it matters. we went to 50 cents to a dollar it didn't matter when it goes from $2 to $6 it actually matters and it's beneficial to states like south carolina in particular and the u.s. as a whole. it's also driven by increases in the yuan not as fast as as we'd like but it's going to up. we're much more productive than manufacturing workers in europe and the rest of the world. and some of the ideas that came up here we've been suggesting in the top 10 policy ideas that we've been sharing with the house and the senate on both sides of the aisle as well as the administration, immigration is critical, mr. case, absolutely ms. story, your story skills-based training and hybrids somewhere in germany we got college and university mixed with real vocational training is very, very important. the whole idea around -- what we're calling supply chain clusters being able to invest behind an anchor. so if you get a bmw that can see

to south carolina, able to put -- the government will be able to support business and education to build the small businesses that will be there in order to provide the network of suppliers that drive the huge number of jobs that are the multiplier effect from the supplier itself. those are some of the things we think are very important. and few others. awareness you should think about the numbers not just today but in the future. when we first did this for our fortune 100 u.s. manufacturer, the 2010 numbers said manufacture in china. the 2015 numbers based on current trends said manufacture in the united states. so you need to look at the total cost of ownership and you need to look going forward. a couple of other thoughts on tax policy has come up, accelerated depreciationiation. we think is a wonderful way to encourage investment today at the same time it doesn't affect taxes overall. and then as i mentioned just -- awareness around us and being able to promote not just foreign investment and u.s. direct investment and making sure that happens. so i wanted to thank all of you

and share a few thoughts. >> thank you. >> david, one other thing that's interesting on your stats about china, there is a repatriation of a lot of jobs, call center jobs because of technology. because instead of building big call centers brick and mortar people are able to work at home and because of the technology advances we're seeing more repatriation of jobs back here and that's a great trend that we need to build on. >> that's one thing i've seen is that we are a leader in information technology, software and hardware and if we can use that in other industries as a productivity tool or a flexibility tool it tends to have a great benefit in terms of job creation. >> in south carolina, you'll see that united technologies is bringing back 400 jobs from either china or mexico building some of their elevators, otis elevators back to south carolina, because we've created a environment that's conducive for business restructuring in our state. >> i appreciate your research because i think we're coming to the right time, the next cycle, it is a cycle, but it's scope and scale.

so it's not necessarily about we're going to create jobs, about how many and how fast. next question? >> i'm penny star with cns news. would any of you like to comment -- we're talking about job creation here and i wondered if anyone would like to comment, representative cantor, anyone else, on the keystone project and pipeline project and its job creation or others in the energy sector like that. thank you. >> i think tim referred to that. i mean, it's a great jobs project. it's something that this administration and the president have come down what we believe is on the wrong side. if you're for job creation let's put your money where your mouth is. job creation really belongs in the private sector as this entire conversation has been about. and if we're about seriously wanting to grow this economy, getting those 21 million jobs by 2020 it's a no-brainer to go ahead and allow for that project to ensue from a natural resources standpoint and certainly from an energy cost

standpoint and a security standpoint and as a jobs issue. i mean, that's what it's about. so no question in my mind. >> 22,000 new jobs immediately. the question really is, are we going to position ourselves in this nation to be a place where jobs come or are we going to allow the distribution to go across the seas. the bottom line are we going to be a player and it's a decision that has to be made now. it's not after the election for us to decide what's in the best interest and 20 million americans can be work. >> hence the cynicism. [laughter] >> i think that's fairly telling. >> we can do this. i'm for it. >> i think we can do. the bottom line is, do we have the will to do it. your question about us getting it done has more to do what we see as america's future philosophically. do you see america as an entrepreneurial haven or do you see it as a place that needs to be insulated and comforted as we

become the used-to-be superpower. >> that's a great question i want to thank you -- i'll take one last question. >> bridget johnson from pg media. leader cantor there was much controversy friday over the jobs numbers, about whether it painted an accurate picture not taking into account those who had given up looking for work. how do you think this is being spun? how does the gop have a plan to confront it? and how do you think it would play into midterms in the presidential elections. >> any time you're creating a quarter of a main lanes is a good thing. we welcome that good news. and new participants in the market and how that was being interpreted, i don't know enough to tell you yes or no. i did see one study which indicated that it was up until june that you saw a decline in

the number of those participating in the job markets. and since then, there's been a leveling off. now, perhaps there's evidence to the contrary but i look at the fact that you're creating a quarter of a million jobs and say that's a good thing. we can do a lot better and this economy has done a lot better in the past or our country has. back in the early '80s, early to mid-'80s when you saw us coming off a recession, you were 3 to 400,000 new jobs a month. and going back to what susan says, if we're going to reach that goal of 21 million new jobs by the year 2020, you're going to have -- do the math, you're going to have to have a significant number of sustained job growth throughout this period. so we ought to embrace it but we almost always set the bar higher and say we can do better. and we can do it. >> thank you. i'd like to thank our panel for a really engaging discussion

today. [applause] >> thank you. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> you just saw in this discussion two of the house's republican leaders. eric cantor and kevin mccarthy during this discussion. they and other members will be getting back to legislative business on the house floor at 4:00 eastern time today. with votes scheduled at 6:30. and they'll take up amendments to a bill that would create a centralized process to consolidate, sell or exchange nonmilitary property. you can watch live house coverage over on our companion network, c-span. and the senate is back at 2:00 eastern after an hour of morning business. they're going to be considering

a measure authorizing nearly $16 billion annually for federal aviation programs through 2015. and they'll hold a final vote on that faa conference report at 5:30. a 60-vote threshold has been set before it can be sent to the president's desk and you can watch gavel to gavel coverage right here on c-span2. >> this past week house and senate lawmakers continued negotiations to extend the payroll tax cut for workers. they'll continue their work on tuesday with a fourth public meeting. the cuts expire at the end of the month and all sides agree it should be extended. the talks are focused on how to pay for it. >> i don't hear a fundamental disagreement in the philosophy that if people get a ged that enhances their lives and enhances the ability for them to get a job down the road. i don't hear a disagreement with that. i hear an excuse as to why not to do it but rather the fundamental philosophy of trying to rearm people with an

education so that when they go into the workforce, they have an additional tool. >> to link a social influence program designed and for 70-plus years functioning to provide financial support when you lose your job to a requirement you have to be in this training, i think, first of all, it won't work for some of the practical considerations but second i don't think it contradicts the notion that you're suggesting and i agree with that the more education you have today, the better off you'll be in this economy. >> watch the rest of this meeting or the two others they've held online at the c-span video library. archived and searchable at c-span.org/videolibrary. >> nevada's gop caucuses are tomorrow and watch c-span's road to the white house coverage with the candidates' speeches live tonight and throughout the day with live reports on the individual caucuses and their

results defeated by the nevada republican party at c-span.org/campaign2012. or you can also add your comments through c-span's facebook page. >> you're watching c-span2 with politics and public affairs weekdays featuring live coverage of the u.s. senate. on weeknights watch key public policy events and every weekend the latest nonfiction authors and books on booktv. you can see past programs and get our schedules at our websites and you can join in the conversation on social media sites. >> secretaries of state from around the country recently met in washington for their winter conference and this year's theme was the 2012 elections, redistricting was a big issue and leading up to november and in some of the remarks during this event, an assistant attorney general for civil rights, thomas perez discussed the role of the justice department as those maps are redraw

redrawn. >> good afternoon. i'm alabama secretary of state beth chapman and president of the national association of secretaries of state. i am delighted this afternoon to begin the final session of the 2012 election preparations with a terrific roster of speakers and one whom i will later have the privilege of introducing in a few minutes. as a bit of background, our elections committee holds regular conference calls to keep up with the many developments that state election offices are facing each day. last november, during one of our calls, we decided it would be beneficial to have a true dialog with members of our congress. we wanted to discuss concerns that we have regarding the impacts of existing federal law as they relate to elections. at that time, we had just received a letter from house democratic steny hoyer that was

signed by 196 democrat members of the house to protect voting rights by approving new state measures that would, quote, make it harder for eligible voters to register to vote, end of quote. while we have invited a number of speakers and guests from the list that signed that letter, none of them could join us today. [laughter] >> i was wondering if anyone in the room who might have had dialog with mr. hoyer might have any comments at this time or if he sent anybody to speak on his behalf? no one? okay. at this time, i feel it appropriate as president of the organization to speak and to say that i believe this organization has a collective interest in ensuring fair and honest

elections. and i believe that policy disagreements and discussions are healthy and inevitable. however, whip hoyer's blanket letter from 196 members of his party to all members of this organization is not. his stating that, quote, partisan plays, end of quote, are being made, that within itself is partisan. disorganization is not partisan. we all take oaths in our states to follow the laws that are created by our legislative bodies, not to follow preferences of either political party's philosophy as they relate to voting or any other dealings of the office of secretary of state. our laws and our preferences will always vary from state to state but we as an organization need to send a loud and clear message that our ability and integrity to follow the law and to administrate those elections and laws does not and will not

vary. questioning whether members of this organization regardless of political party can oversee elections in a professional, fair or ethical manner is insulting to the history and credibility of this organization. and it is my job as president to ensure that it does not divide this organization. does anyone else have anything other to say? [inaudible] >> i can't see that far. can you tell me who that is? chris kobak. >> yeah, madam president. i also -- i think all of us received the letter from representative hoyer, and it was addressed to every secretary of state in the country. and i too was disturbed by the letter. and although i did offer my own response if defense of my particular state's changes of its election laws, i think it is appropriate for this body to respond in some fashion because it was addressed to all of us

collectively. i drafted a resolution that's very short and to the point, and it's nonpartisan, and it's balanced. it simply says that we all have the right to do whatever we believe will improve our election procedures and that could include a variety of different things. and that, you know, nass stands for the nonpartisan and federalist principle that the states may pursue their course provided they are pursued in good faith and that they are consistent with the united states constitution. so i'll just send around some copies of this and pass them down but i'd like to introduce a resolution in response to mr. hoyer's letter to us. >> is this something you would like to pass around and discuss at the end of this session? is that your intent? >> however you'd like to proceed is fine. >> okay. we'll do that then. in the meantime, we do have one brave congressman. [laughter] >> one righteous man. [laughter] >> who joined us today and not

only -- [inaudible] >> well, no, i'm afraid he didn't. but there were many invited to come. this is the one that did accept our invitation. for those of you who don't know, when you hear his short introduction you'll know why he joined dawes. he's one of our favorites and that he has been a member of nass. he was indiana's secretary of state for many years. he was the president of this organization and the leadership of it for many, many years. he's a personal friend to many of us and he worked very hard to arrange and as i understand it rearrange, dearrange and rearrange his schedule to be with us today. and not only do we benefit from his experience as a former state election official and, thus, his true understanding of what we do, he is also a member of the house administration committee and, therefore, in a position to address election law at the federal level. congressman todd rokita is eager to hear your questions and

concerns. and he is here for dialog. he is not here to give a 50-minute speech and bore us to death. he wouldn't do that to you. he does want a dialog. he is here honestly to take questions and to provide you with answers. so at this time, please give a great nass welcome to a great former nass member tom rokita. [applause] >> thank you, beth. i really appreciate that -- that introduction. the reason i'm here -- we did have some scheduling issues as many of you do as well, nothing new. but i know what happens being a former nass president. i know what happens -- what gets done by leslie reynolds if you don't get done at the appropriate to get your duty. i absolutely love this horg i'm still in love with it, even from

the perch of my new public -- elected responsibilities. some of you -- i got to meet on the way in and re-kindle some old friendships and i appreciate that very much. some of you asked me how i like my new job, and robin carnahan even asked if she could kiss my ring. [laughter] >> i'll hear about that later. and i said, you know, to robin and others, i said, you know, the job of being an elected representative especially in our nation's capital is certainly one of high honor. but -- and i say this back in the state too, there is nothing -- absolutely nothing like being an elected statewide official, especially, secretary of state. and more particularly when you're the chief election officer. it's been the highest honor of my life. and i credit a lot of that to what i learned here from many of you and from this organization and from the way this

organization conducts itself. so in all honesty that's what brings me back here today. and to have that dialog. i promised and will not go on with the blah, blah, blah. but i do want to say thank you for having me. and let's get to it. >> no softballs for this gentleman. who has the first question? >> wow! >> well, thank you for being here. [laughter] >> i'm with you till 4:00 or until you ask me to leave. [laughter] >> thank you for being here. i'm mead treadwell from alaska. while i've been involved to elections i'm new to the business of running an election. and i have to say i had not paid much attention to the provisions in the constitution that kind of share power on elections, between the congress and the states. but i do feel as this proposed

resolution has that it's essentially the state's responsibility and many states delegate this to local governments as well or work with local governments. i guess my question for you are, number 1, how do you feel about the idea of actually fining states for not following federal law exactly on election issues? that's one that's come up before us. i'd love to have a dialog about that. the second issue -- it's kind of a question and/or a request. we do our elections on paper. people can fax their ballots in. we're moving to offer broader electronic things but we have not been briefed and we can't get a classified briefing on who can read -- who can read a file as it's moving across the wires. and i'm just very concerned about how we -- there's a lot of people pushing to move us away from the paper trail to go fully

to electronics. it would really be helpful to have congress look into the privacy issues that happens because there's so many ways to impinge on a voter's privacy if you move to electronics. >> well, i appreciate that and welcome to nass as well. i see you as a new member. let me take the last question first. when i was elected secretary of state back in -- my first day of office was january 1st, 2003, we had just had the help america vote act signed into law and we had these very discussions and those that were elected before me actually had pretty good input as i understand it into the making of the law, as the congress was writing it. and so these issues -- were very well debated then. and now carry on. i'm -- i come from a state and personally believe in the validity of electronic machines. having said that, we left it up

to our counties to decide what machines fit them best, as long as they were compliant with the help america vote act. so in indiana we have a patchwork of paper-based machines and completely electronic ones. and they work well. so as i remember the debate, i heard the concerns of privacy -- the concerns of privacy were actually in the paper and that was a reason to go to electronic. so you have a follow-up to that? >> and i'm not concerned about -- we do electronic scanning, optical scanning so forth. it's more on the cyberspace to vote online, if it's coming from a computer in a foreign country, the national security agency can read what's coming in because it's not presumably a u.s. citizen or how would they know that? >> uh-huh. >> and the general question is, if we move to a system where

it's all online voting or move toward that and we're being -- we're under lots of different pressures here right now and some of it from congress to do that for overseas voters, what -- what protections can you offer to make sure that votes still stay private? >> well, i've been asked to come not to speak on behalf of other members. i can certainly speak on myself and part of indiana. but i can also give you a sense of what congress may do in the here and now, based on the membership that we have. and i think that the way you'd see us approach your question would be to keep -- empower the state and the states as much as possible. that would be the approach you'd see coming out of a majority of the house administration committee on this issue, for example. and i think the -- that's where this decision lies. the answer at your question lies at the state level and what your voters and what your taxpayers are most comfortable with.

i think you have to keep in mind, though, that once you lose the confidence of your voters and your taxpayers,nd the nations -- i think florida, 2000, you're going to see the federal government in congress like we always do react, react quickly and generally overreact to the situation. so i think your goal has to be in an aura of federalism, do what you need to do to keep the confidence of the voter and the taxpayer in the process that you have. and that's -- not to dive into another topic but that's an example of how we successfully approached photo id in the state of indiana. it was a confidence-builder. and it's successfully. it's actually increased voter turnout. in your issue if you approached it the same way, do it that way and then you have that back-stop in that defense to say to the federal government, stay the heck out. what protections can we give

you? we can talk about that and debate that but i think if you're going to have a system like that, you need to be able to have your -- the protections yourself first. >> how about the issue of fining state officials? and i know representative chapman is up to speed on that? >> i might have to be briefed on that. there's no talk about that going on in the house administration committee that i know of. it seems pretty draconian to me. but maybe confront the question. >> wasn't it recognized by the justice department? >> no, that was a separate issue that we discussed, but it's something that's occurring in our state with the question of who appropriately handles those filings which the secretary of state office does in our state but we do not police or enforce them. and so i've asked most of the representatives here from their state how they do and, of course, there's a patchwork of how it's done. so a little bit different in

every state. but one of those questions was, who follows up on those candidate filings? and if they haven't reported in three years or they reported two weeks late or they have misleading information on those filings, are they fined? who polices and enforces those? and the attorney general in many cases does. >> and the filings being the declarations of candidacy or -- >> the financial filings. >> oh, the financial filings? >> yeah. >> save that one for mr. perez in a little bit. [laughter] >> if i could, you know, offer some further clarification on the question, i think we heard from bob cary this morning. >> okay. >> look, the reason that the secretaries of state or the states are liable 'cause that's what the federal law says. the federal law says the states are liable for voters, for example, in ensuring that the ballots go out on time but yet every state has different sets

of rules as you're well aware of. as a former secretary of state. and in many cases we are being held accountable for something that we don't actually have control over. and the idea that federal officials -- the members of congress that work on these issues -- 'cause it sounds -- you know, we all know -- we've all worked at different levels of government and how it sounds, put it in the control of the states. the states don't do it all the time. i never handled a ballot. not one comes through our office. they're all done locally and so to be held liable for something that we have no control over seems to be a disconnect between how the law is perceived in terms of its implementation at the local level and the state level and how the federal

government believes that it should be implemented. >> thank you, i appreciate that. that warms me up a little bit. we had similar types of issues, personality, and accountability but not the responsibility, you know, in the help america vote act and have secretary of state and in indiana. that was the story of my life. it seemed we were responsible and accountable for things that we had little control over. so i don't mean to be blase about this but i've become -- certainly become john desensitized to it so part of me tells me, hey, let's suck it up and get the job done because that's what secretaries of state do but having said that there has to be a reasonable approach but i would be interested in working with this organization if you find an alternative way regarding the issue of accountability or a process to where -- to make sure that we can best do our job as chief election officer without

unfairly being held to account for something we have no control over at all. i'd love to work with you on a bill if i identified some serious issues and some alternatives to them. >> and congressman rokita, if i might, i don't need to mislead. that was one issue -- to be a little more specific with you we were concerned, i felt, that a majority of the group made some comments about some recommendations that have come out of doj stating basically that if absentee election ballots were late, then the secretary of state would be fined and, of course, we understand nobody has worked harder as you know and nobody will work harder than secretaries of state from around this country to ensure that our military are allowed to vote. and i think that's something that we all agree on. it's a common bond that holds us together as a nation but certainly as an organization. it's the one thing that we certainly agree on. ..

