A joint resolution to grant the consent of Congress to an amendment to the compact between the States of Missouri and Illinois providing that bonds issued by the Bi-State Development Agency may mature in not to exceed 40 years.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Family and Medical Leave Inclusion Act. This bill, which I also introduced in the 111th Congress, would extend the important protections of the Family and Medical Leave Act to same-sex couples in America.

I am pleased to introduce this bill with a coalition of Senators who are committed to ensuring justice and equality for all Americans. I would like to thank Senators Akaka, Blumenthal, Coons, Gillibrand, Kerry, Lautenberg, Leahy, Merkley, Sanders, and Whitehouse for standing with me in support of the Family and Medical Leave Inclusion Act.

In 1993, Congress passed the Family and Medical Leave Act to, among other things, protect American workers facing either a personal health crisis, or that of a close family member.

People in the workforce who suffer a serious illness or significant injury should be able to take time to heal, recover, follow their doctors' orders, and return to their jobs strong, healthy, and ready to be productive again. Thanks to the FMLA, they can take that time knowing that their jobs will be there when they recover.

As we all know well, most employees are not only concerned about their own health and wellbeing. They are concerned about the health and wellbeing of those that they love. The FMLA gave workers with a child, parent, or spouse that was sick or injured, an opportunity to provide the needed care and support, knowing that their jobs would be there when they returned.

When it was passed, the FMLA was an important and historic expansion of our nation's laws. Unfortunately, as families have evolved and expanded, we've learned that the FMLA does not provide the same level of protection to all American families. Under current law, it is impossible for many employees to be with their partners during times of medical need.

As I stated when I introduced this bill last year, Congress followed the lead of many large and small businesses when it enacted the FMLA. Almost 20 years ago, many of these businesses had already recognized and addressed the need for employees to take time off to care for themselves or a loved one that was battling a serious health condition. These companies had put in place systems that gave their employees time to heal themselves or their family members, and ensured that those employees would return to work as soon as they could.

The FMLA took the model these companies provided and brought the majority of the American workforce under the same protections.

We once again have an opportunity to learn from the best practices of American businesses who have adjusted their personnel policies and benefit packages to better meet the needs of American families, as we find them today. These businesses have assessed the composition of their workforces and realized that, in order to meet the evolving needs of their employees and enhance productivity, they needed to go one step further than the protections provided by the FMLA.

The Human Rights Campaign, leading civil rights organization that strongly supports the Family and Medical Leave Inclusion Act, reports that 502 major American corporations, 10 states, and the District of Columbia now extend FMLA benefits to include leave on behalf of a same- sex partner. Moreover, as of March of this year, 58 percent of Fortune 500 companies provided health benefits to same-sex partners, a 13 fold increase since 1995.

When the FMLA was signed into law, it was narrowly tailored to cover individuals caring for a very close family member. The law sought to cover that inner circle of people, where the family member assuming the caretaker role would be one of very few, if not the only person, who could do so. That idea has not changed.

What has changed are the people who might be in that inner circle. The nuclear American family has grown, sometimes by design, and sometimes by necessity. More and more, that inner circle of close family might include a grandparent or grandchild, siblings, or same-sex domestic partners in loving and committed relationships.

As the law stands right now, too many of these people are excluded from the protections of the FMLA.

In these tough economic times, when unemployment is high and those with jobs are doing everything they can to keep them, we all know the value of job security. Hardworking Americans should not have to make the impossible choice between keeping their jobs and providing care and support for loved ones in their time of need. Almost 20 years ago, the FMLA ensured that millions of Americans did not have to make that choice. Now, the time has come to ensure that the security afforded by the FMLA is available to a broader range of American workers.

There are many who would understandably question what this kind of change in the law would cost the business community. As I have stated in the past, the FMLA is already a very good law; it is already in place and it is working. It provides unpaid leave when the need arises, and it only applies to businesses that have enough employees on hand to handle the absence of a single worker without too great a burden.

