Jay Rockefeller

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I am introducing the American Jobs Matter Act, legislation that will promote domestic job creation in the field of Federal contracting. We must do all that we can to stop the outward migration of jobs. This bill takes the important step of directing the Federal Government to notify contract applicants that it may consider American job impact when deciding which bids to accept. The government would then be allowed to use that information in making award decisions. There should be no greater champion of American-made goods than the Federal Government. Members of Congress come from 50 States and 435 districts and we each know of the special skill sets that our constituents possess and how fortunate the Federal Government would be to have these employees working on Federal projects. Yet our flawed procurement policy has no mechanism to assess the impact of government purchasing on American jobs. This bill seeks to change that. Under the American Jobs Matter Act, contractors will be allowed to submit information related to the net effect of their offer on American employment. This information could include the number of American jobs expected to be created or retained as a result of the work. Bidders would also be allowed to guarantee that the jobs created would not be moved outside the United States after the contract is awarded. The legislation would finally give Federal agencies the ability to assess the impact of procurement decisions on American jobs. It does not dictate that a contract go to the applicant that will create the most jobs. It just elevates job creation to its right place in the hierarchy of criteria that should be studied before making a decision. The American Jobs Matter Act would be an important step towards promoting a vibrant manufacturing base which is essential to our standard of living, the health of our communities, and ensuring our long-term economic security. I want to thank my counterpart from the House of Representatives, Representative Chris Murphy, for his leadership in that body on this legislation. 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 American Jobs Matter Act, legislation that will promote domestic job creation in the field of Federal contracting. We must do all that we can to stop the outward migration of jobs. This bill takes the important step of directing the Federal Government to notify contract applicants that it may consider American job impact when deciding which bids to accept. The government would then be allowed to use that information in making award decisions. There should be no greater champion of American-made goods than the Federal Government. Members of Congress come from 50 States and 435 districts and we each know of the special skill sets that our constituents possess and how fortunate the Federal Government would be to have these employees working on Federal projects. Yet our flawed procurement policy has no mechanism to assess the impact of government purchasing on American jobs. This bill seeks to change that. Under the American Jobs Matter Act, contractors will be allowed to submit information related to the net effect of their offer on American employment. This information could include the number of American jobs expected to be created or retained as a result of the work. Bidders would also be allowed to guarantee that the jobs created would not be moved outside the United States after the contract is awarded. The legislation would finally give Federal agencies the ability to assess the impact of procurement decisions on American jobs. It does not dictate that a contract go to the applicant that will create the most jobs. It just elevates job creation to its right place in the hierarchy of criteria that should be studied before making a decision. The American Jobs Matter Act would be an important step towards promoting a vibrant manufacturing base which is essential to our standard of living, the health of our communities, and ensuring our long-term economic security. I want to thank my counterpart from the House of Representatives, Representative Chris Murphy, for his leadership in that body on this legislation. 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. Madam President, I want to express my strong support for the managers' amendment to S. 679, the Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act of 2011. I support this bill to make the conformation process more efficient and more responsive because it will enable many qualified individuals to take government positions without first going through a sometimes long and arduous confirmation process here in the Senate. I believe the confirmation process is an important constitutional duty of the Senate. But it is simply not needed for every position in the U.S. Government. Not every nominee requires the same level of scrutiny and process. The Founders understood this issue well, as the Constitution is unusually precise in this regard. It specifically enables the Congress to do what we are doing today--to vest the appointment power for inferior officers with the President. And we are doing it because the confirmation process has become so cumbersome that the Federal Government is losing very able and attractive candidates. The confirmation process can take months, from the time the President submits a candidate's name to full consideration by the Senate. This long, drawn-out process prevents the public sector from attracting some of the best and brightest. Although I have supported the goals of S. 679 since its introduction, a few critical changes were necessary to strengthen the bill. I, as well as several of my fellow committee chairs, shared these concerns with the bill's sponsors. I appreciate the sponsors working to address our concerns in the managers' amendment. The amendment will still make the appointment process more efficient by taking hundreds of positions out of the confirmation process. But it will also maintain Senate confirmation for some key positions. The amendment will ensure Senate confirmation is required for the chief financial officer position in several agencies. The CFO is a critical position, as I am constantly reminded in my own interactions with one of the agencies in the Commerce Committee's jurisdiction in recent months. The managers' amendment will also retain confirmation for the Assistant Secretaries for Legislative Affairs, who are critical in working with Congress. I congratulate Senators Schumer, Alexander, Lieberman, and Collins, and their staffs for their hard work on this important bill. We would not be here today without their efforts.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I, along with my colleague Senator Manchin, rise today to introduce the Fair Competition for Hospitals Act of 2011, legislation that will level the playing field for a handful of hospitals in the Northern Panhandle of West Virginia who are burdened by a payment disparity as compared to hospitals in neighboring States serving the same patient population. This legislation will adjust the wage index determination for these hospitals to make sure they are treated the same as the nearby facilities in other States. It will also help hospitals in other areas of the country facing a similar situation. Medicare's hospital wage index system was created to reflect the variation in the price of labor across the country. Usually, hospitals in different States are located far enough apart that they do not compete for the same patients or workforce, within the same labor market. However, the geography in the Northern Panhandle of West Virginia presents a unique situation; with a geographic area as little as 6 miles wide, hospitals in West Virginia are much more akin to hospitals in Ohio and Pennsylvania, on either side of the panhandle. Therefore, this small group of hospitals is competitively disadvantaged because of wage index differences across state borders. This competitive disadvantage is causing these hospitals to struggle under the weight of providing the same care for a lower payment and making it more difficult to continue the high level of care for which they have become known. These hospitals are vital cornerstones to the people in their communities. They employ more than 4,000 people and provide health care for tens of thousands more. As an essential part of the community, they should not be significantly disadvantaged by a payment structure that does not take into account the unique makeup of this area. The solution I am introducing today is budget neutral and fair. It will make sure that these hospitals in my State are treated on a level playing field with their competitors and not disadvantaged by an economically meaningless State border. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I, along with my colleague Senator Manchin, rise today to introduce the Fair Competition for Hospitals Act of 2011, legislation that will level the playing field for a handful of hospitals in the Northern Panhandle of West Virginia who are burdened by a payment disparity as compared to hospitals in neighboring States serving the same patient population. This legislation will adjust the wage index determination for these hospitals to make sure they are treated the same as the nearby facilities in other States. It will also help hospitals in other areas of the country facing a similar situation. Medicare's hospital wage index system was created to reflect the variation in the price of labor across the country. Usually, hospitals in different States are located far enough apart that they do not compete for the same patients or workforce, within the same labor market. However, the geography in the Northern Panhandle of West Virginia presents a unique situation; with a geographic area as little as 6 miles wide, hospitals in West Virginia are much more akin to hospitals in Ohio and Pennsylvania, on either side of the panhandle. Therefore, this small group of hospitals is competitively disadvantaged because of wage index differences across state borders. This competitive disadvantage is causing these hospitals to struggle under the weight of providing the same care for a lower payment and making it more difficult to continue the high level of care for which they have become known. These hospitals are vital cornerstones to the people in their communities. They employ more than 4,000 people and provide health care for tens of thousands more. As an essential part of the community, they should not be significantly disadvantaged by a payment structure that does not take into account the unique makeup of this area. The solution I am introducing today is budget neutral and fair. It will make sure that these hospitals in my State are treated on a level playing field with their competitors and not disadvantaged by an economically meaningless State border. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Medicare Drug Savings Act of 2011. I am proud to be joined by my colleagues Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, Senator Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Senator Barbara Boxer of California, in introducing this important piece of legislation. The Republican budget would end Medicare as we know it, replacing it with a voucher program that would double seniors' out of pocket costs and leave them at the mercy of private insurance companies. It would also decimate the Medicaid program, leaving millions of vulnerable individuals including seniors, children, and people with disabilities with nowhere to turn for care. We need to responsibly reduce our deficit, but taking away health care for seniors and other vulnerable people should be off the table. Rather than dismantling Medicare and Medicaid, we can save hundreds of billions of dollars by holding drug companies accountable and using the purchasing power of the federal government to negotiate lower drug prices. That is why we are introducing the Medicare Drug Savings Act. The bill will eliminate a special deal from the 2003 Medicare prescription drug law that allows drug companies to charge Medicare higher prices for some seniors' prescription drugs. It would require prescription drug manufacturers to pay rebates to Medicare for dually eligible beneficiaries in Medicare and Medicaid. This proposal would reduce the deficit, saving taxpayers an estimated $112 billion over the next ten years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Similar proposals were also included in the recommendations from the President's Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, and the President's framework for deficit reduction. Prior to the creation of the Medicare prescription drug program, brand-name drug manufacturers paid a drug rebate for dually eligible beneficiaries in Medicare and Medicaid. However, when the new Medicare drug program was established, drug companies no longer had to provide these rebates, resulting in windfall profits for prescription drug manufacturers, at taxpayers' expense. The Medicare Drug Savings Act would require prescription drug manufacturers to provide a rebate for drugs provided to dually eligible beneficiaries as well as all other enrollees in the low-income-subsidy, LIS, plan in the Medicare Part D Prescription Drug Program. Manufacturers would be required to pay the difference between the lowest current rebates they are paying to private Part D drug plans, and, the percentage of Average Manufacture Price, AMP, they currently pay under Medicaid, plus an additional rebate if their prices grow additional inflation. They would be required to participate in the rebate program in order for their drugs to be covered by Medicare Part D. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. In doing so, we will protect Medicare for seniors, and end a giveaway to drug companies that is costing taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise to say a few words on the introduction of the Data Security and Breach Notification Act. Senator Pryor and I introduced this bill in the 111th Congress, and given the recent high-profile data breaches that have endangered the well-being of millions of ordinary American consumers, today's reintroduction of this comprehensive bill is timely. I want to thank and commend Senator Pryor for his leadership on this issue and for his terrific work as Chairman of the Consumer Protection Subcommittee on the Commerce Committee. As the recent breaches at Citigroup, Sony, and Epsilon have taught us, companies that collect and store sensitive consumer information should have two important obligations: to maintain that information in a manner that is safe and secure; and to notify affected consumers as quickly as possible in the wake of a security breach in order to allow them to take necessary steps to protect themselves. Senator Pryor's and my bill addresses both of these obligations. Currently, 47 States have data breach notification laws on the books, but very few address how companies should secure their data from the outset to prevent such breaches. Our bill calls on the Federal Trade Commission to promulgate regulations that direct companies to establish and maintain reasonable protocols to secure consumer data from unauthorized access. In this regard, the bill also has specific provisions addressing data brokers, which are companies that collect and sell massive amounts of information on individuals, largely without their knowledge. The Data Security and Breach Notification Act would allow consumers to access and, if necessary, correct the personal information that these data brokers maintain and sell. Furthermore, if a security breach occurs, our bill requires companies to notify affected consumers unless there is no reasonable risk of identity theft, fraud or unlawful conduct. This breach notification standard is very important and reflects the most consumer-protective standard in the country. The presumption is that companies should notify consumers of a breach. However, if the breached entity determines that there is no reasonable risk of harm, for instance, if the company has made the data unusable through advanced encryption technology, then they are spared this obligation. The FTC and state Attorneys General are tasked with enforcing the law. The Commerce Committee has a long, well-established history of addressing data security issues, and the Committee has reported data security bills in past Congresses. As Chairman of the Commerce Committee, I intend to work with Senator Pryor to enact this bill into law. Majority Leader Reid has introduced a cyber-security bill that provides for the inclusion of a data security section, and the Obama Administration has also released a cybersecurity proposal that contains a breach notification provision. The bill that Senator Pryor and I have introduced is a carefully balanced bill that protects consumers, but also addresses the legitimate needs of business and does not impose needless regulations and obligations. This bill has wide support from both the consumer groups and many sectors in the business community, and I will work with Senator Pryor to address further concerns in order to garner consensus.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise to say a few words on the introduction of the Data Security and Breach Notification Act. Senator Pryor and I introduced this bill in the 111th Congress, and given the recent high-profile data breaches that have endangered the well-being of millions of ordinary American consumers, today's reintroduction of this comprehensive bill is timely. I want to thank and commend Senator Pryor for his leadership on this issue and for his terrific work as Chairman of the Consumer Protection Subcommittee on the Commerce Committee. As the recent breaches at Citigroup, Sony, and Epsilon have taught us, companies that collect and store sensitive consumer information should have two important obligations: to maintain that information in a manner that is safe and secure; and to notify affected consumers as quickly as possible in the wake of a security breach in order to allow them to take necessary steps to protect themselves. Senator Pryor's and my bill addresses both of these obligations. Currently, 47 States have data breach notification laws on the books, but very few address how companies should secure their data from the outset to prevent such breaches. Our bill calls on the Federal Trade Commission to promulgate regulations that direct companies to establish and maintain reasonable protocols to secure consumer data from unauthorized access. In this regard, the bill also has specific provisions addressing data brokers, which are companies that collect and sell massive amounts of information on individuals, largely without their knowledge. The Data Security and Breach Notification Act would allow consumers to access and, if necessary, correct the personal information that these data brokers maintain and sell. Furthermore, if a security breach occurs, our bill requires companies to notify affected consumers unless there is no reasonable risk of identity theft, fraud or unlawful conduct. This breach notification standard is very important and reflects the most consumer-protective standard in the country. The presumption is that companies should notify consumers of a breach. However, if the breached entity determines that there is no reasonable risk of harm, for instance, if the company has made the data unusable through advanced encryption technology, then they are spared this obligation. The FTC and state Attorneys General are tasked with enforcing the law. The Commerce Committee has a long, well-established history of addressing data security issues, and the Committee has reported data security bills in past Congresses. As Chairman of the Commerce Committee, I intend to work with Senator Pryor to enact this bill into law. Majority Leader Reid has introduced a cyber-security bill that provides for the inclusion of a data security section, and the Obama Administration has also released a cybersecurity proposal that contains a breach notification provision. The bill that Senator Pryor and I have introduced is a carefully balanced bill that protects consumers, but also addresses the legitimate needs of business and does not impose needless regulations and obligations. This bill has wide support from both the consumer groups and many sectors in the business community, and I will work with Senator Pryor to address further concerns in order to garner consensus.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Medicare Drug Savings Act of 2011. I am proud to be joined by my colleagues Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, Senator Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Senator Barbara Boxer of California, in introducing this important piece of legislation. The Republican budget would end Medicare as we know it, replacing it with a voucher program that would double seniors' out of pocket costs and leave them at the mercy of private insurance companies. It would also decimate the Medicaid program, leaving millions of vulnerable individuals including seniors, children, and people with disabilities with nowhere to turn for care. We need to responsibly reduce our deficit, but taking away health care for seniors and other vulnerable people should be off the table. Rather than dismantling Medicare and Medicaid, we can save hundreds of billions of dollars by holding drug companies accountable and using the purchasing power of the federal government to negotiate lower drug prices. That is why we are introducing the Medicare Drug Savings Act. The bill will eliminate a special deal from the 2003 Medicare prescription drug law that allows drug companies to charge Medicare higher prices for some seniors' prescription drugs. It would require prescription drug manufacturers to pay rebates to Medicare for dually eligible beneficiaries in Medicare and Medicaid. This proposal would reduce the deficit, saving taxpayers an estimated $112 billion over the next ten years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Similar proposals were also included in the recommendations from the President's Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, and the President's framework for deficit reduction. Prior to the creation of the Medicare prescription drug program, brand-name drug manufacturers paid a drug rebate for dually eligible beneficiaries in Medicare and Medicaid. However, when the new Medicare drug program was established, drug companies no longer had to provide these rebates, resulting in windfall profits for prescription drug manufacturers, at taxpayers' expense. The Medicare Drug Savings Act would require prescription drug manufacturers to provide a rebate for drugs provided to dually eligible beneficiaries as well as all other enrollees in the low-income-subsidy, LIS, plan in the Medicare Part D Prescription Drug Program. Manufacturers would be required to pay the difference between the lowest current rebates they are paying to private Part D drug plans, and, the percentage of Average Manufacture Price, AMP, they currently pay under Medicaid, plus an additional rebate if their prices grow additional inflation. They would be required to participate in the rebate program in order for their drugs to be covered by Medicare Part D. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. In doing so, we will protect Medicare for seniors, and end a giveaway to drug companies that is costing taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, in 1964 President Johnson envisioned an America that ``rests on abundance and liberty for all.'' It was against LBJ's backdrop of the Great Society that we reignited a tradition of community. This was a little spillover of the 1960s and our flight to the Moon and all of that, but the Nation somehow came together, and we sensed that we were a community and that we had a mutual obligation to each other, and that is at the very least characteristic of the American people, more then than now. Programs such as VISTA, Peace Corps, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid were born in those few years, 1961 though 1964. Sadly, nearly 50 years after LBJ's war on poverty, we have witnessed vicious attempts to roll back government programs designed to give low- income Americans a hand up in life. I do not mean just low-income Americans but disabled Americans, very poor senior Americans who qualify for both Medicare and Medicaid--such a difficult journey they have. What we want to do is not to give people a hand up but simply to be a safety net. That is what he said this country owed its people. That is true about defense, and that is true about social policy. We have responsibility, all of us, to do that, to make sure nobody is left out. There is no question that we must reduce our deficit, and I have a whole series of ways that can be done in abundance, but we should not do so on the backs of working families still struggling under the weight of this recession. Oh, yes, we are in a recession, so everything that was true about people who were having a hard time before is a lot truer now. Yet bill after bill proposed by Republicans seeks to do exactly that. The House Republican H.R. 1 was a direct attack on America's working families and the successful education, job-training, and community development programs designed to combat poverty. The Republican budget proposal for next year goes even further. It attacks Medicare and Medicaid, the health programs on which over 100 million American people rely--some more than others, but all have to have that as a safety net. At a critical moment in our economic recovery, Republicans are more focused on settling old scores--evidently from health care reform and the bitterness of that fight--than they are on creating jobs or protecting people. The Republican plan for getting our deficit under control amounts to an upside-down government. Instead of helping those who depend on government programs to support their families, the Republican plan would guarantee that millionaires, billionaires, and large corporations continue to receive trillions of dollars--to wit, $4 trillion under the new budget--in government subsidies, subsidies that will grow exponentially over time and substantially increase their benefit. They will do very, very well indeed were we to make the tragic mistake of accepting that. Republicans are not for a fair or balanced approach to deficit reduction, and it is a great mystery to me. It is a quandary to me. I mean, you can say it is theological or whatever, you can make up all kinds of nasty political views of it, but nevertheless that is what it is. What they are there for is a government that only exists to support big business and wealthy Americans--kind of a perpetual TARP for their friends. Well, I reject that notion, and the American people do too. In my estimation, there is no government program that more fully embodies our Nation's tradition of community than Medicaid, our sense of mutual obligation. Some people are born wealthy. Some people are born very poor. Some people are born in between. Some people are born wealthy and then become poor. Some people are born poor and then become wealthy. But while they are down, they have a safety net, and it is called Medicaid. You don't hear people talking about it very much, particularly, frankly--somewhat disappointedly--from my side of the aisle. After almost 50 years, Medicaid is still a lifesaving part of what we do as a government, what we are meant to do as a government. Medicaid is simply too important to millions of people. Nationally, there were 68 million people enrolled in Medicaid in 2010--68 million children, seniors, people with disabilities, pregnant women. These are families who are living on the edge and barely making it. They now have a safety net, more efficient than any private insurance program in existence. They have that. In West Virginia, there were over 402,000 people enrolled in 2008, 152,000 of those aged and disabled and 191,000 children--children. So almost 50 years later, Medicaid is still a lifesaving part of our Nation's health care system. In West Virginia, Medicaid covers 50 percent of all births. That tells you something. In our country, 40 percent of all births are taken care of by Medicaid. That says a lot. Sixty-two percent of long-term care is Medicaid and, along with the Children's Health Insurance Program it covers 34 percent of the children in our country. There are a lot of people who fought very hard over a number of years to get the Children's Health Insurance Program that would insure more children who were not at that point eligible. Well, they are still getting it, but the House wants to get rid of that program altogether. That is 34 percent of the children in our country. Medicaid provides an essential lifeline to families during difficult economic times, when people lose jobs that have provided them health insurance. Medicaid is the health care program that helps States during crises-- not just people but States--including, obviously, the September 11 attacks, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the recent floods and tornadoes in the South and the Midwest--all being helped by Medicaid. Medicaid is part of the fabric of our great Nation, and to be clear at this point, I need to say that the House bill that was passed by the House--and who voted for it and who did not obviously is very much on record--would devastate Medicaid and government in general out of discretionary spending. Anyway, people who are covered by Medicaid do matter. They are people. They are families. They have their needs, their wants, their ambitions, their dreams, their sadnesses, their depressions, whatever. Darren Hale, from Princeton, WV, wrote me. I am a disabled West Virginian whose family relies on Medicare and Medicaid. That may be a dual-eligible--you know, poor enough to be on Medicaid, old enough to be on Medicare, not able to survive simply on just one or the other. I hope and pray that these health programs won't be ended or totally changed. Please do not support Republican changes to these programs as a way of cutting costs to the taxpayer. The poor of West Virginia and elsewhere should not and cannot bear the burden of the deficit reduction that Republicans want. We need to think very seriously about our priorities. That is what this conversation really leads me to. Let's say I am a 10-year-old boy, and I am being brought up in West Virginia. My means are meager. I step out into a road, and I am hit by a car. I don't die, but perhaps my spine is fractured--probably--legs broken, and I am condemned to a life in a wheelchair. Now, that child is not protected by the private enterprise system. That child, unless they are an unusual child from a fairly wealthy family who then can provide insurance--but they will spend themselves down, with that insurance being so incredibly important, and they will eventually qualify for Medicaid. You know, when you are hit by a car, that is not something you plan on. It is not something you failed to do because you did not have a work ethic or whatever the common wisdom would be about that. It is just something that happened. But the fact remains that your health care is cut, your life is changed, and it grows more miserable because you have nothing in the way of a safety net if the Republican budget is passed, if we get too aggressive about cutting Medicaid. I am troubled. Members of Congress and senior advocates have rightfully rallied in staunch defense of Medicare. You can find wonderful groups here in Washington who rise up in anger when people talk about cutting Medicare. They are for Medicare. They know what it is. They know what it was intended to do. They know what it does. They know what a difference it makes. But aside from an occasional editorial or story, there has been an unsettling silence about Medicaid, even from members of my own party. This is despite the fact that the five main arguments made in support of Medicare, which seem to have had a rebirth recently, are also true of Medicaid. No. 1, the public strongly supports Medicaid, just as they do Medicare. Sixty percent of people say they would prefer to keep Medicaid as it is now. That surprises me. I would have thought the figure would have been much lower. I will get into that in a moment. No. 2, Medicaid also creates jobs, unlike tax cuts for oil companies and rich people, et cetera. Every $1 million in Federal Medicaid spending results in 17.1 new jobs. Sounds boring. Maybe it is, but not to the people who get those jobs. That is at hospitals, that is at nursing homes, community health centers, and doctors' offices because that is what Medicaid covers. No. 3, a Medicaid block grant or a spending cap, which is proposed by some--the cap is proposed by some to get away from the words ``block grant,'' but the effect--don't be fooled by that--is the same. They would both reduce the Medicaid benefits and increase cost sharing for seniors--for all of the recipients on Medicaid from day one. Understand that clearly, I would say to my colleagues. Much has been said about a Medicare voucher system, but capping Medicaid spending would be just as bad for the 5.5 million seniors and 11 million individuals with disabilities enrolled in Medicaid. No. 4, instead of reducing the deficit, the savings achieved by drastically cutting Medicaid would also be used to pay for more tax breaks for wealthy Americans and large corporations. Here is where I come to what I just don't understand about what is going on in this body. Evidently, it is not going on outside in America. Sixty percent don't want Medicaid touched. The fact that it is a majority in Medicaid is amazing and wonderful to me. I just don't understand, Mr. President. I think it is political. I think people know that poor people and the disabled--I run into them often and seek them out sometimes, the disabled. They gather in clusters of 30, 50, or 75 people in wheelchairs. They depend upon Medicaid. That is what they depend on. We see them in the Capitol. Do people stop to see them? Not particularly, no. They know that. They are not very good lobbyists. They cannot be because it is hard for them to get around. So is it political? The Ryan budget cuts taxes on the wealthy, on big deal people and big deal corporations, by $4 trillion. But it cuts Medicaid. Is that an act of social conscience or budget wisdom, or is that a thought-through value system? Is it just political, basically because they know that poor people don't vote? That is what I think the answer is. You get worried about Medicare real fast. We saw the results. We saw the House back off from that. But Medicaid? Not so. And it won't be so unless people stand up for Medicaid because they don't have lobbyists; they cannot afford them. They don't even speak that much for themselves. I don't get as many letters from them as from others, by a factor of 10. They have a sense that life has it in for them. That is partly an Appalachian characteristic, and I think many other parts of the country. There is a certain fatalism in life--that God has a plan for you, and it is not necessarily very good. If people accept that--which I don't--as a theory, then they are not going to fight for what Lyndon Johnson gave to the Nation and passed overwhelmingly in 1965. Cuts to Medicaid will also, to the pleasure of some, undermine the health care reform law that we just passed--which is still law. Medicaid is the underpinning of the entire coverage expansion of reform. We talk about 32 million people that we are going to cover. That goes way down, Mr. President, if these Medicaid cuts are made. So I ask my colleagues, why is Medicaid so often treated like a second-class program? More to the point, why are people who are on Medicaid treated so often as second-class people? How does that work out? Is that a product of the American sense of justice, or is that a thoughtful America looking around them? We all have friends who have been on Medicaid, or are on it, and have made it out. Unfortunately, sometimes those people forget their Medicaid background and turn away from it because they are on to a new and better life. Somebody has to fight for these people. Is it the feeling that maybe they are an unwanted burden on society? We have a tendency in America to say if you don't work, it is because you don't want to. If you don't have a decent job and you have a shabby home, it is because that is what you sought, not what was given to you in your, at least, destiny of the moment. Again, I think, is it because most of the people enrolled are low- income people and many do not vote? I think that sums it up pretty well. But it is more than that. You can't go into the hollows of Appalachia or Nebraska or many other places and organize poor people to vote because their sense is, why? What does it get me? Decade after decade, a little bit--is there a