because the governor, based on a recent supreme court decision in my state, has absolute authority on all of government within our state so it is a good question i think. >> i think it's a good question. i think it's a good issue for this group to be working on. what i'm seeing in washington already, it's really easy, first of all things are happening so quickly, needlessly happen

so quickly. for example, look at our budgeting. state of indiana we budget every two years. i had to turn my secretary state of budget n i lived under that same budget, many of you have the same process, for two years. here we're spending money as we're planning how to spend next year's money as we're spending year's money after that and printing money and having our kids paying for it. it keeps going around and around this hamster wheel for no good reason in my opinion. we authorize, appropriate and obligate and start all over again in a budget if we decide to pass a budget. so all that, when which have bills on other issues it is easy to say, chief election officer, secretary of state, make them liable, make them accountable, without, in my opinion, not anymore thought than that. and so i think it would be great for a group like this to help put forward an

alternative solution because we have thought through it, working with a group of congresspeople, to get that thought into law. and we can actually add some value to this process. first and foremost, i think elections are states, should be straight-driven to the extent there are fines involved and accountable measures employed that should come from the state level, not necessarily from the federal government down. but using that as a platform, maybe an approach to solve this problem, who should be accountable, realizing that we're all humans to begin with. >> right. >> has there ever been a perfect election, john, in the history of the world? no. will there be a perfect election? no. there will be mistakes. but the differences are those mistakes happening to just african-americans? are they just being done upon women? are they being, that's the difference.

will people, indiana had 55, 5500 poll workers, average age, 72. sure. there will be mistakes. not because they were 72. the 22-year-olds also make those mistakes. but that's, that's the difference. are they unintentional. are they ad hoc or is there a systemic pattern? i think we've done a very good job, before 2,000, after 2,000, when mistakes happen they are honest ones. >> thank you. scott guess letter from the state of colorado. if you could explain to me, help me out a little bit on the ea, i'm sorry, on your committee's scope of, scope of oversight and dutieses, obviously we talked about the last few days, eac. we talked about some of these apparently department of justice proposals creating private rights of action against secretaries of state and personal liability of fines against the secretary of

state from the department of justice. we talked about fbap and their activities in the election world which seem to be driving some state's procedures as well. for your committee what, what all do you oversee and, then what do you influence although you may not have formal oversight authority over it? >> the department, the committee on administration basically oversees the eac and the fec. then we certainly have influence over the fbap process. of course we also issue the members parking passes and things like that. but that wasn't the heart of you yes. >> that could be a fair amount of leverage. i think who should i talk to? >> what we're dealing fec we had a hearing with them. eeac we had hearings with them and the military voting process. >> and the department of justice at least discussions or

proposals with respect to personal liability of secretary of states, private rights of action? >> i certainly would hope we have influence over that process as well. how much they listen is an open question. >> congressman, rokita, ross miller from nevada. some of the discussions this weekend at our conference have centered around the eac. obviously this organization as you're aware has twice taken the position that we believe that the eac should be sunseted. there is now some discussion as to what to do in the interim and i was wondering if you could just offer a little bit of background what is happening in congress with the eac and offer any potential predictions what evently may result? >> thank you, ross. as you all i'm sure know, a bill was heard in housed a administration to defund and otherwise sunset repeal the

enabling language that instituted the election assistance commission. i was a, an am an original cosponsor of that bill and that, my involvement in that bill comes directly out of the two resolutions that came out of this organization, that i was involved with helping to author and get passed. so that bill passed committee. it went to the house floor for a, for a vote that we needed 290 votes for. we did not get that. so it was a suspension vote. we suspended regular order. i think leadership thought we had the votes. it did not pass. i am working to see that the eac repeal bill gets heard in regular order so there will be a fuller floor time

for for it and it would need 218 votes to pass onto the house and go onto the senate where i imagine it won't get heard but i certainly don't speak for the senate or what the senate makeup will be after november. so that is where that is. so what to do in the meantime? we have no commissioners, is my understanding. we have, i think the attorney acting as the executive director right now, who, i think is public knowledge is not, we'll share some news, that person is being nominated for another agency position. it's so the question on the table is, especially with regard to this presidential election coming up, what does the eac do or should it be doing under its charge that would help us, quote, unquote as secretaries of state, as chief electionses officers, have a, fair and accurate election this fall?

and i will be the first to admit i am rusty on duties right now of the eac, aside from the legislation i worked on with the other issues that we deal with in congress. i rely on my memory as being former secretary of state but i can't think of what is absolutely necessary that the eac do in order for this country and these states to have successful, fair and accurate elections this fall. so i ask each one of you that question. >> i believe -- secretary reed from washington. >> todd, in terms of the ways we conduct elections there isn't anything we need out of the eac per se, but, the problem articulated by a few states this morning during discussion was, that they have money sitting there, that is already been authorized to go to their

states but hasn't been released because they don't have commissioners there. they have equipment sitting in offices ready to be operated but the certification which has gone through this in the process hasn't been released by the office. so, we had quite a discussion this morning and one thing that the national association of state election directors came up with a letter to the acting director saying that he can take this action and, talking to peter this morning, peter said he thought that was true as well but those are the two things we need. we need to release supposedly already going out to the states and release the certifications of equipment so we can go ahead and use it this fall. >> thank you, sam, i appreciate it. sam was known when we were, when i was secretary of state as the but secretary of state. this is good but, no. appreciate your leadership, sam. >> [inaudible].

[laughter] >> as congressman. let me take that back. maybe we can, you know, i hate to be the guy from the federal government here to help but let me see if i can help. >> we were in a quandary even a way of getting commissioners appointed temporarily, which didn't, ended up not being the way we went but ended up supporting that letter to go to the acting director but, yeah, it really would help if we could get some push from the -- >> in your opinion are these perfunctory decisions or have decisions already been made? or are they, what kind of decision-making do we need that we would think we would even need commissioners to do? >> well, what we need to do is just push the organization to start getting some of this out and, peter is still here. peter, do you have any clear

articulation of this that you would raise right now? >> on those two points, the certifications are done by the executive director. they don't require -- [inaudible] >> peter, could i ask you to come up to the microphones because of cameras and identify yourself for the record. >> is this working? peter shellstock on housed a administration staff, on two points secretary reed raised certifications of a individual voting civil are ish shrewd by the executive director of the agency. they don't require a vote by the commission and similarly the release of funds to the states from the hava funding does not require action by the commission. those are nondiscretionary grants. >> secretary reed, i guess the point of my question is, and i appreciate staff helping out with it, that these decisions don't require a lot of discretion, correct? it is ones or zeroes, stamped yes or no, basically. i'm oversimplifying it but there is a process already

in place we check off the boxes and if everything is okay then the certification is issued and or the money is issued. is that a fair assessment of it? >> absolutely. >> then i think we need to push to have that done. i think you're absolutely right. i don't think we need commissions necessarily. i will take that as a task. >> secretary fine from georgia. >> thank you for being here, congressman. you said a couple things earlier that i really appreciated. number one, empowering the states when it comes to a lot of what we're doing. i think most everybody or all the secretaries are in agreement on that. also in the elections process that we all are human. we're dealing with a lot of humans ourselves, especially in georgia where we have a statewide system but we have 159 county offices running elections and sending absentee ballots out. and myself like secretary miller and others concerning military and overseas ballots i think, it seems like sometimes the, i can

certainly understand when states are not in compliance why there are people upset about that i would be too but it is concerning to me that when you have a state that has a ballot here or a ballot there, not to mean that, i think we would all agree that every single ballot needs to be counted, we fight for that every day but it seems like we're persecuted for one or two ballots because of human error sometimes just like states that may not be in compliance at all. i would just urge you and ask your thoughts as you give oversight to the fec, fbap, the eac and certainly i don't guess you would give oversight to the justice department, but any ways that you can help influence to make them realize that, you know, we want a working relationship as we do these things and we're also subject as you know to what the legislatures passed in our states as we go through the process that we would certainly appreciate that at

the state level. >> absolutely, sir. i will advocate for it. if you ever hear that i'm not, don't be bashful about letting me know. try not to forget where i came from and want to go back to. yes, sir? >> jason gant, south dakota. i know of course congress is grappling with budget issues every day and a lot of the federal government is at times out of, out of whack compared to what some of the states are doing but on that note with the help america vote act passage back in 2002 and getting everything ready for '03 and '04, those machines that we've had for disabled folks to make sure they have access to the ballot box, those systems are now pushing at least 10 elections after this fall and this summer that, there is going to be a problem where some of those systems are going to start failing which is then going to require states to either use any leftover help america

vote abt funds, or, for now the states to be funding a federal mandate. so i'm very cautious of where the federal government budget is, however, i want us to start thinking about when these machines start to fail what is going to be the plan if we need to start discussing today on the federal level of whether or not we need to be planning on changing some of those requirements, or, if the federal government is going to say, well, states, you're now going to have to pay for that? >> excellent question. i wondered when the day was going to come back in 2003, 2004, we thought, you know, that this day would come at some point where those machines we were scrapping over and thought were, and were the new and the best to and we were doing such a good job and working out the bugs in them would now be obsolete. and i think in indiana they have several more years of

life yet. i don't pass that observation on any further than that as far as any other states go. i think if, you heard me advocate here now for half an hour about states rights and federalism and how we're human. i think if the states were caught flat-footed or even negligent in 2000 it was how little attention we ourselves as states paid to the election process and how much little money we put in. and i, i think since 2000 we have, you should be directing your energy, at least in significant part, to your state legislature because the days where the states could get off by not investing in their process, and i mean a lot, i think are over. and that is just the straightest, honest, most honest answer i can give you. maybe it's completely wrong. maybe there is going to

abbey partisan group of congressman and women who come out tomorrow and say, you know what? we like the changes we made with the help america vote act. we like the access the machinery is giving and we decided we're going to fund it for the states and block grant it. i wish, i wish, first, quite frankly, block grant medicaid and some other things and states and education budget but maybe tomorrow they will come out and say that, completely unbeknownst to me. i would say, you being secretary of state, you should get your state acclimated to the fact they have got to put a lot more money into the election process if, out the other side of your mouth you're going to say, federal government stay out of our election process. i think that's a two-way street there. that should have generated some discussion and pushback? [laughter] where is my robin carnahan

when i need her? where did she go? >> congressman rokita, one of the issues that we have worked on very diligently as you know and i think you worked on when you were secretary of state what was the passage of the move act which was instrumental making sure that the overseas ballots are mailed out on time and that especially our brave military men and women have ballots and have a way to transmit them in time so they can vote. can you give us an update on anything that may be out there that, what advance that cause even further? >> nothing's come through the committee that i, that i know about and perhaps it should. on the other hand i think the move act is moving and it's working. maybe you could tell me if it's not but i think it's a pretty successful project and so, you know, i like to leave well enough alone and let it continue working.

my good friend from mississippi here if he has not offered yet or hasn't tried i suspect you should go to him to see about getting a new secretary of state delegation to the middle east to see our troops, i know they're coming home but delbert led a delegation to, of secretaries of state to the middle east to see the voting process in 2008 and we got, from that, to see the move act come into play from there. and that's, the secretaries of state were very instrumental in that entire process and, i don't like to see our men and women at war. i don't like to see them not safe but if they're going to be doing their job for us we need to be doing our job for them and the secretaries of state being on the ground there in 2008 was excellent material, excellent experience so we could continue serving them.

>> are there any other questions for congressman rokita? well, we thank you very much for taking your time and for helping -- [applause] and moreover i think we all very much appreciate someone who understands what we're going through and how the inner relationship with the federal government in making sure you're there to help us advocate as well. and i hope we will take you up on your offer to work toward some alternative solutions to some of the problems that we've discussed. >> i do thank you for that. and i do hope you come up with some alternatives. i would love to work with you on them in all honesty. i self-identified agreed to work on one task today and we'll get to work on it and like to be back again to report. >> great. thank you very much, congressman rokita. [applause]

>> again my name is ross miller, the nevada secretary of state. i have the privilege of introducing our next speaker, thomas e. perez, assistant attorney general for the civil rights division at the department of justice. obviously much of the discussion this past conference hassentered around the move act. it's an issue for which many secretaries of state are extremely proud of our organization's efforts to advance the ability of overseas voters especially military men and women to be able to cast their ballots in a timely manner. some of the discussion focused on the interaction with the department of justice who is responsible for some enforcement of those statutes. mr. perez previously served as the secretary of

maryland's department of labor, licensing and regulations which protects consumers through the enforcement of consumers rights laws. he spent his entire career in public service as a county councilmember and president. a career attorney and federal prosecutor with the doj civil rights division and deputy assistant district attorney general for civil rights under attorney general janet reno. aag perez addressed this group last winter and we're delighted he accepted our invitation again to address your group. we asked him to talk about the enforcement priorities of 2012 and how communication between doj and the states will take place on issues related to the section 203 language minority changes, the nvra section 7 activity, preclearance requests and move wafers. please -- move waivers. please join me in welcoming assistant attorney general tom perez. [applause] >> thanks for having me. good afternoon. it is great to be back here.

i was here friday talking with the election directors and it was a very productive session and i look forward to this as well. i remember our meeting a year ago and that was also very productive and i want to thank you at the outset for all of your hard work. we all have a shared interest and i know we take that responsibility insure the right to vote very seriously, whether it is in the move act context, whether it is in the nvra context, every voting context we take that very seriously and we have that shared interest in protecting our voting rights. i had the good fortune last month of traveling to austin with the attorney general where he delivered a speech at the lbj library on the critical importance of voting rights and in particular we talked a lot about the 1965 voting rights act and got me in the spirit of taking a look at that once again and when president johnson passed that law, he said, and i quote, the vote is the most

powerful instrument ever devised by mankind for breaking down injustice and destroying the terrible walls which imprison men and women because they are different from other men and women. the act passed by a vote of 328-74 in the house and 79-18 in the senate. fast forward 41 years and when congress reauthorized the act it did so again in an overwhelmingly bipartisan fashion. congressman jim sensenbrenner, republican from wisconsin led the effort in the judiciary committee. when the debate returned to the reauthorization of section 5, which as you know is a lynchpin of the law the house voted to reauthorize section 5393-33. and the senate vote was 98-0. it was a reminder to me that voting rights and i think, civil rights at large has a proud bipartisan history in america and everyone in this room has a shared interest

in insuring that those who quite literally gave their rights, their lives to insure the right to vote did not do so in vain. i like to take some time to talk about what we're up to because our voting section is busy as ever. our chief is here, chris herron. chris, if you could raise your hand. two of our deputies are here and and we're very proud to have the dedicated career professionals here. and we have two core substantive objectives that an any mate our -- animate our work. we are seeking a voting program that seeks to insure voting participation for all legally you qualified voters and we have a program that insures opportunity to participate in the democratic process free from discrimination. we're in the middle of one of the busiest periods in our work. when ever we have redistricting this is the busiest cycle of the decade and i would like to talk to

you about all the areas that you mentioned in your very kind opening remarks and let me begin with our work in the section 5 area. as you know, section 5 is one of the lynchpins of the voting rights abt and it applies to all or part of 16 states. and one of our biggest projects at the moment is the post-census redistricting push that comes to us for review under these preclearance standards. we did a lot of work getting ready for this moment. last year we published updated substantive guidance in the federal register and then later on we published a final rule revising the procedures for the administration of section 5. the procedures hadn't been revised in about 15 years or some i think the last revision was 1987. so that helped, that guide was very important as part of our outreach work. and then when the census data started rolling out in february and then in, again

in april, we got to work because we began receiving the redistricting plans and we will, during the course of this roughly, 18-month bulk in our work, we will receive 2700 redistricting plans. by way of example, last month we received more redistricting plans than any month actually in our history. so we've gotten about 1300 so far. so we're roughly halfway there and we have a lot of work to do. i passed out for your information a summary chart. this is actually, it's called appendix a, and the reason it is appendix a, this is something we filed in connection with a supreme court submission in the texas litigation. it was a summary of our work in the section 5 area and actually there have been some updates since then and what i wanted to do very briefly is just give you a sense what we've been up to. we have received roughly 30 or so, a little over 30 statewide redistricting

plans and we have, if you look at this appendix, and i will update it in a moment, we have actually precleared or consented in litigation to 29 statewide plans. the only two statewide redistricting plans that we have opposed are the texas congressional and the texas statehouse of representatives. so if you look at this chart, appendix a, you will see a few that say pending. california is no longer pending. we precleared that. you will see another won one page 3-a. south dakota, that is no longer pending. we precleared that. you will see michigan is pending and that is no longer pending because that was also precleared. let me give you an example of what we've been doing. our process again is to insure we give a careful and comprehensive and independent review to all of these plans. in louisiana, for me is a good example of the approach we have taken because we not only have waited for the plans to come in to do the

review but before that, we have done remarkable amount of outreach to explain the process. and in the case of louisiana i actually traveled down there, the suggestion and invitation of a bipartisan group of lawmakers and i addressed a bicameral session of the house and the senate. i did so because as a result of term limits there has been a lot of transition. a decade ago, 2/3 of the members, house and senate, roughly, had already gone through a redistricting cycle. this time around 2/3 were going through their first redistricting cycle. so it was important to explain first-hand what the process was and we were able to have a, i think a very, very useful discourse during my visit there. and this was the first redistricting cycle ever in louisiana where all of their statewide submissions were precleared the first time they were submitted. every prior cycle there is litigation as to at least

one of the statewide plans. now i mentioned the contested litigation involving the texas plans. that trial in section five matter ended last week. closing arguments are tomorrow. there was litigation in the section two proceeding went up to the supreme court. we participated as amicus in that particular case. we continue to be involved in both section 5 and section 2 matters. we have additional preclearance cases pending from florida, texas and various local jurisdictions and we lodged a number of objections in a number of counties. we're obviously involved as you know, a number of section 5 matters arising recently enacted state laws according to voter registration requirements voter identification requirements and changes to early voting procedures. . .

