Floor Statements

Mr. President, I too rise today to discuss the incredible importance of the Violence Against Women Act.

For nearly 18 years, the Violence Against Women Act has been the centerpiece of our Nation's commitment to end domestic violence, dating violence, and sexual violence. Congress authorized the Violence Against Women Act in 2000 and again in 2005 with overwhelming bipartisan support.

I am a longtime champion of the prevention of domestic violence because I have seen the impact of this abuse firsthand in Idaho. The act provides critical services to victims of violent crime as well as agencies and organizations that provide important aid to those victims.

The Violence Against Women Act has been called by the American Bar Association ``the single most effective federal effort to respond to the epidemic of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking in our country.''

This legislation provides access to legal and social services for survivors. It provides training to law enforcement, prosecutors, judges, attorneys, and advocates to address these crimes in our Nation's communities. It provides intervention for those who have witnessed abuse and are more likely to be involved in this type of violence. It provides shelter and resources for victims who have nowhere else to turn, who are literally victims in their own homes.

There is significant evidence that these programs are working. In Idaho, the number of high school students reporting that they have experienced violence by a dating partner has dropped since the Center for Healthy Teen Relationships began its work in 2006. The U.S. Department of Justice reported that the number of women killed by an intimate partner decreased by 35 percent between 1993 and 2008.

The legislation is working and our collective efforts across this country to respond to this epidemic are working, but our fight against domestic violence is far from over. Last year in my State 22 people were killed by a domestic partner. Approximately one in three adolescent girls in the United States is a victim of physical, emotional, or verbal abuse from a dating partner. Nearly 1 in 10 high school students Nationwide was hit, slapped, or physically hurt on purpose by their boyfriend or girlfriend.

Future tragedies of the kinds we have seen in Idaho and across this country have to be prevented. And while we may not all agree on the specifics of this reauthorization, all of us agree on one very important aspect; that is, we must end domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking in the United States.

No bill is ever perfect. As we go through the process of working through this bill on the floor, we will see amendments brought seeking to perfect and improve it. I will support some of those amendments, others will support some of those amendments, and the bill will be addressed, as all bills should be, on the floor of the Senate. But when we are done and the debate is over and the voting on the amendments is concluded, I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting the reauthorization of this critical program. We must continue the life- changing work this legislation helps us accomplish.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I yield back our time.

Mr. President, my colleague Senator Jim Risch joins me today in honoring the life of Steve Appleton. We are deeply saddened by Steve's passing, and we join his wife, Dalynn, their children, family, Micron employees and his many friends in honoring his remarkable life.

For more than three decades, our State was a fortunate beneficiary of Steve's determination and hard work. A year after his 1982 graduation from Boise State University, he joined Micron Technology, Inc., and quickly ascended from working on Micron's high-tech assembly line to leading the company as CEO, president and chairman. His talent and energy helped overcome significant challenges and shaped Micron into a multinational world leader

in semiconductors. As Kurt Marko, a coworker at Micron, poignantly described him, ``Appleton personified Micron's can-do spirit. He, and it, defied the odds.''

Steve leaves behind a legacy of hard work, focus, integrity and generosity. He was driven to reach remarkable achievements and was generous in sharing the rewards of that hard work to better our State and future generations of Idahoans. For example, he gave his time and financial resources to help Boise State University develop its College of Engineering; raised funds for scholarships, programs, buildings and projects, including the Appleton Tennis Complex; and established the Micron Foundation. Due to his efforts, our State and Nation will be better equipped to compete globally.

We were honored to have many opportunities to work with Steve over the years. His pragmatic approach was instrumental in achieving remedies needed to better ensure a level playing field for U.S. semiconductor products and address unfair trading practices. No matter the challenges, Steve faced them with optimism and sensibility.

Steve's adventurous spirit was widely known and well documented. His passion for sports and competition contributed to him excelling in tennis, including winning the doubles title at the Big Sky Tennis Championship in 1982. Besides his love of aviation, he also was involved in a number of adventure sports including, off-road car racing, scuba diving, wakeboarding, motocross and more.

Steve Appleton's energy and commitment to Idaho will not be forgotten. He has set an extraordinary example of what hard work and initiative in a free enterprise system can achieve. He helped create thousands of jobs and cemented Idaho's standing in the high-tech field. His innovation, drive and forward-thinking approach, as well as his wonderful friendship, will be greatly missed.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor the Uni- Capitol Washington Internship Programme, UCWIP. Our Nation has benefited from the service of outstanding Australian college students who participate in internships throughout the U.S. Congress through this program.

