Floor Statements

I thank the good Senator from Missouri for her courtesy.

Madam President, I rise today to express my very strong support for the confirmation of Gina Marie Groh to serve as a U.S. district judge for the Northern District of West Virginia.

Gina Groh is absolutely qualified for this position and deserving of every Senator's support. She has more than 22 years of legal experience, of which 14 have been devoted to serving the people of West Virginia, first as a prosecutor and now as a trial judge. In these roles, Judge Groh has exhibited a superior intellect and an unwavering commitment to fairness and to justice. Lawyers describe her as meticulously prepared as a judge, and they describe her as somebody who administers justice in a timely and equitable manner. Because of her superior qualifications, she was reported out of the Judiciary Committee by an unopposed voice vote and has been waiting patiently for 5 months for an up-or-down vote.

Judge Groh will be ready for the job on the day she assumes the bench, provided, of course, that she passes through this body. She knows how to make tough decisions. She knows how to issue thoughtful opinions and to protect the rights and liberties that are guaranteed to all Americans under our laws and our Constitution.

I am very proud to urge all Senators to support Judge Groh's nomination.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, every day tens of millions of Americans take to the roads, board buses, use Amtrak, to get to work, drop off their kids at school, or visit friends and family. Our transportation system binds our vast and diverse Nation together.

All too often, our crumbling and inadequate transportation infrastructure makes all of these daily trips nothing short of unbearable. This issue is more than just a problem of personal inconvenience. Our aging transportation system is costing our economy with lost productivity. It is hurting our ability to export goods. It is precluding us from generating the economic growth necessary to create the jobs our economy needs.

There is no disagreement that we need to improve the efficiency and capacity of our transportation system. We have heard a lot in the debate over this bill about the need to rebuild our crumbling bridges and expand our congested highways. But we also need to make sure that we have the safest transportation system possible.

Safety is not an ancillary part of this debate. Reducing the number of fatalities on our nation's roads and rails must be the focus of this bill as it has been for previous transportation bills. It is one of the most important responsibilities we have in Congress.

That is why I am here.

I am proud that the Commerce Committee plays the central role in improving the safety of not only our transportation system, but the vehicles that travel upon it.

Consider this: More than 90 Americans a day die on the road. This bill aims to bring that number down. Horrific bus crashes, as my colleague from Texas knows all too well, have happened in every State. This bill includes provisions from Senator Hutchison that sets new tough standards for their safety. Hazardous materials, including deadly chemicals and explosives, move alongside minivans and motorcycles. This bill sets standards to improve the safety of their transport to minimize the risks to the public. The rail system has proven to be relatively safe but all too avoidable accidents happen--both in passenger and freight rail. This bill sets higher standards for safety.

The dangers and challenges never stop. And so we need to step up, respond to what is happening and make our transportation system as safe as it can be.

Let me offer some specifics about what exactly is in the Commerce title of bill.

We have the safety programs of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, or NHTSA, as we call it around here.

NHTSA has led the way in raising safety standards on our roads and highways. Last year, highway deaths fell to their lowest levels in more than 60 years. But by reasonably asking more, we can save more lives.

Some of NHTSA's most visible efforts center on reducing drunk driving fatalities. Last year, they dropped 5 percent, which is good but again we can do more. We can prevent more senseless deaths from drunk driving. We can make sure fewer families have to suffer the agony of a teenager's life cut short by a drunk driver.

This bill recognizes the success and builds on it with new grant programs and help for States to reduce drunk driving and increase seatbelt use.

It has an entire section on distracted driving, a growing crisis in this country that killed 3,000 people last year. Think about that: 3,000 people across the country dead because drivers were not paying attention to the road.

My State, West Virginia, is proactive on this. The General Assembly has tackled the issue and things will get better. This bill follows the same path: it creates grants so that States can fight this just as they have with drunk driving and seatbelt use.

This bill also gives new authority for the government to control imports of defective motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Again, our priority is safety and it is something that I am proud to emphasize.

Let me tell you about another section in this bill. It's the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, FMCSA, which is aimed at reducing truck and bus crashes.

Did you know truck crashes killed 3,675 people on our highways in 2010

alone? The death toll is going up even though overall traffic fatalities are down. We need to reverse this trend.

In this bill, we work towards safer roads through the use of modernized technology and data. For example, we can put electronic on- board recorders on buses and trucks to cut back on fatigue-related accidents. These ``black boxes'' will make our highways safer and we must embrace the technology.

There is more to the Commerce Committee's title than just vehicle safety provisions. Our bill includes the Hazardous Materials Transportation Safety Improvement Act, which requires uniform standards for the safe loading and unloading of hazardous materials on and off rail tank cars and cargo tank trucks.

In this bill we make commonsense improvements to safety, such as establishing a program where shippers can electronically share information with carriers, emergency responders and enforcement personnel.

Also, included is a provision to assist with the data collection that will help DOT make smart investments; this authorizes DOT's Research and Innovative Technology Administration, RITA, and enhances its ability to spur innovation in transportation research.

I started my remarks by talking about how often our roads are overlooked. We collectively drive on 90,000 miles of crumbling highways and under and over 70,000 structurally damaged bridges. Our neglected infrastructure costs us $130 billion a year. We deserve better and this bill will get us there.

In closing, I want to make two final points.

First I would like thank all of my colleagues for their good word on this effort. Senator Boxer, Senator Johnson, Senator Baucus, the leadership, we all worked hard to get to this point.

Second, I want to note that the art of legislating is finding compromise and common ground. I know some are unhappy with this bill, there are parts of it I would like to change myself. But the final product is good for West Virginia, good for the American people and an important step forward.

Mr. President, I rise today to thank Chairman Baucus for the work he did on the Finance title of the transportation bill which we have just passed. He and his staff worked with me on a number of amendments both in the committee and on the floor, and their hard work has made this a better bill.

I am particularly pleased that Chairman Baucus chose to include a provision of mine which closes the so-called ``Reverse Morris Trust'' loophole. This provision has allowed many profitable companies engaging in reorganizations to avoid paying tens of millions of dollars in corporate taxes, while loading up companies with debt and laying off hardworking employees. This bill would finally stop that practice.

I also want to thank Senator Stabenow for graciously agreeing to modify her amendment extending expiring energy tax credits and deductions at my request so that the mine safety equipment and mine rescue team training tax incentives I have long championed could be included. These energy-related provisions should be a part of any tax extenders package and Senator Stabenow and her staff worked closely with me to try and advance mine safety through this bill and their efforts are much appreciated. Though her amendment was defeated, we will continue to work together to extend these important credits along with the alternative fuels tax credits--which support coal based fuels--and the refined coal tax credit which were also included in her amendment.

