S5934 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE August 2, 2012 

First, the measure we are passing renews import sanctions for 1 year and 1 

year only. I emphasize this point because it has been misreported that this 

bill renews sanctions for 3 years. That 

is not accurate; the bill renews them 

only for 1. 

Second, enactment of this bill does 

not overturn the easing of investment 

and financial sanctions that the administration unveiled earlier this year. In 

fact, this year’s bill, as in years past, 

provides authority for the administration to waive the import sanctions 

should it determine that certain conditions have been met. Before deciding 

whether to waive import sanctions, I 

would strongly urge the administration 

not only to consider the changes occurring within Burma but also to consult 

closely with Nobel Peace Prize laureate Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the 

National League for Democracy. 

This year’s legislation comes at a 

time of historic changes on the ground 

in Burma. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, long 

a political prisoner in the country, is 

now a member of Parliament. The National League for Democracy, once a 

banned organization, now actively participates in the political life of Burma. 

For these reasons, the administration has taken a number of actions to 

acknowledge the impressive reforms 

that President Thein Sein and his government have instituted. The United 

States has responded by sending an 

ambassador to Burma for the first time 

in two decades. The administration 

also largely waived the investment ban 

and financial restrictions, permitting 

U.S. businesses to begin investing 

again in Burma. 

For my part, I want to see investment in the ‘‘new’’ Burma. I want to 

see Burmese reformers empowered accordingly, and I want to see greater 

economic development come to this 

underdeveloped country. And, frankly, 

during challenging economic times 

here at home, I want American businesses to be able to compete in Burma 

now that sanctions have been removed 

by other Western governments. 

That said, high standards for accountability in American business operations in Burma are important going 

forward. This seems particularly acute 

with regard to transactions involving 

Myanmar Oil and Gas Enterprise. I 

would urge U.S. businesses to show the 

Burmese people and the world the positive effects that American investment 

prompts. I am confident that, as they 

do elsewhere around the world, U.S. enterprises in Burma will set the standard for ethical and transparent business practices and lead the way for others to follow. 

I would be remiss if I did not note the 

significant challenges in Burma that 

lie ahead. Ongoing violence in Kachin 

State and sectarian tensions in Arakan 

State reflect the long-term challenge 

of national reconciliation. Hundreds of 

political prisoners remain behind bars. 

The constitution still has a number of 

undemocratic elements. And the regime’s relationship with North Korea, 

especially when it comes to arms sales 

with Pyongyang, remains an issue of 

grave concern. 

Even with these challenges, however, 

I am greatly encouraged by the 

progress that has been made over the 

past year and a half in Burma. My colleagues and I in the Senate will continue to monitor developments in the 

country with great interest and with 

hope for the future. 

f 

AFRICAN GROWTH AND 

OPPORTUNITY AMENDMENT ACT 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under 

the previous order, H.R. 5986 having 

been received from the House of Representatives, and its text being identical to the text of S. 3326, the Senate 

will proceed to the immediate consideration of the measure, which the clerk 

will report. 

The bill clerk read as follows: 

A bill (H.R. 5986) to amend the African 

Growth and Opportunity Act to extend the 

third-country fabric program and to add 

South Sudan to the list of countries eligible 

for designation under that Act, to make 

technical corrections to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States relating to 

the textile and apparel rules of origin for the 

Dominican Republic-Central America-United 

States Free Trade Agreement, to approve the 

renewal of import restrictions contained in 

the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 

2008, and for other purposes. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under 

the previous order, the clerk will read 

the bill for the third time. 

The bill was read the third time. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under 

the previous order, the bill (H.R. 5986) 

is passed. 

f 

VETERANS JOBS CORPS ACT OF 

2012—MOTION TO PROCEED—Continued 

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I 

would suggest the absence of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The assistant bill clerk proceeded to 

call the roll. 

Mr. MCCAIN. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the order for 

the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. 

WHITEHOUSE). Without objection, it is 

so ordered. 

SYRIA

Mr. MCCAIN. Mr. President, at this 

late hour of our session, until September, I think it is important we continue to pay attention to and be concerned about the situation in Syria. 

Today, Kofi Annan, the former Secretary General of the United Nations, 

announced the failure of his mission. If 

there is anything about the conflict in 

Syria that did not surprise most of us, 

it is the fact that Kofi Annan’s mission 

was a failure. It was doomed to failure 

from the beginning. It was based on the 

premise that somehow Bashar Assad 

would be motivated to stop the massacre of his people. It was motivated on 

the premise that somehow U.N. observers could come in and stand between 

the two fighting forces but totally ignore the fundamentals of this conflict. 

The fundamentals of this conflict are 

simple: It is the Syrian people attempting to assert their God-given rights and 

throw off the yoke of a brutal and unconscionable dictator, and on the other 

side of the equation Bashar Assad’s 

commitment to doing whatever is necessary, including massacring now as 

many as 20,000 of his own people in his 

desperate quest to remain in power in 

Syria. 

Let’s not forget that one of the reasons we have seen heavy Russian involvement in the form of supplies of 

arms and equipment and continued 

Russian veto of resolutions in the U.N. 

Security Council that would have imposed even the mildest sanctions on 

Bashar Assad is what seems to be some 

kind of nostalgia on President Putin’s 

part for the old Russian empire and the 

maintenance of their one base on the 

Mediterranean port in Syria. 

The Russians’ behavior in this 

throughout, as they continue to block 

one resolution after another, of course, 

is revealing of the true nature of the 

Putin regime, the autocracy and 

kleptocracy that has now asserted its 

full power and weight in Russia. In addition to that, of course, we have the 

Chinese joining Russia in their sustaining of vetoes in the U.N. Security 

Council. 

It is hard to overstate the damage 

these actions by Russia and China have 

done to them, but it is also hard to 

overstate the damage that has been 

done to the Syrian people, with Russian equipment being supplied constantly, Iranian boots on the ground 

helping to set up torture centers, and 

continued encouragement of Bashar 

Assad to remain in power. 

I am not here to again critique this 

administration’s abysmal record, but 

isn’t it ludicrous—isn’t it ludicrous—to 

base your entire policy toward Syria 

on the belief that somehow the Russians would convince Bashar Assad 

that he should leave Syria? Isn’t it 

foolish to somehow base your policy 

and nonintervention on the belief that 

somehow the mission of a former Secretary General of the United Nations 

would succeed when it was clear the 

Syrian people were not going to be satisfied with the continuous barbarous 

regime of Bashar Assad, and certainly 

Bashar Assad was not going to give up? 

