Floor Statements

Mr. President, I had the opportunity to visit Slovakia in 2009. It was a great opportunity for me to meet with representatives of a country that is a close ally of the United States. Slovakia and the United States share strong ties thanks to the heritage of many Americans whose parents, grandparents or great grandparents came from Slovakia. We are also bound by our common devotion to democracy and human rights. It is an important friendship.

My visit to Bratislava gave me a chance to strengthen those ties. It also provided me with an opportunity to share with my Slovak friends concerns I have about the practice of targeting Romani women for sterilization without informed consent--a practice that was documented and condemned by the Charter 77 human rights movement more than 30 years ago. Unfortunately, sterilizations without consent continued to be performed in State-run hospitals in the Czech and Slovak Republics-- reportedly even in this century.

This week there has been an important development on that front. On Tuesday, the European Court on Human Rights found that the sterilization without informed consent of a Romani woman had violated article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the prohibition on inhuman or degrading treatment, and article 8, the right to family life.

This is an incredibly important victory for a woman who was wrongfully sterilized at the time of the birth of her second child and who has since struggled for 11 years to vindicate this claim. I commend her for her bravery and tenaciousness in the face of numerous obstacles. At the same time, I am aware that the damages awarded by the court can never fully compensate for what was taken from her.

I regret that it has taken so long to achieve this single victory. Thus far, the Slovak Government has refused to acknowledge this past practice of targeting Romani women for sterilization. In the last decade, in the face of growing documentation of this abuse and increasing calls for the Slovak Government to acknowledge this grave human rights violation, Slovak authorities have, in turns, made threats against victims, denied the past abuse, and some voices even continue to call for making sterilization freely available to ``socially excluded communities''--a term that is almost synonymously used to describe Roma.

There are other countries where sterilization without consent also occurred in the last century, including Norway, Switzerland, Sweden and 33 States in the United States. But Slovakia has been singularly resistant to acknowledging that these abuses not only happened, but are indefensible by modern standards.

While I welcome this week's decision by the European court, it does not put an end to this issue. There are two other sterilization cases pending in Slovakia's domestic courts, and five other cases pending against Slovakia before the European court. I urge the Slovak Government not to force victims through the painful process of litigating each case--a process that has immeasurable costs for all sides--and to establish a less burdensome process for victims to have their claims recognized. It is long overdue for Slovak authorities to acknowledge that Romani women were targeted for sterilization without informed consent.

Mr. President, earlier today in the Environment and Public Works Committee--the Presiding Officer was at that meeting-- something unusual happened. We had a major bill that will extend the Highway Surface Transportation Act for 2 years, passed by a unanimous vote, all the Democrats and Republicans joining together in order to move forward a bill that will help create jobs. I hope we will find the same spirit of cooperation on the legislation that is now before us. It helps create jobs for our community and, with the Tester amendment, we have a win-win situation.

This, first and foremost, is about creating jobs. The Tester amendment allows us to create more jobs that will help American families, help our economy, and even help our budget deficit, because when more Americans are working, more are paying taxes, and less government services are needed.

All agree we need to help our returning veterans, those who have served so well in Iraq and Afghanistan, defending the principles of our country and defending our basic freedom. On Friday, we will celebrate Veterans Day, and I know all of us will be speaking about how much we appreciate the service of our veterans. We need to show our appreciation not only by words but also by deeds. Yes, we fight to make sure our veterans have the health services they need, and we want to make sure all of our military have the support they need. We want to make sure our military families are properly taken care of. But one thing we can do with this legislation is help veterans get jobs when they return home.

The unemployment rate among our returning veterans is higher than the unemployment rates in our general community. We need to help our veterans find employment. That is one way we can show our appreciation for the men and women who have served our Nation.

The bill before us, with the Tester amendment, will give incentives to employers to hire returning warriors from Iraq and Afghanistan. It will expand the education and training services so they have the skills necessary for civilian employment. It will help us deal

with a chronic problem we have of returning veterans, under the age of 24, where the unemployment rate is 21 percent. This bill, with the Tester amendment, will allow us to do something to help our returning veterans and help our economy.

But the underlying bill also goes further. It helps small businesses. Small businesses are the growth engine of America. That is where job creation takes place. That is where innovation takes place. We currently have a requirement that has not yet gone into effect that would require small businesses that have contracts with the government over $10,000 to withhold 3 percent of those funds in order to make sure taxes are paid. We need to repeal that provision, and this bill will repeal that provision. We should go after those who are delinquent in taxes, and we have a provision to make sure we do that, but for small business to tie up that type of capital affects their ability to compete. It affects their ability to expand job opportunity. Repealing that provision is important to help small business help our economy.

