mercury and air toxins, I rise to talk about West Virginia, about our people, our way of life, our health, our State's economic opportunity, and about our future. Coal has played an enormous part in our past and can play an enormous part in our future, but it will only happen if we face reality. This is a critical and a very contentious time in the Mountain State. The dialogue on coal, its impacts, and the Federal Government's role has reached a stunningly fevered pitch. Carefully orchestrated messages that strike fear into the hearts of West Virginians and feed uncertainty about coal's future are the subject of millions of dollars of paid television ads, billboards, breakroom bulletin boards, public meetings, letters, and lobbying campaigns. A daily onslaught declares that coal is under siege from harmful outside sources, and that the future of the State is bleak unless we somehow turn back the clock, ignore the present, and block the future. West Virginians understandably worry that a way of life and the dignity of a job is at stake. Change and uncertainty in the coal industry is unsettling and nothing new. But it is unsettling. My fear is that concerns are also being fueled by the narrow view of others with divergent views and motivations, one that denies the inevitability of change in the energy industry and unfairly--and I feel this strongly--leaves coal miners in the dust. The reality is those who run the coal industry today would rather attack false enemies and deny real problems than solve problems that would help them and the people they employ and the States in which they work. Instead of facing the challenges of making tough decisions, similar to men of a different era, they are abrogating their responsibilities to lead. Back in the 1970s, I remember a fellow from Consolidation Coal named Bobby Brown. He got together with the United Mine Workers on his own. We were having a lot of temporary restraining orders and strikes at that time. They sat down, and because Bobby Brown was not a timid man--he was the head of a company, but he was a forceful leader--they worked out something which gave us peace in the coalfields of West Virginia--which is something--for a long time. It was a courageous act by a courageous nontimid man. Scare tactics are a cynical waste of time, money, and worst of all, coal miners' hopes. Coal miners buy into all the television they hear, are controlled by it, have large salaries. So in a sense they are stuck where they are, happily funded but without a place to look forward to. But sadly these days, coal operators have closed themselves off from any other opposing voices and almost none has the courage to speak out for change--any kind of change--even though it has been staring them in the face for decades. They have known about it. They have ignored it. This reminds me of the auto industry, which also resisted change for decades. Coal operators should learn from both the mistakes and the recent success of the automobile industry. I passionately believe coal miners deserve better than they are getting from coal operators, and West Virginians certainly deserve better also. Let's start with the truth. Coal, today, faces real challenges, even threats, and we all know what they are First, our coal reserves are finite and many coal-fired powerplants are aging. The cheap, easy coal seams are diminishing rapidly and production is falling, especially in the Central Appalachian Basin in southern West Virginia. Production is shifting to lower cost areas such as Illinois and the Powder River Basin in the Wyoming area. The average age of our Nation's 1,100-plus coal-fired plants is 42.5 years, with hundreds of plants even older. These plants run less often, are less economic, and are obviously less efficient. Second, natural gas use is on the rise. Power companies are switching to natural gas because of lower prices, cheaper construction costs, lower emissions, and vast, steady supplies. Even traditional coal companies such as CONSOL are increasingly investing in natural gas as opposed to coal. Third, the shift to a lower carbon economy is not going away. It is a disservice--a terrible disservice--to coal miners and their families to pretend it is, to tell them everything can be as it was. It can't be. That is over. Coal companies deny that we need to do anything to address climate change, despite the established scientific consensus and mounting national desire--including in West Virginia--for a cleaner, healthier environment. Despite the barrage of ads, the EPA alone is not going to make or break coal. Coal operators would love to think that is the case because it is a great target, and it is much easier to criticize than to do something. But there are many forces exerting pressure, and that agency is just one of them. Two years ago, I offered a time-out on EPA carbon rules, a 2-year suspension that could have broken the logjam in Congress and given us the opportunity to address carbon issues aggressively and legislatively. But instead of supporting this approach, coal operators went for broke--they saw a fatter opportunity--when they demanded a complete repeal of all EPA authority to address carbon emissions forever. They demanded all or nothing. They turned aside a compromise and, in the end, they got nothing. Last year, they ran exactly the same play, demanding all or nothing on the cross-State air pollution rule, refusing to entertain any middle ground and denying even a hint of legitimacy for the views of the other side and they lost again--badly. Here we are with another all-or-nothing resolution, which is absolutely destined to fail, and we are arguing as months, weeks, and years go by. This foolish action wastes time and money that could have been invested in the future of coal. Instead, with each bad vote the coal operators get, they give away more of their leverage and lock in their failure. This time, the issue is whether to block an EPA rule, as has been said--the mercury and air toxics standards--that require coal-fired powerplants to reduce mercury and other toxic air pollution. I oppose this resolution because I care so much about West Virginians. Without good health--demeaned in this debate so far--it is hard to hold down a job or live the American dream. Chronic illness is debilitating. I have made a career in the Senate of health care. It impacts families' income, their prosperity, and ultimately families' happiness. The annual health benefits of the rule are enormous. EPA has relied on thousands of studies--thousands--that establish the serious and long-term impact of these pollutants on premature death, heart attacks, hospitalizations, pregnant women, babies, and children. Do West Virginians care about these kinds of things? I think they do. Moreover, it significantly reduces the largest remaining human-caused emission of mercury, which is a potent neurotoxin with fetal impact. Maybe some can shrug off the advice of the American Academy of Pediatrics and many other professional medical and scientific groups, but I do not. The rule has been in the works through a public process for many years. Some businesses--including some utilities in West Virginia--have already invested in technology and are ready to comply. Others have not prepared because they have chosen to focus on profit rather than upgrading or investing in these smaller, older, and less- efficient coal-fired plants that were paid for decades ago and that they will tell us would be retired anyway. That is right. Every single plant slated for closure in West Virginia was already on the chopping block from their own corporate board's decision. It is important to be truthful with miners. It is sort of a forgotten art, and that is a travesty. We have to be truthful with miners that coal plants will close because of decisions made by corporate boards long ago, not just because of EPA regulations but because the plants are no longer economical as utilities build low-emission natural gas plants. Natural gas has its challenges too, with serious questions about water contamination and shortages and other environmental concerns. But while coal executives pine for the past, the natural gas folks look to the future, investing in technology to reduce their environmental footprint, and they are working with others on ways to support the safe development of gas. We are all going to be watching that very closely, are we not? It is not too late for the coal industry to step up and lead-- leadership--by embracing the realities of today and creating a sustainable future. It has not been too late for a long time. Discard the scare tactics. Stop denying science. Listen to what markets are saying about greenhouse gases and other environmental concerns. Listen to what West Virginians are saying about their water, air and health and the cost of caring for seniors and children who are most susceptible to pollution. Stop and listen to West Virginians--miners and families included--who see the bitterness of the fight we are having now and which has been going on forever. The bitterness of the fight has taken on more importance than any potential solutions. The point is put up block after block, which loses time after time, but at least they have a fight and something to scream about, all with no progress. Those same miners care deeply about their children's health. They care about them. They are family people. I know that. I went there in 1964 and lived among miners for 2 years, and I have now lived among them ever since, closely and intimately. They care about what people all over the country care about. They care about the streams and mountains of West Virginia. They know down deep we can't keep to the same path. They are not allowed to say so, but they know that. Miners, their families, and their neighbors are why I went to West