It is clear through Iran’s actions that 

its rulers are playing for keeps in 

Syria, and they will stop at nothing to 

prevent the fall of Bashar Assad. Why 

are the Iranians so committed and involved? The words of General Mattis, 

the Commander of U.S. Central Command, described it before the Senate 

Armed Services Committee when he 

said that the fall of Bashar Assad 

would be ‘‘the greatest blow to Iran in 

25 years.’’ 

So the United States does have more 

than a humanitarian interest in what 


bjneal on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with CONG-REC-ONLINE
August 2, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S5935 

happens in Syria. In fact, if Bashar 

Assad falls, Syria loses its position as 

far as Lebanon is concerned, the Lebanese people have an opportunity to lose 

their client status of Syria, and 

Hezbollah absorbs a serious blow because they lose their patron in Syria. 

So the fall of Bashar Assad is not 

only a victory for the force of democracy and freedom, but it would also 

mean a significant—a significant—advance in our interest in the region as 

our major concern today remains the 

Iranian continued development of nuclear weapons. The path they are on 

sooner or later may provoke an attack 

by either Israel and/or the United 

States of America. 

I say that with some authority because the President of the United 

States, President Obama, has appropriately said it would be unacceptable 

for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. 

I have been, along with my friend JOE

LIEBERMAN, to a refugee camp in Turkey on the Syrian border. There have 

now been thousands and thousands of 

additional residents there who have 

had to flee the brutality of Bashar 

Assad inside Syria. I met young men 

who were freshly wounded. I met defectors from the Syrian Army who described how they are instructed—they 

are instructed and indoctrinated to 

rape, to murder, and to torture. I met 

individuals who have watched their 

children murdered before their very 

eyes, and I met a group of young 

women who had been gang raped. 

I wish every American could have 

had the opportunity to see these people 

whose only reason—only reason—to 

rise up is because they want to achieve 

their God-given rights. 

What is going on now in Syria is very 

important, because the longer the conflict drags out, the more jihadists and 

foreign fighters and extremists come 

into the fight. 

Every day that goes by that Bashar 

al-Assad is in power is another day 

which will make it more difficult once 

he leaves—and he will leave, but the 

question is when—but how difficult it 

will be for Syria to knit their country 

back together and become a functioning democracy. 

There is also a very serious issue of 

chemical weapons. It is well known, 

and for the first time recently, the Syrian government acknowledged that 

they have stores of chemical weapons. 

These chemical weapons pose a great 

threat in a very unstable region. There 

are various scenarios that we should be 

deeply concerned about. One of them is 

that if chemical weapons fall into the 

hands or shift to Hezbollah, what kind 

of a threat does that pose to Israel? I 

remind my colleagues that Hezbollah 

has committed to the extinction of the 

State of Israel, as has Iran. 

So what happens with these chemical 

weapons is a very important issue. The 

more chaos and the more disorder and 

the more frustration and anger that is 

displayed on both sides, the more likely it is that these chemical weapons 

can fall into the wrong hands, and they 

are not located in one place. 

So there is a great deal at stake. 

There is one thing I hope we could all 

agree on; that is, the longer it lasts, 

the greater the danger, the greater the 

chaos, the more killing, the more 

rapes, the more murders. 

Today we have information that the 

President of the United States has 

made a decision—and I am not sure of 

the details because I only know the 

media reports, but the best way to describe, as I understand it is—to facilitate the flow of weapons to the Syrian 

resistance fighters. I don’t know how 

that is done. I don’t know how that is 

accomplished, but I do know this, that 

they also need a sanctuary. They need 

an area that is secure, the same way 

the Libyans needed Benghazi, so they 

can train, equip, and establish a government. 

The resistance, as we all know, is 

fractured. The best way to join them 

together is to have a central council 

they can answer to and that can make 

sure the weapons go to the right place. 

That is a vital component that should 

happen sooner rather than later. 

None of us seeks to put American 

boots on the ground for a whole lot of 

reasons. I know the American people 

are war-weary and focused on our own 

domestic challenges. Both of these sentiments are genuine and legitimate. 

But what has unfolded in Syria over 

the past 11⁄2 years not only offends the 

conscience of our country, it also poses 

real and growing risk to our national 

security interests and to those of some 

of our closest allies. 

I don’t believe Bashar Assad can last, 

even under current conditions. But I do 

know for sure America’s national security interests in Syria will remain long 

after Assad’s fall. In many ways, they 

could become more precarious because 

of our inaction, because of the failure 

of the President of the United States to 

speak up for these people. Why doesn’t 

the President of the United States 

speak up for them? I have never understood that. 

Because of our inaction, the people 

who will inherit the country in Syria 

will remember that in their hour of 

greatest need, when the bravest among 

them were fighting and dying for their 

freedom in a grossly unfair fight, 

America stood idly by and refused to 

help. 

As the sister of a fallen opposition 

fighter in Syria recently remarked, 

‘‘When we control Syria, we won’t forget that you forgot about us.’’ Millions 

of her fellow Syrians share that sentiment. 

If we continue on this path of inaction, mass atrocities will continue to 

unfold in Aleppo and other places in 

Syria. We have the power to prevent 

this needless death and advance our 

strategic interests in the Middle East 

at the same time. If we don’t, if we 

continue this shameful behavior, our 

failure of leadership will haunt us for a 

long period to come. 

I suggest the absence of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The assistant bill clerk proceeded to 

call the roll. 

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I 

ask unanimous consent the order for 

the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

THE DREAM ACT

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I 

hope that many of my colleagues, in 

returning to their home States for the 

August recess, may have an opportunity to attend a citizenship ceremony. I do so regularly when I go 

home. During the July 4th break, I had 

the wonderful opportunity to attend 

several. These ceremonies can occur in 

courthouses or in townhalls. They 

swear the oath and are newly made 

citizens. They are accompanied by families and friends. It is a uniquely joyous 

and proud day in their lives. Many 

have waited years to become U.S. citizens, and they do so not only willingly 

but joyfully. There are tears in many 

of their eyes, and there are tears in my 

eyes as well because it recalls to me 

the day many years ago, decades ago, 

when I first attended such a ceremony, 

which in turn recalls for me the stories 

of my own relatives who came to this 

country from other shores. So did 

many of the parents or grandparents— 

forebears of we who serve in this body. 