I will also briefly mention two items that were not included in this bill, both of which I filed as amendments at the Finance Committee's mark-up, that I hope to see acted upon this year.

One is the Steel Industry Fuel Tax Credit which expired at the end of 2010. This credit, which I have worked with a number of members of this body to enact and extend over the years, including the Finance Committee's ranking member, Senator Hatch, provides an important incentive to one our Nation's most important sectors, the steel industry. This credit encourages companies engaged in steel production to use a recycling process that both produces reliable energy and makes each plant more environmentally sound. I intend to advocate for this credit's reinstatement and hope that it will be included in a tax extenders package later this year.

Finally, I want to mention an issue of great importance not only to West Virginia but a number of States around the country. Multi-employer pension plans have come under increased hardship in recent years due to a combination of investment losses and business participants exiting the plans. The victims, through no fault of their own, are retirees. Ultimately Congress needs to address pension stability for all retirees, but in the meantime, I have introduced S. 621, the Coalfield Accountability and Retired Employee Act. This legislation would safeguard the pensions of retired mineworkers--the hard working men and women who have helped power this country.

If the government does not work with multi-employer plan participants and employers, these retirees face the risk of reduced benefits down the road, and the Federal Government risks assuming billions of dollars of liabilities. This legislation is important to the people of my State and I will continue to work to prevent these retirees from losing the benefits they worked so hard to earn.

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

Mr. President, I am in this Chamber with my colleague, Senator Joe Manchin, who has as much interest in this as I do and feels the happiness from a wonderful event which will happen, we hope, tomorrow in West Virginia, which will not necessarily be a moment that most people around the country or even in this body will notice, but it is an enormous moment to the people of West Virginia because it has been a long festering problem that we believe will be ratified tomorrow.

What am I talking about? Tomorrow the retirees at Century Aluminum in Ravenswood, WV, hopefully, are going to ratify a decision that has been reached by the Steelworkers, led by a local heroine, an icon of Appalachia, Karen Gorrell, who has stood out all night by the roadside protesting.

Back in 2009, Century Aluminum--and aluminum is a volatile industry but very much of an up-industry now--simply shut down. Hundreds of jobs and hundreds of retirees and their families were just cut out and cut off. Periods of negotiation went on with Century Aluminum under the particular management then, but it wasn't going anywhere. There wasn't a lot of goodwill that I was able to detect.

Then comes the kind of change you really want to see. You start with good people, good workers. It is a hard job. It pays pretty good wages, good benefits--not defined benefits in terms of health care but VIPA benefits, which are benefits nevertheless for retirees. They are good people who are located in a rural county in West Virginia, which is kind of the heartland of West Virginia where a lot of good people come from. They tend to work very hard and to be very wonderful. What these men and women have always wanted is simply to be treated fairly.

In a world of big corporations, decisions are made from far away places by corporate leaders. But it doesn't necessarily need to work that way--that the people on the line are out in the cold without benefits, without health care at all. There they are picketing or just being miserable, and the world pays little attention because there is not a lot of progress made, so the attention is pulled away from it. But not if you are under the leadership of Karen Gorrell, the local union leader there. She is a fantastic woman who brings not only ferocity--she went to a corporate meeting--and the occupant of the chair will enjoy this because I know him well--wearing a T-shirt that was sort of the hand of the corporation with blood dripping off it, and it was a stockholders meeting. She was so good that people sort of respected her for that rather than resent her for it. But she is a strong, classic Appalachian person, a very strong union leader.

What happened was there was new management at Century. The State had been extraordinarily helpful, the legislature, putting up a lot of money over a period of 10 years. What should have been able to happen was that Century Aluminum would open again, people would go back to work. But then the big enchilada would be if the Ravenswood plant itself, the old Kaiser plant, would open, for which there is a real purpose.

They reminisce in West Virginia about Henry Kaiser, who obviously built that plant many years ago, going through the plant shaking hands with workers, knowing their names. That was a different era, and he was an extraordinarily good man.

Senator Manchin and I want this situation to be worked out. We have both worked very hard on it. Actually, the parties weren't that far apart. What made them not that far apart was that the issues were complicated, but it was the will to settle that predominated. Each side didn't get exactly what they wanted, but each side, in a sophisticated, nuanced way, understood there were very high stakes for losing everything and very high stakes, including a lot of money from the West Virginia Legislature over 10 years. The stakes for winning, for settling were extraordinary.

Everybody rose to the occasion. This could never have happened without the leadership of Karen Gorrell and her particular type of leadership, which I found wonderful, just refreshing. I have been out there many times over the years because Century Aluminum has had a lot of problems. I am sure Senator Manchin has too.

Now I am praying and hoping they are going to ratify this agreement tomorrow. If that is so, I am not sure the news will reach Baltimore, and I am certain it will not reach Vancouver, but it will reach all over West Virginia. It will be an example of labor and management, with good corporate and union leadership, coming together at precisely the right moment, after a tremendous amount of strain and stress and anger.

I conclude my statement just praying that the retirees will do what I think they are going to do tomorrow--I encourage that--and accept the agreement agreed to by the union and Century Aluminum. If that happens, whether they know about it in Vancouver doesn't interest me much. They will know about it in West Virginia, and I care about that.

On behalf of myself and Senator Baucus, I wish to state that title VI of the conference report to H.R. 3630, the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, contains landmark bipartisan legislation that more than 10 years after 9/11 will provide police, firefighters, and other first responders with a nationwide, interoperable wireless broadband network for public safety. This legislation will also help ease the Nation's growing spectrum shortage, through the auction of new spectrum to commercial providers. Revenues from these spectrum auctions will fund the public safety network--and contribute $15.2 billion to the unemployment compensation fund.

Specifically, Title VI of the conference report provides $7 billion in spectrum auction proceeds as well as D-Block spectrum worth $2.75 billion to develop a nationwide, interoperable wireless broadband network for public safety officials through a new First Responder Network Authority. The title also directs the Federal Communications Commission, FCC, to auction underutilized spectrum and provides the agency with authority to hold voluntary incentive auctions. These auctions are expected to raise more than $25 billion in revenue. In addition, the title authorizes the FCC to create guard bands in the broadcast spectrum that can be used for innovative new unlicensed uses like Super Wi-Fi. These efforts will help meet the growing spectrum demands of smartphones and tablets. Moreover, investment in the wireless economy is expected to create hundreds of thousands of new jobs.