little disdain on the part of the American people for those on Medicaid? It is a glorious program, but sometimes it is an inglorious word because it implies they don't want to better themselves. I won't go through my experiences in West Virginia for the 58th time on this floor. But I have seen so many examples of people who are beaten down--not with a cudgel but because all economic opportunity vanished from their lives. The coal mines shut down, or there weren't any other jobs around. They didn't get to go to school because no schoolbus would come because they were too far away and county law said they don't have to be picked up. So is the deck stacked against them? Yes, it is. Out of that group, there is one--I guess a guy who is about 40; I will not mention his name. He has a terrific job. He works with the CSX System as one of their railroad maintenance people. He has a good family and is a wonderful person. But his parents were killed in a vehicle crash, and his brothers have been fighting all kinds of problems. So it really takes something special to fight your way out of that self-defined position and make your move forward. I must say to my colleagues, the point of a representative democracy is not to serve the few, not even to serve the many, but to serve all as best we can. Does that mean we don't touch anything in Medicaid? No, but does it mean that we keep Medicaid as a safety net? Yes, it does. We are not here elected by some people with incomes above X amount of dollars. We are here for all people--even the people who didn't vote for us or didn't vote at all. I take that very seriously, and I take my experience in West Virginia very seriously. Sixty-eight million people are enrolled in Medicaid. They deserve a voice in this debate, and I, for one, will speak out for them. It is because somehow we feel that Medicaid recipients are not worthy--and I have expressed that in different words--simply because they have fallen on hard times or were born in hard times. How do you help the fact that your father or mother didn't work because there wasn't any work available? What do you do about that situation? Or you were born in the ghetto. Oh, you just rise above that. Barack Obama did, therefore, anybody can. Life doesn't work like that, and the Presiding Officer knows that very well. Then I must ask of my colleagues, how could this be? We all have neighbors, friends, and family who have or do benefit from Medicaid-- even perhaps in their distant past. In fact, nearly half of all Americans have a friend or a family member that has received Medicaid assistance at some point, and they are absolutely worthy of our support. Is it because we believe Medicaid spending is truly out of control? Then I remind colleagues that Medicaid costs per beneficiary grew much lower over the past decade than costs for any private health insurance coverage. The administrative costs in Medicaid are between 1 and 2 percent. An average health insurance company is probably 10, 15, or 20 percent--and all of this despite the fact that Medicaid has more comprehensive benefits. They are much larger benefits that cover more. They do more for people, and significantly lower cost sharing. I fervently believe the American tradition of shared responsibility-- everybody working together for the greater good--is a tradition worth upholding and that a government has an ongoing role to play in its preservation. It cannot play that role perfectly, but it can do it as best and most fairly as possible. Instead of shortchanging Medicaid, we must have the courage to rein in tax breaks for corporate America and for people of great wealth. Medicaid does exactly what it was designed to do all those years ago: provide a safety net for low-income Americans. There are lots of worthwhile and positive ways we can improve the program, I grant you that. But trashing Medicaid, gutting Medicaid--especially if it is sort of flipping it aside for political gain--cannot be an option. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

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

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, when Congress passed the Trade Act of 2002, we made a promise to American workers that the potential loss of jobs due to trade policy will not equal the loss of health care coverage. The health coverage tax credit, HCTC, was designed to help American workers retain health insurance coverage when their jobs are displaced by outsourcing--and it has been a lifeline for these middle- class families who simply cannot afford coverage on their own. In 2010, an Internal Revenue Service survey found that 90 percent of HCTC participants are very satisfied with the program. However, despite the high satisfaction rate among participants, far too many trade-displaced workers are not able to take advantage of this important program. Historically, fewer than 30,000 of the hundreds of thousands of potentially eligible individuals each year have participated in the HCTC. These hundreds of thousands of laid-off workers and retirees have been left uninsured because the program still has several barriers to enrollment, and despite the 65 percent subsidy provided by the program, the premiums are prohibitively high for some workers. I have heard from steel retirees and widows in my state about how unaffordable the TAA health care tax credit is. I have been very frustrated, just as I was when this bill passed, that we have not been able to make the credit as affordable and accessible as possible for people who need it the most--laid-off workers and retirees who have very limited income. The Government Accountability Office, GAO, and several consumer advocacy groups and research organizations have cited affordability as the primary reason for low participation in the HCTC program. The bottom line is that a 65 percent subsidy is simply not enough for many to afford the high cost of health insurance premiums. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which reauthorized the Trade Adjustment Assistance Act, made several temporary changes to expand eligibility for and benefits of the HCTC program. These changes included an increase in the tax credit's subsidy rate from 65 percent to 80 percent of the health insurance premium, and expanded TAA eligibility to additional workers. The GAO released a report last year on the credit and found that HCTC participation increased after these key Recovery Act changes took effect. As a result of the Recovery Act, many more people eligible for the program felt they could afford a qualified health plan and afford to pay their share of monthly premiums. However, 33 percent still could not afford their share of monthly premiums, even with the credit and these expanded provisions expired on February 13, 2011. As our economy continues its recovery, it is critical to build on this program to help more Americans secure health coverage. The TAA Health Coverage Improvement Act would extend the Recovery Act's temporary provisions, and it would also address the issues of affordability by increasing the subsidy amount from 65 percent to 95 percent, retroactive to the date the Recovery Act expired. This legislation also addresses the issue of affordability by placing limits on the use of the individual market, as Congress intended under the original law. The Trade Act of 2002 specified that the health insurance credit could not be used for the purchase of health insurance coverage in the individual market except for HCTC-eligible workers who previously had a private, non-group coverage policy 30 days prior to separation from employment. However, states have been allowed by prior Administrations to create state-based coverage options in the individual market for any HCTC beneficiaries, including those who did not have individual market coverage one month prior to separation from employment. As a result, there are people who had employer-based coverage prior to separation from employment who are now being covered in the individual market. This was not the intent of the law. To make matters worse, this interpretation undermines the consumer protections set forth in the law because individual market plans are allowed to vary premiums based on age and medical status. In one state GAO reviewed for its report, because of medical underwriting, HCTC recipients in less-than-perfect health were charged almost six times the premiums charged to recipients rated in the healthiest category. The legislation I am introducing today addresses this problem by clarifying that states can only designate individual market coverage within guidelines of 30-day restriction and by requiring individual market plans to be community-rated. Second, this legislation guarantees that eligible workers will have access to comprehensive group health coverage. Group coverage is what people know. The vast majority of laid-off workers and PBGC retirees had employer-sponsored group coverage prior to losing their jobs or pension benefits. The TAA Health Coverage Improvement Act designates the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan, FEHBP, as a qualified group option in every State, so that displaced workers nationwide will have access to the same type of affordable, comprehensive coverage they were used to when they were employed. Third, the TAA Health Coverage Act clarifies the three month continuous coverage requirement. Under the original TAA statute, displaced workers are required to maintain three months of continuous health insurance coverage in order to qualify for certain consumer protections. Those protections are guaranteed issue, no preexisting condition exclusion, comparable premiums, and comparable benefits. Congress intended this three month period to be counted as the three months prior to separation from employment. However, the Administration has interpreted the three month requirement as three months of health insurance coverage prior to enrollment in the new health plan, which usually is after separation from employment and after certification of TAA eligibility. Many laid-off workers and PBGC recipients cannot afford to maintain health coverage in the months between losing their jobs and TAA certification and, therefore, lose eligibility for the statutorily-provided consumer protections. This legislation corrects this problem by clarifying that three months of continuous coverage means three months prior to separation from employment. Fourth, this bill allows spouses and dependents to maintain eligibility for the health coverage tax credit if the worker or retiree becomes eligible for Medicare. Younger spouses and dependents of Medicare-eligible individuals have not been able to receive the subsidy because eligibility runs through the worker or retiree. This technicality is unfair to individuals who rely on health coverage through their spouses or parents. Finally, this legislation streamlines the HCTC enrollment process and makes it easier for trade-displaced workers to access health insurance coverage. According to GAO, two of the factors contributing to low participation include a complicated and fragmented enrollment process and the inability of workers to pay 100 percent of the premium during the 3 to 6 months they are waiting to enroll in advance payment. This legislation includes a presumptive eligibility provision that allows displaced workers to enroll in a qualified health plan and receive the HCTC immediately upon application to the Department of Labor for certification. There is also a provision which directs the Treasury Secretary to pay 100 percent of the cost of premiums directly to the health plans during the months TAA-eligible workers are waiting for advance payment to begin. This legislation allows workers to be eligible for the HCTC even if they are not receiving training, an important provision that was included in the Recovery Act. The current training requirement subjects families to a loss of health coverage when transportation, relocation, or childcare issues interfere with an individual's ability to participate in training. As a former Governor, I know how important Trade Adjustment Assistance is to individuals who have lost their jobs due to trade. In West Virginia, thousands of workers have lost their jobs as a result of trade policy. While adjusting to the loss of employment, these individuals still have to pay mortgages, put food on the table, and care for their families. Finding affordable health care adds a significant burden to their worries. The TAA health coverage tax credit is designed to help American workers retain health insurance coverage during this very difficult transition. Since 2002, the HCTC program has been a lifeline for tens of thousands of participants. But for many others who face barriers to participation, the HCTC program is not living up to its potential. The GAO has given us a very specific diagnosis of the problems, and the Recovery Act has shown us that the situation can improve for trade- displaced workers. The TAA Health Coverage Improvement Act builds upon the Trade Act of 2002 and the lessons we have learned since in order to make the health coverage tax credit workable for eligible individuals and their families. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this important legislation.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Strengthening America's Trade Laws Act, legislation that will protect American businesses and workers by ensuring that they can compete on a level playing field with foreign companies. The legislation I am introducing today should be viewed as a placeholder for a more comprehensive updated bill that I plan on introducing after the recess. Given the potential for legislative action at any time on Trade Adjustment Assistance, the three pending Free Trade Agreements, and the continuing harm caused by illegally dumped foreign goods, I thought it was imperative that I introduce this bill today and move the discussion of our country's trade policy forward. The Strengthening America's Trade Laws Act allows the government to live up to its commitment to protect American businesses by allowing the businesses being harmed by unfairly subsidized imports to have a seat at the table in trade dispute proceedings. It also strengthens countervailing duty laws that are used to impose tariffs on goods from countries like China that are being unfairly subsidized. Importantly, my bill would prevent the World Trade Organization, WTO, from dictating American policy by mandating that Congress must approve of any regulatory change to American law that is meant to conform with an adverse WTO decision. This bill goes after countries that use currency manipulation to keep their prices artificially low by allowing the American government to treat this manipulation as an unfair subsidy that can be responded to with countervailing duties. My bill also allows a panel of judicial experts to review recent adverse WTO decisions to ensure that they were made correctly and that obligations are not being imposed on the United States that our government has not previously agreed to. These steps are important because businesses like those in my home state of West Virginia face a constant threat from foreign made goods that are being sold at prices well below cost in an effort to drive American businesses out of the marketplace altogether. In West Virginia, we know all too well the impact these unfair practices can have, as numerous manufacturing businesses have closed in recent years in response to these challenges. I have worked through the system to try to protect our employers, testifying numerous times before the International Trade Commission on behalf of West Virginia businesses, including our steel industry, in an effort to get the government to counter unfair subsidies and give American manufacturers a fighting chance in the global marketplace. It has become clear to me through the years though that the current protections are not strong enough and that more must be done to allow our businesses to compete. That is what I hope to accomplish with this bill. I am not asking for any unfair advantages for American businesses. I just want to allow them the opportunity to succeed on the merits of their ideas and their hard work. 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. President, I rise today to reintroduce legislation previously sponsored by a Member of the Commerce Science and Transportation Committee in the 111th Congress that would direct funds from the administrative, civil, and criminal penalties stemming from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill to fund coastal and marine restoration, research and education, as well as promote tourism and economic development in the coastal Gulf states. The bill that I introduce today, the Gulf Coast Restoration Act, is identical to the bill by the same name introduced in the 111th Congress and referred to the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee. To remind my colleagues, under Senate Rule XXV(f), the Commerce Committee possesses broad jurisdiction, including over ``Coast Guard . . . coastal zone management . . . interstate commerce . . . marine and ocean navigation, safety and transportation, including navigational aspects of deepwater ports . . . marine fisheries . . . merchant marine and navigation . . . oceans . . . regulation of consumer products and services including testing related to toxic substances . . . science, engineering, and technology research and development and policy . . . transportation, and the transportation and commerce aspects of Outer Continental Shelf Lands.'' As Chairman of the Committee I am well aware that individual Members of my Committee have strong views on all of these issues. In the coming weeks, the Commerce Committee will be reviewing and considering a legislative package in a renewed effort to respond the Gulf oil spill. My introduction of the bill today is intended to clearly establish that the Commerce Committee continues to hold strong views about how to direct funding from the assessed penalties back to restoring the Gulf economy and environment. It is also intended to assert the Commerce Committee will conduct its oversight over the promotion of commerce, as well as over ocean and coastal programs, and reserve its rights to review and consider the authorization of programs needed to support the economic recovery of the Gulf, and the long term restoration of Gulf ecosystems. Finally, introduction of this bill is intended to provide Commerce Committee Members with the opportunity to ensure that needed baseline science is put in place, along with emergency response technology and programs, to support improved offshore energy decisions in the future. I look forward to revising this bill following introduction to reflect the views of the Committee.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, when Congress passed the Trade Act of 2002, we made a promise to American workers that the potential loss of jobs due to trade policy will not equal the loss of health care coverage. The health coverage tax credit, HCTC, was designed to help American workers retain health insurance coverage when their jobs are displaced by outsourcing--and it has been a lifeline for these middle- class families who simply cannot afford coverage on their own. In 2010, an Internal Revenue Service survey found that 90 percent of HCTC participants are very satisfied with the program. However, despite the high satisfaction rate among participants, far too many trade-displaced workers are not able to take advantage of this important program. Historically, fewer than 30,000 of the hundreds of thousands of potentially eligible individuals each year have participated in the HCTC. These hundreds of thousands of laid-off workers and retirees have been left uninsured because the program still has several barriers to enrollment, and despite the 65 percent subsidy provided by the program, the premiums are prohibitively high for some workers. I have heard from steel retirees and widows in my state about how unaffordable the TAA health care tax credit is. I have been very frustrated, just as I was when this bill passed, that we have not been able to make the credit as affordable and accessible as possible for people who need it the most--laid-off workers and retirees who have very limited income. The Government Accountability Office, GAO, and several consumer advocacy groups and research organizations have cited affordability as the primary reason for low participation in the HCTC program. The bottom line is that a 65 percent subsidy is simply not enough for many to afford the high cost of health insurance premiums. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which reauthorized the Trade Adjustment Assistance Act, made several temporary changes to expand eligibility for and benefits of the HCTC program. These changes included an increase in the tax credit's subsidy rate from 65 percent to 80 percent of the health insurance premium, and expanded TAA eligibility to additional workers. The GAO released a report last year on the credit and found that HCTC participation increased after these key Recovery Act changes took effect. As a result of the Recovery Act, many more people eligible for the program felt they could afford a qualified health plan and afford to pay their share of monthly premiums. However, 33 percent still could not afford their share of monthly premiums, even with the credit and these expanded provisions expired on February 13, 2011. As our economy continues its recovery, it is critical to build on this program to help more Americans secure health coverage. The TAA Health Coverage Improvement Act would extend the Recovery Act's temporary provisions, and it would also address the issues of affordability by increasing the subsidy amount from 65 percent to 95 percent, retroactive to the date the Recovery Act expired. This legislation also addresses the issue of affordability by placing limits on the use of the individual market, as Congress intended under the original law. The Trade Act of 2002 specified that the health insurance credit could not be used for the purchase of health insurance coverage in the individual market except for HCTC-eligible workers who previously had a private, non-group coverage policy 30 days prior to separation from employment. However, states have been allowed by prior Administrations to create state-based coverage options in the individual market for any HCTC beneficiaries, including those who did not have individual market coverage one month prior to separation from employment. As a result, there are people who had employer-based coverage prior to separation from employment who are now being covered in the individual market. This was not the intent of the law. To make matters worse, this interpretation undermines the consumer protections set forth in the law because individual market plans are allowed to vary premiums based on age and medical status. In one state GAO reviewed for its report, because of medical underwriting, HCTC recipients in less-than-perfect health were charged almost six times the premiums charged to recipients rated in the healthiest category. The legislation I am introducing today addresses this problem by clarifying that states can only designate individual market coverage within guidelines of 30-day restriction and by requiring individual market plans to be community-rated. Second, this legislation guarantees that eligible workers will have access to comprehensive group health coverage. Group coverage is what people know. The vast majority of laid-off workers and PBGC retirees had employer-sponsored group coverage prior to losing their jobs or pension benefits. The TAA Health Coverage Improvement Act designates the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan, FEHBP, as a qualified group option in every State, so that displaced workers nationwide will have access to the same type of affordable, comprehensive coverage they were used to when they were employed. Third, the TAA Health Coverage Act clarifies the three month continuous coverage requirement. Under the original TAA statute, displaced workers are required to maintain three months of continuous health insurance coverage in order to qualify for certain consumer protections. Those protections are guaranteed issue, no preexisting condition exclusion, comparable premiums, and comparable benefits. Congress intended this three month period to be counted as the three months prior to separation from employment. However, the Administration has interpreted the three month requirement as three months of