The meaning of citizenship of the 

United States and the value of those 

rights that come with citizenship are 

often forgotten or unappreciated by 

many of us who were born in this country. We sometimes, unfortunately, 

take them for granted. But there is a 

tremendous value placed on those 

rights and liberties by people who come 

to the United States. 

Today I wish to talk about people 

who come to the United States or more 

precisely are brought to the United 

States as young people, as infants or 

children, many under 4 or 5 years old, 

and this country becomes the only one 

they have known. The history of this 

country is their history. They may not 

even know the language of the country 

from which they came. The language of 

this country is the only one they know, 

and they have no memories or scant 

recollections of the countries where 

they were born. These young people are 

here, and they were brought here perhaps by parents who came illegally, 

but they are here through no fault of 

their own. 

Many of them have achieved remarkably and have contributed extraordinarily. Their promise of future 

achievement is staggering, extraordinarily impressive in its potential 

contribution to the lives of their communities—to teaching, to giving back 

to their communities—their contributions in terms of scientific or literary 

accomplishments. 

One such young person is Muller 

Gomes. I am going to tell his story 

today much as Senator DURBIN has told 


bjneal on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with CONG-REC-ONLINE
S5936 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE August 2, 2012 

other stories on the floor of this Chamber in his steadfast and energetic advocacy of a measure called the DREAM 

Act. I want to follow him in engaging 

this Chamber in this effort. I thank 

distinguished colleagues, such as Senator DURBIN, who have been tireless advocates for the passage of the DREAM 

Act. 

The DREAM Act, called by its full 

name, ‘‘Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors,’’ should be a 

top priority for this Congress. States 

such as Connecticut have passed their 

versions of it, but a national and uniform effort is essential. Much as we 

hope and I support that we will have 

comprehensive immigration law reform, I also believe the DREAM Act is 

an idea whose time has more than 

come. We should be adopting it as soon 

as possible in this Chamber to provide 

the kind of certainty and promise that 

is so important to young people like 

Muller Gomes. 

Muller Gomes was brought to this 

country from Brazil when he was 5 

years old. He came with a tourist visa 

in 1995. The tourist visa expired a year 

later, in 1996, so he has been here without proper documentation since then. 

He has been through the Bridgeport 

public schools, Central High School in 

Bridgeport, and then he went to Fairfield University. 

This is this young man at his graduation from Fairfield University—his 

graduation summa cum laude. He was a 

member of Phi Beta Kappa, Pi Mu Epsilon and Sigma Xi. He won the American Chemical Society Outstanding 

Senior Chemistry Major Award, and he 

has been accepted at the University of 

California at Berkeley’s physical chemistry Ph.D. program. 

All that he lacked was a student visa 

to pursue his studies at UC Berkeley. 

He lacks a student visa, and if he returns to Brazil to seek one, he will be 

denied it because he has been undocumented in this country. 

If there were ever a catch-22, Muller 

Gomes is its poster child under our current immigration law. Under current 

law, that student visa will be denied 

him. Fortunately, on June 15, 2012, the 

Obama administration made a very 

strong statement of support for young 

men and women like Muller Gomes. 

They issued a regulation or a directive 

that will permit him to remain in this 

country. That directive is lacking in a 

number of respects compared to the 

DREAM Act. It will be temporary— 

only for a couple of years. It is not a 

path to citizenship, as the DREAM Act 

would provide. It does not make him 

eligible for the kind of financial aid he 

would need. Most importantly, it requires him to go through the stress and 

uncertainty of applying again for deferred action. It is only a deferral of deportation. 

So the DREAM Act remains a vitally 

important measure for literally thousands of young people—between 11,000 

and 20,000 young people living in Connecticut who would benefit from the 

DREAM Act and 2 million young people nationwide. Under the DREAM Act, 

they would comply with rigorous 

standards and requirements—lack of 

criminal record, criminal history, and 

they would in effect be provided this 

pathway to citizenship because of their 

promise and their potential for contributing to this country—in Muller 

Gomes’ case, the potential for contributing to this country as a scientist who 

would make new discoveries, perhaps 

breakthrough discoveries that would 

benefit the entire country. We laud 

young people like him who are motivated and smart and dedicated to this 

country. 

I am committed to comprehensive 

immigration reform achieved through 

bipartisan congressional action. That 

ought to be one of our immediate goals 

so that young people like Muller 

Gomes, brought to this country as children through no fault of their own, will 

have the opportunity to contribute to 

this Nation and be part of their communities, as the DREAM Act would 

provide and as comprehensive immigration reform would also achieve. But 

in the meantime, let’s pass the DREAM 

Act so these dreamers, such as Muller 

Gomes, will have the basic guarantees 

and certainty that they can remain in 

this country and that the promise of 

the greatest Nation in the history of 

the world will be truly theirs and irrevocable. This country will be theirs regardless of religion, race, gender, or 

any of the arbitrary labels we say consistently and constantly should have 

no place in our judgments about 

human beings. 

Our Nation will be better because 

Muller Gomes will be with us and our 

Nation would be better still if the millions like him have the security and 

certainty of a path toward citizenship—a path that will benefit them and 

benefit the greatest Nation in the history of the world. 

I yield the floor and note the absence 

of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. 

SHAHEEN). The Senator from Rhode Island. 

Mr. REED. Madam President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the quorum 

call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

CYBER SECURITY

Mr. REED. Madam President, first, 

let me express my disappointment that 

my colleagues on the other side of the 

aisle blocked consideration of vitally 

important cyber security legislation. 

The Secretary of Defense, when asked 

about a potential threat to the United 

States, declares emphatically that his 

biggest concern is that the next Pearl 

Harbor will be a cyber attack upon the 

United States and if we cannot at least 

fully debate, amend the bill, and pass 

the bill, then I think we are not performing up to the expectations of the 

American people. 

So I am very disappointed that we 

were not able to complete this legislation in a timely fashion this week and 

give the necessary tools to our national leadership to protect the country against potential cyber threats. 

FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY

Having said that, I also want to rise 

today to express my profound disappointment in the Federal Housing 

Finance Agency’s decision to prohibit 

the use of principal reduction by 

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as one 

more tool to avoid foreclosure under 

the HAMP Principal Reduction Alternative (PRA). 

As conservator, the acting FHFA Director, Mr. DeMarco, has a duty to not 

only carry on the business of both 

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac but also 

to preserve and conserve the assets of 

both, which FHFA has stated repeatedly requires them to minimize losses. 

At the same time he has other statutory responsibilities. Under section 110 

of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, there is a requirement that 

FHFA ‘‘implement a plan that seeks to 

maximize assistance for homeowners 

and use its authority to encourage the 

servicers of the underlying mortgages, 

and considering net present value to 

the taxpayer, to take advantage of . . . 

available programs to minimize foreclosures.’’ 

So there is a clear statutory direction to do all that he can to minimize 

foreclosures while he is also balancing 

the portfolio and minimizing losses to 

Fannie and Freddie. 

To boil all of this down, FHFA has to 

minimize Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae 

losses, and pursuant to the Emergency 

Economic Stabilization Act, which 

passed this Chamber on a strong bipartisan vote of 74 to 25, this requirement 

to protect homes from foreclosure or 

the people from the threat of foreclosure is a strong bipartisan objective. 

FHFA was directed by Congress to 

throw its weight in favor of avoiding 

foreclosures, especially in those instances in which a policy decision may 

be a close call. I believe that is the 

plain meaning of ‘‘maximize assistance’’ to ‘‘minimize foreclosures.’’ 

Maximize assistance—not provide assistance but to maximize assistance to 

avoid foreclosure. I would further note 

that section 110 of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act explicitly permits ‘‘reduction of loan principal.’’ 

So we consciously gave the Acting 

FHFA Director the specific tool of 

principal reduction and the specific directive to maximize assistance to minimize foreclosure. We did that in the 

context of the overall mission to try to 

minimize losses of the Fannie and 

Freddie portfolio. But to turn essentially a blind eye to the thousands of 

Americans who are facing foreclosure 

is to ignore a vital responsibility and a 

vital authority which he has been 

given. 


bjneal on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with CONG-REC-ONLINE
August 2, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S5937 

After reading FHFA’s July 31, 2012, 

letter to Members of Congress, my impression is that FHFA has done exactly 

the opposite of what we have asked 

them to do. Indeed, the letter contradicts itself in arriving at its conclusion. FHFA states in one part of the 

letter that it will not allow principal 

reductions under the PRA program. 

But in another part of the letter, FHFA 

goes on to write, 

Short sales and deeds-in-lieu, which the 

Enterprises offer, result in principal forgiveness as part of exiting the house. 

In other words, it seems, in their 

view, principal reduction is acceptable 

in some cases, especially if the owners 

leave their home. 

Now, I think there are thousands of 

Americans who are facing huge challenges to stay in their homes. It is 

ironic that FHFA will reduce the principal, only after the person actually 

loses their home. But if it, through 

PRA, allows a person to keep their 

home, and avoid foreclosure, then 

FHFA will not do it. 

In the same letter FHFA also states 

that: 

Forgiving debt owed pursuant to a lawful, 

valid contract risks creating a longer-term 

view by investors that the mortgage contract is less secure than ever before. Longerterm, this view could lead to higher mortgage rates, a constriction in mortgage credit 

lending or both, outcomes that would be inconsistent with FHFA’s mandate to promote 

stability and liquidity in mortgage markets 

and access to mortgage credit. 

So forgiving debt is inconsistent with 

FHFA’s mandate, but FHFA admits to 

allowing principal forgiveness in certain cases? Again, let me repeat their 

own words. 

Short sales and deeds-in-lieu, which the 

Enterprises offer, result in principal forgiveness as part of exiting the house. 

But FHFA also states: 

Forgiving debt owed pursuant to a lawful, 

valid contract risks creating a longer-term 

view by investors that the mortgage contract is less secure than ever before. 

Well, how does this make any real 

common sense? We will forgive principal if homeowners are going to get 

kicked out of their house, which presumably upsets the long-term perspective of investors and bonds that support those mortgages. But if homeowners are staying in their house, we 

will not reduce principal through PRA. 

Turning to the point of moral hazard, 

which is implicit in all that has been 

discussed by FHFA, and given that 

FHFA has blessed principal forgiveness 

in these two instances of short sales 

and deeds-in-lieu, and additionally permits principal reduction as part of the 

Hardest Hit Fund, which also utilizes 

Treasury incentives, I can only assume 

that FHFA must have found a way to 

control and avoid moral hazard when 

they want to and use moral hazard as 

an excuse when they don’t want to do 

something. 

Either it is an issue that must be 

consistently addressed, which they 

don’t do, or it is an after-the-fact rationalization for failure to pursue a 

policy which for other reasons they 

don’t want to do. 

Having made these points, let me 

give FHFA the benefit of the doubt 

here and assume for the sake of argument that FHFA wants greater certainty and assurances. I think they 

said as much when they wrote: 

FHFA weighed these potential benefits and 

costs, recognizing the inherent uncertainties 

associated with these estimates, and concluded that the potential benefit was too 

small and uncertain relative to known and 

unknown costs and risks to warrant the dedication of additional taxpayer resources to 

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to implement 

HAMP PRA. 

I have heard a couple of my Republican colleagues talk about how what 

FHFA should be doing is what the private sector is doing, looking to the 

business men and women, who protect 

their shareholders. In fact, I think that 

is a good place to look for some direction. But what is the private sector 

doing when it comes to principal reduction? 

For one, Laurie Goodman, Senior 

Managing Director at the Amherst Securities Group, a broker/dealer specializing in the trading of residential and 

commercial mortgage-backed securities that performs extensive, data-intensive studies to keep its clients informed of critical trends in the residential mortgage-backed securities market, has testified before the Senate 

Banking Committee that principal reductions are, in her words, ‘‘the most 

effective type of modification.’’ 

Next, John DiIorio of 1st Alliance 

Lending, whose clients consist of major 

banks, investment banks, and sophisticated financial counterparties, has 

stated that his clients are in favor of 

principal reduction ‘‘not out of a sense 

of charity, but because they believe it 

is in their best financial interest to do 

so.’’ In other words, there is a very 

strong business case for principal reduction—a business argument, apparently, that FHFA has ignored or totally rejected. 