It also would eliminate an administrative burden for a lot of our local governments. It also will make it more competitive for small businesses. The 3-percent withholding would affect actually the cost of production. All that means a stronger economy and more jobs.

This bill is a win-win bill. It helps our veterans. With the Tester amendment, it helps small businesses by repealing a provision that is extremely burdensome. It is fully paid for so it does not add anything at all to the deficit, and it will help us grow our economy. By passing this bill, not only will we help our veterans, we will help our small businesses and we will help our economy.

I urge our colleagues to show the same type of cooperation we did on the surface transportation bill today in our committee. Let's use that same spirit of cooperation to get this bill moving, with the Tester amendment. Let us pass it and send it back to the House and, hopefully, we can get it to the President shortly for signature and help our veterans and help our economy.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, later this month, the special joint committee will be issuing its recommendations. The special joint committee was set up for us to get recommendations on dealing with our economic problems and our budget deficit. I wanted to share with my colleagues two points I think are critically important that I hope will come out of this special joint committee.

First, I hope this joint committee will provide a way that we can advance an agenda that will create jobs in our communities. Secondly, I hope this special joint committee will come forward with a comprehensive and balanced approach for us to deal with our current unsustainable budget deficits.

Let me talk about the first issue, creating jobs. President Obama came forward with a job initiative that I do believe is entitled to debate on the floor of this body and, I would hope, passage. President Obama brought forward a bill that deals with rebuilding America so we can have the types of roads and bridges and water infrastructure and energy infrastructure that allow America to compete, at the same time creating jobs.

He has offered proposals that would help small businesses, because we know the small businesses represent the economic engine of America. Where more jobs will be created, more innovation occurs. He understands that and is encouraging us to do more to help small businesses.

The President's proposal deals with our men and women in the military service who are coming back from Iraq, coming back from Afghanistan, to have jobs available. Yesterday I was at BWI Airport as our soldiers came back from Iraq and Afghanistan. They want jobs. The President's initiative says, look, let's make sure we have jobs for our returning soldiers. All that means is we are going to create more jobs.

The joint committee needs to make sure that in its recommendations we have the wherewithal to move this Nation forward by creating jobs. The President's proposal has been evaluated by independent economists. Mark Zandi, who was Senator McCain's economic adviser in his Presidential campaign, points out the President's proposal would increase our gross domestic product by 2 percent and create 1.9 million additional jobs.

The President's proposal is completely paid for. It adds nothing to the deficit. I must tell you, if we are going to be able to balance our budget, if we are going to be able to get our budget in better shape, we have to have more jobs, less people using governmental services, more people paying revenues or taxes into our system. The more people who are working, the better our budgets will come into balance.

I know some here are saying there is a better way of doing it. Well, come forward with a better way of doing it. I would challenge particularly my Republican colleagues, if you have a better way, come forward with a proposal that includes at least 1.9 million jobs and does it without adding to the budget deficit. That is the proposal we have before us.

I am asking the joint committee to make sure they provide in their recommendations a way that we can create jobs so we can deal with our budget deficit.

The second point I want to make is I would hope that the joint committee's recommendations would be comprehensive and balanced. Some call that the shared sacrifice.

I know these numbers can sort of be used any way you want, but the groups that have looked at this, the Simpson-Bowles group and others, say, we need to reduce the deficit over the next 10 years by about $4 trillion. I think that is a number we should meet. I hope the joint committee can come in with $4 trillion of deficit reduction over the next 10 years. We have already done the first trillion. We did that when we raised the debt limit in August. Now we need to look at another $3 trillion. I would hope they would do it.

It starts with a realistic baseline. What does that mean? It means what numbers are we using in order to determine whether we actually get to that $4 trillion of deficit reduction? What baseline do we use in order to determine the revenue base from which we start these discussions?

I would suggest we make a realistic baseline. I was impressed with the work of the Simpson-Bowles commission. I was impressed by the work of our colleagues in the Senate, the so-called Gang of Six, and I must tell you the overwhelming majority of my colleagues in the Senate have at least agreed to the basis of what the Gang of Six was working with, what they were trying to do. It uses a realistic baseline. It assumes that some of the tax provisions will be extended, but not all.

It also assumes we have to bring in additional revenues beyond that. Quite frankly, the number we have been talking about is that we need about $1.2 trillion outside of this $4 trillion package in realistic revenues using a realistic baseline. And that can be gotten. That is not so difficult to get when you realize that all of the tax deductions, exemptions, and credits equal as much revenue as we bring in in our Tax Code.

