Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Mother's Day Centennial Coin Commemorative Coin Act. I am proud to be joined by a bipartisan group of cosponsors including Senators Manchin, Cochran, Stabenow, and Whitehouse.

With Mother's Day set for Sunday, May 8th, this is a special event for all of West Virginia because this annual tribute to our mothers began in West Virginia. In 1908, a West Virginian woman by the name of Anna Jarvis petitioned her local church to declare May 9th as Mother's Day. She hoped that this holiday would serve as a remembrance for mothers and a reminder for peace. Within a year, all 46 current States held some sort of Mother's Day and a mere 5 years later, Congress and the President declared the second Sunday of May national Mother's Day. The centennial for the national recognition of Mother's Day will occur in 2014, and this bill provides an opportunity to commemorate the centennial of this great holiday and further recognize the millions of American mothers whose essential role in life cannot be overstated.

The legislation I am introducing today would recognize the centennial of Mother's Day by authorizing the Treasury to mint commemorative Mother's Day coins. Profits generated from the sale of these coins would be donated to Susan G. Komen for the Cure and The National Osteoporosis Foundation. Susan G. Komen for the Cure has raised nearly $2 billion for breast cancer research since 1982, and the National Osteoporosis Foundation is considered our Nation's leading voluntary health organization.

Each year, more than 200,000 women are diagnosed with breast cancer and nearly 40,000 die of this devastating disease. This legislation not only honors our Nation's mothers, but also helps to raise funds to fight the second most prevalent cancer in women. Thousands of mothers have benefited from the efforts of these organizations and they are well deserving of our support. Therefore, I encourage my colleagues' support for this legislation to honor every mother in our country and to prepare for the upcoming centennial. Celebrating Mother's Day by helping to promote the health of American mothers seems to be a fitting tribute.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Mother's Day Centennial Coin Commemorative Coin Act. I am proud to be joined by a bipartisan group of cosponsors including Senators Manchin, Cochran, Stabenow, and Whitehouse.

With Mother's Day set for Sunday, May 8th, this is a special event for all of West Virginia because this annual tribute to our mothers began in West Virginia. In 1908, a West Virginian woman by the name of Anna Jarvis petitioned her local church to declare May 9th as Mother's Day. She hoped that this holiday would serve as a remembrance for mothers and a reminder for peace. Within a year, all 46 current States held some sort of Mother's Day and a mere 5 years later, Congress and the President declared the second Sunday of May national Mother's Day. The centennial for the national recognition of Mother's Day will occur in 2014, and this bill provides an opportunity to commemorate the centennial of this great holiday and further recognize the millions of American mothers whose essential role in life cannot be overstated.

The legislation I am introducing today would recognize the centennial of Mother's Day by authorizing the Treasury to mint commemorative Mother's Day coins. Profits generated from the sale of these coins would be donated to Susan G. Komen for the Cure and The National Osteoporosis Foundation. Susan G. Komen for the Cure has raised nearly $2 billion for breast cancer research since 1982, and the National Osteoporosis Foundation is considered our Nation's leading voluntary health organization.

Each year, more than 200,000 women are diagnosed with breast cancer and nearly 40,000 die of this devastating disease. This legislation not only honors our Nation's mothers, but also helps to raise funds to fight the second most prevalent cancer in women. Thousands of mothers have benefited from the efforts of these organizations and they are well deserving of our support. Therefore, I encourage my colleagues' support for this legislation to honor every mother in our country and to prepare for the upcoming centennial. Celebrating Mother's Day by helping to promote the health of American mothers seems to be a fitting tribute.

Mr. President, today, along with my colleagues Senator Kerry of Massachusetts, Senator Harkin of Iowa, Senator Begich of Alaska, and Senator Johnson of South Dakota, I am introducing legislation to extend and improve two important programs that create good jobs and help our nation's schools. In order for America to out- innovate, out-educate, and out-build the rest of the world, we must begin with our schools, and this legislation will make it easier to create spaces where 21st century learning can occur. The Qualified School Construction Bond, QSCB, and Qualified Zone Academy Bond, QZAB, programs have helped schools begin to address their construction and renovation needs, as well as creating construction jobs in their communities. Because of the tax credit associated with these bonds, the schools essentially do not have to pay interest which makes it much easier for them to fund their significant construction and renovation needs.