Finally, when we look at the newest 

data from the Office of the Comptroller 

of the Currency, we see that banks 

have granted principal reductions on 

28.9 percent of the loans they hold, 

which is up from 11.5 percent a year 

earlier. By the way, they also have 

lower default rates than Fannie Mae 

and Freddie Mac. 

So when we look at the private sector, what they are doing appears to be 

different; indeed, perhaps the opposite, 

of what FHFA is doing. They are going 

through their portfolios and, in appropriate ways, reducing principal not because they want to provide charity, but 

because it is the best way to preserve 

their portfolio and generate value for 

their shareholders. That is what their 

business is doing. In fact, they have a 

fiduciary duty to do that. 

So it would appear the private sector 

seems not only completely comfortable 

with principal reduction, but they, in 

fact, are doing it because it is good for 

their bottom line. 

Yet, we have FHFA essentially saying, well, we can’t do PRA. I think this 

is one of those examples where they 

just don’t get it, frankly. 

If principal reduction provides greater value than foreclosure to a private 

investor, such as these banks I cited, 

and on top of that keeps a family in 

their home, aren’t these the types of 

decisions we should make and we 

should support? 

The real moral hazard, if there is 

one, is that FHFA is inexplicably 

choosing not to use every available 

tool, especially one the private sector 

is already using extensively to help 

homeowners and investors time and 

time again. 

There are people in this Chamber on 

both sides of the aisle who say we have 

to run this government more like a 

business. Well, guess what. The businesses are using principal reduction, 

and FHFA is saying they can’t do PRA. 

This is shortsighted and it is wrong. I 

urge the FHFA to reconsider and, in 

the meanwhile, I am going to continue 

my efforts to do what I can do to help 

these homeowners who are facing foreclosure. 

It is very difficult—and I know it is 

for my colleague from New Hampshire 

and my colleague from Utah—to go 

back home and see a homeowner who is 

struggling with a mortgage that might 

be 5 percent or 6 percent, knowing that 

banks can borrow at less than 1 percent, and this homeowner has difficulty getting access to a better mortgage rate because he or she is underwater. 

I hope we adopt some of the smarter 

business practices around here and 

that FHFA leads the way, and I am 

going to do all I can to ensure that outcome becomes a reality. 

With that, I yield the floor, and I 

thank my colleague from Utah for his 

consideration in letting me speak. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. 

BLUMENTHAL). The Senator from Utah. 

Mr. HATCH. I thank my colleague. 

He is always gracious and a very fine 

man, and I enjoy serving with him very 

much. 

CYBER SECURITY

Mr. President, I was very disappointed that we were not able to proceed with the cyber security bill today. 

This side had the votes against cloture. 

The reason is because the Senate is not 

being run as an open Senate anymore. 

This is such an important bill. It is 

not some itty-bitty bill that we can 

call up and foreclose any amendments. 

In fact, most bills are not that are 

brought to the floor. I think if it were 

the other way around and the Republicans were in the majority and they 

started doing what we have been going 

through lately—I don’t blame Senator 

REID for this; I know it comes from his 

caucus. If we were pulling the same 

type of thing, I have to say the Democrats would be in orbit. 

Usually in the Senate we never build 

a procedural pyramid until after there 

has been a reasonable time for debate 


bjneal on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with CONG-REC-ONLINE
S5938 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE August 2, 2012 

and open amendments. That is the way 

it is usually done. In recent months— 

frankly, over the last few years—they 

call up a bill, file cloture as though we 

are filibustering when we are not, and 

then tie up the parliamentary tree so 

we can’t have amendments, in the 

greatest deliberative body in the world, 

supposedly. That has been very irritating to people on our side. 

I would caution my friends on the 

other side: This is getting to the point 

where it is becoming a matter of grave 

concern to everybody and irritation to 

everybody as well. I think we ought to 

get back to being the Senate that we 

all know works better if we respect 

both sides and their ability to come up 

and say what they need to and bring 

the amendments up that they feel are 

good amendments. 

But be that as it may, that is the 

way it is right now. We have to do the 

cyber security bill. Everybody knows 

that. The fact that cloture was not invoked does not mean we shouldn’t return to that bill and put the time into 

it and make sure we resolve the conflicts that have arisen, some of which 

are very important suggestions, and 

allow the type of proceeding that the 

Senate has always been known for. 

VALUE-ADDED TAX

I wish to change the subject. Recently, there has been some commentary about the lack of substance in 

our political debates. This concern, 

that Washington has failed to confront 

our deepest political challenges, which 

are, in large part, fiscal challenges, is 

not without some merit. But I would 

add one caveat to this analysis. It is 

not for lack of trying on the part of Republicans to have a grownup debate 

about our Nation’s fiscal and economic 

future. Republicans are putting forward real ideas about tax and entitlement reform with real numbers attached. However, I would submit that 

only one side has put a team on the 

field for this debate. When it comes to 

putting forward solutions to our nearly 

$16 trillion of debt and our archaic Tax 

Code, the President and his Democratic 

allies have largely stayed on the sideline. Instead of offering up bold proposals to bring down the debt that has 

ballooned, given the President’s commitment to ever larger and more active 

government, they have determined to 

give the American people talking 

points that attack the wealthy and 

successful small businesses in the name 

of equality. 

Given the fiscal cliff threatening 

America’s families and businesses, this 

decision to put politics above solutions 

is madness. But there is a method to it. 

The fact is the President and his liberal allies are not able to put forward 

serious solutions because they are between a rock and a hard place. The 

rock is their base—a liberal minority 

that refuses any meaningful reforms of 

the spending programs that are bankrupting our country. The hard place is 

the vast majority of the American people who flatly object to the massive tax 

increases, and especially those 940,000 

small businesses that would be hit the 

hardest. Of course, those massive tax 

increases would be required to finance 

on a permanent basis the President’s 

commitment to larger government. 