The title is based on bipartisan legislation developed by Senator Rockefeller and Senator Hutchison, S. 911, and a comparable House bill, H.R. 3630. The public safety provisions are based on the national model first developed in S. 911, with some changes to ensure flexibility for States. The spectrum auction provisions are based on the auction model in H.R. 3630, with some changes regarding unlicensed spectrum and FCC auction rules.

As to public safety provisions, title VI of the conference report provides for the construction of a nationwide, interoperable public safety wireless broadband network. It does this using the D-Block spectrum, which is ideally located for fostering seamless communication among first responders. It will allow them to take full advantage of broadband functions in emergencies e.g., allowing firefighters to download floor plans to see inside buildings before they enter. It also will promote economies of scale and efficiencies from using the same spectrum nationwide.

The title creates a First Responder Network Authority as an independent entity within the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, NTIA, and provides the Authority with $7 billion and a license to use the D-Block to build the nationwide public safety network. To ensure efficiency, the title requires that the Authority leverage existing commercial networks in construction. To ensure national interoperability, the title also creates a technical advisory board at the FCC to develop initial interoperability standards. States that want to construct their own portion of the National public safety network have the option to apply for Federal grants to build and operate the radio access network in the State if they can demonstrate to the FCC that the network will meet the interoperability standards and to the NTIA that they have

the resources and capability to provide comparable coverage and security and the ability to maintain ongoing interoperability.

Unlike H.R. 3630, the title does not require public safety officials to return the important 700 MHz narrowband spectrum to the FCC for auction. Instead, it requires the return of a more limited amount of spectrum currently used by public safety. This return of a portion of the so-called ``T-Band'' spectrum occurs 11 years from the date of enactment, and public safety relocation costs will be reimbursed from any auction proceeds. This time frame provides an opportunity for continued assessment of the viability of this transition--and its impact on public safety communications.

The title also authorizes up to $300 million for critical public safety research and development activities and promotes deployment of Next Generation 9 1-1 services, which will complement the advanced broadband capabilities of the public safety network by enabling the delivery of voice, text, video, and other data to 9 1-1 call centers.

As to the spectrum auction provisions, the auction provisions in Title VI of the conference report are largely the same as those in H.R. 3630, with two significant exceptions--the provisions relating to unlicensed spectrum and FCC auction authority.

Unlicensed spectrum has been an engine of economic innovation and growth. Today, unlicensed uses include Wi-Fi connections for laptops, television remote controls, and cordless telephones. In the future, unlicensed spectrum is expected to enable new forms of communication, like Super Wi-Fi. The title advances this goal in three ways. First, it gives the FCC the authority to preserve existing television white spaces. Second, it gives the FCC the authority to optimize these white spaces for unlicensed use by consolidating them into more optimal configurations through band plans. Third, it gives the FCC the authority to use part of the spectrum relinquished by television broadcasters in the incentive auction to create nationwide guard bands that can be used for unlicensed use, including in high value markets that currently have little or no white spaces today. Nationwide, unlicensed access to guard bands will enable innovation, promote investment in new wireless services, and enhance the value of licensed spectrum by protecting against harmful interference and allowing carriers to off-load data to alleviate capacity concerns.

Under current law, the FCC has broad authority to craft auction rules in the public interest. The agency has used this authority to ensure that communications markets remain competitive. H.R. 3630 would have restricted the FCC's future ability to limit participation in and set rules for spectrum auctions. Title VI of the conference report modifies this prohibition by expressly preserving the FCC's flexibility to protect competition in the awarding of licenses, and to adopt auction procedures and other rules of general applicability.

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

Mr. President, when most Americans think of cyber security, they conjure up an image of somebody having a credit card number stolen, for example, or a prankster using their Twitter account or somebody downloading a movie without paying for it. And although that is all true and important, it is not dangerous. The internet is central to our lives, our economy, and our society. Any insecurity is a worry. I will expand.

We are here today because the experts are warning us that we are on the brink of something much worse, something that could bring down our economy, rip open our national security or even take lives. The prospect of mass casualty is what has propelled us to make cyber security a top priority for this year, to make it an issue that transcends political parties or ideology.

Consider the warning signs: Hackers now seem to be able to routinely crack the codes of our government agencies, including the most sensitive ones. They do so routinely with our Fortune 500 companies, and then everything in between. ADM Mike Mullen, former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, said that a cyber security threat is the only other threat that is on the same level as Russia's stockpile of nuclear weapons--loose nukes, if you will. FBI Director Robert Mueller testified to Congress very recently that the cyber threat will soon overcome terrorism as the top national security focus of the FBI. Think about that--cyber threats will be as dangerous as terrorism.

Cyber threats and the prospects of a widespread cyber attack could potentially be as devastating to this country as the terrorist strikes that tore apart this country just 10 short years ago. How is that possible, you ask. Think about how many people could die if a cyber terrorist attacked our air traffic control system--both now and when it is made modern--and our planes slammed into one another or if rail- switching networks were hacked, causing trains carrying people--and more than that, perhaps hazardous material, toxic materials--to derail or collide in the midst of our most populated urban areas, such as Chicago, New York, San Francisco, Washington, DC, et cetera. What about an attack on networks that run a pipeline, refinery, or a chemical factory, causing temperature and pressure imbalance, leading to an explosion equivalent to a massive bomb, or an attack on a power grid, shutting down generators and killing electricity going into cities and our hospitals. In short, we are on the brink of what could be a calamity.

President Bush's last Director of National Intelligence and President Obama's first Director of National Intelligence in consecutive years said that cyber security was the major national security threat facing this Nation. Are we paying attention? We can act now and try to prepare ourselves as best we can or we can wait and we will be surprised with what happens.

I am here to argue that we should act now to prevent a cyber disaster. That is what this bill would do. Working with my friends Senator Lieberman and Senator Collins, we have written legislation that I believe strikes the right balance, addressing the danger without putting an undue new set of regulations on business.

Our bill would determine the greatest cyber vulnerabilities throughout our critical infrastructure; protect and promote private sector innovation, creativity, and encourage private sector leadership and real accountability in securing their private systems; and improve threat and vulnerability information sharing between the government and the private sector, while protecting as best as we can privacy and civil liberties. It will improve the security of the Federal Government networks, including our most sensitive ones that are now being hacked into; clarify the roles and responsibilities of Federal agencies; strengthen our cyber workforce; coordinate cyber security research and development; and promote public awareness of cyber vulnerabilities to ensure a better informed and more alert citizenry, frankly.