Another way to say that is, if we eliminate all of the exemptions, deductions, and credits, we get tax rates one-half of what our current tax rates are. What we are suggesting is that there are certain loopholes in the Tax Code that benefit special interest corporations. They need to be eliminated. They need to be eliminated. Everyone has to pay their fair share. We cannot just attack the middle-class families.

There was an article in the Baltimore Sun this past week which showed that during this recession the number of people earning more than $1 million has grown dramatically. There have been economic studies done showing that the wealthiest in America during these economic times have done very well. Their incomes have grown at a faster rate than other Americans, the middle-class families. The middle-class families are falling behind.

All we are suggesting is that when we look at how we get the revenue, let's make sure it is fair and we do not again penalize the middle- class families. Let's make sure those who earn over $1 million pay their fair share toward this comprehensive and balanced approach.

That is what we are asking the joint committee to come in with, come in with proposals that are fair, are balanced, make sure everybody pays their fair share, including those who have done extremely well during this economic recession, those who have made over $1 million of income.

I must tell you, everyone needs to be part of the equation. We understand that. We have to have the so-called shared sacrifice. I have taken the floor before to talk about our Federal employees. Everybody says, well, you know, the Federal employees have to help contribute to this deficit also. Our Federal employees understand that. They already have contributed. They were the first to do that with 2 years of pay freezes. We are asking them to do more with less people. We have cut their budgets and we have given them more work. And we have told them, 2 years with a pay freeze. So our Federal employees have already contributed to these deficit reduction numbers. They should not be picked on again. I believe we can come together. We need to have a comprehensive and balanced approach that allows America to create more jobs. That is what we need to do as a nation. If we come together, I am convinced it will instill confidence among the American consumers, among American investors, and our economy will take off. It is going to be good for everyone in this Nation. I hope this month we will see the joint committee come in with such recommendations that will be balanced, will be fair, and will allow us to create more jobs for Americans.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Hotels for Heroes Act. Next week is Veterans Day and we owe it to our military men and women to support them every day but especially in their time of need. Today, military families are facing enormous challenges, not just emotionally, but financially. The legislation I am introducing will help more families to be with their loved ones as they recover from injuries and illnesses sustained defending our country and our way of life.

This bill expands on the popular Hero Miles program created in 2003 by my Maryland delegation colleague, Congressman Dutch Ruppersberger. The Hero Miles program authorizes the Department of Defense to accept donated frequent traveler miles to provide free round-trip airfare to military members recovering at military or Veterans Administration, VA, medical centers as a result of injuries sustained in overseas conflicts. The program also enables family and friends to visit injured troops while they are being treated. The Fisher House Foundation administers the program. The Foundation is a non-profit best known for its network of comfort homes built on the grounds of major military and VA medical centers.

The bill that I am introducing today would expand the program to allow the Department of Defense to accept the donation of hotel points in addition to airline miles. Congressman Ruppersberger has introduced a companion bill in the House of Representatives. Here in the Senate, I am proud to have bipartisan support for this bill: Senator Wicker is the lead co-sponsor. The Fisher House Foundation, the USO, and the Military Child Education Coalition all support the legislation.

Donating unused frequent flyer airline miles and hotel points is a wonderful and easy way for Americans to express their appreciation for our brave men and women in uniform and their families. The Senate is not renowned for acting expeditiously, but one nice way to help pay tribute to our veterans and active duty servicemen and women would be to pass the Hotels for Heroes Act as soon as possible. I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

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 Hotels for Heroes Act. Next week is Veterans Day and we owe it to our military men and women to support them every day but especially in their time of need. Today, military families are facing enormous challenges, not just emotionally, but financially. The legislation I am introducing will help more families to be with their loved ones as they recover from injuries and illnesses sustained defending our country and our way of life.

This bill expands on the popular Hero Miles program created in 2003 by my Maryland delegation colleague, Congressman Dutch Ruppersberger. The Hero Miles program authorizes the Department of Defense to accept donated frequent traveler miles to provide free round-trip airfare to military members recovering at military or Veterans Administration, VA, medical centers as a result of injuries sustained in overseas conflicts. The program also enables family and friends to visit injured troops while they are being treated. The Fisher House Foundation administers the program. The Foundation is a non-profit best known for its network of comfort homes built on the grounds of major military and VA medical centers.

The bill that I am introducing today would expand the program to allow the Department of Defense to accept the donation of hotel points in addition to airline miles. Congressman Ruppersberger has introduced a companion bill in the House of Representatives. Here in the Senate, I am proud to have bipartisan support for this bill: Senator Wicker is the lead co-sponsor. The Fisher House Foundation, the USO, and the Military Child Education Coalition all support the legislation.