The bottom line is that the President 

is unable to come clean. He cannot tell 

the American people what the true tax 

bill would be for his expansion of government. He suggests that our books 

can be balanced by taxing the rich. We 

all know that is poppycock. Hence his 

commitment to the Buffett tax and 

other redistributionist schemes that 

have been pursued by the Senate’s 

Democratic leadership over the past 2 

years as though they are serious. Give 

me a break. No serious person believes 

the Obama administration’s government can be financed simply by going 

after the so-called wealthy. The only 

way to do it is by going after all Americans and raising taxes on all citizens. 

That is the silent plan the President 

will not discuss on the campaign trail. 

That is the Democrats’ phantom budget. And that is what I want to discuss 

today. 

When it comes to addressing our deficits and debt, only one party in Washington has been willing to put its cards 

on the table. Only one party has been 

willing to acknowledge the difficult 

choices that have to be made. The 

other side has refused to provide any 

concrete solutions of their own, while 

demonizing anyone who has had the temerity to propose anything resembling 

a workable solution. 

A case in point. It has been more 

than 3 years—3 years—since the Senate, which has been under Democratic 

control the entire time—passed a budget resolution. Those budget resolutions 

are mandatory. Yet they blindly ignore 

it. Three years—three years—without a 

budget. Four years ago, if someone 

wrote a novel or a screenplay about a 

Senate majority that refused to pass a 

budget for 3 years, people in both parties would have laughed and called it 

absurd. Yet here we are 3 years later. 

In fact, the only budget proposals 

from the Democrats have come from 

the White House and they have been 

anything but serious. According to the 

CBO, the President’s most recent budget would keep the United States on the 

same unsustainable path, with an everwidening gap between revenues and 

spending, varying from 8.7 percent to 

2.5 percent of GDP, and averaging 3.2 

percent of GDP. 

We should keep this in mind when we 

hear the President and his allies suggest we can get our debt under control 

simply by raising taxes on the wealthy. 

The President raises plenty of taxes on 

upper income individuals and small 

businesses in his budget. Yet under the 

President’s budget, debt held by the 

public would still reach 76.3 percent of 

GDP by the end of the budget window. 

Even the President’s budget, which 

raises taxes significantly, comes in 

with a debt limit that is well above 

what leading economists such as Kenneth Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart consider the danger zone of 70 percent. The 

President claimed a few weeks ago that 

his biggest failing over the last 3 years 

was that he cared too darn much about 

policy. If only that were true. But the 

fact is he ignores the policy experts 

and their warnings when it comes to 

the debt. 

Consider what CBO Director Elmendorf wrote to House Budget Committee 

Chairman PAUL RYAN regarding the 

debt earlier this year. I have to say, 

Mr. Elmendorf is a Democrat, but I 

found him to be extremely trustworthy 

and honest. Here is what he wrote: 

Budgetary policies affect the economy in a 

variety of ways . . . All else being equal, scenarios with higher debt tend to imply lower 

output and income in the long run than do 

scenarios with lower debt, because increased 

government borrowing generally crowds out 

private investment in productive capital, 

leading to a smaller stock of capital than 

would otherwise be the case. 

Director Elmendorf continues: 

Moreover, that same crowding out leads to 

increases in interest rates, raising the government’s interest payments and therefore 

further boosting government deficits and 

debt. A perpetually rising path of debt relative to GDP is unsustainable. 

That is what our CBO Director, a 

Democrat, says. Again, I will vouch for 

the fact that he is a very good economist who, as far as I have seen over all 

of these years I have worked with him 

in Washington and watched him help 

our committees, is totally honest. 

No one can legitimately dispute that 

our entitlement programs—Medicare, 

Medicaid, and Social Security, in particular—are the major forces driving 

our future national debt. No one can 

dispute that. 

This chart I have in the Chamber, 

produced by the Bipartisan Policy Center, shows the cannibalization of the 

budget and ultimately the American 

economy if we go with the status quo 

on health care entitlements. 

Look at this blue line on the chart: 

health care spending. Under the questioning by Members of Congress, leading Obama administration economic 

policy officials, such as Treasury Secretary Geithner, basically demur on 

dealing with the runaway entitlement 

spending. You can see, it is running 

away. 

In February, Secretary Geithner 

identified to House Republicans that 

the administration was putting forth 

no plan to reform entitlements, but, as 

he said: ‘‘we know we don’t like 

yours.’’ 

The only official proposals we receive 

from the President and his administration would simply maintain the status 

quo—a status quo that is so unacceptable that not one Member of the House 

or the Senate supported the President’s 

budget, not one in either body. 

So what proposals do Senate Democrats support? 

Keep in mind, this blue line on the 

chart is the health care spending line. 

The red line shows Social Security, 

which is relatively flat. It goes up a little bit. That is the Social Security 


bjneal on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with CONG-REC-ONLINE
August 2, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S5939 

line. The green line happens to be discretionary spending, which has gradually come down—or will come down 

from 2012 to 2052, according to what we 

are trying to do. Other mandatory programs are pretty much even. But 

health care spending is running out of 

control. That is Medicaid and Medicare 

and all the other health care spending—but especially Medicaid and Medicare. 

What proposals do the Senate Democrats support? 

On that, they prefer to keep the 

American people guessing. Perhaps the 

President will keep the American people in the dark until he possibly gets 

‘‘more flexibility.’’ 

Democrats have not been willing to 

put their vision down on paper. By 

comparison, there is the budget put 

forward by PAUL RYAN. Unlike the 

Democrats who are hiding the ball 

from the American people, Republicans 

have not been afraid to talk about the 

Ryan budget. 

This is a comparison of budgets on 

this chart. The Ryan budget constrains 

Federal spending and keeps it close to 

its historic average at 21 percent of 

GDP. Here is the House Ryan budget, 

as shown on this chart in the red. By 

exercising that spending discipline, the 

budget pulls the deficit down to 1.7 percent of GDP. 

By comparison, President Obama’s 

budget deficits are at 3.2 percent of 

GDP, on average—nearly double those 

of the Ryan budget. 

When you boil it down, there is $3.5 

trillion more in deficit reduction in the 

Ryan budget than in the President’s 

budget, which is represented by the 

blue line on the chart. There is a $3.5 

trillion difference between these two. 

That is how much the Federal Government currently spends in 1 year. 

Because of the President’s failure to 

tackle runaway entitlement spending, 

that yawning fiscal gap between the 

two plans only gets much bigger in the 

outyears. 