Let me say again that this is bipartisan and was written to address the many concerns that surfaced 3 years ago when we first raised this issue and, frankly, when we started writing this bill. We held meetings with all sides and incorporated hundreds of specific suggestions and, in short, tried to do what we do with any important and large piece of legislation--make a lot of people really think deeply and come up with a compromise to which everyone can agree.

Earlier this month, an association of major high-tech companies praised our approach. Generally, they do. We have talked with industry, with the White House, with everybody hundreds of times over a period of 3 years, and in the end we settled on a plan that creates no new bureaucracy or heavyhanded regulation. However, it is premised on companies taking responsibility for securing their own networks, with government assistance as necessary. Will they do that?

I think back to 2000 and 2001 when we all saw signs of people moving in and out of the country. We were not quite sure what that meant. We saw dots appear to connect, but did they or didn't they? And we knew something new and something different and something dangerous just might be upon us, but we didn't drill down. Our intelligence and national security leadership took these matters very seriously, as best as they possibly could, but in the end not seriously enough. It was too late--September 11 happened.

Today, with a new set of warnings flashing before us on a different subject--cyber security and a wide range of new challenges to our security and our safety--we again face a choice: act now and put in place safeguards to protect this country and our people or act later when it is too late. I hope we act now.

Mr. President, when most Americans think of cyber security, they conjure up an image of somebody having a credit card number stolen, for example, or a prankster using their Twitter account or somebody downloading a movie without paying for it. And although that is all true and important, it is not dangerous. The internet is central to our lives, our economy, and our society. Any insecurity is a worry. I will expand.

We are here today because the experts are warning us that we are on the brink of something much worse, something that could bring down our economy, rip open our national security or even take lives. The prospect of mass casualty is what has propelled us to make cyber security a top priority for this year, to make it an issue that transcends political parties or ideology.

Consider the warning signs: Hackers now seem to be able to routinely crack the codes of our government agencies, including the most sensitive ones. They do so routinely with our Fortune 500 companies, and then everything in between. ADM Mike Mullen, former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, said that a cyber security threat is the only other threat that is on the same level as Russia's stockpile of nuclear weapons--loose nukes, if you will. FBI Director Robert Mueller testified to Congress very recently that the cyber threat will soon overcome terrorism as the top national security focus of the FBI. Think about that--cyber threats will be as dangerous as terrorism.

Cyber threats and the prospects of a widespread cyber attack could potentially be as devastating to this country as the terrorist strikes that tore apart this country just 10 short years ago. How is that possible, you ask. Think about how many people could die if a cyber terrorist attacked our air traffic control system--both now and when it is made modern--and our planes slammed into one another or if rail- switching networks were hacked, causing trains carrying people--and more than that, perhaps hazardous material, toxic materials--to derail or collide in the midst of our most populated urban areas, such as Chicago, New York, San Francisco, Washington, DC, et cetera. What about an attack on networks that run a pipeline, refinery, or a chemical factory, causing temperature and pressure imbalance, leading to an explosion equivalent to a massive bomb, or an attack on a power grid, shutting down generators and killing electricity going into cities and our hospitals. In short, we are on the brink of what could be a calamity.

President Bush's last Director of National Intelligence and President Obama's first Director of National Intelligence in consecutive years said that cyber security was the major national security threat facing this Nation. Are we paying attention? We can act now and try to prepare ourselves as best we can or we can wait and we will be surprised with what happens.

I am here to argue that we should act now to prevent a cyber disaster. That is what this bill would do. Working with my friends Senator Lieberman and Senator Collins, we have written legislation that I believe strikes the right balance, addressing the danger without putting an undue new set of regulations on business.

Our bill would determine the greatest cyber vulnerabilities throughout our critical infrastructure; protect and promote private sector innovation, creativity, and encourage private sector leadership and real accountability in securing their private systems; and improve threat and vulnerability information sharing between the government and the private sector, while protecting as best as we can privacy and civil liberties. It will improve the security of the Federal Government networks, including our most sensitive ones that are now being hacked into; clarify the roles and responsibilities of Federal agencies; strengthen our cyber workforce; coordinate cyber security research and development; and promote public awareness of cyber vulnerabilities to ensure a better informed and more alert citizenry, frankly.

Let me say again that this is bipartisan and was written to address the many concerns that surfaced 3 years ago when we first raised this issue and, frankly, when we started writing this bill. We held meetings with all sides and incorporated hundreds of specific suggestions and, in short, tried to do what we do with any important and large piece of legislation--make a lot of people really think deeply and come up with a compromise to which everyone can agree.

Earlier this month, an association of major high-tech companies praised our approach. Generally, they do. We have talked with industry, with the White House, with everybody hundreds of times over a period of 3 years, and in the end we settled on a plan that creates no new bureaucracy or heavyhanded regulation. However, it is premised on companies taking responsibility for securing their own networks, with government assistance as necessary. Will they do that?

I think back to 2000 and 2001 when we all saw signs of people moving in and out of the country. We were not quite sure what that meant. We saw dots appear to connect, but did they or didn't they? And we knew something new and something different and something dangerous just might be upon us, but we didn't drill down. Our intelligence and national security leadership took these matters very seriously, as best as they possibly could, but in the end not seriously enough. It was too late--September 11 happened.

Today, with a new set of warnings flashing before us on a different subject--cyber security and a wide range of new challenges to our security and our safety--we again face a choice: act now and put in place safeguards to protect this country and our people or act later when it is too late. I hope we act now.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Small Business Start-up Support Act of 2012, legislation that will promote small business growth in my home state of West Virginia, and around the country.

Since the recession, I have met with countless business owners, as well as those who dream of starting a small business. One of the common themes of these conversations is the difficulty these individuals have raising capital, particularly when a business is in its infancy.

This legislation helps those individuals out, by expanding a successful provision of the tax code that allows business owners to deduct up to $5,000 of start-up costs. These start-up costs are things like legal and marketing costs that are necessary to get a business up and running, but put a strain on an already tight budget. My bill would expand this deduction so that individuals can deduct up to $10,000 of start-up costs.

For a business to survive, and thrive, its owner has to do their homework during its infancy. They have to study things like supply chains and distribution models. They have to develop marketing plans. Each of these things has a cost that is incurred before a business makes dollar one. That is when a business owner is most in need of assistance and that is why this credit was first enacted.

A temporary expansion of the start-up deduction was enacted in 2008, and it was one of many actions this Congress took to help business owners weather the recession and keep their doors open. President Obama included a permanent extension of this provision in his ``Startup America'' legislative agenda and I am committed to seeing it become law.

I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation and thank the chair for allowing me to speak on this issue.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Small Business Start-up Support Act of 2012, legislation that will promote small business growth in my home state of West Virginia, and around the country.

Since the recession, I have met with countless business owners, as well as those who dream of starting a small business. One of the common themes of these conversations is the difficulty these individuals have raising capital, particularly when a business is in its infancy.

This legislation helps those individuals out, by expanding a successful provision of the tax code that allows business owners to deduct up to $5,000 of start-up costs. These start-up costs are things like legal and marketing costs that are necessary to get a business up and running, but put a strain on an already tight budget. My bill would expand this deduction so that individuals can deduct up to $10,000 of start-up costs.

For a business to survive, and thrive, its owner has to do their homework during its infancy. They have to study things like supply chains and distribution models. They have to develop marketing plans. Each of these things has a cost that is incurred before a business makes dollar one. That is when a business owner is most in need of assistance and that is why this credit was first enacted.

A temporary expansion of the start-up deduction was enacted in 2008, and it was one of many actions this Congress took to help business owners weather the recession and keep their doors open. President Obama included a permanent extension of this provision in his ``Startup America'' legislative agenda and I am committed to seeing it become law.

I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation and thank the chair for allowing me to speak on this issue.

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

I thank the Chair.

The problem we face here is that most people are in the air coming in this direction. Most will land around 5 o'clock. So Senator Hutchison and myself don't feel any particular pressure. We can talk for long periods of time and talk about other issues.

Today we are considering the FAA conference report which has been the subject of negotiations--I shudder when I say that--between the House and the Senate for much of the past year, and actually we have been working on it for much longer than that. We have been through 23 extensions. We are now looking at the possibility of a bill that will, in fact, last for 4 years, which will be the best news that the airline industry ever had, that the people who work for the airline industry ever had, that the people who work to improve the safety of the airline people ever had, including those who are doing a new traffic control system. So I am very happy that, as we call it, the FAA Modernization Reform Act of 2012 will extend the authorities through 2015. As the Presiding Officer is aware, we have done this for 2 months, 3 months-- time after time after time--and it makes it impossible to negotiate and it is terribly destabilizing for the aviation industry as well as the Federal Aviation Administration.

This agreement is going to provide a lot of stability to the FAA-- they will be happy about that--and it will make certain there is adequate funding to support the agency's mission.

The bill takes concrete steps to modernize our air traffic control system. I am excited beyond words to be able to say that sentence because it will take us into a new era that will bring much more efficiency, more planes will be able to take off and land and, in so doing, do it much more safely, being watched from space rather than from radar, which is what we do now.

This bill is going to make the air transportation system safer than ever before and make certain that small communities have access to critical air service. I will speak more about that.

It will also make sure that the U.S. aviation industry remains competitive and remains strong. We are that way in the world. We do lead in exports on aviation and the Federal aviation industry continues to be the gold standard for safety. That is not to say we have not had problems, but we have been solving those problems.

This has been a long and sometimes arduous process. I think my colleague Senator Hutchison would agree with that. Many compromises were made to get us here. Compromises in the present atmosphere are not easy. Conversations are not easy. Compromises are very difficult. While no one got everything they wanted, the bill will permit us--I believe Senator Hutchison would agree--to achieve our shared goals.

The agreement will allow us to pass a comprehensive, again, 4-year FAA reauthorization. The legislation we have before us now will move our aviation system forward. It will not be in neutral. People who run the system, the folks who take care of airplanes and who run the companies, will be absolutely thrilled if this bill passes, which I expect it to do.

In this era of very scarce resources, we still have managed to produce a bill that provides the FAA the money it needs to carry out its mission. Without going into too much detail, we had to make a compromise on that. But, frankly, that was a compromise that was agreed to and, I believed, was reasonable in terms of the other way of looking at things. So it is stability.

The funding authorized for the Airport Improvement Program, which is very important, and the facilities and equipment accounts, which are just gobbledygook to most people, will give much needed support to aviation infrastructure projects and planning across our Nation. It is a blueprint.

Over $3 billion a year is provided through the Airport Improvement Program to provide airport grants that will make a real difference in the Nation's airspace system and the people who use it every day. We will create and we will sustain jobs in every State, and we will continue to make substantial investments in our Nation's airports. Based on Department of Transportation estimates, the Airport Improvement Program alone supports over 100,000 jobs annually. I will say later on in these remarks that there are about 10 million people who work because of something called aviation in this country--10 million people.

For communities in West Virginia, having up-to-date airports is absolutely critical to our future. The investments we make through the Airport Improvement Program will help the country greatly--not just West Virginia but the entire country.

With this bill, as I said, nearly $3 billion will also be provided each year for the facilities and equipment account which basically funds the new air traffic control system. I have said this 10 times from this floor: Mongolia has that; we do not. They have globally positioned--very accurate reading--not

only for weather but for aircraft on the ground and also in the air, so the spacing vertically and horizontally is extremely accurate and, therefore, much safer and much more efficient and uses much less fuel.

This effort on the air traffic control system is embarrassing, it is so needed. We are working on radar right now. We are working on radar. That is compared to a satellite-based aircraft surveillance system. I have spent, frankly, much of the last decade working to make sure the FAA has the resources and the ability to implement NextGen, the so- called new air traffic control system, the modernized, digitalized air traffic control system. It is so essential. It is so embarrassing we do not have it as a nation. It is such a burden on the air traffic control people themselves, trying to see through the fog, so to speak, of the world of radar.

This bill will move forward key aspects of the NextGen effort and make sure that modernization will proceed on schedule with clear timelines and a lot of oversight and requirements.

We push for near-term modernization benefits by requiring that precision navigation be implemented first--and this makes sense--in the 35 largest airports in the country--that does make sense--by the year 2015 and then in all airports by the year 2016. This will significantly improve airspace capacity and, by the way, the environment.