>> in this and every submission, our review will be thorough, fair, and fact-based. states covered by section 5, as you probably know, bear the burden of showing that the proposed changes are not intentionally discriminatory and will not have a retrodepressive effect. and as the attorney general has emphasized and our facts bear out where they meet this burden, we will preclear the changes, and where they do not, we will object. another critical part of our work is defending the constitutionality of section 5, and we remain firmly committed to that effort. and as our experience recent and in years past demonstrates,

section 5 continues to play a vital role in upholding equal opportunity and equal access to the franchise by stopping discriminatory voting changes from going into effect whether it's at a statewide level a county level or a city level. now, there are some who contend that section 5 is overinclusive. however, those jurisdictions with a clean record of nondiscrimination have the opportunity to bail out from section 5 coverage, and our bailout practice has expanded in the aftermath of the 2009 northwest austin decision n. the past fiscal year, more bailouts were granted than in the previous seven years combined, and i expect this activity will continue. let me turn very briefly to our section 5 work because section 5 is a critical component of our own forcement efforts as well. and the release of our census redistricting data in the new american community survey data always spurs our investigative work each decade under section 2.

we're reviewing the data from the various jurisdictions across the country, considering whether the methods of electing governmental bodies dilute minority voting strength under the framework. we've opened up roughly 100 section 2 informations in the past -- investigations in the past year, usually involving challenges to at-large methods of election and the usual remedy that we seek, although not in every case s the election using single-member districts. one of the most recent of these cases to be resolved came in august when the second circuit dismissed an appeal from the settlement of a case in port chester. let me turn because i know there are a lot of questions about our language minority provisions. several sections of the voting rights act provide protections to members of language minority groups, so as to insure that they will be able to participate equally with english-speaking voters in the electoral process. the voting section enforces the language minority provisions of

the voting rights act by developing investigations across the country that concern limited english-proficient hispanic, asian, native american, native alaskan voters. we've brought a number of cases under the language minority provisions of the voting rights act in recent years, and the work has quite literally stretched from coast to coast. the most recent case was in alameda county in california. we've also done work in indian country, shannon county, south dakota. we've done work in new mexico for voters who are speaking native american languages, and recently we did work in chi hoe georgia county which is metropolitan cleveland as well as lorraine county, ohio, for spanish-speaking puerto rican voters. the census bureau released their new determinations under section 203 of the voting rights act. they did so on october 11, 2011. when i met with the election directors and with you a year ago, one of the very strong

messages you delivered was to try and get those determinations out as early as possible so that jurisdictions can have the time to prepare. and we heard you, and i hope we have given you the requisite time that you need to get the job done. because i know it's an important job, i know or there are transitions. i was a local elected official, i remember in my county the year i ran for office was the first year they were subject to the bilingual ballots provisions, and there was undeniably a lot of transition involved in that effort. and so we heard you, and we worked very closely with the census bureau to make sure that this was done in a timely fashion. and as you probably know, there are now 19.2 million voting age citizens from language minority groups that reside in covered jurisdictions compared with 13.4 in the previous determination. so that's a roughly 42%, almost

43% increase. and we've sent letters to the covered jurisdictions and are doing additional outreach to all of the newly-covered jurisdictions. and if you have any questions about those issues, i welcome that discussion, and we have a cadre of very seasoned attorneys who are very, very happy to work collaboratively with you. let me talk briefly about the nvra because the enforcement of the requirements also remains a very important priority for you -- for us and for all of us in this room. because, as you know, states covered by the nvra must follow its requirements to make voter registration available to prints at all driver's license agencies, at public assistance offices, disability offices and through the mail. and we have for the first time, i believe, in our section's history last year -- it may have been late 2010, early 2011 -- we put out guidance on our web site that discusses all of the

requirements of the nvra. we have heard a lot of feedback from election directors, secretaries of state and other external stakeholders that it would be useful to have a guidance document that can serve as a how-to document for everybody on compliance. now, as we figure out where to focus our investigative resources, we pay a lot of attention to the eac data. and the eac's nvra report is very, very helpful in enabling us to figure out where we should, indeed, focus our initial investigative efforts. let me tell you a little bit about the work we've been doing in the section 7 context because in the last year the department brought its first two lawsuits under section 7 in seven years. and as you know, section 7 requires that voter registration materials be made available at, among other places, state offices providing public assistance or disability services. one of the lawsuits involved

rhode island, and the other involved louisiana. in the rhode island case, we reached an immediate resolution to the matter, and i want to discuss the results because the results have, indeed, been remarkable. more voters were register inside the first month after the settlement than in the entire previous two-year reporting period x. let me give you some specific numbers. in the two-year reporting period before the lawsuit, 457 voter registration forms were submitted by the four affected rhode island social service agencies. in the first month after the agreement, 1,038 forms were received. in the second month, 1346 forms were received n. the ensuing two months, a total of 1787 forms were received. this is a total of 4171 newly-registered voters in the four months after the settlement

as opposed to the two-year reporting period before the settlement. this ninefold increase is commendable. i want to thank the officials in rhode island for their cooperation throughout this case. we worked very collaboratively to fix the problem rather than fixing the blame, and i'm very grateful for their efforts in this matter. i always say that the best policing is the policing that comes from within, and i would urge all of us to conduct these sorts of self-assessments on the nvra front to insure that all of the covered agencies are, indeed, in full compliance. we had a very interesting and productive meeting friday with the election directors, and one of the observations that was made by at least two -- and i forgot how many exactly -- of the election directors was that they're starting to see more problems in departments of motor vehicles. so i wanted to share that feedback with you and would love to brainstorm with you on how to insure that we are doing our

level best to carry out the nvra's very important directives which we all have a shared interest in carrying out. let me talk now about owe caf v.a. because i remember vividly our conversations about the move act, and we all have a shared interest, again, in insuring that our military and overseas voters can cast their ballots and do so in a timely fashion. and the first cycle after a bill is passed is undeniably a challenging cycle. because it's the first time something's gone into effect. and i appreciate very much the efforts of everybody in this room in seeking to comply with the move act in 2010. and i also appreciate the efforts of our dedicated career staff in the civil rights division who spent remarkable amounts of time enforcing the move act and the new provisions and working with many of you in this room and many of you who were in the room on friday.

we've done a lot of outreach in the period since 2010, and many of you with special elections and early primaries this year have already heard from us in our survey work. and the rest of you will be hearing from us as your primaries approach. since the enactment of the move act, a number of states have moved their primary election dates further out from the general election date in federal election years to insure that the ballots can be timely transmitted, and we appreciate those efforts because that was, obviously, one of the biggest challenges we encountered. you may have seen that we filed a motion for additional relief in our case against new york which had a late primary date and failed to get a number of -- thousands of ballots out on time in 2010, and then failed to move its primary date further out from the general election. and just last friday, three days ago, the judge in that case issued an order moving the primary date to june the 26th. following the 2010 electioning

cycle, we conducted a careful review of our nationwide experience. we had conversations with a host of stakeholders including people on the hill, including people in this room, including people that were in the room friday. and as a result, we have prepared a package of proposed legislative reforms that we're happy to share with you. the train has not even remotely gotten ready to leave the station, and the reason i wanted to tell you about that now is so we can have that discussion not only today, but in the weeks and months ahead to address the concerns that you may have. and i know that one of the most frequently-heard concerns both last year and in the months since my visit here a year ago was the frustration that some of you in the room feel toward our civil rights division enforcement. and the concern that i heard was that the doj/civil rights division was trying to hold states accountable for misdeeds

of local jurisdictions over which you feel that you have little or no control. and i very much appreciate that concern. and at the same time, i would respectfully call our attention to the language of the statutes itself. because uacava and the move act and, for that matter, the nvra create responsibilities, and they refer to states. states shall, states shall. and by comparison, section 203 refers to states or political subdivisions which is why our action is not against the state of california, it's against alameda county. and so that is, i very much appreciate the frustration that was expressed a year ago regarding situations where perhaps counties or cities or other subdivisions were remiss in some of their obligations, but it has been the department's

longstanding practice under both republican and dem l contact administrations -- democratic administrations under statutes such as the move act and nvra to hold states accountable in these statutory contexts. and, again, this practice is based on the plain language of the statute. i certainly look forward to continuing this conversation with you because i'm going to guess that the frustration has not abated. but i wanted to make sure that i -- i figured that'd get one laugh line. [laughter] but i wanted to proactively front and acknowledge those concerns and make sure that you know that we're very willing to engage in dialogue but recognizing that we start with the plain language of the congressional edicts. and so i look forward to that conversation. i want to get to the question and answer part because that's always the, for me, the most interesting and educational part of this.

but let me spend a brief moment describing our election monitoring work. because every year we send federal observers from the office of personnel management and personnel from the department of justice out into the field to monitor elections around the country. throughout the election calendar. and these are elections for federal, state and local office. and we had a big presence around the country in the 2010 election, overall in 2010 we monitored 56 elections in if 45 jurisdictions in 19 states. and the job, as you know, of these observers is simply to monitor the election for violations of federal voting rights laws. and they report back to doj supervisory attorneys, and when we encounter concerns, we get in touch with you prompt ri to talk about -- promptly to talk about them, and we'll continue to do that. so that was a large data dump of what we've been up to. the upshot is we're as busy as we've ever been across a variety

of fronts. i am very grateful to have the dedicated career professionals in the civil rights division, in the voting section who are burning the candle l at every which end. if you want to learn more about the cases that we've filed and the guidance that i mentioned to you, www.justice.gov slash crt/voting. all of those documents i've referenced here are on the web site. or you can just call us, call us directly in the voting section or in the front office of the civil rights division, 514-2151, and i would be happy to talk to you. because i believe that we have so much in common. we have the shared interest in insuring that the access to the ballot for all qualified voters is, indeed, a right and a right that is in full force. and through our joint efforts, i think we can get there. so thank you for your time. i would love to entertain any

questions you might have. and if you don't mind, i might get a glass of water beforehand. thank you very much. [applause] [inaudible conversations] yes, sir. >> thank you. justjason gant, south dakota. we have an indian reservation in our state that, of course, we require preclearance and all of the legislation and everything. but i wanted to make sure i was understanding you correctly when you mentioned election monitoring. um, of course, i was elected in 2010, so i didn't experience how everything went down when your observers were in our state observing the election. but i want to make sure that come the 2012 elections should the department of justice decide to again come visit the great

state of south dakota -- and i'd welcome everyone to come visit south dakota -- but that you're going to be cooperating and notifying my office as well as the local election officials to make sure that everyone is on the same page on what activities you're going to be involved in so that should there be an issue that we become aware of that we may require your assistance or vice versa, that we have that open line of communication ready and available prior to election day? >> i completely agree, and i look forward to that. and chris heron, i asked chris to come with me today because chris is the chief of the voting section, and in that capacity among other things, he oversees our election damon to having program. so he would -- chances are you might be getting a call from chris or from somebody else in the section. >> can i follow up on just that part? >> yes, sir. >> secretary of state,

mississippi. in that regard when i've spoken with chris before, we've never gotten feedback for what you get when you go out. i mean, you are, you've been to mississippi many times and many of the other states that you list here, but we never get a report as to what you find or what the issues are. and i wondered if those would be available to us when you complete your investigation, and why not? >> let me turn to chris so you can hear directly from chris. >> mr. secretary, we will try to do better in that regard. we do try very hard to give feedback to local jurisdictions. after we've monitored, we'll try to loop your office in in the future to make sure we let you know what we're seeing. >> one other follow-up before -- and, chris, thank you for meeting with us when we were in washington. i appreciate it, it was very important to me. we appreciate that. subsequent to our meeting, south carolina's voting id was rejected, and y'all wrote a

letter rejecting their application. in that letter you indicated one of the salient points was the difference in minorities having driver's license versus nonminority driver's license. and i think the deviation was relatively small, maybe about 2% or so. that, as i recall looking at that letter, it appeared to me that was statistical data that you, that you based your letter on. first s that correct, and could you tell us how important the drill mating between a minority having a driver's license and a nonminority, what weight that was given? because that was the only one that was in your letter, objection letter. >> well, i can't get into the deliberations other than what is in the public record because, as you know, it remains a pending matter. the, every, every particular

submission is going to be fact-specific. and what is the linchpin in any of these submissions is that the state has the burden of demonstrating the absence of discriminatory intent or retrodepressive effect. as you correctly note, we did have access to data in south carolina that was noted in the letter pertaining to issuance of driver's license disaggregated by race. that was one issue that we cite inside there, but not the only issue that was cited. >> so what would be from your viewpoint -- i know these are specific to each one, but what would be matters that you would consider critical? that was, obviously, one you felt strongly enough to put in the letter which is public. but which other ones for those of our states who are trying to meet the section 5 requirements, what else would you consider to be important in the statistical information? >> well, again, we're going to -- we take a holistic look at

the process to determine whether the state has met it covered jurisdiction in this particular case with voter identification, it would be a state that's met its burden of the absence of discriminatory purpose and effect. so as is the case with every submission, we will gather the entire legislative record to determine what were the contemporaneous statements that were made. i would direct you to the village of arlington heights, the supreme court decision which is, that outlines the factors that are looked at when you're considering whether there's a potential issue of discriminatory intent. and we will, again, as you've seen in the south carolina context, we will be looking at all the data that the state looked at in making its determination. and then we will apply the facts of the law in the given case. every state is different. every submission is different.

and that's why we take that very fact-specific approach. >> well, and i'll stop because there are 49 others here, but the same -- when we looked at that informing concerning the move act, and we did have the opportunity to go to afghanistan as todd spoke earlier along with the secretary of state from california, pennsylvania, florida and indiana all went. so we're very strong proponents of making sure that military votes -- i doubt if there's anyone in this room that is not. >> i completely agree with you on that. >> but that being said, we do not control the counties. and when you say the states are responsible, that's correct. and none of us are the state's leading official. the governor would be in that case. and where we have attempted to have working relationships with your organization in order to have problem counties do their work, it seems that we get blamed for that when if you're

going to hold the state specific, you should hold the governor specific or the individual counties. not those really people that are trying very hard to meet the act. and i can assure you, we spend hours and untold days trying to make sure that we meet the act. and where we have a county fail, it's just as big to us. but when you come and you hold the secretary of states responsible for something they're not legally able to do, and we don't represent the state. so i would encourage you if you're going to hold the states specific, that you start with the governor. >> well, i appreciate that point. and, again, i also appreciate the situation. and i noted in my remarks the frustration from the plain language to have move act which says you're responsible, and the frequent realities on the ground. i think there are something like 11,000 jurisdictions across the country. if you add them all up, that administer elections. and congress in its wisdom made the judgment about who was

accountable. and we look forward to working with you and continuing to work with everyone around this table so that we have a little bit of luxury of time now. the move act was pass inside '09, and we immediately had to pivot into implementation phase. and now we have the benefit of that experience where we know at least in part where some of the particular problems occurred. and so we continue, we look forward or to continuing the dialogue with you and your staff and anyone else in this room so that we can, hopefully, prevent history from repeating itself to the extent that there were problems in particular jurisdictions. >> we're running a little bit behind, but i know a couple of secretaries had a couple of questions. i saw secretary kovak and secretary gardner, so maybe we could take them in that order. >> this is chris kovak of kansas. i, too, have a question about the letter. of course, the department of

justice preclearance action is bound by supreme court case law, and i don't want to get into your internal deliberations, but i'm just curious how you get around this one sentence in crawford v. marion county board of elections which, of course, was a 6-3 decision issued by justice stevens in 2008. he said for most voters who need them, the inconvenience of making a trip to the bureau of motor vehicles, posing for a photograph surely does not qualify as a substantial burden on the right to vote or even represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting, end of quote. and so i'm just trying to assess the department's decision, how can a -- if burden is not of constitutional significance as justice stevens has held or a court has held, how can a predicted difference in that burden among various racial categories be of legal significance under section 5 if court has already ruled that this increased burden has no

significance? >> well, we will be addressing that matter in the court proceedings, and, again, as i said, each case is fact-specific. under section 5 the burden restses with the state to determine the absence of discriminatory purpose and the absence of discriminatory effect. as you know, crawford was not a section 5 case, and so we will undoubtedly have the conversation to which you are referring to in court. and i suspect that you and i may have an honest and respectful but pretty serious difference of opinion. yes, sir. >> [inaudible] puerto rico. since 1952, puerto rico has had two-member senate tickets, i was a past senate president. in general philosophical term, should we be considering moving to one-member districts or keep the two-member districts? >> you know, i think that's a question for you and the governor. and as you know, i've spent a fair amount of time with the governor on another matter, unrelated to voting.