Donating unused frequent flyer airline miles and hotel points is a wonderful and easy way for Americans to express their appreciation for our brave men and women in uniform and their families. The Senate is not renowned for acting expeditiously, but one nice way to help pay tribute to our veterans and active duty servicemen and women would be to pass the Hotels for Heroes Act as soon as possible. I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

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

Madam President, I rise to remember the 10th anniversary of the anthrax attacks on our country.

During the weeks following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2011, our Nation was exposed to chemical warfare for the first time.

Two anthrax attacks were delivered through our country's postal system. The first set of letters was mailed to media outlets, including ABC, CBS, NBC, the National Enquirer, and the New York Post in September.

Three weeks later, two other anthrax letters were mailed to U.S. Senators--Senator Daschle and Senator Patrick Leahy. The letter to Senator Leahy never made it to Capitol Hill. The envelope addressed to Senator Daschle, however, was opened on October 15 in the Hart Senate Office Building in the mailroom of the office I use today. Emergency responders rushed to join Capitol Police to evaluate the situation and determine the extent of contamination.

It was 10 years ago this week on October 17, 2001, the Capitol was evacuated. At that time I was a Member of the House of Representatives. I remember the fear and trepidation all Americans felt in the days and weeks following September 11.

I take this time to honor the courage of our Nation's Federal employees. Two made the ultimate sacrifice, dying from the exposure of the deadly anthrax toxin at the postal facility that handled all the mail that came to the Senate and House offices. U.S. postal workers Thomas L. Morris, Jr. and Joseph P. Curseen, Jr. gave the ultimate sacrifice after being exposed to the infected Senate mail while they worked in the Brentwood post office facility here in Washington, DC.

Mr. Morris and Mr. Curseen were Maryland residents. Like so many other Federal employees, they went to work every day, serving the American people and trying to earn a living for themselves and their families. Less than a week after being exposed to the deadly anthrax at the mail facility, both men died of their exposures.

The Brentwood postal facility, which was shuttered for months while the building was disinfected, now proudly bears their names, honoring two Federal employees who died doing their jobs.

Literally thousands of other Federal employees bravely went back to work, making sure our government continued to function in the most uncertain of times. While most Federal workers

crammed together in small makeshift office space, other brave Federal employees put themselves in harm's way trying to contain the spread of the weaponized spores and to clean up the deadly bacteria.

It has been fashionable of late to criticize the Environmental Protection Agency, but I remind everyone that members of the EPA's region 3 led the emergency response efforts following the anthrax attacks. They were joined by a small army of other EPA emergency responders from around the country who responded to the call for extra personnel to manage the massive decontamination efforts.

The EPA's headquarter staffers were fully engaged as well. The EPA national pesticide program worked quickly to develop new methods necessary to wipe out the anthrax. Scientists worked primarily out of EPA's pesticide lab, which is located 20 miles away in Fort Meade, MD.

It was not just EPA employees who answered the call to duty. Capitol police were the first ones to respond, and they continued to provide protection to legislative branch employees as well as the emergency responders and the public.

The Department of Defense lent its expertise. As the cleanup progressed, thousands of tests were taken and then sent to Fort Detrick in Maryland where chemical weapons specialists analyzed samples and reported results to the emergency command center. Defense Department personnel were also engaged in the decontamination efforts, working side by side with EPA emergency responders.

The photos I brought to the floor today show some of the emergency responders wearing specialized protective gear, working on the decontamination of Senator Daschle's office. Each desk, chair, filing cabinet, and piece of paper in the office was removed. The last item to be removed from room 509 at the Hart Building was an American flag that hung in Senator Daschle's front office. Emergency responders are seen here folding the flag that was placed in a special sealed bag and sent off to be decontaminated. Countless employees at the Sergeant at Arms, the Architect of the Capitol, and Senate and House staffers continued the business of running our government and the legislature. It was critical that Congress continue to function, demonstrating to the Nation and the world that terrorist attacks could not cripple the institution of democracy.

Other Federal employees put themselves in harm's way during and after the anthrax attacks. These Federal employees worked hard to do what many thought impossible, putting public buildings back into use after a chemical attack. At great risk to themselves, they bravely met the challenges to ensure our government continued to function.

Today I honor the memory of Thomas L. Morris, Jr. and Joseph P. Curseen, Jr. who gave their lives while engaged in public service. Today I salute those Federal employees who risked their own lives so that the legislative branch of the greatest government on Earth could continue, and those who continued to work every day in the face of grave danger and uncertainty. Today I simply want to give a heartfelt thank you to all of America's Federal employees. You recognize that public service is an honorable calling and you work every day to keep this Nation the great Nation it is.