The bill also establishes a chief NextGen officer--not a bureaucracy but a person--to lead the modernization effort. It is very specific; it is a very calculated and precise instrument that has to be done correctly--and takes steps to improve coordination among relevant Federal agencies. One has to say that. It is sort of a boring statement, but it is kind of a necessary one if it happens to be true, which in this case I believe it is.

While modernization will provide the greatest safety benefits, the bill also requires the FAA to move forward on other imperative safety measures. The bill mandates stricter oversight of airlines and their compliance with airworthiness directives. It requires regular inspections of foreign repair stations--subject to controversy--and the implementation of drug and alcohol programs at those facilities--a subject, frankly, lacking in controversy.

Specific measures in the bill also focus on the safety of our air ambulance operations--that is a lot of activity in our country--and take steps to improve airport runway surveillance; that is, we have a problem now with literally airplanes running into each other on the tarmac because of fog or because of poor coordination or whatever--the kind of things that a NextGen modernized system would tend to make much less prevalent.

This bill will make significant strides for the airline industry through modernization. They crave it. They need it. Commercial aviation helps drive $1.3 trillion in U.S. economic activity and, as I said before, more than 10 million U.S. jobs. So I think those who would consider not voting for this would have to at least start out on that rather alarming fact.

The aviation sector is critical to our place in the global marketplace. It contributes $75 billion to our trade balance and represents roughly 6 percent of the gross domestic product of the country. It is huge.

We must make certain all Americans reap the benefits of our national aviation system. To that end, this bill preserves and strengthens the Essential Air Service Program. I have to say that had been completely eliminated by the House--completely eliminated. That is life or death for West Virginia and for a lot of rural places. In general, almost all large States also have rural aspects, and they need this kind of help.

We provide vital access to the aviation system for small and rural communities. That gives access to the global marketplace. It means people come. CEOs do not tend to want to drive to Montana or to West Virginia to look over possible sites for building plants. It is very important for economic development.

It is interesting--and I am sure Senator Hutchison would agree with me--that communities thrive, particularly smaller communities, on how well their small airports are doing. They may have good runway space but not a lot of enplanements because it is not a hugely populated area. But we put very strict confinements on that in the essential air service. We disciplined it. We said there can be no new ones other than the ones currently existing.

We put other restrictions on it to make it palatable to the other body. We said, for example, communities that have per-passenger subsidies over $1,000 are eliminated forthwith from the program. That makes sense. That much money going for a couple of passengers is just ridiculous. Communities that have fewer than 10 passengers per day--and there are in my State some very strong communities that have that situation. They just cannot work it out that they get people onto their airplanes or air service, and, as a result, obviously, the service begins to disappear. There is no reason the essential air service should allow any of that to proceed. So we say if they have fewer than 10 passengers per day--if you are an airport of that sort--and are within 175 miles of a large or medium-sized hub airport, you are to be eliminated immediately from this program. That is harsh for some. But it is what brought us a compromise for the majority of us--all of us.

The program also caps future eligibility, as I have indicated, to those communities that are currently in this program.

Now, I am sure everyone has heard me say the essential air service is the lifeblood for so many communities. I believe this bill strikes a careful balance between the need to cut government spending, which this does, and preserving small community access to our national aviation system by making some of these prudent reforms.

It is important for me to take a moment to emphasize the consequences of not passing this bill. Aside from not achieving all the benefits this bill provides, we will find ourselves in a nasty fight with the House when the current FAA extension runs out in less than 2 weeks.

This is not just a bill that is floating around. This is a bill that is on a timetable, and the extension--the 23rd extension--of this bill we made runs out in several weeks. So, then, everything goes back to zero, and you remember we laid off a lot of people earlier.

The House has no patience left for short-term extensions--I cannot disagree with that--and they have shown this past August they are perfectly willing to send over an extension with policy riders, policy riders which they full well know are totally impossible for this body to accept or for the majority of this body to accept.

They also have shown their resolve in all of this. Not too long ago they shut down the FAA. It was not a question of what this is going to do to people's lives. They just shut it down for the principle of sticking by their guns, and they furloughed 4,000 government employees and did not seem to care that hundreds of millions in aviation trust fund revenues were lost forever. If we do not pass the FAA conference report, you can be sure the House will send over an FAA extension that is just as troublesome.

We have reached a compromise position under the magnificent watchful eye of Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison. Again, nobody got everything they wanted, and there are some provisions that people have great difficulty accepting. I understand that. All of this has to be seen within the context of the greater bill, which is a huge piece of legislation, a magnificent piece of legislation, and very much a job-creating piece of legislation. But this is, in my judgment, a very good deal. It is a fair deal. If we do not pass it, I think we will all certainly regret it. I strongly encourage all of my fellow Members to support this bill.

Now, finally, before I conclude my remarks I want to thank my colleagues for all of their diligent work on this bill.

Let me be clear, we would not be here today were it not for the efforts of Senate majority leader Harry Reid and for his guidance and for his leadership. He and his team negotiated the most sensitive part of the bill. I personally want to thank Senator Reid for his stalwart support throughout this process.

Right after him comes Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison. Over the past 4 years, she has done more than anybody to get this bill passed into law--hopefully passed into law. Although she was fully engaged in every part of the development, most notably, her work on

securing a slots agreement removed one of the biggest hurdles in getting this legislation through the Senate. In fact, it was the biggest hurdle when we got this through the Senate. It was Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison who worked out those compromises and deals in a harrowingly magnificent fashion.

Her deep aviation expertise and negotiating skills are truly remarkable, and this bill is another significant part of her already very substantial legacy.

Finally, I thank Senator Maria Cantwell. A year ago, she assumed the chairmanship of the Aviation Subcommittee. She made substantial contributions to the entire bill but most notably on NextGen--the new air traffic control system, the modernized one, the GPS one, the digitalized one. She effectively balances very difficult issues and at the same time is incredibly committed to the interests of Washington State.

We should be proud of this compromise agreement that will enable our aviation system to move forward to meet the challenges of continuously improving safety, air traffic control modernization, airport development, and small community air service.

I thank the Acting President pro tempore.

Mr. President, I am in the happy position of mimicking a lot of what my colleague Senator Hutchison has said but for a very good reason. Until one goes through an experience such as the one Senator Hutchison and I have been through for the last year, plus, plus, one has no understanding of how hard staff works.

That staff routinely work over the weekends is just a given. They work through the night. They will stay up all night frequently. They have to reach out in so many directions. There are not that many of them as compared to those who have requests of them, and so their work never stops.