and so i would not feel comfortable opining on what i think will be a decision for the residents of the commonwealth. >> okay. >> secretary gardner? >> were there any vocations that you monitored in the 2010 election that were selected by random? >> by random? no. >> secretary mcdonough, do you have a quick question? >> yeah. follow up on exchanges with -- [inaudible] i understand the back and forth about the statute that holds the state responsible. have y'all, or the administration considered changing the statute to hold the responsible election, the responsible election authority responsible on the move? >> i think that would be up to congress. and as you move forward, mr. secretary, whom i know pretty well from a prior life, you may want to consider that. >> well, what would the

department or the administration think of it though? >> i can't speak for the department now because that hasn't been floated. >> sure. >> i would simply note i'm reading from the testimony, the floor testimony on the bill, you know, the move act does not -- there's a quote from the congressional record, the move act does not intend to and does not, in fact, take administrative control of military and overseas voting out of the hands of local officials. compliance with moves mandates, however, ultimately remains a state responsibility, and states will continue to be the entity, the main entity against which the provisions of move and ucava will be enforced should enforcement by the department of jus us the become necessary -- >> and in theirness, too, maryland took responsibility just for that activity just to insure we passed a law through the general assembly to avoid this. you know, which is also an alternative. because everybody, i think, has got right on their side here.

they want to enforce the law, we want to comply with the law. but it's the mechanics of it. and one way or the other, if we can resolve the mechanics, it might make the issue go away. >> well, again, i look forward to further conversations with all of you on that issue. because i know it's a big issue, and i do think we all have a shared interest in doing the right thing, and we all have a job to do. and i think that's what can bring us together. yes, sir. >> yeah, quick question. we're trying to change our law in alaska and move our primary back not because we can't make the deadline now, but we can't make the 45-day deadline if there's a challenge to a primary result. we may not be able to get it done this year, we'll see. but we don't have very many contested statewide races this year -- >> you have had some -- >> we have had some in the past -- >> i do recall history. >> yes. i guess the question i have, i'll be meeting with local election officials shortly. should we be, i mean, is it your

view that this law now presents a municipal jurisdiction from having a 10-day runoff after a close election and that sort of thing? how are you dealing with that, and how should we deal with that? >> well, that's an issue that, i believe, fmap is talking about the issue of runoff elections right now. they're preparing to address the issue of the applicability of the move act in a context like that. so -- >> so right now the question's open. i mean -- >> right. and by the way, i should note that the move act, as you know, applies to federal elections. >> only federal elections. >> so that is a notable caveat. >> the president has made it very clear to me that the top priority is to try to run on time, so we will do one more question. i know he's a very sought-after speaker and i'm sure will be available to us afterwards. secretary jager.

>> if you would -- it's our understanding that the department of justice has advanced amendments. could you give us your reasoning why it's necessary for you to advance those amendments and what the background is and why you are advancing them? >> we're advancing them, in short, to take a page from the lessons of 2010. we're happy to share all of them with you. the process has hardly begun, and we think the amendments will make the enforcement of the move act that much better. and the reason we're sending them out now to everybody is because i suspect there will be viewpoint diversity, and the best way to do it is not to wait until the 11th hour, but to do it when the clock hasn't even started running yet so that we can have that very open dialogue. and if you don't or already have it, i will personally make sure that everybody in this room gets a copy of our proposals so that we can, hopefully, over the

course -- and immediately, perhaps, set up a working group of sorts so that we can get your feedback on what you like, what you don't like. identify never sent around a -- i've never sent around a series of proposals where everyone liked 100%, and i would like to do that because i suspect you have ideas we haven't thought about, and i suspect we have ideas that you like, and we have ideas that you might not like. so i would love to have that conversation. >> please, join me in thanking assistant attorney general tom perez. [applause] >> thank you. >> quite obviously, with a very closely-watched presidential election upcoming, most of the chief elections officers will be working very closely with the major parties. we are pleased that will crossly, general counsel and director of voter protection at the dnc, has come back to the afternoon session here to join us.

as state officials were particularly interested in hearing about voter outreach and engagement efforts by the dnc, we will also have a representative from the rnc. we're especially interested to hear his role especially as it relates to director of voter protection. please, join me in welcoming will crossly. [applause] >> thank you, secretary miller. and thank you all for having, for having us back this afternoon. um, as i did speak briefly this morning, i will endeavor to be fairly brief this afternoon as well. l -- i do want to say that as we enter the 2012 election, we are

facing new rules, many of which have been talked about here today whether they involve photo id or voter registration, new rules are happening in the states. many of these rules we think the fact is that they will have a disproportionate effect on members of the voting public who traditionally have been disenfranchised. many of them minorities, either racial or language minorities. to that end, our focus and our goal -- one of them, anyway -- is to insure that we have an elaborate education program. so that states, in states across the country voters are fully aware of what the new rules are, how they comply with them. and i was, in fact, very much

encouraged earlier, in the earlier session today hearing the secretaries talk about work that you have going on in your respective states to insure that voters are aware of what's happening and able to, and able to comply. we hope that that will continue, we hope that we will see notices going to voters who are likely to be affected. one of the ways that i know states have done this and can do this is to cross their dmv databases, state id databases with their voter registration data ways and insure that voters who may not have the id that are recognized are noticed, that need has now, has now come about and that they have an opportunity to do that.

let me also just address two other points. one is i think that our elections, by and large, have improved. i think that they've improved procedurally with the rules, but also with an increase or an improvement in the machine and technologies that we use to run our elections. but i think there's also been improvement in participation rates. and certainly over the last half century or so, a significant improvement in participation rates. and certainly we want those, those trends to continue. nonpartisan groups have found, as this is a nonpartisan group, have found that many of the laws being advanced or passed in many

of your states are either unnecessary to secure the elections or, as i mentioned earlier, will have a greater impact on some voters, less on others, an overwhelming impact on minority voters and in many cases an overwhelming impact on our seniors. and so i want to encourage that we work together to be able to educate these voters not just for 2012, but looking forward beyond 2012. i also hope that we can join together and look for ways to improve the voter registration process. in many states the voter registration process is far behind other systems. it seems to me that it's

unnecessary to have a completely separate voter registration process where people are required to go twice, once to register and second to get the id that they need. and so we have been in favor of election day registration as a complement to the photo id process for those states that have it. we remain in favor of and concerned about cuts to the early vote process in a number of states. we appreciate that not all the states have early vote, but those that do we have seen tremendous increase in early vote participation over the years. in 2008, the most recent period, approximately 30% of all voters voted early in that cycle. and so certainly for people who have work obligations or whether

they be child care or senior care obligations and may not have the flexibility to participate in that single day, early vote remains critically important. and with that i will end there and happy to take any questions, certain that there is some disagreement with where we are from a policy standpoint on these questions. but, again, in the end we are all looking to insure the voters have access and hope that we can work together to insure that that occurs. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much. we're going to save the questions until we have the rnc representative, and then we'll -- no, no, no, and then we'll do the questions together. as you know, the rnc frequently has their former chair of the rules committee come address mass, and he wasn't able to be here today. so he asked that christian adams

fill in for him. mr. adams is an election attorney at the election law center. he was a former general counsel to the south carolina secretary of state and worked as an attorney in the voting section of the department of justice. recently, he has served for four different presidential campaigns, on ballot acts of issues, christian serves as an adviser to the republican lawyers' association and can address some of the activities taking place in the states this year. please, join me in welcoming christian adams. [applause] >> i'm slowly shifting my way for the camera. thank you all. i have the unenviable position of closing your day. um, there's three things i want to tell you about today that i think will characterize the 2012 election from my perspective that you probably haven't seen before from republicans. and i think you're going to see

et, and i think it's going to effect the work that you do during the elections. very briefly, the first one is that you will see an unprecedented social media outreach this year from the republican side that, quite honestly, was lacking in if 2008. the pendulum has sort of swung and while the, my counterpart's side was very good and effective at social media, internet outreach in 2008, the other side -- let's just be frank -- was not. i think finally the republican side has caught up to this, and you're going to see a very aggressive effort in 2012 to use the internet in a way that, frankly, imitation is the best form of flattery. and that's the first thing i think you're going to see this year. but the second thing that is going to be different this year involves the move act. and 2010 as secretary perez

noted was a warm-up year where everybody was sort of getting their sea legs. but one of the things that you'll see in 2012 is a lot of groups on the ground in the next few months registering military voters. there is going to be a concerted effort not only to remove that enforcement, but also for military voter registration on military bases throughout the country, at outpostses and towns such as, for example, fayetteville, north carolina, who has very large military populations. this, once again, has been largely ignored in past elections. those days, i think, are over with. and this year you're going to see that. now, what does this mean for you? it means that you're going to see, quite possibly, influxes of registrations from groups you've not seen before. there's a group called the military voter protection

project that exists primarily for registering military voters, and you may remember they brought a case in maryland last election involving, it wasn't exactly a move act case, the a 14th amendment claim, but it looked like a move act case where ballots were being mailed out and ended at the federal office. so this lawsuit was brought by the military voter protection project alleging a violation of the. 14th amendment that military voters were being treated differently than in-state voters. the military voters did not. so the second thing you're going to see this year, as i said s a very aggressive move act registration effort among military voters and their families. the third thing that you're going to see and the last thing that i'll mention, you probably haven't seen before, is a very aggressive effort at section 8

enforcement of nvra. mr. perez spoke about section 7 enforcement which, of course, is the welfare voter agency registration provisions. but there's only been one case, essentially, a united states v. missouri on section 8 enforcement regarding the cleansing and purging of voter rolls. i think that you are going to almost certainly see in this election cycle very aggressive efforts by third party groups perhaps with some political affiliation to bring cases against counties in most instances that are out of compliance of section 8 of nvra. there is a perception not entirely divorced from reality that many of the voter rolls in the country are corrupted with large numbers of dead and ineligible voters. secretary hoseman is not in the room, but there's counties in that have yun wards of 120,140%

of the voting age population is registered to vote. and his office is very much aware of the problem and has fought for a long time to get something fixed. but mississippi's not the only place where there's a problem. and that is a situation that a lot of folks on my side of the table view as an utterly intolerable situation heading into november's election. and so the third thing i would close with that i think you'll see this year is a very aggressive effort to clean up the voter rolls in places where the voter rolls have problems. that's not to say that it's a state problem. as we've heard today and you've heard throughout, very frequently these are county problems that the states can't get solved. and i think in large measure that's going to be the approach taken by the parties who bring these cases. so hopefully, just because it's an nvra case in your state doesn't mean that it deals with what your job, or what you're doing. but i think it's almost certainly something that you

will see happening this year. very shortly. thank you. [applause] >> thank you both, gentlemen, for your presentations. and i know that they're ready to field any questions that you may have. >> thank you, mr. secretary. i just had more of a comment than a question. to address a few of the things that mr. crossley has talked about on -- especially dealing with reducing in-person early voting. i just wanted to state for the record that we did do that in georgia. we went from 45 days to 21. the legislation included a mandatory saturday voting which we haven't had before. the reason that the legislature took that up was because the counties were complaining about the cost of having to have three poll workers in the early voting locations. there was hardly anybody coming

in those first two or three weeks. and the legislature really listened to 'em. we had a very strong bipartisan vote in the house, and i think that's important for people to realize. and i know as i campaigned around the state in many of our counties, a lot of the election boards when we go into town to visit with elections office, you'd have the republican member and the democratic member of the election board there. and in many counties they both supported reducing the number of in-person days. we still have you can vote 45 day before the election by mail. also on the photo id law i know we could probably spend a couple of days debating that. but i will tell you that we're working with an african-american legislator right now who wants to add college ids for institutions that receive public money in georgia to the list of photo ids. the reason she wants to do that is to try to help students at

predominantly black colleges, and we are supporting her in her efforts on that and, hopefully, we'll get that done this year, but i want -- i thought the important to hear those kind of stories that some of these things, especially on the in-person early voting has been bipartisan in support. >> secretary guessler? >> i would echo those comments. i hope that in your analysis, your analysis that you distinguish between early voting which we in colorado define as in-person voting at a polling location versus absentee ballots. in the colorado we've seen a huge dropoff in early voting, and that's, i think, in large part because we've seen a very large increase in absentee voting by mail. so people who may have in the past showed up at a polling place early to vote instead of getting an absentee ballot. so in our nomenclature i hope you recognize that when you say early voting, i look at it as polling place voting, and our

data is directly opposite of the view that early voting has increased whereas in colorado it has decreased at the polling place although absentee ballot has, of course, grown. >> oh, i'm sorry. go ahead. >> i just wanted to address both of these. one, i certainly appreciate that and welcome the opportunities that states have made and may be making to increase access in terms of, you know, allowing additional kinds of ids to count. one of the things that we've worked with states in promoting is written and signed affidavits by voters. so if for some reason a person happens to forget their id, that they can sign that they are who they say they are and that they live at their home address. and that information then can be used if it turns out that there's any regularity there. when we speak of early voting,

we do, in fairness, include in that a host of different kinds of voting and across your different states some have in-person early voting, some have -- it's a mail-in process, but it's still called early voting in that state. and so we used early voting as the term, but it does vary from state to state. >> secretary richie? >> thank you. i'm very interested in section 8 because in decision to administering the database, most of us are candidates, and we have to buy this. so you don't want to waste a lot of money and time. but also most of us have at some point called someone, and after asking for someone having a long pause and knowing what's coming

next. that that person has been someone's loved one lost, and you get appropriately fairly sharp response and hang up the phone. but what i don't understand if there's only been one, is there some context that we all could use that information to help leverage the people who would determine if there was money, for example, let's say we wanted to accelerate our removal of people who have died instead of having to go through the social security death registry. we might have a midnight exchange of death records among our public health agencies on a state like they do commercial truck driving licenses, and that would accelerate the process. but we would need more data than just one case to make the case to the legislators or the people who control the money and who control the laws and all that

stuff to be able to leverage improvement. you know, especially on the things that, you know, kind of really matter to us on a personal basis either as a candidate or as an administrator of a statewide voter registration system. >> if i'm not mistaken, your state is already exempt from section 8. you're minnesota, correct? i think you're one of the six that could not possibly be subject to these obligations. >> well, i would not be beyond ignoring that fact if i had an argument to use with some legislators to figure out about how financing of any improvement. but i do think we could have agreements among states on, at least on death records. because a lot of minnesotans go to the southern states, so this is a different kind of problem. so i'm interested in the stories that help us convince the people be it local officials or finance committee chairs or whomever to make this improvement.