Ninety percent of the leave time that has been taken under the FMLA has been so that employees can care for themselves or for a child in their care, and those situations are already covered under the law as it stands. What the Family and Medical Leave Inclusion Act would do is provide a little more flexibility, and recognize that there are a few more people in that inner circle of family who we might call upon, or who might call upon us.

We can all agree that family is the first and best safety net in times of personal crisis. Families need to be given the realistic ability to provide that assistance. What the Family and Medical Leave Inclusion Act does is give those family members the ability to help their loved ones in ways that only they can, without fear of losing their jobs in the process.

The Family and Medical Leave Inclusion Act enhances the FMLA. The Family and Medical Leave Inclusion Act, like the FMLA when it was passed almost 20 years ago, is long overdue. Our bill contains reasonable changes that reflect what many businesses have already done and accurately capture the modem American family.

The Family Medical Leave Inclusion Act is supported by over 80 organizations from the business, civil rights, LGBT, and labor communities, including: the National Association of Working Women; AFSCME; American Pediatrics Association; ACLU; Families USA; Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, GLAD; Human Rights Campaign; People for the American Way;

SEIU; and The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights.

The Family and Medical Leave Inclusion Act is the right thing to do, and I hope we can join together and pass it on a bipartisan basis.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Flood Protection Fairness Act of 2011.

This legislation will make three common sense changes to the National Flood Insurance Program, NFIP, to ensure that the program incentivizes local participation in the funding of flood protection infrastructure.

The bill allows levees paid for with local tax dollars to qualify for the same discounted flood insurance rates as communities that rely on Federal tax dollars to build their levees.

The bill allows Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, to calculate the value of a levee system in current dollars instead of using the uninflated cost of levee improvements completed years ago. This encourages local governments to fix problems as they arise.

The bill allows areas protected by coastal levees to qualify for the same flood insurance rate zones as areas protected by riverine levees, provided they meet equivalent flood protection standards.

The effect of these provisions is simple: local governments will be incentivized to help pay for the flood protection systems in their back yards.

In this time of shrinking budgets we simply can't afford to ask the federal taxpayer to foot the entire bill for flood protection. Federal investments must be leveraged by local and private contributions. Current policy discourages this; so it's time to change the policy.

In some areas of the country, homeowners are told that because their local government built the levee protecting their home, not the Federal Government, that they owe an additional $700 dollars on their flood insurance bill.

These homeowners are not being charged more because they are at greater risk. They are being charged more because the wrong money paid to build their levee. That is not sound policy.

Yet, this is the case in Sacramento, California.

A flood insurance rate map change in Sacramento has classified the area as an AE. This means that many residents living in the area will be forced to pay a rate of $2,187 per year for $250,000 worth of insurance.

However, if the levees protecting these homes were owned by the Federal Government instead of the local reclamation districts and the State or if the Corps of Engineers' approved report was authorized by Congress, the area would be eligible for an A99 zone designation by the middle of 2012. This would mean that the same $250,000 of flood insurance coverage would pay a rate of $1,472 per year.

That is a $715 dollar difference. That is a lot of money regardless of your economic situation.

I want to make clear that this bill is not just some gimmick to undermine the National Flood Insurance Program.

I firmly believe in the strong and rigorous regulations that limit development in flood plains. Development in an unprotected flood plain is dangerous, and I do not support legislation that encourages new construction in hazardous areas.

But the regulations that prohibit local investments from being counted, and prevent coastal communities from having full access to the NFIP are antiquated.

To understand the scope of the problem, it is important to have a little bit of context. FEMA is currently undertaking an extensive Map Modernization effort and examining levees around the country for safety. As FEMA does this, the Agency is learning that many levees do not provide an acceptable level of flood protection. This means that the people living behind these levees are in real danger of flooding, and until recently, were unaware of it.

Fortunately, the Map Modernization effort is bringing all of this information to homeowners and consumers. With this information they are able to protect themselves with flood insurance from the National Flood Insurance Program.