As you can see right here on this 

chart, look at how health care spending is going up in these outyears, from 

2012 all the way to 2052. As you can see, 

it is constantly going up from 2012. 

Whether we are debating the budget 

or the debt ceiling or Taxmageddon, 

one thing is clear: The President and 

the Democrats in Congress do not like 

to talk in specific numbers. Instead, 

they want the American people to 

measure specific Republican alternatives like the Ryan plan against a 

series of campaign speeches and attack 

ads. 

The current fiscal debate is between 

the Ryan budget and a phantom Democratic budget. Apparently, the Chicago 

campaign sharpies have determined it 

is safer to wait until after the election 

to finally unveil the details of the 

phantom budget, which just in health 

care spending is going to go forever up 

and eat our country alive. And their 

advice has been heeded by the Democrats. 

If your proposals are never written 

down, no one can check your math. We 

do not know the actual fiscal position 

of my friends on the other side of the 

aisle, but we can fill in some blanks. 

We know by their vicious attacks on 

the spending restraints in the Ryan 

budget and other Republican proposals 

that the President and his allies in 

Congress have no interest—zero; no interest—in reducing spending. 

We know their income tax proposals 

do not add up to much in terms of revenue. Even if they let the entirety of 

the current tax relief expire—which is 

a distinct possibility given the game of 

chicken they are currently playing 

with the fiscal cliff—there probably is 

not enough money to be found in the 

income tax to pay for the coming explosion in entitlement spending. You 

can see it right there on this chart in 

health care alone. 

So where does the Democrats’ phantom budget find the fiscal juice to fill 

its structural hole? The answer is simple: a European-style value-added tax, 

the VAT, or its green cousin, a carbon 

tax. 

I am quite certain my colleagues on 

the other side of the aisle will write 

this off as fear-mongering and fabrication. But what other conclusions are 

left to draw? 

Without significant reductions in 

spending or reforms in our entitlement 

system—neither of which we can expect from this President or the Democrats currently in Congress—there is 

not enough money to be found in traditional revenue streams to cover the 

President’s spending bill. A VAT, a 

value-added tax—or some other euphemized form of a VAT—appears to be 

the only option left to our friends on 

the other side of the aisle if they want 

to continue spending at current projections. 

Many prominent Democrats have expressed some level of support for the 

value-added tax in the past. In 2009, 

during an appearance on the Charlie 

Rose show, then-House Speaker NANCY

PELOSI said that a VAT was ‘‘on the 

table.’’ 

A year later, President Obama, in a 

CNBC interview, expressed a willingness to consider a VAT to address the 

deficit. 

Countless high-profile Democratic 

strategists and advisors—people such 

as John Podesta and Paul Volcker— 

have unapologetically suggested implementing a VAT in the United States. 

Ezra Klein, a writer with real cache 

among liberal Democrats, expressed 

similar views in the Washington Post 

in 2009. Here is a revealing quote from 

Mr. Klein’s article: 

First, a simple fact: Tax rates will rise 

over the next decade. Even with painful 

spending cuts, tax rates will rise. At some 

point, taxes have to come further into line 

with spending, and that means the direction 

they will travel is up. But—and this isn’t a 

fact—they won’t rise within the current system. People don’t trust the current tax system. It feels opaque and unfair, largely because it is. An increase in revenues will have 

to come alongside a change in the tax system. And the change in the tax system that 

most economists prefer and that most other 

countries use is a value-added tax. 

I agree with Mr. Klein that our current tax system is a mess. But while he 

and other liberals see that as an opportunity to seek larger pots of tax revenue elsewhere, my fellow Republicans 

and I see it as a call to reform the Tax 

Code. 

And we disagree on the fundamental 

assumption behind Mr. Klein’s arguments. Like most of my friends on the 

other side, Mr. Klein takes at face 

value the benefits of future spending. 

Notice how he uses the phrase ‘‘taxes 

will have to come further into line 

with spending.’’ 

His focus is almost entirely on the 

revenue side, with only a passing reference to the possibility of reducing 

spending. 

A VAT would increase Federal revenues, but it would also effectively be a 

tax hike on every American, including 

those who currently pay no income 

tax. If a VAT were imposed on top of 

our existing income tax system, it 

would likely cripple our economy by 

imposing new costs on virtually every 

purchase of goods and services in the 

United States. It would hamper manufacturing and kill entire retail sectors. 

Worst of all, it would be the most regressive tax ever imposed on the American people, disproportionately impacting families with lower incomes who 

spend a higher percentage of their 

wages on necessities. 

Simply put, a VAT would be bad policy in a strong economy. But in the 

midst of a slow economic recovery, it 

would be tantamount to economic suicide. It would be jet fuel for larger and 

larger government. 

Numerous studies, including a 2010 

study by former CBO Director Douglas 

Holtz-Eakin, have demonstrated that 

in virtually every instance, the implementation of a VAT in other industrialized countries inexorably led to increased spending and an expansion of 

government. 

Make no mistake, the current administration and my Democrat friends 

know only one way of engaging in fiscal reform—broaden the base. And 

every middle-income family in America should know that they will get hit 

with higher taxes to pay for the Democratic goal of ever-expanding government control over our economy, over 

our lives, and over your paychecks. 

The contention that implementing a 

VAT would make our government more 

fiscally responsible is a dog that just 

won’t hunt. The purpose of a VAT 

would not be to shore up deficits and 

pay down debts, but to expand the government into new areas backed by an 

all-new source of funding. 

Once again, I am quite certain that 

virtually all of my Democratic colleagues would publicly deny that their 

phantom budget includes a VAT. For 

now, they want us to ignore the VAT 

behind the curtain and instead listen 


bjneal on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with CONG-REC-ONLINE
S5940 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE August 2, 2012 

as the Great and Powerful Oz proclaims 

that every government program can be 

funded and every budget balanced simply by eliminating the so-called tax 

cuts for the rich. 

But the American people are not so 

easily duped. And they are showing up 

at Emerald City looking for real leadership and real answers, not just talking points. 

That is the real choice facing the 

American people today. They can 

choose the fiscal leadership of those 

such as Chairman RYAN who have put 

forth actual, real-world proposals to 

bring about reasonable restraints on 

entitlement spending and maintain 

taxation at its historic levels, or they 

can choose the President’s impersonation of fiscal leadership, which is 

built on a phantom budget and largescale attacks on anyone, such as Chairman RYAN, who offers a real, verifiable 

alternative. 