because all of us are interested in clean lists, i mean, for all kinds of reasons we want clean lists. >> well, i've looked at the data very carefully around the country county by county, and the spread of the data, the spread of it tells me that this is more a county problem than a state problem. that's just an instinct. i haven't more gone into it. i mean, when but counties at mississippi at 140% and you have the laws that mississippi has which takes the power away from the state to do anything about it, i think it's a county problem. that was the central issue of u.s. v. or missouri when it got up to the court of appeals was whose problem is it. and absence some evidence or clear state line of delineation on authority, it's largely a county problem. >> was that the remedy that was suggested, was at a county level? >> well, unfortunately, the doj took the approach that this is a state problem and came at it, as you heard earlier and

throughout, that that's the attitude of this justice department, that this is always a state problem, and we aren't going to look at counties. i say this is this in the case of u.s. v. alabama that i brought where, and i won't get into the particulars of the case, but the question is why aren't the counties reporting this ucava data to vac? and the answer, of course, from the justice department's perspective is we only look at the states. and so it sort of locks you into one model of resolution that i don't necessarily think is very helpful. i will, obviously, this'll be in the front and center this year. i mean, you're going to hear about these cases. um, so i guess the question is what comes out of it. i can't predict. but i want to stress i think it's a county problem more than a state problem. >> okay, i think -- >> mr. secretary, could i just say one word to that -- >> yes, please. >> -- which is we agree,

actually, and would join you in moving toward a cleaner list to the extent that, to the extent that we have the data that it bears out, that this is problematic. and so, and so i don't, i don't think there is a difference of party on this issue, and i would say the same thing with respect to your comments on move act compliance and insuring that military voters in the maryland are able to vote across the ballot. that is something we would absolutely be in favor of as well. and the section 7 enforcement that's happened under the social service provision of the nvra is one where i think there has been more data sort of consistently

bearing out that it's had, in fact, in registering more voters. and to so to the extent that there's data that supports the case, i would stand with you on that question. >> we have -- we're going to have to wrap up, but one quick last question, ruth? >> thank you. um, ruth johnson, michigan. one of the problems that we have right now is that the federal government required us at our dmv which we do through the secretary of state's office that we would ask everyone if they'd like to register to vote when they came in to get a driver's license or personal id. they did that, and we have thousands of noncitizens now registered to vote. my question is, how do we get them off? we've asked social security, homeland security, i.c.e., and all of them have refused to help us, and they're the only ones that have the information. and on a quick note, a man from indonesia voted because that is the law, and he didn't try to

commit any malice, he just didn't know better, and he faces possible depor take, large legal bills, his business is a wreck because of it, and it's impacted him negatively. so it doesn't -- it helps everyone if we're able to take noncitizens off our voter rolls. >> you're in a unique situation in michigan because that lawsuit in 2008 against terry lynn land that sort of clamped down on what expukd could not do with your list. look, the secretary has looked at this issue with noncitizens. utah found noncitizens who voted in the 2006 election as part of a legislative audit, it's happening. i have texas voter registration forms, there's actually forms in harris county that for a client of mine that says are you a u.s. citizen x they actually checked no and were registered to vote. i mean, this is how bad it is. so how do you untangle this web is a very, very difficult question. the only tools really available are section 8 of -- >> going to leave the last few minutes of this.

you can find it online at the c-span video library. take you live now to the senate floor, the senate's about to gavel in for an hour or morning business, and then they'll consider a measure for federal aviation programs through 2015. they're going to hold a final vote on that at 5:30 with a 60-vote threshold needed to send it to the president's desk. senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. lord, you are god heaven and earth are filled with your glory.

use our lawmakers to hasten the day when acts of justice and compassion will mark our society and people will celebrate the common bond they share. may this bond of justice, compassion and unity first be seen this chamber, providing a model for our citizens to emulate. where there is pain, send your healing. where there is despair, send your hope. where there is darkness, send your light. where there is conflict, send your peace.

we pray in your sacred 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., february 6, 2012. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable richard blumenthal, a senator from the state of connecticut, 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 until

3:00 p.m. today. following that morning business, the senate will begin consideration of the conference report on the f.a.a. reauthorization act. at 5:30 there will be a roll call vote on adoption of that conference report. mr. president, s. 2064 is at the desk and due for a second reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill for the second time. the clerk: s. 2064, a bill to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to terminate certain energy tax subsidies and lower the corporate income tax rate. mr. reid: mr. president, i would object to further proceedings with this bill. at this time. the presiding officer: the objection having been heard, the matter will be placed on the calendar. mr. reid: mr. president, today i'm pleased that the senate will pass the aviation jobs conference report. this measure is the first long-term reauthorization the

federal aviation administration in almost five years. f.a.a. has worked under 23 short-term extensions since 2007. in fact, the f.a.a. was shut down last year. that's right, workers were furloughed and construction in airports terminated. the four-year compromise will pass this evening didn't give everything they wanted. that's what legislation is. it will finally give the f.a.a. the ability it needs to be a world-class travel system. the aviation jobs bill will also create thousands of jobs, about 300,000. it will protect airline workers and approve safety for travelers. this legislation will create badly-needed jobs and will give the f.a.a. the ability to finally upgrade the country's air traffic control system. today america realizes world war

ii aerotechnology to track aircraft. new technology is long overdue. the aviation jobs bill will finally make that critical investment possible. it will invest more than $20 billion in airports and runways across the nation and on modern air traffic control equipment. i'm very happy that democrats and republicans were finally able to reach this compromise. mr. president, i wish the spirit of compromise would also extend to ongoing conference committee negotiations on a yearlong payroll tax cut. i was dismayed to read this morning that rank and file republicans in both chambers on the fence over whether we should continue this break for working families. more than 160 million americans will benefit with an average family savings this year of $1,000. that is taxes they won't have to pay. but republicans are questioning whether americans really need that extra cash, and they're once again playing politics and

putting our economy at risk at a crucial time where we need to work out a compromise. democrats have offered to meet them halfway, even more than halfway, but republicans will not take "yes" for an answer. in exchange for extending this middle-class tax break, republicans are insisting, among other things, we pass an unrelated ideological piece of legislation that will make our water less safe to drink. this would allow mercury and other carcinogens to be put in our water supply. that's pretty stark compromise. we'll give you a payroll tax cut for 160 million americans if you will let us continue to put things like arsenic and mercury in the water of the american people. that's not a very good deal. not only that, but they're refuse to go close tax loopholes such as giveaways to oil companies making record profits. they insist on more handouts for

millionaires and billionaires before they'll do anything to benefit the middle class. the american people have spoken and they've spoken clearly. working families need this money. they need this $1,000 to put food on the table and gas in the car. and they won't tolerate republicans holding their money hostage to extort political payback. they did this last december, mr. president. in fact, i thought republicans got that message in december when they took a beating for opposing these tax cuts. hoeup they won't -- i thoep won't pick this fight a second time but time is running. if they do choose to fight as we try to put more money back in the pockets of 160 million working americans, the outcome will eventually be the same. democrats will not give in when it comes to protecting the middle class. that's why we will prepare a fallback plan in case republicans refuse to cooperate. our legislation will prevent a tax hike on middle-class

families, extend unemployment benefits, protect seniors on medicare from losing their doctors and extend expired tax provisions. it will be free of unrelated ideological legislation designed to please the radical right. stopping a $1,000 tax increase on virtually every american family is too important to be bogged down with sweetener for the tea party. senate democrats will be prepared to act with or without republican cooperation. republicans must make a choice. they can force a $1,000 tax increase on american families to strengthen the tea party, or they can compromise to strengthen the middle class. the choice is theirs. would the chair announce the business of the day. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will be in a period of morning business until 3:00 p.m. with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. mr. reid: i would note the

absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mr. johanns: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be set aside. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. johanns: mr. president, i come to the floor today to talk about an issue of paramount importance to our country, the issue of religious freedom. our great nation was founded on religious freedom.

this liberty is at the very core of our government. it has been a significant part of our heritage since this land was first settled. and it's a freedom that sets us apart from many countries around the globe. the framers of our constitution rightfully recognized that an individual's religious liberty and conscience is above any regulation, any legislation. one of the chief authors of that guiding document, james madison, declared -- and i'm quoting -- "conscience is the most sacred of all property." unquote. thomas jefferson said -- and again i'm quoting -- "no provision in our constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the right of conscience against the

enterprises of the civil authority." unquote. these fundamental values are part of the fabric of this great nation. it's no coincidence that it's the first freedom in the bill of rights. it's core value. it's an inalienable right. that means as public servants, it is our utmost duty to protect this american freedom. when i was sworn in as a united states senator, i, like my colleagues, took an oath to uphold the constitution. we all believe strongly in that oath. and i take seriously my commitment to uphold the values and the freedoms that our forefathers fought to establish and that generations of heroes have died defending. that's why today i am devastated to see this very freedom, the heart of our constitution, being

so completely ignored. the president has taken an unprecedented step in the wrong direction, grossly misusing authority to implement the new health care law. this administration has refused to exempt religious institutions that serve the public good from mandates in the law that go against their strong beliefs and their values, and the values of our nation. last august, in an interim final role, the department of health and human services announced what free preventive services on new health insurance plans would be required to provide under the law. and that those services must include contraceptives and controversial drugs like the so-called morning after pill.

with that mandate, the agency included a supposed religious exemption. but upon reading that, it was clear that that was simply unacceptable. it is so narrow that the vast majority of religious hospitals and universities, businesses, social services and charities are still very clearly required by law to comply with the mandate. many of these organizations have strong faith-based missions and deeply held convictions, yet they don't fall under the exemption. in other words, their government is compelling americans to act against their constitutionally protected moral and religious

convictions. since that announcement, hundreds of religious organizations have raised their voices, and i've heard from countless nebraskans. i held a roundtable back in nebraska where this was the topic of the discussion. 26 of my colleagues joined senator hatch and i in sending a letter to the administration condemning this sweeping mandate. we asked them to redraft the regulations so it's consistent with long-standing constitutional principles. despite these strong efforts just recently, we learned that our passionate concerns had been dismissed. very disappointingly, the administration has announced that they will move forward with the august interim rule. and under the guise of

compromise, they announce that religious organizations would have an additional year before the mandate was enforced. in other words, after election day. the head of the diocese of lincoln, a man i have great admiration for, bishop fabian brescowicz called the administration's extension a -- quote -- active mockery, unquote. americans are not fooled by this nonsensical extension. the issue is not that religious groups have time to comply. that's not the issue it's that they are being forced to provide coverage that goes against their conscience, their religious beliefs, their moral beliefs. bishop brescowicz went on to warn -- "our american religious liberty is in grave jeopardy."

unquote. the bottom line is that by issuing this decision, this administration has ignored the most sacred of all american freedoms. just a week before this announcement, the supreme court unanimously affirmed a core constitutional principle of religious liberty in the decision. the court held that churches and other religious groups must be free to choose their leaders without government interference. yet, the administration has clearly come out on the other side of our constitution. now, during the health care debate, we heard something vastly different. the president repeatedly promised the opposite. he pledged that the new health care law would not weaken long-held life and conscience protections. in his public statements about the health overhaul, he vowed --

-- quote -- "federal conscience laws would remain in place." he even issued an executive order where he stated that -- "long-standing federal laws to protect conscience will remain intact." many of us, myself included, during the health care debate warned that the executive order was just window dressing to get votes and would do nothing to protect life in matters of conscience. while supporters of the bill echoed the president's promise, i spoke on the senate floor, once in november and again in march, warning americans that they should not be fooled by hollow promises, and i urged my pro-life colleagues to join me in opposing this dangerous policy. well, now, two years after the

law's passage, the truth behind the administration's priorities has been revealed. the president has regrettably punted the implementation of this controversial mandate until after the election. so now many religious organizations are forced to face two options. act against their convictions or drop health care coverage altogether. this decision comes from an administration that granted over 1,700 health plans with waivers from the law's major provisions, many of those to unions. a total of four million people, including select businesses and unions, have benefited from the waiver process. the administration has gone out of its way to guide its friends around the onerous mandates of

this flawed policy. yet the same administration is unwilling to protect a fundamental constitutional freedom by simply crafting a reasonable exception for religious organizations. would presidents thomas jefferson or james madison have forced vast swaths of society to take action against their conscience? the answer is resounding and obvious no. this political posturing is obvious and it's appalling. this political maneuvering comes at a heavy cost for many americans. it is a breach of values and beliefs. it runs counter to the very core of our identity as americans. never before has the federal government required that individuals provide a product

that violates their conscience, and now many americans are questioning what will come next. they recognize that other strongly held beliefs could also be compromised. i'm not alone in being deeply troubled by this administration's complete disregard of the liberties in our constitution. it is these liberties that make our country great. i am a cosponsor of the respect for rights of conscience act introduced by my colleague, senator blunt. this legislation would reverse the administration's massive overstep and ensure that all conscience rights are protected. i will do everything in my power to push this to a vote. we must act to right this wrong. we must ensure that america's values are not compromised.

we must protect religious liberty. we all took an oath to do so. i am confident that with prayer and persistence, we can reverse this course. i yield the floor. i 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 unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. boozman: thank you, mr. president.

i come to the senate floor to discuss an important action this congress can take to protect manufacturing jobs and strengthen our economy. specifically, i encourage senate conferees on the payroll tax bill to include pro-jobs bipartisan language, such as h.r. 2250 or s. 1392, that would address the e.p.a.'s proposed rule on maximum achievable control technology standards for boilers, also known as boiler mact. fixing boiler mact is important because if the e.p.a. gets it wrong, it will cost tens of thousands of good-paying blue-collar manufacturing jobs. these regulations will be one more unnecessary weight dragging down our economy, making life harder for low and middle-class families. fixing boiler mact is important. also, because congress should

provide clarity and certainty to the rule-making process. the process has been plagued by complications, administrative stays, court orders and numerous other stops and starts. for example, employers spent hundreds of millions working to comply with the 2004 boiler mact rules only to be told that they must now spend billions more. the boiler mact legislation should be included in the payroll tax relief legislation which is intended to provide some help to our sluggish economy. by allowing americans to keep a little bit more -- a little more money of the -- a little more of the money that they earn. by addressing boiler mact on this bill, we can further protect jobs, especially manufacturing jobs, and prevent our country from having to absorb one more sudden regulatory punch in the gut.

fixing boiler mact is important because our economy is weak and families are struggling. last week, the nonpartisan congressional budget office predicted a weak and perilous economic situation for the next couple of years. we see continued high unemployment, including estimates that the unemployment rate will tick up to 8.9% this year and 9.2% next year. we see projections of $1.2 trillion deficits. on top of all this, we've learned that the g.d.p. growth slowed to just 1.7% last year. i hope that these troubling projections are wrong, but given what we know, we should be focused on encouraging job growth and opportunity. american families are counting on us. we should not stifle businesses that want to expand and create jobs. one way to help is to provide some regulatory certainty and to allow employers the time that

they need to adjust to new burdensome regulations. the boiler mact fix would provide the e.p.a. an additional 15 months to prepare appropriate, justified and achievable regulations for industrial boilers. without this time, e.p.a. will be forced to rush the rules out of the door. only a week weeks after they will receive hundreds of substantive comments and new data on boiler performance. the boiler mact fix would also give employers a little extra time to comply with the rules once they are finalized. this is vital because it will minimize job losses that would occur if employers had to rush to implement the new rules. the rules are very expensive, and spreading the cost out over a couple extra years will make it less likely that employers will have to lay off employees.

in arkansas lien --, alone, boiler mact will cost over $230 million and put 3,600 jobs at risk. these are real jobs and real people. i shake their hands and hear their serious concerns when i visit communities like pine bluff, arkansas, or howard county, arkansas, and in our state the proposed boiler mact rules will especially harm employers with -- who burn solid fuels such as biopass mass. the boiler mact would help by stating materials like renewable biomass that have been used for fuel for decades should remain classified as fuel and not reclassified as solid waste. we should be encouraging the use of renewable biomass, not discouraging it. sending biomass to a landfill makes absolutely no sense when we can use its power --, use

its power for our industries and create jobs. the potential harm to renewable carbon neutral biomass is very bad for arkansas, but it's not just our rural states with significant biomass that will be harmed. boiler mact will hit all states, large and small, rural and urban. for example, in pennsylvania it will cost over $751 million and put over 12,000 jobs at risk. in montana, it will cost $32 million and put over 500 jobs at risk. in maryland, it will cost over $195 million and put over 3,100 jobs at risk. in rhode island, it will cost $19 million and put hundreds of jobs at risk. in wyoming, it will cost over $155 million and put over 2,400 jobs at risk. some of the hardest hit states

include north carolina, ohio, michigan, indiana, pennsylvania, louisiana, wisconsin, virginia, illinois, and minnesota. several states will see more than 12,000 jobs put at risk, and arkansas, the expense and uncertainty created by these rules will force some employers to scale back. other employers may be able to keep existing jobs but decide that it doesn't make sense to hire new employees. while they face these mounting regulatory costs. given these serious concerns, the boiler mact fix will provide clarity and give business a reasonable time frame to comply. the boiler mact legislation passed the other body with bipartisan support from 275 congressmen. in the senate, this legislation

has the support of a strong bipartisan majority. over the last four decades, our country has truly cleaned our air by reducing emissions that pose a serious threat. threats to human health and to the environment. i strongly support appropriate science-based protection for clean air, and we must continue to protect the environment. the public will continue to support appropriate protections for clean air, especially if this congress takes a reasonable approach and gives the e.p.a. the time that it needs to develop rules that will achieve -- that are achievable, that can be implemented on a timeline that will protect important manufacturing jobs throughout our country. for these reasons, i urge the senate conferees on the payroll tax bill to include the boiler mact fix. i also ask my colleagues to let

the conferees know how important this issue is. together we can help create opportunities and protect these important high-paying manufacturing and other blue-collar jobs. thank you, mr. president. i 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 arizona. mr. kyl: i ask unanimous consent further proceedings of the quorum call be dennis pend with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kyl: thank you. the bureau of labor statistics released a new and poignant report -- employment report for the month of january with good news. more jobs created in the private

sector than had been projected and unemployment dropping to 8.3%. president obama's been taking a victory lap and touting the jobs report as a sign that his economic policies are working but it kind of reminds me of the two fleas on the back of the charity in the famous fable. they looked behind them and said what a fine cloud of dust we're kicking up. well, it could be that in the two and a half years since the great recession technically ended and three years since passage of the stimulus bill that the president promised would keep unemployment below 8%, that whatever recovery we've had is not necessarily the result of the president's policies. why is unemployment remained above 8% for the last 35 months? why are there more unemployed today than when president obama took office. the presiding officer: is it more likely that some people are finding work in spite of, not

because of president's policies? mr. kyl: today i'd like to speak about that for a few minutes. put these numbers into perspective. the obvious point is of course that we still have a long way to go before anyone can claim that we have an economic success story. let's start with the recovery itself. the fact is this has been the weakest recovery since the great depression. consider this comparison: 31 months after the recession ended in june of 2009, payroll employment has received by only -- increased by only 1.5%. during the reagan presidency, 31 months after the end of the 1981-1982 recession, payroll had had increased by 9-point %. 1.5% under president obama, 9.8%, comparable time frame, with president reagan. at a comparable point in time during the reagan recovery,

payroll employment was 6.2 million jobs or 6.8% higher than the prerecession level. in contrast, today we have about five million fewer jobs since peak employment of 2007. not more but fewer. and more than 1.1 million jobs have been lost since president obama took office. now, how can that be? because it takes a certain number of jobs just to keep up with the new entrants into the labor market. in fact, economists believe you need on average about 130,000 to 150,000 jobs per month just to hold even. so so even though we have created more jobs and the president's supporters say we've been creating now more jobs for the last 23 months, that's fine. but if it doesn't keep up with the number you need just to keep up with new entrants into the work force -- namely, 130,000 to