But as I have said, there is actually a disincentive for local governments to pitch in and help build flood control systems; if the locals build the levee, the National Flood Insurance Program won't give homeowners the same discounts they would receive if the levee were built by the Federal Government.

The program does this by limiting which communities can qualify for reduced rate flood insurance zones.

FEMA created the reduced rate AR and A99 zones to reflect a reduced flood risk as the result of an existing or partially completed levee system. But this designation only applies to communities protected by federally funded levees.

Even in Sacramento where residents have approved two property assessment increases to help pay for levee repairs, the homeowners are still hit with higher insurance rates because the improvements are not being paid for by the Federal Government.

The original idea behind this requirement was that information on non-federal levees was unreliable, and we did not know how safe they really were.

That was 30 years ago. Now we have better information, and better science, and FEMA has sufficient data to make sound judgments on levee safety. The rule is antiquated, and it needs to be modernized.

Not surprisingly, other agencies also recognized the need for a change. In California, the Sacramento and West Sacramento Flood Control Agencies, as well as the California Department of Water Resources are seeking this change.

At the Federal level, FEMA has worked with my office and the office of Representative Doris Matsui to develop these common sense modifications.

I commend each of the agencies that worked on this project and I hope to see these changes enacted quickly.

There are already positive signs in the House of Representatives. Just a few weeks ago, Financial Services Chairman Spencer Bachus included text of this legislation in a version of the National Flood Insurance Reauthorization bill. I want to commend Mr. Bachus for agreeing to make this important change, and thank Ms. Matsui for her effective advocacy on this issue.

On the whole, the National Flood Insurance Program and the Map Modernization effort each have taken our nation in the right direction. As a result of their successes, Americans are safer, and have the means and ability to insure their homes even in risky areas. These are not trivial accomplishments.

But a little fine tuning is in order.

Communities looking to improve flood protection in their area should not be penalized for paying for it themselves.

Residents should be charged the same insurance rates if they face the same risk--regardless of who owns the levee that protects their home.

The Flood Protection Fairness Act will make these two important principles clear. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill and look forward to working with you to ensure its speedy passage.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 22) to grant the consent of Congress to an amendment to the compact between the States of Missouri and Illinois providing that bonds issued by the Bi-State Development Agency may mature in not to exceed 40 years, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on S.J. Res. 22, as amended, currently under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The Founding Fathers did not believe that the Federal Government should try to solve every problem in the country. Instead, they believed that local problems should have local solutions. This system of federalism became the bedrock of the Constitution.

One particular aspect of our federalist system is found in the Compact Clause of the Constitution. The clause recognizes agreements or contracts that States make among themselves, with congressional approval when necessary. Today, there are approximately 200 active interstate compacts addressing a variety of issues that range from environmental and energy policy to natural resources to traffic and transportation. Rather than wait for a one-size-fits-all program from Washington, D.C., the Constitution allows States to solve these kinds of problems for themselves.

In 1949, Missouri and Illinois formed a compact to create the Bi- State Development Agency. The agency's mission is to facilitate and coordinate economic and infrastructure development in the St. Louis metropolitan area. Among other projects, the agency runs the public transportation system in St. Louis. The agency does not have taxing authority, but it may issue bonds. For example, in the 1960s, the agency sold bonds to finance construction of the tram to the top of the Gateway Arch, which it operates today. The compact allows the agency to sell 30-year bonds. Last year, most States adopted legislation to amend the compact and allow the agency to issue 40-year bonds.

In addition to other capital improvements, the agency could use revenue from these 40-year bonds to support the CityArchRiver 2015 initiative. The purpose of the CityArchRiver 2015 is to better connect downtown St. Louis with the Gateway Arch and the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial national park. The project also involves building elevated walkways across the river to Illinois.

Senate Joint Resolution 22 gives congressional approval to this amendment, the Missouri-Illinois Interstate Compact. The Judiciary Committee marked up its companion, House Joint Resolution 70, on September 21. The suspension version of Senate Joint Resolution 22 contains one amendment, to correct a minor drafting error regarding the effective date. With this amendment, Senate Joint Resolution 22 will be effective upon the date of enactment.