The Qualified School Construction Bond program was created in 2009, and bond proceeds can be used for construction, rehabilitation, or repair of a public school or for land for a facility. The total amount of bonds allowed was $11 billion in 2009 and $11 billion in 2010. This national allocation is distributed by formula to the states and larger school districts. West Virginia, for example, was able to issue its full allocation of $72.3 million in bonds in 2010. Construction workers in West Virginia are building schools for their children. West Virginia is rightfully paying for the construction, but this bond program means their dollars go further. My legislation extends this important program through 2015 with the same $11 billion per year total national allocation of bonds.

The Qualified Zone Academy Bond, QZAB, program was created in 1997. While it also helps schools issue bonds by providing favorable tax status, participating schools must be located in an empowerment zone or enterprise community or expect that at least 35 percent of the students will be eligible for free or reduced-cost lunches. Bonds cannot be used for new construction, but can be used for the rehabilitation or repair of schools, equipment, course development, and teacher training. The national limitation for bonds issued under this program was $1.4 billion for 2009 and 2010 and my legislation extends that annual limit through 2015. This program has historically required a 10 percent match from private entities, and this requirement has proven a significant barrier to its use in some communities. My legislation provides an option to waive this match in some cases. It also allows the bond issuer to receive the tax credit as a payment. The Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment--HIRE--Act which became law last spring made this change for both bond programs and it resulted in greater use of the bonds. The huge Middle Class Tax Relief Act of 2010 which we passed in December repealed this change for QZABs, and my legislation makes the credit once again refundable. We know this helps schools utilize this program, and we need to give our schools every incentive to invest in education.

It is important that we continue both of these important programs. The school infrastructure needs of our country are immense. A recent report estimated the total school infrastructure needs across the 50 States was over $250 billion. We won't meet that need in a year, or in 2 years, but we need to commit ourselves to keep at it. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. President, today, along with my colleagues Senator Kerry of Massachusetts, Senator Harkin of Iowa, Senator Begich of Alaska, and Senator Johnson of South Dakota, I am introducing legislation to extend and improve two important programs that create good jobs and help our nation's schools. In order for America to out- innovate, out-educate, and out-build the rest of the world, we must begin with our schools, and this legislation will make it easier to create spaces where 21st century learning can occur. The Qualified School Construction Bond, QSCB, and Qualified Zone Academy Bond, QZAB, programs have helped schools begin to address their construction and renovation needs, as well as creating construction jobs in their communities. Because of the tax credit associated with these bonds, the schools essentially do not have to pay interest which makes it much easier for them to fund their significant construction and renovation needs.

The Qualified School Construction Bond program was created in 2009, and bond proceeds can be used for construction, rehabilitation, or repair of a public school or for land for a facility. The total amount of bonds allowed was $11 billion in 2009 and $11 billion in 2010. This national allocation is distributed by formula to the states and larger school districts. West Virginia, for example, was able to issue its full allocation of $72.3 million in bonds in 2010. Construction workers in West Virginia are building schools for their children. West Virginia is rightfully paying for the construction, but this bond program means their dollars go further. My legislation extends this important program through 2015 with the same $11 billion per year total national allocation of bonds.

The Qualified Zone Academy Bond, QZAB, program was created in 1997. While it also helps schools issue bonds by providing favorable tax status, participating schools must be located in an empowerment zone or enterprise community or expect that at least 35 percent of the students will be eligible for free or reduced-cost lunches. Bonds cannot be used for new construction, but can be used for the rehabilitation or repair of schools, equipment, course development, and teacher training. The national limitation for bonds issued under this program was $1.4 billion for 2009 and 2010 and my legislation extends that annual limit through 2015. This program has historically required a 10 percent match from private entities, and this requirement has proven a significant barrier to its use in some communities. My legislation provides an option to waive this match in some cases. It also allows the bond issuer to receive the tax credit as a payment. The Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment--HIRE--Act which became law last spring made this change for both bond programs and it resulted in greater use of the bonds. The huge Middle Class Tax Relief Act of 2010 which we passed in December repealed this change for QZABs, and my legislation makes the credit once again refundable. We know this helps schools utilize this program, and we need to give our schools every incentive to invest in education.

It is important that we continue both of these important programs. The school infrastructure needs of our country are immense. A recent report estimated the total school infrastructure needs across the 50 States was over $250 billion. We won't meet that need in a year, or in 2 years, but we need to commit ourselves to keep at it. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.