150,000 -- you're not making progress. in fact, you're regressing. if this recovery that we're currentlily -- currently experiencing had duplicated the path of recovery from the 1981-1982 recession, there would be 14.9 million more payroll jobs than we have today. in other words, almost 15 million more jobs. that is a better measure of the success or lack of it in coming out of this recession. now, to make matters worse, much of the recent decline in the unemployment rate can be attributed to a decline in labor force participation. in other words, people who are still looking for work. labor force participation dropped to 63.7% in january, meaning that many have simply stopped looking for jobs. this is the lowest labor force participation rate in nearly three decades. labor force participation stood at 66% at the beginning of the

recent recession. if the rate had remained at the prerecession level, the unemployment rate today would be approximately 11.4%. in other words, more than three percentage points more than it is today is accounted for the fact that that many people have simply stopped looking for work. and according to many economists, this is a better measure of the true employment situation in the country. a commentator on one of the news shows yesterday that i heard gave this analogy. if we heard that fewer people -- elderly people in america were sick, we would initially at least think that was really good news. but if the reason there are fewer sick people is that more of them have died, we wouldn't think it was a cause for celebration. and that's the problem here. too many people have just decided that it's not possible for them to get a job and they're going to stop looking. finally, the underemployment and

long-term unemployed situation. the plight of the folks that have been unemployed for a long period of time or those who are underemployed -- they have a job but they could be getting something that pays more -- has really not changed. these are the americans who want good jobs. and in the latest report, the number of those who have been unemployed for 27 weeks or more was hardly changed, at 5.52 million people, accounting for almost 43% of the unemployed population. those are the folks who are really hurting. the underemployment rate, which includes part-time workers who would like to have full-time work and those who want to work but have given up looking, has remained largely unchanged, dropping only from 15.1 -- to 15.1% from 17%. i say this, mr. president, not to pile on president obama and certainly not to denigrate the fact that we finally have a

little bit of good news coming out of the economic picture, but, rather, to make the point that the employment numbers from one month, last month, hardly tell the whole story. we have to have better pro-growth policies if we're really going to have a stronger economy, if we're going to create more jobs and overthe lonlong -- over the long term, improve the employment opportunities for all those who want work. it was very he disappointing, therefore, for the president to have rejected the keystone pipeline. that's a project that would have created as many as 343,000 private-sector jobs according to the congressional research service. and all of that without having cost the taxpayers a dime. we also need to consider how the policies of the last three yea years, which include the exploding debt and the massive new taxes and regulations that are contained in obamacare and the so-called financial reform bill, have -- have put a drag on the economy. it's increased uncertainty for

job creators and it's actually weakened the economic recovery. if president obama wants to continue any jobs momentum, i believe he ought to reconsider his position on the tax hikes coming at the end of this year. they're automatic. if we don't do anything, taxes will go up on everyone next january 1, the largest tax increase in the history of our country, over $3.5 trillion. will businesses want to expand and hire new workers in the face of a tax increase that size over the next ten years? will they want to create jobs if they're faced with an avalanche of new regulations? will they be able to invest in growth if the government keeps crowding out private investment? with massive borrowing and spending? the bottom line is, there is a recipe for turning the economy around in a very strong way and providing the jobs that people are going to need in order to get the work that they can do and need in order to support their families.

what the president has done has impeded, slowed down that grow growth. one can argue that, of course, he didn't create the problem, he inherited the problem, but that his policies have made it worse, not better, that we would have a stronger recovery had we not wasted that money on the stim husband program and had -- stimulus program and had we not passed some of the highly regular story and depressing legislation, such as obamacare. with the opportunity before us to support pro-growth policies, i'm convinced that the private sector of this country is strong enough to rebound. we're beginning to see that in these employment numbers. and if we will work with businesses, understanding that they create the jobs, not the government -- all we can do is to provide the best foundation for job creation -- if we do that, then this can be eventually a strong economic recovery. and then we really will have something to brag about.

and it's my hope that in the remaining months of this year before politics completely consumes washington, d.c., that republicans and democrats, house and senate can work together with the president to create that kind of climate in which all americans who want to can find economic opportunity and work. mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

lil quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. rockefeller: i ask unanimous consent at that the order for the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. rockefeller: i ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. officer without objection. morning business is closed.

the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate will report to the consideration -- will proceed to the consideration of the conference report to accompany h.r. 658, which the clerk will report. the clerk: the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two houses on the amendment of the senate to the bill h.r. 658 to amend title 49, united states code, to authorize appropriations for the federal aviation administration and so forth and for other purposes, having met, have agreed at that the house recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the senate and agree to the same with an amendment and the senate agree to the same, signed by a majority of the conferees on the par of both houses. the presiding officer: under the previous order, there will now be up to two and a half hours of debate on the conference report equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. mr. rockefeller: i thank you, mr. president. the problem we face here is that

a lot of -- most people are in the air, coming this direction. most will land around 5:00. so senator hutchison and i don't feel any particular pressure. we can talk for long periods of time, talk about other things. mr. president, today we are considering the f.a.a. conference report, which has been the subject of negotiations. i shudder when i say that -- between the house and the senate for much of the past year and actually we've been working on it for much longer than that. we have been through 23 extensions. we are now looking at the possibility of a bill that will in fact last for four years, which would be the best news that the airline industry ever had, that the people who work for the airline industry has ever had, that the people who provide the safety for the airline industry have ever had. so i'm very happy that the

f.a.a. modernization reform act of 2012 will extend the authorities through 2015. the president is awhich are we've sort of done this -- the president is aware we've sort of done it two months, three months, time after time after time. terribly destabilizing for the aviation industry as well as the federal aviation administration. this agreement is going to provide a lot of stability to the f.a.a. they will be happy about that. and it'll make certain there's adequate funding to support the agency's mission. the bill takes concrete steps to modernize our air traffic control system. i'm excited beyond words to be able to say that sentence. because it'll take us into a new era, andful a make much more -- and it'll make much more efficiency and more planes will be able to take off and land and do it much more safely and with absolute, you know, -- being watched from space rather than

from radar, which is what we do now. this bill is going to make the air transportation system safer than ever before and make certain that small communities have access to critical air service. i'll talk more about that. it will also make sure that the u.s. aviation industry remains competitive and remains strong. we are that way in the world. we do lead in exports on aviation, and the federal aviation industry continues to be the gold standard for safety. not is to -- not to stay we havt had problems but we've been solving those problems. this has been sometimes a long and arduous process. i think my colleague senator hutchison would agree with that. many compromises have been made to get us here. compromise are not easy. conversations are not easy. compromises are very, very difficult.

and while no one got everything they wanted, the bill will permit us, i believe senator hutchison would agree, to achieve our shared goals. the agreement will allow us to pass a comprehensive, again, four-year f.a.a. reauthorization. the legislation we have before us now will move our aviation system forward. it will not be on neutral. people who run the system, the folks who take care of airplanes and who run the companies, will be absolutely thrilled if this bill passes, which i expect it to do. in this era of very scarce resources, we still manage to produce a bill that provides the f.a.a. the money it needs to carry out its mission. and without going into too much detail, we had to make a compromise on that, but frankly, that was a compromise that was agreed to and was, i felt, reasonable in terms of the other way of looking at things.

so it's stability. the funding authorized for the airport improvement program which is very important and the facilities and equipment accounts which are just gobbledygook to most people will give much-needed support to aviation infrastructure projects and planning across our nation. it's a blueprint. over $3 billion a year is provided through the airport improvement program to provide airport grants that will make a real difference in the nation's aerospace system and the people that use it every day. we will create and we will sustain jobs in every state and we'll continue to make substantial investments in our national airports. based on the department of transportation estimates, the airport improvement program alone supports over 100,000 jobs annually. i will say later on in these remarks that there are about 10

million people that work because of something called aviation in this country. ten million people. for communities in west virginia having up-to-date airports is absolutely critical to our future. the investments we make through the airport improvement program will help the country greatly. not just west virginia, but the entire country. and with this bill, as i say, $3 billion will also be provided each year for the facilities and equipment account which basically funds the new air traffic control system. i said this ten times on this floor. mongolia has that. we do thought. they have globally positioned, very accurate reading not only for weather but for the positioning aircraft on the ground and also in the air, so that the spacing vertically and horizontally is extremely

accurate and much more efficient and uses much less fuel. this effort on the air traffic control system is -- it's embarrassing, it is so needed. we're working on radar, mr. president, right now. we're working on radar. that is compared to a satellite-based aircraft surveillance system. i have spent, frankly, much of the last decade working to make sure that the f.a.a. has the resources and ability to implement this nextgen, so-called new air traffic control system, modernized digital air traffic control system. it is so essential. it is so embarrassing we don't have it as a nation. it's such a burden on the air traffic control people themselves trying to see through the fog, so to speak, of the world of radar. this bill will move key aspects of the nextgen effort, make sure

modernization will proceed on schedule with clear time lines and a lot of oversight and requirements. we push for near-term modernization benefits by requiring precision navigation be implemented first. and this makes sense in the 35 largest airports in the country. that does make sense, by the year 2015. and then in all airports by the year 2016. this will significantly improve airspace capacity and, by the way, the environment. the bill also establishes a chief nextgen officer, not a bureaucracy but a person, to lead the modernization effort. it's very specific. it's a very calculated and precise instrument that has to be done correctly, and take steps to improve coordination among relevant federal agencies.

it's sort of a boring statement, but it's kind of a necessary one if it happens to be true, which in this case i believe it is. while modernization will provide the greatest safety benefits, the bill also requires the f.a.a. to move forward on other imperative safety measures. the bill mandates stricter oversight of airlines and their compliance with air worthiness direct alternatives. it requires -- directives. it requires regular inspections of air stations subject to controversy and the implementation of drug and alcohol processes at those facilities. specific measures in the bill also focus on the safety of our air ambulance operations. that's a lot of activity in our country. and takes steps to improve airport runway surveillance. that is, we have a problem with literally airplanes running into each other on the tarmac because of fog or because of poor coordination or whatever, kind

of things that nextgen modernized system would tend to make much less prevalent. this bill will make significant strides for the airline industry through modernization. they crave it. they need it. commercial aviation helps drive $1.3 trillion in u.s. economic activity. and, as i said before, more than 10 million u.s. jobs. so those who would consider not voting for this would have to, i think, start out on that rather alarming fact. the aviation sector is critical to our place in the global marketplace. it contributes $75 billion to our trade balance, represents roughly 6% of the gross domestic product of the country. huge. we must make certain that all

americans reap the benefits of our national aviation system. to that end, this bill preserves and strengthens the essential air service program. i have to say that that had been completely eliminated by the house. completely eliminated. i have -- that's life and death for west virginia and for a lot of rural places. and in general, almost all large states also have rural aspects, and this need this kind of help. we provide vital access to the aviation system for small and rural communities. that gives access to the global marketplace. it means that people come, c.e.o.'s don't tend to want to drive to montana or to west virginia to look over possible sites for building plans. it's very, very important for economic development. it's interesting, and i'm sure

that senator hutchison would agree with me, that communities thrive, particularly smaller communities, thrive on how well their small airports are doing. they may have good runway space, but not a lot of planements because it's not a hugely populated area. we put very strict confinements on that in the essential air service. we disciplined it. we said there could be no new ones other than the ones existing. we put restrictions on it in order to make it palatable to the other body. we said, for example, that communities that have per-passenger subsidies over $1,000 are eliminated forth with. that makes sense, that much money going into a couple of passengers, it's just ridiculous. communities that have fewer than ten passengers per day -- and there are in my state some very strong communities that have that situation.

they just can't work it out that they get people on to their airplanes, or air service. and as a result, obviously the service begins to disappear and there's no reason why the essential air service should allow any of that to proceed. so we say that if they have fewer than ten passengers per day, if you're an airport of that sort and are within 175 miles of a large or medium-sized hub airport, you are to be eliminated immediately from this program. that's harsh for some, but it's what brought us a compromise for the majority of us. all of us. the program also caps future eligibility to those who are currently in this program. i'm sure everyone has heard me say that the essential air service is the lifeblood for so many communities. i believe this bill strikes a careful balance between the need to cut government spending -- which this does -- and preserve

small-community access to our national aviation system by making some of these prudent reforms. it is important for me to take a moment to emphasize the consequences of not passing this bill. aside from not achieving all the benefits that this bill provides, we will find ourselves in a nasty fight with the house when the current f.a.a. extension runs out in less than two weeks. this is not just a bill that's floating around. this is a bill that's on a timetable, and the extension, the 23rd extension of this bill that we made runs out in several weeks. and so then everything goes back to zero. then you remember that we laid off a lot of people earlier. the house has no patience left for short-term extensions. and i can't disagree with that. and they have shown this past august they're perfectly willing to send over an extension with policy riders.

policy riders which they full well know are totally impossible for this body to accept. or for the majority of this body to accept. they also have shown thraoeur solve in all of -- shown their resolve in all of this. not too long ago they shut down the f.a.a. it wasn't a question of what's this going to do to people's lives. they just shut it down for the principle of sticking by their guns. and they furloughed 4,000 government employees, and did not seem to care that hundreds of millions in aviation trust fund revenues were lost forever. if we do not pass the f.a.a. conference report, you can be sure that the house will send over an f.a.a. extension that is just as troublesome. we have reached a compromise position under the magnificent watchful eye of senator kay bailey hutchison. again, nobody got everything that they wanted, and there are

some provisions that people have great difficulty accepting. and as i understand it that. all of this has to be within the context of the greater bill, which is a huge piece of legislation, a magnificent piece of legislation, and very much a job-creating piece of legislation. but this is, in my judgment, a very good deal. it is a fair deal. if we do not pass it, i think we will all certainly regret it. i strongly encourage all of my fellow members to support this bill. now, finally, before i conclude my remarks, i want to thank my colleagues for all their diligent work on this bill. let me be clear, we would not be here today were it not for the efforts of senate majority leader harry reid and for his guidance and for his leadership. he and his team negotiated the most sensitive part of the bill. i personally want to thank

senator reid for his stalwart support throughout this process. and right after him comes senator kay bailey hutchison. over the past four years she has done more than anybody to get this bill passed into law, hopefully passed into law. although she was fully engaged in every part of the development, most notably her work on securing a slots agreement, removed one of the biggest hurdles in getting this legislation through the senate. in fact, it was the biggest hurdle when we got this through the senate. and it was kay bailey hutchison who worked out those compromises and deals in a magnificent fashion. her deep aviation expertise and negotiating skills are truly remarkable, and this bill is another significant part of her already very substantial legacy. finally, i want to thank senator cantwell, maria cantwell. a year ago she assumed the

chairmanship of the aviation subcommittee. she made substantial contributions to the entire bill, but most notably on nextgen, the new air traffic control system, the modernized one, the g.p.s. one, the digitalized one. she effectively balances very difficult issues and at the same time sin credibly committed to the interests of washington state. we should be proud of this compromise agreement that will enable our aviation system to move forward, to meet the challenges of continuously improving safety, air traffic control modernization, airport development and small-community air service. i thank the presiding officer. mrs. hutchison: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mrs. hutchison: mr. president, i want to thank the distinguished chairman of the commerce committee for all that he said, and i really appreciate working

with him because we have had clearly, because of 23 extensions, you know that this was a hard bill to pass. since 2007, we have been trying to reauthorize the f.a.a. and particularly increase aviation safety and put our nextgen air traffic control system in place. that has been the primary moving force. but as is often the case, it is other issues that have come to the forefront and caused delay after delay after delay process in passing this bill. we did pass it through the senate, and now have come out with a court between the house and senate. so i really first have to say