Let me start, obviously, with Senator Hutchison. She did mention Todd Bertoson and Richard Russell, then Jarrod Thompson, the lead negotiator. That is a tough position. It is a very tough position because people and interest groups figure out whom to go to and whom to pester and whom to follow up with. I have that same situation, and Ellen Doneski is incredible. I called her at 11 last night and she was fine and well and then she got sick and now she is already back at work. Does that mean she is not sick any longer? I don't know. But they are driven to excel. They are driven to drive the product home in ways that are expiring.

To my left sits James Reid, who is the No. 2 person on that committee who, as far as I can tell, knows everything about everything and certainly about any discussion that comes up in terms of the Commerce Committee. He is tireless. He has young children with the tension that creates, not in principle but just the idea that you have to occasionally show up at home and be a good father.

Gael Sullivan is our lead negotiator, and that is a very special position on a bill such as this. Rich Swayze and Adam Duffy; Rich Swayze and Gael worked so many things together, and Gael Sullivan and Adam Duffy.

Let me go to Representative Joe Rahall. Obviously, he is a colleague of mine. I think he has been in the House for 36 years, and he represents the coal fields, in many ways the most volatile part of our State as its economics change rapidly. His chief negotiator is Giles Giovinazzi, and to him goes the same praise. House Members and the subcommittees and committees have so many fewer staff than in the Senate, so we have to praise them very much. Jim Zoia, who is his chief of staff--and has been, I swear, for all 36 years. If it is not the case, it doesn't matter--is a remarkable person; Ward McGarragher and Alex Burkett.

With John Mica, I need to mention Jim Coon, Holly Woodruff Lyons, who was his lead negotiator, and Bailey Edwards and Simone Perez.

Let me end simply by saying Senator Reid and his people were so heavily involved, particularly in this one aspect of the bill. But he has been driving this bill in our caucuses, as the Presiding Officer well knows, for over a year: Where is my FAA bill? Where is my FAA bill? He has been driving, pushing, pushing, pushing, pushing. His chief of staff is David Krone, who so many people don't know and it is their loss; Darrel Thompson, Bob Herbert, Bill Dauster, who keeps in touch with everybody and everything.

To the floor staff of the majority and the minority leaders, just simply to be grateful to them and to make sure we say that to them personally, we say it publicly, and we say it frequently.

I ask unanimous consent that, from this point forward, any time spent in quorum calls be equally divided.

I thank the Chair.

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

Mr. President, I thank Senator Roberts from Kansas and Senator Isakson from the State of Georgia--State of Atlanta--for their very kind remarks. I really mean that. These are two good people with a lot of business experience, with aviation--is Hartsfield still the world's busiest airport?

And tremendous general aviation industry the Senator has in his State. That they come down and praise this bill means a lot to this Senator and I thank both of them.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

I think a little context is helpful to understand the situation we were in. Republicans sought to use the FAA reauthorization bill to overturn a recent administrative rule by the National Mediation Board granting certification if a union won a majority of actual voters in a representation election. The Senate correctly rejected that provision of the House bill. The rule was fair and reasonable and I strongly support it.

Certainly. We had no intention of changing the level of deference that is accorded to the agency in representation matters. The NMB's certification authority remains conclusive.

Yes.

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

Mr. President, I note that the time is just before 5 o'clock. My distinguished Republican colleague, Senator Hutchison, is not on the floor at the moment, but I do not know of nor have I heard of any other Members wanting to speak. I don't know that we need to do much except go ahead and vote. I don't have the power to command that. I see a whole lot of people up here who do, but I would just say if there is anybody at the last moment who wants to speak, that is fine.

We have set up the vote for 5:30. I think there are a lot of our colleagues who aren't going to get here until 5:30 because they are on airplanes that land at 5:00. So we have to take that into consideration.

So I stand here to say that I think this is a very good bill, and I think, as has been mentioned often, it is a 4-year product with hard work and with an unbelievable consultation with all of the stakeholders, which includes all of the Members of the Senate and their staffs and all of the people out in the world of aviation. We have spent endless hours with them, and rightly so and happily so.

I think there is general support in the aviation community for this bill. I could read a list of all of the people who do support it, the associations that support it, but it would take me a long time. I hope very much my colleagues will vote for this bill.

As I indicated, nobody got all they wanted, but that is the nature of compromise. Compromise in and of itself was particularly difficult in this negotiation, but we have done what we have done. It is well regarded. I urge my colleagues, when they do come, to vote for the bill.

I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I rise to honor Dr. Michael Copps. At the end of last year, Dr. Copps retired from public service--though not from public life.

For those of you who do not know him, I want to take this opportunity to tell you about him, the life he has led, what he has done for this country--and what he has done for all of us.

After earning a doctorate in U.S. history from the University of North Carolina, Dr. Copps headed south to the Big Easy. He taught history at Loyola University in New Orleans. It was there that he met his wife Beth.

Academe had its pull. But so did Washington. So in 1970, he convinced his wife to pack up their life and move north to the capital. He heard the call of policy and politics and told her that after he got it out of his system, he would head back to university life.

He never did head back to the halls of the academy. But his keen mind, calm demeanor, and dedication to the public interest have taught all of us about what it is to lead an honorable life in public service.

He started in Washington in the office of Senator Fritz Hollings. He eventually served for over a dozen years as Senator Hollings' chief of staff. He is well known and well loved by so many who served in the office of the South Carolina Senator. I know that Fritz Hollings too is proud to call him a colleague and friend.

From the Halls of the Senate, he headed on to industry. He took on policy operations in Washington for a Fortune 500 manufacturing company. He also worked at a major trade association.

With the election of President Clinton, however, he again heard the call of government service. He first served as Deputy Assistant Secretary at the U.S. Department of Commerce. During his tenure, he fostered public sector and private sector cooperation to strengthen American industry. He led the U.S.-Russia Business Development Committee's oil and gas working group. In this role, he pushed successfully for the removal of an export tax for U.S. companies shipping oil out of Russia. He negotiated power, chemical, and automotive policies with China. He built partnerships involving forest products, agriculture products, and electrical power in Russia, Ukraine, and Turkey. He assisted generously with global automotive negotiations and trade promotion initiatives.

Five years later, he was nominated and confirmed by this body, for Assistant Secretary for Trade Development at the U.S Department of Commerce. Again, he served nobly. He worked with the private sector to expand commercial opportunities for U.S. businesses in the global economy. He oversaw a reorganization of trade development within the Department, creating a new office focused on information technologies industries. He also advocated internationally for the creation of independent telecommunications regulatory regimes, transparent legal authority for telecommunications, and investor-friendly climates for information technology.