Virginia. They are why I made our State my home. I have been proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with coal miners, and we have done a lot of good together over the years. For more than 36 years, I have worked to protect the health and safety of coal miners, everything from the historic Coal Act back in 1992 to my safety laws, pensions and black lung benefits--always with miners' best interests in mind. Despite what critics contend, I am standing with coal miners by voting against this resolution. I don't support this resolution of disapproval because it does nothing to look to the future of coal. It moves us backward, not forward. Unless this industry aggressively leans into the future, coal miners will be the big losers. Beyond the frenzy over this one EPA rule, we need to focus squarely on the real task of finding a long-term future for something called clean coal. That is possible. We have demonstrated that. That is being done in various places in the country right now. This will address legitimate environmental and health concerns and, of course, global warming and all that counts. Let me be clear. Yes, I am frustrated with much of the top levels of the coal industry, at least in my State of West Virginia, but most of the corporate headquarters are elsewhere. However, I am not giving up hope for a strong clean coal future. I am not giving up. To get there, we will need a bold partner, innovation, and major public and private investments. In the meantime, we should not forget that coal-fired powerplants would provide good jobs for thousands of West Virginians. It remains the underpinning for many of our small communities, and I will always be focused on their future. Instead of finger-pointing, we should commit ourselves to a smart action plan that will help with job transition opportunities, sparking new manufacturing and exploring the next generation of technology--not just be dependent upon coal but a lot of things. None of this is impossible. Solving big challenges is what we do in West Virginia. I would much rather embrace the future boldly. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, reserving the right to object, first of all, I know this bill is very important to the Senator who is offering it. I understand that, and I respect the Senator. He is a good Senator. But my objection is not based so much on what he said, it is based on the whole concept of public safety. This is about public safety. We should not have to worry that potentially unqualified pilots are in the air. We have so many tens of thousands of airplanes in the air every hour of every day. This bill would create a process which would be new which could result in the Federal Government being unable to pursue enforcement action because of the limited resources. It is a fact of life these days. FAA has to cut way back. We are having to address other mandated priorities which are perhaps more important than this one. That could very well mean that the FAA and the NTSB, the National Transportation Safety Board, which are ultimately responsible for making decisions about whether pilots have violated aviation regulations, could be barred from taking actions to prevent unsafe pilots from continuing to fly. That is heavy water. That could have serious safety consequences. According to the FAA, in some cases which would typically warrant revocation of a pilot's license, some unqualified pilots would be able to avoid losing their certificates by avoiding FAA prosecution of the matter before the NTSB. This bill, in closing, would stand the FAA's enforcement structure on its head. As a result, I do object.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 2074 and ask unanimous consent that it be modified with the changes that are at the desk.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading be dispensed with.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I call up my amendment No. 2073, and ask unanimous consent that it be modified with the changes that are at the desk.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading be dispensed with.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, as modified, this amendment would simply eliminate a very problematic provision in the underlying bill, provision section 105, but it has a very bad effect, and this would clear that up. It would shift onto Medicare and raise premiums for current postal workers and retirees in some cases by as much as 35 percent. There is more to it, but that is the bulk of it. So I would hope that it would be passed.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, 1 year ago last month our Nation lost an esteemed public servant and an outstanding human being, Judge M. Blane Michael, who served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit for a number of years. With his passing, we were therefore left with a great void not only on the Federal judiciary but also in the hearts of his family and his many friends. So it is with a profound sense of obligation to the people of West Virginia and America that I set out to find a nominee to fill his vacancy. My duty to provide advice and consent took on, to me, additional significance. In West Virginia, we are fortunate to have many talented and worthy lawyers who are capable of serving--and willing to serve--on the Federal bench. But the nominee before the Senate today, Stephanie Dawn Thacker, completely stood out to me--and (in turn) to President Obama--as someone who is uniquely qualified to carry on in her own way, Judge Michael's legacy of independence, humility, and intellectual honesty as a Federal judge. There is no question that Stephanie Thacker has reached the heights of the legal profession, both as an award-winning public servant and as an esteemed lawyer in private practice. Her rise is all the more impressive because of the challenges she overcame The circumstances of Stephanie Thacker's early life were not easy. Her home town, Hamlin, WV, is in one of the poorest counties in the nation--a place where nothing is taken for granted and where every success is hard-earned. Stephanie credits a supportive family and community, and the influence of two strong women who assumed her ability to achieve against the odds. While still in the crib, Stephanie's mother and grandmother told her every day that she would go to college, and then in college they told her she would succeed in law school. They instilled in her the value of education and a strong sense of public service and duty to her country, which we fulfill again today. Ms. Thacker heeded their advice, graduating magna cum laude from Marshall University and second in her class from the West Virginia University College of Law, where she was an editor of the Law Review. Over the next 21 years her passion and respect for the law, along with her drive to seek justice for her clients, resulted in an illustrious career. Ms. Thacker's reputation is as a compassionate yet tough attorney who makes thoughtful, very well-researched, and therefore confident arguments that are always based on the law and facts of her cases. These skills and character are evident in her 12 years of service as a federal prosecutor, where she rose to be Principal Deputy Chief of the Department of Justice's Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section. Among her accomplishments are prosecuting the first federal Violence Against Women Act case and helping to develop the nationwide Innocence Lost initiative to combat child sex trafficking, which to date has led to the rescue of more than 1,600 children and the conviction of more than 700 sex offenders. She co-authored the Federal Child Support Prosecution handbook, worked reviewing and amending West Virginia's domestic violence laws, prosecuting notorious child sex offender Dwight York, and training national and international law enforcement officials on the prosecution of child exploitation crimes. This body of work has rightfully earned her bipartisan praise over the years from United States Senators, FBI Director Mueller and former Attorney Generals Gonzales and Ashcroft, who awarded her the Distinguished Service Award, which is among the Department's highest commendations. These accomplishments are illustrative of the experience and qualifications that Stephanie Thacker offers in service to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. She has the courage to make tough decisions, and will not back down from a challenge. She has the superior intellect necessary to analyze the complex legal issues that come before the Federal appeals courts. She will look at every case with a fair and open mind and will issue opinions that are guided by our Constitutional principles and always grounded in the law and she will never forget her solemn duty to uphold fairness and justice for everyone, regardless of social status or economic means. In conclusion, it is with great optimism, pride, and a renewed spirit that I look to the future, knowing that this important appellate vacancy will be filled with such a qualified nominee as Stephanie Dawn Thacker. I yield the Floor.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

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