health insurance coverage prior to enrollment in the new health plan, which usually is after separation from employment and after certification of TAA eligibility. Many laid-off workers and PBGC recipients cannot afford to maintain health coverage in the months between losing their jobs and TAA certification and, therefore, lose eligibility for the statutorily-provided consumer protections. This legislation corrects this problem by clarifying that three months of continuous coverage means three months prior to separation from employment. Fourth, this bill allows spouses and dependents to maintain eligibility for the health coverage tax credit if the worker or retiree becomes eligible for Medicare. Younger spouses and dependents of Medicare-eligible individuals have not been able to receive the subsidy because eligibility runs through the worker or retiree. This technicality is unfair to individuals who rely on health coverage through their spouses or parents. Finally, this legislation streamlines the HCTC enrollment process and makes it easier for trade-displaced workers to access health insurance coverage. According to GAO, two of the factors contributing to low participation include a complicated and fragmented enrollment process and the inability of workers to pay 100 percent of the premium during the 3 to 6 months they are waiting to enroll in advance payment. This legislation includes a presumptive eligibility provision that allows displaced workers to enroll in a qualified health plan and receive the HCTC immediately upon application to the Department of Labor for certification. There is also a provision which directs the Treasury Secretary to pay 100 percent of the cost of premiums directly to the health plans during the months TAA-eligible workers are waiting for advance payment to begin. This legislation allows workers to be eligible for the HCTC even if they are not receiving training, an important provision that was included in the Recovery Act. The current training requirement subjects families to a loss of health coverage when transportation, relocation, or childcare issues interfere with an individual's ability to participate in training. As a former Governor, I know how important Trade Adjustment Assistance is to individuals who have lost their jobs due to trade. In West Virginia, thousands of workers have lost their jobs as a result of trade policy. While adjusting to the loss of employment, these individuals still have to pay mortgages, put food on the table, and care for their families. Finding affordable health care adds a significant burden to their worries. The TAA health coverage tax credit is designed to help American workers retain health insurance coverage during this very difficult transition. Since 2002, the HCTC program has been a lifeline for tens of thousands of participants. But for many others who face barriers to participation, the HCTC program is not living up to its potential. The GAO has given us a very specific diagnosis of the problems, and the Recovery Act has shown us that the situation can improve for trade- displaced workers. The TAA Health Coverage Improvement Act builds upon the Trade Act of 2002 and the lessons we have learned since in order to make the health coverage tax credit workable for eligible individuals and their families. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this important legislation.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Strengthening America's Trade Laws Act, legislation that will protect American businesses and workers by ensuring that they can compete on a level playing field with foreign companies. The legislation I am introducing today should be viewed as a placeholder for a more comprehensive updated bill that I plan on introducing after the recess. Given the potential for legislative action at any time on Trade Adjustment Assistance, the three pending Free Trade Agreements, and the continuing harm caused by illegally dumped foreign goods, I thought it was imperative that I introduce this bill today and move the discussion of our country's trade policy forward. The Strengthening America's Trade Laws Act allows the government to live up to its commitment to protect American businesses by allowing the businesses being harmed by unfairly subsidized imports to have a seat at the table in trade dispute proceedings. It also strengthens countervailing duty laws that are used to impose tariffs on goods from countries like China that are being unfairly subsidized. Importantly, my bill would prevent the World Trade Organization, WTO, from dictating American policy by mandating that Congress must approve of any regulatory change to American law that is meant to conform with an adverse WTO decision. This bill goes after countries that use currency manipulation to keep their prices artificially low by allowing the American government to treat this manipulation as an unfair subsidy that can be responded to with countervailing duties. My bill also allows a panel of judicial experts to review recent adverse WTO decisions to ensure that they were made correctly and that obligations are not being imposed on the United States that our government has not previously agreed to. These steps are important because businesses like those in my home state of West Virginia face a constant threat from foreign made goods that are being sold at prices well below cost in an effort to drive American businesses out of the marketplace altogether. In West Virginia, we know all too well the impact these unfair practices can have, as numerous manufacturing businesses have closed in recent years in response to these challenges. I have worked through the system to try to protect our employers, testifying numerous times before the International Trade Commission on behalf of West Virginia businesses, including our steel industry, in an effort to get the government to counter unfair subsidies and give American manufacturers a fighting chance in the global marketplace. It has become clear to me through the years though that the current protections are not strong enough and that more must be done to allow our businesses to compete. That is what I hope to accomplish with this bill. I am not asking for any unfair advantages for American businesses. I just want to allow them the opportunity to succeed on the merits of their ideas and their hard work. 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, I rise today to reintroduce legislation previously sponsored by a Member of the Commerce Science and Transportation Committee in the 111th Congress that would direct funds from the administrative, civil, and criminal penalties stemming from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill to fund coastal and marine restoration, research and education, as well as promote tourism and economic development in the coastal Gulf states. The bill that I introduce today, the Gulf Coast Restoration Act, is identical to the bill by the same name introduced in the 111th Congress and referred to the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee. To remind my colleagues, under Senate Rule XXV(f), the Commerce Committee possesses broad jurisdiction, including over ``Coast Guard . . . coastal zone management . . . interstate commerce . . . marine and ocean navigation, safety and transportation, including navigational aspects of deepwater ports . . . marine fisheries . . . merchant marine and navigation . . . oceans . . . regulation of consumer products and services including testing related to toxic substances . . . science, engineering, and technology research and development and policy . . . transportation, and the transportation and commerce aspects of Outer Continental Shelf Lands.'' As Chairman of the Committee I am well aware that individual Members of my Committee have strong views on all of these issues. In the coming weeks, the Commerce Committee will be reviewing and considering a legislative package in a renewed effort to respond the Gulf oil spill. My introduction of the bill today is intended to clearly establish that the Commerce Committee continues to hold strong views about how to direct funding from the assessed penalties back to restoring the Gulf economy and environment. It is also intended to assert the Commerce Committee will conduct its oversight over the promotion of commerce, as well as over ocean and coastal programs, and reserve its rights to review and consider the authorization of programs needed to support the economic recovery of the Gulf, and the long term restoration of Gulf ecosystems. Finally, introduction of this bill is intended to provide Commerce Committee Members with the opportunity to ensure that needed baseline science is put in place, along with emergency response technology and programs, to support improved offshore energy decisions in the future. I look forward to revising this bill following introduction to reflect the views of the Committee.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, it is my very great pleasure to pay tribute to one of the great treasures of the Senate, Mr. Lloyd Ator. Lloyd is retiring after 17 years as the legislative counsel for the Commerce Committee, and 11 years in the Senate Legislative Counsel's Office. Lloyd has been a truly outstanding public servant, and his service has made our country a better place. Given the breadth of issues within the committee's jurisdiction, the legislative counsel is required to be something of a Renaissance man. Fortunately, that is a perfect description of Lloyd. He has been required to know the underlying law in so many areas, from the Olympics, to daylight savings time, railroad rates, aviation security screening, cellphone use, science standards, fisheries management, maritime liability, commercial privacy, and satellites. To draft concise, thoughtful, and technically accurate bills on this range of issues, as Lloyd has done, requires unparalleled skill, expertise and dedication. Lloyd is also a parliamentary expert and served as an outstanding resource for committee members. Even when every other committee did away with their own legislative counsels, the Commerce Committee was determined to keep Lloyd, knowing that his unique capabilities made him our ``secret weapon.'' Not only is Lloyd an experienced drafter, he is a man of unflagging spirit. One of Lloyd's most remarkable qualities is his unwavering patience. No matter how many times he was asked to rewrite an amendment or edit a draft, he never once rolled his eyes or expressed frustration. He continually responded calmly and patiently, offering a word of humor at just the right moment. His humorous comments on drafts of bills are legendary on the committee. Lloyd has become a bulwark on the committee, respected by colleagues and Members on both sides of the aisle. As a trusted adviser, he has always maintained the utmost level of confidentiality, even while drafting competing bills. Despite this position of privileged knowledge, Lloyd has always remained discreet and has earned the respect of all with whom he has worked. Lloyd is someone that both the Members and the Commerce staff have come to rely on, time after time. It has been largely through Lloyd's hard work, patience, and extensive legislative knowledge that the Commerce Committee has been able to produce such high quality legislation for the past 17 years. He has played an important role in every major piece of legislation the committee has considered for the past decade and at the close of the last century. Lloyd is an incredibly humble man and has never been one to seek recognition, which is part of why I am so pleased to honor him today. Lloyd's retirement signifies a great loss to the committee and to the Senate. As sad as we are to see him go, I know that he is looking forward to spending more time with his family, his dog, and on many more trips to France. It is with sincere thanks from a grateful committee that I wish him nothing but the best in the years to come. We have all been made better by his contribution, his presence, and his example. He is an institution and his extraordinary service is as much a part of Commerce Committee lore as the Enron investigation or the deregulation of telecom. He is an institution we are extremely proud of and will always honor. We will strive to live up to his example.