With that, let me once again thank our Federal workforce and what they do for our country.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I thank Senator Boxer for her extraordinary leadership as chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee.

She has stood for legislation that will allow us to rebuild our roads, our bridges, our infrastructure in this country, to create jobs, and make America competitive.

I rise to oppose the McCain amendment, and I will give three reasons why: First, jobs; secondly, the transportation enhancement programs help our traveling public. It is what they want, what they need; third, there is a safety issue.

First, on jobs. Let me point out that the Transportation Enhancements Program represents 1.5 percent of the annual Federal surface transportation funds--1.5 percent--a relatively small amount of money of the total pie. But it is interesting that the projects funded by the Transportation Enhancements Program actually yield more jobs per dollar spent than the funds that are used for the traditional transportation programs. So on a jobs basis, we actually get more jobs from a lot of the projects that are in the Transportation Enhancements Program.

Secondly, let me talk about the type of programs involved. We are talking about bicycle paths. We are talking about when people travel on a road and there is a pulloff where one can safely view the scenery. These types of projects we are talking about could be jeopardized by the McCain amendment.

I know my colleague from Alaska talked yesterday about the safety issue, but let me underscore it. Today, more accidents are caused from our pedestrians and our bicyclists. They are on the rise. There are actually an increased number of fatalities related to cyclists and pedestrians. Fourteen percent of roadway fatalities involve cyclists or pedestrians and two-thirds of these accidents occur on Federal highways. Accidents involving pedestrians and cyclists result in far more serious injuries. While motorist fatalities are on the decline, pedestrian and cyclist fatalities are on the rise.

When we have a pulloff on a highway where someone can pull their car safely off in order to look at the vista, that is the way it should be. In my own State of Maryland, we are constructing the Harriet Tubman scenic byway so people can visit the Eastern Shore of Maryland and see firsthand where Harriet Tubman operated the Underground Railroad. These roads are county roads. These are roads which are narrow and on which we have a lot of commercial traffic as well as people who just want to look at the scenes. The State of Maryland should have the flexibility of using these transportation enhancement funds in order to do what the traveling public wants them to do; that is, to provide a safe experience for the motorists to be able to enjoy our transportation highways. That is what the Transportation Enhancements Program allows our States to be able to do. The McCain amendment would jeopardize those funds.

So the Transportation Enhancements Program offers flexibility to our States to be able to provide the whole array of transportation options. It is a very small part of the overall transportation budget. It provides those enhancements that the traveling public wants and needs. It creates jobs, and it allows for greater public safety.

So for all those reasons, I urge my colleagues to reject the McCain amendment.

With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that during this debate, all time that elapses during quorum calls be equally charged to both sides of the debate.

With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I know the Senator from Missouri is here, and I am going to make a unanimous consent request that I anticipate he will object to on behalf of other Senators. So let me do that formally and then make my comments.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination: Calendar No. 112; that the nomination be confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to the nomination; that any related statements be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. President, I certainly understand that my friend from Missouri is doing this on behalf of other Senators. I want to express my disappointment that these Senators are objecting to the confirmation of William J. Boarman, an individual who is eminently qualified to be our Nation's 26th Public Printer and head of the Government Printing Office.

President Obama nominated Bill Boarman 18 months ago. The Senate Committee on Rules and Administration reported the nomination favorably in July of 2010. The nomination languished because of Republican objections so President Obama made a recess appointment on January 3, 2011, and renominated Mr. Boarman on January 27, 2011. Again, the Senate Rules Committee reported the nomination favorably by voice vote this past May.

The Public Printer is not a controversial position. Previous Printers have been confirmed without controversy or delay. This obstruction is unprecedented.

Bill's career in the printing industry spans 40 years. He started as a practical printer, trained under the apprenticeship program of the International Typographical Union and served his apprenticeship at McArdle Printing Company in Washington, DC.

In 1974, he accepted an appointment as a journeyman printer at the GPO. Mr. Boarman was elected president of his home Local 101-12 when he was 30 years of age. He later served as a national officer with the ITU, where he was a key architect of the merger between the ITU and the Communications Workers of America. He was elected ITU president shortly before the merger and has been reelected to seven successive terms since.

He has served as an unpaid consultant to several Public Printers and has testified before various congressional committees regarding GPO programs and policies. He is an expert in this field. He is eminently qualified. I think the Members of this body know that.