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for up to, or perhaps 1 or 2 minutes over, 20 minutes.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, this week there is plenty of drama unfolding at the Supreme Court, the stately building across the street from where we now stand. The Justices are deliberating inside the building. There is a lot of shouting and clamoring outside. That is to be expected. But I am here today to encourage all of us to pause for a minute and to step back from the hype and think about what the broader health care reform means to so many Americans, not just the citizens the Presiding Officer and I represent but Americans across this country. I do think, because I believe strongly that the rhetoric surrounding the issues has become so polarizing, many people routinely overlook the profound ways the law has already made life better to so many Americans. Let's remember why we started down this path of health reform at all. Let me say for the record this is a path that has been well trodden over the years by both Democrats and Republicans--in fact, over the last century--but we had never managed to enact meaningful reform in our system. Yes, we added on some extraordinary things such as Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid, but reform of the system we had not done. So we rejoiced in what happened in the mid-1960s, but that doesn't help us in terms of the overall disposition of the system. When we renewed this debate about how to fairly make sure everyone in the country could get the health care they needed, we actually, at the time as we started, had 46 million uninsured Americans. To be uninsured is not pleasant; it is a fearful condition. Employers had been dropping coverage for a decade due to skyrocketing health care costs. People were losing their jobs and with them their coverage. Even those who had coverage were being saddled with horrendous bills, and they were thrust into bankruptcy even though many of them thought they had coverage that was protecting them financially. They did not, but they thought they did. Some of those with preexisting conditions could not get back into the system at any cost whatsoever. Preexisting conditions are something people have--tens and tens of millions of Americans have those. Americans thought our system was broken and unfair, and they thought it was time to finally achieve our shared goal of access to care and a more affordable system. That was sensible. Let's start by looking at part of the law that protects those with preexisting conditions. As I just mentioned, there are about 133 million Americans, individual Americans, who live every day with chronic illnesses--or they fail to live--because of chronic illnesses. What happens to them when insurance companies refuse to cover their illnesses even while the insurance companies are collecting premiums from them? That is called rescission. It is a dirty trick the insurance companies have been doing to us in America for years. This law stops that. Before health reform, millions of Americans, including children, could be denied the health care they needed due to a preexisting condition. They might have had asthma. I had asthma until I was 12 years old. I wasn't worried about insurance, I gather, or maybe I didn't get sick, but anyway I couldn't have gotten insurance in those days because I had a preexisting condition. If a woman has a C-section, she has a preexisting condition. If someone has acne, that person can have a preexisting condition. If people have almost anything, they can have a preexisting condition if the insurance company says they do, so they just cut them off. It is called rescission. They cut them off even though they are paying premiums. That is unfair. I want to talk about what this has meant to real people every day. It means people have lived in fear of losing their employer-sponsored coverage or even leaving a job to start their own business for fear that they could not get coverage. It meant if somebody did get coverage, the insurance company could just carve out their condition. In other words, they could just get rid of them, dump them. What is the practical implication of this insurance company abuse? Consider this: People could get coverage if they had cancer, but the cancer would not be covered. Not good. And the preexisting condition doesn't have to be as complex as cancer. Insurance companies could deny coverage for something as simple as allergies. Before health reform, insurance companies could even deny coverage to a woman if she was a victim of domestic violence and had to be treated. That is unimaginably cruel, but it was a fact. That is no more. Under the health reform law preexisting conditions will no longer be a barrier to quality affordable health care. That is over. They cannot do it. It is against the law--the law which so many are trying to repeal. Is there anyone here who would like to go back to the old days, those good old days when individuals, including millions of children, were punished for things they couldn't possibly control? They were subject to devastating medical costs without the benefit of insurance--or their families were. I don't think people would want to go back there, but, of course, that is what will happen if we abandon all of this. Let's talk now about another piece of this great effort that also is often overlooked, and it is the coverage of young adults under the age of 26. I know that is a particular matter the Presiding Officer likes about this bill. In the past, many young adults in my State and everywhere have gone without health insurance as they made their way into the world after graduation. That is a ticklish time. Most of these young adults are not slackers, as they have sometimes been called. Many simply start out in low-wage or part-time jobs that typically do not offer health coverage. Because they were over the age of 18, and therefore technically adults, they were not able to maintain coverage under their parents' health insurance plan. This meant many young adults would forfeit basic things such as checkups or put off seeing a doctor when they had health problems in the hope it would go away. But that is no way to live, particularly not when 15 percent of young Americans suffer from a chronic health condition such as depression or diabetes--yes, that young--and not when a staggering 76 percent of uninsured adults report not getting needed care because of cost. Before health reform young adults represented one-third of our Nation's uninsured population. People always think of young people as healthy. Not so. They take risks. They end up in the emergency room often. Think about how many young adults and their families are so much in a better position. Why is that? That is because the law now allows young adults, with no coverage of their own, to pay premiums and to stay on their parents' health insurance policy up to their 26th birthday. This applies even if they no longer live at home, if they are no longer a student or they are no longer dependents on their parents' tax returns. In other words, they have coverage up to the age of 26. As a result, over 2.5 million young adults gained coverage they did not have before--that is a fact today--including more than 16,000 young adults in West Virginia. Those families have the peace of mind that their families will be financially protected should an injury or an illness occur. It is important to know that young people suffer a lot of mental health conditions, maybe a little bit more than the rest of the population. We don't think about that because they are young and therefore always ebullient. No, they are young and often troubled, trying to figure out what life holds for them. These conditions cause them problems, they need insurance, and they can get it. So right off the bat, parents such as Sam Hickman from West Virginia are able to get young adult coverage. Isn't our country a better place--it would seem to me--when people have the security of knowing they are covered in case of illness or injury. To me, it just makes sense; maybe more important, to the people it brings peace of mind. It is not all. The law provides access to free preventive health services and easier primary care, as well as increased financial assistance for students through new scholarships and loan repayment programs to build a stronger health care workforce. That is a major part of this bill. In West Virginia, as the Presiding Officer knows, and all across the country, particularly in rural areas, we have a shortage of various kinds of necessary physicians and health care providers. In fact, one of my favorite parts of this law is the significant new financial incentives it creates to encourage young adults to go into primary care--dentistry, pediatrics, nursing, and mental health--to precisely address those shortages. It is in the bill. Doesn't it make sense, given the shortage of skilled health care professionals in this country, to make it easier for young people to get into those well-paying stable jobs? Health care job growth continues to be a major stabilizing factor in our economy. Creating additional jobs in our local communities is something many in this body have fought for in all kinds of ways--tax credits and plans and all kinds of things--but in the meantime, health reform tackles that problem too, just inexorably. Health care jobs continue to grow year after year, most of them private, obviously. Just look at the numbers from the month of February of this year. The health care sector once again led the Nation's job growth last month, adding about 49,000 jobs, which was about the same as the month before. Health care is the economic engine--in fact, it kind of undergirds our economy. It is silent, it is relentless, and it will not stop because health care is something people cannot walk away from--the receiving of or the providing for. Another important group helped by health care reform is our Nation's seniors, starting with lowering the cost of their Medicare prescription drug coverage. That is very important in West Virginia, as the Presiding Officer knows. Thanks to the new health care law almost 40,000 people with Medicare in West Virginia received a $250 rebate-- they have already got it--to help cover the cost of their prescription drugs when they hit that famous doughnut hole in 2010. I will not bother to explain that. In 2011, more than 36,000 West Virginians with Medicare received a 50-percent discount on their covered brand-name prescription drugs when they hit the doughnut hole. That is called very good news. Then we go on to close the doughnut hole entirely. This discount I am talking of resulted in an average savings of $653 per person and a total savings of over $23.5 million in our State of West Virginia. By 2020, the law will close the doughnut hole completely, and I think that is rather sensational news for seniors. Closing the doughnut hole is not all this law does for seniors. Under the new law, seniors can receive recommended preventive services. We talk about that all the time, and we always think it is not in a bill. Preventive services such as flu shots, diabetes screening, as well as new annual wellness visits--all things seniors should do but often decline to do because of lack of access or thinking they have to pay for it and they don't have the money. So now they can get all of these screenings for diabetes and flu shots and all kinds of other things for free. So far, more than 32.5 million seniors nationwide have already received one or more free preventive services, including the new, as I indicated, annual wellness visit, which is a very good idea for any person. In 2011 more than 230,000 people with Medicare in West Virginia received free preventive services such as mammograms, colonoscopies, or a free annual wellness visit with a doctor, and 54 million Americans with private health insurance gained preventive service coverage with no cost sharing, including 300,000 people in the State of West Virginia. The new law also provides new grants and incentives to improve health care coordination and quality, as well as a new office, the Federal Coordinated Health Care Office. We have to have that. I kind of wish we didn't have to, but we do because it is a new science. This is trying to get away from the health care system as usual, so we do have that one little addition, sort of managing care for seniors and managing care for individuals with disabilities and, importantly, eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid. Those, obviously, are known as our dual- eligibles: those who are poor enough to be on Medicaid and old enough to be on Medicare, so they can't afford life, so to speak. They need help and they need health care, and under this bill they get that. There are about 8, 9, 10, 11 million of them in this country. Many doctors, many hospitals, and many other providers are taking advantage of the new options to help them work better as teams to provide the highest quality care possible. That is called coordinated care. It is new, it is important, and it is going to be really helpful. That is good news because many chronic illnesses can be prevented or managed better through this coordinated care. It means doctors actually talk to each other. The way it is now, when a patient gets an x ray taken by a dentist or by somebody else, the patient has to carry the x ray with them--if they can manage to get their hands on it--to go see another doctor, as opposed to a system, such as telemedicine, which has the technology to shoot the information over the Internet so the next doctor already has it, so he or some of his people are thinking about what they are going to do next. It is so important to talk to each other, but we don't. Doctors and hospitals often operate as if in a vacuum, sort of taking it on a case-by-case basis. That is bad for patients. The health care law also helps stop fraud with tougher screening procedures and stronger penalties and new technology. New technology can catch all kinds of things. Thanks in part to these efforts, we recovered $4.1 billion in taxpayer dollars in 2011. That was last year. The second year's recovery hit this recordbreaking level also. West Virginia tax dollars should not go to pay for criminals who are defrauding the system, and the administration is cracking down on this. Believe it or not, it is. And I am not done. In just over 18 months, a new competitive health insurance marketplace called an exchange--which has everybody nervous for no reason at all; it is great news--will be up and running in West Virginia and all across the country where individuals and small businesses can shop for coverage in the private health insurance market. This is not government; it is all private. An estimated 180,000 West Virginians will be eligible for $687 million in premium tax credits to help cover the cost of private health insurance in the year 2014 when the exchanges start. Families all over the country will finally have more power when it comes to buying health insurance that works for them--having more power is a big deal if you are trying to shop for health insurance--thanks to a clear, transparent summary of benefits. Yes, you actually get to see the choices from which you can pick. You have a list of all the services they are going to provide. It is required by law. They can't cheat. They can't just say: Oh, we will take care of you. Sign up with us. We are a big insurance company. So they get the transparent summary of benefits and coverage that will let them compare benefits on an apples-to-apples basis, which will come standard with every single private insurance plan, which will be what makes up the exchanges. They will go through that, and they will pick out what best suits them. In fact, it is quite telling that this little-known provision I have just talked about is the single most popular one in the entire law. I didn't know that. Eighty-four percent of Americans think that is really good. They like the idea of being able to choose what they are going to get in health care coverage. The insurance companies, of course, hate it and have been fighting with everything they have, but we have been beating it back, Mr. President, as you would expect me to do. What that tells me is that people are frustrated and fed up with the confusing information they have been getting from their health insurance companies, and they are tired of guessing games about what is actually covered. They have a right to know, and now they can. So I look forward to September of this year when every insurance company finally has to come clean about what benefits are actually covered and the products they are selling. It will be there in black and white. They can read it, and families will obviously have much more purchasing power in their hands. What is wrong with that? While opponents have gotten used to talking about how the law costs too much, in fact, it has great provisions that will not only improve the quality of care but also save hundreds of billions of dollars--yes, that is true--for example, the average $2,500 discount thousands of West Virginia small businesses received last December as a result of the medical loss ratio rule. That was what followed the public option. Everybody so loved the public option. They thought it was wonderful. The only problem is that it could not get votes from the Finance Committee, so it could not come down here and we could not do anything about it, so we invented the medical loss ratio. It is totally understandable, right? The question is, How does it work? Does it help people? And it does because it says that health insurance companies are required to spend at least 80 percent of small businesses' and 85 percent of large businesses' health insurance premium dollars on actual medical care--not on administration, not on marble pillars, not on CEO salaries and all of that. They have 20 percent or 15 percent to do all of that. But if they fail to do that, they have to rebate to the consumer, to the patient who has been paying the premiums, the fact that they have not been abiding by this 80 percent or 85 percent law, and that is probably going to be several billions of dollars--at the very least, hundreds and hundreds of millions, and that is kind of like billions--and it starts this year. I am delighted. Now, the Independent Payment Advisory Board, or IPAB, is another example. IPAB is not well understood and therefore not well received. What is not understood is generally not well received. That doesn't mean it is not good. IPAB will be made up of smart doctors, nurses, and other health care experts who will figure out ways to improve the quality of Medicare services and make sure the Medicare trust fund stays strong. And IPAB is legally forbidden in this law--which the folks across the street are now considering--from recommending cuts to Medicare benefits or in any way increasing cost sharing on the part of Medicare recipients. That is in the law--cannot cut benefits, no cost sharing. Yet the House just last week rallied behind an effort to repeal IPAB. They didn't know what it was or they had really bad dreams about what it was, so they repealed it and felt better. The House vote is a good example of what happens when special interest wins and seniors lose. The Independent Payment Advisory Board was created to protect Medicare for seniors by improving the quality of Medicare services and by extending the life of Medicare for years to come. Instead of making Medicare better, House Republicans want to decimate the program and force seniors to pay much more and give private health insurance companies and other special interests the authority to raid the Medicare trust fund, which they will do in order to pad their bottom line, which they would love to do. This would take us exactly in the wrong direction. Every single senior in America should be outraged. You can even get simple things like better information about private health insurance by just going to the Web site healthcare.gov. The information is out there to help people shop for better coverage today. There is so much more that has already happened and more to come, such as the nearly $70 million in