The program is providing students with the opportunity to obtain considerable experience through their congressional internships, while also making available other educational experiences throughout their time in the United States. Uni-Capitol Washington Programme interns have helped me serve Idaho constituents, and I am grateful for their efforts and dedication.

Chris Colalillo, a UCWIP participant, has joined my staff as an intern this semester. Chris is studying bachelor's of law and arts at the University of Western Australia, where he is double majoring in political science and international relations and ancient history. When he graduates, Chris plans to work in a law firm and eventually go into Federal or State politics. Chris has been great to work with, and he was very quick to learn his role and responsibilities in the office. He is very intelligent, eager, and always puts forward his best work. He has shared with us some of the political and cultural differences between the United States and Australia, and it has been a great learning experience for both Chris and the staff.

Chris shared his impressions regarding the program and his internship. He said:

The UCWIP has been a unique opportunity to further my

knowledge in the legislative process of the United States,

enabling me to develop an appreciation for democratic systems

of government as well as providing me with practical

experience that will facilitate my theoretical studies in

Political Science and International Relations. The welcoming

nature of the staff within Senator Crapo's office has made

this internship an enjoyable experience thus far.

Eric Federing, UCWIP's director and founder, has successfully focused his Capitol Hill and Australia experiences to provide this valuable educational exchange opportunity that benefits Australian students and congressional offices. His dedication to advancing this learning experience is remarkable.

I have been honored to have worked with the Uni-Capitol Washington Internship Programme for 5 years. The program is shaping young leaders who are helping to deepen understanding between our two nations while providing outstanding constituent support. I commend Chris Colalillo, Eric Federing, and the other Uni-Capitol Washington Internship Programme participants and interns for their achievements and wish them continued success.

Mr. President, today I wish to honor the life of Roger Kotter, a husband, father, community leader, businessman, and exemplary Idahoan.

At the core of Roger Kotter's accomplishments were his dedication to family, strong sense of community, and his ability to connect with his customers. Roger served a mission for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Santiago, Chile, from 1966 to 1968, married his wife of 43 years, Karen, and graduated from Brigham Young University in 1971. After graduating, Roger moved back to Nampa and started working for Stone Lumber in 1972 and became part owner in 1980. Stone Lumber has been a staple of Nampa since 1906, and under the direction of Roger and Monte Schlerf, it has continued in the tradition of providing jobs and exceptional customer service. Roger also devoted decades of service and was involved in various organizations, including Nampa Exchange Club past president--Nampa Boys and Girls Club, Nampa Schools Foundation, Boy Scouts of America, and, through Stone Lumber, worked with Habitat for Humanity. Roger was active in supporting the local Hispanic community acting as a mentor and teaching English. He was also actively involved with his church and served in stake presidencies, bishoprics, and was most recently a counselor in the Boise Idaho Mission presidency. Roger has been recognized for his commendable skills through honors, such as his selection as Idaho Businessman of the Year in 2000.

I join Rogers's wife Karen; five children, Kristin, Jason, Brent, Matthew, and Amy; 12 grandchildren; father, James; 6 siblings; other family members; many friends; the Nampa community, and the numerous people he inspired in mourning his loss and expressing gratitude for his contribution. Roger Kotter will be missed, and his legacy of devotion to his family and community will not be forgotten.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and honor Don Dixon, who is retiring from Senate service. Don has been a trusted advisor and dear friend for many years.

Approximately 15 years ago, I was blessed to have Don join my staff as my State director of agriculture. He

brought to the position his experience as a farmer and his sincere dedication to solving challenges facing the agricultural community. Throughout his Senate service, Don has covered thousands of miles and spent countless hours meeting with constituents and ensuring that their concerns and interests are properly addressed. It has been said that anytime two farmers meet in Idaho, Don is there. This illustration, while not too far from the truth, emphasizes Don's deep personal commitment to ensuring sound representation of Idaho agriculture. For example, he has assisted with multiple farm bills, gathering input from Idahoans to craft the best policy possible, contributing throughout the drafting and providing information to farmers and ranchers when the laws were enacted. He sacrificed weeks with his family when he stayed in Washington, DC, to assist with the crafting of the 2002 farm bill. I have always been able to count on Don to literally go the extra mile for constituents.

Don's dedication and exemplary service led to his appointment to serve as the Idaho State executive director of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Farm Service Agency, FSA. While this appointment, unfortunately, led to Don leaving my staff for the first time in 2007, his work on behalf of the agricultural community during his time at FSA and his return to Senate service were welcomed. I feel blessed to have once again benefited from his on-the-ground knowledge of production and agricultural policy for the past 3 years.