Mr. Boarman served as chairman of the $1 billion CWA/ITU Negotiated Pension Plan and the $125 million Canadian Negotiated Pension Plan. He has experience in management. He was among the union leaders who spearheaded the creation of the AFL-CIO Capital Stewardship Program and the Center for Working Capital in the Federation.

Because of his experience in the field of pension administration, he was chosen to represent CWA on the Council of Institutional Investors, serving 12 years as a member of the CII Executive Board and three terms as its cochairman. He has also served on the Maryland Commission on Judicial Disabilities and as cochair of the Taft-Hartley Northern American Study Group educational investment conference.

He has served as president of the Union Printers Home, a 122-bed skilled nursing facility in Colorado Springs, CO. I mention his extensive background to underscore the point that Bill Boarman is, perhaps, uniquely qualified to serve as the Nation's Public Printer, and there is absolutely no good reason to hold up his confirmation.

All we are asking is, let's bring this nomination forward for a vote--a person who has eminent qualifications. There is no substantive objection to his confirmation. I hope my colleagues who have raised the objection will allow us to move forward.

The Public Printer serves as the chief executive officer of the GPO, the agency charged with keeping the American people informed about the work of the Federal Government.

GPO is one of the world's largest printing plants and digital factories and is one of the biggest print buyers in the world. GPO disseminates the Congressional Record and the Federal Register and a number of other products and services in both print and digital form.

The agency has been tasked to build its digital capability into a state of the art operation to improve transparency and citizen access to government documents and reports.

We hear all the time about making this system more transparent. Mr. Boarman knows how to do that. Let's give him a confirmed position so we can help bring the public more into what we do here in Congress.

Bill Boarman faces the challenges of maintaining the traditional printing skills of an aging workforce while helping a 150-year-old organization adapt to a world in which most documents are ``born digital.''

As Bill has said:

Few Federal agencies can count as their heritage the scope

of the work GPO has performed, ranging from the first

printing of the Emancipation Proclamation to providing

digital access to the Government's publications today. The

men and women of GPO are responsible for that heritage.

It is past time that Bill Boarman--a man with over 40 years of experience in the printing industry--be considered and confirmed as the Nation's 26th Public Printer.

I urge my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle: Let the Senate do what it is legally responsible to do: advise and consent on these nominations. Let us vote so we can confirm this position that was first brought forward over a year and a half ago.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, authorized under P.L. 105-312 in 1998 and reauthorized by P.L. 107-308 in 2002, the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network helps several million visitors and residents find, enjoy, and learn about the special places and stories of the Chesapeake and its watershed. Today I am introducing legislation to reauthorize this successful program.

For visitors and residents, the Gateways are the ``Chesapeake connection.'' The Network members provide an experience of such high quality that their visitors will indeed connect to the Chesapeake emotionally as well as intellectually, and thus to its conservation.

The Chesapeake Bay is a national treasure. The Chesapeake ranks as the largest of America's 130 estuaries and one of the Nation's largest and longest fresh water and estuarine systems. The Atlantic Ocean delivers half the bay's 18 trillion gallons of water and the other half flows through over 150 major rivers and streams draining 64,000 square miles within 6 States and the District of Columbia. The Chesapeake watershed is among the most significant cultural, natural and historic assets of our Nation.

The Chesapeake is enormous and vastly diverse--how could you possibly experience the whole story in any one place? Better to connect and use the scores of existing public places to collaborate on presenting the many chapters and tales of the bay story. Visitors and residents go to more places for more experiences, all through a coordinated Gateways Network.

Beyond simply coordinating the Network, publishing a map and guides, and providing standard exhibits at all Gateways, the National Park Service has helped Gateways with matching grants and expertise for 200 projects with a total value of more than $12 million. This is a great deal for the bay--it helps network members tell the Chesapeake story better and inspires people to care for this National Treasure--and it is a good deal for the Park Service. In this legislation, we cap the Gateways authorization at just $2 million annually. It serves all 150+ Gateways and their 10 million visitors. No other National Park can provide such a dramatic ratio of public dollars spent to number of visitors served.

With the National Park Service's expertise and support, Gateways have made significant progress in their mission to tell the bay's stories to their millions of members and visitors, extend access to the bay and its watershed, and develop a conservation awareness and ethic. It is time to reauthorize the Chesapeake Gateways and Watertrails program. It is my hope that the Congress will act quickly to adopt this legislation.

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

Mr. President, authorized under P.L. 105-312 in 1998 and reauthorized by P.L. 107-308 in 2002, the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network helps several million visitors and residents find, enjoy, and learn about the special places and stories of the Chesapeake and its watershed. Today I am introducing legislation to reauthorize this successful program.