grants West Virginia has already received for things like community health centers. We put aside $10 billion in the bill for maybe up to 1,000 new rural health care clinics across America. As the Presiding Officer knows, in places such as Lincoln County in West Virginia, people don't want to go to hospitals, but they will go to clinics happily because they are on the first floor, tend to be in buildings that used to be stores or whatever, and they get good medical care right there. In closing, why would we want to throw this law out the window knowing just these facts? Think about it. The reforms here are the most significant reforms in health care in several generations. It is an effort that 50 years from now history will record the same way we do Social Security or Medicare Programs--as an essential part of the implicit promise to care for its citizens, to allow people to age with dignity, and to find ways to make our society a better place. So as we mark the 2-year anniversary of the health care reform law becoming the law of the land--and the folks across the street will decide if that stands up or not, but I think they will--I, for one, am proud of my role in its passage and grateful that Congress came together on such a historic issue. I thank the Presiding Officer. I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank the good Senator from Missouri for her courtesy. Madam President, I rise today to express my very strong support for the confirmation of Gina Marie Groh to serve as a U.S. district judge for the Northern District of West Virginia. Gina Groh is absolutely qualified for this position and deserving of every Senator's support. She has more than 22 years of legal experience, of which 14 have been devoted to serving the people of West Virginia, first as a prosecutor and now as a trial judge. In these roles, Judge Groh has exhibited a superior intellect and an unwavering commitment to fairness and to justice. Lawyers describe her as meticulously prepared as a judge, and they describe her as somebody who administers justice in a timely and equitable manner. Because of her superior qualifications, she was reported out of the Judiciary Committee by an unopposed voice vote and has been waiting patiently for 5 months for an up-or-down vote. Judge Groh will be ready for the job on the day she assumes the bench, provided, of course, that she passes through this body. She knows how to make tough decisions. She knows how to issue thoughtful opinions and to protect the rights and liberties that are guaranteed to all Americans under our laws and our Constitution. I am very proud to urge all Senators to support Judge Groh's nomination. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

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

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am in this Chamber with my colleague, Senator Joe Manchin, who has as much interest in this as I do and feels the happiness from a wonderful event which will happen, we hope, tomorrow in West Virginia, which will not necessarily be a moment that most people around the country or even in this body will notice, but it is an enormous moment to the people of West Virginia because it has been a long festering problem that we believe will be ratified tomorrow. What am I talking about? Tomorrow the retirees at Century Aluminum in Ravenswood, WV, hopefully, are going to ratify a decision that has been reached by the Steelworkers, led by a local heroine, an icon of Appalachia, Karen Gorrell, who has stood out all night by the roadside protesting. Back in 2009, Century Aluminum--and aluminum is a volatile industry but very much of an up-industry now--simply shut down. Hundreds of jobs and hundreds of retirees and their families were just cut out and cut off. Periods of negotiation went on with Century Aluminum under the particular management then, but it wasn't going anywhere. There wasn't a lot of goodwill that I was able to detect. Then comes the kind of change you really want to see. You start with good people, good workers. It is a hard job. It pays pretty good wages, good benefits--not defined benefits in terms of health care but VIPA benefits, which are benefits nevertheless for retirees. They are good people who are located in a rural county in West Virginia, which is kind of the heartland of West Virginia where a lot of good people come from. They tend to work very hard and to be very wonderful. What these men and women have always wanted is simply to be treated fairly. In a world of big corporations, decisions are made from far away places by corporate leaders. But it doesn't necessarily need to work that way--that the people on the line are out in the cold without benefits, without health care at all. There they are picketing or just being miserable, and the world pays little attention because there is not a lot of progress made, so the attention is pulled away from it. But not if you are under the leadership of Karen Gorrell, the local union leader there. She is a fantastic woman who brings not only ferocity--she went to a corporate meeting--and the occupant of the chair will enjoy this because I know him well--wearing a T-shirt that was sort of the hand of the corporation with blood dripping off it, and it was a stockholders meeting. She was so good that people sort of respected her for that rather than resent her for it. But she is a strong, classic Appalachian person, a very strong union leader. What happened was there was new management at Century. The State had been extraordinarily helpful, the legislature, putting up a lot of money over a period of 10 years. What should have been able to happen was that Century Aluminum would open again, people would go back to work. But then the big enchilada would be if the Ravenswood plant itself, the old Kaiser plant, would open, for which there is a real purpose. They reminisce in West Virginia about Henry Kaiser, who obviously built that plant many years ago, going through the plant shaking hands with workers, knowing their names. That was a different era, and he was an extraordinarily good man. Senator Manchin and I want this situation to be worked out. We have both worked very hard on it. Actually, the parties weren't that far apart. What made them not that far apart was that the issues were complicated, but it was the will to settle that predominated. Each side didn't get exactly what they wanted, but each side, in a sophisticated, nuanced way, understood there were very high stakes for losing everything and very high stakes, including a lot of money from the West Virginia Legislature over 10 years. The stakes for winning, for settling were extraordinary. Everybody rose to the occasion. This could never have happened without the leadership of Karen Gorrell and her particular type of leadership, which I found wonderful, just refreshing. I have been out there many times over the years because Century Aluminum has had a lot of problems. I am sure Senator Manchin has too. Now I am praying and hoping they are going to ratify this agreement tomorrow. If that is so, I am not sure the news will reach Baltimore, and I am certain it will not reach Vancouver, but it will reach all over West Virginia. It will be an example of labor and management, with good corporate and union leadership, coming together at precisely the right moment, after a tremendous amount of strain and stress and anger. I conclude my statement just praying that the retirees will do what I think they are going to do tomorrow--I encourage that--and accept the agreement agreed to by the union and Century Aluminum. If that happens, whether they know about it in Vancouver doesn't interest me much. They will know about it in West Virginia, and I care about that.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, given that the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee was unable to mark up the National Rail System Preservation, Expansion, and Development Act of 2012 prior to floor consideration of S. 1813, I wanted to make a quick statement to thank Ranking Member Hutchison for her help in reaching agreement on the bill so the Senate could consider it as part of this measure. In my formal floor statement, I mention the virtues of and the needs for this bill. To provide more clarity about the Committee's intention with the provisions, I ask unanimous consent that this section-by-section analysis of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, every day tens of millions of Americans take to the roads, board buses, use Amtrak, to get to work, drop off their kids at school, or visit friends and family. Our transportation system binds our vast and diverse Nation together. All too often, our crumbling and inadequate transportation infrastructure makes all of these daily trips nothing short of unbearable. This issue is more than just a problem of personal inconvenience. Our aging transportation system is costing our economy with lost productivity. It is hurting our ability to export goods. It is precluding us from generating the economic growth necessary to create the jobs our economy needs. There is no disagreement that we need to improve the efficiency and capacity of our transportation system. We have heard a lot in the debate over this bill about the need to rebuild our crumbling bridges and expand our congested highways. But we also need to make sure that we have the safest transportation system possible. Safety is not an ancillary part of this debate. Reducing the number of fatalities on our nation's roads and rails must be the focus of this bill as it has been for previous transportation bills. It is one of the most important responsibilities we have in Congress. That is why I am here. I am proud that the Commerce Committee plays the central role in improving the safety of not only our