His enthusiasm and sincere desire to do all that he can for people are part of what make Don exceptional. His unsurpassed energy, faith, and optimism also set him apart. The humor and get-up-and-go Don brings to any challenge has enabled many accomplishments for Idahoans, and Don is widely respected for his integrity and devotion to achieving results.

Although for many, retirement provides time to slow down and relax, knowing Don, he will likely work as hard in his retirement as he does on the job. ``Idle'' is not a word in Don's vocabulary. However, I hope that retirement provides Don with more time to spend with his family whom he loves so much: his wonderful wife Georgia; his children Lucinda, ``Cindy,'' Lorin, Paul, and Tobin; eight grandchildren; and six great-grandchildren. Lucky for me, Don is also one of my neighbors in my hometown of Idaho Falls, so I hope to see him often. We have shared many laughs over the years, and I look forward to sharing many more.

Don, you are model public servant, and I feel very fortunate to have benefitted from your wise counsel and hard work for so many years. I wish you the happy retirement you so greatly deserve for your years of dedicated service. Don, thank you for all that you have done on behalf of Idahoans.

Mr. President, both sides agree that everyone benefits from a marketplace free of fraud and other deceptive and exploitative practices. The disagreement is over the best way to structure our Federal regulatory agencies to accomplish this goal and provide accountability.

One of the lessons of the financial crisis is that we need a supervisory program that looks and considers how safety and soundness and consumer protection work together and reinforce better and safer services to banking customers. Far too often, supervision either looked at consumer issues in isolation--promoting access to credit and home ownership--or it looked at safety and soundness in isolation, such as ensuring that customer information was legally accurate but not asking whether it was understandable to bank customers.

We should have strengthened the link and coordination between prudential supervision and consumer protections rather than severing it. Instead Congress institutionalized this separation by creating a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and blurred the role and accountability of the prudential regulators and the new Bureau.

Mortgage underwriting is a good example of an issue that was found lacking before the financial crisis and has the potential to be subject to an even more bureaucratic regulatory system going forward. I say potential because it is unclear to me where the authority of the Bureau stops and where the authority of the prudential regulators overlaps on several important issues that will likely cause confusion and potentially inconsistent regulatory approaches. Already we are seeing conflicts among regulators with different regulators adopting different consumer protection rules and duplication in examinations.

From my perspective, the new Bureau is a massive, expensive government bureaucracy that is immunized against meaningful oversight by either Congress or the President, and dramatically extends the Federal Government's control over the economy.

According to analysis from Andrew Pincus, a partner in the law firm Mayer Brown LLP:

The Bureau's structure has a number of features that, when

taken together, concentrate an amount of unchecked authority

in a single individual--the Director--that is unprecedented

for a federal agency that regulates private entities and

individuals:

First, the Bureau will be headed by a single Director with

complete, unilateral authority to make all regulatory and

enforcement decisions and to hire and fire all personnel,

including his or her own deputy.

Second, the Bureau's Director does not serve at the

pleasure of the President. Rather, during his or her five-

year term, the Director may be removed only for inefficiency,

neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office. That standard

eliminates the President's power to remove the Director based

on a policy disagreement: once nominated and confirmed, the

Director cannot be overruled by the President.

Third, the Bureau is exempt from the congressional

appropriations process. It is funded instead by a transfer of

money from the Federal Reserve in an amount determined solely

by the Director, subject only to a cap that already exceeds

$550 million, will increase 10% for the next fiscal year, and

is subject to automatic inflation adjustments thereafter.

While I appreciate the willingness of Richard Cordray to serve and answer questions, I can't support the consideration of any nominee to be the Director of the Bureau until the agency is reformed to make it more accountable and transparent.

First, we would establish a board of directors to oversee the Bureau. This would allow for the consideration of multiple viewpoints in decisionmaking and would reduce the potential for the politicization of regulations. A board of directors structure is consistent with the organization of the Federal Reserve

Board, National Credit Union Administration, FDIC, SEC, CFTC, and Federal Trade Commission.

Second, we would subject the Bureau to the congressional appropriations process to ensure that it doesn't engage in wasteful or unnecessary spending. This also gives Congress the ability to ensure that the Bureau is acting in accordance with our legislative intent. The SEC, CFTC, and the Federal Trade Commission have long been subject to the appropriations process for the same reasons.

Finally, we would establish a safety and soundness check. This would strengthen the link and coordination between prudential supervision and consumer protections.

Given the enormous impact the Bureau will have on the economy, it is important for Congress to revisit its structure and authorities to make it more accountable and transparent.