But let’s be clear. The phantom budget simply cannot translate into reality 

without collecting taxes that go far beyond those the President and congressional Democrats publicly support. 

Given the limitations on existing revenue streams, a value-added tax, even 

with all of its many drawbacks, is one 

of very few logical alternatives left to 

the other side. If they do not plan on 

instituting a VAT, they need to come 

clean with the American people and let 

everyone know how they plan to pay 

for their outsized spending. 

Regardless of who wins this election, 

Congress will have to do more than 

just click its heels and wish for enough 

money to pay all our bills. Therefore, I 

think it is fair to assume that, in lieu 

of a line item for ruby slippers, the 

Democrats’ phantom budget includes 

levels and forms of taxation heretofore 

unseen in the United States. You can 

be sure that if it is not a VAT, it will 

be something equally damaging to our 

economy. 

Let me end with one other thought; 

that is, that we all know, according to 

the Joint Committee on Taxation, of 

which I am a member—but it is a nonpartisan committee run by very good 

economists—the bottom 51 percent of 

all households—not just people; all 

households—do not pay a dime of income tax. 

We have brought that about out of 

compassion for them, I have to say, but 

it means the upper 49 percent are paying for just about everything. Well, my 

friend Treasury Secretary Geithner 

pointed out: But, yes, they pay payroll 

taxes. Well, we all do. That is Social 

Security. They do not pay a dime of income taxes. I was quick to point out to 

Mr. Geithner that 23 million of them, 

approximately, get refundable tax 

credits from the government that are 

more than they pay in payroll taxes, so 

they are really not paying payroll 

taxes. Almost 16 million of them get 

refundable tax credits from all of us 

others out there, from the government 

itself, which is more than they and 

their employers pay in payroll taxes. 

The fact is, I fail to understand why 

my friends on the other side are looking for ways to spread the base to an 

unsuspecting 51 percent who currently 

do not pay any real income taxes. I 

think there has to be a better way of 

spreading the base than doing it 

through a VAT, which in Europe has 

proven to be a ready way for politicians to increase spending over and 

over without really any inhibition or 

any real inhibition. 

So if what I am talking about today 

is prophetic, it means without question 

that our friends on the other side want 

to keep spending. They want the Federal Government to keep growing, all 

at a cost to individuals, and they want 

to do it because that is what has kept 

them in power all of these years, taking all of your money out there and 

claiming that they are compassionate 

with your money when they are unwilling to be compassionate enough to 

keep living within our means. 

I yield the floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland. 

f 

PROVIDING FOR A CONDITIONAL 

ADJOURNMENT OR RECESS OF 

THE SENATE AND AN ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the Senate 

proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Con. Res. 56, submitted earlier today. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will report the concurrent resolution by title. 

The assistant legislative clerk read 

as follows: 

A concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 56) 

providing for a conditional adjournment or 

recess of the Senate and an adjournment of 

the House of Representatives. 

There being no objection, the Senate 

proceeded to consider the concurrent 

resolution. 

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the 

table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements related 

to the matter be printed in the RECORD

as if read. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

The concurrent resolution (S. Con. 

Res. 56) was agreed to, as follows: 

S. CON. RES. 56 

(Providing for a conditional adjournment or 

recess of the Senate and an adjournment of 

the House of Representatives) 

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That when the Senate recesses or adjourns on any day from 

Thursday, August 2, 2012, through Monday, 

August 6, 2012, on a motion offered pursuant 

to this concurrent resolution by its Majority 

Leader or his designee, it stand recessed or 

adjourned until 12:00 noon on Monday, September 10, 2012, or such other time on that 

day as may be specified by its Majority 

Leader or his designee in the motion to recess or adjourn, or until the time of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first; 

and that when the House adjourns on any 

legislative day from Thursday, August 2, 

2012, through Monday, August 6, 2012, on a 

motion offered pursuant to this concurrent 

resolution by its Majority Leader or his designee, it stand adjourned until 2:00 p.m. on 

Monday, September 10, 2012, or until the 

time of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 

of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first. 

SEC. 2. The Majority Leader of the Senate 

and the Speaker of the House, or their respective designees, acting jointly after consultation with the Minority Leader of the 

Senate and the Minority Leader of the 

House, shall notify the Members of the Senate and House, respectively, to reassemble at 

such place and time as they may designate 

if, in their opinion, the public interest shall 

warrant it. 

f 

STOCK ACT AMENDMENTS 

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the Senate 

proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 3510, introduced earlier 

today 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will report the bill by title. 

The legislative clerk read as follows: 

A bill (S. 3510) to prevent harm to the national security or endangering the military 

officers and civilian employees to whom 

internet publication of certain information 

applies, and for other purposes. 

There being no objection, the Senate 

proceeded to consider the bill. 

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the bill be 

read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the 

table, and that any statements relating 

to the bill be printed in the RECORD. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

The bill (S. 3510) was ordered to a 

third reading, read the third time, and 

passed, as follows: 

S. 3510 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in 

Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. EFFECTIVE DATE DELAY. 

The STOCK Act (Public Law 112-105) is 

amended— 

(1) in section 8(a)(1), by striking ‘‘August 

31, 2012’’ and inserting ‘‘September 30, 2012’’; 

and 

(2) in section 11(a)(1), by striking ‘‘August 

31, 2012’’ and inserting ‘‘September 30, 2012’’. 

SEC. 2. IMPLEMENTATION OF PTR REQUIREMENTS UNDER STOCK ACT. 

Effective September 30, 2012, for purposes 

of implementing subsection (l) of section 103 

of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (as 

added by section 6 of the STOCK Act, Public 

Law 112–105) for reporting individuals whose 

reports under section 101 of such Act (5 

U.S.C. App. 101) are required to be filed with 

the Clerk of the House of Representatives, 

section 102(e) of such Act (5 U.S.C. App. 

102(e)) shall apply as if the report under such 

subsection (l) were a report under such section 101 but only with respect to the transaction information required under such subsection (l). 

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent to speak for up to 

10 minutes as in morning business. 


bjneal on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with CONG-REC-ONLINE