transportation system, but the vehicles that travel upon it. Consider this: More than 90 Americans a day die on the road. This bill aims to bring that number down. Horrific bus crashes, as my colleague from Texas knows all too well, have happened in every State. This bill includes provisions from Senator Hutchison that sets new tough standards for their safety. Hazardous materials, including deadly chemicals and explosives, move alongside minivans and motorcycles. This bill sets standards to improve the safety of their transport to minimize the risks to the public. The rail system has proven to be relatively safe but all too avoidable accidents happen--both in passenger and freight rail. This bill sets higher standards for safety. The dangers and challenges never stop. And so we need to step up, respond to what is happening and make our transportation system as safe as it can be. Let me offer some specifics about what exactly is in the Commerce title of bill. We have the safety programs of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, or NHTSA, as we call it around here. NHTSA has led the way in raising safety standards on our roads and highways. Last year, highway deaths fell to their lowest levels in more than 60 years. But by reasonably asking more, we can save more lives. Some of NHTSA's most visible efforts center on reducing drunk driving fatalities. Last year, they dropped 5 percent, which is good but again we can do more. We can prevent more senseless deaths from drunk driving. We can make sure fewer families have to suffer the agony of a teenager's life cut short by a drunk driver. This bill recognizes the success and builds on it with new grant programs and help for States to reduce drunk driving and increase seatbelt use. It has an entire section on distracted driving, a growing crisis in this country that killed 3,000 people last year. Think about that: 3,000 people across the country dead because drivers were not paying attention to the road. My State, West Virginia, is proactive on this. The General Assembly has tackled the issue and things will get better. This bill follows the same path: it creates grants so that States can fight this just as they have with drunk driving and seatbelt use. This bill also gives new authority for the government to control imports of defective motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Again, our priority is safety and it is something that I am proud to emphasize. Let me tell you about another section in this bill. It's the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, FMCSA, which is aimed at reducing truck and bus crashes. Did you know truck crashes killed 3,675 people on our highways in 2010 alone? The death toll is going up even though overall traffic fatalities are down. We need to reverse this trend. In this bill, we work towards safer roads through the use of modernized technology and data. For example, we can put electronic on- board recorders on buses and trucks to cut back on fatigue-related accidents. These ``black boxes'' will make our highways safer and we must embrace the technology. There is more to the Commerce Committee's title than just vehicle safety provisions. Our bill includes the Hazardous Materials Transportation Safety Improvement Act, which requires uniform standards for the safe loading and unloading of hazardous materials on and off rail tank cars and cargo tank trucks. In this bill we make commonsense improvements to safety, such as establishing a program where shippers can electronically share information with carriers, emergency responders and enforcement personnel. Also, included is a provision to assist with the data collection that will help DOT make smart investments; this authorizes DOT's Research and Innovative Technology Administration, RITA, and enhances its ability to spur innovation in transportation research. I started my remarks by talking about how often our roads are overlooked. We collectively drive on 90,000 miles of crumbling highways and under and over 70,000 structurally damaged bridges. Our neglected infrastructure costs us $130 billion a year. We deserve better and this bill will get us there. In closing, I want to make two final points. First I would like thank all of my colleagues for their good word on this effort. Senator Boxer, Senator Johnson, Senator Baucus, the leadership, we all worked hard to get to this point. Second, I want to note that the art of legislating is finding compromise and common ground. I know some are unhappy with this bill, there are parts of it I would like to change myself. But the final product is good for West Virginia, good for the American people and an important step forward. Mr. President, I rise today to thank Chairman Baucus for the work he did on the Finance title of the transportation bill which we have just passed. He and his staff worked with me on a number of amendments both in the committee and on the floor, and their hard work has made this a better bill. I am particularly pleased that Chairman Baucus chose to include a provision of mine which closes the so-called ``Reverse Morris Trust'' loophole. This provision has allowed many profitable companies engaging in reorganizations to avoid paying tens of millions of dollars in corporate taxes, while loading up companies with debt and laying off hardworking employees. This bill would finally stop that practice. I also want to thank Senator Stabenow for graciously agreeing to modify her amendment extending expiring energy tax credits and deductions at my request so that the mine safety equipment and mine rescue team training tax incentives I have long championed could be included. These energy-related provisions should be a part of any tax extenders package and Senator Stabenow and her staff worked closely with me to try and advance mine safety through this bill and their efforts are much appreciated. Though her amendment was defeated, we will continue to work together to extend these important credits along with the alternative fuels tax credits--which support coal based fuels--and the refined coal tax credit which were also included in her amendment. I will also briefly mention two items that were not included in this bill, both of which I filed as amendments at the Finance Committee's mark-up, that I hope to see acted upon this year. One is the Steel Industry Fuel Tax Credit which expired at the end of 2010. This credit, which I have worked with a number of members of this body to enact and extend over the years, including the Finance Committee's ranking member, Senator Hatch, provides an important incentive to one our Nation's most important sectors, the steel industry. This credit encourages companies engaged in steel production to use a recycling process that both produces reliable energy and makes each plant more environmentally sound. I intend to advocate for this credit's reinstatement and hope that it will be included in a tax extenders package later this year. Finally, I want to mention an issue of great importance not only to West Virginia but a number of States around the country. Multi-employer pension plans have come under increased hardship in recent years due to a combination of investment losses and business participants exiting the plans. The victims, through no fault of their own, are retirees. Ultimately Congress needs to address pension stability for all retirees, but in the meantime, I have introduced S. 621, the Coalfield Accountability and Retired Employee Act. This legislation would safeguard the pensions of retired mineworkers--the hard working men and women who have helped power this country. If the government does not work with multi-employer plan participants and employers, these retirees face the risk of reduced benefits down the road, and the Federal Government risks assuming billions of dollars of liabilities. This legislation is important to the people of my State and I will continue to work to prevent these retirees from losing the benefits they worked so hard to earn.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. On behalf of myself and Senator Baucus, I wish to state that title VI of the conference report to H.R. 3630, the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, contains landmark bipartisan legislation that more than 10 years after 9/11 will provide police, firefighters, and other first responders with a nationwide, interoperable wireless broadband network for public safety. This legislation will also help ease the Nation's growing spectrum shortage, through the auction of new spectrum to commercial providers. Revenues from these spectrum auctions will fund the public safety network--and contribute $15.2 billion to the unemployment compensation fund. Specifically, Title VI of the conference report provides $7 billion in spectrum auction proceeds as well as D-Block spectrum worth $2.75 billion to develop a nationwide, interoperable wireless broadband network for public safety officials through a new First Responder Network Authority. The title also directs the Federal Communications Commission, FCC, to auction underutilized spectrum and provides the agency with authority to hold voluntary incentive auctions. These auctions are expected to raise more than $25 billion in revenue. In addition, the title authorizes the FCC to create guard bands in the broadcast spectrum that can be used for innovative new unlicensed uses like Super Wi-Fi. These efforts will help meet the growing spectrum demands of smartphones and tablets. Moreover, investment in the wireless economy is expected to create hundreds of thousands of new jobs. The title is based on bipartisan legislation developed by Senator Rockefeller and Senator Hutchison, S. 911, and a comparable House bill, H.R. 3630. The public safety provisions are based on the national model first developed