For visitors and residents, the Gateways are the ``Chesapeake connection.'' The Network members provide an experience of such high quality that their visitors will indeed connect to the Chesapeake emotionally as well as intellectually, and thus to its conservation.

The Chesapeake Bay is a national treasure. The Chesapeake ranks as the largest of America's 130 estuaries and one of the Nation's largest and longest fresh water and estuarine systems. The Atlantic Ocean delivers half the bay's 18 trillion gallons of water and the other half flows through over 150 major rivers and streams draining 64,000 square miles within 6 States and the District of Columbia. The Chesapeake watershed is among the most significant cultural, natural and historic assets of our Nation.

The Chesapeake is enormous and vastly diverse--how could you possibly experience the whole story in any one place? Better to connect and use the scores of existing public places to collaborate on presenting the many chapters and tales of the bay story. Visitors and residents go to more places for more experiences, all through a coordinated Gateways Network.

Beyond simply coordinating the Network, publishing a map and guides, and providing standard exhibits at all Gateways, the National Park Service has helped Gateways with matching grants and expertise for 200 projects with a total value of more than $12 million. This is a great deal for the bay--it helps network members tell the Chesapeake story better and inspires people to care for this National Treasure--and it is a good deal for the Park Service. In this legislation, we cap the Gateways authorization at just $2 million annually. It serves all 150+ Gateways and their 10 million visitors. No other National Park can provide such a dramatic ratio of public dollars spent to number of visitors served.

With the National Park Service's expertise and support, Gateways have made significant progress in their mission to tell the bay's stories to their millions of members and visitors, extend access to the bay and its watershed, and develop a conservation awareness and ethic. It is time to reauthorize the Chesapeake Gateways and Watertrails program. It is my hope that the Congress will act quickly to adopt this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 19, 2011, at 2:30 p.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building. The Committee will hold a hearing entitled, ``Concussions and the Marketing of Sports Equipment.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 19, 2011, at 2:30 p.m., in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works and the Subcommittee on Superfund, Toxics, and Environmental Health be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 19, 2011, at 10 a.m. in Dirksen 406 to conduct a joint hearing entitled, ``Oversight Hearing on the Brownfields Program--Cleaning Up and Rebuilding Communities.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 19, 2011, at 10 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 19, 2011, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Oversight of the Department of Homeland Security.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 19, 2011, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Nominations.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 19, 2011, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs' Subcommittee on Securities, Insurance, and Investment, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 19, 2011, at 9:30 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Market Microstructure: Examination of Exchange-Traded Funds (ETFS).''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privileges of the floor be granted to the following member of the staff of the Senator from Oregon, Elizabeth Heintzman, during the pendency of the pending business.

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

Mr. President, I take this time to comment on a vote that took place earlier this week that the people of this Nation are having a hard time understanding--why the Republicans are filibustering legislation that will allow us to consider job growth in America. It is a filibuster, and that happens so frequently in this body that it seems to be standard operating procedure for the Republicans. But in this case I think the American public realizes they have gone too far.

We have to create more jobs. We have to create more jobs so our economy can grow. There are millions of Americans who are seeking work and cannot find jobs and they need work in order to support their families. We need more jobs for our economy to grow.

We got into a debate in August about what we were going to do about raising the debt ceiling and we were all concerned about the deficits this country has. Yes, we are concerned that our current deficits are not sustainable, but we will not have a budget that is sustainable unless we have more jobs. You can look at all of the programs to reduce government spending or to try to bring in more revenues, but if we do not create more jobs we are not going to be able to get our budget into a semblance of order.

The reason for that is simple. The more people out of work, the more reliant they are on government services and the less taxes paid in to pay our bills. So for the sake of those who are seeking employment, for the sake of our economy, for the sake of our budget, we have to create more jobs.

We had a vote this week on moving forward on S. 1660, the President's jobs initiative. It was a motion to proceed. It was a motion to bring the bill to the floor so we could get into a debate about the best way to create jobs. Many of us thought we would have amendments that would enhance and improve the President's package. The President's package was a starting point for our debate. But the Republicans said no, we are going to filibuster even the opportunity for us to consider jobs legislation. They wouldn't even allow us to move forward.

We had a majority of the Senate. We had enough votes to pass it or at least proceed if it were a simple majority, which is what most democracies believe is the right standard. But, no, we had a filibuster that did not even allow us to consider the jobs bill on the floor of the Senate.