Mr. President, my colleague Senator Jim Risch joins me today in recognizing Nancy Bergmann's retirement after 26 years of dedicated and effective service.

For the past 18 years, Nancy has represented the Idaho National Laboratory, INL, in promoting economic development, expanding technology business sectors and creating understanding about the nuclear and energy missions at INL. Nancy is a well-known and endearing figure in Idaho's high-technology business community. During her career, she has made a significant impact in helping small businesses, nurturing entrepreneurs, and aiding communities in increasing their technology business base. Previously, she initiated Idaho's Hispanic Youth Symposium while managing INL's diversity program in human resources, which also was recognized by President George H.W. Bush for excellence. With more than 30 years of involvement in serving United Way and community service, Nancy also has been appointed to more than 25 boards and commissions, including the Idaho Rural Partnership, Idaho TechConnect, and many more.

Nancy has also been instrumental in organizing regional economic development offices throughout Idaho. In addition to serving on the National United Way Board of America, Nancy has been named INL's Woman of the Year, Idaho's Business Woman of the Year, and 2008 Idaho Business Review Woman of the Year. On November 18, 2011, the Southern Idaho Economic Development Organization honored Nancy for a decade of support by establishing the Nancy Bergmann/INL Math & Science Scholarship, managed by the College of Southern Idaho Foundation.

We wish Nancy an enjoyable retirement and a wonderful time with her family, including five granddaughters. We hope that retirement will provide Nancy with more opportunities to enjoy Idaho's magnificent sunsets. Congratulations to Nancy for achieving this milestone, and thank you, Nancy, for your outstanding service to Idaho communities.

Mr. President, today I wish to honor the life of Idaho State Representative Pat Takasugi. I join his family and friends in mourning the passing of this great Idahoan.

Pat's efforts and input on behalf of Idaho agriculture were indispensible. He had the experience and association through his role as the director of the Idaho State Department of Agriculture and a number of agricultural organizations and the on-the-ground knowledge of an innovative farmer that were instrumental in improving agricultural policy. His advocacy for Idaho agriculture advanced its position in domestic and foreign markets, and he leaves behind a legacy of skilled support.

We are all better for having known Pat Takasugi. His intelligence, humility and dedication were exemplary. He

added the right amount of humor to every situation and approached challenges with optimism. He really liked people, and he took his time to give everyone his full attention. That quality along with his sincerity contributed to the vast number of friends and acquaintances who respect and adore him.

Pat led a life of service to our State and Nation. After graduating from the College of Idaho and obtaining post graduate credits from the University of Idaho and Boise State University, Pat joined the U.S. Army through which he served 5 years in Active service and another 5 years in Reserve service. During his military service, Pat was promoted to the rank of captain and qualified for Airborne wings, the Ranger tab and Special Forces green beret. After returning to Wilder, he grew a farm of 32 acres into a more than 1,500-acre-farm and was a partner in Snake River Produce. He also served for 10 years as the director of the Idaho State Department of Agriculture before he was elected in 2008 to represent Idaho's District 10 in the State legislature.

His list of accomplishments and associations with a number of Idaho and national organizations, including his service as past president of the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, is extensive. He advocated for good jobs, a healthy rural economy, business development, lower taxes, less regulation, parental involvement in education, protection of private property and water rights and a lean and accountable government. His principles included belief that ``promoting strong families and renewing an individual sense of responsibility are key to reversing the erosion of our nation's foundation.'' He worked considerately to advance these and other objectives on behalf of Idahoans.

I extend my condolences and prayers to Pat's family, friends and loved ones, including his wife Suzanne his three children and his parents Michio and Ayako. Pat was a great friend to many, and he was very proud of his family. He was a talented farmer and public servant. Pat Takasugi's contribution to our State will not be forgotten.

Madam President, as the leader has indicated, I will withdraw this amendment at the conclusion of this colloquy, but I want to make sure my colleagues understand what the amendment does.

This amendment prohibits any funds from being used by the CFTC to promulgate any final rules under title VII until the agency substantiates that those rules are economically beneficial, adhere to congressional intent, provide end users with a clear exemption from margin requirements, and set clear bounds on the overseas application of derivatives requirements.

While there is not yet a bipartisan agreement to go forward with this amendment at this time, there is a bipartisan list of issues that regulators need to address. They need to protect end users from burdensome margin requirements. Margin requirements proposed by regulators currently ignore the clear intent of Congress not to impose them on end users. They need to limit the extraterritorial application of title VII per congressional intent in sections 722 and 764. This is also being addressed in the House of Representatives. They need to encourage greater coordination and harmonization between the SEC, the CFTC, and international regulators to seek broad harmonization of cross-border issues, and they need to ensure that the new rules are subject to robust and quantitative assessment of the costs and benefits.

The regulators involved in our rulemaking process should know that Congress is going to closely monitor how they proceed, and we expect a change in course. If we don't get that change in course, then we will need to return to this kind of legislation.

I wish to thank Senator Stabenow for working with me. She and many other Senators across the aisle have indicated a willingness to help try to achieve these objectives and to work together to try to make this happen.

With that, I yield my time to Senator Stabenow.

Madam President, The amendment prohibits any funds from being used by the CFTC to promulgate any final rules under Title VII until the agency substantiates that those rules are economically beneficia1, adheres to congressional intent to provide end-users with a clear exemption from margin requirements, and sets clear bounds on the overseas application of the derivatives requirements.

While there is not yet bipartisan agreement to go forward with this amendment at this time, there is a bipartisan list of issues that the regulators need to address:

Protect end-users from burdensome margin requirements. Margin requirements proposed by regulators currently ignore the clear intent of Congress not to impose margin on end users.

Limit the extraterritorial application of title VII per Congressional intent in Sections 722 and 764. In the House of Representatives bipartisan legislation was just introduced that sets clear bounds on overseas application of the derivatives requirements, while allowing regulators to stop systemically dangerous transactions intended to evade U.S. requirements.

Encourage greater coordination and harmonization between the SEC, CFTC, and international regulators to seek broad harmonization of cross-border issues.

Ensure new rules are subject to robust and quantitative assessment of costs and benefits.

The regulators involved in the rulemaking process should understand that Congress is going to closely monitor how they proceed and we expect a change in course.

If the regulators ignore congressional intent and fail to adequately harmonize their rules with each other and with their foreign counterparts, then it is my intention to revisit this amendment and push for a vote.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be withdrawn.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment, and I call up my amendment No. 814.

I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

I wish to note that as cosponsors of the amendment, Senators Johanns, Shelby, Toomey, Moran, Vitter, and Kirk are also supportive.

The unprecedented scope and pace of agency rulemaking in the United States today is posing incredible uncertainty and threat to our economy. Americans today know that jobs are the No. 1 issue we face, and consistently across the country Americans are also recognizing that the explosion of government regulatory action is one of the huge impediments to our job creation efforts in America.

Unfortunately, under the Dodd-Frank Act, we are seeing one of the most significant rulemaking levels of activity in every part of our economy. Many of the proposed rules do not give sufficient consideration to how they will affect Main Street or our economy as a whole, how they will interact with one another or, frankly, how they will impact our global competitiveness.

Through this amendment, I focus on the CFTC to send a strong message to all regulators involved in the rulemaking process that we cannot afford regulations that unnecessarily burden our businesses, our economy, and our competitive position in the global marketplace.

This amendment does three basic things:

It prohibits funds from being used by the CFTC to promulgate any final rules until the agency substantiates that those rules are economically beneficial; secondly, it adheres to congressional intent to provide end users with a clear exemption from margin requirements; and, third, it sets clear bounds on the overseas applications of the derivatives requirements.

With regard to the process portion of the amendment, in February, when many members of the banking committee wrote to our financial regulators, we strongly urged them to employ fundamental principles of good regulation in their statutory mandate and not to sacrifice quality and fairness in exchange for speed. We had two main concerns: that the regulators are not allowing adequate time for meaningful public comment on their proposed rules; and that the regulators are not conducting rigorous quantitative analysis of the costs and benefits of their rules and the effects those rules can have on our economy and our competitive position in a global marketplace.

On April 15, 2011, the Office of Inspector General for the CFTC issued a report of an investigation entitled ``An Investigation Regarding the Cost Benefit Analyses Performed by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission in Connection with Rulemakings Undertaken Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act.'' Unfortunately, the IG report demonstrated that the CFTC is not using rigorous economic analysis to shape its rulemaking.

In April, Harvard Law Prof. Hal Scott testified on urgently needed fixes in the Dodd-Frank rulemaking process. We also began hearing from CFTC Commissioners Scott O'Malia and Jill Sommers about problems with the rulemaking process, specifically with economic analysis.

In August, CFTC Commissioner Scott O'Malia stated that the current process

of enacting rules under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act is inadequate, and excoriated the regulatory body for not putting together a clear rulemaking order and implementation schedule for public comment.

Again, in August, CFTC Commissioner Jill Sommers stated:

I believe it is a mistake for us to begin the process

without a plan to logically sequence our consideration of

final rules along with a transparent implementation plan.