He did all of these things at the Department of Commerce with his characteristic force, impressive analytical skills, and customary grace.

But it was only sometime after his tenure at the Department of Commerce that I really came to know Dr. Copps. That was when, in 2001, he was first nominated, and later confirmed, for the role of Commissioner at the Federal Communications Commission. He brought to the role the same energy and enthusiasm that he displayed at the Department of Commerce. He brought the same sense of conviction, and he brought the same belief that through expanding the stakeholders in any dialogue, we can enrich our conversation, grow our economy, and enhance our public life.

His accomplishments over the course of his two terms at the agency are too numerous to mention. So I will dwell only on a few.

First, as the Acting Chairman of the agency he led the national transition to digital television. He was the man in charge of keeping the television on, as our Nation's broadcasters ceased sending signals in analog form. His calm, clear focus, and ability to marshal public and private efforts to manage the transition kept millions and millions of households with access to television news, emergency information, and entertainment.

Second, he called early and often for policies to support broadband, understanding well before others that broadband is the great infrastructure challenge of our age. It was here that his eye for history served him especially well, as he analogized between broadband networks and the railroads that criss-crossed our country more than a century before; between opening ports to new markets and opening communities through new communications networks; and between the need for our interstate highway system and the need for new broadband byways. He called for a national broadband plan well before it was popular to do so. He reminded us that rural Americans must not be left on the wrong side of the digital divide. In fact, he tirelessly pressured to expand service to the historically underserved--from rural areas, to Indian Country, to those with disabilities, and more-- believing that access to communications technologies strengthens our economy and our democracy.

Third, he was an early champion of the open and free Internet. As our lives migrated online, he saw the risks posed by the control of both connectivity and content. He gave early voice to basic concepts that grew to become network neutrality.

Fourth, and finally--he has emerged as an important voice on media policy. He has never shied from asking the hard questions about our media institutions. He has criticized media concentration for diluting the diversity, localism, and competition we need in our information sources. He has worried for all of us that with the shuttering of newspapers and thinning of journalism's ranks, we are doing great harm to the public's need to know. He was not blind to the great informational promise of the Internet, but instead a realist about its near-term journalistic limitations. Without an informed citizenry, he reminded us over and over again, we risk what is essential for democracy. His zeal for this issue was anything but academic. He took to the road and held countless hearings outside of Washington--giving thousands of people across the country the opportunity to speak about the changes in our media landscape, and the information they need in their communities.

As part of this, he also pressed for less indecency in the media, and less coarse content on our airwaves. His media policies had fans and also detractors. But both uniformly respected how he took on these issues and how deeply committed he was to his cause.

Simply put, they do not make men like Michael Copps anymore. He represents the best in public service. So as Dr. Copps turns in his badge and turns

to spending more time with Beth and their family of five children, I wanted to come to the floor and congratulate him on his accomplishments. His has set an example for all of us. This one-time history professor has earned his place in history. I know I am grateful for his service to this country. I am also grateful to call him a friend.

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

Mr. President, it is a distinct honor and privilege for me to congratulate Thomas L. Birch, the legislative counsel and founding director, of the National Child Abuse Coalition, for his decades of service to children.

After more than 30 years as head of the coalition, Tom is retiring. Mr. Birch established the National Child Abuse Coalition three decades ago as a way to focus greater attention on the more than 700,000 children who are abused and neglected each year.

From his earliest days, Tom was inspired to make a difference in the lives of some of our most vulnerable children and families. His interest was first peaked as a high school student working at a public housing project in Stamford, CT. He noticed that not all kids had the same opportunity and that not all children had the same start at life. His experiences also demonstrated that with the right kind of support, we could make a difference in these young lives. We could even the playing field.

Tom continued on to college and became an attorney, but when he reached Washington, he brought with him that same passion to make a difference. We all talk about how important children are to this country's future, but Tom felt you had to do more than just say that-- he had to act. He began his new job on Capitol Hill working for the chair of what we now call the HELP Committee, under Senator Walter Mondale. In fact, the week Tom Birch started his work for the future Vice President, the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, or CAPTA, was signed into law. He would continue advocating for children and the prevention of child abuse by working on the staffs of Senator Paul Simon and Congressman John Brademas.

When Tom ended his career as a Capitol Hill staffer he moved on but didn't move away from his main mission in life: to continue to make a difference for the most vulnerable children in the land. He formed a coalition to focus attention on preventing the abuse and neglect of children. In 1981 the National Child Abuse Coalition was created under the leadership of Mr. Birch. His pride and constant inspiration has been to shape the growth of CAPTA, and that, too, would be the mission of the coalition he founded.

Because of Tom Birch's efforts, more than 30 national member organizations, working through the coalition, have been able to coordinate and strengthen their Federal advocacy on behalf of the millions of vulnerable children. Through this time period Tom has contributed to important developments, including the creation of children's trust funds across the States; the establishment of national child abuse data; greater focus on community-based solutions, including the community-based grants to prevent child abuse and neglect; and more recently he and the coalition were an important voice of support for the new home visitation program enacted by Congress in 2010.

Through his leadership the coalition has also served as an advocate in the appropriations process for CAPTA and similar programs such as the Social Services Block Grant, SSBG, and the Promoting Safe and Stable Families

Program, PSSF. When opportunities have arisen he has worked to highlight ways to strengthen programs such as Head Start and childcare to make sure the country took every opportunity to address child neglect and to prevent it.

Others have recognized Mr. Birch's contributions, including the American Psychological Association, which honored him in 2003 with their Award for Distinguished Contribution to Child Advocacy. Later in 2006 Casey Family Programs honored Tom again by giving him their Leadership Award.

I want to join the many others in recognizing Tom Birch. These days we talk a great deal about lobbyists and special interests in Washington, DC, but there are certain groups of people here in Washington you don't hear about. They won't be featured on the evening news or the front page of the newspaper. These are the men and women who patiently and quietly walk these halls to tell the stories of vulnerable children. These people do it not to get rich or to promote the fortunes of the powerful; they work on behalf of our most vulnerable. Tom is one of these people, an unsung hero who has made a true difference for vulnerable children. It has been a job well done for Tom. I hope his retirement is successful and rewarding in every way he wishes it to be, and I thank him very much for all the contributions he has made to the lives of all the most vulnerable children all across this country.