in S. 911, with some changes to ensure flexibility for States. The spectrum auction provisions are based on the auction model in H.R. 3630, with some changes regarding unlicensed spectrum and FCC auction rules. As to public safety provisions, title VI of the conference report provides for the construction of a nationwide, interoperable public safety wireless broadband network. It does this using the D-Block spectrum, which is ideally located for fostering seamless communication among first responders. It will allow them to take full advantage of broadband functions in emergencies e.g., allowing firefighters to download floor plans to see inside buildings before they enter. It also will promote economies of scale and efficiencies from using the same spectrum nationwide. The title creates a First Responder Network Authority as an independent entity within the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, NTIA, and provides the Authority with $7 billion and a license to use the D-Block to build the nationwide public safety network. To ensure efficiency, the title requires that the Authority leverage existing commercial networks in construction. To ensure national interoperability, the title also creates a technical advisory board at the FCC to develop initial interoperability standards. States that want to construct their own portion of the National public safety network have the option to apply for Federal grants to build and operate the radio access network in the State if they can demonstrate to the FCC that the network will meet the interoperability standards and to the NTIA that they have the resources and capability to provide comparable coverage and security and the ability to maintain ongoing interoperability. Unlike H.R. 3630, the title does not require public safety officials to return the important 700 MHz narrowband spectrum to the FCC for auction. Instead, it requires the return of a more limited amount of spectrum currently used by public safety. This return of a portion of the so-called ``T-Band'' spectrum occurs 11 years from the date of enactment, and public safety relocation costs will be reimbursed from any auction proceeds. This time frame provides an opportunity for continued assessment of the viability of this transition--and its impact on public safety communications. The title also authorizes up to $300 million for critical public safety research and development activities and promotes deployment of Next Generation 9 1-1 services, which will complement the advanced broadband capabilities of the public safety network by enabling the delivery of voice, text, video, and other data to 9 1-1 call centers. As to the spectrum auction provisions, the auction provisions in Title VI of the conference report are largely the same as those in H.R. 3630, with two significant exceptions--the provisions relating to unlicensed spectrum and FCC auction authority. Unlicensed spectrum has been an engine of economic innovation and growth. Today, unlicensed uses include Wi-Fi connections for laptops, television remote controls, and cordless telephones. In the future, unlicensed spectrum is expected to enable new forms of communication, like Super Wi-Fi. The title advances this goal in three ways. First, it gives the FCC the authority to preserve existing television white spaces. Second, it gives the FCC the authority to optimize these white spaces for unlicensed use by consolidating them into more optimal configurations through band plans. Third, it gives the FCC the authority to use part of the spectrum relinquished by television broadcasters in the incentive auction to create nationwide guard bands that can be used for unlicensed use, including in high value markets that currently have little or no white spaces today. Nationwide, unlicensed access to guard bands will enable innovation, promote investment in new wireless services, and enhance the value of licensed spectrum by protecting against harmful interference and allowing carriers to off-load data to alleviate capacity concerns. Under current law, the FCC has broad authority to craft auction rules in the public interest. The agency has used this authority to ensure that communications markets remain competitive. H.R. 3630 would have restricted the FCC's future ability to limit participation in and set rules for spectrum auctions. Title VI of the conference report modifies this prohibition by expressly preserving the FCC's flexibility to protect competition in the awarding of licenses, and to adopt auction procedures and other rules of general applicability.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, when most Americans think of cyber security, they conjure up an image of somebody having a credit card number stolen, for example, or a prankster using their Twitter account or somebody downloading a movie without paying for it. And although that is all true and important, it is not dangerous. The internet is central to our lives, our economy, and our society. Any insecurity is a worry. I will expand. We are here today because the experts are warning us that we are on the brink of something much worse, something that could bring down our economy, rip open our national security or even take lives. The prospect of mass casualty is what has propelled us to make cyber security a top priority for this year, to make it an issue that transcends political parties or ideology. Consider the warning signs: Hackers now seem to be able to routinely crack the codes of our government agencies, including the most sensitive ones. They do so routinely with our Fortune 500 companies, and then everything in between. ADM Mike Mullen, former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, said that a cyber security threat is the only other threat that is on the same level as Russia's stockpile of nuclear weapons--loose nukes, if you will. FBI Director Robert Mueller testified to Congress very recently that the cyber threat will soon overcome terrorism as the top national security focus of the FBI. Think about that--cyber threats will be as dangerous as terrorism. Cyber threats and the prospects of a widespread cyber attack could potentially be as devastating to this country as the terrorist strikes that tore apart this country just 10 short years ago. How is that possible, you ask. Think about how many people could die if a cyber terrorist attacked our air traffic control system--both now and when it is made modern--and our planes slammed into one another or if rail- switching networks were hacked, causing trains carrying people--and more than that, perhaps hazardous material, toxic materials--to derail or collide in the midst of our most populated urban areas, such as Chicago, New York, San Francisco, Washington, DC, et cetera. What about an attack on networks that run a pipeline, refinery, or a chemical factory, causing temperature and pressure imbalance, leading to an explosion equivalent to a massive bomb, or an attack on a power grid, shutting down generators and killing electricity going into cities and our hospitals. In short, we are on the brink of what could be a calamity. President Bush's last Director of National Intelligence and President Obama's first Director of National Intelligence in consecutive years said that cyber security was the major national security threat facing this Nation. Are we paying attention? We can act now and try to prepare ourselves as best we can or we can wait and we will be surprised with what happens. I am here to argue that we should act now to prevent a cyber disaster. That is what this bill would do. Working with my friends Senator Lieberman and Senator Collins, we have written legislation that I believe strikes the right balance, addressing the danger without putting an undue new set of regulations on business. Our bill would determine the greatest cyber vulnerabilities throughout our critical infrastructure; protect and promote private sector innovation, creativity, and encourage private sector leadership and real accountability in securing their private systems; and improve threat and vulnerability information sharing between the government and the private sector, while protecting as best as we can privacy and civil liberties. It will improve the security of the Federal Government networks, including our most sensitive ones that are now being hacked into; clarify the roles and responsibilities of Federal agencies; strengthen our cyber workforce; coordinate cyber security research and development; and promote public awareness of cyber vulnerabilities to ensure a better informed and more alert citizenry, frankly. Let me say again that this is bipartisan and was written to address the many concerns that surfaced 3 years ago when we first raised this issue and, frankly, when we started writing this bill. We held meetings with all sides and incorporated hundreds of specific suggestions and, in short, tried to do what we do with any important and large piece of legislation--make a lot of people really think deeply and come up with a compromise to which everyone can agree. Earlier this month, an association of major high-tech companies praised our approach. Generally, they do. We have talked with industry, with the White House, with everybody hundreds of times over a period of 3 years, and in the end we settled on a plan that creates no new bureaucracy or heavyhanded regulation. However, it is premised on companies taking responsibility for securing their own networks, with government assistance as necessary. Will they do that? I think back to 2000 and 2001 when we all saw signs of people moving in and out of the country. We were not quite sure what that meant. We saw dots appear to connect, but did they or didn't they? And we knew something new and something different and something dangerous just might be upon us, but we didn't drill down. Our intelligence and national security leadership took these matters very seriously, as best as they possibly could, but in the end not seriously enough. It was too late--September 11 happened. Today, with a new set of warnings flashing before us on a different subject--cyber security and a wide range of new challenges to our security and our safety--we again face a choice: act now and put in place safeguards to protect this country and our people or act later when it is too late. I hope we act now.