In July, the SEC's proxy access rule became the first Dodd-Frank rule to be successfully challenged in court for failing to adequately analyze its economic costs and benefits. In the unanimous decision to vacate the rule, U.S. Circuit Court Judge Douglas Ginsburg wrote:

The Commission inconsistently and opportunistically framed

the costs and benefits of the rule; failed adequately to

quantify the certain costs or to explain why those costs

could not be quantified; neglected to support its predictive

judgments, contradicted itself; and failed to respond to the

substantial problems raised by commenters.

In this amendment, we require the CFTC to fix its rulemaking process by prohibiting funding for any final CFTC rules until the Commission, jointly with the SEC and other prudential regulators, publishes a schedule outlining the order in which the agencies will consider and implement the final rules. Affected market participants will be able to weigh in and be heard about how rules should be adopted and implemented. Agencies will have to work together to come up with coordinated schedules for proceeding with rulemaking and implementation. The agencies will have to take into consideration economic impacts, international competitiveness, the interaction of their rules one with another, and the implications of inconsistencies in the approaches taken by different regulators.

It is more important that the CFTC and other agencies allow for meaningful public comment and economic analysis than it is to rush through these rules and risk undermining the integrity of the process and diminishing the utility of this important market.

Secondly, we protect end users from the burdensome margin requirements of the statute. When the Dodd-Frank conference was reopened to deal with the scoring issue, Senators Dodd and Lincoln acknowledged that the language for end users was not perfect, and tried to clarify the intent of the language with a joint letter, stating:

The legislation does not authorize the regulators to impose

margins on end users, those exempt entities that use swaps to

hedge or mitigate commercial risk.

However, regulators have interpreted the actual Dodd-Frank legislative language as providing authority to require end users to post margin. This amendment provides certainty for Main Street businesses that played no role in the financial crisis by establishing a clear exemption from excessive margin requirements.

End users have emphasized the critical importance of addressing this problem. In its letter, the Coalition for Derivatives End-Users highlighted the stakes of getting this issue right. They said:

While the Dodd-Frank Act and implementing regulations do

much to increase transparency and reduce systemic risk in the

derivatives market, they include provisions that, if

implemented as proposed or otherwise expected, would impose

unnecessary burdens on end-user companies. While we believe

it is important to reduce risk within our financial markets,

transactions with end users have not been found to pose

systemic risk. Our companies and our economy cannot afford to

unnecessarily tie up capital that would otherwise be used to

promote growth and create jobs.

MillerCoors echoed these sentiments when it said:

This amendment protects our ability to efficiently buy

malting barley, hops and other ingredients used to brew our

beers.

FMC and the National Association of Corporate Treasurers noted:

This legislation addresses concerns that are of critical

importance to end-users--companies using derivatives to

reduce business and financial risk and not to speculate. FMC

and the other members of the NACT support legislation

enabling end-users to continue their cost-effective use of

derivatives to manage the commercial risks that they face

when they make investments to expand plant and equipment,

conduct research and development, build inventories to

support higher sales, and to sustain and ultimately grow

jobs.

The third thing the amendment does is to limit the extraterritorial reach of Dodd-Frank--of the CFTC rulemaking to streamline regulation and protect American competitiveness. Chairman Johnson and Congressman Frank recently sent a letter to the regulators that brought up the concern that the extraterritorial imposition of margin requirements raises questions about the consistency with Congressional intent regarding title VII.

They pointed out that Congress generally limited the territorial scope of title VII activities to within the United States. Extraterritorial application of one nation's laws to another nation's markets and firms is especially problematic in a global market such as derivatives, where it is common for counterparties based in different parts of the world to engage in transactions with each other.

The historical practice of U.S. regulators is to recognize and defer to foreign regulators when registered entities engaged in activities outside the United States are subject to comparable foreign regulation.

Given recent statements and actions by U.S. regulatory agencies, there is concern that proposals could create uncertainty as to how additional regulations could apply across borders and alter regulatory precedent. While there is bipartisan support from Members of Congress to encourage our regulators to work with their international counterparts to seek broad harmonization, there is a growing list of noteworthy and critical items that we are seeing related to the lack of progress on international harmonization.

The CFTC and the SEC are taking divergent approaches on some derivatives rules, raising questions about whether we can harmonize even within our own borders, let alone with foreign regulators. Foreign jurisdictions in Europe, not to mention Asia and Latin America, have outright rejected many reforms--such as the section 716 swap pushout provisions. It remains unclear as to what foreign jurisdictions will impose a margin requirement such as proposed by our prudential regulators. Simply put, the rest of the world is not following us in a number of critical areas.