thank you for the leadership of senator rockefeller, which has been quiet and effective, and letting the different members with different interests -- of which there were many on this bill -- have their say, and he was very calm throughout the process because in the end we all know that none of us are dictators, none of us are the sole arbiters of what comes out of the senate. we are a body of 100, and we have colleagues on the other side who are 435, and so obviously some people are going to have to give in certain areas. but what is good about the bill that is before us today is the major principals have been addressed, and the people who were most affected by those have been able to see the big picture that we needed to address in this bill that would give our airports the ability to grow,

expand, repair with the aviation trust fund, which the passage of this bill will do, and it will be in a stable environment because we have four years after this bill is passed. so i do want to thank the chairman and all who have worked on this bill. as everyone knows, the repeated use of short-term extensions does not allow for the long-term planning that is needed in the big projects like nextgen, the air traffic control system that will be based on satellites nor the airport improvements that are so important for our smooth aviation system to function. so what we are doing today is asking the senate to pass the conference report that the senate has already passed, so

when we pass it, which is my hope today, it will go to the president for signature and it will provide the clear, stable way forward for our airports and the f.a.a. to operate and make the sound fiscal investments in ensuring that we have a good and seamless system. first on safety, the bill does improve aviation safety, including the development of a plan to reduce runway incursions and operational errors along with significant safety improvements for helicopter emergency medical service operators and their patients. the bill modernizes our antiquated air traffic control system and moves us one step closer to a more efficient and effective use of our national airspace. specifically, it focuses on advancing the next generation air transportation system, which we all nextgen, and it improves

the management practices and oversights of the agency in the modernization efforts. when fully implemented, nextgen will fundamentally transform air traffic control from a ground-based radar system to a satellite-based system that uses global positioning navigation and surveillance, digital communications and more accurate weather services. it is our belief that most other countries in the world have nextgen already, but america has the biggest aviation transportation system in the world, and therefore when we come up to speed, it will make the seamless air traffic control system globally better. we will open -- some people will say well, nextgen, what does it

mean? well, it's going to open more airspace for our airplanes' use, both scheduled and general aviation. it will reduce delays because you're going to have better scheduling. you're going to have more accurate capabilities to schedule and therefore will open up more airspace for use by our general aviation as well as our scheduled carriers. as we know, our scheduled carriers will be growing in the future. they are restructuring and trying to accommodate, but more and more people and bigger populations are going to produce more need for aviation traffic. special attention is given to the acceleration, certification, planning and implementation of critical nextgen technologies. we have established in the bill clear deadlines for the adoption of technology and navigational procedures which will allow for

more precise and fuel-efficient use of our national airspace. this conference report also moves forward initiatives associated with the integration of unmanned aircraft systems. the u.a.s.'s, into the international airspace. we are seeing more and more applications of unmanned aircraft, and it's going to increase. we are looking at border security using u.a.v.'s, research, law enforcement, firefighting. just to name a few. there are going to be more and more uses for unmanned aerial vehicles to be able to do the photographing that have taken helicopter pilots and small general aviation and even large aircraft to do in the past. so our bill begins to have a

process for our air traffic control system to accommodate these u.a.v.'s. finally, the bill finds compromise in several difficult areas. chairman rockefeller has mentioned several of those -- the ronald reagan national perimeter rule, the air carriage of lithium batteries, and small community air service are among the compromises that were reached in this bill. mr. president, it is time that we finally create some stability in the aviation sector. this bill will do that, and i encourage my colleagues to support its passage. mr. president, i'd like to go ahead since we do have time and -- well, actually, i do see someone waiting to speak, and since we will be on the floor until the vote, i will yield the floor at this time and finish the rest of my statement later. thank you, mr. president.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. mr. begich: thank you very much, and i'm down here to speak in support of the f.a.a. reauthorization conference bill that the senate will vote on shortly, and i do want to thank both the chairman and the ranking member chairman rockefeller and senator hutchison for their great work on this piece of legislation. a long time coming. it hasn't been reauthorized since 2007. so it's been a long time coming, so i'm very excited about this opportunity, and i think it's maybe a new trend for the year. last week, we passed the stock act. hopefully today we'll pass the f.a.a. bill. a lot of work and a lot of compromise on these two pieces of legislation, this one particularly today. the last time congress actually passed a comprehensive f.a.a. bill was in 2003. the bill expired in 2007. since then, the f.a.a. has been operating on 23 short-term extensions. these temporary extensions have been detrimental. they have hindered progress on modernizing our air traffic

control. i will speak from someone who just literally flew in a couple hours ago overnight from alaska, which we clearly understand air traffic. they didn't give airports funding certainty for planning, runway and safety improvements, and they resulted in a brief shutdown in which 4,000 f.a.a. employees were furloughed for almost two weeks last summer. it is far past time that congress pass a comprehensive f.a.a. reauthorization bill. mr. president, while this bill is significant for the entire country, it is particularly important for my residents, the residents of aviation in alaska and residents overall. it is truly a lifeblood. when you think of aviation, it's our highway in the sky. alaska has six times more pilots and 16 times more aircraft per capita than the rest of the united states. more than 80% of our communities are not on the road system, so aviation is the only reliable year-round means of transportation.

this conference report invests over $13 billion in our airport infrastructure over the next four years. let me underline that. $13 billion in the next four years. this is about jobs. it's about improving our airports for safety. in an economy that's slowly recovering and on the right track, this will add to the needed jobs in the construction industry but also making sure we put it into work in areas such as aviation which is critically needed. it will improve our runways, create more safety projects at our airports and runway areas. it simply accommodates the higher traffic levels while putting tens of thousands of americans to work. this bill invests and accelerates the deployment of the nextgen modernization of our air traffic control system, as you have heard described already. we have been using a world war ii-era radar technology for our air traffic control. transition to a more accurate satellite-based tracking will allow for more direct routes

between its destinations, reducing fuel use and saving airlines money. the backbone of this technology called adsb was proven in alaska was part of the capstone project. so we're excited that we were the incubator for such an important element of our aviation, and now to see it accelerated and moved throughout the whole industry will be a huge benefit to the consumer. for alaskans, it contains an amendment which i offered and cosponsored by senator murkowski, providing relief for a one-size-fits-all rule making. that rule inadvertently prevented the shipment of compressed oxygen needed for medical and construction purposes in rural alaska. this legislation also contains a special provision that senator coburn from oklahoma and i cosponsored called the orphan earmarks provision. it repeals earmarks for aviation projects if less than 10% of the earmark has been -- has been used after nine years. it saves millions of dollars in

stalled projects so we can direct those limited resources where they can have the greatest bang for their dollar. this conference report makes significant investments in the essential air service program otherwise known as e.a.s., which serves rural and isolated areas. 44 communities in alaska will continue to receive minimal -- a minimum level of scheduled passenger service. sensible reforms that will exclude communities in the lower 48 with fewer than ten passengers per day. the house f.a.a. bill proposed to make truly draconian cuts to the e.a.s. program, again, the essential air service. i want to thank chairman rockefeller particularly for his effort to make sure that rural communities throughout america and alaska continue to receive the access they need to airspace and travel from their small communities. for the general aviation community, this bill contains no new user fees. and let me repeat that.

no new user fees for the general aviation community. funding for research into unleaded -- an unleaded fuel substitute which one day may replace avgas. i will continue to work with my copartner on the g.a. caucus, the cochair is senator johanns. this is the general aviation caucus. to make sure that aviation policies are mindful of the significant rule of general aviation, which plays not only in my economy in alaska but throughout this country. for airline passengers, this conference report includes a passenger bill of rights championed by senator boxer and snowe. it codifies commonsense approaches and changes like making sure passengers have adequate food and water and lavatory access if delayed on the tarmac. options to deplane if the flight has been excessively delayed. it's not a perfect bill. i was disappointed that the conference report contains language pertaining to the national mediation board and the

rules governing union organizing. it's not relevant to the underlying bill and was not included in the bill that the senate passed last year. and we understand this was a necessary compromise for the house leadership to allow this long-stalled bill to move forward. again an appropriate added element to this bill but recognizing the overall bill is critical to the long-term health of our aviation industry and the passengers of this country. take comfort to the folks that are listening to this provision that was added that over 30 provisions in this conference report will improve conditions for aviation workers. while i firmly believe that the controversial n.m.b. language has no place in this bill, i also recognize that it is time to move forward. mr. president, i want to recognize again the leadership of senator rockefeller and senator hutchison of the senate commerce committee. their tireless work, they never

gave up, their staffs continued to push forward and work together even when it looked like the differences between the house and senate were impossible to resox. conference report before us -- resolve the conference before us is a testament to their ten asy and bipartisanship. it's a shining example of what congress can accomplish when we put our differences aside and sit down to the daily work of legislating. this is a very strong bill, a bipartisan bill. it's unfortunate it's taken this long to get here. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on this monumental conference report which will put americans back to work and enhancing our airport infrastructure, it will make the safest aviation system in the world even safer. mr. president, i yield back the remaining time and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mrs. hutchison: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. hutchison: mr. president, we'll be voting in an hour and a half, but i would like to take this opportunity to thank so

many of the people who brought this bill together, which we hope will come to a good conclusion in about an hour and a half. and i just want to point out those people. obviously i have talked about chairman rockefeller. this has been a long process, clearly, 23 extensions, and it has been since 2007 that we had the last authorization. and i think the fact that we're going to have a four-year authorization now is the -- one of the more important elements that now our airports are going to be able to start their building projects, they're going to be able to increase their runway space, or repair, whatever the priorities are that are decided by the f.a.a. are the most important priorities for our nation, that funding source from the highway trust

fund will now be known for four years, and i think that's very important step in the right direction. i want to thank the house managers of this bill as well. the house transportation and infrastructure chairman, mica, and the ranking member, rahall. the respective aviation subcommittee chairs in the house, representatives petri and costello. their work and input on their bill was certainly critical, and the ability to come to conference and hammer it out was critical as well. in the senate i want to thank all of our conferees, senators hatch, isakson, and demint on our side, additionally, senators cantwell and thune, our commerce, aviation respective chair and ranking members for their work on the

bill. the staff of course are the ones who work long hours that you never see, but they are there. senator rockefeller and i were having telephone calls at 10:00 at night and then we would call our staffs and call back to determine what was happening and what needed to be happening. and so i think the person who runs the commerce committee on the majority side, ellen deneski, who is wonderful to work with, james reed, gale sullivan, rich swayze, and adam duffy really worked on this bill and the negotiations for all these years that we've been trying to pass it. on representative mica's staff, jim coon, bailey edwards, and simone perez, representative rahall, jail zoya, ward

mcgarricer, giles giovanazi and miles burr cet and on my staff the commerce committee minority side, richard russell and jared thompson, i want to say especially jared thompson who is the one i know the best because he is the aviation subcommittee ranking member staff leader and he knows the history of the aviation bills, he knows the subject matter, there was never a time when i would ask a specific or technical question that jared didn't know the answer, and i so appreciate his being on our staff and helping us through this very important time. so with that, mr. president, i yield the floor and i thank all of my colleagues and the house colleagues and staff for the work on this bill that i hope we

will be able to pass when the vote comes at 5:30 this afternoon. thank you, mr. president, and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mr. rockefeller: i'm in the happy position of mimicking a lot of what my colleague, senator hutchison, has said. but for a very good reason. because when you go through an experience like senator hutchison and i have been through for the last year plus-plus, you just have no -- until you do that, you have no understanding of how hard staff work. that that staff routinely work over the weekends. i mean it's just -- it's just a given. they work through the night. they will stay up all night frequently. they have to reach out in so many directions and there are not that many of them as compared to those who have requests of them. and so their work never stops.

so let me start obviously with senator hutchison, and i -- she didn't mention to d mention tod. that's three times he's been mentioned. and jared thompson and tom russell. that's a very, very tough position, to be leading negotiator. because people figure out, the interest groups, who to with to and who to pester and who to follow up with. i have that same situation with, you know, ellen denesky is incredible. i called her at 11:00 i think last night and she was fine and well and she got sick and now she's already back at work. so does that mean she's not sick any longer? i don't know. but they're -- they're driven to

excel. they're driven to drive the product home in ways which are inspiring. to my left sits james reid, who is the number two person on that committee, who, as far as i can tell, knows everything about everything. and certainly about any discussion that comes up on -- in terms of the commerce committee. he's tireless. he has young children. and the tension that that creates. i mean, not in principle but just the idea that you've got to occasionally show up at home and -- and be a good father. and gail sullivan, who is our lead negotiator, and that's a very special position on a bill like this. rick schwayze, adam duffy. rick scwayze did an enormous amount he and gail did an enormous a. things together. rick schwayze and gail sullivan. let me go to representative nick

joe rahall. obviously he's a colleague of mine. i think he's been in the house for 36 years. and he represents the coalfiel coalfields, in many ways the most volatile part of our state as its economics changes rapid rapidly. and his chief negotiator was jiles juvianazi. and to him goes the same spray e praise. congressmembers have so many fewer staff than even the subcommittees. and the subcommittees have so fewer staff in the senate. so we have to praise them very much. zim zoya rk who's his chief of staff and has been i swear for all 36 years. if it's not the case, it doesn't matter. he's a remarkable person. ward mcgarrigar and alex

burkett. with john mica, i need to mention jim coons, holly woodruff-lions, who was his lead negotiator, and bailey edwards. simone perez. let me end simply by saying that senator reid and his people so heavily involved, particularly in this one particular aspect of the bill, but he has been driving this bill in our caucus, as the presiding officer well knows, for over a year. " where's my f.a.a. bill? where's my f.a.a. bill?" he's been driving, pushing, pushing, pushing. and his chief of staff is david crohn, who so many people don't know -- and that's their loss. darrell thompson, bob herbert, bill douster, who's sort of th

the -- keeps in touch with everybody and everything -- and the floor staff. the floor staff of the majority and the minority leaders. it's -- it's just simply to be grateful to them and to make sure that you say that to them personally, that you say it publicly and you say it frequently. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that from this point forward, that any time spent in quorum calls be equally divided. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. rockefeller: i thank the chair. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. a senator: mr. president, i rise

and ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coons: mr. president, last week president obama unveiled his start-up america legislative agenda. it marked the one-year anniversary of his start-up america initiative, an ambitious, impressive national energetic letter led, by among others, legendary innovator and founder ofa.o.l., steve case. it was a strategy on how the young people can help companies and particularly entrepreneurs all over the country get into the game of starting and growing businesses. it's smart and it's important. entrepreneurs are driving our economic recovery and will drive our economic recovery into the future. they're taking the risk personally to turn their ideas into start-up companies in fields from biotech and clean energy to manufacturing. and among these innovators could be the next american giant, a general electric or a dupont. but in order for these start-up companies to grow, we have to

support them in their critical early stagesment -- stages. so, mr. president, today i take that as our challenge. whenever i visit a factory in delaware or meet with a young owner of a company that he's just started, i ask the same question -- how can we best help you to grow? small business, it's often said, is the engine of job creation in this country, and in the 1990's and early 2000's, small confirms created more than 65% of the new jobs in this country. but i want us to particularly focus on those small businesses that have enormous potential, so-called dizelle start-ups, those that grow not from 5 to 10 or 5 to 20 employees, but from 5 to 50 to 500 to 5,000. whether it's facebook or other start-ups that have gone from literally benchtop or dorm room to being employers of thousands or tens of thousands. our economy has grown dramatically because of these rapidly growing innovative start-ups.