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 for the yeas and nays.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, to me, this argument is, in fact, all about fairness. It has nothing to do with class warfare. It has nothing to do with gotcha but has to do with abrogation of social responsibility on the basis of levels. Every once in a while we have an exchange in the Senate or in a Senate committee that is revealing and stunning all at once. Recently, I had one of those moments when I had the opportunity to ask a question to--guess what--five executives from the largest oil and gas companies in the country. I was not linking price of gas--but in the people's minds it is--with the gas prices up beyond $4 a gallon, with many people spending close to $100 a week to gas up their cars. I was cautiously optimistic that we would have in this Senate Finance Committee hearing a real dialog on the idea that everybody has shared responsibility and that you share your responsibility--in this case, the need to balance the budget or come closer to it and then share prosperity. But we have to share responsibility first because that is what leads to the discipline that allows prosperity generally in this country to get ahead. I thought the oil executives might at least reveal a bit of unease, a bit of discomfort on their part about how gas prices are standing like a dead weight on our economy, about the fact they make so incredibly much, inexplicably, unexplainably so much money and loving that, especially when they together earned just about $35.8 billion in profits in the first 3 months of this year. How wrong I was. They were eager only to defend the way Big Oil does business, defend the enormous salaries, defend the business model that puts control of gas supply in the hands of a few. One would not even answer when asked about his company's claim that trying to reduce taxpayer subsidies--which is what we want to do--given to this industry would be un-American. He said that a number of times in that exchange. It was not very fruitful, but it was insightful. As I said then, put simply, these men are all completely out of touch--deeply, profoundly out of touch--with what the rest of the country is going through. Again, that is what it is about, fairness. Do you know what other people are suffering? Their situation is this: very profitable. Other people are on very hard times. Is there not some way they could give up their tax subsidies--in this case $2 billion a year--instead of making a $125-billion-a-year profit--not just more money but actually a profit; $125 billion would go down to $123 billion. They would not hear of it. They are so caught up in their profits that they have lost sight of what is happening in mainstream New Hampshire and mainstream West Virginia, across our economy, and our schools on Main Street and around the kitchen table. Gentlemen--the five--here is some of what you need to know. For starters, Congress is in the midst of a full-throated debate about how to reduce our growing deficit without breaking the backs further of working families or leaving our seniors out in the cold literally or reducing our support for the veterans who serve our country and children who just happen to be our future. We are debating proposals to cut back Social Security and the promise that we made to generations who have worked and want to live their final years with dignity. We are debating legislation that forces Medicare to be privatized, how it will cost senior citizens about $6,000 more per year. I hope they know that. Medicare privatized, chopped up, made an optional grant program run by States, drastically scaled back. The Congress is debating deep cuts to Federal programs ranging from highways and airports to medical research to coal mine safety inspections and money for schools--everything. Quite simply, we are talking about making drastic cuts to programs that touch the lives of virtually every single person in the country, except for them. These slick executives seem blind to the real-world consequences of having made almost $1 trillion in profits during the past decade--profits--while collecting $4 billion a year in subsidies, courtesy of the very same U.S. taxpayers about whom I have just been talking, the same taxpayers who are also forced to pay at the pump and whose lives are being changed dramatically because of their position. Why focus on them? Because they are a symbol. They are the top of the heap. They always prevail. They always win. They always have the lobbyists, the campaign contributions. They always can get what they want. Everybody always caves to them because they are so big, as they fly around in their shiny jets. I do not think it is going to be that way this time. The same oil executives who blanch if anyone questions their mega salaries--speaking of salaries, it might be interesting to know that the CEO of ExxonMobile is paid $29 million a year. I am just trying to think of the Presiding Officer's State of New Hampshire. I wonder how many people make $29 million a year just in salaries. I do not know if that includes stock options. During my conversations with these executives last week, we talked a little bit about how the effective tax rate on their profits is significantly lower than what average workers make in my home State of West Virginia and in the Presiding Officer's home State. Exxon paid a 17-percent effective tax rate over the past 3 years--17 percent--while the average individual in my State and the Presiding Officer's State paid an effective rate of 20 percent. Is that class warfare? Is that gotcha? Or is that about fairness, about people doing something to help their country when their country is almost on its knees? The effective rate, to explain, is the amount of tax one is actually paying on income earned when factoring in deductions and credits. It is a vast understatement to say West Virginians, like many others all across the Nation, are not having an easy time of it during this period of record oil company profits. And they--those five--understand perfectly well that there is no longer any justification for maintaining generous subsidies for this highly profitable industry. The public appears to feel that way. The poll numbers are just stunning--70 to 30 that it is not right, that we should take away the subsidies. It varies according to the poll, but it is always high up, including two- to-one Republicans across the country who believe they should not be able to have those tax subsidies that we are so easily giving them. They know that without a willingness to stare down sacred cows like corporate subsidies--not just with them but with others--we won't ever be able to make progress in eliminating the massive Federal deficit which is staring us in the face. Why wouldn't they care about that? It is so easy for them. It is called sharing, being fair. But no, it doesn't work that way. The average West Virginian, again, makes $32,000 a year. They can't afford another 10 years of handouts to Big Oil. The current high gas prices are like a dark cloud. The working class in rural States like mine commute 25 miles or more each way every day, and high gas prices cut heavily into their weekly paycheck. Of course they do. Things are much worse in the summer, of course, when people travel, if they can any longer afford to. I hear often from constituents who are experiencing sticker shock at the pump. Police departments, schools, hospitals, and community organizations also feel the pinch of rising fuel costs and the pinch of everything else that isn't coming through. Philanthropy is down in this depressed economy. It is bad. Even the smallest increase can have a serious impact on family budgets and a business's bottom line. I do not mean to suggest that the oil industry profits and subsidies are the sole culprit for rising gas prices because listening to those who are industry experts and economists, too, has convinced me that the big factor in the rising cost of energy is the role of speculators. I won't get into that too much now, but I will say that these speculative investors make a quick profit in betting on what the cost of a barrel of oil might be next Friday. If they turn out to be right, they get a whole lot of money. I mean, it is stupid. It is Wall Street at its dumbest, and they have shown us several ways to be that way. They take no risk themselves. I am not alone in thinking these speculators are driving up oil prices and creating more price volatility. I have joined with other Senate colleagues in asking the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to look closely at the role of speculators in the oil futures market and in pressing the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to get moving on a power they already have, which is to set margins on what speculators can make--to crack down, rein this in. I have also written to the Federal Trade Commission--to investigate any potential fraud or market manipulation in the oil markets. I also believe what is needed in the big oil industry is a sense of fairness. It is not too much to ask when it comes to paying taxes, when it comes to paying the price for gas. To me, fairness has always meant shared sacrifice in tough times and shared success in good times--a sense of giving something for the larger good. I am not suggesting that they stop being competitive or aggressively profitable, but at least show for a minute they see where we are today. If they had expressed concern about average people and then refused to take any decrease in their tax subsidies--paid for by these people I am talking about--that wouldn't have given me much comfort, but at least it would have been just a bit of a bend. We got none of that. What we got was, we like our business model, we are staying with it, don't punish us for being profitable. We do business the way we do business. We have been doing it for 130 years, and that is that. So what is needed here is a reminder that a lifetime of always beating their adversaries and never losing or giving anything of themselves to the greater good does not, in fact, lead to a prosperous or morally just society. That is not too much to ask, especially of Big Oil, and I am not going to stop just because they do not get it yet. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Dr. Eric Gangloff, who has served the American people for more than 25 years at the Japan-United States Friendship Commission. He has served in numerous roles, including as the director of the Commission's Japan office, as associate executive director, and currently as the Commission's executive director. Dr. Gangloff has, through his work at the Commission, contributed substantially to research, training, and student exchange programs with Japan, and supported the valuable projects of countless scholars, students, and artists through Commission grant programs. Throughout his tenure as executive director of the Commission, Dr. Gangloff has worked with the leaders of several professional organizations of Japanese language educators, encouraging them to join forces and work together in order to provide maximum support for Japanese language teachers at all levels in the United States, from kindergarten through college. As a result of his efforts and continuing support, the Alliance of Associations of Teachers of Japanese was founded in 1999 as a coalition that represents and serves two previously separate organizations. Dr. Gangloff also spearheaded a movement to create the North American Coordinating Council on Japanese Library Resources in 1991 to meet the demands of the American library community for Japanese research materials. The creation of the NCC brought the activities of the Japan studies library community into a clearinghouse that focuses on resource-sharing through cooperative collection development, information literacy at all levels within the Japan studies field and fosters close collaboration and consultation among librarians, the academic community and funding agencies in both countries. In addition, Dr. Gangloff is responsible for the strengthening of long-term positive relations between the two countries through his creation and long-term support and guidance of the U.S.-Japan Legislative Exchange Program which brings together on a semi-annual basis, a core group of United States Congressional Members and Japanese Diet Members for in-depth and informal discussions on a broad range of political, economic and security issues. Discussions such as these cement the bonds between the two countries at the highest levels, which is especially important at times of great stress, such as the recent tragic events in Japan. Dr. Gangloff was the driving force behind the creation in 1998 of the United States Japan Bridging Foundation, a charitable organization that expands opportunities for American undergraduate students to study in Japan. This public-private partnership, directed by Dr. Gangloff, has raised over $4,000,000 and awarded over 1,000 scholarships to American students since its inception. In short, Dr. Eric Gangloff has provided inspired leadership throughout his career in cultural, educational, and scholarly dialogue and exchange between Japan and the United States. On behalf of the congressional Members serving as Commissioners of the Japan-U.S. Friendship Commission--Senator Murkowski, Congressman Tom Petri, Congressman Jim McDermott, and myself--I would like to express our deepest gratitude for these contributions and assure Dr. Gangloff that the positive results of his hard work will be felt for years to come.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am proud to join Senator Baucus from Montana and my colleagues Senator Begich of Alaska, Senator Bennet of Colorado, Senator Franken of Minnesota, Senator Johnson of South Dakota, Senator Leahy of Vermont, Senator Sanders of Vermont, and Senator Udall of Colorado, in introducing legislation today to establish an Office of Rural Education Policy at the Department of Education. Senator Baucus's leadership in bringing attention to education in our rural areas is remarkable, and I am proud to work with him on this increasingly important issue. In addition to my colleagues who are cosponsoring this legislation, I want to acknowledge the many organizations who have already announced their support for it. Their concern for the students living in rural America is greatly appreciated. These organizations include American Association of Community Colleges, American Association of School Administrators, Alliance for Excellent Education, Association of Educational Service Agencies, Center for Rural Affairs, Coalition for Community Schools, Council for Opportunity in Education, National Association of State Boards of Education, National Association of Development Organizations, National Association of Elementary School Principals, National Association of Federally Impacted Schools, National Congress of American Indians, National Education Association, National Farmers Union, National Indian Education Association, National Rural Education Association, National Rural Education Advocacy Coalition, National School Board Association, Organizations Concerned about Rural Education, Public Education Network, Rural School and Community Trust, and Save the Children. We rightly focus quite a bit on education around here--the future success of our nation depends upon today's students. Since nearly one quarter of the students in America are at rural schools and the share of students in rural schools has been increasing, our Nation's success depends considerably on success in rural schools. Over half of the schools in West Virginia are in rural areas. This legislation will create an Office at the Department of Education to make sure the programs there are working for students in schools in rural areas. Rural schools are not just miniature versions of their urban counterparts. They face special challenges and they have unique capabilities. Among the challenges faced are shrinking local tax bases, recruiting and retaining teachers and principals, limited access to advanced courses, and proportionally higher transportation costs. At the same time, rural communities, and I am very proud of the communities in West Virginia often provide a strong foundation for support and improvement. They are leaders in the use of distance learning. While smaller schools lack an economy of scale, they often profit from this small size and their closeness to community. Parental involvement and support is typically high. Rural schools can be very innovative, and research on what works in rural schools needs to be completed and disseminated. The Office of Rural Education Policy is modeled after the successful Office of Rural Health Policy at the Department of Health and Human Services which Congress established in 1987. The office will be led by a director charged with coordinating the activities of the Department of Education concerning rural education. It will establish and maintain a clearinghouse for issues faced by rural schools, such as teacher and principal recruitment and retention; partnerships with community-based organizations; and financing of rural schools. The office will identify innovative research and demonstration projects on rural schools, and recommend research to bridge any gaps. It will issue an annual report on the condition of rural education, and an analysis of the impact on rural education from proposed regulations and other activities will be made public. Rural schools have been a part of our national fabric since its very beginning. Their students deserve the focus this legislation will provide. It has been said that education in rural America is ``too large to be ignored but too small and diverse to be highly visible.'' We need to establish this office so that it is not ignored and so that its successes are made more visible. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am proud to join Senator Baucus from Montana and my colleagues Senator Begich of Alaska, Senator Bennet of Colorado, Senator Franken of Minnesota, Senator Johnson of South Dakota, Senator Leahy of Vermont, Senator Sanders of Vermont, and Senator Udall of Colorado, in introducing legislation today to establish an Office of Rural Education Policy at the Department of Education. Senator Baucus's leadership in bringing attention to education in our rural areas is remarkable, and I am proud to work with him on this increasingly important issue. In addition to my colleagues who are cosponsoring this legislation, I want to acknowledge the many organizations who have already announced their support for it. Their concern for the students living in rural America is greatly appreciated. These organizations include American Association of Community Colleges, American Association of School Administrators, Alliance for Excellent Education, Association of Educational Service Agencies, Center for Rural Affairs, Coalition for Community Schools, Council for Opportunity in Education, National Association of State Boards of Education, National Association of Development Organizations, National Association of Elementary School Principals, National Association of Federally Impacted Schools, National Congress of American Indians, National Education Association, National Farmers Union, National Indian Education Association, National Rural Education Association, National Rural Education Advocacy Coalition, National School Board Association, Organizations Concerned about Rural Education, Public Education Network, Rural School and Community Trust, and Save the Children. We rightly focus quite a bit on education around here--the future success of our nation depends upon today's students. Since nearly one quarter of the students in America are at rural schools and the share of students in rural schools has been increasing, our Nation's success depends considerably on success in rural schools. Over half of the schools in West Virginia are in rural areas. This legislation will create an Office at the Department of Education to make sure the programs there are working for students in schools in rural areas. Rural schools are not just miniature versions of their urban counterparts. They face special challenges and they have unique capabilities. Among the challenges faced are shrinking local tax bases, recruiting and retaining teachers and principals, limited access to advanced courses, and proportionally higher transportation costs. At the same time, rural communities, and I am very proud of the communities in West Virginia often provide a strong foundation for support and improvement. They are leaders in the use of distance learning. While smaller schools lack an economy of scale, they often profit from this small size and their closeness to community. Parental involvement and support is typically high. Rural schools can be very innovative, and research on what works in rural schools needs to be completed and disseminated. The Office of Rural Education Policy is modeled after the successful Office of Rural Health Policy at the Department of Health and Human Services which Congress established in 1987. The office will be led by a director charged with coordinating the activities of the Department of Education concerning rural education. It will establish and maintain a clearinghouse for issues faced by rural schools, such as teacher and principal recruitment and retention; partnerships with community-based organizations; and financing of rural schools. The office will identify innovative research and demonstration projects on rural schools, and recommend research to bridge any gaps. It will issue an annual report on the condition of rural education, and an analysis of the impact on rural education from proposed regulations and other activities will be made public. Rural schools have been a part of our national fabric since its very beginning. Their students deserve the focus this legislation will provide. It has been said that education in rural America is ``too large to be ignored but too small and diverse to be highly visible.'' We need to establish this office so that it is not ignored and so that its successes are made more visible. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

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