Third parties, including market analysts and economists and academics, have also indicated that these rules will negatively impact U.S. competitiveness and growth. Our Fed Chairman Bernanke recently warned that the extraterritorial application of margin rules could create a significant competitive disadvantage for U.S. companies. We can't force Europe or Asia or Latin America to follow, and if our rules are finalized in the United States before other jurisdictions' rules, we risk substantially harming U.S. competitiveness, growth, and financial stability. That is why this amendment sets clear bounds on the overseas applications of the derivatives requirements, while allowing regulators to stop systemically dangerous transactions intended to evade U.S. requirements.

In conclusion, there can be no doubt about our resolve to address the root causes of the financial crisis. But equally, there can be no doubt about our resolve to ensure that we do this with great care. Failing to do so will threaten our businesses, our economy, and our competitiveness globally. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment as an important step to ensuring that while working together for the former, we do not neglect the latter.

I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 879 to Amendment No. 738

Mr. President, today I recognize Bechtel BWX Technologies Idaho LLC's, BBWI, legacy at the Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Project, AMWTP.

Under the leadership of Jeff Mousseau, appointed manager of the project in November 2007, and with the commitment and dedication of the skilled workforce, the AMWTP has flourished. Jeff Mousseau led the Bechtel team efficiently and safely to exceed benchmarks. AMWTP went from being 3 years behind to more than 3 years ahead of scheduled requirements to move waste out of Idaho. No other site in the U.S. Department of Energy, DOE, Complex has enabled the permanent disposal of as much radioactive waste at the DOE Waste Isolation Pilot Plant more safely and compliantly than AMWTP.

The company's dedicated employees have achieved a record of removing the waste safely. BBWI employees have worked more than 12.4 million hours and 2,839 days without a lost-time injury. In 2010 and 2008, the company earned national safety awards that included an Occupational Excellence Award, Perfect Record Award, Safety Leadership Award and Million Hours Worked Award. In 2007, the company earned the first-ever Integrated Safety Management Systems verification following assumption of the AMWTP contract. The company's safety achievements have also been recognized through the 2005 DOE Electrical Safety Challenge; 2008 Bechtel Safety Achievement Award in recognition of achieving more than five million job hours without a lost-time injury; 2008 Secretary of Energy's Appreciation Award for Electrical Safety; and 2009 Voluntary Protection Program verification.

BBWI has also been an active and involved corporate partner to Idaho. Through its community contributions, the company has supported civic, arts, cultural and education organizations and initiatives that have strengthened the fabric of many communities and improved the quality of life for many Idahoans. BBWI has been supportive of Idaho small businesses; more than 80 percent of its contracts for materials and services are awarded to small businesses. In 2009, DOE recognized BBWI with its Small Business Achievement Award and, in 2006, with DOE's Mentor Protege award for the company's relationship with North Wind.

It is a privilege to acknowledge a job well done. The significant achievements of BBWI's workforce and Jeff Mousseau's leadership have resulted in the project being ahead of schedule and under budget with a recognized safety record. Thank you for your remarkable service.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor the life of a distinguished Idahoan, J. Robb Brady. I join his family and friends in mourning his passing and paying tribute to his legacy.

Robb Brady is well known for his work as a journalist and publisher of the Idaho Falls Post Register, my hometown newspaper. Starting at the Post Register in 1941, he advanced in his field and served as publisher for more than 10 years. Throughout his career, he was a respected and knowledgeable voice. He earned a reputation as being a professional and principled journalist who was devoted to his wife of 69 years, Rose, his family, work and community. His talent and dedication have been noted by many who worked with him. He was also known for being humble, committed and compassionate.

In addition to his exemplary hard work, Robb Brady demonstrated a commitment to the community and maintaining Idaho's natural resources. He supported local charitable efforts, including his purchase and donation of the Idaho Fall's Haven shelter. As an outdoorsman, who backpacked and camped with his family, Robb Brady had an appreciation for our natural resources, and he worked to conserve them.

With Robb Brady's passing, we have lost a kind and valued member of our community, but his example will not be forgotten. He has left an indelible mark in the lives of the many people who knew him, worked with him and learned from him. I extend my condolences and prayers to his family, friends and loved ones. Robb Brady's legacy will endure as a significant contribution to Idaho's strength and history.

Mr. President, my colleague Senator Jim Risch joins me today in recognizing Bonneville County's 100-year anniversary.