I find that most surprising. When you look at the President's proposal, the individual provisions have bipartisan support. This is not a Democratic proposal. Every one of the provisions that

the President included in his package had bipartisan support. The Congressional Budget Office said the President's proposal would actually reduce the deficit and would create jobs. It has been validated by the outside experts. Marc Zandi, the chief economist at Moody's--he was also, by the way, the economic adviser to Senator McCain during the 2008 Presidential campaign--said, talking about the President's plan, ``The plan would add 2 percentage points to GDP growth next year, add 1.9 million jobs, and cut the unemployment rate by a full percentage point.''

There are many others. Macroeconomic Advisers said that the President's package would:

Boost the level of GDP by 1.3 percent by the end of 2012,

and by 0.2 percent by the end of 2013--

In other words, we are moving in the right way; and then went on to say:

Raise nonfarm establishment employment by 1.3 million by

the end of 2012 and 0.8 million by the end of 2013. . . .

The Economic Policy Institute estimates that the President's job bill would create 2.6 million jobs over 2 years and protect an existing 1.6 million jobs.

Republicans say we cannot even talk about this on the floor, the majority shouldn't at least be able to bring forward this issue so we can have a full debate in the Senate.

The President's proposals included areas in which I think there is strong bipartisan support--to help small businesses. We all know small businesses are the growth engine of America. That is where jobs are created. That is where most innovation will take place. The proposal would help small businesses with new hires on their payroll and expensing of investments so they have an incentive to invest in job growth. That is what was in the President's proposal to help small businesses.

In the President's proposal was help for our veterans. We all talk about our warriors, our soldiers, out there every day protecting our values. They have represented America so brilliantly in international combat. Now they are coming home to America. They are coming home and they cannot find work, cannot find a job. The President is saying let's help them. We all talk about doing what we can to help our warriors. This bill did something tangible about it.

What did the Republicans do? They filibustered an opportunity to even talk about a bill that could help create more jobs.

The proposal also provides for infrastructure. Infrastructure is building. It is rebuilding America. Democrats and Republicans agree on that. We have to rebuild our bridges and our roads. The bridges are falling down. Roads are in desperate need of repair. Roads help provide economic growth for our country. It would help us rebuild America, create jobs through those who construct these new roads and bridges and electric grids, et cetera, but then also make America more competitive.

It would help those who are unemployed in several ways. First, it would provide not just unemployment benefits, which are important because they help families keep their homes and keep their family together and help our economy because that money is spent, it also reforms the unemployment system, so we train those who are out of work for jobs that are available. In many cases, as the Presiding Officer from Ohio knows, those who have lost their jobs are going to have to find employment in a different area. Well, the unemployment system should be reformed so that they could be trained for those types of jobs. That was in the proposal the Republicans would not even allow us to bring up. They filibustered rather than allow the majority to bring forward a bill to help create jobs.

The bill was paid for. As I have indicated before, it didn't increase the deficit. The Congressional Budget Office said it would actually reduce the deficit.

I want to make the point I made earlier and underscore this: The motion to proceed was the starting point for the debate--the starting point. I had three amendments I wanted to bring forward--I am going to talk very briefly about those three amendments--that I think would have improved the President's bill.

One would allow the Small Business Administration surety bond program--this is a program that gives small construction companies the ability to move forward with construction work. It would increase the surety bond program from $2 million to $5 million. It was an amendment I offered to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Let me tell you about the success of that program. As a result of increasing the surety bonds from $2 million to $5 million, we saw a jump of 36 percent in 1 year, 2010, in construction work for small businesses. That is quite a success story. Guess how much money that cost the taxpayers of this country in direct costs. Zero, no cost to the taxpayer. Well, my amendment would make that extension permanent. And it is bipartisan-- Democrats and Republicans support it.

I have another amendment that would expand the infrastructure work to include water projects. Water projects are in desperate need. We have a huge need to deal with the way we treat wastewater and our safe drinking water. My amendment would add $30 billion for infrastructure in our water projects. It would provide $20 billion to the Clean Water State Revolving Fund and $10 billion to the Safe Drinking Water Act.

I would like to talk about one more amendment, which is the cool roof bill I filed with Senator Crapo which would change the depreciation schedule for those businesses that put on modern roofs that are energy efficient and would create 40,000 jobs and help our energy policy. This is another amendment I cannot bring forward because the Republicans filibustered the motion to proceed, so we can't bring up the jobs bill.

Well, Americans want us to consider jobs legislation. I hope we find a way to do it. I can tell you that I am going to continue the fight to create more jobs for America because that is America's future. Our economy depends upon it, and we need to continue to focus on how we can create more jobs for the American economy.

I yield the floor.

I ask that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.