and typically they are start-ups that focus on a disruptive technology or product, something that fundamentally changes a whole sector of our marketplace. and they have the most promising potential for job creation. between 1980-2005, most of the net new jobs in america were created by firms that were five years old or less. that's about 40 million jobs over those 25 years. well, this summer i hosted in delaware a series of round-tables with business owners. the focus of these conversations were on how we can help their businesses to grow and grow quickly. a lot of these businesses were young and innovative companies. they have a great idea and a good start on their research, but i often found, particularly in this economy, they are struggling to capitalize on their innovations. innovation is the spark that drives and sustains entrepreneurship, particularly entrepreneurship in disruptive technologies. but it is research and development that drives that innovation. and government only has so many tools we can use to help promote innovation. and today i want to talk about a

piece of the tax code that is one of the most powerful tools in our toolbox. 30 years ago, congress created the research and development tax credit, or the r&d tax credit, to help identify companies -- incentivize companies to invest in innovation, to invest in the people who are doing the research and the development that drives innovation. in fact, 70% of r&d qualified expenses today are for wages, so in many ways, it is an innovative jobs credit. it has helped tens of thousands of companies and has been extremely successful at getting companies to invest in innovation, but it has one key weakness. it expires. it expires all too often. it has, in fact, expired eight times and been extended 13 tim times, and it has most recently expired in december of last year. the first bill i introduced as a senator last april was entitled "the job creation through innovation act," and it did two things. first and most important, it made the r&d tax credit

permanent. important, in my view, to sustain and extend this successful program. but there's another issue that we still need to address, to make the r&d tax credit relevant to these early-stage, innovative, high-growth companies. right now, the tax benefits of the r&d tax credit are available only to more established companies that are already turning a profit. you have to have a tax liability on your profits for that credit to be of any value to you. that's a roadblock in the way of success for start-ups and small businesses in delaware and around the country. and a place where i think we can and should come together across the aisle to address this gap in the r&d tax credit program. because, in my view, it is these small early start-up as that most need a cash infusion to support their confidence, their stability, and their innovation. and we can and should take this tax credit and retool it in a way that makes it more relevant and more effective. if entrepreneurs are the ones taking risks in this me and creating jobs, they should be the ones we support in this

tough economy through our tax code. and as i said before, history shows it's those young companies that are creating the most jobs, the most quickly and that have the best return on tax expenditures. so here's what i've been working on. as i've met with innovative young businesses in delaware, one of the ideas that comes to me more than once is to change the r&d tax credit so that it's accessible not by just being permanent to big ask profitable companies but by being tradable so that smaller or start-up companies that have no tax liability can take advantage of it. how would that work? well, it allows start-ups to sell their tax credit to a larger company, giving them a much-needed infusion of cash. let me give you an example. elkriton is a small but high-promise, high-potential delaware company. it has patented strains of bacteria that are designed to consume duckweed -- also called pond scum -- and produce biobutenal, a promise drop-in

alternative fuel. it's got tremendous potential. the company today is run by two ph.d.'s who have put the money all the money they can raise from family and friends and all the money they can raise into research and development. but for them to grow and breaux quickly, they need access -- grow and grow quickly, they need access to more capital to grow and grow quick. and ebizon is trying to bring to market cutting-edge innovations in computing and in the development of proteins from the university of delaware and the desert research institute. they're doing incredible things there. both of these companies need more funding to invest in r&d and to capitalize on their potential to grow rapidly and grow high-quality jobs. if they were already bigger, well-established, successful companies, they might well qualify for the existing r&d tax credit. but because they're so small and just getting started, our current tax credit doesn't help them at all. fortunately, delaware's also home to a few great well-established companies and since those companies turn a profit and pay taxes, they could

actually utilize a tax credit. so in had case, elkritonoevozyme would sell their credit to the bigger, more established credit. the bigger company gets the credit, the smaller company gets the money it needs to sustain innovation. it would be a win hoof win. this is just one idea of a number of that i've introduced, that i've proposed, that i've discussed with senator baucus and others on finance, and i hope that in discussing it tod today, some of my colleagues here on both sides of the aisle and leaders in the business and innovation communities will work with me to further refine it, folk us it and make it part of our greater conversation about tax reform and the economic recovery. we can and should put our heads together here to find commonsense solutions to the problems, challenges and opportunities of innovation and competitiveness. we have to give american business the support they need to compete in an increasingly competitive global economy, because, in my view, we are falling behind in the race for innovation. in the 1980's, the united states

was routinely ranked as having the best r&d tax incentives and overall support for innovation in the world, but today, some studies have us ranked 17th in the world in supporting and sustaining innovation. i refuse to let american companies, american inventors and american workers behind. with the right resources, american ingenuity will continue to outcompete any country on earth every time. i know it's possible. i've seen it week in and week out as i visited small and medium start-up companies in delaware. just a few weeks ago in bridgeville, delaware, a town many from here have traveled as they've gone to the delaware beaches. i stopped to visit a small company, miller metal, that is proving day in and day out that with investment, with innovation, with continuous improvement, they can go head-to-head with chinese metal fabricators and win. manufactured in delaware, competitive in the global marketplace. although we really need a full overhaul of our corporate tax

structure, making this one small tweak to the r&d tax credit, to make it accessible to early-stage innovative companies will, in my view, give us a running start into the headwinds of the global economy. and i think we have no more time to waste. it is small businesses and innovative strategies that will create the jobs we need to put our neighbors back to work and turn this economy around more quickly. let's work together. let's help them, and let's make progress on this most important proposal to change the r&d tax credit, make it permanent and make it accessible for early-stage companies. i'm i'm eager to hear what other people think about this idea and hope they'll connect with me and my office and let me know how to execute on it and how to deliver it in the tool kit of american innovawtion. with that, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. roberts: i rise today to speak as many have -- as my colleagues have done -- the presiding officer: the senator is reminded that we are in a quorum call. mr. roberts: i ask the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. roberts: thank you so much, mr. president. as i said, i rise today, as many of my colleagues have done to speak in favor of the final passage of the conference report to accompany the f.a.a. air transportation modernization and

safety improvement act. i don't know what the acronym is for that, but it is a long name, but it's been a very comprehensive bill, a very good bill. and i especially want to thank senators hutchison and my good friend from west virginia, senator rockefeller, and their dedicated staff for the countless hours, mr. president -- countless hours -- they have dedicated over the past five years -- five years -- to produce legislation that will provide the federal aviation administration with the tools necessary finally to begin supporting a 21st century national airspace system. it is not often that you have a staff, two members dedicated five years to finally come up with a bill. tough sledding, but they've gotten it done. the aviation industry remains one of the most important economic sectors in my home state of kansas. passage of this four-year reauthorization is absolutely critical for giving aviation

companies the necessary funding and regulatory certainty to move forward with a number of important initiatives. not very often in today's world can you talk about regulatory certainty. this bill will do that. specifically, the f.a.a. air transportation modernization and safety improvement act includes provisions to implement a state-of-the-art satellite-based navigation system to provide operators and users of our national airspace the ability to seamlessly guide and locate traffic throughout our nation and around the world. it also authorizes critical funding for the essential air service programs, which provide kansas and other rural states the ability -- still, the ability -- to provide air service to smaller communities and the citizens and businesses whose livelihood relies on the ability to travel longer distances in a short amount of time. as a member of house -- as a matter of fact, even prior to that as a staffer to a member of

the house, i was part of the effort that established the first essential air service, so i have a lon a longtime interesn this and i thank the senators for doing their very best to preserve this program. more importantly, this legislation reflects a bipartisan effort to continued health of the general aviation industry. this industry contributes over $150 billion -- $150 billion -- to the national economy each year, has created over 1.3 million jobs. anybody wants to hear about job creation, this is the outfit that did it -- across a broad range of disciplines and allows companies the ability to access all -- all -- facilities all across the globe. this is where i want to particularly thank chairman rockefeller and senator hutchison, as well as my colleagues on the finance committee who are tasked with finding the necessary funding streams to pay for the annual

$15.9 billion tag that this legislation does authorize. notably, this legislation does not -- does not -- include language imposing disproportionate and onerous user fees on the general aviation industry. this is contrary to what has happened in the past. this has been a general agreement now, and rather this legislation preserves the current fuel tax levels and efficient and effective funding mechanism that accurately reflects general aviation's use of the system. if anybody down at 1600 pennsylvania avenue is listening, i would hope that they would adopt the same attitude as we have been able to reach in a bipartisan way and not pick on any particular industry. -- or use their name or an anone anymore about their name about six, seven times in three paragraphs of recent speeches. lastly, this legislation would not undermine steps taken at the

department of transportation to protect private citizens from having their movements tracked by anyone with easily accessible flight-tracking technology. so, in closing, i look forward to joining my colleagues later this afternoon in passing this important issue, an important measure, a great comprehensive bill that will support more than a million jobs and help spur further economic growth and development in our nation's aviation sectors. mr. president, i yield the floor and i recognize the absence of a quorum -- mr. isakson: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. isakson: thank you, mr. president. i rise for a moment to echo, first of all, the words of the distinguished senator from kansas. he was right on target in every point that he made, but i also rise to pay tribute to the chairman, senator rockefeller, and the ranking member, kay bailey hutchison. mr. ray who have from west virginia in the house and chairman macah in the house who all did an outstanding job.

i was thinking on the airplane flying up here -- it was an appropriate place to think; we're all on airplanes a lot -- i thought about the many bills i've been involved in this my 13, now 14 years almost in the congress of the united states. but i don't know if i've ever remembered a conference committee that was so far apart and so divided that came together finally in the best interests of the american people than one. senator rockefeller, i want to pay tribute also to the majority leader, harry reid, who played an instrumental role in finding common ground. speaker boehner in the house of representatives did the same thing. this was a team effort. the national mediation board decisions that were made in the final agreements were good and fair. as senator roberts has said, the treatment of the general aviation and commercial aviation fair and equitable. we now have a four-year plan for the next generation. everything that happened, happened for the best. it happened because of chairman rockefeller and congressman

micah and speaker boehner, and senator reid. i want to thank all for the work they did and i am very proud to have been a part of the solution that led to the reauthorization of the federal aviation administration. and i would noalt the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. mr. rockefeller: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the order of the quorum call be rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. rockefeller: and i want to thank the disappearing senator roberts from kansas and the ever-present senator isakson from the state of georgia -- state of atlanta -- for their very kind remarks. and i really mean that. you know, you are two good people with a lot of experience, business experience, aviation in your -- is hartsdale still the

world'world's busiest airport? and then you come down and praise this bill means a lot to the senator. thank you both. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. harkin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. harkin: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. harkin: i ask unanimous consent that nora gublebcker, a member of my staff be granted floor privileges for today's session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. harkin: i rise to express

concerns about the bill rethat relate to the railway labor act. i am troubled by the inclusion of this language and the implication that it creates. namely, that this independent federal agency and the hardworking americans it protects are being punished for recent regulatory changes that protects worker's rights. national mediation board, or n.m.b. as it's known, established in 1934, is an independent agency that administers labor relations in the air and rail industries. in 2009, this small 5, 1-person agency, went through a careful process to change the voting rules governing the election that is it administers. under the old, antiquated election system, all nonvoters were automatically and

arbitrarily treated as a "no" vote or a vote against the union, regardless whether or not they actually opposed forming a union. these rules were contrary to the election rules used in the national labor relations board supervised elections and different from the rules governing elections held throughout the entire united states from school boards to the united states senators. think about it. if you don't vote, you're counted as a "no" vote. what kind of sense does that make? it made no sense. just as it would be unfair to arbitrarily assign an individual american a position in, let's say, in the presidential race because he or she chose not to vote, it was unjust to capriciously impose a position on rail and aviation workers who for one reason or another didn't vote in a representation election. that's why the national mediation board adopted the commonsense rule, the same rule that applies to industries all

over america that are governed by the national labor relations board. the rule was that in future elections a voter's decision not to vote would have no impact on the election's outcome. only those voters who actually participate will determine the outcome of the election. a majority of those who vote determines who wins. this basic system, as i said, of conducting elections works for school boards, for congress. it works for all the businesses in america that are governed by the national labor relations act. and it will work and has worked for rail and aviation workers. the only entity that this new system apparently doesn't work for is the management of a few powerful airlines. these powerful companies don't want workers to have representation. they don't want to engage in collective bargaining with their

workers. they're deeply concerned about the remote chance that at some point in the future they just might have to put a few additional dollars into middle-class workers' pockets. so they wage an unprecedented attack campaign to kill this rule, the rule that says that if you don't vote, your vote's not counted. yes or no. the only votes that count are those that vote "yes" and those that vote "no."á in the past, if you didn't vote, infrastructure automatically counted as a "no" vote. no other business in america has a rule like that governed by the national labor relations board. so these few powerful airlines waged an unprecedented attack campaign to kill the rule. first they found some friends in congress and tried challenging the rule under the congressional review act, a law that allows congress to overturn a rule through a resolution of

disapproval. they lost that fight here on the senate floor. next, they went to court to challenge the legality of the rule making. well, they lost that fight in the district court and then they appealed it to the court of appeals and they lost there, too. so then they wage a last-ditch effort to kill the rule on this f.a.a. bill, which has nothing to do with it. again, this was not in the senate bill. the house put it off. a totally unrelated provision dealing with the national mediation board that isn't even a part of the f.a.a., and which isn't in the jurisdiction of the two relevant committees. now, the f.a.a. reauthorization has historically been a bipartisan bill that is essential to the operation of our aviation system. as a pilot myself, i have been all my life, i can see why this

bill was needed, believe me. the current bill not only extends a wide variety of provisions impacting aviation, it helps create tens of thousands of jobs and to bring our aviation system into the 21st century. this important legislation has absolutely nothing to do with the national mediation board whose sole job is to oversee labor relations. the last year, house republicans tried to turn this f.a.a. reauthorization bill into a vehicle to attack workers' rights. they added a provision to their bill repealing the national mediation board's election rule, the rule which said that if you don't vote, it's not counted. it's not counted as a no vote or yes vote. it's just not counted. a commonsense rule. well, then when the house and senate bills were in conference, last year, they refused to pass a clean extension of the f.a.a. laws, as had been done on more than 20 occasions prior.

and since they didn't do that, they stopped the conference negotiations. instead, the house forced a partial shutdown of the f.a.a. that shutdown last summer left 4,000 f.a.a. workers furloughed, put many thousands more people out of work in airport construction, cut off f.a.a. reimbursement payments to small businesses across the country, it cost the government about $25 million in tax revenues every single day, just because the house was attacking workers' rights, they wanted to add this onerous provision to the f.a.a. bill. now, while frustrating, it has long been the norm here to keep agencies operating with short-term extensions while bills whose terms have not been worked out are negotiateds. -- negotiated. the house action was a rare break from that norm and it caused real damage to thousands of real people. fortunately, there was a

substantial public backlash against the house republicans, and they had to back down and they let a short-term f.a.a. extension pass. then they backed off on their demand to kill the rule, but the powerful corporations behind this effort still couldn't let the issue go. despite the fact that the new rule had been in place for more than a year, has had absolutely no negative impact on any carrier. the union's success rate in elections has remained roughly the same before and after the rule's implementation. these corporations were still bound and determined to attack the national mediation board and to attack america's rail and airline workers and to wish them for having the audacity to stand up for what's fair. they have the audacity to stand up and say a no vote -- or a vote that's not taken shouldn't be counted as a no vote or a yes

vote. it shouldn't be counted at all, which i think most americans would think makes sense. so these corporations got their friends in the house republican leadership to demand the addition of burdensome new changes to the railway labor act in this unrelated f.a.a. bill. the dramatic changes they initially demanded to this statute were absurd, would have been irresponsible to slip into a nonamendable conference report without any consideration by the committee of jurisdiction, which happens to be the jurisdiction that the committee that i chair here in the senate. fortunately, senator rockefeller, the chairman of the committee, conference committee and senator reid through months of negotiations were able to stave off the worst of the house republican proposals and ultimately settle on a package of less detrimental changes. under this new language, the agency retains discretion to determine when a union should be properly certified as a

bargaining representative, and we have no intention of changing that process. i also think that we have left a lot of room here for the agency to make rules that govern special situations, such as mergers. but to be clear, i don't think any of us on this side of the aisle wanted to make these changes at all. we were forced to do this by a few powerful people who were willing to hold many thousands of american jobs hostage. holding hostage improvements to our airway system just to get this. now, some people might call this process a compromise, but i call it an abuse of our legislative process, and we shouldn't let it happen. now, to be clear, as i have indicated, there is progress in this bill for the people of my state and the people of this great nation. it will create jobs. it will move our country's aviation system into the 21st century. it shifts our air traffic control system to a g.p.s.

system. planes can fly far more efficiently, saving fuel and time. it provides a compromise that continues to the essential air service program. so, again, i -- i want to thank chairman rockefeller for his diligence, his hard work over four years trying to lead the house and others into moving, moving our air transportation system, both for general aviation and for air transport and for the airlines to be more efficient and to use less fuel. more benign to our environment. i believe there is a lot in here that's going to help general air traffic controllers also. so i thank senator rockefeller for his diligence and his hard work on this. so my vote today, my vote no on this bill is not to suggest that there aren't many good things in this bill, but instead my vote is to stand up against the notion that a federal agency and

the american workers it is charged to protect should be punished for doing what is right and what is fair, what is in their jurisdiction, and to stand up against a process that allows the few and the powerful to hijack this body and change their rules of the game in their favor. the american people deserve better than that. mr. president, i yield the floor and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. rockefeller: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mr. rockefeller: i note that the time is just before

5:00 he -- 5:00. i believe my distinguished colleague, senator hutchison, is not on the floor at this time. i do not know of nor have i heard of other members -- the presiding officer: we're in a quorum. mr. rockefeller: i ask unanimous consent the order of the quorum call be rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. rockefeller: the earlier part of my remarks is already on the record, so i will just continue, and so i don't know that we really need to do much except to go ahead and vote, and i don't have the power to command that. i see a lot of people up here who do. but i would just say if there is anybody at the last moment who wants to speak, that's fine. we meant to vote by 5:30. i think there are a lot of our colleagues who will not get back here until 5:30 because they are coming on airplanes that will land at about 5:00, so we have

to take that into consideration. so i'm simply standing here to say that i happen to think this is a very, very good bill, and i think it has been mentioned often, it's a four-year product of hard work with unbelievable consultation with all of the stakeholders, which includes all of the members of the senate and their staffs and all the people out in the world of aviation. i mean, we have spent endless hours with them and rightly so and happily so. i think there is general support in the aviation community for this bill. i would read a list of all the people who do support this. it would take me a long time, but the associations do support it. and i would hope very much that my colleagues would vote for this bill. as i indicated, nobody got all that they wanted, but that's the nature of compromise, and compromise in and of itself is particularly difficult in this

negotiation. but we have done what we have done. it's well regarded, and i urge my colleagues when they do come to vote for the bill. i thank the presiding officer and yield the floor. and i yield back all time on our side. i can't do that for the other side. and so i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: