additional recommendations or fine-tune and amplify your testimony, we really will welcome it and we will welcome that from you. this panel is excused and we're going to move to panel two. thank you so much. we are now going to turn to erin sullivan sutton, assistant commissioner for children and families from minnesota, senator franken will introduce dr. block, president of the american academy of pediatrics and teresa huizar, executive director of the national children's alliance. excellent advocacy organization. senator franken do you want to introduce? >> thank you, madam chair.

for your leadership. for holding this hearing. on this very important issue. is my pleasure to introduce erin sullivan sutton, assistant commissioner for children and families at the minnesota department of human services. as an attorney, social worker and instructor, miss sutton dedicated her career to public service. in her position she is responsible for developing policies, administering programs that promote child safety. she previously served as minnesota's director of child safety and permanency where she oversaw adoption, foster care and other children's services and she serves on the executive committee for the national association of child welfare administrators and is past president of that organization. in all assistant commissioner sutton has spent 30 years in the child welfare field and spend 20

years with minnesota department of human services. miss sutton. crystal thank you for your service and all you do to keep minnesota's children safe and i look forward to hearing your testimony. thank you. >> we want to welcome dr. robert block, president of the american academy of pediatrics. a respected organization of 60,000 pediatricians committed to -- in addition to his don't pediatrics he has additional specialty in being a child abuse pediatrician. a very unique one. board certified in this unique sub specialty. we felt that a clinical perspective and essentially the doctor either in the e r or the doctor in the examining room sometimes first hears the story. we could benefit from their

experience both in prevention and intervention and protection and then also perhaps in some of these treatment things that have come of. we are so glad to have you and we want to recognize teresa huizar. the executive director of the national children's alliance, which is the accrediting body for 700 child advocacy center is. remember, this gives child abuse victims comprehensive service from forensic interviews which is different from a medical interview but it does give medical evaluations and mental health. they qualify law enforcement for it. she comes with a great deal of that experience from running to

the centers and internationally recognized expert. we really think it is great that you came here and we look forward to your testimony and we look forward to advice and recommendations as this hearing unfolds. work with us so that we can at the end of the day not just feel good but we do good with what we heard. miss sutton, why don't you start? >> good morning, ranking member burr and senator franken and members of the subcommittee. i am erin sullivan sutton, assistant commissioner of children and family services at the department of human services. i am representing the american public human services association and its affiliated national association of public child welfare administrators as well as minnesota. we have learned a lot about

preventing child abuse over the years and what intervention resulted in positive outcomes for children and families. with your help we can do better. i will spend some time talking about some of the work we have done in minnesota and the work we have done to recognize the situations reported to state child protection systems. we talked a lot this morning about horrific crimes committed against children that come to the attention of child protective services and law enforcement but also have thousands of families struggling to provide adequate care for children that we recognize we need to have a different response system to help and care for the children. recommendation is all three areas, integration of services, mandatory reporting requirements and child finance reform. conditions that led to the development of the original legislation 1974 changed significantly over the intervening years. 48 years ago the reality of

parents harming children were underrecognized by public instances of interventions not prepared to respond. since then for your work and work of states and local communities there have been sustained efforts to educate the public and develop child protection infrastructure to respond quickly to reports of child abuse and neglect. one of the issues we must address, capacity of states to respond to the reports from -- responded in a way that works for children and families. although it is a single funding source designed to address maltreatment of children it offers limited support to state to fully carry out our requirements and does not account for the expenditures related to the requirements. in minnesota are basic grant received $445,000 to help us develop an infrastructure for child protection. we appreciate that but it is important to recognize our state

uses approximately $28 million to conduct an assessment of reports of maltreatment. in addition to assessments is imperative that we have the capacity to provide other services to children and parents to keep children safe and well cared for. because of the distribution of funds is extremely limited public child welfare agencies often have other federal funding sources, state funding and local resources to provide the care similar to the actual manner. 90% of all federal funds are used in child welfare to foster care or adoption assistance. the remaining 10% support retention programs. the imbalance in funding structure indicates the need for stronger federal role in providing adequate resources for treating child abuse neglect. in minnesota over the years in the past decade we have learned by investing in resources earlier in more flexible ways to the individual needs of families, able to keep children

safe for sooner, repeat maltreatment and reduce the need for out of home care. over the past decade minnesota has made significant changes in child maltreatment. majority of our reports are driven by poverty mostly child maltreatment involving child neglect. we have learned that those situations are more responsive to resource services that help families address basic needs and provide indication and connection to community support rather than the approach of the families. we do need aggressive law enforcement intervention in situations involving substantial child endangerment and horrific crimes including sexual abuse against children. however we also know we need prevention intervention efforts in minnesota that focus on respectful engagement of families that are focused on keeping children safely with their families whenever possible. minnesota has been a leader in the development of differential response. we retain a forensic

investigation for reports of substantial child endangerment but now in minnesota 70% of maltreatment reports we see alternative family investment. this approach sets aside the investigative activity and focuses on child safety by engaging the family in the service and resources they need to keep children safe. structured assessments of safety risks and strength and conducted with families and partnerships and those assessments for abases of service delivery and planning. a random clinical trial in minnesota outcomes for period of five years from 2000 to 2005 and using this approach we were able to demonstrate that children who remains a for by quickly engaging parents in constructive conversations involving child safety result in lower child maltreatment reporting rates and decrease need for out of home placement which is one out, we did not expect to see.

we also saw families and welfare workers identify the approach creating greater cooperation and satisfaction and we also learned that this approach to family assessment in less serious cases was more costly in the long run. minnesota has use that experience to employ a further strengthening these approaches in subsequent years. from 2006 to 2010 by introducing a number of programs we have seen a 10% reduction in child maltreatment reports in minnesota as well as 24% reduction in the number of children reporting out of home placement. i should mention in those communities where we have early intervention services as well as family assessment services we have seen a significant reduction in the need for reports coming in. to assure greater well-being federal and state laws to invest in a variety of prevention and early intervention activities

and stable families early intervention programs by child protection agencies to family engagements have proven to be very effective. minnesota's parents support pilot program is engaging families and providers and provide service for parents needing support before there's a need for child protection investigation. families are identified as having at risk reporting to the agency but on that given they are not meeting the criteria of maltreatment. if we intervene and engage they avail themselves to service and again we have made a difference and been able to prevent maltreatment from occurring. our recommendation is any improvement should be aligned with reform efforts in federal and state law to use a holistic approach that cuts across historical barriers such as departments lead to a congressional committee their jurisdictions to provide an efficient service for re that

focuses on positive outcomes as well as accountability. i mentioned earlier the need for finance reform and the imbalance of federal funding for states to provide child welfare services. you asked for the recommendations on how to better protect, prevent and intervene the child moving forward. it is critical that congress and state work together to keep kids safe her sooner particularly when we know who many of these at risk kids are and we see them day. in order to do this state's need the flexibility to use federal funds in a manner that best meet individual needs of families coming to our attention. financing should promote flexibility while maintaining an appropriate framework for accountability. we need to be accountable for the work we are doing. maltreatment has many causes, child welfare services need to include a broad range of community-based interagency programs that support families,

provide treatment for children and promote the general well-being of children who come to our attention. importantly we need to prevent incidents of maltreatment as well as maltreatment and improve the conditions that lead to families being involved in the child welfare system and we encourage you as you look at changes to also look at federal finance reform particularly how federal sponsor care funds are used that are very limited and based on in eligibility standards for parents from 1996. and also would encourage you to maintain or increase current levels. i am aware capita is not exempt from the sequestration and the budget control act and where the pressure to reduce funding. paramount concern that this committee do all that you can do to ensure sequestration occurs, programs are not reduced to level where we can no longer adequately serve the most

vulnerable children. children at risk deserve better than to be placed in harm's way by reduction in funding and very limited resources are critical in our capacity to serve families. thank you. >> thank you very much for that content rich testimony. we look forward to questions. da for block? >> thank you, chairperson mikulski and ranking member burr and members of the subcommittee on children and families. thank you for inviting me to speak today on behalf of myself and the over 60,000 members of the american academy of pediatrics. i will bridge my comments and hope you will find value in my written testimony. one important point. not all children have become adults but it is certainly true that each adult was once a child. the experiences and opportunities afforded to reach of us in our early years have a

long-term impact on our health and development and creating substantial imprint on the adults that we one day become. in order to optimize the health and well-being of our entire society we must not few children and their welfare as isolated individual for events but instead recognize children's physical and mental health must be addressed at the beginning of help across the entire life. for this reason i became interested in child maltreatment during residency training 40 years ago. throughout my experience evaluating child abuse cases and testifying in court on behalf of abused children the question i am most frequently asked is how can you do this work? the answer is how can you knock? we now recognize that child abuse and neglect not only damage an individual's short-term health but also all for a child's neurophysiology and long-term well-being.

children who have suffered abuse or neglect may develop a variety of behavioral and psychological issues including conduct disorders, decrease cognitive function and communication impairment, post-traumatic stress disorder and others. the landmark at first child experiences demonstrate a relationship between childhood trauma in the presence of adult diseases including heart disease, cancer, chronic lung disease and liver disease as well as unintended pregnancy, sexually transmitted disease and alcoholism. based on this study, childhood trauma may be the leading cause of poor health among adults in the united states. pediatricians are in an excellent position to detect and prevent abuse because of their unique relationship with families and experience child development. pediatricians are trained to identify injuries and behavioral changes resulting from abuse or neglect and to understand the

physician's role in treating or reporting abuse. however there are inconsistencies with what is considered suspicious and sometimes limited understanding of the child abuse reporting process even within the medical community. as president of the american academy of pediatrics i can assure you that providing necessary specialized education and training to report abuse and neglect and serve these children appropriately is embraced at the various highest levels of leadership in the organization. the academy submits the following recommendations. every adult has a responsibility to protect children and to report maltreatment to the proper authorities. support as you heard for education and training is crucial to insure every adult knows his or her responsibility to adult and protect children who might be victims of abuse. one common reason mandatory reporters do not report

suspected abuse is fear of legal retribution. the a a p was pleased of the reauthorization that did require the secretary of health and human services to recommend potential changes needed to address this issue and the academy look forward to that report. health-care financing must provide payment to professionals for the more complex and lengthy visits that are typical and very necessary for children who have been abused. in addition child welfare workers are crucial to identifying, treating and preventing child abuse. it would be important for congress to take steps to support these professions and their training programs. we have a new child abuse pediatrics of specialty which has the potential to expand the number of physicians with expertise in this important field. more financial support is necessary to insure every

physician with interest and passion to pursue child abuse pediatrics is able to do so. the aarp has proposed the child abuse research education and services for health-care network that would support as regional consortium supporters of excellence to bring the medical profession into partnership in the prevention little diagnosis, treatment and research around child abuse and neglect. funding and support for this network is needed. the federal government can create better coordination across agencies and increasing funding for home visitation and other unfunded underfund programs. at the state level as senator blumenthal mentioned, exemptions differ greatly. report of suspected or substantiated abuse in one state may not follow a child if he or she moves to another state allowing abuse or neglected children to slip through the cracks.

more attention must be paid to interstate reporting and investigation. as of pediatrician, child abuse specialist and father and grandfather i will remind the committee that early experiences matter for the rest of our lives. everyone of us has an obligation to ensure every child in america has the opportunity to live free from fear of harm so that he or she may grow into a productive, happy and healthy adults. an honor to provide testimony on behalf of myself and the american academy of pediatrics. i look forward to your questions. >> miss huizar. >> thank you. chairwoman mikulski, thank you for shedding light on the problem of child sexual abuse. national children's alliance is the national association and accrediting body for the nation's 750 children advocacy

centers. those centers serve 260,000 abused children last year. children's advocacy center is the war made a multi disciplinary team approach to the investigation, prosecution and treatment of child abuse and in so doing work closely with law-enforcement, prosecutors, child protective services, medical and mental health professionals. my colleagues have eloquently spoken on the need for improved reporting mechanisms and i joined them and their call for more training for mandated reporters. recent events have many asking why individuals do not report suspected child abuse and we know 95% of americans expressed deep concern about abuse only 1-third contacted the authorities when confronted with abuse. adults do not report because they don't know the signs of abuse and because they worry what will happen when they do and because they don't know how to report and all of these problems can be addressed by

widespread trading and public awareness campaigns to the 4 the americans -- forty million americans -- adult to shreveport if they suspected. that is uniquely the federal government's role given the scale of that task. but we can't forget that perhaps the most important and concerning underreporting occurs among the most vulnerable. that is abused children themselves. research tells us that only 1-third of adults who say they were abused as children ever told anyone. knowing that children are reluctant to report mean that adults must take primary responsibility for identifying and reporting abuse and also that children must be trained in body safety information and abuse information. children advocacy centers have been at the forefront of that work training nearly 400,000 schoolchildren last year. but this work must be extended

and expanded to america's seventeen million children. barriers to reporting abuse are finally receiving well warranted attention, reducing these alone will not save children. improved child abuse reporting must be paired with equally strong intervention in order for abused children to receive the hope and health they said desperately need. children's advocacy centers play a key role in their response. this model of comprehensive care has been proven for investigation and prosecution while insuring abused children receive needed medical and mental health care and all the while saving the one thousand dollars per child abuse case. this effective response is not available to all of america's children. there are still more than 1,000 counties in the u.s. in which abused children have no access to the services. many of those represent by states that serve on this committee.

we call on congress to finish the good work established with the creation of the victims of child abuse act in 1990 by expanding these services to all america's children. lest one think all reports to the intervention of child abuse are complicated or difficult to achieve in light of tight budget times it is important to be reminded that many are at little or no cost. improved data collection on the scope of the problem, modify and confidentiality, incurred information sharing, that increased child abuse and the adoption of model protocol for civil and criminal cases take more political will then funds to achieve. finally, child abuse investigations are a gateway to services for victims. research tells us the best long-term predictor of recovery after abuse isn't the legal outcome of the case.

it is whether the child receives treatment and support. and treated child sexual abuse has terrible lifelong effects and a host of maladies that are the result of the trauma of abuse. fortunately over the past decade and through the work of the national child traumatic stress network we now know a great deal about successfully treating trauma in children. trauma focused mental-health treatment is remarkably effective in reducing trauma and child victims and helping them to begin to heal. every child who has been the victim of abuse deserves access to it. children who have been abused absolutely depend on proven mental health treatment on their path to recovery and healing and sternly society having failed to protect these children from abuse in the first place can certainly work to restore them to wholeness after the fact. if we invest in their treatment we will save ourselves from having to pay for the cost of

their compromised physical and emotional cost later. it is our collective responsibility to protect children from abuse and when that fails to reported and to ensure victims receive the service they need to lead healthy and productive lives. the health and well-being of our great nation of children depends upon it and they depend upon you as well. thank you. >> miss huizar, let me follow up. to devise an effective prevention and intervention strategy and to know how best to direct resources, it is important that we know the full scope of the problem of sexual abuse in children. what is needed to improve the current data collection and reporting across child protective services and while enforcement for us to glean that

data that we need to make the right decisions? >> i am so glad you asked that because this is really at the heart of understanding the problem of child sexual abuse. currently the data that is turned in by state child protective services does not include information from what enforcement and in many states law enforcement are the only individuals that investigate third-party abuse. that is the abuse occurred by individuals outside the family in and of itself. and so this absence of information doesn't allow us to understand the scope of the problem. and up the uniform crime statistics, data that law enforcement turns into the fbi does not segregate out abuse against children or any crimes against children so it is swept in to these broad categories making it impossible to study. so one low-cost solution to the

problem from my estimation is asking law-enforcement to break apart the data of crimes against children reverses crimes against adults and to add that to be collected data so we have a richer understanding of the problem. >> thank you for that. miss sutton, on the ground in working with kids who have been abused, can you talk more about the confidentiality restrictions that capta and hippa cause children victims not to get the best were the most informed assistance that they need? do we have restrictions that don't allow that information sharing that we need?

>> the confidentiality statutes in capta protect the identity of people who are abused or neglected but there are provisions that allow states to authorize the exposure to other entities that may need the information in order to do this work with children. i am not sure how many states have gone so far as to pass that where we also see issues with respect to hippa and sharing information from child protective service agencies and health care agencies and other federal confidentiality statutes. i direct your attention to the federal education confidentiality -- we often hear of the difficulty trying to get information between education systems and child protection and other service providers and we absolutely need to be talking together because we do have kids -- it is our responsibility to make sure they have good education outcomes as well. >> thank you. i want to thank the chairman for

designing the hearing the way she did. talking about detection of abuses and now the treatments that are necessary and i hope everybody heard exactly what was said. we have some stovepipes showing law enforcement and child protective services, stove pipes within -- that limit our ability to share the vital medical information with those who are making decisions about intervention. ... i would suggest all of those contribute to maybe not the best decisions about prevention. so i hope the chair will work with me. i know she will issue a with other members to figure out where we can modify those possibly an out wait for all the states to figure out how they can wait for those current requirements. i think the chair.

>> excellent comments. senator casey. >> thank you, madam chair. dr., i'd like to ask a couple questions. one relates directly to your testimony. the first with regard to education and training. he made that a central part of your written testimony associate presentation. you also talk about the chronic underfunding of the child abuse and prevention and treatment act. so-called captcha. i'm looking at pages 18 and 19 of your written testimony about prevention. you go into some link providing examples of strategies to implement a stronger prevention program. can you walk through some of

those? >> yeah, senator, thank you. prevention is still an area that we are learning about as we go. sometimes by trial and error. it is difficult to collect evidence across broad populations to demonstrate a certain program works. i think in the area of child abuse which has been the focus of the hearing, we are trying to do two things. by week, everyone involved. but we are trying to educate children about the privacy of their minds and bodies, but more importantly since relying on them to protect themselves is not the way to go, we are trying to teach adults in two ways. number one, and make them aware this problem exists. one of our big problems is nobody must talk about child abuse or admit the society allows this to happen at the rate it's happening. so we have it continue holding hearings to emphasize the fact that leaders recognize this is an issue not only for children, but as i mentioned for the adult

they will become later on. we need to train adults to recognize that might be abuse and that requires some pretty careful education because we also need them to understand that is not abuse. as an oil, our member now at the end of every day my third grade teacher, ms. casino gave each of us a hug as for the classroom. that would be held and questioned today and yet her heart was in no way predatory or abusive. it was a signal and bodily touch do we know is part of communicating between adults and other adults as well as adults and children. so we need to define things that we don't mend up making mandatory porters report rings that are not abuse. how do we reach people to educate them about that is a major question. there are programs around the country aimed at anyone who will come to some sessions to understand how this adults can protect children by some common sense things. for example, if you are the last

teacher to leave the school of the afternoon after teacher conferences or a meeting and there is -- i don't want to pick on one person, so a janitor or coach or another teacher who is still in the building and there's a little girl sitting on the steps waiting for a late parrot to pick her up, it's a good idea not to leave the building and perhaps sit down next to her or help her call for assistance. that's assuming you're suspecting everyone around you is abusive. it just means that it's a good idea to be alert to possible situations. that's a long-winded answer, but would attack about prevention efforts with it for some things that were. and physical abuse one of our biggest problems is abusive head trauma and shaken baby syndrome and we know today. it the programs that if we can educate parents to the normalcy of their and they're crying to the fact that they are not bad parents if their infant doesn't quiet when asked them to, that we can protect those babies from people losing their temper and

inflicting harm on children. so that might give a couple examples. >> finally, with regard to the training you focus in particular on the mandated reporters. can you talk a little bit about that in the best approach their? one of the problems we have is not just the debate about who is a mandated reporter and whether that should be broadened. i think it should. but even mandated reporters not having enough training and experience. we ascribe experience and knowledge to expertise to not have the proper training. >> i come from the state of oklahoma that does have a mandatory reporting for everyone phrase at the end result which mentions teachers, health professionals and others is mandatory porters and every other citizen. i think that's a good idea.

on the other hand, it is important for us to acknowledge even among my fellow physicians we don't always report abuse the way it should be reported. some of the reasons for that are unique to us particularly in medical liability issues and now that is expanded into civil rights litigation. we got funny protection for reporters not only for making a report, the perhaps participating in the process later on process later on if the case goes on to prosecution or some other adjudication. we need to as i mentioned people understand what is child abuse? what does it look like? what does it sound like? what you do when you suspect it is happening? how could we work to her various disciplines to create interdisciplinary approach? when i talk to physicians, one of the leading reasons that they have a suspicious case, they are not quick to report because they have concerns about the system. what will happen in their particular locale with children's protective services?

availability in working the case. bubble happened with prosecution? and what will happen to them in terms of their time doubled taken not only indicate the report, but in the fond du lac. we can take care of that within the medical profession if we continue to need cheap to create the talent two medical schools and communities to help teach about that. we need to learn how to work together across disciplines. we are doing a good job of that right now in centers and are playing a legal rule and not, but we can do better. we need to have more opportunity to teach each other about what are disciplines are all about them we need to learn to hold each other accountable for a piece of the puzzle. >> thank you. >> first of all, you want to thank all three of you for your testimony. you are cassation represent and recessional c. represent.

i have about four questions. the first is about deterrence. i just need a short answer remiss because the answers will be longer policy questions. there is this hope that mandatory reporting acts as a deterrent to people who are predators, that if they feared discovery through others who would train them in or report them, that that acts as a deterrent or a chilling effect of abusive behavior. i wonder if they did demonstrates the mandatory reporting, which i happen to be an advocate of, actually as a deterrent. blushes go down. ms. sutton, what you think? >> to be honest i never thought of the kidnappers did. i think all too often the predatory offenders that we are talking about are not thinking

about and dated reporting. i do think mandated reporting over the years has provided a tremendous amount of education across our country's sli was first passed in 1974 and in that respect has made us all that much more aware of the abuse and neglect and hopefully that has resulted in the prevention as well. >> i think mandatory reporting by itself is not a primary determining, but it is a secondary deterrent. if we have people reporting that they suspect, we are going to avoid the second, third, fourth, 20 episodes, particularly in abuse, predators don't limit themselves to one victim losses in the family and they only have access to one victim. it's a yes or no. notice that a primary deterrent, but it is important to get things stop before it gets even more out of hand. >> out completely concur with transcendence comments about

that. >> the question is who should report. and we have kind of a consensus on the so-called mandate reporter reporting, but then what is the next circle out, although it to anybody who sees them thing, do some thing can see something, say something. there were contemplating and our legislative work, expanding reporting to everybody and masking states tend to develop legislation to implement that. do you think we should keep it limited? and do concentrated training? do you think we should expand it to everybody? do you think we should include everybody, but do extensive education and training to those who need certification and licensing because of their

access to a child? we have a core group of people. ms. sutton, what do you think? >> senator -- >> who do you think we should require to report? >> i think i tend to agree with testimony research. i like to know more about the states for everyone is required to report in minnesota we require certain professionals that encourage everyone to report. i am concerned about and see an increase in false reports as well as with the impact may be on the system and our capacity to respond. without an increase in the availability to respond to more reports, i would be concerned -- >> not get to the kids that could be in danger. >> senator, i agree with your comments in with yours as well. we have a system already in

child welfare that is totally overburden. have a daughter who survived four years as a permanency placer worker for chaucer care what should have been 24-ish was 53 with an on call that was constant, including a call issues on the turnpike from oklahoma city to tulsa a night of of her wedding rehearsal. but she had to respond to. we have to support these programs. we have at any given time, 50, 60, 70% of workers in the field in their first year of experience. even though invest in training them, if they can survive the system, we have not got a a good return on investments. we can encourage are going to be reporters, but do we have to shore up the system first and educate to minimize reports that really are your minimal kinds of observations. >> so there is the required --

ms. sutton sexpot language, which was require a certain body or population, but then encourage the rest of the population on what to do. i think dr. block company made an important point. if you're going to do this work and those who are child protective workers, in some specialties such as yours, they themselves did not only education and training, but support because of what they see and experience to prevent burnout with the excessive burden of fear. i just recall for myself that if you proved and someone could die i mean, the fear of screwing up the mountain professionals doing this air base is pretty significant.

so tell me who you think should report and the support that needs to go to those charged with responsibilities. [inaudible] >> anyone can a professional contact which will fully required to do so. i think it is important to start retraining and then move on to expansion of reporting requirements as opposed to the other way around. in other words, if we spread the word about these things to the largest body, then you could pacemen based on research you do, other groups you might like to additionally be legally required to report. but in the absence of the research and training, i think those would be problematic. and i also think that any increase in expanding the circle of those legally required to report absolutely has to be paired with increased resources.

increased resources for state and local one person sent most of my be prosecuted or investigated federally, increase resources in terms of treatment, in terms of medical treatment and mental health treatment in the services of children advocacy centers. >> that takes me to should investigate. if you're going to report, one of the things that emerges from reporting is the hesitancy of people to report because some people don't know where they go, the second they don't want to be mixed up or they think i really don't want to go to the cops about this. and i don't use that -- i use it and the best sense of the word. and i think u.s. professionals would agree the investigation that a child protect its service worker does come at the inquiry that a physician or nurse practitioner does, et cetera, is very different than law

enforcement. this gathering evidence for the commission of a crime, where you are trying to gather information for the protection of the child, two different things. so my question goes that if we had mandatory requirement, knowing the child abuse is a crime -- i don't minimize that. but should the first line of reporting the child protective services or should we go directly to the cops and the cops get the children to protective services? ms. sutton, you ran a pretty big agency. >> in minnesota, or that requires press reporting within 24 hours so an individual -- >> could you see what that is click >> papers can choose report to enforcement of child protection. they are required to report within 24 hours a minute the allegation involves violation of a criminal statute commensurately what would happen if the joint investigation by law enforcement in the agency,

the cops doing their role in the agency doing facts gathered to look at service plans and delivery. in certain circumstances, law-enforcement man chad protection not to do an assessment that there would be something that could interfere with the one person investigation. but they do go hand-in-hand. >> a few report come you choose which one you do, do you feel comfortable, therefore you know about. but then they talk to each other. because they are highly trained, we cannot forget that there's no cost and what we're we're talking about here. then they determine what is the best way to proceed in the interest of the child. is that the foremost question in mind? interest of the child or the interest in that case. the interest in something called the case. >> the interest is in first assuring whether a child is

safe. and once we can assure you chad two-phase is doing the investigation or assessment of what has occurred. and also for us, it was really distinguishing between the situations that may involve criminal attachments or children the situations where families are struggling to take care of children. having a punitive investigated approach was not serving as families well. so we needed to develop a balance of those so that we can respond most appropriately given the particular situation that came to our attention. >> in our center, we applaud the disciplines housed under one roof, including medicine and on the other components. so we are able -- >> is that where or usual and customary? >> i think it's becoming more and more customary. they are limited in number. >> very true.

the example i want to give this an optimal way to approach that because regardless of who has received a report, the report comes to the multidisciplinary team to see who should be doing that, including the children need for extensive evaluation, and investigation of what have you. so i think supporting interdisciplinary centers and interdisciplinary teams, whether they be housing communities might be a solution. >> i certainly agree that every child abuse case should he investigated by a multiple of multidisciplinary team. wayne and i was going to go on criminally with that as well as was going to protect the child and insurance simultaneously they're getting treatment. i think tennessee has a nice hole in which in the way that child abuse reports come in, when they come in through cps

can also press portents immediately to enforcement, the a-alpha for other children's advocacy for the state and tracking database. he enjoys the cases involve democrats. they don't see that within a day or two. it gives them the ability to call on horseback child protective services and say whatever happened to john smith? is that his command and it's one that should have been screaming to the advocacy center in we haven't seen a child yet. thursday's doing innovative things about that. what they brought in the response would be very helpful. >> well, we also have to think legislatively, are we talking about mandatory reporting, encouraging reporting for child maltreatment because literally we talked about different categories. one is the klatch. now back in my day and from when

i was discussing it with child protective agencies, the data says that the majority of people who come to the attention i miss not showing up in schools and don't seem like they've had a good meal. they will need to see a dentist lake we had, et cetera. and that's different what there's physical abuse, all things that show up either in the classroom, the battered child, dr. block spoke about the crying, shaking, et cetera. but then we called it the b. word, in the bad old, bruised, burns, broken initially comes into madness and in some way. and one is by reporting and then

there's psychological. the child lock in the closet. there's no ethics of physical abuse or just other kinds of horrific things i don't want to elaborate on the you could give examples. and then there is abuse. and those are different things. .. sexual abuse is a different issue. so do you think we should have one size fits all mandatory reporting? do you think it should be targeted in homes or particular

areas? or a which is creating too much that will create too much bureaucracy? and once again, i fear for the child that they could fall between the cracks where their cry for help will not be attended to. ms. sutton? >> senator, i would suggest that making the reporting itself as simple as possible so people know what to report and where td report it.re and --tha >> and don't parcel it. >> make sure people know that they should be reporting child neglect, physical abuse, sexualu abuse emotional injury and threatened injury which is what the captain on covered and then give the flexibility and the ability of the system working together and i mean that in the medical community child and efficacy as well as protective child services to look at what is the most appropriate intervention based on the assessment of those

individuals circumstances. that is one of the hardest lessons we learned in florida is one size did not fit all and we were creating war trauma by trying to do that so we needed to be much more individualized. >> one of the things pediatrician's be the free strongly in is the patient or family center medical home. not only the medical physician but other professionals working as a health care team are going to be able to see aberrations and development or physical appearance in a treasure whether it is under or over. so we have places like the medical home where we can do a lot of prevention and a lot of intervention before neglect, emotional abuse come poor parenting. not every child has access to

those homes particularly if they are supported by medicaid or are not in church whatsoever. but places like that where a children come regularly, schools for nexium will can be targets of training to identify behavioral issues that are not translated into this is a bad child but rather translated into we should look at what is happening in this child's life. >> i don't think we can ask them to be assessors of the responses that should happen. they make the report. i am in agreement keeping the reporting symbol and how they go about this and i think what happens after that interprets differential response is critically important for a simple we know while differential response has been enormously beneficial and neglect cases and physical abuse cases not sexual abuse cases so that is something we should

expect mandated a reporter to know and our job this child. >> i could sit and talk all day with you. i really want to thank each and every one of you being with us today. the work you do to protect and prevent child abuse, in the house and in the senate to those in the judiciary committee to develop a bipartisan legislative framework to address things we've discussed today. there are so many people wanted to submit testimony i will ask unanimous consent nine pieces of the testimony be submitted to the record and again i want to thank warren who was here all day today and her advocacy every day and secretary sebelius, the

baltimore child abuse center, the american psychological association, the committee for children, stop it now and in child welfare submitted their testimony. we are going to leave their record open for questions and the congress will be reassessing but upon the return we will be examining all of the proposals to see healthy move forward. listening to the four of you take a back many years ago to my own work. doctor you we and i began at just about the same time, and the body of knowledge that's been developed in the financial expertise and all of the main site has been stunning. i fear that in the audience

today women who believed in me and the work and they would be so pleased to year to come to protect our children a and cutting across the red tape. we survived new thinking and the protection of children. focus on the children, not the bureaucracy she trained and encouraged me to go to graduate school. those in america that arf sweating the details and how to do a great job and how they can make sure children are safe and secure. as we have to put our sweat equity and come up with of the

right policy. as we look forward to a conversation with you and thank you and say god bless you for what you do. god bless our children and protect them and god bless america. the committee i [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> the u.s. senate is about to gavel in to start the day. general speeches up first for the first couple of hours or so. lawmakers are waiting for the

house to finish work on a $915 billion deal reached last night to fund the federal government through september 2012. of earning a shutdown which was set for midnight tonight. senators are waiting for the house to send over legislation extending the payroll tax cut. we may see that on the floor later today. and now live to the senate floor here on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god, the world and all that is in it belong to you. you laid its foundations in the ocean depths by the power of your voice.

through your redemocrat alternative work you brought peace on earth, goodwill to humankind. lord, we need your peace today on capitol hill. release your peace so that our lawmakers will find purity of motives and integrity of actions. and unity of purpose. teach our senators your ways; make yourself known to them today. lord, we place our reliance squarely on your reliability as we pray in your merciful name. amen.

the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c., december 16, 2011. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable mark r. warner, a senator from the commonwealth of virignia, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: following leader remarks the senate will be in a period of morning business. the majority will rule the first 30 minutes. republicans will control the next 30 minutes. expect to consider the omnibus spending bill within the next 24

hours, or 36 hours. we will also continue to work on an agreement to consider the payroll tax compromise. senators will be notified when votes are scheduled. as a reminder to all senators, cloture was filed on the motion to proceed to h.r. 3630, the house republican payroll tax bill. unless agreement is reached, that vote will occur saturday morning, tomorrow morning. h.r. 3094 is at the desk and due for second reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill for the second reading. the clerk: h.r. 3094, an act to amend the national labor relations act with respect to representation hearings and the timing of elections of labor organizations under that act. mr. reid: i would object to any further proceedings at this time. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the bill will be placed on the calendar under rule 14. mr. reid: will the chair announce morning business, please. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved.

the senate will be in a period of morning business until 12:00 p.m. with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each, with the first hour equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the majority controlling the first 30 minutes and the republicans controlling the next 30 minutes. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i ask the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, i hope we're drawing to a close here. we're not certain.

there are still some unresolved issues. but the omnibus appropriations bill is moving forward, and it will fund our government for the remainder of this fiscal year. it's been a long and arrested whitehouse process. -- and arrest -- arduous process. we called three appropriations bills in the senate and when we tried to call the next three we ran into opposition. the appropriations committee had to craft nine spending bills and put them together in one. it was a long, involved and difficult process with the financial services subcommittee which i chair. included in that committee jurisdiction are the securities and exchange commission and the commodity futures trading commission. these are the two government agencies responsible for watching wall street and the major financial institutions and markets across america. we are doing our best to not only restore america's

confidence in some of these institutions that have been shaken by the recession, but also to make certain that it never happens again. there's resistance primarily from the banking community and some financial institutions who don't want regulation even after the embarrassing failures of the last recession and the need for a federal government bailout. we need to make certain that at the securities and exchange commission and commodities future trading commission, there are adequate funds to do the job. m.f.a. global has been the subject of repeated hearings on capitol hill as to what went wrong that led to the eighth-largest bankruptcy in the history of the united states. innocent people across america and the world have lost money, some of them have lost their savings because of wrongdoing by

someone -- we still don't know who. but the agency responsible for monitoring this activity, commodities future trading commission is facing a modest, almost immodest increase when they desperately need more. this is an agency which has a budget of about $200 million in the last year. the administration asked for $300 million for this year. we'll be lucky to come up with anything in the range of $215 million. that is a 7% or 8% increase in an agency which desperately needs more not just for personnel -- and they need the best professionals -- but also for computer technology to keep up with the volume of trades taking place and to monitor activity so as to avoid embarrassment and exploitation. this notion by many on the other side of the aisle that we can starve these agencies and somehow end up with a stronger economy is completely upside down. the strength of the american

economy, whether we're talking about wall street or the chicago mercantile exchange or the chicago board options exchange, the strength is the fact that we're guided by the rule of law. we encourage and put into law standards of transparency, and we have oversight that is adequate to the job. this year's appropriations bill falls short of that mark. i'm also troubled by provisions in this bill again this year, my subcommittee, where too many members of congress, especially in the house of representatives, clearly have missed their real calling in life. what they really want it to be was not a member of congress, but a mayor. and so in their frustration, they decide that they will be a congressman from their district back home and a mayor, surrogate mayor for the district of columbia. over 800,000 american citizens and taxpayers live in this great city. they have had nominally had home

rule for decades. and yet time and again year after year they are subjected to those would-be mayors who all around america impose standards on a city they would never suggest in their own home towns. it becomes a social experiment primarily for the right wing. one of the programs each year that becomes a source of controversy is the tphaoelgdz exchange -- the needle exchanges program. this program, exchanging needles and syringes is for those addicted to, bring them out of their addiction into a healthy situation. why would we do this in the district of columbia? because the incidents of h.i.v.-aids innext this city is the highest in the united states of united states of america. that is a reality life on the streets of washington, a reality of those who oppose this program refuse to acknowledge. the medical professionals step forward and say do this. we can help make this a cleaner,

healthier, safer city if you do it. and time again some folks stand up in the house and say we're going to get rid of that to show that we're opposed to intra have have -- intravenus drug use. the fact that's not taking place in the way that it should is an embarrassment. and i'm sorry that that will be included on part of this appropriations bill. mr. president, before we leave, we need to do two things in addition to funding our government. we need to make certain that the payroll tax cut which benefits 160 million americans continues after december 31. this is a lifeline to many struggling families and it is a way to insert into our economy the spending power of 160 million families buying goods and services that plays out into even more economic activity, more jobs and profit ability.

that's a must. the president insists on it. he's crossed america making that case. we cannot leave town without doing it. we're working on the final details today and we should close that as quickly as possible to make sure there is no gap in this coverage of the payroll tax cut. secondly, the maintaining of unemployment insurance tax intefts essential for millions of americans out of work. the amount of money they receive will allow them to keep their family together not just for the holiday season but for the months to come. so while they're searching for a job they don't lose a home, at least have a roof over their heads and provide for the basic necessities of life for their struggling families. i can't believe this has become a political football. i can recall a time not that long ago when republican and democratic presidents would renew unemployment benefits without question, without demand that it be paid for because they knew it was

essential, it was as caring and needy as disaster aid is. and now it's become a political football. we need to extend these unemployment benefits before we leave town and we have to get that done. the president has insisted on it, and he is right. we know now with our high unemployment rate coming down slowly we still need to provide this assistance to families. were we to cut off these unemployment benefits in my home state of illinois, 148,000 people would lose their benefits. 148,000 people. what a happy holiday they would have knowing that january 1 the benefits would no longer continue. let's get this job done and let's go home, at least with a clear mind that we have met our obligation to this economy and to the unemployed people across america that we funded our government and that we'll return next year and i hope find a more congenial and bipartisan environment to work in. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the

senator from virginia. mr. warner: i'd like to thank the presiding officer for taking a few moments so i can make my statement. i want to, again, thank my friend, the senator from illinois for his comments and let me start by saying that partly to hear the comments the majority leader made that we are close to an agreement, to make sure that we don't put the american people or the great federal workers through another one of these 11th hour fire drills where we get to the brink of the precipice of shutting down our federal government. nits that spirit that i rise today because -- it's in that spirit that i rise today because as many know, over the last year and a half or so i have come here regularly to the floor of the senate to continue a tradition that was started by senator coffman from delaware where we recognize the

contributions of great federal employees. and today i'm pleased to honor another exceptional, exceptional federal worker, mr. john merlino. mr. merlino is the assistant legislative clerk working on the legislative team on the office of the secretary of the senate. mr. merlino began his senate career in 1994 as a senate doorkeeper. he then joined the secretary's legislative staff and has performed many of its functions, including the constitutional task, the constitutional task of maintaining the senate journal. another of mr. merliino's main responsibilities is to call the roll during votes and quorum calls. more importantly he is also one of those special works on the dais who have been known at times to actually keep new members, as they preside over

the senate, awake during long stretches in the chair. he's always ready with a good sports quip, known as a person who goes above and beyond the call of duty. as a matter of fact i know it was his birthday yesterday and i've been planning this speech for some time. i wanted to make sure it was -- coincided with that important date for him. the secretary of the senate, nancy ericksen noted it is his great sense of humor that keeps many of -- that helps many of us keep smiling especially during the senate's late-night legislative sessions. a small cog in the greater legislative process, mr. merlino is a member of an often-unrecognized but dedicated team that keeps the senate running smoothly and one that is charged with ensuring continuity of operation, no matter what the situation.

in fact, mr. merlino recently entered the history books. during a pro forma session held at the postal square building immediately following the earthquake in august, mr. merlino unknowingly became one of only two people along with senator coons to have spoken during the only official session of the senate convened outside the capitol building since 1814. the last time the senate met outside the capitol building for such a session was when the british troops burned the capitol during the war of 1812. again, so mr. merlino took his role in the history books of this great institution. i hope my colleagues and i know the presiding officer, again, by spelling me from the chair this morning to allow me to make this statement will join me in honoring mr. merlino, a fellow virginian, for the excellent work he and the legislative team do each and every day and for

their commitment to public service. and nits that sense of mr. merliono's commitment to public service i know the presiding officer joins me in this, we get our work done today so that we can give this team and the literally couple other million federal workers across the country the sense that we're not going to shut down the government, they're going able to go into the holiday season with the recognition that the government will continue operating but more importantly that so many of us recognize the great work they do to keep this country moving forward. so with that, mr. president, i yield the floor and again thank my good friend mr. merlino for his good work. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i ask that the calling of the quorum be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: i'd like to take a few minutes to discuss a case that was argued a few weeks ago before the supreme court, hall versus the united states. this case involves a specific provision that i authored which is contained in the 2005 bankruptcy reform law. throughout the litigation in this case, my statements supporting the provision were discussed at length, so i want to take a few minutes and walk through the history and intent

of this provision so people here -- hear it straight from the author's mouth, meaning from this senator. at its core, the case hall versus the united states is about statutory interpretation. the statute at issue is 11 u.s.c. section 1222 praena, 2, paren capital a which was a farm bankruptcy provision added to the bankruptcy code in 2005. before i get into the discussion about the case, i'd like to explain what this particular provision does and why it was needed for me to add it to the bankruptcy code. congress enacted chapter 12 of the bankruptcy code in 1986, and subsequently made it permanent in 2005.

chapter 12 of the bankruptcy code allows family farmers to use the bankruptcy process to reorganize their finances and operations. it's a proven success as a leverage tool for farmers and their lenders. it helps the farmer and the banker sit down and work out alternatives for debt repayment. not long after it became law in 1986, we began to hear about what worked and what didn't work for farmers who were reorganizing in bankruptcy. one problem that we learned arose when a debtor farmer needed to sell assets in order to get cash for reorganization. a farmer may need to sell portions of the farm to raise cash, to fund a plan and pay off its creditors. however, in this situation we're usually dealing with land that's

been in a family's hands for a long time. this means the cost basis is usually very low. so once a farmer filed bankruptcy -- mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: could i ask my friend to yield for a colloquy between the republican leader and myself? mr. grassley: mr. president, i will yield. i would ask permission to start over again at that point. these colloquies go on for a long time. mr. reid: i would ask that the distinguished senator from -- mr. grassley: can i have the floor? mr. reid: i would ask consent that his remarks not appear interrupted and that he resume the floor when senator mcconnell and i finish. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, senator mcconnell and i have just finished a meeting. we're making really good progress on being able to handle the issues that everyone knows are outstanding. we're not there yet, but we're very, very close. there will be votes tomorrow.

there could be votes this afternoon also. i would also say, because this is a question that people will ask, the house is going to pass their bill around 3:00. that is the omnibus. around 3:00. the time is not always exact. there's a ruling from this white house, its predecessors that if one house passes a spending bill as we are doing here, and there's a presumption it will pass in the other body, the time is extended for 24 hours. so everyone doesn't have to worry about the government closing tonight. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, let me echo the remarks of the majority leader. as he's indicated, the administration takes the view that if the final appropriations bills pass one house this afternoon, we could have that vote today or it could be tomorrow. but the administration, i'm told by the majority leader, takes the view that if it's passed one

house, there will not be a government shutdown. so i think everybody should be reassured that's not going to happen. the conference report has been signed and we're moving toward completing the basic work of government through next september 30 very shortly. on the second issue, the majority leader and i are making significant progress and reaching an agreement on a package that will have bipartisan support, i hope. i think we're going to get to that place. and i share his view that good progress is being made. mr. grassley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i ask everything that i've said before now on this subject be struck from the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: mr. president, i'd like to take a few minutes to discuss a case that was argued a few weeks ago before the supreme court. paul v. the united states. this case involves a specific

provision that i authored which is contained in the 2005 bankruptcy reform law. throughout the litigation in this case, my statements supporting the provision -- in other words, the statements that were said here on the floor in the united states senate and in committee report -- were discussed in these cases at length. so i want to take a few minutes and walk through the history and intent of this provision so people hear it straight from this author's mouth -- meaning from this senator. at its core, the case hall v. the united states is about statutory interpretation. the statute at issue is 11 u.s.c. section 1222 a-2-a, a farm bankruptcy provision added to the code in 2005. before i get into discussion about the case, i'd like to explain what this particular provision does and why it needed to be added to the bankruptcy

code. congress enacted chapter 12 of the bankruptcy code in 1986, which was subsequently made permanent in 2005. chapter 12 allows family farmers to use the bankruptcy process to reorganize their finances and operations. it's a proven success as our leverage tool for farmers and their lenders. it helps the farmer and the banker sit down and work out alternatives for debt repayment. not long after it became law in 1986, we began to hear about what worked and what didn't work for farmers who were reorganizing in bankruptcy. one problem we learned arose when a debtor farmer needed to sell assets in order to generate cash for reorganization. a farmer may need to sell portions of the farm to raise cash to fund a plan and pay off

his creditors. however, in this situation we're usually dealing with land that's been in the family's hands for a long time. this means that the cost basis is probably very low. so often -- so once a farmer filed bankruptcy and then tried to sell a portion or all the land, he would be hit with a substantial capital gains tax. now, this creates problems because as originally drafted, chapter 12 required full payment of all priority claims under section 5 op 7 of the bankrupt -- 507 of the bankruptcy code. the only way to avoid this requirement was if the holder of the claim agreed that its claim could be treated differently. thus, when a farmer sold his land, which resulted in large capital gains, the i.r.s. would

have a priority claim against the bankruptcy estate. i'd like to take a moment to explain the concept of bankruptcy estate which may be a bit confusing. when an individual or a corporation files for bankruptcy and an estate is created, the estate consists of property that is liquidated for the purpose of paying creditors. so in the case of farmers filing a bankruptcy petition under chapter 12, the farm assets are property of the estate. and according to section 541 a-6 of the bankruptcy code, the proceeds from the sales of those assets are also property of the estate. so the situation farmers faced was that the i.r.s. held a large priority claim against the

bankruptcy estate. let me take a minute to talk about claims against the estate to understand how we got to where we are today. in this situation, we're dealing with a claim that is based on taxes owed. the bankruptcy code says that taxes incurred by the estate are administrative expenses, an administrative expense essentially receives top priority when determining who gets paid what. thus, the i.r.s. with its priority claim, could object to any reorganization plan that didn't provide for full payment of its tax claim. the i.r.s. essentially held veto authority over a family farmer's plan confirmation. in some instances then, a farmer who sought to sell a portion of

his farm to reorganize, pay creditors and become profitable again was prohibited completely from doing so. after learning of this problem, i started working on a way to fix it. simply put, i wanted to make sure that family farmers in chapter 12 case could in fact sell portions of their farm to effectively reorganize without the capital gains taxes jeopardizing the reorganization. the very purpose of chapter 12 and bankruptcy in general is to allow for a fresh start. unfortunately, this wasn't happening because of the i.r.s. priority. in 1999, i introduced the safeguarding america's farms entering the year 2000 act. this bill, among other things, sought to fix the capital gains tax issue.

when i introduced the bill, i said that it would -- quote -- "help farmers to reorganize by keeping tax collectors at bay." end of quote. i also explained -- and i'll quote again -- under current law farmers often face a crushing tax liability if they need to sell livestock or land in order to reorganize their business affairs. high taxes have caused farmers to lose their farms. under the bankruptcy code the i.r.s. must be paid in full for any tax liabilities generated during a bankruptcy reorganization. if the farmer can't pay the i.r.s. in full, then he can't keep his farm. this isn't sound policy. why should the i.r.s. be allowed to veto a farmer's reorganization plan?" end of quote. but let me go back to a portion of what i just quoted. these words: "then he can't keep

his farm. simply put, if you're a farmer in a farming operation and you can continue to farm and reorganization is keeping you from farming, well obviously you don't have a business of farming and you can't farm. and family farms are very important to the economic viability of rural america." the language that i proposed ultimately was enacted in the 2005 bankruptcy reform law. since the bankruptcy code, the courts and the i.r.s. treated the tax liability as an administrative expense, the new provision created a very narrow exception to that administrative is expense. basically only a chapter 12

case, if a farmer sold farmland that resulted in a capital gains liability, then the i.r.s.'s claim would not receive priority status. that's the benefit of the legislation that i got passed to reorganization of a family farm, but it's what is in dispute in this -- these particular cases that i'm referring to. now instead, the government would have an unsecured claim, which means that they may get paid something but not necessarily the entire amount. also the i.r.s. would no longer be able to veto a plan's confirmation. thus, the farmer debtor would be allowed to reorganize. now, from a bankruptcy point of view, this approach makes complete sense. as i've discussed already, filing a petition creates a bankruptcy estate. the bankruptcy estate then sells

the land, and that results in capital gains that are owed to the i.r.s. these taxes incurred by the estate postpetition are administrative expenses which receive priority status. so my language enacted into law in 2005 stripped the priority claims toetd government -- claims owed to the government in this very specific instance and made them generally unsecured claims. however, since the passage of this legislation, the i.r.s. has made an about-face. the government now argues despite the way it treated this situation for all these years, that the tax liability created is the responsibility of the individual and not the bankruptcy estate. yet, the entire reason that we created this new provision was because of the way the i.r.s. treated the tax liability.

the i.r.s.'s new position has been argued in federal courts and has received mixed results. so now there is a dispute whether my provision accomplishes what it was designed to do. in 2009, the eighth circuit case kanutsen versus i.r.s. is what we're discussing here. specifically the eighth circuit rejected the i.r.s.'s position that the internal revenue code does not recognize a separate taxable entities being created when a debtor files a chapter 12 petition. put another way, the i.r.s. is claiming the individual debtor is responsible for tax liability that arises out of a bankruptcy estate action. the eighth circuit disagreed and said there's now an exception preventing the i.r.s. from

having a priority claim for capital gains. but in the ninth circuit, the court there held that there was no exception for postpetition capital gains. in hall vs. the united states, now before the supreme court, the ninth circuit said the halls were responsible for the capital gains tax from selling part of their farm during bankruptcy. this means my provision didn't create a narrow exception even though that's what i intended. unfortunately, the i.r.s. under the obama administration is taking a position today that is anti-farmer and the exact opposite of what it said six years ago. this about-face on the part of the i.r.s. came only after we made the change in the law, and it became clear that in a very narrow circumstances, the i.r.s. would lose its priority

position. i respect the i.r.s.'s interest in pursuing tax dollars, but it exhibited a heck of a lot of chutzpah in taking this position. our policy reasons for this new exception were very simple. the farmers didn't have enough money to pay everyone. we decided that it would be better to let them sell some assets which would generate cash and help them reorganize, keep farming and pay their creditors. in making this decision, we realized that someone would have to make a sacrifice. we decided to give farmers a break from government taxes in a very narrow set of circumstances. now, though, the government is trying to figure out a way to jump back ahead of other creditors and get more money and reversing positions that they held before we passed the

legislation, because they want to get around the legislation which presumably, think they that congress doesn't have a right to change the law and that they ought to follow the law. and these creditors that the i.r.s. is trying to break in front of are small businesses, suppliers, and small local banks that extend credit and supplies to farmers. this is not what we expected would happen when we passed the 2005 bankruptcy law. this is an important issue and an important case that the supreme court will decide in coming months. the supreme court will decide whether this provision accomplishes my goal, which i've stated. i look forward to seeing how the case is resolved. but rest assured i'll work to ensure this policy of protecting family farmers is allowed -- is followed as that was our clear

intent in having this law enacted. chapter 12 has proven successful as a leverage tool for farmers and their lenders. it helps the farmer and the banker sit down and work out alternatives for debt repayment. should the court rule that the internal revenue code is inconsistent with the bankruptcy code and rule against my intent as the author, i will obviously have to work to remedy that inconsistency because what we did in 2005 is the right thing, and i hope the supreme court realizes the history behind and the intent behind our legislation, and follow that congressional intent. i yield the floor, suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. boozman: i ask that the quorum be rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. boozman: thank you, mr. president. as arkansans and all americans do last-minute preparations for christmas, one stop on the list almost always includes the grocery store. like many other families our christmas traditions include baking cookies on christmas eve, we get together with extended family for lunch. many holiday memories are centered around the time spent sitting at the table with family and friends. the unfortunately reality is for more and more people, is that those memories are becoming more

distance as more americans than ever are having difficulty putting food on the table. in fact, recent studies show one in six americans are food deprived despite arkansas' reputation as a leader in agriculture production, arkansans are struggling to provide nutritious, healthy meals for their family. what is most concerning is that nearly 25% of arkansas kids go to bed hungry. that gives arkansas the unfortunate distinction of having the worst rate of childhood hunger in the country. while i believe congress should work identifying a range of legislative improvements and reforms that can be made in federal policy to height hunger, washington can't solve this problem alone. this requires community involvement. fortunately we're blessed to have help at the local level from a wide variety of organizations in arkansas and nationwide that make it their mission to fight hunger. as a co-chair of the senate

hunger caucus, senators lugar, moran, casey, and brown of ohio put politics aside to recognize the great work underway in our states addressing food insecurity. we call this effort the hour for hunger. our initiative encourages all members of congress to dedicate one hour during this holiday season to highlight the commitments of national, state, and local organizations who fight hunger. last friday i had the opportunity to visit the samaritan community center in rogers, arkansas. for more than 20 years this organization has lent a helping hand to the hungry through soup kitchens, food pantries, snack packs for kids and a variety of other initiatives. this help is needed now more than ever. the economy is forcing more people to rely on the services of samaritan community center.

in just three years there has been more than a 50% increase in clients. this is the story with similar organizationses throughout arkansas and really throughout the country. in a segment that aired last month cnn focused on the hunger problem in arkansas' second largest city, fort smith. ken, the marketing director in fort smith told cnn some heartwrenching stories encountered. he spoke of a mother who used to volunteer at a food pantry and is now in need of the organization's services due to mounting medical bills for heir he her children. he recounted the story of an elderly lady who went from financial security to sorting through the garbage at a grocery store after her husband passed away and her monthly income disappeared. unfortunately, similar stories can be heard throughout our state and throughout the nation.

community-based efforts like those in fort smith are making a difference to address hunger and malnourishment. we're seeing it across the state of arkansas. last week the nbc affiliate, krak in little rock spent the week urging viewers to donate to the arkansas food bank. the greater food week of giving donation drive will undoubtedly provide many blessings to many families during the holiday season. it's painfully clear that our economic environment is intensifying our hunger issues in arkansas and across the country. the fact is we don't have to look far to see how hunger hurts. i believe hunger is a solvable problem, but it requires us all working together. please consider what you can do to help neighbors in need. again, not just during this holiday season but all year long. i yield back my time.

the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: mr. president, we are as a nation facing difficult financial times, and i for one believe it is true that the middle class in america is suffering economically to a degree that is unusual, it needs to be thought about, it needs to be addressed. i have a number of ideas about what we should do that doesn't include raising taxes and spreading money around. i don't believe that's the right direction for the country to go. that's essentially the view of president obama as he says he's for the middle class, he taxes people at the even higher levels and do those kind of government programs that he believes will work. but at a most fundamental level, i'm convinced that the

greatest things we can do to strengthen america, strengthen us financially, strengthen job creation for the middle class would be to do the things that allow growth in the private sector. there's a lot of things that we can do that will not cost this treasury a dime. and indeed one of the greatest threats to american -- the american economy is the debt that hangs over us like a cloud. it's inhibiting growth and investment and prosperity. we've got to get this nation on a sustainable path, not the unsustainable path we are on and i've been disappointed, frankly, at the leadership of the president. i think he's not understood this, and he's believed that the way to do it is through keynesian governmental borrowing, taxing and spending. that's just not the way to get

out of this fix. one of the most dramatic things that -- that's coming up before us today is the keystone pipeline. this is precisely, precisely the kind of thing that this congress should take action on to ensure that occurs because it will create jobs, lots of jobs, create wealth, make us more secure as a nation, and help bring down the cost of energy. and lower-cost energy is one of the best possible ways to create even more jobs in america. because we compete in a global marketplace, and the extent to which our industries can have cheaper energy, they can hire more people, make more widgets, and pay more taxes to the united states government. and to states and cities and counties. so the construction of the pipeline would run from

alberta, canada, to texas refineries along the gulf coast. it adds a lot of miles, a number of miles to the pipeline, although it would use existing pipelines that are in place now. we have thousands and thousands of miles of pipelines around the united states. building a pipeline is not an unusual thing. we have them over and over again. through our state, many pipelines run. and they provide the low-cost energy that helps us be competitive and helps create jobs. this construction project alone would add 20,000 american workers, high-paid american workers, jobs not funded by additional debt that we borrow in the united states, to try to artificially create jobs. real construction jobs and it would likely lead, experts tell us, to the creation of more than 100,000 jobs overall.

this is a significant number of jobs. and in addition, as i said, would make us more energy secure and make us more able to contain the growth and the price of fuel because it would provide a large competitive source of fuel for america. when fully operational, the pipeline would transport 700,000 barrels a day. that's almost half of the amount of oil the united states currently up ports from the entire middle east. 700,000 barrels a day is almost exactly the amount of oil we import from venezuela. and that's not a friendly country to us, hugo chavez and his team there are dangerous threat i believe to the hemisphere. much of their wealth comes from oil that they sell to the united states.

i'm not saying we can't buy on the world market and we shouldn't buy from venezuela but why in the world would we deny ourselves the right to purchase 700,000 barrels a day from our friend, our fine trading partner, canada, our neighbor? this is strategic, political interest of significance, too. how will the canadians feel if we reject this pipeline? when great effort and time, years of investment and study have gone into it. so this plan to build a pipeline is supported by a bipartisan coalition, democrats and republicans, including many democratic governors such as montana governor brian schweitzer, along with a number of democratic senators here in the congress. it's not a partisan issue. seven governors whose states will house the pipeline have come out to voice their support. each state through which the

pipeline will pass is supportive now of the pipeline. those encouraging the pipeline also include labor unions such as the teamsters, that together represent 25 million workers. rs is a job program creating high-paying jobs. many of these will be union workers. yet the president has blocked the pipeline construction for some time, deferring a decision now until after the next election. many argue -- it's hard not to conclude -- that this is a political decision, an attempt to avoid having to alienate the liberal anti-energy environmentalists supporters or those who favor the pipeline, like his union supporters. i don't know the politics of it. all i know is that i cannot find

a single reason not to proceed with this. and i know it will be tremendously economically beneficial to america. we must address the true structural long-term problems that are hammering our economy and middle-class workers in america. robbing them of opportunity. we had before the environmental committee just a couple of days ago a witness from alabama who -- van richi sperbgs a c.e.o. -- van ritchie, a c.e.o. of citgo. a number of years ago they turned it over to the employees. their number of employees has gone from 2,600 to 2,900. the testimony was that the pipe industry in america is down 30%. entire pipe industry. think about that.

these are real jobs, people who built their lives around good-paying work at citgo, over 1,000 of them, and are now not working. i don't know what they're doing. hopefully they found something, but it's unlikely to be the kind of solid manufacturing job that they had. so we must pursue reforms that make our economy stronger and more productive, restoring confidence and allowing for sustained economic job growth. consider a few of the biggest challenges we face. one of them is the health care law. promises were made, the president inseuftd it would reduce -- insisted it would reduce health care costs but premiums increased $2,200 per family since 2008. and the congressional budget office warned us that this health care bill was not going to bring down costs. and in fact the bill has brought up costs.

that's money out of the pocket of american families. they don't have now to spend in the marketplace. it's got to be spent on their health insurance. so we need to get the government out of dominating and regulating areas of the economy for which they have no experience or ability to operate in an effective way. instead of allowing the production of american energy, energy from this country, the president has blocked commonsense energy production while sending stimulus dollars to favored green corporations that are not producing going bankrupt in serious numbers. a recent study found that almost 190,000 new jobs could be created next year if energy production in the gulf of mexico, where i live, returned to pre-moratorium levels.

think about that. if we just went back to the premoratorium levels on production, it would add 190,000 jobs, bringing in more american wealth instead of having to buy our oil prosecute canada or -- buy our oil from canada or venezuela, it would be our own, keeping our wealth at home, creating jobs at home. a moratorium was imposed after the oil spill. we had expert testimony in the environment committee that there's a new device that's been prepared now ready to go that could be -- in a matter of days stop the leak. they eventually did that using a cap. now instead of 90 days or 100 days, within a few days you could cut off a leak like that. it should have been there to begin with, in my opinion. very, very significant failure of management not to have such a

safety device. but it's not available. i do believe that the permitorium, the inability to get permits now that complete ban is over, you can get permits but they have been slowed down dramatically. huge rigs capable of drilling in the deep gulf have been moved to other places in the world and are not producing. this costs us a lot of jobs. it would have cost the united states taxpayers virtually nothing to put an intensive effort in the reviewing of the dangers in the gulf, doing it quickly and gotten this industry back on track before so many of the production rigs are moved abroad. also burdensome, intrusive regulations have undermined job creation and hurt small businesses.

the average number of rules costing the economy over $100 million pending during 2001 to 2006 was about 72. under this administration, the average number is 130. in fact, over 180,000 jobs will be lost each year from 2012 to 2020 as a result of just four e.p.a. rules that impact the regulatory structure of the electric industry. these are dramatic events. it would cost the treasury of the united states not a dime to not follow through on these dramatic rules, one of which is the boiler mact rule that i've never heard so much concern from my constituents over that rule. and it is hopefully will be part

of the legislation that moves the payroll tax holiday. that legislation would also change the boiler mact rule. that would be a tremendous relief for the american economy. but the point is these rules cost the economy, cost jobs, drive up our cost production that makes it more difficult to be competitive in the world marketplace. we don't need that. every single rule that's effective needs to be maintained. every single rule that's unnecessary and drives up cost should be eliminated. we're still adding rule after rule, and it's costing jobs. president obama has continued to ignore china's abusive currency evaluation process which undermines the rule of law and is designating american manufacturing. i was pleased to work with my

democratic colleagues in the senate to pass legislation that would require the government to respond to legitimate complaints of businesses who can prove that they have been damaged by the deliberate manipulation of china currency. you can't have a good trading relationship with a country that's cheating you, that's not playing by the rules. and we're just going to sit by year after year and allow factory after factory to be closed because we're unwilling to confront this on some sort of religious economic free-trade theory, that, oh, if they sell us cheaper products and put our businesses out of work and close them down and lay off thousands of workers, we should just thank them because we'll get a cheaper product. but how long will it be cheaper?

i don't go for that. i think we need real leadership here that wouldn't cost the treasury a dime. but if we stood up and protected our workers on the world competitive stage and backed them up and ensured our businesses have fair trade, we'd create jobs without adding to the debt. we'd create jobs that pay more taxes and reduce the debt. so this trade manipulation and unfairness does enormous damage to the middle class. a number of u.s. manufacturing sites, the u.s. manufacturing sites fell from 397,000 in 2001 to 344,000 in june of 2010. that's a real manufacturing decline. it is not inevitable. in fact, i am convinced that we have a chance to have a

renaissance in manufacturing in america. if we keep our energy costs down, don't have unnecessary regulations, create a tax policy that's good, i think we might surprise ourselves how well we can bounce back, because the cost of manufacturing in other countries is going up dramatically. we have now with our technology, our infrastructure, our high machinery utilization can be competitive in areas that we haven't been competitive in before. manufacturing employment which peaked at 19 million in 1979 was 11.7 million in february of 2011. i don't think this country can be healthy and strong economically, it can have an

effective presence strategically and militarily around the world if we don't have a manufacturing base. i don't see how it can happen. what are people going to do? well, they say we'll go in the service industries. well, how many people can make a computer? as a matter of fact, most of these technological advancements like our super tv's and computers, many of those are made abroad. it's a competitive world. but we can be more competitive. we can take back some of that manufacturing, i'm convinced. i also believe that a time of high unemployment, we need to be sure that the immigration laws of this country are enforced. the very idea that we should relax our laws and shouldn't insist that they be enforced at a time when we've got 9% almost unemployment makes no sense to me. we need to get american workers

working. not imported work toers take jobs from americans. we have to protect our legitimate national interest. if you're going to have open borders, i'll be willing to discuss that and say should we have totally open borders. but if you don't -- and no nation in the world does, to my knowledge -- then those -- then you create an immigration system that serves your national interest and it creates jobs for american citizens wherever possible. america's $15 trillion debt is destroying jobs and confidence in the economy. the debt itself, the largest we've ever seen, the annual deficits are the largest we've ever seen, they dwarf any deficits we've ever had before, and they're consistently continuing year after year. we had president bush's last year in office had the biggest

deficit he ever had. $450 billion. one of the largest deficits in the history of the republic. president obama's first year in office was $1.3 trillion deficit. 1,300000,000,000. it's been $1.3 trillion, $1.2 trillion for last three years. this year they have been predicting the deficit 0 would come in a tad under $1 trillion. $970 billion. but you know what? if we pass this tax holiday, that will add $200 billion to the debt almost like that. so next year we'll be at $1.1 trillion-plus if the congressional budget office projections are true. this is a serious matter. the debt is a threat to us. we've got to quit running up the

debt. we've got to quit borrowing so we can spend. and that's all this tax holiday is. a government borrows the money so that people don't pay into their pension plan. social security. i'm uneasy about that. it weakens the moral component of social security and it clearly adds to our debt. social security is on an unsustainable course. this bill would do nothing to fix the unsustainable course of social security. but it just says we don't put in the money we've been putting in every year for the last 60 years, i suppose. how can that do anything but weaken social security? and it absolutely increases our debt. and it will show up on the score by the congressional budget office. i'm ranking member on the budget committee. it is so painful. i would love to be able to

support -- and won't say i won't support -- this tax holiday. but it is not sound policy in the long run for america. we cag after, borrowing money to spend it because the debt is so large. we now have a debt equal to 100% of g.d.p., our gross debt. we've never had anything in -- like this before. so it's time indeed, for a middle-class agenda, an agenda that helps and strengthens this country. we don't need more dishonest spending, politicians promising favor, promising to give people something that the government doesn't have to give, spending money we don't have to try to buy votes with it. we don't need any more of that.

the net beneficiary of all this seems to have been the political class, not the middle class. so what do we need to do? a good, sound program means creating jobs through the private sector, putting a stop to crony capitalism and favoritism, producing more american energy, making the government lean, our government leaner and more productive. that's good for the economy. creating a long-term debt reduction plan so every investor and businessperson and all and american citizens will say, well, we're on a path now that's sustainable, not on a bath that's unsustain -- path that's unsustainable as every economist has told us. adopting a globally competitive tax code. a tax code that enhances investment in america, enhances expansion and job creation, not one that inhibits growth and job

creation. we need to confront illegal immigration at the board are and at the workplace -- border and at the workplace and serve the national interest. uphold the rules of law in trade, and quit action questioning to those who cheat and manipulate trade rules to their advantage. i don't believe you can sustain that over a long period of time. i do believe that has hammered jobs in manufacturing in america. we need to eliminate unwise and damaging regulations. any burden placed on individual americans or business in america does not pay for itself in benefits should never be imposed. and we've got too much in that category. and finally, delivering the good people of this country the honest and responsible government and budget they

deserve. and the sad fact is that we've now -- this day we have gone 961 days without a budget. that shows, i think, the irresponsibility of this congress. i was disappointed when the democratic leader in the senate said it would be foolish to even attempt to bring up a budget this year and he was not going to do it for the second year. and this is really, really dangerous. a country that's suffering the greatest debt and deficits we've ever had to not have a budget is utterly and totally unacceptable. i can't imagine a party wanting to be a leader of the senate that won't even bring to the floor a budget as required by statute. required by law. the house passed one.

they passed an historic budget, a budget that would have altered the debt course of america, put us on a sound path. the republican leadership over there summoned their courage and produced a budget that reduced spending, altered tax -- taxes in america in a way that would create more growth, and brought it forward. so senator reid thought he was clever. he knew his democrats wouldn't vote for it because it actually cut spending, and he brought it up so it could be voted down. but over 40 people voted for it. i brought up at the same time president obama's budget. the most irresponsible budget ever submitted, one that would increase taxes, but increase spending more and increase debt more than if we didn't have that budget. so i brought it up and said let's vote on the president's budget.

zero votes. 97-0 against that budget. so i'm telling you, we need to be sure that the people who run this country understand that the american people are not happy with us. how can they be happy? we are borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we spend. we're on an unsustainable debt course. and we don't even have a budget and refuse to bring one up. it's just unthinkable. we'll end up here in the last of this session heading into christmas with some conglomerated together, massive, omnibus bill, a last-minute tax holiday bill, and somehow we'll muddle forward and continue spending for the government so it won't close down. but all of this should have been done months ago. there's no reason it has to be held to the last, except that it gives the leaders more power to manipulate. and gives the actual members of

congress less opportunity to know what's in it, give the american people less opportunity to know what's in it. so i'm not happy. i don't think the american people are. i think they are rightly disappointed with us. somehow we've got to get this country on the right track. it will require tightening our belts. we cannot continue to borrow and spend at this rate. a lot of people are going to be disappointed that things they hoped to receive, they will no longer be able to receive. but the country will not sink into the ocean. it will not. this country is strong. all we've got to do is do what they're doing in new jersey and doing in alabama, beginning to do in some of the other states that have been deeply in debt. doing what senator warner did as governor of children, -- governor of virginia, balance his budget, and i appreciate his leadership this the congress and the senate to try to produce something worthwhile for the

nation. so we can do better and we've got to do better, and the american people are entitled to it. i thank the chair and would yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. moran: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. moran: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. moran: mr. president, thank you. i know to reach a conclusion on significant legislation that is pending, it determines many things important to americans tanned creates the opportunity for -- and it creates the opportunity for members of the senate and the house to spend a little time at home during the holiday season. and i'm reminded how blessed i am this holiday season to return home to a rural state where family values and community traditions run deep. there's no tradition more important to us than how we pass on from one generation to the next the workings on a family farm. i am worried that these rural traditions are under attack by washington, d.c., and in september our department of labor proposed new rules that would ban youth under the age of 16 from participating in what is many farm-related tasks like rounding up cattle on horseback

or riding on a tractor, cleaning up stalls with a shovel or wheelbarrow. while i'm sure there are many 15 or 16-year olds happy not to do that work, it's important work and it's a way that fathers and sons, mothers and daughters, grandparents work side by side with family members. one of the things i care a lot about is agriculture. that matters to us in places like kansas because that's the economy of our communities. but i also know that it's important for other reasons as well, not just dollars and cents. it's important because it's how historically in this country we've passed on our values from one generation to the next. working side by side with moms and dads and grandparents is the way we pass on character and value and integrity from one generation to the next and throughout the history of our country has been important across our nation when really every place was a rural part of our nation. to most young people growing up on that family farm, those jobs

are routine. it's a part of their lives. and these department of labor regulations are going to intrude significantly in that ability. according to the american farm bureau federation, about 98% of our country's two million farms are family owned. by working alongside with those parents and grandparents, important skills and values are learned. and the problem that we face now is that agriculture as a way of life is -- the department of labor wants to change that. until recently farms jointly owned and operated by multiple family members had discretion over the responsibilities they gave their children on the farm. but this new rule would do away with that freedom. the department of labor is proposing to tell farmers and ranchers we know what's best for your children and what they should and should not be doing. the department of labor is also trying to do away with successful farm safety training and certification programs. in our part of country and

around the nation 4-h and f.a.a. county extension offices are very important and they play a critical role in training and certifying young people to safely carry out farm activities. that happens today but the department has ignored research that shows such programs improve safety habits of young people and instead criticizes these training programs for being too locally driven and lacking federal direction. one would assume before making such a drastic change to farm labor rules, the department would identify reliable evidence and data that shows the need for changes. but really it's quite the opposite. in fact, the department of labor admits that it lacks the data to justify many of its suggested changes. furthermore, according to national farm medicine center, youth-related injuries from farm accidents have declined by nearly 60% from 1998 to 2009. if you ask any farmer or rancher about the importance of safety, they would tell you that safety is at the top of their list.

it's their children. it's their neighbors' children. they care greatly. but they would also tell you it's critical to the rural way of life for being able to train and encourage the next generation to safely and successfully begin careers in agriculture. if today's young people are not given the chance to learn at a young age what it takes to operate a farm, we put at risk the future of agriculture in our nation. if these changes go into effect, not only will the shrinking workforce be further reduced and our nation's youth be deprived of valuable career training opportunities, but most importantly, a way of life begins to disappear. our country cannot afford to lose the next generation of farmers and ranchers. i shared my concerns with the secretary of labor several weeks ago in which we asked for a delay and a longer comment period. the comment period was running during fall harvest across most of the country and the department of labor granted a

30-day extension. but that 30-day extension expired december 1, about two weeks ago. parents and communities should be allowed to look after the best interests of their families and citizens. and now that that comment period has run, i hope the department of labor will take into account the serious concerns by farmers and ranchers their families and agribusinesses across the country. but just a delay in a longer comment period is insufficient. in fact, i'm circulating a long among my colleagues here in the senate asking them to sign, requesting the department of labor not to proceed to implement these rules. and i would ask my colleagues to take a look at that letter and please join me. local experts should be the ones that are conducting safety training programs to educate our nation's young people. the future of agriculture depends on stopping this vast overreach of executive authority and protecting individual rights.

we know that rural america's values are not always the values held here in washington, d.c. in the weeks ahead, i will continue to work with my colleagues to make certain that this destructive rule does not move forward so that we can protect and preserve our values for the next generation of american farmers and ranchers, values that our country so desperately needs. mr. president, if i can slightly change topics, although not really, one of those beneficiaries of growing up on a family farm in kansas is somebody i'd also like to mention just briefly here this morning. as members of congress, we surround ourselves with bright minds and fellow natives of our home states. i've had the privilege of working alongside a young man, aaron palpalka as a member of my staff for six years. in those years aaron has proven himself to be a thoughtful voice in a chaotic capitol hill culture. with a bright policy mind, aaron has advised me on agriculture and energy and trade policy

while also serving as my chief counsel. a native of mundan, kansas, aaron grew up on a farm and brought with him to washington, d.c. a commonsense approach to the way he conducted his duties on behalf of our state. aaron will continue his duties on behalf of kansans but in a different fashion. aaron has accepted a position back home in kansas and will leave my staff at the end of the year. the lure of returning home to kansas is powerful. over the years i've lost valued members of my staff much like the rest of you. however, i appreciate the fact that while their departures from washington, d.c. is -- it's not pleasing to me, more often than not they return home to kansas and the result is a benefit to our home state. i'm thankful for having had aaron as a member of my staff and i'm thankful for the faithful service he has provided to our fellow citizens in my home state. but i'm most thankful for his friendship and look forward to

our paths crossing back home. aaron, best of luck to you and may god bless you and your family. mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call:

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. coats: i ask for -- unanimous consent to vitiate the call of the quorum. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coats: mr. president, what is the current status -- are we in morning business? the presiding officer: we are in morning business. mr. coats: i ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coats: mr. president, thank you. this is a holiday season coming upon us, a period of celebration and joy, but as we prepare to spend times with our friends and our families in the coming weeks it's important to remember there are many families out there that are hurting across this country. as i visit with hoosiers, people from indiana, i hear concern in the voices of parents trying to make the mortgage payment, the manufacturer trying to find work, and the

business owner trying to make payroll. too many hoosier families have a parent unemployed, underemployed, some working two or three jobs just to scrape by. for nearly three years we've been hearing that this nation needs good-paying jobs for people and we've been trying to provide that. the president has spoken on this on numerous occasions. in his inaugural address back in 2009 he said -- and i quote -- "there is work to be done. the state of our economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act, he said, not only to create new jobs but to lay a new foundation for growth." a year later in june, 2010, the president said "our top priority, top priority, is to recover and rebuild from a recession that has touched the lives of nearly every american."

and just two months ago the president said "everywhere i go, they tell me they want action on jobs." well, despite the rhetoric, what we have and what we're dealing with are a series of regulations and policies coming out of the white house that are denying americans the opportunity to have jobs and preventing job creators from going forward, either through regulations that are hampering their ability to do this or through policies here that we have or have not enacted that would encourage growth and economic opportunity and jobs. now for nearly 34 consecutive months, unemployment has been hovering around the 9% official level, and we all know that the real unemployment number is much higher than that, there are

people that have given up looking and they're no longer counted. there are people that are working at pay levels and talent levels far below their abilities they're working two and three jobs. and so the underunemployment -- underemployment number combined with the unemployment number is very, very significant and much higher than what the official number is. now, for weeks and months i've been on this floor talking about a whole number of initiatives that i thought was necessary to move our economy and get us moving forward again, comprehensive tax reform is something that senator wyden and i on a bipartisan basis have engaged in and we've been talking about it all year. yet here we are at the end of the session and we're not going to be able to accomplish that this year. hopefully we'll give it a run next year and hopefully we can make some progress on that. there's almost a unanimous consensus that comprehensive tax

reform of a very complicated, misdirected tax code, this needs to take place. and yet we've now spent a year talking about it, but not doing it. we also know that issues like entitlement reform and reducing the out-of-control spending here is necessary to put us on a more solid footing and despite the valiant efforts of many and the hard work of many in this chamber, republicans and democrats, we've been unable to accomplish and succeed and reach our goal. and much of this difficulty, frankly, has been because the white house has not taken leadership, and the president has not stepped up and engaged in fulfilling the very things that he said are the most important things that we need to do. let me cite just two examples. the first one is still under discussion and hopefully w b