Established on February 7, 1911, by the Idaho Legislature, Bonneville County was formed out of Bingham County in eastern Idaho, along the Wyoming border. Bonneville County was named for CPT Benjamin Bonneville, an officer in the U.S. Army who was an explorer and fur trapper in the area in the 1830s.

Home to more than 100,000 Idahoans in an area of nearly 2,000 square miles, the county has diverse geography and industry. It is Idaho's fourth largest county and includes the six incorporated cities of Idaho Falls, Ucon, Iona, Ammon, Swan Valley, and Irwin. Outside of these cities, the county has many beautiful natural features, including the Snake River, Palisades Reservoir, Caribou National Forest, Grays Lake National Wildlife Refuge, and Targhee National Forest. Family farmers produce an abundance of agricultural products, including grain, livestock, fruits and vegetables, floriculture, and poultry, throughout the county. Bonneville County also leads the Nation in energy research and development through the Idaho National Laboratory, the Center for Advanced Energy Studies, and the AREVA Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility.

Bonneville County residents have much to celebrate with 100 years of accomplishments. The work of the Bonneville County Heritage Association and volunteers to organize events observing this milestone, including the centennial Gala Celebration in November, is commendable. Many people have worked hard to make this celebration possible.

I was blessed to grow up and together with my wife raise our children in Bonneville County, where we experienced firsthand the exceptionalism of the people and the communities of the county.

Senator Risch and I are proud to recognize this landmark anniversary. We congratulate Bonneville County residents for this centennial, and we wish its communities many more years of success.

Mr. President, over the last several months, this body has been focused on issues pertaining to our economy, such as the ailing jobs market and our debt and deficits. That is as it should be. However, while these important issues have commanded most of our attention here in the United States Senate, that is not to say that other matters and conflicts have suddenly taken a back seat to them. Even as we vigorously debate our economic future, home-state and regional issues continue to command our attention. It is one of those regional issues that brings me to the floor today.

Two months ago, a three judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit handed down a final decision that could have far reaching negative impacts on public and private forests, and the communities that rely on them, throughout the United States. In the case of Northwest Environmental Defense Center v. Brown, the Court ruled that logging road runoff when managed with a system of ditches and culverts and deposited into rivers and streams qualifies under the Clean Water Act as point source pollution. This means that storm water when mixed with dirt and rocks will now be subject to some of the most stringent environmental protection laws in the United States. America's Federal forests are already heavily litigated, but with one fell swoop, this decision threw out over 35 years of precedent, opening the door for even more litigation on Federal forest lands, and subjecting private and state forest lands to the same specter.

There was a time when forest jobs supported millions of Americans and their communities. But a lot has changed since then. Endless litigation, cheap imports, disease and a general shift in Federal forest management policy have drastically changed the landscape for forest jobs and the families and communities that rely on them. Working on the forests used to make up a considerable amount of the tax base in many rural communities, particularly in my State of Idaho. However, that has shrunk dramatically in recent decades.

Forest communities that were once prosperous now find themselves in a state of perpetual economic jeopardy, with young people searching for employment elsewhere and tax bases that can barely cover the cost of basic public services. This has become so dire that in 2000, Congress had to pass legislation to provide funding to rural communities with Federal public lands to make up for lost revenues from timber harvests on those lands.

Given all of this, I am disappointed that another impediment is being added to the economic survival of our forest communities.

This decision will impact both public and private forests. In the case of Federal forests, we have millions upon millions of acres that are in need of active management and restoration. Our Federal forests have suffered from under management, disease, wild fires and other factors, and to address these problems, the U.S. Forest Service needs to be able to get to work on much needed fuels reduction, thinning and other forest health projects. But litigation has made that very difficult, and this decision is only going to make it worse.

Then, there are private forests. The people who own, manage and work on these private forests need roads to have access to them. But, this judicially-mandated permit requirement will inevitably lead to increased costs for businesses that are already operating on the margins. Furthermore, this decision will impose the Federal Government into the management of private lands as these permits, even if issued by a State agency, will be subject to Environmental Protection Agency oversight under the Federal Clean Water Act, as well as citizen suits that are intended to further reduce timber harvests.

We need to do something about this unfortunate and unwise decision out of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. As such, I am introducing legislation along with my friends Senator Wyden, Senator Risch and Senator Begich to overturn it. This legislation is entitled the Silviculture Regulatory Consistency Act of 2011. Our forests and the communities that they have long supported are already in considerable jeopardy, and we need to do everything in our power to help these rural communities. Passing this legislation is only one step in that process, but it is a very necessary one.

I hope that the Senate can pass this bipartisan legislation as soon as possible.