In conclusion, I'm pleased to see this feature of our federalist system at work. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution and look forward to its swift passage.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I have no requests for time, and I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman.

If our time would be better spent on those things, we would be glad to withdraw the suspension on your suggestion and just drop it right now. We will be glad to do that. I will make that offer.

As a closing comment, I have come to know the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay), my friend across the aisle, and hold him in very high regard. I appreciate very much his comments earlier about what this compact means to Illinois and to Missouri. I know Mr. Clay has been a leading proponent of this happening, and I really very much appreciate his comments. This will not provide jobs across the country, but it solves a problem. It will ease things for those two States so that jobs should be easier.

And I was totally serious when I offered my colleague who was saying that we were wasting our time on this--I know Mr. Clay and many others have spent a great deal of time on this, and I didn't think the Democrats that were pushing this bill so hard were wasting our time. I think it's a very legitimate use of our time.

Some people like to confuse the term ``interstate,'' as used in the Constitution; and they want the term ``interstate'' to be expanded, as it has sometimes, to apply to nothing but activity wholly within one State. The Supreme Court has even given some regard to those kinds of arguments, but this is not one of those cases. This is a matter that's been taken up and passed by the Senate, and we should pass it today. It takes up a matter clearly between two States that makes it interstate.

And then it is not the State of Illinois or Missouri coming and begging for the Federal Government to take over a State responsibility. It is two States with different opinions, different concerns, but wanting things to work together for good, coming to a solution; and then the Federal Government, since it is interstate, must recognize that compact. I think it is an appropriate thing to do. I don't think the Democrats who are pushing this bill were wasting our time. I think it's an appropriate use of Federal time.

With that, I would urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I want to applaud the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), the ranking member, and my colleague from Missouri, and to echo the comments of Mr. Conyers on his father, but also the stellar work that he is doing. As a member of the delegation, we can always count on Missouri to test the Constitution and to ask the United States to do what is right.

I am rising to support this compact. Frankly, I want to really embrace it because it is maybe one aspect of legislation, Madam Speaker, that we are actually bipartisan and supporting it without hesitation.

I, frankly, believe that the Federal Government should not overreach as it relates to compacts that have been between States. But I do think that regulation is key and crucial to give States extra leverage.

So let me congratulate Mr. Clay. And I look forward to supporting this legislation.

I will add, as well, that when I think of bonds, I think of opportunities for building, using resources to restore. And by the very nature of that, Madam Speaker, we're talking about creating jobs.

So I add another applause to this particular legislation coming out of the Judiciary Committee because, for once, among many bills that we have been debating from the Judiciary Committee, this bill might enhance opportunities for jobs. I think of bonds. I think of jobs. I think of utilization of funds from bonds as they mature. And this is a good thing.

I'm sad to say that in the course of the time that we've spent, maybe over the last 3 weeks, when we could have actually engaged in reasonable debate on how we raise the payroll tax, how do we extend the payroll tax cut, and how do we extend the unemployment benefits, we have not been able to do that.

So let me just share my assessment of the folk who are needing unemployment benefits. Personal savings have gone. Family savings have gone. They've exhausted the 401(k)s and they have tapped every other fungible amount of dollars that they might have, maybe even to the kiddie's saving account that started with 25 cents, leaving many individuals in this harmonious, humble holiday time, desperate, desperate for a job, desperate for assistance, desperate for being able to pay their mortgage, desperate for paying their rent.

Madam Speaker, maybe we should also say, desperate in getting one more allotment of food stamps. Maybe we're not aware that there are 46 million families on food stamps, and most of them wait all the way to the exhaustion of those food stamps; find themselves, before the next opportunity for food stamps, literally drinking water, making tea, and eating crackers. There was an expose on this just recently on one of our cable stations, families waiting until 12 midnight to watch and see if their account has in it the amount of money they needed to enter a grocery store to feed their children.