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, when most Americans think of cyber security, they conjure up an image of somebody having a credit card number stolen, for example, or a prankster using their Twitter account or somebody downloading a movie without paying for it. And although that is all true and important, it is not dangerous. The internet is central to our lives, our economy, and our society. Any insecurity is a worry. I will expand. We are here today because the experts are warning us that we are on the brink of something much worse, something that could bring down our economy, rip open our national security or even take lives. The prospect of mass casualty is what has propelled us to make cyber security a top priority for this year, to make it an issue that transcends political parties or ideology. Consider the warning signs: Hackers now seem to be able to routinely crack the codes of our government agencies, including the most sensitive ones. They do so routinely with our Fortune 500 companies, and then everything in between. ADM Mike Mullen, former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, said that a cyber security threat is the only other threat that is on the same level as Russia's stockpile of nuclear weapons--loose nukes, if you will. FBI Director Robert Mueller testified to Congress very recently that the cyber threat will soon overcome terrorism as the top national security focus of the FBI. Think about that--cyber threats will be as dangerous as terrorism. Cyber threats and the prospects of a widespread cyber attack could potentially be as devastating to this country as the terrorist strikes that tore apart this country just 10 short years ago. How is that possible, you ask. Think about how many people could die if a cyber terrorist attacked our air traffic control system--both now and when it is made modern--and our planes slammed into one another or if rail- switching networks were hacked, causing trains carrying people--and more than that, perhaps hazardous material, toxic materials--to derail or collide in the midst of our most populated urban areas, such as Chicago, New York, San Francisco, Washington, DC, et cetera. What about an attack on networks that run a pipeline, refinery, or a chemical factory, causing temperature and pressure imbalance, leading to an explosion equivalent to a massive bomb, or an attack on a power grid, shutting down generators and killing electricity going into cities and our hospitals. In short, we are on the brink of what could be a calamity. President Bush's last Director of National Intelligence and President Obama's first Director of National Intelligence in consecutive years said that cyber security was the major national security threat facing this Nation. Are we paying attention? We can act now and try to prepare ourselves as best we can or we can wait and we will be surprised with what happens. I am here to argue that we should act now to prevent a cyber disaster. That is what this bill would do. Working with my friends Senator Lieberman and Senator Collins, we have written legislation that I believe strikes the right balance, addressing the danger without putting an undue new set of regulations on business. Our bill would determine the greatest cyber vulnerabilities throughout our critical infrastructure; protect and promote private sector innovation, creativity, and encourage private sector leadership and real accountability in securing their private systems; and improve threat and vulnerability information sharing between the government and the private sector, while protecting as best as we can privacy and civil liberties. It will improve the security of the Federal Government networks, including our most sensitive ones that are now being hacked into; clarify the roles and responsibilities of Federal agencies; strengthen our cyber workforce; coordinate cyber security research and development; and promote public awareness of cyber vulnerabilities to ensure a better informed and more alert citizenry, frankly. Let me say again that this is bipartisan and was written to address the many concerns that surfaced 3 years ago when we first raised this issue and, frankly, when we started writing this bill. We held meetings with all sides and incorporated hundreds of specific suggestions and, in short, tried to do what we do with any important and large piece of legislation--make a lot of people really think deeply and come up with a compromise to which everyone can agree. Earlier this month, an association of major high-tech companies praised our approach. Generally, they do. We have talked with industry, with the White House, with everybody hundreds of times over a period of 3 years, and in the end we settled on a plan that creates no new bureaucracy or heavyhanded regulation. However, it is premised on companies taking responsibility for securing their own networks, with government assistance as necessary. Will they do that? I think back to 2000 and 2001 when we all saw signs of people moving in and out of the country. We were not quite sure what that meant. We saw dots appear to connect, but did they or didn't they? And we knew something new and something different and something dangerous just might be upon us, but we didn't drill down. Our intelligence and national security leadership took these matters very seriously, as best as they possibly could, but in the end not seriously enough. It was too late--September 11 happened. Today, with a new set of warnings flashing before us on a different subject--cyber security and a wide range of new challenges to our security and our safety--we again face a choice: act now and put in place safeguards to protect this country and our people or act later when it is too late. I hope we act now.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Small Business Start-up Support Act of 2012, legislation that will promote small business growth in my home state of West Virginia, and around the country. Since the recession, I have met with countless business owners, as well as those who dream of starting a small business. One of the common themes of these conversations is the difficulty these individuals have raising capital, particularly when a business is in its infancy. This legislation helps those individuals out, by expanding a successful provision of the tax code that allows business owners to deduct up to $5,000 of start-up costs. These start-up costs are things like legal and marketing costs that are necessary to get a business up and running, but put a strain on an already tight budget. My bill would expand this deduction so that individuals can deduct up to $10,000 of start-up costs. For a business to survive, and thrive, its owner has to do their homework during its infancy. They have to study things like supply chains and distribution models. They have to develop marketing plans. Each of these things has a cost that is incurred before a business makes dollar one. That is when a business owner is most in need of assistance and that is why this credit was first enacted. A temporary expansion of the start-up deduction was enacted in 2008, and it was one of many actions this Congress took to help business owners weather the recession and keep their doors open. President Obama included a permanent extension of this provision in his ``Startup America'' legislative agenda and I am committed to seeing it become law. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation and thank the chair for allowing me to speak on this issue.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Small Business Start-up Support Act of 2012, legislation that will promote small business growth in my home state of West Virginia, and around the country. Since the recession, I have met with countless business owners, as well as those who dream of starting a small business. One of the common themes of these conversations is the difficulty these individuals have raising capital, particularly when a business is in its infancy. This legislation helps those individuals out, by expanding a successful provision of the tax code that allows business owners to deduct up to $5,000 of start-up costs. These start-up costs are things like legal and marketing costs that are necessary to get a business up and running, but put a strain on an already tight budget. My bill would expand this deduction so that individuals can deduct up to $10,000 of start-up costs. For a business to survive, and thrive, its owner has to do their homework during its infancy. They have to study things like supply chains and distribution models. They have to develop marketing plans. Each of these things has a cost that is incurred before a business makes dollar one. That is when a business owner is most in need of assistance and that is why this credit was first enacted. A temporary expansion of the start-up deduction was enacted in 2008, and it was one of many actions this Congress took to help business owners weather the recession and keep their doors open. President Obama included a permanent extension of this provision in his ``Startup America'' legislative agenda and I am committed to seeing it become law. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation and thank the chair for allowing me to speak on this issue.