I don't believe that we can leave this sacred and august institution without, one, providing relief on extending the payroll tax cut, giving $1,000 and $1,500 to the American working class. And clearly, I don't believe that we can leave without providing for unemployment. Every dollar invested in unemployment insurance yields $1.52 in economic growth, and at least 200,000 jobs will be lost if Republicans block extension of the unemployment insurance.

In fact, frankly, I know that Scrooge would not find a place of comfort in this House.

We have always risen to the occasion of helping the most desperate. Whether it has been under Franklin Delano Roosevelt in World War II, where he had to put the apple sellers back to work, or whether it was when our President had to stop the bleeding with the $800 billion stimulus, we have always risen to be able to find a way to move our economy. And if we would tell the truth, we would see that our economy is percolating along.

So in the tribute of President Obama, who speaks today in Kansas in the same place that President Teddy Roosevelt spoke about opportunity for Americans, I'm asking for the Members of Congress to come to the floor and give opportunity for Americans.

I will close by saying to my friends, there are many good friends who are running for President. Many of us have worked with them. And anytime an American wants to offer themselves to serve this country, I have no angst with them, no matter how much I disagree with their policy. But let me be very clear, as a child that grew up poor, lived with neighbors who were poor--not in our minds, but certainly by our economics--I want to make the record very clear: poor children have role models because poor families get up every day and go to work. And the solution to poor children being the best that they can be is not a Donald Trump apprenticeship, and it sure isn't to get rid of the working janitors who are supporting their families and put the poor children to work.

I hope that we can do better than that, Madam Speaker, and get back to work and make sure we extend the payroll tax for working families. And let's extend the unemployment insurance for the 99ers.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the chairman and ranking member of the full committee and the chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee for their leadership and for moving this critical resolution.

I'm proud to have introduced the House version of this joint resolution, and it accomplishes two very good things: S.J. Res. 22 approves an important amendment to a compact between two States.

As was mentioned before, in 1949, Missouri and Illinois entered into an agreement to foster ``regional economic development through excellence in transportation.'' The compact created the Bi-State Development Agency. Congress approved it, and has approved several amendments over the last 6 decades.

The agency, now known as ``Metro,'' operates the St. Louis Metropolitan region's public transportation system. It has more than 2,400 employees and carries over 55 million passengers each year.

This resolution approves a small but crucial change to the Bi-State Compact. Both State legislatures have passed it, and both Governors have signed it. This is a necessary and good amendment, and there is no negative impact to the Nation or to States. As such, Congress should approve it.

This resolution also enables the Congress to fulfill one of its constitutional duties. And I agree with my good friend, Mr. Gohmert, that Congress should not overstep its authority. While we do not always agree on the limits of that power, we agree on this resolution and on the constitutional authority for it.

Article I, section 10, clause 3 of the Constitution says that ``No State shall, without the consent of Congress . . . enter into an agreement or compact with another State.''

The Framers of the Constitution required that Congress would have to approve these agreements to protect the interests and rights of the other States. This also protects the rights of the citizens within the States that are party to the compact by providing Federal oversight.

This clause was a compromise. There were those who wanted to give the Federal Government greater power over the States, including the authority to

regulate to negate State laws. Others felt very strongly that this would be overly nationalist and broad.

The Constitutional Convention, rather than giving the Federal Government complete control over everything, or nothing, compromised. They compromised for the good of the Nation. They granted the Federal Government blanket authority over some areas. They also limited the Federal Government's authority in others. And they required congressional approval for agreements between the States.

This compromise, one of many that formed our great country, demonstrates that two opposing sides, who each feel passionately about their point of view, can come together and compromise for the good of the Nation. They each put aside their well-intentioned and strongly held belief that they were completely correct, and that the other side was completely wrong, and found a way to work out the differences. Each gave up something they held dear in order to achieve a higher good: That was the creation of a strong Nation, a Nation that would endure.

Madam Speaker, there is a lesson here, a 224-year old lesson for us who serve in Congress today.

Once again, I thank the chairman and ranking member.